Are Immigration Issues Driving The Global Move to Nationalism

1. 90

   GA Andersonposted 5 years ago

   It is just a thought, yet to be developed, but what the hell is happening to the world.
   
   The USA has Pres, Trump.
   The Uk has it's Brexit crisis.
   Germany has disavowed the world-acclaimed Merkel government.
   Many immigrant-friendly countries like France and Sweden are rethinking their policies amid national condemnations.
   
   Is immigration a common thread?
   
   Is the mass exodus of of folks from failed nations; like the caravans to the USA, or the flotillas to Spain or Italy a red flag of a global immigration problem?
   
   I think nationalism, as a political force, is extremely dangerous. It is too often followed by, or accompanied with, Isolationism.
   
   What the hell! History proves the error of these ways, why are intelligent nations ignoring it?
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Because most of the people who lived through WWII are dead, GA. Today's world cannot imagine the horrors of the death camps for those different from others. Just my take on it.

      replyreport
   2. 90

      IslandBitesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      These countries have hegemony over the rest of the world, at least over the last centuries. As a rule, power and dominance have been in the hands of white societies. In most European countries, as is the case in the US, the fertility rate is bellow replenishment level. (This + Immigration...) Thus, IMO, this ruling class feels threaten because it will no longer be the majority and possibly will no longer be in charge.
      
      (I think that's also why there's emboldenment of racist groups, surge of alt right movements, violence and such... And so much division.)
      
      *Btw, I'm not saying every white person is racist or feel threaten, etc etc etc.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Check!  To their detriment, Native Americans didn't believe people could own land.  I wonder if things would have been different if they believed they owned the land where they lived..

         replyreport
         1. 85

            gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Native Americans did fight for their land; however, they were overpowered & nearly exterminated.  Those who weren't killed, were displaced into reservations a/k/a concentration camps.

            replyreport
      2. 85

         gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Exactly, the main crux of the issue is racial.   The Europeans, Americans, & Canadians that veer to nationalism & extremism feel highly threatened by non-Caucasian immigrants from third world countries.  They contend that these non-Caucasian immigrants will alter Europe, America, & Canada.  A few of them strongly portend that the influx of non-Caucasian immigrants will turn their countries into 3rd world nations.   Trump himself even indicated that the majority of immigrants are from ^#$%hole countries, he wasn't referring to Caucasian countries but non-Caucasian countries.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Twitter is blowing up with the white guys, wearing MAGA hats, harrassing a Native American man at a March for Life in DC.  It's on the news.  The school is a Catholic college preparatory high school in Kentucky..  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/us/c … ;smtyp=cur

            replyreport
            1. 90

               GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Oops... have you seen 'the rest of the story' Diane?
               
               It turns out it was the other way around.
               
               Here, you can see the context of the episode that Twitter and the viral video clip didn't show you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp4oUBTS0DM
               
               Seems like the MAGA-hatted white guys weren't the bad guys at all.
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes I've been watching.  The behavior of the Black Israelites was inexcusable.  They looked unhinged.  I cannot imagine them being around regular people on a daily basis.  They are a cult and must be isolating themselves somewhere.  They sound like Farrakhan in reverse.  Farrakhan is the Muslim hate and the Black Israelites are the Jewish hate.  They should have been arrested.  Mr. Phillips said he was trying to diffuse the situation.  The school kid said he was trying to diffuse the situation.  It has been turned into a political vehicle and I'm trying to take deep breaths because it bothers me.  There is way to much hate in this world..

                  replyreport
      3. 76

         Ken Burgessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         And its funny, because birth rates are down due to decades of 'propaganda' about how the world is too populated and we are running out of resources AS WELL AS the constant push for women to have careers, be independent, etc. etc. which leads to having a job, not a family.
         
         And so what do they do after a couple of generations where society buys in, starts having smaller families or no families?
         
         They tell their Citizens, they need to open up the borders, their neighborhoods, their schools, sacrifice their pensions, share their welfare systems, and accept increased taxes (see Yellow Vests in France for how that is going over)... without any legitimate reasoning other than 'its the right thing to do' or 'you're racist if you don't'.
         
         Its never the rich who get stuck with the bill for these 'noble efforts' its never the corporations who suffer (they love cheap labor), its the working and retired citizens of that nation that carry the burden.

         replyreport
   3. 85

      gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      There are those in Europe, United States, & Canada who are highly threatened by the premise of diversity.  They feel that the non-Caucasians are changing their respective ethnic, cultural, & social hegemony.  They vehemently contend that these non-Caucasians will outproduce them & change the nature of the European continent.   They furthermore contend that these non-Caucasians are taking any jobs & opportunities from them.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Let me add that those who veer towards nationalism & extremism feel that their respective European countries, America, & Canada will be drastically changed as a result of the influx of non-Caucasian immigrants to their respective countries.   I have been reading a book regarding this situation in addition to looking at related documentaries on youtube.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            It's another reason people are rigging polls..

            replyreport
   4. 61

      Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I think immigration policies are a driving force. Not that people are anti immigration but I think the European Union should be looked to in order to avoid that strife happening here.
      
      You work hard, you pay your taxes, you ask nothing from the government and when your tax dollars are used for open border immigration...providing housing, food and heath care to people coming from countries whose leaders have become millionaires or billionaires at the expense of the people...it bites. And when some within those refugees bring cultural practices which are, by our standards, misogynistic, barbaric and sometimes violent, it creates angst.
      
      If the West has to foot the bill for failed governments, I think sanctions should be put in place for those failed governments and their leaders to help pay the bill.

      replyreport
      1. 90

         GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Well damn Live to learn, I really like that comment. It doesn't take much massaging at all to fit the perspective I hold.
         
         I also like, that like my thoughts, color wasn't a part of your view.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            People are people. America is a rich pallet of culture and color. I don't think many think about color as reasoning behind their problems with immigration. I think those who think others think it are just not capable of entertaining thoughts without color being a factor.
            
            Culture is something else. We have a culture that is definitely open to celebrating our differences, but we have some ground rules. You can be different, but if your previous culture subjugated women, despised homosexuals, believed in crap like honor killings and FGM it's hard to assimilate if you aren't willing to embrace basic Western values and put such barbarism behind you.

            replyreport
   5. 83

      Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Beneath the layers of socialization and civilization, we're animals. So it's as simple as this:
      
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJeUYhvdOUo
      
      Cooperative relationships exist too, but only when one group or individual is not deemed to be a threat to, or in competition with, another: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtULCsX_H9o (in human society, this animal behavior is the basis of trade and commerce).
      
      Conflict results from a competition for resources, i.e. competing for survival. Whether that competition is real or perceived is often irrelevant.

      replyreport
      1. 90

         GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Don, you should have responded earlier. I would have been more motivated to continue the thread. I agree with your comment.
         
         I later attributed the problem to a form of National Tribalism, but relative to your response, that answer also boils down to the security of the animal in all of us. Threaten a part of our security and you will see the animal response. Enhance a part of our security and you will see tribal, (or pack, or pride, or mob), acceptance.
         
         Gradual and manageable immigration can enhance a society, Rapid and massive immigration is not easily manageable, and thus becomes a problem, rather than an enhancement. I think this is what has happened, and the responses of the nations mentioned are the tribal responses of the peoples of those nations.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 85

            gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            While the negative visceral response of those who lean towards extreme nationalism can be described as tribal, the underlying premise is racial chauvinism.  Many of those who are of the alt-right or other nationalism proclaim that they are Caucasian & that other groups are about to replace them so they are fighting back to retain their racial hegemony.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Can you point to any outside of the handful skin heads and supremacists in this country that proclaim such a philosophy?  And did you forget those of other races that do much the same, just not so much in the US?  The far east and parts of Africa come to mind here.  However much you might like to pretend it is only Caucasians that are racists, it isn't true at all.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I've been thinking about the racism thing.  I have heard Black people say they hate white people..  It has been explained? that they can't be racists because they don't have power?  I don't know whether it is racism or not.  I like to get down to specifics.  There is no reason to hate people because they don't look like you or because you hold a whole group responsible for the actions of some.

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     "It has been explained? that they can't be racists because they don't have power?"
                     
                     Or because they are not Caucasian - I've heard both.  It strikes me that it is only racists that make such a statement, perhaps in an effort to excuse or disguise their own racism.  If they can convince a listener of that definition, then they aren't racist.

                     replyreport
                  2. 94

                     Readmikenowposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     "they can't be racists because they don't have power" I've never heard of anything more ridiculous in my whole life.  It makes absolutely no sense.  It's says "I am not considered to hate white people because of the color of their skin, because I have no power. Should I have power (what power?  Economic power?  Political power financial power?  What power is required prior for a person's hatred of another person because of the color of their skin? I think people with a grasp on reality know power has nothing to do to it.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        It's not my distinction.  Those who make the distinction association discrimination with racism.

                        replyreport
         2. 61

            dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I agree.  However, why hasn't congress been working on it..  It's like the problem with overcrowded schools..   Surely this could have been projected and dealt with long ago.

            replyreport
            1. 90

               GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               "However, why hasn't congress been working on it.. "
               
               That is a decades-old question isn't it Diane?
               
               I think that this is a heart vs. reason issue, and those are always tough ones to address realistically.
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  GA, I'm thinking of the 800K employed people who aren't getting paid, the impact on their families, the increased danger because of decreased security, the ripple effect on Government subcontractors and all other people affected by this ridiculous shutdown.
                  
                  The government should be opened immediately.  THEN continue discussion on the issues.

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     That's what Pelosi and friends are demanding...without any intention at all of discussing funding a wall.  Ever.  Neither Trump nor the people think that is a useful action to take.  No one thinks a shutdown is a good thing (though the Democrats might in that it can hurt Trump politically), but no reasoning adult can possibly believe there is any intention of compromise from the Democrats on funding a wall.

                     replyreport
                     1. 68

                        JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        Oh really? Bozo trump said on national television he'd be proud to shut down our government because he could care less about you, I or our hard workers and their children and of course what else could you possibly expect from a sick mind who appeases Vladimir Putin in public and is Vladimir the person who ordered Bozo to shut our government DOWN ??
                        
                        wilderness, you really should hop in a car if you drive of course, and drive the entire length of the southern border which spans approximately 2,000 miles, and by the way, you'll be driving through some of the safest cities in the USA, but on your extremely long trip you'll soon discover how absurd of an insane notion it is to slap a pile of concrete across nearly 2/3 the length of the continental United States an actually expect it to secure our borders, it will NEVER work and everyone knows it, especially when the facts indicate approx 95% of drugs come through ports of entry and the majority of undocumented individuals FLY INTO OUR AIRPORTS : And even with a wall, don't you think a drug dealer could simply toss the bag of drugs over the great wall in Bozo's head ?? Or use a drone to fly the drugs OVER it ??
                        
                        What's the real reason for the wall ??
                        
                        Come on, aside from the fact that this is just a crazy snowflakey alt-right fantasy to live behind a wall so they feel protected from brown people, what other purposes does it truly serve ??

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           In the meantime, a person transporting drugs has a much better chane of getting through while TSA is operating at less than capacity.  Possibly a few terrorists can also get through the ports of entry.

                           replyreport
                     2. 61

                        dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        It's a game of chicken; however, the person who has the power to open the government is ?  Those people have nothing to do with a wall/fence/vertical blinds/tunnel.  Why can't they work and get paid while congress continues to thresh out the details.  Their work/non-work has no impact on the security/structure at the border.
                        
                        Our economy can be greatly impacted by those people not getting paid and not paying their bills.

                        replyreport
2. 90

   GA Andersonposted 5 years ago

   Well, I tried to abandon this thread, but...
   
   I certainly didn't see the gist of these comments coming.
   
   I don't think it has anything to do with color. So that isn't a direction I can pursue. I think it is all about tribalism on a national scale. From the big issue of concerns about a dilution of national sovereignty, (Brexit?), to the more personal issue of unwanted forced cultural changes.
   
   I think most of the mentioned nations are accepting of diversity, (the UK comes to mind as one of the more accepting), and subtle cultural effects that come with it. I think it is the speed and magnitude of the changes brought on by these mass immigrations that are the issue.
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 61

      dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      What do you consider cultural effects and or affects?  Why are they subtle?  The US has people from all over the world ...... I thought.

      replyreport
      1. 90

         GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Think of it like this Diane,
         
         100 immigrants line up at the door and it is a process. Storm the door with 1000 immigrants and it is a flood.
         
         Those 100 are processed and divied-up around the country, a few here, a few there. A slow introduction.
         
         Those 1000 are batched processed and divied-up by the busload. A community that could assimilate 4 or 5 at a time, now must accommodate a busload at a time.
         
         For those 100, an elementary school could deal with 3 or 4 ESL students in their normal processes. Throw 20 or 30 at them in one bite and they are overwhelmed and must change their operations.
         
         Introduce half a dozen immigrant adults looking for work to a community and things will sort themselves out. Flood that same community with busloads of adults looking for work and either massive displacement takes place, or massive community resources are demanded.
         
         It is not a matter of diversity, or change, or our acceptance of diverse people. It is about the size and speed of the affect, or effects.
         
         I think the US public mantras that are attributed to fear of change, (or color), are just agenda driven rhetoric. I think the real issue is the rate and degree of change demanded.
         
         I don't think it is a "color" issue, and that those that make it so are doing so purposely - for their own purposes.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 61

            dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Those looking for work is less than 4% or so they tell us.  When I taught school, I met parents of immigrant children that were hard workers..  They did the jobs I didn't see anyone else wanting to do:  yard work, house work, farming, dishwahers and handymen..  Some are street vendors.  People who live here should have higher aspirations.  I'm retired and I'm learning html5 and am doing genealogy.
            
            The people who already live here are privileged and should have vision to do more than get a minimum wage job.

            replyreport
            1. 90

               GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               I think your 4% number is wrong Diane. Would that change your perspective if it was?
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Nope!  This is the land of opportunity.  You can take classes to get certifications for things - especially Internet and computer related.  It makes no sense to have a job as a garder unless you own your own business and have contracts for service.  Same way with housekeeping, restaurant business, etc. 
                  
                  If a person has disabilities, that is a different story.  Able bodied people should aspire to do something greater than minimum wage stuff.

                  replyreport
                  1. 85

                     gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Exactly.  However, there are able-bodied & intelligent people who are QUITE CONTENT working at low paid, minimum waged McJobs.  They don't aspire to do better.    I have seen such people.   They don't want more.  They are very happy being at the socioeconomic bottom.   In fact, they are the ones who are against socioeconomic affluence/improvement.  These are the same people who hate the affluent & want others to be the same as them.
                     
                     An example of many of my maternal extended family.  They had the opportunity to IMPROVE themselves but they elect NOT TO.  They are in crappy jobs & complain yet they aren't about to avail themselves of opportunities to improve themselves.  They are LAZY & CONTENT to REMAIN where they ARE.  Yes, Diane, unfortunately, there are people who LOVE being POOR, even IMPOVERISHED.  Most poor people DONT ASPIRE to IMPROVE themselves.  They LOVE being poor!

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        I have no sympathy for those people.  Too much blood has been shed for us to have the opportunity to get an education and have a vision for a better future.  I signed documents for DACA students who are in college and some have graduated.  They are contributing to society.
                        
                        The argument about jobs being taken from Blacks and Hispanics is unacceptable.  Even if it were stated that it takes away job opportunities for all Americans it wouldn't be acceptable.    To whom much is given much is required..  Being born in the US is an opportunity that should be embraced and and taken advantage of.

                        replyreport
                        1. 85

                           gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           I concur w/you Diane.   The majority of lower, working class, & lower middle income people are quite happy to be where they are.  They may complain about their abject condition but all in all they are satisfied.  If they weren't satisfied as they claimed, they would do BETTER.   Most poor people are lazy & don't want to make the sacrifices necessary to be successful.  These are the people who are either extreme rightists or extreme leftists.

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              I wouldn't conflate lower middle income people with poor people ... I think.  Middle income is supposed to be not poor.  I just feel that anyone in the US has at least one leg up over an immigrant - especially one that doesn't speak English.

                              replyreport
                              1. 85

                                 gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                 Lower middle class is a gentrified variant of the lower class.  The lower middle class have many of the mannerisms of the lower class.  When people speak of middle income, they are really discussing the solidly middle class or the middle middle class.   The lower middle class is associated in part to the lower class.

                                 replyreport
3. 78

   hard sunposted 5 years ago

   I think nationalism is stoked by religion more than anything else--though race is certainly a big factor. Muslims vs Christians vs Jews....religion is poison and the Muslim "extremists" set off a slow ticking bomb in 911. Apologies to those that are religious as that's not meant as a personal insult. I fully understand there are many fantastic people of all faiths.
   
   But, why is it OK to disparage and debate someone's belief system about anything until it comes to which myth you choose to believe and follow? I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, however, I just feel this is the elephant in the room.
   
   The rise, or fall, of the nones will determine our fate as a species.
   
   Don W.--"Cooperative relationships exist too, but only when one group or individual is not deemed to be a threat to, or in competition with, another: "   
   
   Aren't virtually all religions, at least monotheistic ones, inherently a threat to one another? "God" is pitting humans against one another in the name of what's right. Until that ends, there can be no true cooperative relationships worldwide.

   replyreport
   1. 90

      GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I don't see religion as a major "nationalism" driver, in general--countries like Iran may be the exception, but it would be interesting to look at why you do.
      
      When I think of the the anti-immigration justifications that are heard most frequently, that may be relative to the thought of nationalism, I don't think of religious ones. I think of economic cries; our country can't afford to support mass immigration costs, or they are taking our jobs, or, cultural complaints; they want to change our ways to their ways.
      
      What makes you think religion is a primary driver of nationalistic attitudes?
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 61

         dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Gary, why do I agree with you so much lately?  I dunno!  Great minds think ..... sometimes.

         replyreport
      2. 78

         hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Religion is the primary driver of everything according to its own followers. Trump's clearly amoral behavior is being defended as "God works in mysterious ways."   Trump recently tweeted they are finding prayer rugs along the border as he knows the TOP issue to drive zealotry is always religion. Economics is not quite enough to get the fervor he needs on this one. No leader of a nationalistic movement in America will be successful without "God" on his/her side!
         
         Then there's the we must bring God back into schools/society to solve our issues..yes there are other factors, but this sort of zealotry always comes back to religion.
         
         In some ways way, nationalism is a religion in and of itself.
         
         The abuse of thought inherent in religion paves the way for faith in ones own kind being dominant--no matter the facts, anti-science attitudes are conducive to anti-fact environments that foster nationalism.
         
         Indoctrinating children, and not allowing them to think otherwise, is child abuse, and the world is seeing the consequences of that abuse. Yet, the nones are told we are the problem over and over. Watch how this all plays out as the American Chrisitians, the true God warriors, clutch to their bibles and guns as the Muslims continue their war on the infedels.
         
         That's all I have to say about that.  I cannot argue with faith. Have a good day.
         
         For anyone truly interested, here is an interesting paper on religion and nationalism: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/ … coming.pdf

         replyreport
         1. 90

            GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I wasn't asking you to argue faith hard sun, nor was I asking for a pro or anti religion explanation. I was simply asking why you thought religion was a primary driver of nationalistic attitudes.
            
            However, since I think your linked article ended-up validating my perspective, (considering the discussion is about modern day nationalism, and not that of pre-Pilgrim times), I will leave you with this, from your link, (quite a long read), and leave it there. I can accept that your response is all you have to say about the topic.
            
            After a long dissertation about the impact of religion on the forming of nations, (as mentioned, all dealing with pre-pilgrim times), your author brought his thesis to this point:
            
            "When reference is made today to America's distinctive mission in the world, is this evidence of the religious nature of American nationalism? Or, if one were to trace the rhetoric of mission from the New England colonies of the seventeenth century through the present, would one be more struck by the progressive secularization of that rhetoric? The specifically religious resonance or force of the rhetoric of national mission would seem to be much weaker today than in the New England colonies or in the seventeenth century Netherlands. "
            
            The author further expanded on that quote relating to the diminished impact of religion on nationalism. Dealing from their "3rd aspect of consideration," on pages 14 - 17.
            
            We are in agreement that this wasn't intended to be a religion focused topic. Which is why I didn't address your lead points.
            
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 78

               hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               I already stated I knew you weren't "asking me to argue faith." I didn't provide the link because I agreed with all of the conclusions of the 2011 report.  I provided it as it brings up several ways in which nationalism can be seen as related to religion. It was an attempt at being a bit more impartial.
               
               If I wanted to link to my view. I'd have provided something closer to this  The Christian Nationalism of Donald Trump: https://religionandpolitics.org/2018/07 … ald-trump/
               
               " Protestant globalists encouraged the United States to join an international community, Christian nationalists reacted by trying to seal off America’s borders. Globalism and nationalism were by no means absolute. Like today, vast numbers of religious people in the United States subscribed to neither view in the 1930s and 1940s, and they changed their values and opinions with the changing times. John Foster Dulles himself showed that the boundaries between globalism and nationalism were porous, as he became in the 1950s on of the most stalwart defenders of American sovereignty.
               "I imagine that ten years later, in the age of Trump, the president enjoys widespread support at this church, since he enjoys broad appeal with white evangelicals across the country. And I imagine the minister would cheer the president’s militaristic rhetoric. In retrospect, it’s easy to see how the Christian nationalism I witnessed in 2006 paved the way for today’s politics."
               
               At any rate, in 2019, and every year before that, religion is what's holding us back. That's true whether it provides an excuse for bad behavior or is the origin of bad behavior.
               
               I suggest reading Chris Hitchens. Richard Dawkins, David Silverman, etc., if you truly want to learn the perspective many of the nones have about religion. But, I've been debating the evils of religion since I was 10, so my motivation is waning. Like I said, I can't argue against faith and the blind devotion it causes.

               replyreport
               1. 90

                  GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Well damn hard sun. I admit I had to confirm what I thought "nones" meant was right.
                  
                  I may check some of your reading suggestions, but since I am apparently a "none" also, I probably won't find anything that would surprise me.
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 78

                     hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Right on...I've been doing a lot of reading and research for a book largely concerned with the global "nones," so I'm a bit passionate about the subject. Living where I do, I often assume I'm not speaking to a none.
                     
                     Richard Dawkins is a biologist. You've probably came across him at some point even if the name doesn't ring a bell. The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion are outstanding discussions on religion, science, and philosophy IMO. He actually invented the word "meme."
                     
                     There is much more to be discussed about non-belief, and how religion shapes us, than I realized before I read these books. I'm hoping my work at least touches upon, or builds upon, the established research and books on the issue.
                     
                     It's hard to get atheists, humanists, or non-theists in general to take stands as not many of us are inherently joiners, and the prevailing environment makes it difficult for many to "come out" so to speak.

                     replyreport
   2. 83

      Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      "Aren't virtually all religions, at least monotheistic ones, inherently a threat to one another?"
      
      "Threat" in the context of animals, is something that will reduce chances of survival, e.g. competing for territory, resources etc. Theological differences between religious groups are not a threat in that sense.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I wholeheartedly disagree, but also don't want to further hijack the thread.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I was going to add that we often use abstract concepts like religion to justify what is essentially animal behavior. So much so that it sometimes looks as though the justification is the cause.
            
            In truth I think our animal nature is the cause of the behavior, but the layers of socialization (a by-product of us being self-aware) allows us to employ all sorts of abstract justifications for that behavior. For self-aware, "civilised" humans it's easier to accept killing someone because of "god's will" than it is to accept killing someone simply because they are one of "them" and not one of "us", which is likely closer to the truth.
            
            If you want to break out into a new thread, I'd be happy to comment.

            replyreport
            1. 78

               hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Whether it's the cause or the justification...it's not good. I agree.

               replyreport
            2. 61

               dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               TY Don!  I can't speak about people in "religions" but the percentage of so-called  "Christians" that do crazy, fringe things are driven by something mental.  There is something in the wiring of their brain and/or some emotional issue.

               replyreport
4. 78

   hard sunposted 5 years ago

   The men of Jewish faith that started the entire MAGA kid vs Native American guy ordeal is a good example of how it's not only Caucasians.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think they are Jewish at all..  I think it was a group of people who have warped minds and were influenced to turn it into a religion.  This is how cults are started.  Gullible people want to feel significant and can be played like a drum.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         That's the power of religion. Then again, my view is all religions are cults with varying numbers of followers. Imagine...

         replyreport
         1. 61

            dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I disagree.  No further comment from this on me.  I don't want to hijack the forum.

            replyreport