Which is the more divisive? And why?

[ProfessorDavey]

Not really religion is spoken of in epidemiological terms as if it is some kind of disease which it is hoped will be eradicated.

I'm afraid you guys display a sinister disconnect between what you say, how you say it and how righteous you believe yourself to be.

You really are like some kind of modern day and religious McCarthyite - constantly seeing 'dangers' where there are none. It must be exhausting having to check under every bed in your house each night just in case there is an atheist hiding there plotting to do you harm.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You really are like some kind of modern day and religious McCarthyite - constantly seeing 'dangers' where there are none. It must be exhausting having to check under every bed in your house each night just in case there is an atheist hiding there plotting to do you harm.

It is exhausting........

[ProfessorDavey]

It is exhausting........

You could always try getting in touch with reality - would help a lot

[Owlswing]

Based on recent conflicts, religion and politics are only as divisive as the people trying to impose their religious or political beliefs on others. Ideas are divisive but did the OP mean this is only of concern if it leads to violence? In which case I would say political causes have led to more violence.

Not sure that non- violent division is a problem, since it is impossible for everyone to agree on beliefs. For example Peter Tatchell has reversed his opinion in the case of the Irish bakers and is supporting the right of bakers or printers or sign writers not to be forced to promote an idea. Tatchell thinks there was never an intention that the law in Ireland against political discrimination should be used to compel people to promote political ideas with which they disagreed. The Appeal is going through the courts - very civilised i.e. no violence - but the different beliefs about whether or not to allow freedom of conscience, or political or religious beliefs is divisive.

The OP was in responce to a comment, made during a friendly discussion, that more friendships have been wrecked by politics than by religion, which, needless to say, started a right royal barney which resulted ina rather starnge division. Of the six persons present who are active in the Abrhamic religions three agreed that religion was more likely to wreck friendships and three were for politics.

I just thought it would be interesting to get the views of the R & E membership.   

[Owlswing]

In a free democratic society then certainly non violent division over opinions, whether those be religious or political, isn't a bad thing. Indeed it is largely a positive thing as the debates about 'ideas' is what drives societies forward.

I guess the use of the term 'divisive' in the OP is somewhat pejorative, giving the impression of a damaging difference of opinion rather than a productive difference of opinion. But whether disagreement over ideas is divisive or not is rather a subjective view.

Re the OP, please see #53

[ProfessorDavey]

The OP was in responce to a comment, made during a friendly discussion, that more friendships have been wrecked by politics than by religion, which, needless to say, started a right royal barney which resulted ina rather starnge division. Of the six persons present who are active in the Abrhamic religions three agreed that religion was more likely to wreck friendships and three were for politics.

I just thought it would be interesting to get the views of the R & E membership.

It may well be true that more friendships have been wrecked by politics that religion, but that may be largely because more people are interested in and involved in politics than are in religion, and critically because politics affects people's lives in a manner that religion rarely does unless you chose it to.

There is also the issue that those who are actively involved in religion often set up structures which largely ensures they socialise with co-religionists. That of course includes religious traditions for bringing up children and schooling. There is much less of that nature with politics so people are more likely to be regularly rubbing shoulders with friends who they may subsequently discover have very different political views.

So it may not be the case that politics are more divisive than religion, but that there are far more opportunities for that division to show.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

In a free democratic society then certainly non violent division over opinions, whether those be religious or political, isn't a bad thing. Indeed it is largely a positive thing as the debates about 'ideas' is what drives societies forward.

I guess the use of the term 'divisive' in the OP is somewhat pejorative, giving the impression of a damaging difference of opinion rather than a productive difference of opinion. But whether disagreement over ideas is divisive or not is rather a subjective view.

I think whether a difference of opinion is damaging is largely down to how sensitive the individuals are about a specific issue and the personalities of the people disagreeing - if someone is determined to be offended or responds with insults rather than disagreeing with the point made it could become a damaging difference of opinion.

If someone agrees to disagree, while acknowledging that someone else may hold a different view, based on their individual life experiences, personalty traits, perspectives, and they try to be objective rather than taking the issue personally it is less likely to be a damaging difference of opinion.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It may well be true that more friendships have been wrecked by politics that religion, but that may be largely because more people are interested in and involved in politics than are in religion, and critically because politics affects people's lives in a manner that religion rarely does unless you chose it to.

There is also the issue that those who are actively involved in religion often set up structures which largely ensures they socialise with co-religionists. That of course includes religious traditions for bringing up children and schooling. There is much less of that nature with politics so people are more likely to be regularly rubbing shoulders with friends who they may subsequently discover have very different political views.

So it may not be the case that politics are more divisive than religion, but that there are far more opportunities for that division to show.

My experience is that co-religionists have very different opinions and practices and traditions even within a single congregation or community so I think the opportunities for division to show are there just as much as for politics. I think politics is more divisive because it involves distribution of economic resources. I think people get more frustrated about sharing money and control of resources and lack of opportunity for their children in the immediate future than they do about their friends' beliefs about their destination in some after-life.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think politics is more divisive because it involves distribution of economic resources. I think people get more frustrated about sharing money and control of resources and lack of opportunity for their children in the immediate future than they do about their friends' beliefs about their destination in some after-life.

Which comes back to my earlier points - firstly, and critically that politics affects everyone's lives in big or small ways (whether you chose to be 'political' or not), while religion has virtually no affect (at least in largely secular countries such as the UK) on people unless they chose to be religious.

Secondly, and back to my earliest point - that politics is necessary in a  society - a society cannot function, make decisions about how to organise itself without politics, taken in its broadest way. By contrast a society could run perfectly well without religion.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

A society could run without religion - whether it runs "perfectly well" is debatable - it's very subjective and depends on each person's  definition of "well". Some people feel more emotionally and physically well and also feel their community functions and interacts better with religion in their lives, whereas some people find religion intrusive and alienating.

[ProfessorDavey]

A society could run without religion - whether it runs "perfectly well" is debatable - it's very subjective and depends on each person's  definition of "well". Some people feel more emotionally and physically well and also feel their community functions and interacts better with religion in their lives, whereas some people find religion intrusive and alienating.

Likewise you can argue whether society runs 'perfectly well' with religion.

I am not making an argument for an optimal or perfect society - what would be as many views on what that should look like as there are people - nor whether a society without religion would be desirable or not. No, I am arguing that a society where there wasn't any religion could be able to function perfectly OK - religion is an optional element rather than necessary requirement within a functioning society.

You could say the same about all sorts of other things - music, football, bicycles - all are optional rather than necessary for a society to function (and again you can argue till the comes come home about whether a society would be better or worse without football!!). Politics (taken in its broadest sense) isn't like that - it is essential to a functioning society as it provides the tools for collective decision making.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Since "well" is a highly subjective term it wouldn't really feature in any point I was making about religion or politics.

Yes, politics is divisive where humans are greedy and fearful, and adopt certain beliefs about what is a just and fair distribution of resources. If their belief system clashes with someone else's belief system this leads to arguments/ conflict / wars.

I would argue that religion is not in the same category as football and music, at least not yet. Many groups of people still formulate social policy and ethics for their family and communities and regulate a large proportion of their personal interactions based on their interpretation of rules within their religion. Far more than with football or music or other hobbies.

If humans have a need to belong to a family or community and the family or community involves itself in a particular interpretation or manifestation of a religion, I think people who do want to belong to a group will find it impossible to get acceptance without adopting in daily life some of the religious outlooks and practices of the people they want to belong to.

I don't think currently family interest in football or music impacts as much on daily life for most people as religion would, if their families are religious. Maybe in the future the need to belong or to look for something "greater" will find another outlet rather than theism, especially in the UK. Given the gradual decline in interest in organised religion in the UK, religion may become more of a personal hobby similar to playing a musical instrument, and people may search for or invest meaning in something else that many others would find inexplicable.

[ProfessorDavey]

I would argue that religion is not in the same category as football and music, at least not yet. Many groups of people still formulate social policy and ethics for their family and communities and regulate a large proportion of their personal interactions based on their interpretation of rules within their religion. Far more than with football or music or other hobbies.

Well again this is subjective.

Of course there are plenty of families whose customs and lives are inherently linked to their religious belief. But actually there are plenty of others who lives completely revolve around other things which have just as much influence. I can think of people I know whose whole live is music - professional, personal, day and night - and it is just as influential in their lives as religion is in many of those who are religious.

And what about people who eat, sleep and breath football - the kind who go to every game, home and away (wherever that may be) whose entirely social circle is also their fellow football fans. Their level of dedication and commitment and the influence it has on their lives is surely every bit as strong as religion for most religious people.

I can also think of plenty of religious people for whom their religion is largely restricted to a weekly event (largely a traditional custom) and beyond that, I cannot see how their lives would be meaningfully different were they not to be religious. And there is a wide spectrum in between.

So I don't think you can really make a claim that one is necessarily more important in people's lives than the others - that is about personal perspective and you cannot understand the importance of something to someone else - and nor can I.

[Leonard James]

So I don't think you can really make a claim that one is necessarily more important in people's lives than the others - that is about personal perspective and you cannot understand the importance of something to someone else - and nor can I.

The bottom line is that it makes not the slightest difference. People live their lives according to the way they see it, and that's all there is to it.

So make the best of it while you are here! 

[Bubbles]

Well again this is subjective.

Of course there are plenty of families whose customs and lives are inherently linked to their religious belief. But actually there are plenty of others who lives completely revolve around other things which have just as much influence. I can think of people I know whose whole live is music - professional, personal, day and night - and it is just as influential in their lives as religion is in many of those who are religious.

And what about people who eat, sleep and breath football - the kind who go to every game, home and away (wherever that may be) whose entirely social circle is also their fellow football fans. Their level of dedication and commitment and the influence it has on their lives is surely every bit as strong as religion for most religious people.

I can also think of plenty of religious people for whom their religion is largely restricted to a weekly event (largely a traditional custom) and beyond that, I cannot see how their lives would be meaningfully different were they not to be religious. And there is a wide spectrum in between.

So I don't think you can really make a claim that one is necessarily more important in people's lives than the others - that is about personal perspective and you cannot understand the importance of something to someone else - and nor can I.

Religion can also determine who you should marry. Football and politics doesn't

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Well again this is subjective.

Of course there are plenty of families whose customs and lives are inherently linked to their religious belief. But actually there are plenty of others who lives completely revolve around other things which have just as much influence. I can think of people I know whose whole live is music - professional, personal, day and night - and it is just as influential in their lives as religion is in many of those who are religious.

And what about people who eat, sleep and breath football - the kind who go to every game, home and away (wherever that may be) whose entirely social circle is also their fellow football fans. Their level of dedication and commitment and the influence it has on their lives is surely every bit as strong as religion for most religious people.

I can also think of plenty of religious people for whom their religion is largely restricted to a weekly event (largely a traditional custom) and beyond that, I cannot see how their lives would be meaningfully different were they not to be religious. And there is a wide spectrum in between.

So I don't think you can really make a claim that one is necessarily more important in people's lives than the others - that is about personal perspective and you cannot understand the importance of something to someone else - and nor can I.

No, I understand the importance of football etc to some people, I just don't think there are too many opportunities where people can look to the teachings of football or music to influence or inform their ethical behaviour or decisions - in that sense I don't think football or music are used in the same way or operate in the same sphere as religion, politics or other philosophies. Football or music are not belief systems like politics or religion.

As a non-football supporting atheist my perception was that religion had more of an impact on my daily life simply because religion or religious traditions or belief systems in general had more scope to influence a wider range of other people's behavioural choices and activities than the teachings of football or the watching of football matches.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, I understand the importance of football etc to some people, I just don't think there are too many opportunities where people can look to the teachings of football or music to influence or inform their ethical behaviour or decisions - in that sense I don't think football or music are used in the same way or operate in the same sphere as religion, politics or other philosophies. Football or music are not belief systems like politics or religion.

As a non-football supporting atheist my perception was that religion had more of an impact on my daily life simply because religion or religious traditions or belief systems in general had more scope to influence a wider range of other people's behavioural choices and activities than the teachings of football or the watching of football matches.

But then you are placing a greater importance of informing ethical behaviour than other types of behaviour. And you are perhaps placing far too much importance on religion in relation to ethical behaviour. Certainly today, for many religious people, the adherence is one based on tradition and culture rather than ethics.

We see this all the time with religious people taking ethical positions which are directly counter to the 'teaching' of their religion - so in what away is a catholic who uses contraception, does not think homosexuality to be wrong, approves of equal marriage, considers abortion to be reasonable in some circumstance, thinks that condoms are critical to combating HIV transmission, thinks divorce to be acceptable etc etc (which would make them a pretty standard catholic in the UK) having religion inform their ethical behaviour - it isn't. Sure there might be the 'mother and apple pie' be nice to people part, but that is no more inherently christian then virtually every other moral code, religious or secular.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I don't think there is one "teachings" of any religion. I think there are, like in law and in ethics, rules and also amendments and exceptions to rules based on circumstances and new information and understanding.

I think Catholics may disagree with the teachings of a religious institution, if they feel the leaders of that institution place a greater importance on tradition than they themselves do. Those people may feel that religious interpretation should take into account new information and knowledge and understanding, but they still feel they are being influenced by their interpretation of their religion in a lot of the decisions that they make. I am not talking about the influence of formal institutions but of the influence of belief systems.

[wigginhall]

Well, Gabriella, you reminded me of the famous statement by Camus: “Everything I know about morality and the obligations of men, I owe it to football (soccer).”  I think he was a goal-keeper, so had lots of time and stand around pondering on stuff. 

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't think there is one "teachings" of any religion. I think there are, like in law and in ethics, rules and also amendments and exceptions to rules based on circumstances and new information and understanding.

I think Catholics may disagree with the teachings of a religious institution, if they feel the leaders of that institution place a greater importance on tradition than they themselves do. Those people may feel that religious interpretation should take into account new information and knowledge and understanding, but they still feel they are being influenced by their interpretation of their religion in a lot of the decisions that they make. I am not talking about the influence of formal institutions but of the influence of belief systems.

I think in many, if not most, cases these people are using other drivers to inform their ethical decision making, that aren't religious.

And I used the examples I did for good reason - we aren't talking here about levels of interpretation - priorities. Nope we are talking about completely convergent views - the catholic who with a clear conscience used contraception, thinking it to be the right thing to do, yet their religion teaches it is wrong. The catholic who is delighted when a gay friend announces they are getting married, thinking their marriage to be wholly good and ethical, yet their religion teaches it is wrong.

These people are taking their moral cues from some place else than their religion.

[BeRational]

Well, Gabriella, you reminded me of the famous statement by Camus: “Everything I know about morality and the obligations of men, I owe it to football (soccer).”  I think he was a goal-keeper, so had lots of time and stand around pondering on stuff.

Depends what team you play for.

I play five as side, and my defence is so poor I am the busiest player!

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think in many, if not most, cases these people are using other drivers to inform their ethical decision making, that aren't religious.

And I used the examples I did for good reason - we aren't talking here about levels of interpretation - priorities. Nope we are talking about completely convergent views - the catholic who with a clear conscience used contraception, thinking it to be the right thing to do, yet their religion teaches it is wrong. The catholic who is delighted when a gay friend announces they are getting married, thinking their marriage to be wholly good and ethical, yet their religion teaches it is wrong.

These people are taking their moral cues from some place else than their religion.

They don't seem to think they are. They disagree with the teachings of an institution, not with the teachings of their religion as they perceive it.

http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/about/ourwork/default.asp

At CFC, we strive to be an expression of Catholicism as it is lived by ordinary people. We are part of the great majority of the faithful in the Catholic church who disagrees with the dictates of the Vatican on matters related to sex, marriage, family life and motherhood. We are part of the great majority who believes that Catholic teachings on conscience mean that every individual must follow his or her own conscience ― and respect others' right to do the same. At Catholics for Choice, we believe that this is the world where the meaning of choice can truly be realized.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Well, Gabriella, you reminded me of the famous statement by Camus: “Everything I know about morality and the obligations of men, I owe it to football (soccer).”  I think he was a goal-keeper, so had lots of time and stand around pondering on stuff.

Hi Wiggs - morality huh? These days aren't footballers at the top of the game known for being highly over-paid and/ or cheating - dives, fake appeals to the ref.....

[wigginhall]

Hi Wiggs - morality huh? These days aren't footballers at the top of the game known for being highly over-paid and/ or cheating - dives, fake appeals to the ref.....

Sure, but there is a strong sense of right and wrong in football.  I don't really know if Camus was referring to this, but the crowd will howl its disapproval if a player dives or cheats in some way.   I don't know if he ever really developed his ideas on this, but he was probably also indicating his existentialist views, that we find the moral through living, not just thinking.

[ProfessorDavey]

They don't seem to think they are. They disagree with the teachings of an institution, not with the teachings of their religion as they perceive it.

http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/about/ourwork/default.asp

At CFC, we strive to be an expression of Catholicism as it is lived by ordinary people. We are part of the great majority of the faithful in the Catholic church who disagrees with the dictates of the Vatican on matters related to sex, marriage, family life and motherhood. We are part of the great majority who believes that Catholic teachings on conscience mean that every individual must follow his or her own conscience ― and respect others' right to do the same. At Catholics for Choice, we believe that this is the world where the meaning of choice can truly be realized.

Firstly I imagine it is rare for catholics to be so formal in their ethical views - most will simply not agree with their religion on certain matters.

But secondly the for reasons for that disagreement are likely to be person to them but unlikely to be seen as a manifestation of their religion (which would be rather odd anyhow as their views are directly at odds with what their religion teaches).

The point being that the underpinning drive for those ethical positions are complex and just as personal and non-religiously cultural as they are religious.