> You know, given the choice between ISIS and antivaxxers, I think I'll take the anitvaxxers.
Say Christian nationalism rose to it's post-reconstruction prominence. Where would you put it?
> agree that religious/spiritual groups can be good for social ties.
Further: Religious humanitarian projects aren't insignificant and it's not like they're competing with non-religious aid. If aiding religions disappeared, nothing would fill the vacuum - because the vacuum is far from filled now.
> Say Christian nationalism rose to it's post-reconstruction prominence. Where would you put it?
I had to look up what this meant, so if I'm mis-interpreting it, please correct me.
But from what I understand it's just ISIS but swap the Quran for the Bible? Not a huge fan of that idea. Really any fundamentalist religion ramming it's morality down my throat grinds my gears. Still prefer the anti-vaxxers. At least they're not going to tell me how to live my life. They're more like drunk drivers - I have to deal with their stupidity endangering my life, but with religious freaks I have to deal with their stupidity endangering my life (because the Pope declared that vaccines weren't kosher, or that the new cancer treatment is heresy, or stem cell research displeases the Prophet, and you can't argue with that because it's religion, it is by definition arbitrary, disagree and the Pope sends you off to get burned at the stake for heresy), and them controlling every minute detail of my life (prayer mandated, dress code mandated, etc).
> If aiding religions disappeared, nothing would fill the vacuum - because the vacuum is far from filled now.
that's a strong claim and and I don't think your reasoning adequately supports it.
Still, I suppose it's possible that if all religious groups disappeared tomorrow secular sources of aid would not move to compensate. shrug
Nevethless, I don't think "there isn't enough aid now, ergo if religions disappear there will be even less" is a logically sound argument, perhaps there are some intermediate steps to your reasoning that I'm missing, if so please explain them :)
>> If aiding religions disappeared, nothing would fill the vacuum - because the vacuum is far from filled now.
>that's a strong claim and and I don't think your reasoning adequately supports it.
This puzzles me. My claim is self-evident. The vacuum of human need exists; only a tiny portion is filled.
Anyone who wants to supplant a religious outreach effort can form up now and achieve the good they seek. In other words, if you want to compete and put religions out of the service game, please do.
> But from what I understand it's just ISIS but swap the Quran for the Bible? Not a huge fan of that idea.
Christian nationalism grew and pervaded America in the decades during and after reconstruction. The Klan was probably the most visible facet of that and but it was everywhere, organized and not.
I do a fair amount of genealogy and in my perception, there are many parallels between now and the early 20th century.
Say Christian nationalism rose to it's post-reconstruction prominence. Where would you put it?
> agree that religious/spiritual groups can be good for social ties.
Further: Religious humanitarian projects aren't insignificant and it's not like they're competing with non-religious aid. If aiding religions disappeared, nothing would fill the vacuum - because the vacuum is far from filled now.