Sadly, there is a conflict of religious cultures around the world! Few if any have any semblance of a foundation based on truth! Have histories where armed conflict, paedophilia, blatant BS and stupendous bloodshed marked their emergence!

Have histories that would make JC weep!

And continue to this day with the indoctrination of their fundamentally flawed fanaticism that has to be brainwashed in to stick and create a diaspora that then becomes the robotised following/financial support system for the various cultures that claim to know the mind of God intimately?

The only exceptions would seem to be, cultures where (transendal)meditation becomes the cornerstone of a belief system that includes peaceful cohabitation (love they neighbour as thyself) and sharing?

My departed Dad would have put it this way, if you cannot do someone a good turn? then at least don't do him/her a bad one!
Alan B.

DEFINITION:

That which produces a rugged curved shadow, is a tree.
That which produces a sharp, straight-edged shadow, is a building.

Such is the level of accuracy of the author's definition of religion!

Good enough for those whose eyes are stuck to the ground, who see only shadows and cannot/woudln't look up to see what it is that lays these shadows.

Religion is real. The organisations, ideologies and social behaviours around it are but its shadow!

This article is about defining religions for taxation purposes.
Since most large religious charities are classified as NGO’s, Church and State are less than connected at the purse strings, chained in fits, which I would think is opposed to the intent of separation principle of the Secular State.
That is undoubtedly the work of economists.
I think including environmental groups as possible religions is disingenuous.
But when the Labor Party is elected under Albanese who wants to end climate wars, look out. The best and most efficient way to win a war is to wipe out the enemy.
That should thin out some established religions that apparently hide away climate denialists.

Dan

To some extent, I agree with Sewell's claim that many leftists think that the most pressing problems of the human condition (crime, war, poverty) can be largely eradicated through legislation enacted by a thoughtful government. While many on the right recognize that human beings are human, not robots, and that humans can not be programmed to forget their self interest and be entirely altruistic.

I disagree with this author's claim that those on the right are motivated by religious ideals. Some most certainly are, but there are plenty of atheists like me who have no religion. I am right wing because I use reasoned logic to decide what is the best course of action for my community to take for it's own good. My natural selfishness is moderated by my understanding that our society would fall apart if everybody was selfish, and did not sublimate their selfishness for the greater good of the community in which they reside.

I would agree with this author that leftism has all the makings of a secular religion, other than the belief in the supernatural. Leftism is dogmatic, intolerant, promises a heaven on earth which it never delivers, and appeals to those who have an absolutist mentality where everything is either black or white. And there are plenty of people who think that way. They seem to be mostly of the left in this secular age, but they exist on the right also.

If the primary ideological position of the left is the perfectibility of the human condition to create a utopia, why do the leftists support programs guaranteed to destroy the society they prefer to live in? The importation of many ethnic and religious groups into western societies, championed by the left, has self evidently done nothing but cause an avalanche of intractable problems. The left knows this, because despite their absolutist mentality, they can still think.

The only logical reason for their apparent stupidity is that the left wants nothing less than absolute power. They don't care if their society becomes a dung heap, provided that they are the ones on top

Dear LEGO,

«My natural selfishness is moderated by my understanding that our society would fall apart if everybody was selfish, and did not sublimate their selfishness for the greater good of the community in which they reside.»

This sounds religious to me.

One way to look at religion, is that our selfishness separates us from God. It works like this: as there cannot be anything but God, both yourself and all others are also God, so conceiving yourself as a separate being, separated from others by selfish interests, makes you fail to recognise your divinity.

The process of sublimating one's selfishness helps to remove that obstacle and bring you closer to God - which is all religion is about.
If the means to forward this sublimation happens to be your care for society, then so be it.

Whether you come from the political "Left" or from the political "Right", whether your care for society manifests in wanting to maintain its atmospheric climate or in wanting to maintain its ethnic purity, it is not not that society actually needs and deserves your care, but rather that you need and deserve to improve your character and clean up those of its aspects that stand between you and God, so you no longer remain their victim.

Whether your political actions cause society a service or a disservice is unimportant - what counts is your honest attitude of being at service: that is what cleanses your soul, that is religion, that is to be praised.

Lego.

I’ve read your reflections on left v right psychology above, but could the difference be more simple?
The cohort of the left tend to comprise the youthful.
The physiology of that youthful group, tends to be more emotional, with an overlay of inexperience. The driving motivation, resentment.

Many on the right, were once leftists. You see that point openly admitted on these pages.
The instinct towards rebellion lies predominantly with youth. EG the rebellious youth.

We of the mature most likely to be conservative, are less tortured by rushing of fresh hormones as we age, and age is considered to be a state of the reflective.
There is a tension between the two states.

So from this position, it’s easier to diagnose the conflict of interests.
The youthful have a totally different set of values and motivations which step out with more highly active emotional energy.

He who captures the mind of youth, captures the forces of their reasoning.

Experience should tell us that a Dads army, is going to be working very hard to control and overcome the enthusiasm of youth.
To do this, the conservatives need to exercise their traits of maturity, which are patience, experienced knowledge, and a cunning way to ambush the enemy of youth.

My view gives little hope of a win: But nature has it, the old a consumed for food by the young. We’re too slow now. Too stodgy for battle. But the best defence for the conservative position, is to defend from the castle walls.

In a military sense, a force one third less than the attacking force is the ratio to win in the contest of battle. (Montgomery).

Dan.