Hi A.J.,

Yes, I hope that OLO (and less significant blog-sites) can foster and develop deep, passionate and bitter discussion about:

* Religion

* Ideology

* Culture and

* Values.

Here are a few items to provoke discussion:

* Of course, everybody should have freedom of religion, to believe what they like, but nobody has any right to impose their beliefs, no matter how sincerely held, on anybody else, not even their children. People can be Christian if they like, or Muslim if they like, etc.

* While a set of religious beliefs can be innocuous, many ideologies springing from them may be vicious, vile, fascist and contemptible. But, on the other hand., the enlightenment sprang indirectly from, and sometimes in bitter opposition to, Christianity.

* Probably all cultures are flawed, being the products of power structures in societies, which are usually dominated by (a) men and/or (b) those with assets. So they are bound to support forms of inequality and discrimination.

* Australian values are indirectly derived from both the enlightenment and from British forms and values. [But see (c) above].

And, if possible, to do it in a civil and polite manner, in order to give nobody the excuse that they must piss off because they have been offended. We desperately need to tease out these human-made features of our society, and to ignore any threats posed by restrictions like 18 (c).

If any of our values are defective, they should be revised and changed. If not, they should be retained and improved, and certainly championed.

That's a start :)

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Joe,

Interesting paper by Pr Carl Mosk Uni of Victoria posing the question

'Does Religious Nationalism Diminish Human Development?'

For me Religious Nationalism, as with Secular Nationalism, opposes true liberalism in society. This is a real and growing threat to human development.

http://carlmosk.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/does-religious-nationalism-diminish-the-human-development-index-conference-paper.pdf

Hi Paul,

47 pages - I've only got through the Abstract:) I supposed he will define 'liberal nationalism' further down. But I'd support his statement that:

" Secularism and human development go hand in hand mainly because of ideas realized in the political sphere; not because material well-being automatically promotes secular values. One possible outcome for societies shaped by religious nationalism is a religion trap, successful development falling victim to adherence to religious-inspired ideology. "

He suggests that nationalism flowed from the Enlightenment, but I'd dispute that: more likely from what Isaiah Berlin described as the Counter-Enlightenment, as a reaction to its universalism, and its support for equal civil rights. Personally, I'd favour universalism.

Like most human creations, 'the crooked timber of humanity from which nothing straight can be made', as Berlin cites Kant many times, the Enlightenment struggled into existence with many imperfections, and many of its early principles were taken to excess - for example, the notion that history and the social 'sciences' can be made into sciences, like physics, with immutable laws: that defect has caused untold misery.

Anyway, every nation needs a certain degree of 'nationalism', protection of its borders, the power to defend itself, freedom to work up its own system of laws and values, etc. Of course, like with every other Enlightenment principle, that can go too far, towards chauvinism and belief in a right to intrude on others' nationalisms.

As Mosk writes, religion hinders development, not just economic development but more directly the development of a sense of civil rights, equality and freedoms. After all, most religions assume that their sacred works dictate the level and direction of those aspects of society. That's basically what Enlightenment thinkers, from Machiavelli and Descartes to Condorcet and even Marx were fighting against. Religion seem to encourage cohesion to a certain primitive point, but then (when totalitarian tactics become inevitable) acts as a brake on further development.

Now to the rest of his thesis .....

Cheers,

Joe