Is transgender something to get upset about?

[Greta]

Various things

[I'm trying to give up piecemeal format exchanges because they are hard to read]

I've read enough about Gandhi to know that he saw no conflict between the Bhagavad Gita and monotheism. His meditation mantra was "God". He believed that all religions are alike at the core. That makes sense because the human (and animal, for that matter) condition is largely the same at the core.

"Has God spoken?", you ask. Logically, if God exists, then it either speaks constantly because it is us (and everything else) or it will speak via ecstatic experiences. Generally in nature we are constantly prodded to engage in activities done by ancestors who were successful enough to produce you. So feeling good feels "right".

While faith that there is a larger meaning to reality than that found in our Earthly lives is not political, such pure faith will not condone discrimination against the vulnerable. As stated earlier, Belinda rightly suggested that the original germ of the religions before the political human edifices corrupted them - inspiration and peak experiences, is reality-based.

Religions may have different histories but their early leaders were apparently more in touch with God and its wishes than the followers, who wanted to share in the magic. Today religions put little weight on the mystical because they are powerful multinational political organisations.

[Immanuel Can]

I've read enough about Gandhi to know that he saw no conflict between the Bhagavad Gita and monotheism.

I've read the Gita. Read it, and you'll change your mind.

"Has God spoken?", you ask. Logically, if God exists, then it either speaks constantly because it is us (and everything else) or it will speak via ecstatic experiences.

Why would you assume these are the only two ways? In fact, Christianity, Judaism and Islam all disagree with you on that; so whatever view you're channelling, it's not representative of the main Western traditions. It's more Eastern. But it's certainly not universal.

Generally in nature we are constantly prodded to engage in activities done by ancestors who were successful enough to produce you. So feeling good feels "right".

I'm not sure what implication you draw from this idea of "good feeling." Can you explain further?

While faith that there is a larger meaning to reality than that found in our Earthly lives is not political, such pure faith will not condone discrimination against the vulnerable.

We would need a meta-faith to tell us that...a larger "overarching faith" that gave us the means to arbitrate among "faiths," determining which were, as you put it, "pure," and which were "impure." But that meta-faith will not itself be on par with the faiths it judges: for then it could not have authority to judge.

So what's the meta-faith that tells us things like, "It's wrong to discriminate against the vulnerable," and tells us that faiths that do that are not "pure"?

As stated earlier, Belinda rightly suggested that the original germ of the religions before the political human edifices corrupted them - inspiration and peak experiences, is reality-based.

I can't claim even to understand them meaning you intend me to derive from this statement. After all, everything is "reality based" in some sort of sense...even unicorns are composites of horses (real) and horns (real). I don't know what "germ of religions" you are referring to: we have no such historical artifact, so far as I am aware; so its whole existence must be considered (until further evidence appears) purely speculative at best, fanciful at worst.

Religions may have different histories but their early leaders were apparently more in touch with God and its wishes than the followers,

You'd better read the Koran too. Then tell me how "in touch with God" Mohammed really was, and explain why so much of what he said is contradictory to the Torah and the New Testament, both of which he claims to be representing but clearly doesn't know well. Again, only if you read it will you know this, though. I fear that somebody's been telling you "porkies" about what religions actually teach.

Today religions put little weight on the mystical because they are powerful multinational political organisations.

Which "religions" do you mean?

You can only be speaking of ones like Sunni and Shiite Islam, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism and a few others like that. Even among them, there are divisions and subtleties of sect that would make some outliers to such a claim. And you surely can't be speaking of the multitude of less-formal and non-political "religions." Some of them have no political program at all: when did the Quaker or Mennonite "lobby" appear? How much multinational political clout is currently wielded by the Sufis, the Hassidim or Yorubas?

[Greta]

[still breaking up posts]

I'll take Gandhi's interpretation of the Gita over yours, or that of any disinterested westerner who can't understand the subtleties.

Okay, there's just two credible ways that God can speak to people - either God speaks all the time because it is us, or via peak experience. If you disagree, what are those other ways that God allegedly speaks to people and how believable are they?

Simply, any faith that condones discrimination against the vulnerable is not a faith but a political inclination.

I do think you need to check my use of "apparently" in my post. I use qualifiers for a reason so please don't just respond to the nouns and verbs.

I don't think I need to justify how little connection modern theism has with mystical experience; it could not be more obvious. Send your donation to this post code and be saved! Hallelujah brothers and sisters, give generously for the Lord's works!". Meanwhile George Pell refuses to return to Australia under the time-honoured expat celebrity excuse of "ill health" while harboured by the Vatican. This is a man who turned away a boy who cam to him complaining of molestation. Why? because the boy had not recommended a remedy. Then consider Muslims. Enough said. Hindus, Buddhists and Sufis would seem generally the most mystically/experientially inclined modern religious practitioners.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote, quoting Greta first paragraph:

Today religions put little weight on the mystical because they are powerful multinational political organisations.

Which "religions" do you mean?

You can only be speaking of ones like Sunni and Shiite Islam, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism and a few others like that. Even among them, there are divisions and subtleties of sect that would make some outliers to such a claim. And you surely can't be speaking of the multitude of less-formal and non-political "religions." Some of them have no political program at all: when did the Quaker or Mennonite "lobby" appear? How much multinational political clout is currently wielded by the Sufis, the Hassidim or Yorubas?

The general, and I think important, point that I take from Immanuel's reply is that the more authoritarian a religious creed and governing body is, the more it's political. What I just wrote is a tautology anyway. Politics means governance as I understand it.

By their nature subjective, mystical, experiences are ungovernable by powerful others which is why as I understand is the case, Sunnis dislike Sufis, and there is not much decent conversation between Jehovah's Witnesses and Quakers.

Sunnis would disagree with the creeds of both Jehovah's Witnesses and Quakers . Quakers would get along with all comers but would have a special affiliation with Sufis. Politicians thrive upon specific creeds and cannot function without their creeds.

It will be obvious that creeds that condemn transgender will be authoritarian creeds by their very nature. Liberal religious sects are not concerned about what gender people are.

[Immanuel Can]

[still breaking up posts]

It doesn't make sense to take anyone's interpretation: that's ad hominem and appeal to authority, and is a fallacy on two counts. I would advocate you find out for yourself. But I can only recommend.

I suggested in my last message other ways by which God can speak, but I'll add to that. He can speak by way of enlightenment, by way of verbal revelation, by way of text, by way of induction from nature, or even by Incarnation. That's the thing about being God: you're not limited in how you choose to enact your will.

You've still not specified your meta-faith that grounds your claim that "Simply, any faith that condones discrimination against the vulnerable is not a faith but a political inclination." But perhaps you will now.

Please explain what you mean for me to understand from "apparently." Is it that you do not necessarily believe what you preface with that word, or is it that you only think it's "apparent" but not "actual"? Or is it that you are merely floating a postulate, not making a conclusion? Or is it something else? I don't want to misunderstand your implication there.

The "modern theisms" you list in your prior response are all large, organized, political entities, the sorts of things that are in newspapers and themselves make use of the media, or that have a history of direct political influence.

I would only say that "religion" does not begin and end with such entities, so generalizations based on them as the paradigm case are unlikely to be apt for many expressions of religion. Their abuses do not transfer to other groups, any more than their achievements would.

[Immanuel Can]

The general, and I think important, point that I take from Immanuel's reply is that the more authoritarian a religious creed and governing body is, the more it's political.

I wouldn't quite say that. There are, after all, some very conservative, authoritarian sects that are also separatist in their view of politics. The Jehovah's Witnesses would certainly be one.

By their nature subjective, mystical, experiences are ungovernable by powerful others...

Possibly. But both Hinduism and Catholicism have extraordinarily strong mystical leanings, and both are quite authoritarian. So they don't fit that theory well.

...which is why as I understand is the case, Sunnis dislike Sufis, and there is not much decent conversation between Jehovah's Witnesses and Quakers.

True; but Sunnis are extreme authoritarians with a strong political leaning. JW's are strong authoritarians, but completely anti-political, and also are separatists.

It's fair to say that you have to parse the particulars a bit to make true generalizations about religion. In this case, your proposed guidelines about who loves politics, who is conservative, and why, are not accurate to much of the field. They're a bit to tidy and ambitious to suit the evidence.

Politicians thrive upon specific creeds and cannot function without their creeds.

I wonder. I imagine there are probably politicians who are driven by nothing but self-interest or their passions and desires. I wonder if such care about any "creed" at all.

It will be obvious that creeds that condemn transgender will be authoritarian creeds by their very nature.

Why? What if they just disagree with those practices, or recognize transgender people as mentally ill, and so don't agree that normalizing transgenderism is more compassionate than providing therapy...why would we imagine such have to be "authoritarian by their very nature"? That doesn't seem obvious to me.

Nor do I see why we'd make the willingness to endorse transgenderism a test of basic decency. That also seems unilateral, arbitrary and...well, a bit authoritarian in it's own way.

Liberal religious sects are not concerned about what gender people are.

That can be for several reasons, but one is that they may simply not care. Some Liberals only care for virtue signaling for themselves, and so long as they can tell themselves the happy myth that they are the "humane" and "compassionate" "advocates for justice," would be indifferent to the question of whether or not gender-dysphoric people slit their wrists or not.

Modern Liberalism (not the Classical kind) has a cruel back edge. It can be very, very solipsistic and mean, in its own way.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can, I see that I have not explained very well.

It's true as you say that for instance Roman Catholics accept an authoritarian creed and that some Roman Catholics are also mystics.

If I may explain my point of view another way:

liberal religionists

liberal RCs

liberal Muslims esp. Sufis

RC mystics e.g. Julian of Norwich

Quakers

Unitarians

Popular conception of Pope Francis
_________________________________________________________________________

Authoritarian religionists

Authoritarian muslims esp. Sunnis

Dogmatic RCs

Jehovah's Witnesses,

Biblical Literalists, mostly

Popular conception of Pope |Benedict

______________________________________________
The above is the dichotomy which separates diverse religionists far more than division according to sect. I am not attempting details or quantification I'm suggesting this as a more realisitic model than differentiation sect by sect.

When I wrote that politicians need creeds I did not mean religious creeds but creeds in its general meaning to refer to all belief systems which are established by some authority which in the case of politicians is usually the party executive.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can, I see that I have not explained very well.

Well, please...feel free to expatiate as necessary. That's the great thing about conversation; it's revisable and adjustable if we find ourselves misunderstood. No problem.

The above is the dichotomy which separates diverse religionists far more than division according to sect. I am not attempting details or quantification I'm suggesting this as a more realisitic model than differentiation sect by sect.

It still doesn't quite work, at least not if we put in the "political" axis. For many "fundamentalist" groups are very shy of politicking. Hassidim, JW's and so on are examples. On the other hand, Liberal sects are often highly political, eschewing doctrine and private piety in favour of campaigning for their particular "social justice" causes. Ironically, some of the most "fundamental" groups are the least politically dangerous, and some of the Liberal ones are the most strident. Of course, the reverse is true in Islam: there, the fundamentalists are most dangerous, as "fundamental" there means "obedient to the Koran, Sharia, the clerics, and the (rather bloodthirsty) career and example of Mohammed."

You've always got to look at the particulars, I think: just exactly WHAT is it they are believing, not only HOW are they believing it. Believing with fervency or even fundamentalism is not in itself a problem: but believing bad things that way certainly is. And on the contrary, believing Liberalism can entail a fervency that far exceeds many of the most conservative fundamentalists. Sometimes there's nothing so blind as a Liberal who thinks he's "seen" something other people aren't "getting."

When I wrote that politicians need creeds I did not mean religious creeds but creeds in its general meaning to refer to all belief systems which are established by some authority which in the case of politicians is usually the party executive.

Okay. But what ideology is ever established without "some authority"? It seems to me that as many unthinking Atheists worship at the shrine of Dawkins or the mausoleum of Hitchens as inhabit Lourdes.

Case in point: in fact, the latter has such mystical authority that they nearly held a witch-burning for Larry Taunton, just for being Hitchens' friend and proposing that by the time he died he was open to further thought on religion. Almost to a person, these detractors had never read Taunton's book at all, but went after him with fiery zeal anyway. "The heresy!" they seemed to cry, "he's said our boy wasn't quite the smug, self-confident derider of religion we saw on stage! Burn the witch." Apparently, then, Atheism can be fanatical too, and is just as dogmatic about its "authorities" as any religion ever is.

I would say this: in the case of ideology or religion, it's both what they believe AND the way they believe it; not one or the other. Leave out one of those polarities, and we always end up making false claims, claims that do injustice to some division, sect or group.

In fact, I think you'll find that fanaticism isn't grouped along neat sectarian lines at all...especially political fanaticism.

[henry quirk]

Stan's Santa has no 'naughty list'...no one gets a lump of coal...every one gets exactly what they want.

Mike's Santa is strict...if you're naughty you're gonna get coal...if you're nice you'll get one toy or treat.

Me? I prefer Krampus...his sack is empty in the beginning and full to overflowing at the end.

And the kidlets cry and cry.

[Greta]

It doesn't make sense to take anyone's interpretation: that's ad hominem and appeal to authority, and is a fallacy on two counts. I would advocate you find out for yourself. But I can only recommend.

Don't be disingenuous or we'll go around in circles forever. Favouring Gandhi's interpretation of the Gita over yours is neither an ad hominem. I can't study everything, and studying old religious texts is not even on my list, so I consider a credible source, one with intimate knowledge of Indian culture.

"Verbal revelation" is voices in one's head. Schizophrenia cannot be discounted as as serious alternative to God speaking to them. "By way of text" is just inspired freewriting. Not every inspiration need be God, no matter how much one may wish it to be so.

God's revelation via "induction from nature" will need explaining. The whole thing sounds like moments where a people find themselves able to briefly pay attention to reality, as opposed to our usual somewhat mechanistic engagement with ourselves and our surrounds.

It's really simple. People with any level of enlightenment don't denigrate and bully the vulnerable, but rather try to understand and give them the space in which to operate without being under siege from people who know diddly squat about their lives.

I would only say that "religion" does not begin and end with such entities, so generalizations based on them as the paradigm case are unlikely to be apt for many expressions of religion. Their abuses do not transfer to other groups, any more than their achievements would.

It's true that religious institutions are not uniformly exploitative and invasive. It's a matter of degree.

[Immanuel Can]

It doesn't make sense to take anyone's interpretation: that's ad hominem and appeal to authority, and is a fallacy on two counts. I would advocate you find out for yourself. But I can only recommend.

Don't be disingenuous or we'll go around in circles forever. Favouring Gandhi's interpretation of the Gita over yours is neither an ad hominem...

Incorrect. To prefer an interpretation not because it's right but because of some perception one has of some quality of someone who said it is by definition ad hominem.

By the way, calling someone "disingenuous" just because you happen to disagree with them on something is also ad hominem. They may very well be quite sincere; you would have no way to know.

I can't study everything, and studying old religious texts is not even on my list, so I consider a credible source, one with intimate knowledge of Indian culture.

I didn't say "study" or even "read everything." I said, "Read the Gita." It took me one afternoon, and it's actually quite an enjoyable read. So even if you're a slow reader, I'm sure you can do it in two. But you will never know the truth if you rely on ad hominem preferences. It won't be true just because "Mr. Gandhi sez..."

As for whether or not what you believe Gandhi says is correct or not, we need not argue: you can find out. But when you do, don't expect to find your original supposition confirmed, I'm afraid.

"Verbal revelation" is voices in one's head. Schizophrenia cannot be discounted as as serious alternative to God speaking to them. "By way of text" is just inspired freewriting. Not every inspiration need be God, no matter how much one may wish it to be so.

I didn't say you had to believe those were the means God used. I know you don't. I said that He had means other than the two you specified, IF He desired to employ them. That's all. You were claiming there were only two, and it was a kind of either-or. I disagreed, and showed why. No hard feelings there.

God's revelation via "induction from nature" will need explaining. The whole thing sounds like moments where a people find themselves able to briefly pay attention to reality, as opposed to our usual somewhat mechanistic engagement with ourselves and our surrounds.

I can explain it in two words: "natural theology." It's the idea that the identity of the Creator is latent in the Creation itself, so that the nature of God can be at least partially discerned from the natural order. "Natural theology," by the way, is the basis of what became known as "natural philosophy," which became known as "science." Interesting, no? You should check out what's called "Whitehead's Thesis," after philosopher A.N. Whitehead.

But the way, the scientific method was itself invented by an ardent Christian: Sir Francis Bacon. Also interesting.

It's really simple. People with any level of enlightenment don't denigrate and bully the vulnerable, but rather try to understand and give them the space in which to operate without being under siege from people who know diddly squat about their lives.

Whose "understanding"? Whose "enlightenment"? In other words, which "enlightened" view "sheds light" on this situation?

You still haven't named the ideology from which you are deriving this insight. It's certainly not some sort of necessary general belief. Nietzsche, for example, said that bulling the weak was precisely what we should do. Spencer had the same idea before Nietzsche, and Rand afterward. So some significant philosophers don't agree your intuition is necessary there.

It's true that religious institutions are not uniformly exploitative and invasive. It's a matter of degree.

Why assume it is a matter of "exploitation" or "invasion" at all, in some cases? Never mind the "degree": maybe the "degree" is none -- at least in some cases.

[Greta]

Immanuel, based on your logic, it is philosophically invalid and an ad hominem to attribute greater weight to a surgeon's opinion than to your opinion as regards how to best conduct an appendectomy.

It's really simple. People with any level of enlightenment don't denigrate and bully the vulnerable, but rather try to understand and give them the space in which to operate without being under siege from people who know diddly squat about their lives.

Whose "understanding"? Whose "enlightenment"? In other words, which "enlightened" view "sheds light" on this situation?

If you wish to argue that cruelty and predatory behaviour is preferable to kindness and understanding, how do you justify that? Cruelty and predation is what we do when we don't have philosophy. The only reason to consciously embrace regression is if one expects that civilisation will soon give way to survivalism.

Nietzsche espoused misogyny and focused on power and empowerment. No time for the weak. Rand espoused social fundamentalism, which denies emergent social realities. Each found their way up philosophical and moral blind alleys, which must happen at times when exploring ideas, and their will ideas go the way of Ptolomy and Bishop Ussher.

[Belinda]

Greta wrote:

Nietzsche espoused misogyny and focused on power and empowerment. No time for the weak.

The use of Nietzsche is that he points to how we were no longer empowered by faith. This was and is true. We, the weak, have to find and employ our own sources of empowerment. I think that the source of empowerment of the weak is the fact that the world is getting smaller and national boundaries are for several reasons redundant. Because of this and similar needs for global cooperation we the weak are proved to be right that empowerment comes through cooperation not competition with other nationals, genders, etc.

The battle for cooperation is far from won as the presence of the new US administration well shows. Transgender people who are weak because they are a maverick minority are included with the rest of us weak peasants, now in full revolt, as we are.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, based on your logic, it is philosophically invalid and an ad hominem to attribute greater weight to a surgeon's opinion than to your opinion as regards how to best conduct an appendectomy.

False analogy. Another fallacy. Gandhi was probably a fine man, in many ways...it did not make him a surgeon or an expert in Hindu theology. Nor does his reputation as a human rights advocate tell us anything about his grasp of the fundamentals of the faith he nominally practiced.

We know he was a sort of practitioner of it, and a rather unconventional one; but whether or not his Hinduism was "real" Hinduism by the standards of genuine Hindu experts, we do not have reason to know.

One thing for sure: if he believed the Gita, he did not believe in the Western God. That we can know. We just have to look. Again, that's what I recommend you to do.

It's really simple. People with any level of enlightenment don't denigrate and bully the vulnerable, but rather try to understand and give them the space in which to operate without being under siege from people who know diddly squat about their lives.

Whose "understanding"? Whose "enlightenment"? In other words, which "enlightened" view "sheds light" on this situation?

If you wish to argue that cruelty and predatory behaviour is preferable to kindness and understanding, how do you justify that? Cruelty and predation is what we do when we don't have philosophy. The only reason to consciously embrace regression is if one expects that civilisation will soon give way to survivalism.

Of course I'm not arguing that. Are you seriously supposing that?

I'm simply asking you how you know what YOU claim to know...namely, that "cruel and predatory" behavior is "wrong." It must be according to some ideology...but why you won't name it is mystifying, unless...

a) you're ashamed of that ideology...but that seems unlikely, so more likely,

b) it's never occurred to you that you HAVE an ideology in which you ground your morality, so you can't even imagine what one would look like, or possibly...

c) your morality isn't grounded in anything at all.

But if it's c) or b) then how would that differ from being propagandized? For then you would be asserting as "moral" things which you perhaps have been convinced by someone in the past to identify in that way, but you don't have the faintest idea on what basis that assessment has been advanced to you, and so believe without understanding the justification for them at all.

[Immanuel Can]

The use of Nietzsche is that he points to how we were no longer empowered by faith. This was and is true. We, the weak, have to find and employ our own sources of empowerment.

You've got him wrong: he didn't care a fig for the weak. Nor for women, for that matter; in fact, he didn't provide for their "emancipation"; he advised men to take "the whip" to them.

Check it out for yourself, if you're not sure I'm telling you the straight goods.