Justin the Apostate is known for his efforts to restore pagan religion in the Roman empire.
Is the President attempting a similar effort by codifying in to law his religious like dictates in climate change, and removal of societal boundaries, traditions and institutions.

This would be funny if I didn't know some people actually took it seriously.

Or maybe it's satire and I've been fooled by Poe's Law once again. Who can even tell these days?

No response to the OP, but it got me thinking. What defines a religion? What separates it from a worldview?

Take environmentalism as an example. The world was in harmony and then mankind came along. We've been ruining the environment ever since. This is bad and makes us bad. We can only fix this by stopping our actions that ruin the environment and by living in harmony with nature. We have an overarching worldview here complete with a fully defined morality. We have appeal to what is at least a purely metaphysical, if not supernatural, concept of "nature" or "the environment". So what makes Buddhism a religion and environmentalism a worldview?

I believe that there may be some Supreme Court cases that hold that worldviews and religion may be synonymous.

TrailerTrash said:

---

Justin the Apostate is known for his efforts to restore pagan religion in the Roman empire.
Is the President attempting a similar effort by codifying in to law his religious like dictates in climate change, and removal of societal boundaries, traditions and institutions.

---

I don't know if he's playing the same role as Justin the Apostate did, but Biden is definitely Catholic in name only at this point.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

No response to the OP, but it got me thinking. What defines a religion? What separates it from a worldview?

Take environmentalism as an example. The world was in harmony and then mankind came along. We've been ruining the environment ever since. This is bad and makes us bad. We can only fix this by stopping our actions that ruin the environment and by living in harmony with nature. We have an overarching worldview here complete with a fully defined morality. We have appeal to what is at least a purely metaphysical, if not supernatural, concept of "nature" or "the environment". So what makes Buddhism a religion and environmentalism a worldview?

---

We can measure the change and have evidence of the impacts those changes have and can reasonably be believed to have on the planet and on global human populations. Regardless of whether you buy the philosophical aspects of certain kinds of environmentalists, the science would still logically dictate actions to limit the changes by political leaders.

Religions don't have any burden of proof. Everything can be waved away as "faith".

schmendeler said:

---

Religions don't have any burden of proof. Everything can be waved away as "faith".

---

Like the cause of "climate change" and the definition of a woman?

No

The issue with environmentalism (or Communism, or progressivism, or facism) is not the facts at hand. It's the value system. "It's bad to dump chemical waste in a river" is not a statement of fact. It's a statement of value. Maybe that factory makes chemo for kids with cancer and if they can't dump the waste in the river then a bunch of kids die. With environmentalism, there are definite values. "The environment" as it existed prior to humans is good. Changes that humans make to "the environment" are bad. These are not factual statements but value statements.

I could say the same for any number of "non-religious" worldviews. So again, what makes one a religion and one not?

Quote:

---

"It's bad to dump chemical waste in a river" is not a statement of fact. It's a statement of value.

---

Everything in politics is this way. Saying it's bad to raise taxes on the middle class or cut taxes on the rich are not statements of fact either. And while there is a great deal of people tying their religious identity into their political identity and similarities in behavior and conformation bias I do think they are distinct.

I think it a needless conflation to call all systems of value or all worldviews religions.

It seems religions almost all intrinsically deal with the existence of the supernatural and dealing with death and how to live life. Buddhism is your gray area case where its pretty subjective as to whether it's a religion or not. At the very base it's a set of agreed dogmatic beliefs and prescribed way of living with associated goals.

Philosophy is often thought of as being critical and analytical as opposed to religions dogmatic and ritualistic. The reality is people don't fit into such clean lines and you can have people adopt a philosophy in a dogmatic manner (see forum 16 or reddit) or approach a religion in a critical or analytical way (many liberal protestants fit cleanly here).

To me, ritual, dogma, worship, and the supernatural would be the hallmarks I'd look for to call something a religion. When you have two or three out of four it gets tricky.

Thanks for the reply. I can't find much to disagree with in your statement. I like your last paragraph as a litmus test for whether something is a religion or not, but I take slight issue with the inclusion of the supernatural. After all, Nature, the Proletariat, the Common Good, Freedom, etc are all metaphysical concepts. How do we tell the difference between the metaphysical and the supernatural?

Again just to use the example, environmentalism has rituals (recycling for instance or turning off lights in empty rooms), belief in the metaphysical, dogma about man's proper place and a value system based on such, and worship (sacrifice of valuables through donation, sacrifice of family by having less kids, sacrifice of comfort by using less energy). There might not be prayers, but sacrifice is the essence of worship.

You're making a straw man argument and conflating what some people think is the best approach to environmental degradation with what anyone who shares that concern thinks. You're trying too hard to associate any belief with religion. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. That's not a religious belief. It's an assumption based on empirical evidence. But it's also not 100% proven the sun will rise tomorrow. Human-influenced climate change is pretty conclusively established at this point. You can argue what can and should be done, but those arguments or beliefs aren't religious in-and-of themselves. Not every philosophical perspective is a religion.

That sounds like a bunch of opinion and belief that doesn't at all engage with my actual point. Also note, I haven't said anything about climate change. Environmentalism goes back to the conservationists at the turn if the 19 century with the likes of Teddy Roosevelt. I have no desire to engage the current politics on the subject. I can try a different example if your perspective on this one prevents discussion of my question

Is that your final judgement?

Could it be any belief system that addresses an individual's ultimate questions?

I don't have an answer. In the US legal system the difference is crucial. Religions are protected but can't be supported by the government. Worldviews are not protected but can be supported by the government. So it just made me try to think hard about the difference.

The Roman cult of the Emperor's religious clash with Christianity led to most of the early Church's persecution. But the cult of the Emperor wasn't supernatural at all. Yet it involved rituals and worship. To a modern person it would certainly appear religious, but it's more like an ancient analogue for fascism. I think that pretty much every ancient worldview brought forward would look religious to us. On the converse, I think the reverse is true. I think an ancient Roman looking a Communism would certainly see this as religious.

I think people get hung up on the prayers and gods, but Luck, Freedom, Equality and such are just as metaphysical. In many old religions these concepts just had names and personalities.

The traditional definition is that it has to include a God so Buddhism is a philosophy not a religion as Buddha is not god. One can however codify into law the traditions of paganism, which is worship of nature in most polytheistic creeds. Climate creeds are close to religion than Buddhism.

Quote:

---

the cult of the Emperor wasn't supernatural at all.

---

Not sure how you get there. The Romans worshipped the genius - or divine life force or nature - of the emperor (as opposed to his physical person). Pretty sure that qualifies as supernatural.

Quote:

---

pretty much every ancient worldview brought forward would look religious to us

---

The simplest answer here is the right one. They were religious, if only because the concept of a distinction between "secular" and "religion" wouldn't exist for centuries...

Quote:

---

In many old religions these concepts just had names and personalities.

---

I'm not sure how you write this and then say they weren't religious. They had names and personalities because they were gods (or demons, as you like). I don't think superstition or appreciating particular moral ideals qualifies, although you might say superstition is a quantitative difference rather than qualitative.

The general gist of the worship of the Greeks and Romans was to become more like what you worshipped. Sulla was "lucky" or Felix because he was the beloved of Aphrodite, which in Greek are one and the same concept. But he didn't just want a vague luck - he actually worshipped Venus, served her.

If the Romans were a bad example then how about Persian Emperor worship?

The secular/religious distinction is the thing I'm trying to clarify, because the line seems pretty blurry to me. You could find shrines to Lenin all over "secular" USSR. Environmentalists frequently personify "Mother Earth".

Claims of divinity seem like a pretty obvious differentiator

Right and I would say that you can't worship or serve nothing. The USSR collectively had a spirit they worshiped, one that animated their collective actions… their literal zeitgeist. Whether or not they called it a god doesn't change it much, in my opinion.

I mean, I'm with you. I think the only reason anyone is confused about it is because modern materialists want them to be different and declare it so. I don't think there's much of a case there. Worship is service at its heart. If you serve something, you're not far off.

“Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity” (Antonio Gramsci)

In order for Communism to succeed, it has to kill God.

Pix1: destruction of churches & struggle session of nuns during Mao’s Cultural Revolution

Pix2: destruction of churches in today’s… pic.twitter.com/CqdzTqaN39

— Xi Van Fleet (@XVanFleet) April 11, 2023

Political philosophy and policies are not religion. One could argue that some policies are driven by religion (or lack thereof), but still it's not religion.

As usual you are way off base, Larry. Morality, God, and the role of government/philosophy of the state use of force etc. in property confiscation, 'justice' (criminal and social etc) are all highly informed by one's religious beliefs, or lack thereof.

Values certainly drive policy. Let's take environmental policy and workers' rights as examples. If you are like me and accept the science of climate change, then you're going to support policies that cut back on fossil fuels and encourage renewable energy. Same thing with workers' rights. I support increasing the minimum wage, and laws providing for paid sick days and maternity leave. Those are things I value. They are not religion, though values can certainly be derived from religion.

Forcing my religion on others would be something like forcing schools to display the Ten Commandments in all classrooms and forbidding women in all 50 states from taking mifepristone because doing so conflicts with my religious beliefs. You know, like the Republican Party in Texas is trying to do right now.

There's a baker who had to go through a state-sanctioned re-education course in Colorado who might disagree.

Where do values come from?

they can come from religion, but that's certainly not the only source. they can also come from your life experiences.

what is the foundational claim underlying a value? how do you distinguish a religious value claim from a non-religious one?

If you're doing it because God says so, it's a religious claim.

Clearly. Are you suggesting that if you're doing it for any other reason it cannot be a religious claim?

schmendeler said:

---

Claims of divinity seem like a pretty obvious differentiator

---

So what is divinity? Clearly an appeal to God is religious. As noted above, basic Buddhism doesn't make appeal to God. Do appeals to Freedom, Prosperity, Equality or Diversity could as appeal to the divine? Those are abstract ideals with no more physical substance or direct intervention than any modern deity. Is the difference personification?

Roman emperors had claims of divinity. No one leading communist Russia did.

Zobel said:

---

Clearly. Are you suggesting that if you're doing it for any other reason it cannot be a religious claim?

---

I would think the foundational reason for any religious claim would be because God told you. Are there other foundational reasons for religious claims other than "commanded by god?"