#WalkAway: apostasy and shunning
I noticed this phenomenon a while ago—in fact, it’s was one of the things that first caused me to start blogging. But in general it is my perception that it’s gotten worse over the years in terms of its degree and the number of people it involves.
The woman in the following video describes the situation I’m talking about quite well. The whole thing is worth watching (it’s not long, either), but the part I’m referring to starts around 1:33:
The blog category label I gave to this post is “Leaving the circle: political apostasy.” The word “apostasy” was chosen deliberately many years ago, when I first set up the categories, although it may seem like it’s an inappropriate term for politics because it ordinarily refers to leaving a religion. But “apostasy” can certainly be used for politics, too, and especially for the “shunning” (another word often used in a religious context) of those who leave the fold of liberalism and/or leftism.
Here’s the definition of “shunning”:
Shunning can be the act of social rejection, or emotional distance. In a religious context, shunning is a formal decision by a denomination or a congregation to cease interaction with an individual or a group, and follows a particular set of rules. It differs from, but may be associated with, excommunication.
Social rejection occurs when a person or group deliberately avoids association with, and habitually keeps away from an individual or group. This can be a formal decision by a group, or a less formal group action which will spread to all members of the group as a form of solidarity. It is a sanction against association, often associated with religious groups and other tightly knit organizations and communities. Targets of shunning can include persons who have been labeled as apostates, whistleblowers, dissidents, strikebreakers, or anyone the group perceives as a threat or source of conflict.
It’s exceedingly painful, and it’s meant to be.
I think we have been here before. Deja vu all over again. It will not end well if the antifa left keeps pushing their violent agenda. They think they have the msm, hollywood, academia, dnc, soros on their six. Fools.
People shouting Racist at people the loudest are 99 out of 100 times the biggest racists in the room, that is like the most basic common sense a child should have learned by the age of 3. Being an antifa is the closest thing to having a cake and eat it too as you can get. You get to be a bully and harass people while getting praised in the f**k up media I would be liberal if I don’t have too much this useless thing called conscience and dignity and morality in my system. This calling a spade a axe game the media has been playing has driven many people insane. CNN divides the country, then call the people who try to unite the country dividers, even though I am atheist I wholeheartedly wish hell exist so people everyone in a evil organization like CNN will burn in hell for eternity, I am not kidding, I really wish that. Disclaimer: I absolutely condemn any form of violence against anyone, people like Don Lemon and Jake Tapper will get dealt with by the Lord, doing anything thing to them will only be used to condemn all innocent Patriots and help them win.
The video talked about a change in the US, from being able to freely express one’s opinion to where now one needs to be circumspect in expressing one’s opinion. As an example of this change, I refer to a letter to the editor in National Review that I read when I was in college. (While I was not a conservative at the time, I read National Review so I could be aware what the other side was thinking. )The letter was from a Columbia student, who wrote that while his conservative opinions were in the minority on campus, he was still treated with respect. I doubt that would occur today at Columbia.
The Columbia student happened to be the younger brother of a high school classmate of mine. He got his conservative political views from his parents. As his parents were Jewish refugees from Hitler’s Austria, that was an eye opener for me. Hitler was NOT conservative. He instituted a plethora of radical changes in a very short time. THINGS ARE GOING TO BE DIFFERENT- not exactly a conservative slogan. While conditions in early 20th century Germany and Austria were not perfect for those of the Jewish faith, most could live comfortable lives- until Hitler CHANGED a lot of things. Which is how Jewish refugees from Hitler can be conservative. One might also add that Hitler wasn’t exactly a small-government type.
Apostasy is the most correct word that can be used. It appears that politics and science have been elevated to religious status by those who likely profess that they are not religious and religion is false. In fact, they are the vehicles for dogmas to push agendas, that cannot tolerate inspection or review.
My only regret is that I cannot think of a secular word as or more appropriate. This is another example of how they are wresting our language.
The trend has always been that the incumbent president loses the congress during the midterm whenever he has both houses coming in. Even if the liberals do nothing history tells they most likely will win back at least the house. However, by being so over the top in their resistance against the President they might risk bucking the trend and loses the midterm and having Trump carrying the congress through his first term.
Whittaker Chambers said the only group the Communists hated more than Republicans were former Communists. The reason is simple: they were apostates. The mere existence of apostates is a threat to the religion because they cannot be dismissed as ignorant. They are a walking reminder to other members that it’s possible to leave. They know the specific hypocrisies that the members are guilty of, and know what they fear being revealed.
“I never learned from a man who agreed with me.” Robert A. Heinlein
Dave,
“even though I am atheist”
“people like Don Lemon and Jake Tapper will get dealt with by the Lord”
Perhaps an agnostic hat would fit better.
I’ve developed a recipe for meatballs over the years that is a family favorite. The main ingredient(s), i.e.; the meat, is a combination, in equal parts, of ground pork, lamb, and beef. One of my sisters, responding to party photos posted on FB that featured the meatballs and some commentary about them (all very positive) asked me for the recipe. A couple of months after I sent it to her I remembered doing so and asked if she had made them. Why, yes we did, she exclaimed! How did they turn out, I asked? Oh, they were fabulous, she said, but, of course, we had to make some minor modifications. Really, what did you change I asked? She said, well, we don’t eat red meat or pork products so we substituted chicken, turkey, and tofu for the meat, everything else was the same. I see, said I, that sounds lovely but you know that what you made isn’t my meatball recipe, it’s something else? What do you mean, she asked?
It’s the same with the Left’s current definition of freedom.
I’ve been self-censoring for a long time.
Steve Walsh, that is a perfect anecdote.
The word-change that I truly despise is “tolerance”. It has morphed into something more like agreeing or celebrating. Last year, I caught the tail end of a radio interview with a gender-nonconformist talking about how the LGBTQ+ Community would not tolerate religious people and it was clear that the speaker equated tolerance with embracing theological views.
In my neighborhood there are a lot of LIVs. Most don’t want to talk about politics – mostly because they don’t understand much about the issues. The only person in my neighborhood that will talk politics with me is a raging progressive. We argue a lot and agree to disagree. We have formed a bit of a bond because we are the only ones in the neighborhood who seem to grasp the issues. Of course we are both old codgers from a different era.
Back in the 60s, the campus radicals were out to stop any speech they didn’t agree with. They tried to drive my Navy recruiting team off the campus grounds at Berkeley, San Francisco State, and other California schools. We persisted. Eventually, they went too far and the general population turned against them. It took ten years or more, but most people are not radicals and don’t agree with progressive principles. They especially don’t like violence. The radicals are going too far again. More people will walk away. We win, they lose, IMO.
“t took ten years or more, but most people are not radicals and don’t agree with progressive principles. They especially don’t like violence. The radicals are going too far again. More people will walk away. We win, they lose, IMO.” – J.J.
This may be one of the tipping points – it’s up on lots of cites, so I will just link PowerLine’s post:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/08/from-philadelphia-the-latest-liberal-outrage.php
“This morning, Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens of Turning Point USA were eating breakfast in a restaurant in Philadelphia. They were spotted, apparently, by a liberal who ran to gather a mob. The mob of liberals besieged Kirk and Owens inside the restaurant, as you see here, and were waiting for them when they emerged.
…
Kirk and Owens were a heck of a lot more threatened than Jim Acosta was in Tampa a few evenings ago, but I haven’t seen any tears shed by liberal media.
There is a certain irony in a gang of white fascists chanting about “white supremacy” to an African-American like Candace Owens. But no one ever accused liberal activists of having brains.”
Time to reread Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible” and/or Ionesco’s “Rhinoceros”.
Keeping in mind that the “tables” have totally turned….
(“1984” is always useful, but it’s a bit longer.)
Very good article and comments. Neo’s use of the word “apostasy” is apt. The political views of the extremes in America have become religious in nature. They are things of faith, passion and emotion, not of reason, logic, and science.
The founders of America determined it wise to create a separation of church and state. The European continent in the couple of centuries prior had seen many bloody wars fought over religion. They were men of The Enlightenment. They thought that government should be based on reason and logic.
But, in America today, I see more emotion and passion in politics than I do reason and logic. It is these types of hot passions that lead populations to deliver up their countries to dictatorships.
As progressives have abandoned religion, they have replaced it with politics, and all the negative things they claim were caused by religion are being reenacted in the political realm. It’s not religion or politics that are to blame, but our own fallen natures – but learning lessons and humility are not Progressives strong suit.
Like the new blog, continuity and freshness combined.
Roy:
How did it work out for those who worshiped the Goddess of Reason, in France? Not so good for most. Funny how their system of government, divorced from religious restrain, turned into the Reign of Terror.
I first experienced leftists shunning and reviling apostates on the Web back in the early 2000s when simply questioning leftist articles of faith or citing facts inconvenient to their beliefs would prompt hateful, bigoted attacks. Nowadays it seems they are brazen enough to do it in person — at least as long as they outnumber the victims of their bullying and feel certain they won’t be prosecuted for assault.
I posted my own #walkaway story to Facebook a few days ago, chronicling my growing disenchantment with Democrats from the late ‘80s until their support for Bill Clinton’s criminality in the ‘90s caused me to abandon the party as a lost cause. The welcoming responses were gratifying and heart-warming, and their number suggests that this is a large and rapidly expanding movement — especially among young people whose unthinking acceptance of leftist orthodoxy has been challenged by the flagrant hatred and hypocrisy of the leftist media post-Trump.
In reference to OM’s comment:
Is excessive religiosity among neocons a feature or just a bug? This is a serious question.
Om and others … It’s been my observation, over many years, that “Science” has become a lefty religion. The irony and hypocrisy is enormous, and it’s pretty much impossible to get a lefty to see it for what it is. It would appear to come down to a lefty foundational idea that religion (bad) is synonymous with christianity, and only christianity. Since they don’t believe in the x-tian sky fairy (and take pains to say so, frequently), they are obviously not religious and get huffy and shut down if you try to point out the truth – which is that religion is not allegiance to a particular religious faith; it is allegiance to any belief with religious features such as unquestioning faith in a set of ideas presented as truth but without proof and assignation of “evil” (vs. merely wrong) to people who question or actively believe otherwise.
Regulars here will recall that I am not a christian. (I am a true apostate … someone with knowledge of the faith who has chosen to turn and walk away.) Very few lefties know anything about christianity or traditional religious faith in general. This is surely why they don’t understand that everything about their embrace of “science” is religious. They believe in science as a revealed faith. It is assumed that all there is to know is known, and that it can’t be questioned; further, that the mere act of harboring doubt or questioning the faith is not just wrong, but evil. Therefore, anyone who questions the tenets of their faith is evil, as is anyone who actively disagrees with them about it.
Obviously, this is exactly the opposite of science; this is a revealed religion, believed with all the fervor and passion of any fundamentalist believer. It’s creepy. When I was of college age, pursuing a degree in a hard science, I was excited by the idea that we know so little, that we are one landmark discovery away from finding out that everything we think we know about (x) is wrong. There is a universe waiting to be discovered, both out there and in the world we already live in. I can’t even grasp the desire to board up windows and nail doors shut to make sure new ideas can’t get in. But that’s basically what treating religion as a science is.
That a vast mass of young people have emerged from K-12 and college with such a bizarrely inverted understanding tells me how lacking education in the hard sciences is today … and also how little they understand what religion is.
“Excessive religiosity” what is that supposed to mean? An implication of zealotry on the part of those who don’t show fealty to “reason” which has been divorced from faith in God? Or just a shallow understanding of faith (not KendyllG)?
Well, I am an atheist, living in a world in which over 90% of the population professes to some sort of religion. So, obviously, I am in the minority in this.
Nevertheless, I coexist just fine with the majority. Most people feel free to accept the teachings of their religion that they find useful or relevant to their lives and ignore the rest. They don’t insist on theological consistancy. Where I do conflict with the religious is when they state or imply that I cannot be a moral person without religion. I draw the line there and will fight over it.
From a libertarian leaning perspective, shunning is not a moral problem; any more than would be my ignoring some Antifa entity in order to allow it to drown in six inches of dirty ditch water if after having failed to drive me off the road, it wound up there itself.
What is a problem, is personal harassment and assault.
Although those who were harassed – and I would argue assaulted under traditional common law standards – as they exited the restaurant, took the attacks with a sense of humor, they would have been morally justified in straight-arming that whistle or bull horn which was being blasted into their ears from inches away, right back into the mouth of the menacing lunatic that was doing it.
Perhaps a couple of steps of retreat just before acting, would be wise from a legal standpoint.
But, it is curious that we have come to a point where fairly noticeable numbers of emotionally excitable people who obviously despise interpersonal boundaries and limits, are so intent on getting right in your face, that they are apparently willing, or even eager, to die, in order to “normalize” (in the sense of make normative) that kind of intrusion.
This behavior is eventually going to get one of these useless things killed. And perhaps, in the final analysis that is what they are finally hoping for. To, after never having been good for anything in life, finally become useful as a symbol of some sort, in death.
Oops. Just glanced back and realized that I said the opposite of what I meant in my post, which I obviously didn’t read as closely as I should have. Of course I meant, “But that’s basically what treating science as a religion is.”
And Roy, I agree with you that it’s irksome to be told that without a god, it’s impossible to have a real moral compass. I have made the argument before that for most average, everyday religious people, morality exists at the level you’d expect of a dog, or a small child: expectation of reward, or fear of punishment, propelling one to do what you’re told is “good” and avoid what you’re told is “bad.” It’s a very shallow morality.
Folks are on shaky ground when they claim to know what most people have as a moral compass or what is in another persons soul. Sort of arrogant. Others have pointed out that an atheist can indeed live a moral life, but that such a person has to figure it all out for him or her self, and that reason alone has proven to be notorious for immoral outcomes.
OM,
And from my perspective, a person who needs a religion to provide them with moral guidance is inherently untrustworthy.
A person’s morality is based on his/her human sense of empathy, instilled and nurtured by parents, and reinforced by the peer pressure from the social matrix.
KyndallG,
It’s more than just “irksome”. It is dangerous. There are places in the U.S. that have tried to make it illegal for an atheist to hold public office. From there, it is a short step to disenfranchisment and pariah status. And it all stems from the premise that an atheist cannot be moral or should be assumed to be immoral until proven otherwise, as OM suggested.
I said I would fight over that point and I meant it. It is a line that must be held.
Roy
Glad to know you had such fine parents and that you surround yourself with so noble, just, and moral peers that keep you on the straight and narrow. Or at least as you see and reason it. Help Roy he is being oppressed by God./s
OM,
Sarcasm duly noted.
Let us all hope that your God/s are sufficiently vengeful to keep you in line.
Don’t judge me, bro! 🙂
Nothing like an atheist to preach his non belief.
Om’s god is closer to Lucifer’s ideal. The whole peace and charity thing doesn’t work for people on a jihad against Trum voters in 2015.
State religion and state politics have one thing in common: I avoid jumping on either band wagon to kiss the ring of power. Some people don’t like that. They want me as either a Trum supporter or enemy of Trum. So they interpret comments to be insulting when they are not, because they need to classify and label human targets as Allies or Enemies. Neutral people throws them off. Neutrality itself pisses off people in a war for various reasons.
Here is a taste of what Chalcedonian christianity produced, which includes the Catholic and Protestant heresies.
I do further declare that the doctrine of the churches of England and Scotland, of the Calvinists, Huguenots and others of the name Protestants or Liberals to be damnable and they themselves damned who will not forsake the same.
I do further declare, that I will help, assist, and advise all or any of his Holiness’ agents in any place wherever I shall be, in Switzerland, Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, England, Ireland or America, or in any other Kingdom or territory I shall come to, and do my uttermost to extirpate the heretical Protestants or Liberals’ doctrines and to destroy all their pretended powers, regal or otherwise.
I do further promise and declare, that notwithstanding I am dispensed with, to assume my religion heretical, for the propaganda of the Mother Church’s interest, to keep secret and private all her agents’ counsels from time to time, as they may entrust me and not to divulge, directly or indirectly, by word, writing or circumstance whatever; but to execute all that shall be proposed, given in charge or discovered unto me, by you, my ghostly father, or any of this sacred covenant.
I do further promise and declare, that I will have no opinion or will of my own, or any mental reservation whatever, even as a corpse or cadaver (perinde ac cadaver), but will unhesitatingly obey each and every command that I may receive from my superiors in the Militia of the Pope and of Jesus Christ.
That I may go to any part of the world withersoever I may be sent, to the frozen regions of the North, the burning sands of the desert of Africa, or the jungles of India, to the centers of civilization of Europe, or to the wild haunts of the barbarous savages of America, without murmuring or repining, and will be submissive in all things whatsoever communicated to me.
I furthermore promise and declare that I will, when opportunity present, make and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Liberals, as I am directed to do, to extirpate and exterminate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex or condition; and that I will hang, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive these infamous heretics, rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women and crush their infants’ heads against the walls, in order to annihilate forever their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use the poisoned cup, the strangulating cord, the steel of the poniard or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honor, rank, dignity, or authority of the person or persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agent of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Faith, of the Society of Jesus.-Oath
Humans tend to get stupid when they become fanatical or perhaps it was vice a versa.
Fanatics love you by beating you to death, as they helped do to Jean De Arc. The State is not holy but it is powerful.
Ymarskar shows up late to the party in a discussion, on the periphery, regarding atheism and morality and illustrates Roy point about religious people that are out on the fringe, and my point regarding those who claim to know what is in another persons soul. It would be self parody on Ymarskar point but he isn’t that self aware. That may be a problem if you have a brain the size of a planet.
Ymarskar:
You are a funny guy/gal to speak of peace and charity considering how often you write about killing people. Cognitive dissonance? “Lucy you got some ‘splainin to do!”
I won’t be holding my breath.
Roy:
Here is a good reference for Christian belief in America:
https://babylonbee.com/news/how-to-be-a-perfect-christian-is-out-now-and-it-will-literally-change-your-life/
Well it really isn’t but it may lessen your fear that Christians have no sense of humor.
“I have made the argument before that for most average, everyday religious people, morality exists at the level you’d expect of a dog, or a small child: expectation of reward, or fear of punishment, propelling one to do what you’re told is “good” and avoid what you’re told is “bad.” It’s a very shallow morality.”- KyndallG
Dennis Prager has posed the question, “Would you rather live in a society where a person is afraid of being caught by the police, or caught by God?” Shallow morality indeed. I know what society I would prefer. And what of the fact that our government was founded upon the principle that our inalienable rights are God given–not government derived?
SharonW,
Thomas Jefferson got that wrong. Rights do not exist in nature. They are a purely human construct. Furthermore, the concept of rights is under continuous development.
What a shallow concept of morality you have to think that you avoid doing bad only for fear of punishment. The truly moral person does the “right thing” because their own self-respect demands it.
Roy-“only for fear of punishment”. This is shallow thinking that it is either/or. If that is the only motivating factor-the result is still positive. But for a religious person such as myself, choosing to do the good/right is predicated on wanting to honor God and his commandments. As a child, fear of punishment is usually the motivation, exercising the choice to subjugate the will to the demands of another authority-usually the parent. This is training. Obviously we disagree about Jefferson (and the others), but my rights do not exist because you or a plurality say they do. The protection of these God-given rights depends on adherence to the founding documents of our Republic.
Roy is the measure of all morality. Now that we have that straightened out we can move on to all those other things Jefferson wrote about way back in 1776. Let us worship only the Goddess of Reason and see how it works out (again and again).
Ask yourself this: do you have a right to breathe without my interference? If so, what kind of right is it? On what basis is it formulated? Your social utility? How rooted? In a more foundational right to life? Or, the mere fact that you happen by chance to fall under some (ultimately) arbitrary, merely convention based, category outlined on paper?
There are of course political rights, and civil rights, and contractual rights, and Constitutional rights, and common law rights and … even natural rights. And they are obviously not all the same thing.
However, although in granting the obvious that “rights” in general may be a human conception (as they obviously refer to and are formulated in terms of human law and ethics), they are in some cases inferences claimed to be drawn from nature: and thus form statements with a basis in man’s nature, thus: “natural” laws or statements. Now, this is not “Nature” as in the great outdoors, or the latest Discovery Channel special on the Wonderful World of Insects, but rather Man’s nature, that is to say his organic telos. And this is not law as in observed regularity in a stochastic context, but prescriptive in relation to that natural end.
So, if rights are imagined to be anything more than ultimately arbitrary – if proximately instrumental – stated permissions, granted by a few strong, or the many weak, to whomever is the subject, then, they must be rooted in some phenomenon that exists outside a “creative impulse” which is itself no more than a meaningless chance occurrence that this or that subset of conscious beings finds pleasing; because reality has by chance decreed that they individually come out that way.
Now there are some people who are intent on denying that man has a pattern of development from which any normative inferences may be drawn. Some also hold as an article of faith that no prescriptive conclusions may be inferred from a descriptive statement and believe that this rules out ethical statements as being in any sense real inferences from simple subject predicate statements. And apart from certain immediate forms of inference that is more or less the case:
But that misses the point; since in general no inference of any kind apart from obversion or contraposition type moves, can be drawn from just one narrow and non-contextual proposition: be it an ethical conclusion (an imperative in our case) or otherwise.
Even a legal positivist like Herbert Hart admitted that no sense can be made of the purpose of the law, unless it is granted that law is rooted in man’s natural purposes. What sense does it make to dignify an arbitrary command on a piece of paper that all 5 year old children shall jump six feet high to do a back-flip every half hour, as a law; when they not only lack the natural capacity to do so, but there is no human point in requiring it? Yet it makes perfect sense to say that these same children have a natural right not to be subject to such arbitrary and harmful commands.
Of course there are those who wish to deny 1, that natural ends are real, 2, that man actually has even psychological intentions that are not an illusory, and 3, that healthy human beings do have a natural telos in common.
But then, you have thrown out the denotative universal “man”, along with the connotative bathwater. You have even tossed out the notion of health, really.
At that point it ceases to make sense to talk of “man” as if it were one species with shared traits and rights derived from a common nature – which you have per hypothesis just tossed away.
There is no more man, and we do not share a species category in any morally meaningful sense.
In that case it is not surprising that, as there is nothing left to rely upon other than taste or force, some will resort to a joke like “empathy” as if it provides guidance to some logical conundrum. But it cannot in itself, ex hypothesi, carry any moral freight or be considered a moral attribute. It’s per definition just a happenstance trait that may have some utility for some in some circumstances and work to disadvantage in others. And if one chooses to empathize with hearty and mentally sharp types, and roll over the un-valued and the slow, who’s to say any wrong has objectively been done?
I would like to add to DNW’s excellent comment.
Let’s say A is accused of assaulting B. Without rights (here natural rights) what is B’s offense? What crime has B committed? Against whom?
Without rights, B can only be prosecuted for a crime against some third party or entity. Back in the day, it was the King’s peace, or the Law of the God(s). Today, notoriously, it is the all-powerful State.
Today, Prof. Bike Lock, having assaulted SEVEN people with a solid chunk of steel, received a misdemeanor:
http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=376490
Unconfirmed rumors are circulating that Clanton flipped on other Antifa suspects. But maybe it’s time we learn to prosecute our own cases.
Roy said, “And from my perspective, a person who needs a religion to provide them with moral guidance is inherently untrustworthy.”
Sorry, but the logic doesn’t work, ironically. By your reasoning you can’t trust atheists or the non-religious who turn to religion for guidance … Well then, if you live in the States you’ll find yourself in short supply of people to trust, that is unless you live in a region like the NE or any urban area were secularism resides comfortably.