Talk:Political religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Political religion article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

• July/August 2005 deletion debate. See also Talk:Civic religion/archive.

Contents 1 Statist religion 2 Wow 3 VfD Discussion 4 A term is a term 5 Accuracy?

[edit] Statist religion

I agreed with the previous suggestion to rename this article "Statist religion", so I implemented it. I also agreed that the article needed attention, so I gave it some.

I have adjusted the article to make it more "political" than "statist" in nature. A political religion need not have the power of the state on its side. It can also be extreme adherence to any political dogma or group.Dogface 14:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

While the text is probably reads more like an encyclopedia article should, and while I've added some facts, I think there are still some serious problems. First of all, I think the article has lost track of the distinction statist religion and totalitarianism in general. Religion or statist indoctrination are certainly a tool of totalitarianism, but I think a lot of other totalitarian-related things have gotten mixed in here. Or maybe they are not really separable. In short, I guess some or all of the material here should be merged with totalitarianism and/or authoritarianism.

I suspect that it will probably require a subject expert or a substantial literature search to have an entire article's worth of information on the religious/dogmatic aspects of totalitarianism.

I also feel that this article, including the text I've written, makes statist religion and totalitarianism sound like a bad thing. Which of course, I think it is - but if so this runs afoul of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. It may also be that I'm describing the subject relatively objectively, but it's just so nasty I can't help feeling the article shows it in a bad light.

Some input from people who have actually lived under one of the regimes named in the stubby case studies section would be incredibly helpful. -- Beland 05:20, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let's be careful in fixing links to the civic religion redirect page. Some of them should point at statist religion, some at civil religion, and perhaps some elsewhere. And maybe some should be replaced by two links, one to each article. Michael Hardy 22:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article needs a mountain of work - at least it's under the right name now. ("Statist religion" is a neologism, as the tiny number of Google hits shows.) Rd232 13:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

"Iraq (historical) [edit]

China [edit]

North Korea [edit]

Nazi Germany [edit]

Soviet Union (historical) [edit]

Japan (historical)"

Glad to know the only statist religions that ever existed were enemies of the glorious United States, whose current leader doesn't blend religion with his identity at all.

Genius, the leader of the glorious United States doesn't persecute people who disagree with him. And I'm not saying the U.S. doesn't promote an uber-patriotic culture, it's just not in the same way as say, oh, North Korea.--User:naryathegreat | (talk) 00:24, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Arguably, it is much worse. Are you aware of the USA PATRIOT Act, for instance? Surely you have heard of the Religious right as well. Also, see the article on Dispensationalism. Luis Dantas 03:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's an argument you can't win. We don't say the lotus blossoms bloomed better (oh but they do in North Korea) the year George Bush was elected in our country, and we don't force people to be Christian, or else we wouldn't even be hearing cases concerning the constitutionality of displaying the ten commandments. Honestly that's stupid. The Religious right is not some kind of uber-religious fascist organization. the Patriot Act is not quite the same as totalitarianism, I suppose the bill of rights is just something we make-believe with. You seem to be misunderstanding what goes on in North Korea, where you are FORCED to do these things. No one is forced to be part of the religious right or become a dispensationalist.-User:naryathegreat | (talk) 22:23, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD Discussion

This article was recently nominated for deletion but kept by default of no consensus being reached. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Political religion for the archived discussion -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A term is a term

A term is a term. The thing that the term refers to is not a term. A political religion is not a term. The term "political religion" is a term. Thus it makes no sense to begin by saying that a political religion is a term. Michael Hardy 00:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy?

"Quintessential examples are Marxism and Nazism, but totalitarianism is not a requirement"

Is this accurate? Marxism is not a totalitarian system by definition. 24.154.247.181 03:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Marxism could be validly considered an archetypal totalitarian system. All aspects of life are to be subjugated to "the revolution". All people are defined in terms of their relationship to "the proletariat" and "the revolution". All aspects of life in Marxist countries get re-organized according to "the revolution". If Marxism is not totalitarian, then Nazism is not totalitarian. Dogface 14:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Democracy could be validly considered an archetypal totalitarian system. All aspects of life are to be subjugated to "free elections". All people are defined in terms of their relationship to "representatives" and "accountability". All aspects of life in Democratic countries get re-organized according to "free elections". If Democracy is not totalitarian, then Nazism is not totalitarian. Lpetrazickis 15:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think my previous comment is a bit opaque and unconstructive. I don't think you'll get many arguments about Marxism-Leninism being a totalitarian system, but Marxism proper appeared in the early 19th century and wasn't tied to totalitarianism until ML came along. Totalitarianism relates to implementation, not philosophy -- Marxism may be unimplementable, but it doesn't call for secret police, camps for dissenters, and institutionalized fear.

It doesn't even call for a one-party state – the first thing Bolsheviks did after the October Revolution was hold an election. They lost with 28% of the final vote, so they disbanded the elected body. I don't think any of the original Russian revolutionaries initially intended to set up anything totalitarian. It just turned out that way. The rational thing would have been to abandon the impractical aspects of the philosophy, but they instead went for enforced ideological purity and called it Marxism-Leninism. That gets you totalitarianism.Lpetrazickis 15:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)