#ethics #politics, and #religion *cannot be separated.* Ideas (beliefs) always have consequences. Political and religious tribes provide tailor-made communities for the sorting and self-selection of people's different attitudes about right and wrong.
When you observe the collective actions of political parties and religions, you can form some basic rules about the behavior of members. The opposite is also true. If you observe someone's behavior, you can usually predict their affiliations. This isn't being judgmental or stereotyping, it's a heuristic that has a high likelihood of being true, with a margin of error.
Yet there seem to be endless attempts to sidestep acknowledging the influence of these powerful groups on individual behavior. People will claim to want to avoid "labels" or say just be a good *human,* just be *kind,* and stop being *divisive.*
Sometimes this even takes the form of claiming that identifying behaviors of religious or political adherents represents *bigotry.*
This is all conflict-aversion 101. And it's incredibly destructive. Because if we can't even clearly identify the specific groups that are causing moral harm, we'll never have a chance of correcting moral harm.
Let's take the example of the common meme that was circulating a few years back:
"A Muslim, a Christian, a Jew, a Pagan and an Atheist walk into a coffee shop...they talk, laugh, drink coffee and become good friends. It's not a joke, it's what happens when you're not an asshole!"
This isn't just false, it's barking-mad, batshit crazy!
Let's change one thing about this meme--from coffee shop to bar. Now it doesn't work, because Muslims can't drink alcohol.
Let's change another thing about this meme, replace Pagan with Mormon, and now it doesn't work with a coffee shop, either.
Religious and political systems are 100% about regulating human behavior. As such, they generate guaranteed frictions between belief systems, that cannot be papered over with pleasantries.
And there are severe moral differences between religions and especially between political parties.
Democrats are pro-social and anti-hierarchy, republicans are anti-social and pro-hierarchy. No matter how much pretzel logic you may use, you can't deny these basic differences.
Which means *even if you don't belong to a political party or religion, your moral compass aligns with one of them more than others.* Please read that again: *even if you don't belong to a political party or religion, your moral compass aligns with one of them more than others.*
So there's no such thing as staying apolitical.
Whether you know it or not, whether you are politically active or religiously observant or not, your inner self has already chosen its affiliations.
The best thing you can do is figure out how you identify, and take a moral inventory.
If you want to be kind, compassionate and pro-social, if you favor equality, that probably means you're some form of social democrat, and not that fond of organized religion. You put reducing human suffering at the top of your priority list first before status, wealth or creed. You believe in accountable leaders, and global democratic solutions to the world's problems.
If you believe in an afterlife, care more about tradition, scripture and hierarchy, support wealth inequality, believe in the concept of chosen people, and believe that suffering can't/shouldn't be prevented, you are probably some kind of conservative, religious republican. You're likely to support nationalism and strong, authoritarian leaders.
Obviously there are many nuances in the culture wars, which speak to moral subtleties within these positions, but in broad brushstrokes, there are two basic tribes.
It's time to stop deflecting and take a stand. You're on one side or the other. We can't solve our national or global problems without a showdown between these two basic camps.