The Atlantic Daily: QAnon Is a New American Religion
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
I mean come on, you can't be sillier that Qanon when trying to do discredit them. I hate partisan propaganda so much,it thrives on intellectual dishonesty.
Qanon is a social movement,ideology,cultural phenomna and other things. Much like the teaparty movement a few years ago (one can say it evolved from it).
Of course I personally think it is something people who hated Obama rallied around. A social movement to promote modern xenophobia and racism and implement fascist rule in america and the west. Perhaps a Russian thing. (Reminds od this bad guy speech from "The sum of all fears" : https://youtube.com/watch?v=Wzp2rpe06j8)
Also quotes from adherents such as "I feel God led me to Q. I really feel like God pushed me in this direction." or "My dreams have suggested that God wants me to keep my attention focused on politics and current events".
New religions don't emerge fully-formed, they splinter from existing religions. QAnon appears to have a Christian basis.
You can argue whether or not that's overstating the religious connotations of QAnon, but IMO the article makes a pretty compelling case and certainly isn't drivel that shouldn't have made it past the Atlantics editors.
This is the sort of silliness I meant,not just the title but the whole content. According to the author religion is anything that rejects "enlightenment values". Every conspiracy theory,flat earthers, anti-vaxxers are all in the same boat as 90%+ of the planet (or at least a majority depending on how you mea,sure regular participation in religious services) that subscribe to organized systems of belief that describe origins of the world and how to live life correctly.
To me (and I am biased), this sounds like a propaganda piece meant to spread hate against anyone that disagrees with the author about "enlightenment ideals". Qanon is as much a religion as fascism and communism were at their very early stages. It's a social (dis)order , it has nothing to do with religion.
It is religious if that’s your social baseline. I’ll predict that Qanoners lean evangelical.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion #4
> a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
That definition certainly applies to QAnon, no?
First, you very well know that is not the definition any english speaker identifies as religion.
Second, you may think it's by faith but to them it's facts, so even by that definition it's wrong.
Is anti-vaxxing a religion? Is flat-earth conspiracy a religion? This is the sort of dishonesty disguised with well wordes intellectual phrasing I despise. No reasonable adult believes any of these things are a religion.
I have a fun one, is FOSS a religion if I have faith that it will lead to the best outcome for society and I hold that belief with ardor?
It's certainly not the first one people may go to but it is by no means the only understanding English speakers have of religion. I'm a native English speaker and I will attest that I perfectly well understand that usage.
> Second, you may think it's by faith but to them it's facts
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
"something that is believed especially with strong conviction" - kinda duplicating the "ardor" but absolutely nothing to do with whether things are facts or otherwise.
> is FOSS a religion if I have faith that it will lead to the best outcome for society and I hold that belief with ardor?
By MW's definition? Yes, it can be.
Can you concede that is not the definition the article is using? If you read the article, they portray Qanon as an organized religion,not as an ardent belief someone holds. The meaning portrayed by the author is blatantly dishonest and incorrect.
> something that is believed especially with strong conviction" - kinda duplicating the "ardor" but absolutely nothing to do with whether things are facts or otherwise.
No, the "ardor and faith" is the definition, since we are hairsplitting and ignoring the obvious meaning the author is using. Qanon people don't consider their belief a matter of passionate ardent faith. Just like flat earthers. Can you read their minds that you disagree with them about the nature of their own beliefs?
> By MW's definition? Yes, it can be.
Unfortunately, unless that definition is specified we must infer the definitioneant by the author from the context of the article. MW's definition you picked out is irrelevant unless you can show the context is using that definiton.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/06/qanon-n...
The comparison to religion is better explained in sections VI and VII.
More interestingly, it seems as if it is actually follows the plot of a novel, called “Q” written in 1999 by an Italian surrealist collecting under the pseudonym “Luther Bisset”.