Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Here Come The Christians!

Rate this topic


MisterSwig

Recommended Posts

FoxNews.com is reporting that a group of "mainstream evangelical Christians" called Christian Exodus has a plan to turn South Carolina into a Christian paradise, where the Constitution includes the Ten Commandments, all abortions are banned, prayers are conducted in schools, and sodomites are not allowed.

Christian Exodus hopes to break down the wall between Church and State by 2016, otherwise they will seek secession from the Union.

How about that for some scary Christian Democracy/Theocracy chit-chat?

Who thinks they have a chance of succeeding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 173
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In the First Century, pagan Romans tried to ignore Christians. Then they resorted to ridiculing Christians. Next the pagan Romans killed thousands, tortured thousands more, burned their books, and destroyed their "secret societies."

Then the minority Christians -- who did as much praying as the Romans did -- took over the Empire, from the top down. The Christians filled a pagan intellectual vacuum. Ominous parallels?

Nearly two millennia later, Christians -- leftist or conservative -- still are in control, in one form or another, to one degree or another.

I live in Oregon, USA, a state whose voters have twice approved physician-assisted suicide. George Bush's attorney general, John Ashcroft, has repeatedly tried to stop physician-assisted suicide by threatening to revoke the licenses of or even jail doctors who prescribe drugs which patients might use to end their own lives painlessly and peacefully. George Bush and John Ashcroft are Christian thugs who use the power of the U. S. government to advance "God's agenda" (as I have heard some conservatives call it).

Dare we dismiss any of them as insignificant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who thinks they have a chance of succeeding?

I think they do, provided that all of the people who like this kind of thing congregate in South Carolina. Which would be a good thing, for two reasons:

1) The rest of the U.S. would be rid of them;

2) Their theocracy would fail very badly and serve as a cautionary tale for Christians elsewhere.

One of the most effective ways to fight an irrational idea is to let its proponents take it to its logical conclusion. If the statists want to secede from the U.S., then by all means, let them ! I'd much rather have an America that consists of one state inhabited exclusively by capitalists than an America made up of 50 states with mixed economies and mixed ethics. The single capitalist state will be more powerful than the rest of the world put together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christian Exodus hopes to break down the wall between Church and State by 2016, otherwise they will seek secession from the Union.

To quote George Templeton Strong, a New York lawyer, at the beginning of the Civil War: "We may take consolation in as much as the self-amputated members were diseased beyond the hope of immediate cure."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FoxNews.com is reporting that a group of "mainstream evangelical Christians" called Christian Exodus has a plan to turn South Carolina into a Christian paradise, where the Constitution includes the Ten Commandments, all abortions are banned, prayers are conducted in schools, and sodomites are not allowed.

Christian Exodus hopes to break down the wall between Church and State by 2016, otherwise they will seek secession from the Union.

How about that for some scary Christian Democracy/Theocracy chit-chat?

Who thinks they have a chance of succeeding?

George W. Bush. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George W. Bush. ;)

Riiiiiight. This is the same Bush that is going to get Roe v Wade repealed, force Bible education in schools, end all cellular medical research, drastically limit the advance of technology from auto to air travel, harrass homosexuals, and allow Bible thumpers to hold open classes in elementary schools? I don't think it is possible because that George W. Bush is pure fiction.

As someone pointed out on another thread: The big reason why many Americans are religious is the failure of public schools. Liberals are the big pushers of public education, and so are more of a threat.

Americans are still good people that want good things and will support them within the limits of their understanding. They support Bush on the War on Terror, and Bush has delivered.

As far as the bible thumpers who want to suceed from the Union, why is that news? People have been threatening to suceed for years for all sorts of silly reasons.

Do you want to hear some actual scary things? Many of the liberals in government that are muted by Bush are eagerly anticipating his removal so they can enact some really bad policies. How about Kerry sending our troops returning from Europe and Asia to places like Sudan, Liberia, and Kenya ? How about a member of the president's cabinet that thinks we can help the economy by printing millions of little shirt buttons and stickers that say 'Whip Inflation Now' ?

How about a Microsoft breakup? How about a big increase in the power and funding of the Dept of Education? (lets see Objectivism try to reach young minds then).

The above things have all happened (except a Microsoft breakup) under Democratic presidents in the past.

Liberals are truly the irrational ones. Find a liberal government employee in one of the more questionable fields and spend some time with them. Then you will come to know the true meaning of fear. Notice also how all the worst people are on the side of John Kerry.

I have met quite a few people raised Jewish and Mormon who discovered Objectivism. There are organizations founded by former christians devoted to keeping America secular. We have Pro-choice Republicans, The Goldwater Institute (run by a Mormon), FreeRepublic, etc. There are religious people that administrate and teach at top universities, and a whole movement of conservative Republican thinkers.

Perhaps you have not spent much time around real Republicans lately? Read the biography of Donald Rumsfeld. They are a lot more like Rush Limbaugh than those fools in S. Carolina. Get your focus on reality, and be careful about how the news media will slant things.

Also see this post: A More Optimistic View

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you have not spent much time around real Republicans lately?

When I say "Republican" (as opposed to "republican"), I mean someone who is a registered Republican Party voter who uniformly supports his party's candidates at all levels of government. The genus is party-affiliated voter (as opposed to independent), and the differentia is the party to which he is affliated, the Republican Party.

What do you mean by "real Republicans"? Please define by genus and differentia, that is, by essentials, if possible. What makes one voter, who registers as a Republican Party member, "real" and another not real?

This idea seems to be near the core of the dispute. Your answer might clarify the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FoxNews.com is reporting that a group of "mainstream evangelical Christians" called Christian Exodus has a plan to turn South Carolina into a Christian paradise, where the Constitution includes the Ten Commandments, all abortions are banned, prayers are conducted in schools, and sodomites are not allowed.

Christian Exodus hopes to break down the wall between Church and State by 2016, otherwise they will seek secession from the Union.

That sounds pretty nutty.

What about the kooks who are trying to form an "objectivist/libertarian" Utopia by taking over the state of New Hampshire http://www.freestateproject.org/?

Monart Pon and his "objectivist" colony in outer space?

The proposed "Galt's Gulches" on a South Seas island or the jungles of Costa Rica?

Nuts can be found anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They [real Republicans]are a lot more like Rush Limbaugh than those fools in S. Carolina.  Get your focus on reality, and be careful about how the news media will slant things.

Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly spend most of their days publicly denouncing the "liberals" and, more recently, the "secularists." It won't be long before they, like the Islamists, have a much bigger problem with the "nonbelievers."

If you think that these people are your friends, you are mistaken. They are on a mission to destroy the arguments of liberals and secularists, so that religious conservatives like George W. Bush will look better to the electorate. They would gladly sacrifice freedoms to see more religion in the culture.

Below is a link to one of Rush's latest tirades against liberals. If you read carefully, you will notice that he accepts the Adam Smith view of capitalism, that the moral goal is to benefit others, and by being greedy oil-eating capitalists, that is exactly how we are doing our duty to spread freedom around the world.

Rush Against the Liberals

Rush Limbaugh, though typically less religious on-air than O'Reilly, affirms his belief in God at the beginning of every radio show, saying that he has "talent on loan from God." He is anti-abortion. He is against assisted suicide. He is pro-prayer in schools. He periodically drools all over arch-religionist William F. Buckley, Jr.

Rush's Interview with Buckley

And he has stood up for the views of radical Christian Pat Buchanan.

Rush on Buchanan

The assistance we give to the Christians in attacking liberals will come back to haunt us. While we are helping them stamp out liberalism, the Christians are growing stronger and redirecting some of their rage against nonbelievers. As they re-radicalize, they will reject more and more reason and embrace more and more faith. That is the nature of religion.

Limbaugh is good at his job--destroying the intellectual enemy. And we, as secularists, are his enemy, too. If he is able to finish off the liberals, you can bet he'll start on us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I say "Republican" (as opposed to "republican"), I mean someone who is a registered Republican Party voter who uniformly supports his party's candidates at all levels of government. The genus is party-affiliated voter (as opposed to independent), and the differentia is the party to which he is affliated, the Republican Party.

What do you mean by "real Republicans"? Please define by genus and differentia, that is, by essentials, if possible. What makes one voter, who registers as a Republican Party member, "real" and another not real?

This idea seems to be near the core of the dispute. Your answer might clarify the issue.

By "real Republican" I meant actual people that have influence in the Republican party, as opposed to their depiction in the news media. I've met a good amount of rank-and-file Republicans, and a few in leadership positions here in Arizona. Many are Objectivist sympathizers. From my activist days I also know of organizations such as: Republicans For Choice, The Goldwater Institute, etc.

I am concerned that people are getting skewed ideas about how religious Republicans actually think. Very few of them are concerned about abortion or gay marriage as a major issue. Most of them are just people with good values who happen to have a very undeveloped sense of philosophy. When presented with important choices, however, they do know how to make decisions. That decision making process does not usually involve religious authority.

I've had some interesting experiences with Mormons and their respect for reason/education. Mormons are very politically astute, but the Mormon church will never come out and publicly endorse a candidate. I had a Mormon friend once tell me that a lot of Mormon church leaders were "privately" pushing for Dick Cheney early in the 1996 presidential race. That surprised me since Cheney was not religious and was up against candidates like Bill Bennett and Pat Buchanan. Also the head of the Goldwater Institute is a BYU educated Mormon, and that has not affected his political career in the least.

(I've also heard that Mormons have a great deal of respect for the Jewish faith and view themselves as a variant of that faith. I'd be curious to hear from former Mormons on this board, if their experiences support that.)

America does have a religious influence. We are not Canada. We do have the quirk of religion taking the place of philosophy among the poorly-educated Dewey graduates. I liken religion to the slavery movement in early America. It is a passing anomoly that will be gone in 150 years, when Objectivism will finally reign. Children will say "Were there really that many religious people in America?" Until then, we have the in-between stage where religion is a reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By "real Republican" I meant actual people that have influence in the Republican party, as opposed to their depiction in the news media.  I've met a good amount of rank-and-file Republicans, and a few in leadership positions here in Arizona. Many are Objectivist sympathizers.  ...

I am concerned that people are getting skewed ideas about how religious Republicans actually think.  Very few of them are concerned about abortion or gay marriage as a major issue.  Most of them are just people with good values who happen to have a very undeveloped sense of philosophy.  When presented with important choices, however, they do know how to make decisions. That decision making process does not usually involve religious authority.

Thank you for answering fully and clearly. I now have an answer to a recent puzzle: How can individuals who purportedly share the same philosophy, Objectivism, reach such different conclusions about events in their world?

Such differences come, I think, from either having different experiences as starting points, or different methods of analysis, or both. You and I have different starting points because our experiences have been radically different.

I am 60 years old. The vast majority of Republicans I have met are conservatives -- which means, by definition from essentials, that they are guided by belief in God, acceptance of revelation as a source of ethics, respect for tradition as a transmitter of revelations, and obedience to authority as a guide to which tradition ("church") to accept as valid. Conservatives differ widely about nonessentials such as which revelations, traditions, and authorities to accept, but they all accept some form.

(Of course, most leftists are religionists too, but, in my experience, their actual source of supposed revelation in ethics is contemporary -- "the people" (as in democracy) or "inner conscience" -- rather than traditionally transmitted.)

I have lived in Texas, Louisiana, California, and Oregon. Unlike you, I have not met leaders in the Republican Party. I have met many "rank and file" Republicans. I can agree with them on a few issues such as abolishing government-mandated affirmative action -- but only if I don't push the discussion down to their premises.

I live in a state where voters have twice approved physician-assisted suicide. The Bush administration -- through its Attorney General, John Ashcroft -- has repeatedly attacked that ballot measure. He -- acting as a legalized thug -- has even threatened to take away the licenses of physicians who do prescribe life-ending substances. Worse, he has further threatened to jail the physicians! Conservative Republicans -- who are the vast majority of Republicans here -- routinely support these attacks on my rights. Their justification for their aggression is invariably religious -- when pushed by a persistent questioner.

Of course, any supposed Objectivist can "get along" with conservatives by agreeing with some of their conclusions and never challenging their premises. That policy is extremely dangerous. It is akin to allowing someone to board a plane -- simply on his say-so -- without an x-ray of his person and carry-on baggage. Thanks, but no-thanks.

Unlike you, I have never met a conservative Republican who is an "Objectivist sympathizer," that is, one who agrees with the ontology (one world), epistemology (reason exclusively), ethics (egoism), and politics (laissez-faire capitalism) of Objectivism. That would be a contradiction.

Here is an experience that epitomizes my view of conservatives. For several months I participated in the online conservative forum (which is very well run and fascinating as a way of taking the pulse of conservatism) FreeRepublic. I uniformly met hostility whenever I mentioned specific capitalist positions such as abolishing anti-trust laws. (I was called "insane" for proposing the latter.) Conservatives do not support capitalism. Conservatives hate capitalism. And that says nothing about other issues such as abortion rights, abolition of adult drug laws, and abolition of state-sanctioned marriage.

Again, thank you for your views. I believe we are making progress in understanding each other's argument, even if we never change our positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an experience that epitomizes my view of conservatives. For several months I participated in the online conservative forum (which is very well run and fascinating as a way of taking the pulse of conservatism) FreeRepublic. I uniformly met hostility whenever I mentioned specific capitalist positions such as abolishing anti-trust laws. (I was called "insane" for proposing the latter.) Conservatives do not support capitalism. Conservatives hate capitalism. And that says nothing about other issues such as abortion rights, abolition of adult drug laws, and abolition of state-sanctioned marriage.

Mr. Laughlin,

Thank you very much for your posts here and for your articles on EGO. I have bought your book and intend to read it at the earliest time.

I just wanted to ask you a question about your opposition to "state-sanctioned marriage."

It has been my understanding that marriage is a long-term contract between two parties in which property is almost certainly shared and the creation of new life a high possibility. And that, as such, the terms of the contract must be ratified by the state.

Bearing all this in mind, could you please expand on your position? I am very curious.

Thank you again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For several months I participated in the online conservative forum (which is very well run and fascinating as a way of taking the pulse of conservatism) FreeRepublic. I uniformly met hostility whenever I mentioned specific capitalist positions such as abolishing anti-trust laws. (I was called "insane" for proposing the latter.)

There was a time when I used to "like" anti-trust laws myself, although I have always been passionately pro-capitalism. The books on economics said they were necessary and I didn't understand things well enough to recognize this as a fallacy. It takes time for an individual to develop an integrated view of things, especially if it involves questioning some widely printed "conventional wisdom." As a matter of fact, it was only two years ago that I began being opposed to anti-trust laws, as a direct result of reading--brace yourself--FreeRepublic!

(And, while I'm at it, I'll also note that I became interested in Objectivism when I followed a link to the Ayn Rand Institute--also from FreeRepublic.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had some interesting experiences with Mormons and their respect for reason/education.  Mormons are very politically astute, but the Mormon church will never come out and publicly endorse a candidate.

I think that the major issue here is that they are politically astute and think for themselves until they are asked to put their mind to the side and take something on faith. What are the chances that the prophet will come out and ask the followers to vote a certain way? Very small. However, it is a possibility - and if they were asked most Mormons would vote that way regardless of what their head tells them. That is the frightening thing about religious people - they can be totally logical and rational until it comes to faith and that is where all of the problems start.

My bro-in-law is a very strict Mormon. I am very close to his kids (which drives him crazy :D ). My 15 year old niece was interested in the Anthem scholorship and had gone to the ARI website to get info about it. Now, that site is blocked. My bro-in-law knows nothing about Ayn Rand personally except that she is an atheist. He blocked the site out of fear that his daughter would be exposed to something dangerous.

There is a hypocritical element to the reason/education side of the Mormons. I have several examples from my family alone where some of my relatives won't even read a page of a Rand book solely because she was an atheist. A completely irrational and ridiculous fear response that prevents them from operating fully with reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make sure to start a separate thread for it, though, as it would be off-topic here.

I do not believe that this is the case.

Why? Because this thread is about the rise of Christianity in American society.

The nature and status of marriage is a philosophic issue which falls squarely under this banner: observe the current brouhaha over homosexual marriage. Observe also the use of marriage as a condition [in my opinion, false, dishonest, and cruel] for immigrant settlement and naturalization. The view of marriage that these both rely on needs to be thrashed out. Is it a rationalist, Christian view or one that has its foundation in reason?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why?  Because this thread is about the rise of Christianity in American society.

The nature and status of marriage is a philosophic issue which falls squarely under this banner:

You are asking about the legal status of marriage under an ideal state (that's how I read your question, at least), and I think that topic deserves its own thread.

If a longer discussion emerges out of your question and it really is off-topic, I'll move it into its own thread anyway; I am just being pre-emptive. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are asking about the legal status of marriage under an ideal state (that's how I read your question, at least), and I think that topic deserves its own thread.

If a longer discussion emerges out of your question and it really is off-topic, I'll move it into its own thread anyway; I am just being pre-emptive. :D

No, I am inquiring into Mr. Laughlin's political view of marriage. That's all - no more, no less. I think my posts are very clear on this point.

But, if my discussion with Mr. Laughlin expands into uncharted intellectual territory, please be sure to exercise your property rights. I did not create, nor do I maintain, this board.

Best wishes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike you, I have never met a conservative Republican who is an "Objectivist sympathizer," that is, one who agrees with the ontology (one world), epistemology (reason exclusively), ethics (egoism), and politics (laissez-faire capitalism) of Objectivism. That would be a contradiction.

I have met many, many "ObSymps" and created dozens myself. It doesn't involve accepting specific Objectivist positions, but on taking an essentially Objectivist approach to life.

I look for people who are Good Objectivist Material (GOM). They are

(1) Fact-centered, but they may bring in faith when they get stuck and need an answer to an important issue.

(2) Value-driven. These are people who are constantly evaluating everything and everyone they deal with, making choices, and expending effort to gain their chosen values.

Someone who is GOM and young (15-30) can often become a terrific Objectivist once I turn him onto it. Those who discover Objectivism on their own without adequate guidance or those I get to past 30, when they have built lives on mixed premises, tend to be or become ObSymps. They have a sense of life affinity with Ayn Rand's books, are usually Conservatives or Old (intellectual) Left, and accept many -- but not all -- Objectivist positions on most issues.

Because they are fact-centered, I can usually win them over when I make a good case for my views. I respect them and they respect me and often solicit my opinion when they have an ethical problem to solve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had some interesting experiences with Mormons and their respect for reason/education.  Mormons are very politically astute, but the Mormon church will never come out and publicly endorse a candidate.  I had a Mormon friend once tell me that a lot of Mormon church leaders were "privately" pushing for Dick Cheney early in the 1996 presidential race.  That surprised me since Cheney was not religious and was up against candidates like Bill Bennett and Pat Buchanan.    Also the head of the Goldwater Institute is a BYU educated Mormon, and that has not affected his political career in the least.

(I've also heard that Mormons have a great deal of respect for the Jewish faith and view themselves as a variant of that faith.  I'd be curious to hear from former Mormons on this board, if their experiences support that.)

Based on my Mormon upbringing and many recent conversations with Mormons both from Utah and other areas of the country, I would have to say that you couldn't be more off-target.

Sometimes they superficially portray themselves in the ways you have described here, but they are very inconsistent about it and once you dig a little deeper you will find that the opposite is really the truth. While the Mormon church doesn't officially endorse political candidates, for instance, easily 90% of Mormons vote straight-ticket Republican based on their religious views, because the church preaches typical conservative ideology. Also, while they superficially seem to respect reason and education, they are in fact mind-hating mystics to the core. They have a saying--that a good Mormon should be "in the world, but not of the world." In other words, this world is a dirty, sinful place full of awful temptations, but we are unfortunately stuck here for this life, so we should try to make the best of it while avioding all of the materialistic traps. Regarding education, that means it is good to get a degree to aid your success in this life (be "in the world"), but in the process of your education you should completely block out anything that goes against Mormon doctrine (in order not to be "of the world"). For instance, Mormon English majors in Utah regularly refuse to read certain books on religious grounds, Mormon theatre majors refuse to be in certain plays, Mormon film majors refuse to watch certain films, etc. And your "education" is to be supplemented with daily religious indoctrination--seminary classes are a requirement for graduation at BYU. These are not people who genuinely value education--or reason. Don't let a few superficial points of agreement in politics fool you--the Mormon church, as one of the most rapidly growing and increasingly influential ideological movements in the nation (and world), is one of the greatest menaces we face today.

(They are more sympathetic to Jews than most people, but only because of certain points of dogma, not for any good reasons. It is certainly not a less racist religion than most; its racism is just directed at other targets.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FoxNews.com is reporting that a group of "mainstream evangelical Christians" called Christian Exodus has a plan to turn South Carolina into a Christian paradise, where the Constitution includes the Ten Commandments, all abortions are banned, prayers are conducted in schools, and sodomites are not allowed.

Christian Exodus hopes to break down the wall between Church and State by 2016, otherwise they will seek secession from the Union.

How about that for some scary Christian Democracy/Theocracy chit-chat?

Who thinks they have a chance of succeeding?

If Bush remains in office their chances of succeeding go up dramatically, in fact the whole United States might follow suit! It's becoming a truely mixed up world!

Dear Jesus, please come and get your followers, so the rest of us can live in peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...