religion vs. socialism

[The Wrath]

This topic has been discussed a number of times, always in the threads about Peikoff's recommendation to vote Democrat. To my knowledge, however, there's never been a thread exclusively for this purpose. Well, I wanted to start one...with a poll, to boot.

Which is more of a threat, and why?

I think that socialism is exponentially more threatening. In a nutshell, here is my case:

One of the likely presidential nominees is an out-and-out socialist who explicitly speaks of having a "we're all in it together society," forcibly taking and redistributing oil profits, and socialized medicine. Of the likely Republican nominees, only Romney appears to be particularly fond of the religious right. Giuliani certainly is not. I don't know much about Thompson yet. McCain is sinking fast and is no longer a factor.

Add to this the fact that, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, it is the political left in this country that poses the greatest threat to freedom of speech. They call for shutting down Fox News, having criminal charges pressed against Don Imus, enacting the Fairness Doctrine to shut down talk radio and other conservative outlets, regulating online blogs, and banning "hate speech." When is the last time you heard a conservative call for MoveOn.org or NPR to be forcibly shut down for spewing their anti-American vitriol? You can point to McCain-Feingold, if you wish. But, as I said, McCain is not really a factor any longer. And if he were, I don't really consider him a conservative.

The Terri Schiavo fiasco showed, rather conclusively, that Americans do not buy into this whole "culture of life" crap that religious conservatives keep spewing. Most Americans want abortion to remain legal, as well. Arguably, the only issue where religion really wins is on the issue of gay marriage. And even then, religion doesn't really win, since most people support "civil unions," which is essentially the exact same thing with a different name. The only religious movement that has a truly threatening amount of support is the attempt to get Intelligent Design taught in schools. As luck would have it, such nonsense cannot survive in the court system. Neither could Roy Moore's attempt to make a martyr of himself by refusing to remove the 10 Commandments from his courthouse. In fact, I think you'll find that the religious right loses in almost every court case where it plays a significant role. This article quite nicely lays out the case that religion is on the decline. With the recent boom in bestselling books by atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc.), people are starting to abandon the notion that religious faith is beyond criticism.

I can't remember who made this point, but I agreed with it at the time. The more power that is given to the Republican party, the more you will see it fracture along the lines of secularist/theocrat. I think that's a very valid point, and I urge anyone to consider it before voting Democrat in any future elections. If the Republican party knows that it can't win elections without the religious right, then the secularists among them will keep quiet. But if they know they can win without pandering to the religious right, the secularists among them will stand up and make their voices heard. I think it is clear that religion is on the decline in this country. The upswing in religious rhetoric is, in my opinion, a reaction to this fact. A desperate attempt to hang on to power.

What is the number of people in this country who want abortion outlawed versus the number who want Congress to impose price controls on gasoline? What is the number of people who want Creationism taught in schools versus the number who want socialized medicine? What is the number of people who want sodomy outlawed versus the number who support higher taxes for the wealthy?

[The Guru Kid]

At least in the United States, many people (including those who actively practice religion) believe in the separation of church and state. Moreover, there are many different religions with different factions so i doubt that one set of religious moralists can take over the government. It is also easier to argue against religion than socialism since most people agree with reason at least in principle.

To argue against socialism, one has to start from the beginning about how man is a rational being whose highest purpose is to further his own life etc. Socialism despite disagreements, follows a singular path and is appealing to many "intellectuals" who beam and say that it CAN work and that the failed examples in history were due to failed cooperation or leadership.

[D'kian]

The question is flawed. Both socialism and religion rely on faith at the base of their belief system.

That aside:

This topic has been discussed a number of times, always in the threads about Peikoff's recommendation to vote Democrat. To my knowledge, however, there's never been a thread exclusively for this purpose. Well, I wanted to start one...with a poll, to boot.

Dr. Michael Hurd once proposed the notion that oposition Republicans go after spending increases more strongly than ruling Republicans. Witness that Bush has mannaged to outspend in welfare and "entitlements" just about every other president, including LBJ. And he did it with a Republican Congress for 6 of his years so far.

One of the likely presidential nominees is an out-and-out socialist who explicitly speaks of having a "we're all in it together society," forcibly taking and redistributing oil profits, and socialized medicine.

Isn't it better to have one's enemies out in the open? Hillary will find it exceedingly difficutl to pass her most outlandish measuresm including welfare, in the face of a determined oposition, even if the Republicans wind up as a minority in Congress.

Add to this the fact that, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, it is the political left in this country that poses the greatest threat to freedom of speech.

True. Has there been any strong condemnation of Hugo Chavez recently? I've heard of none.

When is the last time you heard a conservative call for MoveOn.org or NPR to be forcibly shut down for spewing their anti-American vitriol?

I don't think I've heard any conservative politicians say anything along those lines. But I've heard plenty calling for treason charges to be brought against such organizations. And you can imagine what they said about Nacy's trip to Damascus (I do think she ought to be removed from office for that).

You can point to McCain-Feingold, if you wish. But, as I said, McCain is not really a factor any longer. And if he were, I don't really consider him a conservative.

Well, Thompson voted for McCain-Feingold while he was a Senator from Tennessee. I don't know exactly where the other Republican front-runners stand.

But the problem is still that most Republicans favor altruism and don't mind loosening the public purse strings when they're in charge, be they religious or not.

Were it not for the war on Islamic Fascism, which the Democrats won't even think exists, I'd favor holding one's nose and voting a Democrat to the presidency and any and all republicans into Congress.

[The Wrath]

The question is flawed. Both socialism and religion rely on faith at the base of their belief system.

That doesn't make my question flawed. Two different belief systems that rely on faith can still vary in terms of how threatening they are.

That aside:

Dr. Michael Hurd once proposed the notion that oposition Republicans go after spending increases more strongly than ruling Republicans. Witness that Bush has mannaged to outspend in welfare and "entitlements" just about every other president, including LBJ. And he did it with a Republican Congress for 6 of his years so far.

I won't even try to defend the spending habits of the Republicans, because they are pretty indefensible. But the drunken-sailor spending of the Republicans is nothing compared to what will come if the Democrats gain control of all branches of government. And, looking beyond the economic impact, think of the impact on our health care system! I, for one, would rather have a large national deficit than a hospital that's run with the efficiency of the US Postal Service.

Isn't it better to have one's enemies out in the open? Hillary will find it exceedingly difficutl to pass her most outlandish measuresm including welfare, in the face of a determined oposition, even if the Republicans wind up as a minority in Congress.

Religious conservatives are pretty out in the open about their beliefs too. Three of the lower-tier Republican candidates came right out and said that they don't believe in Evolution. Terri Schiavo, abortion, gay marriage, etc. are all proof positive that the Republicans are every bit as open about their Christofascism as Hillary Clinton is about her socialism. The difference: the American people would be more willing to put up with Hillary's socialism (as long as it is couched in the proper rhetoric), whereas they have shown a remarkably consistent reaction of disapproving of the encroachment of theocracy.

True. Has there been any strong condemnation of Hugo Chavez recently? I've heard of none.

Kinda funny actually (in a dark humor sort of way), but Neal Boortz pointed out that Al Gore was screaming for the Fairness Doctrine the very day after Chavez shut down that TV station.

I don't think I've heard any conservative politicians say anything along those lines. But I've heard plenty calling for treason charges to be brought against such organizations. And you can imagine what they said about Nacy's trip to Damascus (I do think she ought to be removed from office for that).

Who, specifically, has called for treason charges against MoveOn.org or NPR? The only ones I heard calling for treason charges against Pelosi were a few people who called into Neal Boortz's show...Boortz, himself, did not agree.

As a side-topic: what did she do that was actually illegal? What she did was certainly no worse than Arlen Specter going to Damascus, but I don't remember hearing him be criticized for it.

Well, Thompson voted for McCain-Feingold while he was a Senator from Tennessee. I don't know exactly where the other Republican front-runners stand.

Nor do I. This is sort of a side-topic though...I probably should have left it out of the thread, since it exists as a problem that is separate from both religious conservatism and economic socialism. But I do think that, currently, the left in this country is far more likely to use tactics like this, than is the right.

But the problem is still that most Republicans favor altruism and don't mind loosening the public purse strings when they're in charge, be they religious or not.

But this is true of most politicians, no matter what party they come from. That's why the horrendous spending record of the Republicans is not likely to affect my vote. The Democrats will do the same thing. There are essentially two questions for me, when deciding how to vote:

1. Is socialism or religion more of a threat?
   
2. Who more likely to completely screw up the war on Islamic fascism?
   

My answer to the first is socialism, and my answer to the second is the Democrats. Please don't argue my second point in this thread...that's a whole other topic. Just wanted to make it clear where I stand in terms of deciding how to vote.

Were it not for the war on Islamic Fascism, which the Democrats won't even think exists, I'd favor holding one's nose and voting a Democrat to the presidency and any and all republicans into Congress.

Why any Republican? What about ones that are genuinely secular? There are a few, believe it or not.

[kufa]

I would say religion. The religious ones of our country, the rebublicans, mostly want the government to go for no abortion, no gay marriage, and some of the way out there republicans want to go for censorship. The republicans pretty much leave the economy untouched. They still "monitor" it in some ways, but for the most part dislike taxes and regulations.

The socialists, democrats, want to cut down freedom in pretty much everything except gay marriage and abortion. Democrats want to socialize the healthcare system, regulate the hell out of businesses, and promote welfare.

I'm not too worried about having to get an abortion or marry a girl soon, so I really have nothing to fear from the republicans. But the democrats...be afraid, be very afraid!

[JASKN]

My understanding of the American people that matter tells me that religion is a more effective excuse to do bad things to themselves and other people than general altruism. Generally, people understand that work equals good, but if you manipulate their since-childhood religious morality, it can trump common sense.

So I voted religion as more threatening to a future of rationality. You can't argue in any way with blind faith, and as yet I don't know how to penetrate it.

[Starblade Enkai]

I voted religion because, let's face it, religion will always lead to some form of socialism, whereas socialism can be rooted out if the only thing to be dealt with was socialism itself.

I'd rather own my mind and not own 50% of what I make than own all of what I make but only own 50% of my mind.

[John McVey]

The first things that came to my mind were threat to whom and over what time frame? All I can do is answer in relation to my values and the extent of time that is relevant to those values. I am wary of talk about threat to society and what is best for society and all that. Before one can think about 'saving the world,' one must have a valid personal connection to the matter lest there be opened the door to collectivist sentiment. That is not a good thing to be implicitly advocating.

I voted religion for pretty much the reasons Dr Peikoff specified in DIM, though as I am not from the US I haven't felt any considerable need to consider the choice between Republican and Democrat candidates arising from the religion-socialism alternatives. Socialism is culturally dead, and should it somehow be revived as a genuine notion held by a large proportion of the people it will die again fairly quickly for the same reasons, and because it will be blatantly obvious that it cannot make good on its promises it is highly unlikely to allow it to rise in the West ever again. Religion, on the other hand, can linger indefinitely for the reasons Dr Peikoff specified. Since its promises relate to the alleged afterlife, nobody can call a religion on failure to deliver except to the extent it makes promises about worldly affairs. Both socialism and religion would, if the only options, harm a great chunk of my life, probably over the whole time-frame of it, but it would still leave open a greater hope for my children (present count zero) and my friends' children, or perhaps their children in turn, than religious oppression ever would.

That many religions entail some or a great measure of socialism, as others have pointed out, only further adds to why religion is worse than socialism per se. At least a nominally secular socialism must at least partially disavow mystic methods and content in its propaganda, and must smuggle in at least some rationality and allowance for the uncowed questioning that technological development requires. If people are still taught to use reason, even in some small way, the thin end of the wedge is in. This is far more likely under socialism than religion because of that need for technology, while religion can get by quite happily in a dark-age level of industrialisation. Religion died in Europe in part because the churches failed to recognise the true extent of the danger until it was too late. Now they know better, and you can bet that if they gained power they'd be more than willing to use brute force to reverse every technological advance of the second millenium and then keep things that way.

JJM

[D'kian]

And, looking beyond the economic impact, think of the impact on our health care system! I, for one, would rather have a large national deficit than a hospital that's run with the efficiency of the US Postal Service.

What makes you think only a complete takeover of healthcare can destroy the system? Some of the things Republicans have propposed, among them the prescription drug bill, can also do the trick, albeit mroe slowly. And let's not overlook what Romney and Schwarznegger did in their states in that respect.

Religious conservatives are pretty out in the open about their beliefs too.

Sure. But they are supposed to be the fiscally responsible party that favors free markets, and look at them! With friends like these, do we need enemies? they're also the party that controlled the Hite House and Congress for 6 years and left the AMT untouched.

And out and out socialist is preferable to a socialist in wolf's clothing.

Who, specifically, has called for treason charges against MoveOn.org or NPR? The only ones I heard calling for treason charges against Pelosi were a few people who called into Neal Boortz's show...Boortz, himself, did not agree.

Specifically I can't recall offhand. But look up townhall.com, a conservative site, and you'll find a few columns on the subject. I do mean columns by conservative intellectuals and journalists, not merely the comments left by users.

As a side-topic: what did she do that was actually illegal? What she did was certainly no worse than Arlen Specter going to Damascus, but I don't remember hearing him be criticized for it.

Did Arlen Specter conduct his foreign policy agenda, usurping the president's authority while doing so? If he did, then he's as guilty as Pelosi, should anyone ever bother doing something about it.

Why any Republican? What about ones that are genuinely secular? There are a few, believe it or not.

Because any republican will likely oppose any democrat's spending plans if only out of spite.

[JMeganSnow]

Ideologically, I think religion will ultimately be the biggest problem for free-market proponents. Socialism is not even an ideology but a political system that may be based on a number of different ideological foundations . . . religion being one of them. Of course, this depends on what, exactly, you consider to be a "religion". Do you include such things as the modern "church of Gaia" or "church of Evolution" that are prevalent on the Far Left? I've read Richard Dawkins and I can't say that the ideas he holds are any better than the ones propounded by the Bible-thumpers he rails against.

Religion is increasingly being used as the ideological base for institutionalized altruism, namely, socialism. It is not dying as a political force. People are returning to irrationality in droves.

The focus here is too much on particular issues and not on philosophical essentials. That's a no-good way to think.

[The Wrath]

I voted religion because, let's face it, religion will always lead to some form of socialism, whereas socialism can be rooted out if the only thing to be dealt with was socialism itself.

Religion does not always lead to socialism, if you use "socialism" in the economic sense. I don't really see how you can argue that.

What makes you think only a complete takeover of healthcare can destroy the system? Some of the things Republicans have propposed, among them the prescription drug bill, can also do the trick, albeit mroe slowly. And let's not overlook what Romney and Schwarznegger did in their states in that respect.

Sure. But they are supposed to be the fiscally responsible party that favors free markets, and look at them! With friends like these, do we need enemies? they're also the party that controlled the Hite House and Congress for 6 years and left the AMT untouched.

But this is not a Republican vs. Democrat debate. You just cited Republicans engaging in socialism, but this doesn't say anything about whether socialism or religion is more dangerous. All it does is provide a possible reason to not vote for certain Republicans.

And out and out socialist is preferable to a socialist in wolf's clothing.

I'd rather have a politician that is a 5 on the Socialist-o-meter, who denies it, than a politician who is a 10 on the Socialist-o-meter (Hillary) and is open about it.

Specifically I can't recall offhand. But look up townhall.com, a conservative site, and you'll find a few columns on the subject. I do mean columns by conservative intellectuals and journalists, not merely the comments left by users.

I actually read things on there quite frequently.

Did Arlen Specter conduct his foreign policy agenda, usurping the president's authority while doing so? If he did, then he's as guilty as Pelosi, should anyone ever bother doing something about it.

I don't honestly know. But what is illegal about what Pelosi did?

[fletch]

I think that socialism is exponentially more threatening.

I am with you completely on this one, Moose. It is the secular left that is the driving force behind the advance of collectivism in this country and around the world, not the christian right. I have found that outside of their atheism, the secular left is completely deviod of rationality. I have spent a great deal of time (too much probably) debating the virtues of capitalism and liberty on other forums. What I have found is that the typical atheist is far more likely to have no concept of rights, a contempt for capitalism, and a warm spot in their hearts for any totalitarian who uses oppressive tactics to achieve altruistic goals. Having rejected any higher authority, they have convinced themselves that morality is subjective, and that truth is whatever the majority happens to think it is at any given moment. They equate good and evil with religion. Having rejected religion, they deny the existence of good and evil. Everything, to them, is a shade of gray and only a fool would think otherwise. I fear these people far more than I fear any Christian movement.

My experience with Christians has been the exact opposite. Outside of their belief in God, they can be quite rational. They often support and defend the free market, respect the rights of others, and have a general distaste for socialism. They acknowledge the existence of good and evil and are generally right in their diagnosis. America has lived with Christian morality since its discovery and seems to have gotten along just fine. We now have a political party in this country that openly seeks an American defeat in the war in Iraq, schmoozes with the likes of Hugo Chavez and would like nothing more than for this country to follow in the footsteps of Cuba or Venezuela. There could not be a more open or obvious threat to liberty than the DNC.

[JMeganSnow]

So it wasn't the republicans that put through the new, hyper-expensive prescription drug benefits? You know, the ones Hillary tried to force-feed us and couldn't manage? It wasn't the republicans that got us involved in a war and then refused to fight it properly?

Face it, the republicans are pretending to be pro-free market while putting through all kinds of destructive socialist programs.

[Robert J. Kolker]

So it wasn't the republicans that put through the new, hyper-expensive prescription drug benefits? You know, the ones Hillary tried to force-feed us and couldn't manage? It wasn't the republicans that got us involved in a war and then refused to fight it properly?

Face it, the republicans are pretending to be pro-free market while putting through all kinds of destructive socialist programs.

The worst kind of socialists are anti-socialist socialists. The Republicans have long since ceased to be pro-liberty. They are now dedicated Statists, and have been for a long time. Where did you go, Robert Taft? The Republicans have instantiated Alexander Hamilton's program in detail.

We are doubly screwed. Thomas Jefferson had the right idea (he wrote the D.O.I.) but was such a spendthrift he could not free his slaves, while he still lived. So Thomas Jefferson suffered the fate of those who intend but do not act. On the other hand Hamilton and his intellectual and political heirs have not only intended, they have acted forcefully. Welcome to the Brave New World.

Bob Kolker

[D'kian]

But this is not a Republican vs. Democrat debate.

Traditionally Republicans represent religion and Democrats socialism. In addition, Republicans claim to be pro-free market.

I'd rather have a politician that is a 5 on the Socialist-o-meter, who denies it, than a politician who is a 10 on the Socialist-o-meter (Hillary) and is open about it.

I don't. An out socialist is more easily opposed than a sneaky one.

I don't honestly know. But what is illegal about what Pelosi did?

Isn't foreign policy a function of the Executive? If it is, the Pelosi was usurping powers she cannot excercise. Regardless, she has emboldened several enemy nations. If a top Democratic politician goes to expose her throat to the terrorists, and they figure her party will win the Presidency in 2008, what do you think of it?

[The Wrath]

Traditionally Republicans represent religion and Democrats socialism. In addition, Republicans claim to be pro-free market.

Well, yes. I never claimed otherwise. But while Republicans may not be "free market," they are closer to it than their Democratic counterparts. The Republicans are starting to wake up to the fact that they have abandoned their principles. The '08 election will have a big impact on their future direction. I believe that Giuliani who resembles Reagan, in many ways, could take the party back down the road of smaller government.

I don't. An out socialist is more easily opposed than a sneaky one.

When someone who is a 10 on the socialist-o-meter has as much support as Clinton does, this ceases to be a meaningful distinction. If she gets power and the Democrats keep Congress (a frighteningly possible scenario), it won't matter how easy it was to oppose them during campaign season.

Isn't foreign policy a function of the Executive? If it is, the Pelosi was usurping powers she cannot excercise. Regardless, she has emboldened several enemy nations. If a top Democratic politician goes to expose her throat to the terrorists, and they figure her party will win the Presidency in 2008, what do you think of it?

But what law did she break? What crime did she commit? It's not like she struck a binding treaty with Al Asad. Please note that I am not defending what Pelosi did. I'm just not sure if she actually committed a crime by doing it.

[Mammon]

Let me throw some quotes from Ludwig von Mises taken from his book Socialism out here. Taken from this site http://www.econlib.org/Library/Mises/msS6....Part%20II,Ch.15

First the definition,

The essence of Socialism is this: All the means of production are in the exclusive control of the organized community. This and this alone is Socialism. All other definitions are misleading.

Here is a rather lengthy passage on Christian Socialism,

A theocratic organization of the state demands either a self-sufficing family economy or the socialist organization of industry. It is incompatible with an economic order which allows the individual free play to develop his powers. Simple faith and economic rationalism cannot dwell together. It is unthinkable that priests should govern entrepreneurs.

Christian Socialism, as it has taken root in the last few decades among countless followers of all Christian churches, is merely a variety of State Socialism. State Socialism and Christian Socialism are so entangled that it is difficult to draw any clear line between them, or to say of individual socialists whether they belong to the one or the other. Even more than etatism, Christian Socialism is governed by the idea that the economic system would be perfectly stationary if the desire for profit and personal gain by men directing their efforts solely to the satisfaction of material interests did not disturb its smooth course. The advantage of progressive improvements in methods of production is admitted, if only with limitations; but the Christian socialist does not clearly understand that it is just these innovations which disturb the peaceful course of the economic system. In so far as this is recognized, the existing state of affairs is preferred to any further progress. Agriculture and handicraft, with perhaps small shopkeeping, are the only admissible occupations. Trade and speculation are superfluous, injurious, and evil. Factories and large scale industries are a wicked invention of the "Jewish spirit"; they produce only bad goods which are foisted on buyers by the large stores and by other monstrosities of modern trade to the detriment of purchasers. It is the duty of legislation to suppress these excesses of the business spirit and to restore to handicraft the place in production from which it has been displaced by the machinations of big capital.*35 Large transport undertakings that cannot be abolished should be nationalized.

The basic idea of Christian Socialism that runs through all the teachings of its representatives is purely stationary in outlook. In the economic system which they have in mind there is no entrepreneur, no speculation, and no "inordinate" profit. The prices and wages demanded and given are "just." Everyone is satisfied with his lot because dissatisfaction would signify rebellion against divine and human laws. For those incapable of work Christian charity will provide. This ideal it is asserted was achieved in medieval times. Only unbelief could have driven mankind out of this paradise. If it is to be regained mankind must first find the way back to the Church. Enlightenment and liberal thought have created all the evil which afflicts the world today.

The protagonists of Christian social reform as a rule do not regard their ideal Society of Christian Socialism as in any way socialistic. But this is simply self-deception. Christian Socialism appears to be conservative because it desires to maintain the existing order of property, or more properly it appears reactionary because it wishes to restore and then maintain an order of property that prevailed in the past. It is also true that it combats with great energy the plans of socialists of other persuasions for a radical abolition of private property, and in contradistinction to them asserts that not Socialism but social reform is its aim. But Conservatism can only be achieved by Socialism. Where private property in the means of production exists not only in name but in fact, income cannot be distributed according to an historically determined or an any other way permanently established order. Where private property exists, only market prices can determine the formation of income. To the degree in which this is realized, the Christian social reformer is step by step driven to Socialism, which for him can be only State Socialism. He must see that otherwise there cannot be that complete adherence to the traditional state of affairs which his ideal demands. He sees that fixed prices and wages cannot be maintained, unless deviations from them are menaced by threats of punishment from a supreme authority. He must also realize that wages and prices cannot be arbitrarily determined according to the ideas of a world improver, because every deviation from market prices destroys the equilibrium of economic life. He must therefore progressively move from a demand for price regulation to a demand for a supreme control over production and distribution. It is the same path that practical etatism has followed. At the end in both cases, is a rigid Socialism which leaves private property only in name, and in fact transfers all control over the means of production to the State.

Only a part of the Christian socialist movement has openly subscribed to this radical programme. The others have shunned an open declaration. They have anxiously avoided drawing the logical conclusions of their premises. They give one to understand that they are combating only the excrescences and abuses of the capitalist order; they protest that they have not the slightest desire to abolish private property; and they constantly emphasize their opposition to Marxian Socialism. But they characteristically perceive that this opposition mainly consists in differences of opinion as to the way in which the best state of society can be attained. They are not revolutionary and expect everything from an increasing realization that reform is necessary. For the rest they constantly proclaim that they do no wish to attack private property. But what they would retain is only the name of private property. If the control of private property is transferred to the State the property owner is only an official, a deputy of the economic administration.

It can be seen at once how the Christian Socialism of today corresponds to the economic ideal of the medieval Scholastics. The starting point, the demand for "just" wages and prices, that is, for a definite historically attained distribution of income, is common to both. Only the realization that this is impossible, if the economic system retains private property in the means of production, forces the modern Christian reform movement towards Socialism. In order to achieve their demands, they must advocate measures which, even if formally retaining private property, lead to the complete socialization of society.

It will be shown later that this modern Christian Socialism has nothing to do with the suppositious but often cited Communism of the Early Christians. The socialist idea is new to the Church. This is not altered by the fact that the most recent development of Christian social theory has led the Church*36 to recognize the fundamental rightfulness of private property in the means of production, whereas the early church teaching, in view of the command of the gospels condemning all economic activity, had avoided unconditionally accepting even the name of private property. For we must understand what the Church has done in recognizing the rightfulness of private property, only as opposition to the efforts of the socialists to overthrow the existing order forcibly. In reality the Church desires nothing but State Socialism of a particular colour.

The nature of socialistic methods of production is independent of the concrete methods involved in the attempt to realize it. Every attempt at Socialism, however brought about, must founder on the impracticability of setting up a purely socialistic economy. For that reason, and not because of deficiencies in the moral character of mankind, Socialism must fail.

It may be granted, that the moral qualities required of the members of a socialist community could best be fostered by the Church. The spirit which must prevail in a socialist community is most akin to that of a religious community. But to overcome the difficulties in the way of establishing a socialist community would require a change in human nature or in the laws of the nature by which we are surrounded, and even faith cannot bring this to pass.

It's very rare that you see Republicans actually advocate Capitalism and when they do it's not the kind Objectivists are talking about. They basically argue for the status quo, and the mixed economy. They are "pro-business" not "pro-capitalist" and as the Objective Standard showed in the essay, The Rise and Fall of American Conserativism, the only reason they oppose the Democrats ideas is so they can change them and implement them later. Do the American voters and taxpayers realize this? No, the pratically worship "Dubya" because he's a Christian. Alot of people only vote Republican because they represent "Christian values" which are in themselves totally subjective.

Fletch and I seem to have totally different experiences with Christians. Most of the Christians i've encountered have been the most irrational and immoral people i've ever met. I live in the Bible Belt, which is regarded as a place with a highly dense population of Christian people. Yet, with all these Christians all I see is that they back down on all their own self-proclaimed values and virtues. They say love thy neighbor, yet they don't give a shit about anyone else around them and will indirectly harm anyone without even thinking about it. It's one thing to be selfish. It's another to proclaim selflessness and helping others as an ultimate value and behave just the opposite. It's one thing to value worldy possessions, it's another to say your in a religion that denounces worldy values and turn around and value these worldy possessions above anyone and anything.

Christians are totally selfless in the sense Howard Roark explained it. The Christians here will never, never think for themselves on issues. They live in the eyes of everyone else around and derive their morality from them. They can live as hedonistic as they want because God will "forgive" them and we mortals are not allowed to judge each other. How is this not subjective? How is this not an evasion of reality? Isn't that the ulimate evil?

They would not be a problem if it weren't for the fact that they get their political philosophy the same way they get their fashion sense and their aestistics -- from whatever the majority of people around them are doing. Other Christians vote for Republicans, so they do too. Now imagine the power that gives to the Republicans! A mass of millions of mindless people who will eat, regurgitate, and eat everything they are feed by other people who they decided to leave their thinking too. If Fox News tells them that illegal aliens are a threat to them they will buy into with a second thought. Plus it feeds into their perjudices already. Alot of Christians here are extremely racist, so if you give them some kind of excuse to hate someone they already do, their going to eat it up. I'll reiterate, these people don't need to have power over other people.

Yet, their altruism makes it their finally goal even if they aren't aware of it. Where are all put on earth to serve God, and who better to do decide how we should serve God then priests and politicians? I don't have the official figures but I get the feeling that the majority of Christians don't believe in the seperation of Church and State, want the Bible taught in public school, and want faith-based iniatives to handle all the welfare program (not abolishing it).

I don't think they care about the right of other people. Look at how they view gay people, or woman who want abortions, or atheists.

Taken from FSTDT.com --

I honestly don't care about your rights. If it were up to me, all Atheists would be burnt at the stake and or cast into a river with weights tied to their ankles and or placed before the firing squad, etc etc etc."

If everyone thought like this guy, and voted on it, everyone on this forum would be killed; even though we are all pro-capitalist. Granted it's extreme, but Nazism was extreme and that caught on fast. Which brings us to our next point: Christians only have a problem with communism and Socialism because it's "Godless" the idea of giving needy people someone elses property doesn't bother them. In fact, the Bible says to do just that.

If George Bush said the same things Hillary said they wouldn't have a problem with it, because a Christian-Republican said it. That's method of political judgement the average Christian voter prefers. Don't think about the issue, just do whatever Christians say too do.

That's dangerous. Socialism is dangerous, but the Democrats will blunder it up and it will fail because it has to fail. I don't see Christianity going away anytime soon, or without a long bloody fight.

[Mammon]

Did I kill this thread?

[Wotan]

Religion is a kind of attack on everything and everyone. It's very fundamental -- very foundational. Socialism is just applied knowledge. It's a kind of nitwit view of politics, which is very near the top of the knowledge pyramid, and pretty easy to refute. Not so belief in "god."

Socialists seem much more rational than religiosos. Also much more reachable with conversation and debate. Relgious people are almost psychotic and space alien-like. You never know who they are or what they're up to. And they're basically capable of any atrocity whatsoever. You can't reason with them beforehand -- nor make them feel guilty or learn a lesson afterward.

The religious did 9/11 and they'll probably soon nuke New York and Washington too. A nuclear exchange involving the West is more likely with religious Pakistan or Iran (who doesn't even have bombs yet), than with socialist China or North Korea.

Fear the wrath of god!

[midniterequiem]

I think I've made up my mind religion poses the greatest threat to any civilized society. I believe in God, but religion is not God. The way I see it, every human has a natural desire to seek the truth of life (some ignore it), but so few are afraid of the possibilities that they cut it short in favor of a sure doctrine decided upon by mortal man anyway. Even a short study of history will show how the dominant Judeo-Christian and Islamic religions incorporated pagan rituals and customs into their belief system; not to mention their holy books are in no way perserved. In the case of christianity, the bible was never agreed upon until the Roman Catholic Church prevailed over the smaller christian churches and dominated for 1000 years +.

The main theme is that most people are either afraid, stupid or lazy. To assume that any world religion is the absolute correct path is nothing short of idiocy, it's like supporting the democratic candidate in an election simply because you associate yourself with democrats. It's always best to mediate and think. I believe in God, and I really doubt he gave us our incredible minds just for show. On top of all that, people forget, the only way to tell if something is a metaphor is if it betrays practical reality, and in the case of christianity, there is nothing in the bible stating "this is literal".

My beliefs are christian in origin, so I can't say much about the other world religions, however, I have briefly looked into Islam (briefly).

As for socialism, it's a very nice idea and maybe someday humans will be ready for it, but as it stands, it is impossible in its entirety. Maybe some of its philosophies are useful, but as for universal medical insurance or what have you, I don't think the United States can afford things like that right now, seeing as Social Security is dying (correct me if I'm wrong, I came here to learn XD)

[softwareNerd]

The problem with the God-without-religion perspective is that it does not offer an alternative ethical philosophy; it only changes the source of subjectivity. Allow me to explain...

When a religious philosophy breaks with established religion and breaks with the idea that experts (priests) should interpret the word of God, it puts that responsibility on the individual. In a sense, this is a good thing: because the implicit message is that individuals have minds and should think and decide for themselves. A move like this marks a shift in the answer to: who decides what is right? However, the answer is unsatisfactory. From the old answer "the priests' interpretation of God's will is right", one now has "the individual's interpretation of God's will is right". So, this type of shift abandons the whole question of "what is good", and leaves it up to individual subjectivism.

The deist approach takes the view that there's a God, who is the creator, but that's all. Nothing more. We humans have to now figure things out on our own, and God plays no role. This approach renders God irrelevant to our lives. If we're going to look for instruction from such a God, it implies that we cannot look at particular holy books, we cannot look to priests. So, where does one find the answers? One has two options: look to reality or look to individual subjective feelings.

If one looks to individual subjective feelings, we're pretty much back where we are: where anything goes. If one looks to reality, one will do fine up to a point -- as the U.S. founding fathers did -- however, one has no answer for the person who claims that God spoke to him differently. Here's why: while one might have built most of one's philosophy on reality, at the very base one has the following epistemological principle: God wants us to use reality as a basis. This gives license for anyone to come up with any madness, saying that God wills him to do so; and, one has no principled answer to give them.

[Thales]

I think I've made up my mind religion poses the greatest threat to any civilized society. I believe in God, but religion is not God.

A religion is a belief system that invokes the supernatural. If central to your world view is the belief that you must act based on something for which there is no sensory-perceptual evidence, then you are acting based on a religion. The danger, of course, is that you are not acting on the real, and so are inclined to behave in a self-destructive manner, ala the Islamacists today.

I suppose if, following SoftwareNerd's point, you were a deist that would make you a very weak religionist, which is a much better position than a full fledged religionist, but there would be some there.

As for socialism, it's a very nice idea and maybe someday humans will be ready for it, but as it stands, it is impossible in its entirety.

It's not a nice idea, because it runs counter to man's nature. It's at war with man's fundamental need to think, act and pursue his life and happiness. Men must be free and be able to deal with one another freely. The pursuit of ones individual values to improve ones life is supremely moral, denying them is not.

Socialism is despicable, and those who hold it aren't sweet people with sweet views, not the serious socialists, at any rate. Socialism means denying the self and being enslaved to the mindless, and heartless "collective". It's the Borg. Don't confuse it with being sociable or friendly. Not the same thing. A true friend does not want you to deny yourself.

Maybe some of its philosophies are useful, but as for universal medical insurance or what have you, I don't think the United States can afford things like that right now, seeing as Social Security is dying (correct me if I'm wrong, I came here to learn XD)

Socialized medicine means the destruction of medicine. Free markets make medicine affordable and of high quality, keep it advancing at a great rate, and make it universal in coverage just by the nature of the system. More universal, btw, than socialized medicine, which only does well to the extent it leaches off of the free market.

[Chops]

It's not a nice idea, because it runs counter to man's nature. It's at war with man's fundamental need to think, act and pursue his life and happiness.

Exactly. Socialism is slavery. When the products of the mind become the property of anyone based on their so-called "need," the productive become the slaves of the unproductive. The fact that socialism doesn't work isn't a pragmatic or practical issue of "we're not ready yet," it's a moral issue of "do I own my mind and that which it produces?"

There is no objective moral basis for socialistic policies, only claims to morality by those who wish to leech off your productivity.

Edited June 26, 2007 by Chops

[MisterSwig]

I voted for religion being the bigger threat, because religion is a fundamental evil, while socialism is merely a political application of a fundamental evil.

Edited June 26, 2007 by MisterSwig

[midniterequiem]

And so it be's!!!

In a nutshell, I basically just said maybe I use the term too freely, because to me socialism is more about the individual working for the individual on a mutual understanding of productivity. I do not envision anyone being subjected to the whim of the society, they would be free to pursue their dreams (depending on what they are because Stalin jr is unnecessary). I have not come up with an elaborate plan for how this society works, merely dreamt about it (figuratively).

The problem with my vision is that it requires people to work for others interests in order to work for their own, selfishness does not mix well with this. If you had an army of Joseph's (that would be me), then socialized medicine wouldn't be so bad because I do such things for the love of doing it, and finding better medications to help my fellow human sounds exhilirating.

This stems from my vision of Personal Success. I am what you might call a Co-dependent; I attach myself very strongly to people who depend on me. My greatest joy in life is to help other people fulfill there dreams, while simultaneously becoming a melting pot of knowledge and wisdom.

What do you mean by moral? If by moral you mean "right", then I find it interesting that you would make such adamant assumptions. Don't get me wrong, I agree that is right; I believe all we can do in our lives is to attain Personal Success, but I believe this while acknowledging that it is based on assumption because there is no right or wrong in nature; there is nothing moral about it, it is simply what I prefer to think.

As for religion, let me clearly define what I mean by religion "the organized, hierarchical system that makes doctrines irrationally". It is not irrational to think the possibility of a God-creature or creatures, but it is irrational to make any statements about its/their character and desires. Since the possibility is open, however, the search is also not irrational, however unlikely you are to actually turn up solid answers.

I think that was it. So maybe I'm not a real socialist, maybe you call me a utopian socialist? I hear they were ridiculed by people like Marx haha. I can't blame him for ridiculing it. It's not feasible in the world today. I do believe that the full potential of humanity is to transcend the Survival of the fittest notion and defend the weak. We already care for the lesser animals when we save them from extinction, so why not our own kind? My "socialist" ideas also come from the fact I perform much better in "no competition" things; for example lifting weights. It's so much more peaceful and lovely. Just one more rep for the hell of it. And why not one more? No one's watching, try again. Probably all product of my deeper psyche.