Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

religion vs. socialism

Rate this topic


The Wrath

Which is more of a threat?  

61 members have voted

  1. 1. Which is more of a threat?

    • religion
      28
    • socialism
      27


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Rationality is based on logic isn't it? So wouldn't it be illogical to assume the existence of a super-being without any evidence and then to actually describe said super-being? Whereas, there is no confirmation nor denial of (a) super-being(s), so looking for information to validate or disproove it is not illogical; it's just a search (albeit with most likely no end). haha, i might be using another term too freely again though :] that is my greatest problem, clearly defining terms; like asking what the meaning of life is... I realized I hadn't even defined "meaning"; then I realized its subjective so there is no "meaning" of life the way people might want it to exist. Even if we are mysteriously upholding some balance in the universe, there is nothing to posit that it needs to be maintained.

In this case, rationality would mean uncertain, but sensible. Since possibility of a God isn't impossible, it's a rational thought... i think haha

*** Mod's note: Replies that focus on God etc. -- rather than religion vs. socialism -- have been moved here ***

Edited by softwareNerd
Added note on moved replies
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer to the original question really depends on the religion. I think the reason religion has persisted for a long is because it is a great way to transmit a social-moral code regarding what one is and is not allowed to do. While the method essentially takes advantage of the irrationality of people, the amount of harm caused by the said religion is really dependent on the social-moral code it preaches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something struck me when I was musing about this question recently. What socialism brings and what religion brings are not unknown. We've seen both in action (historically speaking). This question might be boiled down to "Which do you prefer, the Dark Ages or the Soviet Union?"

It has always been my understanding that a communist state controlled your life more completely than a religious state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something struck me when I was musing about this question recently. What socialism brings and what religion brings are not unknown. We've seen both in action (historically speaking). This question might be boiled down to "Which do you prefer, the Dark Ages or the Soviet Union?"

It has always been my understanding that a communist state controlled your life more completely than a religious state.

The two are not even close. The Dark Ages lasted 1000 years. The Soviet Union didn't last a century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two are not even close. The Dark Ages lasted 1000 years. The Soviet Union didn't last a century.

On the parameter of duration, you're right. What I'm referring to is the intensity level of the evil.

In addition, the Soviet Union was made possible in great part due to the mysticism already prevalent in Russian culture thanks to the Orthodox Church.

True, but this addresses neither duration nor intensity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have constitutional protections against religious domination in America. We have no such protections against socialism. While all religions are irrational, some of them are less so. An enlightened religion such as Christianity is far preferable than is, say, the so called 'religion of peace.' And as for the Soviet Union lasting less than a century, for the perhaps hundreds of millions who lived and died during that century, that will be of little consolation. For them it lasted a lifetime.

For both the theist and the socialist, their beliefs are an article of faith and, therefore, are equally impervious to reason. There are no ethical hurdles that the socialist must overcome to deprive you of your rights. In fact, they dont really even recognize the concept of rights. To the socialist, rights are not something that belong to the individual but are things doled out by society and, as such, can just as easily be taken away.

Christians largely see rights as eminating from God. If thier faith leads them to support my rights then to that I say, great. I fear socialism and Islamic fascism, and in general, Christians would agree. The way I see it, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It is the agnostic/atheistic left that is destroying this country, not the Christian right. The choice in America is not Objectivism vs. sujectivism, it is right wing subjectivism vs. left wing subjectivism. Right wing subjectivism offers capitalism and liberty with a few Puritan strings while left wing subjectivism offers the death of capitalism and liberty. Pretty simple choice there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have constitutional protections against religious domination in America.
In the long run there's no such thing as an unpopular government. Constitutions are subject to being 1) "interpreted", 2) amended, and 3) ignored. The real issue is what people believe, and specifically what the influential and powerful believe. Socialism is no longer really believed. Religion increasingly is.

For both the theist and the socialist, their beliefs are an article of faith and, therefore, are equally impervious to reason.
Don't confuse the intellectual with the man in the street. Unlike religion, socialism HAS to offer this worldly success eventuating at some point. When it fails to deliver after long enough, no amount of anti-reason badgering from the intellectual is going to stop the man in the street from putting a simple 2 and 2 together and arriving at an angry 4.

the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Standard libertarian foolishness.

JJM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real issue is what people believe, and specifically what the influential and powerful believe. Socialism is no longer really believed. Religion increasingly is.

Oh, I see. So the media elites, the Hollywood elites, the elites in education, and those in the halls of government power have given up their belief in socialism? I wasnt aware of that. And here I was all worried. I guess I was just imagining all that talk about the socialization of medicine. Good to know that both democrats and republicans are now united in the goal of dismantling the welfare state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An enlightened religion such as Christianity is far preferable than is, say, the so called 'religion of peace.'
This is false. The error comes from observing Christians and equating their thinking with "Christianity". Over the years, Christianity has been beaten down by people who have been secular and of a scientific bent. As reason gained ground, Christianity had to retreat. The Christian "man on the street" had to be allowed to limit the role of Christianity in his life, else he might have abandoned it altogether. However, the hard-core Christians, who stick with true doctrine, are little different from folks of other religions.

Since we're talking of possible changes, then a major swing toward Christianity implies a growing role for Christianity in the life of Christians; and waning of reason. The danger sign is when these folk step out of the area of ethics and try to advance their ideas in other fields. The renewed push for Creationism is one such. Pat Robertson's postulation that natural disasters in the U.S. are caused by God's wrath is another. Some will say that Pat Robertson is extreme, but the fact is that he has a huge following, a popular TV show and many millions of dollars in funding. This is not a little cult living in the backwoods. Robertson concluded that Sharon's heart attack was brought upon him because he wanted to divide God's land. How is this type of thinking different from the Church saying that Galileo was wrong? Do we really want to give these priests (or their proxies) power?

In an ominous sign that this thinking is becoming more mainstream, some bishops of the Church of England have also come out saying that recent floods come from God's wrath. This is not just one bishop; it's a few of them; and, according to the article, one of them was a contender for the post of Arch Bishop of Canterbury. The logical next step is for the Pope to start being more explicitly irrational (I haven't been following him, he's probably moving that way already).

It's quite natural to see Christianity as a lesser threat because it has been on the wane for years and that makes people take the resurgence of the last two decades less seriously. This resurgence will continue to grow, if not checked.

I'm not saying that Christianity is the worse threat or the more immediate threat. All I'm saying is: do not think it is more reasonable or enlightened -- qua Christianity -- than other religions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have constitutional protections against religious domination in America. We have no such protections against socialism.
I'd say that we have the same constitutional protections against religious domination in America as we have against socialism. Very little, in fact -- as they say, fine words butter no parsnips.

The religious right does not offer liberty and capitalism with a fes Puritan strings: it offers socialism plus the destruction of personal liberty in the name of doing god's work. It's a mistake to hold that the religious right has an affection for liberty because it seemed to in the remote past. The only attraction that capitalism had for the religious right was as a way to set it apart from godless communism. Thus the enemy of thrie enemy was, temporarily, their friend. Communism is dead, and now the xers can return to their true socialist, statist roots.

There are no ethical hurdles that religionists must overcome to deprive you of your rights, your very life, in the name of god. If god commands that you lose these assumed rights, god's will be done. The way I see it, the enemy of my enemy is still my enemy, if he isn't clearly my friend. Religion is no friend of reason or rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I see. So the media elites, the Hollywood elites, the elites in education, and those in the halls of government power have given up their belief in socialism?
In terms of an integrated guiding creed, independent of religion, that would largely be a yes. What's left beyond the religious motivation is nothing more than pragmatism and power-lust with a fading remnant of socialist flavouring.

I wasnt aware of that.
Glad to be of service.

I guess I was just imagining all that talk about the socialization of medicine.
Now you're confusing individual programs with the motivation for them.

If you fall for the nonsense that says Christianity is compatible with capitalism then you're living in cloud cuckoo land. Christian capitalists of the current generation are merely cherry-picking bible quotes to suit their pragmatism. It's a grave mistake to count on what one generation believes as holding in the next. An example in islam is the growing problem we have in Australia. The older Lebanese muslims, mostly decent people, fled Lebanon in the 70's and 80's to get away from the sectarian warfare. They are now crying their hearts out because their children have starting resurrecting that crap here in Australia. Result: growing attacks on carefree Australian lifestyles. Consequence: the Cronulla riots in retaliation to our ways of life being threatened.

JJM

Edited by John McVey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we really want to give these priests (or their proxies) power?

No. But then again, many would consider Bush just such a proxy, and despite the fears to the contrary, six years into the Bush presidency(most of it with a republican majority) he didnt bring a return to a theocratic dark ages. How much damage would a president Hillary and six years of democrat majority bring to liberty and capitalism in the US? Quite a lot, I suspect. Crackpots like Robertson are no threat to my freedom. Crackpots like Hillary are. If Robertson were running for president and leading the field, then I might join you and be worried. But right now, he is as far on the fringe of society as he is on the fringe of reality. Giuliani, Mccain, and Thompson, the fronrunners for the GoP hardly strike me as fundamentalists. Hillary, Obama, and Edwards do.

It's quite natural to see Christianity as a lesser threat because it has been on the wane for years and that makes people take the resurgence of the last two decades less seriously. This resurgence will continue to grow, if not checked.

I think the resurgence of Christianity is more a reaction to the increasing power of the irrational irreligious left. They are trying to defend their moral positions from the assaults of the amoral leftists. Christianity does have to retreat in the face of reason, and its resurgence is due to the fact that the socialist left does not represent the face of reason. Socialism is, at least in my opinion, more irrational and dangerous than Christianity. People who agree with that position will begin heading back to church in droves to help defend what they see as traditional moral values from attack. There is no viable third alternative. You either throw in with the leftists who openly seek to destroy everything you value or you throw in with the church which, while hardly perfect, will fight to defend at least some of what you value. I think it was you (if not, I appologize) who said earlier that Christian ethics often mirror Objectivist ethics. It is these ethics and values that are under assault from the irrational irreligious left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you're confusing individual programs with the motivation for them.

Are you suggesting that the motivation for socialized medicine--as well as any other social program--is religion? How then would you explain that it is the irreligious that seek the forced implimentation of these programs, and offer a non-religious justification for them?

If you fall for the nonsense that says Christianity is compatible with capitalism then you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

How then do you explain the 1800's in America? It seems to me that capitalism and Christianity got along just fine. Or was that an example of 'cloud cuckoo land?'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it is, socialists you can reason with, while Christians you cannot.

Socialism does not necessarily preclude reason -- to me it's just a matter of them having the wrong assumptions and inevitably reaching the wrong conclusions. Christianity on the other hand entirely eliminates reason from the discussion when they bring in "the words of God" as absolute truths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. But then again, many would consider Bush just such a proxy, and despite the fears to the contrary, six years into the Bush presidency(most of it with a republican majority) he didnt bring a return to a theocratic dark ages.
Yes, and that's as one would expect. Today, Americans would reject anyone who went too far. [it is not just the reason-based aspect of their thinking, it is also their multiculturalist training.] Bush has taken little steps in the direction of religion. His faith-based initiatives program is an important new area where government is being mixed with religion; elsewhere on the forum there was a link about the number of graduates of Christian universities who have found jobs in the Bush administration. Bush has managed to appoint justices to the SCOTUS who are a little more favorable toward religion. Just a few days ago, the SCOTUS decided a case (decision authored by Bush appointee Alito), that favored Bush's government financed faith-based initiatives. So, the ball is rolling. As I said in my previous post, I am not claiming that the religious threat is the more imminent one; but, clearly, it is very real and it is growing.

Supposedly, presidential candidate Ron Paul says: "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion...."

How long before a president appoints a SCOTUS judge who is sympathetic to that view. As David said above, the constitutional protection against religion is not at all stronger than the protection against socialism. The difference is not in the constitution, but established practice. It takes time to change established practice, but if the Christians are not checked, they will continue to do so slowly, but surely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at countries that has actually practiced socialism through and through -the Soviet Union and China- you will see that once people realized it didn't work, they'd change.

Christianity and Islam on the other hand persisted for roughly two millennium. You do the math.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His faith-based initiatives program is an important new area where government is being mixed with religion

I dont see why this is any worse or should be objected to any more strenuously than any other non-faith based initiative. As long as we have a state that doles out grants, why should Christians be left out? They pay taxes. If a program like head start is OK (which it is not) then faith bases initiatives should be OK as well. Why discriminate against religion for being a religion. Right now, we have a state that says it is OK to rob Peter to pay Paul--unless Paul wants to use his ill-gotten booty for a religious purpose. That is silly and discriminatory. A faith based initiative is no worse than a race based intiiative or a poverty based initiative. If they use the power of the state to impose its will upon a free people, then they are all equally bad. In my view, it is not the religion mixing with government that is the problem, it is the government's ability to violate individual rights particularly in the form of robbing Peter to pay Paul ie., socialism. Eliminate socialism, limit the power of government, and you have nothing to fear from religion. Religion, like socialism will be left to pursuasion, not force.

How long before a president appoints a SCOTUS judge who is sympathetic to that view. As David said above, the constitutional protection against religion is not at all stronger than the protection against socialism. The difference is not in the constitution, but established practice. It takes time to change established practice, but if the Christians are not checked, they will continue to do so slowly, but surely.

I dont see how religion can make inroads into the US government unless the door to power is first opened by socialism. Close the door to the socialists and you lock out the theists. Close the door to the theists and the socialists still manage to get in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont see how religion can make inroads into the US government unless the door to power is first opened by socialism. Close the door to the socialists and you lock out the theists. Close the door to the theists and the socialists still manage to get in.
Well I think a good test of this would be to see where the theist want govt control, and yet disagree 180 degrees with the socialists. If there is no such place then this is an interesting hypothesis. Unfortunately there is every such place.abortioncensorshiprestrictions on sexual freedomkeep going.... It's 2 separate doors my friend. You have to close both.
If a program like head start is OK (which it is not) then faith bases initiatives should be OK as well. Why discriminate against religion for being a religion.
Why justify one on the basis that it's not ok as well. Discrimination against programs that are wrong, because they are all wrong. That's a new argument on me. What you're suggesting then is we should discriminate against all of them because they are wrong. Snerd's case I think is that some are more wrong than others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why justify one on the basis that it's not ok as well.

I dont justify either. What I dont see is how one is more wrong than another. Just because one is religion based does not make it somehow worse.

What you're suggesting then is we should discriminate against all of them because they are wrong.

Yes. Distributing unearned government grants is not wrong because it is distributed for religious purposes, it is wrong to distribute unearned grants for any purpose. Taking my money and giving it to a priest is no worse than taking my money and giving it to some starving artist. Both violate my rights equally. How the money is spent is irrelevant.

So as there is no confusion about my position, let me state quite clearly that I am no Christian. I do not believe in the existence of any God. I do, however, find religion and religious history quite fascinating. Next to any book by Ayn Rand, my next favorite is Summa Theologiae by St. Thomas Aquinas. I can respect and even agree with many of his conclusions particularly in the field of ethics without accepting his God-based premise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Close the door to the socialists and you lock out the theists.
When you say this, you are equating government violation of rights with socialism, and that's not correct. A religious state and a socialist state simply provide two different justifications for the violation of rights. The religious state will also tax, help the poor and so on, just like the socialist one does. The difference, in principle, is that socialism is the secular variant.

Socialism as a political philosophy is relatively better because it contains the seed of it's own destruction. It tells people to look to reality for justification. Religious variants have an extra layer of insulation, because one has to fight the metaphysics first. Of course, in practice, one can have socialist state of various levels of evil, and the same with religious states.

Again, you could make the case that today, in the U.S., the socialists in the are way down their path while the religious guys have just a couple of decades of assertiveness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you say this, you are equating government violation of rights with socialism, and that's not correct. A religious state and a socialist state simply provide two different justifications for the violation of rights. The religious state will also tax, help the poor and so on, just like the socialist one does. The difference, in principle, is that socialism is the secular variant.

I can go along with that.

Again, you could make the case that today, in the U.S., the socialists in the are way down their path while the religious guys have just a couple of decades of assertiveness.

That is the way I see things. In the US, I see the socialists as a bigger threat. Allying myself with the conservative Christian right seems to be the best stratagy for reistance to that threat. Beat/convert the secular socialists first, then take on the Christians is, in my mind, the best approach. Now, if the question was whether the socialist utopia of North Korea is worse than the religious utopia of the Taliban...I dont know if there is a lesser of those two evils.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like von Mises said... the Christian reformer and Christian government will move in the direction of socialism anyways. They start out with things like censorship, faith-based state run charities and laws to make trade more "fair"... then they move into the heavier things. Alot of socialist movement and institutions have and still recieve condonation from Christians and religious groups.

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...