[originally posted in *** August 2012 low content thread ***]
Advice to libertarian fathers
The interview and followup videos he’s talking about are here, and here, respectively. I just wish he didn’t switch gears the way he did halfway through.
Actually, it is true that religion has always been a royal pain in the backside of the State. In fact, religion is the #1 enemy of the State, this is why it is the first line of production to be monopolized by the State. The modern secular narrative says that wars are caused by religion. What rubbish. Wars are not caused by religion, they are caused by governments.
The problem with Christianity is not that it is a religion. The problem with Christianity is that its founding document is mostly fabricated and, therefore, contains a tremendous amount of misleading and false information, hardly a reliable foundation for organizing one’s entire life and being.
If you want to break the back of the State, you will not do it with secularism. It cannot be done. Secularism is the greatest trick ever played by the State, lulling people into the ridiculous idea that “rational” government and “enlightened” legislation is the solution to the problems created by “irrational” religions. Secularism was created by the State’s kept priestly class (in particular, the Jesuits) to stem the tide of Protestantism.
Clayton -
-
only because it wants the play the same role the State does of dictating your life, and the government hates competition. (As most proponants of monopoly do.)
-
That wasn’t even an argument the guy even made.
…right because religion is never the mcguffin in a war narrative. People are never motivated to go to war, feel justified in conducting war, and willing to do things they would never do otherwise without the belief of God on their side. 
Um. It sounds like you just said “The problem with Christianity is not that it is a religion”…and then went on to describe what a basis for religious belief sounds like.
I find it comical that you would actually suggest that religious belief is a way to end the State rather than a necessity for it.
You really surprised me with this piece, Clayton. You usually seem a lot more considered.
Apparently, you’ve not seen this thread.
I don’t disagree with anything Larken Rose says in that piece but I also think that most secularists do not think deeply enough about the role of religion in free society. It’s not just “irrationalism”, it really is part of the glue that holds society itself together. Religion can be blamed for wars and statism only in the same sense that academic study or engineering or UPS can be; after all, these disciplines and lines of production all contribute to the power of the State directly or indirectly. It’s a Nirvana fallacy.
Stop believing in God
???
Liberty
What’s the causal connection?
Clayton -
Secular statists still worship a god. that is, the state.
The church has no power to dictate ones life without the state. If the church uses coercion to dictate people’s lives, then it isnt a church anymore, its called what we have known to be the state.
God created us with free will, and the state is the antithesis of freedom.
Usually most people justify the state under a utilitarian POV; oh its ok that an X number of iraqi got killed, at least we got their oil and stabilized our economy (complete bullshit).
Most statist christians that i know do not advocate forcing religious beliefs upon another, that is not true faith, usually they advocate for a state because they have never envisioned life without one. Its like if youve come from north korea and is asked about civil rights, freedom etc, they would not believe you.
This doesn’t refute my point, as I never made the case that religion “contributes to the power of the State”, at least not “in the same sense” as something like technological advancement would. So it’s quite ironic that you would actually say that that very thing works “in the same sense”.
Again, I’ve heard of a lot more wars fought on religions grounds (figuratively and literally, I suppose) than on the basis of one side uses forks and the other side uses chopsticks. Again, throughout history religion is often the mcguffin in the war narrative. People are motivated to go to war, feel justified in conducting war, and are willing to do things they would never do otherwise without the belief of God on their side…due to religious beliefs, more than any other source. I would even venture to say more than all other possible sources combined.
This is a total straw man, as I never even implied there was a connection…or that belief in God even automatically qualified as “religion”, for that matter.
Besides, I could easily ask you the opposite.
Again, I never denied religion as an enemy of the governmental State. In fact I indirectly agreed with you in your statement that it is a “royal pain in the backside of the State”…but this does not automatically mean it’s because religion is anti-Statism or pro-liberty. In my view it only reflects the obvious and predictable consequence of two institutions, both whose entire existence is to monopolize and dominate and control your life…and of course by definition, a monopolist doesn’t like competition.
So just because Stalin is an enemy of Hitler, it doesn’t automatically mean one of them is a / “the” good guy. And it certainly doesn’t mean that either offers an inherent path to freedom.
Once again I’m really surprised by your position here.
I think this is the sticking point.
What is it about religion that makes it inherently monopolistic anymore than, say, the retail industry? Sure, Wal-Mart would love to be the sole retailer but so long as they don’t use force or fraud (or government, which is the same) to bring about a monopoly, how do their ambitions harm anyone else?
With the exception of religions that perform human sacrifice, for example, until you mix religion with the State, it is voluntary, that is, it does not entail the use or threat of violence. If the Vatican has ambitions to rule the Universe And All It Contains, fine, let them have their ambitions - so long as they do not threaten or use force or engage in fraud.
And my contention is that religion is not ambivalent with respect to the social order. Unlike the State which has a discoordinating effect on the social order, all other lines of voluntary production and exchange - including religion - have a coordinating effect on the social order. I think it is intellectually unjustifiable to single out religion qua religion - that is, religion as it relates to the voluntary interaction of individuals for whatever religious purposes - for special criticism as against any other line of voluntary production or exchange.
Clayton -
Are you seriuosly suggesting that religious ambitions haven’t / don’t lead individuals to harm others?
You’re honestly suggesting that religious beliefs do not include the use of violence to enforce doctrine? I’ll play your exception game and grant you the Jains, but come on. You cannot be serious.
Right. And my entire point is that yes, while it may be a long while since the last time the Vatican specifically aggressed on others, but you’re generalizing this entire group of literally billions of people (i.e. those who identify as “religious”) and suggesting that their religion does not entice or condone or encourage or motivate or justify aggression (outside of human sacrifice apparently), and I say that’s complete nonsense.
Even if we ignore the actual violent doctrine contained within the dogma of various religions…even if we pretend that violent aggressors who use religion to justify their violent actions are all wrong about their religion, and are condemned by the dictates of their religion, and will be condemned by their god…this still does nothing to change the fact that millions if not billions of people (certainly throughout history) engage in aggressive behavior almost entirely in the name of their religion.
And you’re actually sitting here suggesting that “Wars are not caused by religion”. That is rubbish. I don’t deny that wars end up largely being dictated by governments, and are constantly supported and exacerbated, and orchestrated, and even in some cases entirely started by governments. But to suggest that religion or religious belief doesn’t or can’t be a “cause” of war, and that wars are not often (if not majorly) waged by religious people, who largely justify their actions in part (if not in whole) by appealing to their religion, is just naive to the point of nonsense.
And again, I state plainly, simply being a theist doesn’t automatically qualify someone as being “religious” and certainly not as having a “religion” in the context we are discussing.
This has little to do with a simple belief in a deity. This has virtually everything to do with religion, as defined by a doctrine and/or set of dogma that one lives one’s life by, which is guided and founded largely by an overarching institutional authority, with a bureaucracy of officials, and/or is based largely in a set of mystical beliefs which one ascribes to and comes to not by logic and reason, but by faith and collective acceptance.
This sounds largely like not only what most people think of when they hear and use the word “religion”, but also quite closely describes the State as well.
When you talk of “role of religion in free society”, as if “religion” is a necessary condition for such a society, I’m curious as to what exactly you’re talking about.
I think this is the sticking point. You think that religion is somehow guaranteed to be, or is naturally, or is ultimately, fundamentally and principally (and principle-ly) made up of voluntary action. I honestly don’t see it that way. This has not been my experience.
Well hell. I think it’s unjustifiable to single out guns qua guns - that is, guns as they relate to non-aggressive interaction of individuals for whatever gun purposes…
What does that have to do with anything? What you just said is basically say “well I don’t think it’s reasonable to condemn religion as it relates to non-condemnable aspects of it.”
We’re not talking about religion “as it relates to voluntary interaction”…we’re talking about religion causing war (or more specifically, aggression, and State-like behavior/conditions). And you say that doesn’t happen. Appealing to voluntary aspects included in religion does absolutely nothing to support that.
Again, just because religion is often a “royal pain in the backside of the State”, does not automatically mean it’s because religion is anti-Statism or pro-liberty. The enemy of your enemy is not automatically your friend. And it still surprises me that this is what your entire case seems to boil down to.
I haven’t seen any support for the idea that religion is a necessary condition for a free society, if that’s some other point you’re asserting.
@JJ: You and I are not using the word “religion” the same way. Rewind back in time to tribal times… the shaman or medicine-man did not start wars, he had no interest in starting wars. He was primarily a wise man, an advisor, a philosopher. People came to him because he was recognized to be wise not because he could compel it. This is the essence of religion - people who are voluntarily seeking advice and guidance from other people who are recognized for their wisdom and insight. This is analogous to the origins of law in the voluntary bringing of disputes to elders recognized for their wise judgment. In many cases, both roles may have been joined in one individual (insight is insight, after all).
Religion under the State is compulsive and does play a role in war. But the operative phrase is “under the State”. The same could be said for “the steel industry under the State” or “the aircraft industry under the State”. Every line of production is turned to the service of the State and its ends (including war).
As for why religion has so much bullshit in it, I think a lot of this can be explained as low-tech, anarchistic Intellectual Property protections… think of it as stone-age DRM. Wrapping your non-bullshit insights in layers and layers of bullshit is one way to frustrate the attempts of your customers or competitors to copy your insights without paying you. So, it’s a way to make sure you get paid. “To learn the secret of the serpent, bring your offerings to the alter next week at this same time.”
Clayton -
Yeah that’s a definition of “religion” that I’ve never heard in my life.
Dictionary.com says:
noun
-
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
-
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
-
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
-
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
-
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
Merriam-Webster says:
1a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2**:** a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Wikipedia says:
a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature. According to some estimates there are roughly 4200 religions in the world.[1]
Many religions may have organized behaviors, clergy, a definition of what constitutes adherence or membership, holy places, and scriptures. The practice of a religion may also include rituals, sermons, commemoration or veneration a god or gods, sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trance, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, prayer, music, art, dance, public service or other aspects of human culture.
The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system, but religion differs from private belief in that it has a social aspect.[2] A poll showed that 59% of the world’s population is religious, 23% are not religious and 13% are atheists.
I could present more, but I think you get the idea. I have no idea where that definition is coming from. I never realized a couple of kids asking their grandfather how to construct a good slingshot was a perfect example of “religion”.
You cannot be serious. I honestly mean no insult to you, but that has to be one of the most moronic things I’ve ever heard in my life.
I cannot believe anyone would even begin to suggest that people tithe money to a church because they’re just dying to know what the preacher is going to say next. I’m actually dumbfounded. If this wasn’t a textual format I wouldn’t be able to finish a sentence.
I guess we can easily smooth over this debate by saying that religion per religion is not statist but religion per the state is.
It’s pretty trite and it will most probably not provide a satisfactory conclusion, but I think that it would be useful to distinguish religion in the above manner. After all, we must distinguish the essence of a thing from its necessary or contingent accidents to give us certainty that it does in fact, essentially cause what we think it causes.
The shaman or medicine-man has always been where people go when they have “big questions” or to get help with big problems, questions that can’t be answered by casual discussion with peers and problems that can’t be solved by ordinary means. This is the origin of religion. Clearly, it’s changed a lot since 10-20kya.
The word “religion” as used in the dictionary refers to the present usage of the word in modern lexicon and can be primarily broken down into “doxa” (beliefs) and “praxis” (rituals). Western religions (Catholicism, Protestantism and their spawn) tend to be heavily doxa-centric… creeds, catechism, ideological assent (belief, faith) is the most important defining feature of the member of the religion. Praxis is secondary. The idea of a “non-practicing” religious person is unintelligible in some other cultures - the religion pretty much is the practice. Beliefs are secondary.
So, are you suggesting they tithe because the preacher has a gun in their ribs?
Clayton -
Bingo. And what’s more, even in your antiquated breakdown, I still don’t see “people who are voluntarily seeking advice and guidance from other people who are recognized for their wisdom and insight” in “beliefs and rituals”.
I would even generally agree on “beliefs and rituals” as a decent barebones breakdown of “religion” in the modern, commonly understood sense. I still don’t see how that qualifies as your definition of people seeking advice from medicine men.
Sure most religious rituals have always been led by some religious official or authority…but the essence of “religion” is not found in the simple act of people seeking advice. That happens all the time…to a point at which “religion” loses virtually all meaning. What defines “religion” is as I and the dictionaries said, a set of belief systems that generally relate to humanity and spirituality, and usually require or at least encourage rituals. Which again, is basically what you just broke down here, “beliefs and rituals”. But again, just because “religious” “leaders” are involved, does not mean that they are the defining characteristic of “religion”.
Again, leader-type figures who are consulted for advice exist everywhere. Parents, friends, elders of all kind…people with higher rank, higher status (again of all kind), people even with simply more experience. People are voluntarily sought after for advice all the time. This does not mean “religion” is existing in all these places and occurances. That’s just ridiculous. “seeking advice = religion”. Nonsense.
Not at all. I’m suggesting people give money (and time and plenty of other resources) to their church because they believe it is “the right thing to do”…because it is something God wants them to do. Whether they like the sermon or not has essentially no bearing on people’s inclination to donate to their church…or even more accurately, their religious sect.
If people cared so much about what the preacher was saying…if his words were what got them up every weekend and down to sit in an uncomfortable pew, probably scrunched with other people, in a probably uncomfortable tempurature for anywhere from 1-3 hours or more…why then are there always people falling asleep in church? Why then are people not jockeying for the best seats…and sitting on the edge of them the entire sermon? Why when people go to church do they often times seem as though they are going to perform some chore they’d rather not have to do…rather than the way they seem when going to a movie theater, or a Las Vegas show?
After all, they’re paying good money for the sole purpose of keeping that preacher talking, right? That’s the whole reason they paid their money, that’s the whole reason they’re there, is it not?
Why do people who go to church talk about it more as an obligation as opposed to a pleasure?
I know plenty of people who hate their preacher, and hate his sermons. They find them everything from boring, to inflammatory, to accusatory, to patronizing. But they still go. Every Sunday. They get up early, get all dressed up, and slough of to their church…and give their tithe.
You might just go to a church and ask people themselves why they give. I can pretty much guarantee you will get exactly zero answers to the effect of they are paying their ticket fee for admission to the preacher show.
Again, if I really want to hear “the secret of the serpent” that bad, I’ll just go. I’ve never seen anyone checking my stub at the door. How exactly does this “intellectual property protection” of “bullshit-wrapping” guarantee a payout again?
Do you think that government involvement in banking changes the character of banking from what it is otherwise (free banking)? Of course, on this forum, that’s a rhetorical question… The incestuous relationship of the State with the church over several millenia has changed the character of religion much more deeply than government has yet managed to alter the character of banking. So, the modern church is virtually unrecognizable as a manifestation of the religious within society.
We have some glimpses of this even in recent history, check out the Protestant Reformation. Many aspects of the Reformation are a wonderful history of how religious enlightenment can work hand-in-hand with decentralization. But one of the regular features of the Reformation as it swept across Europe and into the New World was congregational zeal… churches packed to the rafters with people dying to hear multi-hour long sermons. This illustrates that there was a genuine, popular demand for something those preachers were saying. The Holy Mother Church couldn’t draw crowds like that except with the promise of indulgences (fraud) or the spectacle of burning heretics at the stake (violent aggression).
I don’t think the Reformation was the pristine grassroots movement we are sold in the history books (likely, there was a lot of playing-of-games on the part of the minor monarchs who stood to benefit most from shaking the slave-collar of the Holy Roman Empire) but it was nevertheless definitely a historical process that resulted in greater human liberty, decentralization of power and would eventually even play a role in the advent of the Industrial Revolution and the spectacular rise out of subsistence living that has been made possible for almost everyone in the modern world.
When I use the word “religion” (sans government), I’m referring to something even more extreme than Protestantism. Protestantism was a “return to roots” within the larger rubric of Christianity. All the Protestant groups claim to be “original Christians” in some sense, many to the exclusion of the others and almost all in exclusion to the Catholic Church. What I envision is a “return to root-roots” in terms of religion-qua-religion… paganism, astrology, pantheism, etc. These are the deep roots of religion sans government and I think a revival of the root religious stance within human culture could have an exponentially more powerful effect than the Reformation did in terms of decentralizing power and expanding the horizons of human liberty.
I’m still working out some of these ideas for myself so I’m not explaining myself clearly, here. Apologies.
Clayton -
*Protestantism has less socialistic tendencies than Catholicism, tends to de-emphasize experts (bureaucrats, proxy decision-makers) and is more decentralized resulting in a higher degree of local variation in beliefs and practices (less “central-planning”)… then there is the so-called Calvinist work-ethic but this may be a bit of a historical exaggeration.
But you’re dodging the question. There are exactly three possibilities:
a) People attend church voluntarily
b) People attend church as a result of fraud
c) People attend church as a result of aggression/threats of aggression
Now, b&c are true of some religions… Scient0logy comes to mind. But other than the few quack religions that actually threaten you with aggressive force or engage in fraud, how can it be the cause that people attend church involuntarily?
I don’t know the answers to your questions but I don’t need to. All I need to know is that people aren’t being threatened or beaten up or defrauded in order to make them go to church. If none of those things is the case, then they’re attending voluntarily, even if they fall asleep or hate the sermon.
Clayton -
You have yet to really respond to my objections, other than to essentially claim “well, I’m talking about something else from historical times…even though I’m using modern examples of people tithing to the church.”
-
You claim “religion has always been a royal pain in the backside of the State”. Do you deny that this is by and large because the underlying nature of religion is the same as the State in that it is inclined to the play the same role the State does of dictating your life, and the government hates competition. (As most proponants of monopoly do.)?
-
You claim that “Wars are not caused by religion”. Do you deny that throughout history religion is often the mcguffin in the war narrative. People are motivated to go to war, feel justified in conducting war, and are willing to do things they would never do otherwise without the belief of God on their side…due to religious beliefs, more than any other source?
-
You allege that religion is just as monopolistic as Walmart. Do you deny there is a difference between inherent dictates that control one’s life that make up religion, and the profit-driven monopolistic tendencies of a company?
-
You ask “so long as they don’t use force or fraud (or government, which is the same) to bring about a monopoly, how do their ambitions harm anyone else?”…seemingly as if to imply religious ambitions haven’t / don’t lead individuals to harm others. Do you really believe that to be the case?
-
You talk of “role of religion in free society”, as if “religion” is a necessary condition for such a society…do you believe that is the case? (Unless of course you wish to stick with your definition of “religion” as “people who are voluntarily seeking advice and guidance from other people who are recognized for their wisdom and insight”. In that case, I’m not sure there will be much more to talk about, as when a couple of kids asking their grandfather how to construct a good slingshot becomes a perfect example of “religion”, I’m afraid I don’t really have much more interest in persuing the line of conversation.
-
You seem to be implying that just because religion is often a “royal pain in the backside of the State”, it automatically means religion is anti-Statism or pro-liberty.
-
You allege that people tithe to their church becase of a “low-tech, anarchistic Intellectual Property protections”… like a “stone-age DRM”, which requires them to pay so that they might hear “the secret of the serpent”. Do you deny that many if not most people tithe to their chruch regardless of how they feel about the sermon, and in fact many times fall asleep during it, and in fact would rather not be there at all?
Well Clayton I pretty much agreed with everything you were saying in this thread until you brought up Protestantism. Luther wanted to strip Christianity of all its humanistic features and put the focus solely on God. Because of that it is in fact the opposite of what you’re saying, since the emphasise on the Church’s functions of traditional morality and customary law were to be abandoned for the argument that salvation comes only through belief in God; the after-life and belief is all that matters, good deeds and one’s lot on earth are irrelevant. It was for this reason that Luther didn’t care about wiping out his rivals - kill them all and let God sort it out! It’s certainly not less socialistic than Catholicism - all the violent, religious communistic mass movements of the medieval and early modern periods were based on Protestantism or on common influences. The reason that Catholicism emphasised religious experts was so that natural elites could be identified to uphold the beneficial traditions - Protestant tolerance of any new idea is the root of the egalitarian claptrap we are stuck with today. And come on, the Protestants and proto-Protestants like Wycliffe and Hus always revered the state and demanded that the state enforce Protestant belief, since all that matters is belief in God and so in order to save the most number of souls force can be employed: the ends justify the means.
The so-called Reformation was essentially a reaction to the humanistic developments in Catholicism that arose especially during what is called the Renaissance. Where Catholicism was focusing on what institutions are best for man both in this world and the next, the Protestants wanted to focus only on spiritual salvation and throw the rest out. Protestantism is essentially Catholicism without the beneficial parts and only the ridiculous, supernatural parts. The statolatry of today is essentially Protestantism with the state, rather than God, as the focus on salvation. The reason why there was that demand that you refer to is because the promises of the Protestant preachers were all so fantastic - salvation without good works!! It’s exactly the same ‘something for nothing’ mentality at the root of the statist war of all against all.
Also, indulgences were NOT fraud - they were voluntary fines through which one could be forgiven for temporal sins. The Church did not say that they gave one passage into heaven or any such rot. The reason that indulgences and confession don’t exist in Protestantism is because salvation comes from belief only and deeds are ultimately irrelevant.
There are many who would say that is redundant. The notion that some religions qualify as “quack”, while others do not, is quite telling of how one might be able to actually saddle with your views here.
By what metric does one determine a religion is “quack”?
Yes and Calvin was even worse… he extremized the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin to the Calvinistic version of Total Depravity, that man is wholly infused with a “sinful bent”, rotten to the core. You can’t get much more anti-humanist than that.
Well, I think your view of the Church is overly forgiving. Let’s not forget that the Pope openly exercised temporal power through the majority of Church history and almost certainly still does so secretly ever since Popes swore it off whenever that was. So, the Church has always been a quasi-State entity.
The Pope was literally a military leader in respect to his role in the Crusades and in respect to his power over European monarchs (whether exercised directly or through proxy of the secular Holy Roman Emperor). The spread of Catholicism through Europe and into Scandinavia and the New World was not voluntary; the Church followed a program of “religious cleansing”, burning or secreting heretical texts and chasing down and persecuting religious leaders as heretics, an ephitet that at that time carried all the force of “terrorist” in the modern lexicon.
And please don’t mistake this as any kind of apology for Protestantism. The Protestants in many instances outdid in their zeal the bloodlust of the Catholic church; the persecution of the anabaptists and the witch hunts of Salem, Mass. are terrifying examples of this.
Anti-Epicurean to the core, no doubt. And I have witnessed the destructive effects of actually holding these kind of beliefs in my own family. Protestant theology forms a kind of “escapism” where, rather than confronting and defeating the causes of misery in one’s own life, one simply ignores them and turns his eyes upward.
Let me just drop that line of argument… I believe it deserves more investigation but I haven’t investigated this line of thought well enough to debate it. The essence of the pattern I see is that Catholicism is very much obsessed with absolutism, universalism and centralization. Few Protestant denominations claim to be “the” church. The Catholic church is absolutely unambiguous: There is no salvation outside the Church. I see in that mindset a bias toward the merits of central-planning, as well as a psychological disposition toward territorial monopoly, whether of religion, security, law, whatever.
Naw, I don’t buy that for a minute. If it were a matter that the Church has always been pluralistic throughout its history (or even became genuinely pluralistic, at some point), then I might agree… but when you systematically wipe out competing religions with the aid of the State (or by directly controlling the State), you can’t make any credible claim to be interested in identifying natural elites.
I will agree that the Protestants are little better in this regard… many sects are just wannabe-Catholics (e.g. the “landmark Baptists”) who didn’t make the cut. But if natural elites of intellect and culture leadership are to be identified, it cannot be by an organization that sullies itself with the means of the State, whether directly, indirectly, openly or secretly.
I do see a pattern that Protestant-dominated cultures tend to a democratization of opinions, leading to a deluge of the scatological within the culture and that Catholic-dominated culture tends to avoid this particular pitfall.
Unfortunately, that is generally true and the torch is being carried today by, for example, the Reconstructionists like Gary North and the late Rushdoony. Sad, indeed. I’m no apologist for Protestantism.
(Full-disclosure: I was raised Calvinist from a sect of Baptist very similar to the Reconstructionist Presbyterians called “Reformed Baptist”. Needless to say, I no longer assent to most of those ideas.)
Yes. I can’t find the cite but I recall a quote from Increase Mather to the effect that while it is true that compelling obedience (by the State) does not give merit to the compelled, nevertheless, God is owed a two-fold duty from Man, the first being external obedience and the second being internal obedience and devotion, so that if all that can be accomplished with the insolent individual is to compel external obedience, this is the duty of the State because - in accomplishing half the duty that is owed to God - the State thereby glorifies God. Yikes.
I think that is unfairly diminutive of the true import of the Reformation. A tremendous amount of energy was unleashed in the Reformation and it is impossible to believe that that was just “anti-humanist reactionism”. The Church played a huge role in sanctioning, endorsing and enabling the oppression of the State and, in turn, received assistance from the State in pressing its own agenda of religious monopoly.
I think you’re misreading this a bit. The problems that Luther focused on that got popular traction centered around the material corruption of the Church and lot of this corruption flowed out of the incestuous relationship between the Church leaders and secular authorities. The Protestant disavowal of the material world is in part a reaction against this… Protestant church leaders are expected NOT to be very politically active, not too concerned with affairs of the State and this world, and so on. This part of Protestantism is actually redeemable as we should expect fair and unbiased leaders to be people who don’t have so much skin in the game that they might intentionally mislead their followers.
Well, in a direct comparison, I think the best that can be said is that both are founded on a fradulent document filled with outrageously evil moral lessons, describing a reprehensible and odious God who - if real - every sane, moral person could only choose to actively resist and disavow all worship of. In that sense, there is little redeeming value in any strain of Christianity (or Islam or Judaism) and this is where the secularists get the most traction.
I’m certainly not about to get into James 2:24 and the eternal Sola Fide arguments; suffice it to say that the whole way of thinking about behavior that begins with a big sky daddy who will cast you into Hades if you don’t do what He says is no basis for a morality worth having.
I think you are too kind to the Church given the facts of its history.
Except that when you take into account the conditions of ignorance created by the Church and State working together, you see that there is an inherent conflict-of-interest, here. People did not really choose between buying an indulgence or not buying an indulgence with the full knowledge that indulgences are a sham. And they did not have this knowledge because the Church (with the cooperation of the State) made sure of it. This is called conflict-of-interest and when mixed with selling a product with a false claim, is fraud.
Clayton -
What a good point. QFT.