Religion and state together, oh my!

Economics Political Theory
1

I find that many religious die-hards despise materialism because it doesn’t fit with their belief system, so they tend to support income redistribution. I try to show them that taxes are immoral, and are coercive, but I hit a brick wall because they constantly go back to their religion for support. While many times they may be falsely interpreting their faith, it just seems impossible to argue with nuts like that.

When religious fundamentalists decide people should live a certain way, religion and state come together. How do you stop someone who blindly clings to his religion, and believes it’s his religious duty to make others live a certain way?

As in the case of Islamo-fascists, they will do anything to see everyone under their faith. With all the beheadings and torturing done by islamo-fascists, it’s hard to imagine a way to communicate with such individuals. They have lived in essentially the same way for centuries, so their belief system has been shown to withstand the test of time.

Do you believe Islamo-fascism is a present threat to your personal security and freedom? Will it be a threat if left to the devices of the individuals who practice it?

I want you to notice I have not proposed a solution, although I have made a few assumptions as far as the beliefs of Islamic Fundamentalists go. I also realize that many Christians have imposed several of their beliefs on different populations, and so have individuals practicing other religions, so I don’t want you to think I’m just picking on Islam. Tell me where I’m wrong, but don’t forget to answer the questions.

2

Good luck figuring this one out. You can’t reason with someone who doesn’t understand reason. You can’t play chess with checker pieces.

I think religo-fascism is the biggest threat to my personal freedom. In otherwords, a theocratic state is impairs my freedom. We’ve been moving closer and closer to a theocracy in the US, unfortunatley.

Individuals can do whatever they want, granted they don’t infrige on my freedom. Once they use force or coersion, they have crossed the line.

3

The egalitarian police state is a bigger threat to my freedom.

4

Hmm… maybe, but do we ignore the threat of theocracy simply because there is a larger threat. Both deserve consideration, but the topic of this post is mainly religion. Anyways, it’s possible to have a theocracy, that is an egalitarian state.

5

It’s really no different when the leftists think they are justified in stealing everyone’s money in order to “make a difference” in the world.

I just try to make it as personal as possible: What gives you the right to steal my money? Why not allow me to control my own life?

It’s difficult to change the mind of the person with whom you are arguing, but you can make them look really bad to anyone who’s watching (and hopefully you can change an observer’s mind).

6

I also have long thought that Christian teachings cause people to lean towards socialism. IMO, the most important thing to do in this case is to emphasize that you both have the same ends in mind. I often tell people, “I see where you’re coming from… I too want to ensure that the hungry are fed, that the poor have access to medical care, that people are able to achieve their dreams and protect their families. Where we differ is in the means. For me, it’s not enough to say ‘this is what I want’. I want to make sure that my actions are consistent with achieving those ends, our ends. And I think history clearly shows that xxxxxx doesn’t work and in fact leads to more suffering. So, I think there’s a better way…” Then I expound on the Austrian view of whatever the topic is at hand. I also remind them at the end that we have the same goals in mind and differ only on means.

In the end, to succeed we’ll need the support of folks who just don’t have the ability to comprehend logical economic arguments. To gain that support, we must provide leadership whom they are confident share the same goals. If they have confidence in that, then they’ll trust us on the means. That’s how the current ruling party does it, and that’s how we’ll have to do it.

7

It isn’t hard to untangle this. Let’s say you’re arguing with a Christian who says that homosexual marriage should be outlawed. How do you argue with this when he claims something as obtuse as, “homosexual actions are sinful and should be outlawed, and I believe this based on my faith”?

Simple. Realize that he’s not just mixing religion with State: he’s mixing specifically those ethical aspects of his religion with State. More to the point, he’s mixing “Ethics and State.” This isn’t surprising, as everyone mixes his personal view of ethics when he advocates such and such a law. It’s impossible not to. The Christian who advocates outlawing homosexual marriage, the Muslim who advocates outlawing everything but Islam (I’m being facetious here), and even the atheist who advocates the well-intentioned outlawing of, say, cigarettes, are all doing exactly the same thing: they are mixing Ethics and State.

When someone refers to somebody else “forcing their religion” when they advocate X or Y law or its repeal, they are mistaken. They are forcing their ethics. Whether or not their ethics are a subset of any given religion is immaterial. So, with respect to Christians, all you have to do is ask, “What do your ethics consist of?” You might get any number of answers, but the easiest way to distill the core Christian ethic is as follows: “One should love God more than anything else, and one should also love his neighbor as himself.” From here we find the negative premises: “One should not love anything more than God, and one should not love himself more than his neighbor.” To do what one should not is sin.

So if one claims that we ought to outlaw homosexual marriage because such a thing is sinful, ask him why we should not also outlaw other sinful acts–in fact, any sinful act at all, because, really, God does not distinguish between a visible sin such as an act of homosexual behavior and the private invisibilia of one’s moment of greed. They are both sin. So why the discrepancy? Why outlaw homosexual marriage but not greed?

Here they may claim that “we should outlaw homosexual marriage because it would help promote a stable society,” using the word “stable” in place of “good” in attempt to be…“objective.” However, in order to determine that they should try to promote a “stable” society in the first place, they must look to–aha!–their ethics, which also claim that greed is just as evil as homosexual behavior. If “stable” is “good,” and thus we should seek it, we see from that same source of ethics that greed is just as not good as homosexual behavior, and thus we should avoid it. So if they’re going to have any consistency at all, they must outlaw the entirety of the dark ranks of invisibilia as well: greed, lust, hatred, envy, haughtiness, and on and on. And as their source of ethics, the Bible, does not make any categorical distinction between visible and invisible sin–which would provide a foundation for a two-tiered ethic–we see that any attempt to separate the rules into “those which should see the light of positive law” and “those which shouldn’t” must be a purely arbitrary selection, resting solely on the opinion of the one in question and devoid of any theological merit. Another Christian may assert (however unpopularly) that we should outlaw greed and let the homosexuals do as they may, but he would be saying nothing different in principle from the others.

So what we’ve ended up with is a country where virtually everyone breaks the law virtually every day, an impossible situation where the application of human judgment and punishment are concerned. With everyone pointing the finger at everyone else–in suspicion of an invisibilia violation at the very least–we see a society not at all like the one that is supposed to be defined by love.

What to do? Condemn no one. Love. Let God deal with the impossible mess of virtually everyone breaking his law virtually every day, and seek to force no behavior on anyone else through the means of positive law. Otherwise we greet a slope that cannot but descend into chaos.

I’m a Christian, but some people are just stupid.

8

I get a kick nowadays when in a conversation I’m asked to explain what being an Ignostic, apolitical libertarian means. I typically get the reaction of people watching a train wreck, but unable to look away due to morbid curiosity.

I typically stay away from religious arguments though; especially from atheists. I blame Richard Dawkins for the current lack of logic in some of the atheists I seem to encounter offline, more & more. Alarmist yelling does not equal relevant arguments :[.

As for religion & the state; old hat I say.

9

Any time one of my fellow Christians advocates using force to “create” morality, I like to refer them to this scripture, wherein the religious leaders bring a prostitute for Jesus to judge her, and instead he puts the people who brought her to shame. You probably know the saying, “let him who is without sin cast the first stone”.

Social conservatives and the religious right are all about throwing stones…

10

Unlike the left, at least the right is honest about it.

11

Touché. But I was referring to issues of Christian morality in specific. The left has its own set of bigotry. And as you say, at least the right admits it.