The Libertarian War on Church Was Wrong

Miscellaneous History
41

I think the fact that the ancient world was characterized by polytheism goes a long ways to explaining why empires and modern super-states have arisen at the time in human history when they did. Every ancient empire - Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, and so on, has been characterized by the imposition of a religious and cultural hegemony. The people in subjugated nations who “jumped ship” and joined the religion of their conquerors became the governors for the imperial powers.

I’ll disagree. That can be countered with Ancient Greece, Iranians (both of the Monotheistic and Polytheistic variety), much of the pre late Bronze Age Mediterranean Semites (of the polytheistic, and monotheistic/henotheistic variety), and late Neolithic/ early Bronze age Eastern Semites. It is easier to make a correlation to: increased contact and trade routes, domestication and irrigation of land, humans somewhat natural design to form into hierarchies, Increased mobility to travel (wheel, horses, ships, etc), the nature of rivers in earlier times, and the nature of nomads/barbarians to civilized people at the time. All of these things have a much more plausible explanation than “religion” (whatever the hell that term means) or polytheism. If they did help instigate empires, they were at best a secondary or tertiary byproduct.

Besides that State superstructures and politics is largely a result of Enlightenment nonsense; not the Persian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or anything of the sort. They were totally different constructs and should be compared with the utmost caution.

42

There is a really bad habit here by some people to attach Rothbard to anything they don’t agree with. It is disrespectful and it usually, in almost every case, reveals a certain level of ignorance.

My apologies. The way you alluded to your view of property rights, i was simply thinking you followed his. Even if you do, I think it is mostly spot on.

Censorship is a problem of government ownership and not private property?

reedom of religion, maybe… But certainly not private property. The former is useless without the latter, for now the State must approve of what constitutes a “religion”

You can see where I made my mistake, I think

43

It is easier to make a correlation to: increased contact and trade routes, domestication and irrigation of land, humans somewhat natural design to form into hierarchies, Increased mobility to travel (wheel, horses, ships, etc), the nature of rivers in earlier times, and the nature of nomads/barbarians to civilized people at the time.

Ya, the religions had been around for a while before the civs. The role religion played was that many/most cities developed around a shrine, and the shaman developed into priests. The priests became both religous leader and beauracrat for grain distribution, trade/legal disputes, and scribery. But the political leaders were usually family heads/chiefs which developed into kings.

44

I think the fact that the ancient world was characterized by polytheism goes a long ways to explaining why empires and modern super-states have arisen at the time in human history when they did. Every ancient empire - Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, and so on, has been characterized by the imposition of a religious and cultural hegemony. The people in subjugated nations who “jumped ship” and joined the religion of their conquerors became the governors for the imperial powers.

Also, to clear up some loose ends. The Achaemenid dynasty (Persia) was monotheistic (though it can be argued that at certain times certain aspects were not), however it was for the most part “secular”, as in there isn’t much evidence Zoroastrianism was imposed on the conquered nations (and the Persian Empire was huge). The Egyptians and Macedonian/ “Greeks”, Romans, Carthaginians, or even the Judeans showed no signs of imposing gods (they were more content to identify their gods with other various gods, or mix mythologies, etc) or their practices on people outside of their culture. When empires started to form, there is no consistent evidence of imposing gods (and the recognizing of an Emperor as god in for example Ancient Rome, was more of a formality that no one really believed).

The secular myth of religious disagreement as the root of all violence is ultimately in the interests of the monotheists… wouldn’t the elimination of all but one religion make religious disagreement (and therefore, violence due to such disagreements) impossible?

I think you are confusing monotheism vs polytheism with creedal vs non creedal spirtuality/ life. And even if that is the case, it would depend on the creed and the relationship of the believer to the creed and the world around him. Once again various forms of Christianity, most forms of Judaism, and almost any known form of Zoroastrianism (some debate about the Sassnid era) this would be a non issue, as it is more of a matter between the individual and his actions within the world than governing bodies and politics that is the concern for some monotheists. For a famous example, read Kierkegaard. I can’t speak much for Islam, as I am fairly ignorant of the faith.

To sum up; I disagree it is neither in the interestsor against the interest of monotheism, polytheism, creedal, or non creedal faiths; as that is too broad a term to use.

But the Church, especially in the West, has often been the handmaiden of the State. There is an unmistakable resemblance between the omnimax God of orthodox Christian theology and the Leviathan of Hobbes. Both are all-seeing, all-knowing and ever-present. Monotheism - when mixed with State force - becomes a territorial monopoly of deity worship. It is easy to see how the interests of the producers of devotional services (religion/church) dovetail as nicely with the monopolizing powers of the State as the interests of producers in any other industry (law, security, etc.)

Well, I think the use of the word “Church” is once again way to broad to carry much meaning. Anyway you cut it if you look at the 3 major Eastern Churches, Protestantism, or Catholocism you are going to get very bipolar results for all 3 groups. It’s a complex term and in complex usage even within its own specific brands of Christianity. If you just want to look at “Church” as some generic political entity and refuse to study its theology, you are essentially just playing th game of modern mass politics and detrimental broad catagorization.

If you are saying the theology doesn’t matter and all that matters is that there is an institution that subsidizes government expansion, than I would say that is also the case with capitalism. As places where capitalism has developed, communism and democracy wasn’t fr behind. Likewise, I could say that running on pro market issues has produced good results for the Republican Party, yet I would hardly call most Republicans “pro market”. The name “freedom” has been used in a plethora of often contradictory terms, from communists to fascists to progressives to libertarians and many times in its name it produces horrid results. Yet are you to care about “freedom” as a term or how it functions in politics?

Also, if you wish to make the hypotheses that Western monotheism is the “handmaiden of the state”, you are going to have to adress the issue that it is in these monotheistic nations that has produced the most coherent thoughts on the libertarian definitions of “freedom”, “decentralization”, “capitalism”, “human rights”, suspicion of government, etc. This is a fact that can not be ignored.

EDIT: LAST SECTION

45

Ya, the religions had been around for a while before the civs. The role religion played was that many/most cities developed around a shrine, and the shaman developed into priests. The priests became both religous leader and beauracrat for grain distribution, trade/legal disputes, and scribery. But the political leaders were usually family heads/chiefs which developed into kings.

This is a somewhat the basic template, but I’m not too sure how uniform even this was. Of the late neolithic/ early bronze age period I can say little without checking my records. But when you forward after/ during the “Bronze Age crash” and look at “Dark Age” Greece/Etruscan/Carthaginian/Latin religous customs, they seem to be quite informal, and quite “unscribe like”. I think the Iranians may have been a bit different too, but am unsure at the moment.

Likewise the Levites could be seen as a bit different, and it would appear often times at odds with the state. As most Levites were simply citizen/ priests that served only a few times a year. The priestly cast was divided into many functions, but I think (off the top of my head) they were almost exclusively religious (even the scribes), but I could be wrong on that.

46

This is a somewhat the basic template, but I’m not too sure how uniform even this was. Of the late neolithic/ early bronze age period I can say little without checking my records. But when you forward after/ during the “Bronze Age crash” and look at “Dark Age” Greece/Etruscan/Carthaginian/Latin religous customs, they seem to be quite informal, and quite “unscribe like”

Ya, I was mainly coming from a mesopotamian perspective as it is the oldest (known). Im not even sure Egypt developed like this, or not that we know. In mesopotamia and at least parts of persia it is a range of either settlements around religous structures.. you have to think of it as around 1000 nomadic people (the tribe) slowly making their summer/winter home their permanent home over a few hundred years as they perfect aggriculture further and further, and concurrently astronomy which feeds back to religion… or the earliest known building will be a wall and a tower. If I remember correctly there are far less defensive cities than others tho.

The people of meso/egypt were trading as far away as england and india, So, I think the other cultures gained the advantage of technology through that and had no need of a formal state system until later attempted conquests by say the persians in greece or rome in northern and eastern europe.

Carthage is an anomally so far out there… I really don’t know very much about them until the first punic war.

47

They aren’t really an anomoly when you think of them as nothing more than an extension of Phoencia. Those were all just Phoenician outposts for a time, as the Phoenicians were the traders par excellence for quite some time. They were the most inovative in shipbuilding, communication (alphabet), trading, and currency (they may have set up a bronze age “silver standard”), Carthage was the heir once Tyre went down to Assyria. Unfortunatley Rome destroyed Carthage and Alexander destroyed Tyre (and also Persepolis) so completley and utterly much of the records were lost. One of my bigger pet peeves in history is the dramatic loss of Phoenician/ Carthaginian records.

This only goes to show that massive idiocy, destruction, and barbarism even from thousands of years ago can still have a tragic effect today (or as some fools like to call it “great men, great generals, and change”).

48

The sole purpose of accreditation is to determine whether you go to jail for not attending. No relation whatsoever with the diploma.

49

The people of meso/egypt were trading as far away as england and india, So, I think the other cultures gained the advantage of technology through that and had no need of a formal state system until later attempted conquests by say the persians in greece or rome in northern and eastern europe.

Good call, I think to really drive home the point it ought be stated that civilization would start in the Meopotamian region and spread outword. The last places to recieve civilization (such as Western Europe) were the more remote places from the trade routes. Those places that were isolated (subsahrah africa, Oceania, etc) were to lag behind and remain comparatively decentralized with less divisions of labor. Centralization, civilization, more organized forms of worship, etc can be directly tied to sendentary life and a growth in communication (which includes trade an war) between more humans.

This can be shown with a kind of “in between” on the S. American / Central American landmass where you have slower growth than the N African Eurasian landmass but higher growth than the more isolated and less populated land masses. You also end up with more organized forms of worship than the more isolated area. It was an increase in communication and interaction (perpetuated by non nomadic life) that lead to the rise of states (and more organized forms of worship). While this may sound bad for libertarians, it isn’t…it is also communication and interaction that can keep the civilization and wealth maximization while shrinking the state to hopefully nothing.

50

At the risk of spamming this topic:

As for Islam: I think you have to have a universal standard. It’s irrelevant how old their culture is. Or if it is a religion at all. Do they threaten to initiate force in order to ‘live the way they want’? The same standard for them should to one people regularly apply to the US government or their fellow citizens. Since ethics apply to people, not to Muslims or governments or this group or that. It just so happens that these are all people with different hats or costumes or whatever; but people all the same.

So it’s OK for me to judge Islam by secular human, scientific, anarchist, reason, libertarian, or freedom standards; but Islam is assbackwards if it judges you by theocratic or Islamic standards? Am I to judge someone or something as to how they relate to anarchism and who is a “good anarchist”, who is a “bad anarchist”, or by reason on who is “a good reasonable person”, who is a “bad reasonable person”? Sounds like just as big of a spook to me.

What, who’s, and why does universal standard apply? I am unique, perfect, and ever changing and we are all mutants. Am I to judge things by freedom’s universal standard or my own? Who owns who here? Once again “people” is just as much, if not more of a barbaric ghost in the machinary as well.

Let reason concern itself with reason, let Islam concern itself with Islam, let freedom concern itself with freedom, let good concern itself with good, let man concern itself with man, justice with justice, anarchy with anarchy; they do a fine enough job on caring for their own causes and have an admirable enough time of it when they recieve their sacred devotions and services from people.

As for me:

“Ich hab Mein Sach auf Nichts gestellt”

51

It was an increase in communication and interaction (perpetuated by non nomadic life) that lead to the rise of states (and more organized forms of worship). While this may sound bad for libertarians, it isn’t…it is also communication and interaction that can keep the civilization and wealth maximization while shrinking the state to hopefully nothing.

Bruce Lee once said about the martial arts (and Im paraphrasing) “when I started out in the martial arts I thought a punch was just a punch, and a kick just kick. As I started to study it, I realized it was so much more than that. A punch could be a jab, a cross, or a hook. It requires timing, force, and economy of motion. It was so much more. As I began to master the martial arts, whatever that means, I further realized that a punch was just a punch, and a kick was just a kick.”

I think the same thing will happen with society. In the beginning we were stateless, and everybody just knew what the rules were. Society was just society. Then we created governemental and economic systems, religous philosophies, scientific/educational institutions, and society benefited greatly from this. Over the last 500 years we have started to come back to the idea that people should be deemed fit to live their own lives (even communism was just a misguided attempt to “free” the working people, but it thought it could dictate freedom).

The only thing holding us back now is our attitude.

52

@Dondoolee: My thoughts on the subject are not fully formed so I’m not prepared to be dogmatic about them. Nevertheless, I think you are oversimplifying my position a bit. I am not arguing that a transition from polytheism to monotheism is causal of political agglomeration or that political agglomeration has always resulted in religious hegemony. Nevertheless, it is indisputable that there are far fewer religions on the face of the Earth today than there were 2,000 years ago* and this trajectory of religious consolidation has been accelerating. We also see a decrease in the number of spoken languages, decrease in cultural variety and massive increase in political agglomeration. I am being careful not to draw causal relationships but the correlation is unmistakable.

Clayton -

*Where “religion” is defined sufficiently narrowly that religious denominations are not considered as their own religions

53

Please be careful when cutting my quotes. I’ve been posting on internet forums for more than a decade and I typically choose my words very carefully, so it’s important to include all the relevant words. I did not say Western monotheism is the handmaiden of the State, I said, “… the Church, especially in the West, has often been the handmaiden of the State.” This is uncontroversial. Eastern monotheism (Islam) has been every bit as much the handmaiden of the State (Ottoman Empire).

My view of religion is that it tends to be a reflection of culture. Violent cultures typically have violent religions. You can argue till kingdom come which causes which but I think it’s irrelevant… religion is part of culture, a reflective part. The West has been the epicenter of the rise of the modern, total State… the absolute, territorial monopolist of law, security and everything else which can be monopolized. My point is this: let’s not forget that the Catholic Church in the West pioneered territorial religious monopoly on a grand scale. Sure, in the past, if you lived in one territory it might get you killed to worship the wrong deity. But prior to the fusion of church and State initiated by Constantine, never had a territorial religious monopoly been so wide in its extent or absolute in its purity.

Clayton -

54

Please be careful when cutting my quotes. I’ve been posting on internet forums for more than a decade and I typically choose my words very carefully, so it’s important to include all the relevant words. I did not say Western monotheism is the handmaiden of the State, I said, “… the Church, especially in the West, has often been the handmaiden of the State.” This is uncontroversial. Eastern monotheism (Islam) has been every bit as much the handmaiden of the State (Ottoman Empire).

My bad, I should have been clear, I did that on purpose. I thought by you pointing out the West you wished to focus on it. I also assume most people I talk to know less and are less interested in Eastern history than I am. I deliberately dumped other references to try to zero in on a more concise example that would be easier for us to not “talk past” each other, and I thought you were trying to do the same by saying “especially in the West”.

That said I want to point out that Eastern monotheism is far from just Islam in a modern context or from an historical view (there are MANY Christians, Baha’i, Zoroastrians, Jews, Manicheans, Neo-Platonist, I suppose Egypt went henotheist for a bit, as well as many Gnostic sects). That, and I want to make absolutely certain you are not wanting to aim analysis on creedal vs non creedal religious practices.

My main point is that the term “Church” is too broad a term and upon analysis you are going to get an inconsistent schizophrenic view of “Church” perpetuating or not perpetuating the state. I am also claiming that such an analysis comes from the black hole that was the self-named “Enlightenment” era where they came up with thier fun little theories of history and broad categorizations from a void (see German Bible School criticism, Whig Theory of History, the name “The Dark Ages”, etc) and then said what good little boys they were in “The Age of Reason”, which can alos be tied with mass politics.

The West has been the epicenter of the rise of the modern, total State… the absolute, territorial monopolist of law, security and everything else which can be monopolized.

To once again show the bipolarness of the broad categorizations: The modern West has also been the epicenter of the values you probably hold most dear (peace, freedom, property, individualism, etc), I do not think this can be argued. Furthermore, I am prepared to affirm that Christian sentiment has something to do with it. Furthermore, to stress even more the bipolarness of the position, much of this came out of the Enlightenment which owes its debt to Christianity, but was a deliberate secular movement which all the while was also the cause of the rise of total state and madness. Governments that adopted most dramatically the Western views of the total state were quite secular (Revolutionary France, China and Russia). Crazy stuff.

Sure, in the past, if you lived in one territory it might get you killed to worship the wrong deity. But prior to the fusion of church and State initiated by Constantine, never had a territorial religious monopoly been so wide in its extent or absolute in its purity.

Say what you will about him, Constintine did not fuse Church and state. And even if you don’t want to acknowledge that fact, I will again bring up the creedal monotheistic religion of Zoroastrianism during the Achaemenid’s dynasty, which was apathetic to other religions, and also Judaism since the time of Solomon to the destruction of its Temple in 70 AD, which was non creedal and henotheistic/monotheistic, and once again apathetic to evangelizing outside of Judea. And then there is the case of the Parthian Empire and Sassanid Empire forms of Zoroastrianism where the nature of the religion went from a loose arrangement to quite the marriage between Church and State, all before Constantine…

Upon your request, I may be willing to write you an essay with citations addressing these issues:

The assessment of any significant monolithic definition of religion, monotheism, creedism, paganism helping/hurting government can not be made, and is essentially an Enlightenment clap-trap. I will do so by looking at the world of the Byzantines and Iranians from Constantine to the fall of Constantinople. I can show where and why various wars were fought, and where and who did mass killings, where and how centralization took place and what it meant to hold various dogmas of religious custom in various eras at various time. You can pick and choose any or all of those points that you would wish for me to expound on

In it I can focus on Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Manicheasim, Neo-Platonism, what paganism was and where it was at this time, Gnosticism, Judaism, a pinch of Islam, and the meaning and nature of Church, worship, religion, etc.

If I am still missing your main point, or if there are any more points or questions you wished addressed please state them, perhaps I could even address them within the context of the essay I just proposed, if you wish. Or perhaps if you want to set up an outline or guideline for me to follow, let me know.

Of course if you want me to write this essay (and if I still feel like doing it) it may take a bit of time.

55

@Dondoolee: Well, please understand that I am less ignorant of ecclesiastical history than your average man on the street… I was raised in strict Reformed Baptist* (redundant) churches where I was treated to a heavy dose of (Protestant-centric) church history.

I’m not parroting anyone’s Enlightenment revision of church history. I think you can come up with a workable definition of distinct religions via voluntary self-affiliation. In other words, if religious group A and religious group B both voluntarily self-affiliate, then they are the same religion for the purposes of the argument I was making.

To back my argument up, I really should hunt down the cite - I think it’s Hoppe - where he argues that the increase in the power and prevalence of the State order has correlated with a reduction in cultural variety, the number of languages, and so on. If I can remember where I read/heard this, I will cite it.

Clayton -

*More of the “Sovereign Grace” variety than the historical Particular Baptist variety

56

The history of religion is irrelevant.

If God exists, immoral acts done in the name of religion can very well be justified. Since the onus is off human convenience or secular ethics.

In addition, one religion cannot very well blame another religion for being bad. Since they both derive knowledge from faith – that could very well tell them anything. If it’s okay to believe things based on faith, a murderer’s intuition of God’s message is still valid.

Luckily, God doesn’t exist. And we shouldn’t waste our time with it.

Further I don’t appeciate always being called a ‘militant atheist’. I don’t use use force or intimidation. I am merely placing religion into the list of possible areas of discussion with all other topics. It seems like in a libertarian society religious people won’t be burnt at the stake. But it’s certainly possible that people are going to argue against your beliefs – and influence people away from your side. And you’re not always going to have your headphones on or your hand over your ears.

57

Didn’t we cover this already?

58

The history of religion is irrelevant.

It is not irrelevent if he was trying to correlate a specific doctrine with sociological actions and the consequences of them. It is not irrelevent if he was looking at how an institution was formed and the social ramifications that came out of a specific institution as a particualr time. Anything is or is not irrelevent based on context.

In addition, one religion cannot very well blame another religion for being bad. Since they both derive knowledge from faith – that could very well tell them anything. If it’s okay to believe things based on faith, a murderer’s intuition of God’s message is still valid.

Under the assumptions that such catagorizations as religions actually do and can exist, sure they can. Just as I can blame anyone I want for anything I want, or state how Bach is better than Brittany SPears and claim it to be 100% truth, as I am 100% truth, and I am not joking. Or if you wish, I can will untruth.

Luckily, God doesn’t exist. And we shouldn’t waste our time with it.

But you just did. Besides, I would rather read, and get more “truth” from the Iliad or The Book of John than some boring math or science book. It makes life more fun for me.

I don’t use use force or intimidation.

Everything is an act of force, and intimidation is a legal term

But it’s certainly possible that people are going to argue against your beliefs

It’s also possible that most secular humanists are downright boring and unpleasent to be around, so they could lose by just not being very fun.

59

"No, I said that you cannot formally distinguish between a hunch and a superstition. Surmising that djinns exist is not so different than surmising that the charm quark exists. Neither can be seen, both should have some effect in the world (djinns have more complex and subtle effects). Superstition is just an expression of human imagination, probably with an evolutionary basis Evolutionary psychologists believe that anthropomorphizing natural events caused people to be more circumspect and thereby more likely to survive surprise attacks. That is, if you ascribe every sound in the forest to an action of the gods or leprechauns, you’re likely to be paying more attention when it turns out that a wolf or your enemy is actually responsible for those sounds. This pressure selected for superstition over agnosticism. This argument swiped (and re-worded) from Kanazawa and Miller’s book Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters.

Of course hunch and superstition are not the same thing… my only claim is that you can’t make a formal definition of the difference. Both are instances of arbitrary belief, like axioms. You just believe it because you do. There cannot be any other reason, else it would be a theorem, not a hunch."

I don’t know what you mean by formal distinction, then. Can you explain what you mean by this and give an example?

I’m not denying that people evolved imagination (which is more likely than ‘superstition’ specifically over agnosticism; since many human beings claim agnostic views as well, and they evolved, too). Nor that it is precondition for finding stuff out. Only that there are differences between what people can do with it. Just as there are differences between what they can do with hands or feet, which they’ve evolved. And some uses have been found out to be more true than others. And it doesn’t matter that there is more than one truth or even no absolute truth. Only that truth statements can’t contradict themselves or be contradicted by evidence – and the only way to know is if a coherent methodology with a conclusions that follows from it can be described or it can be shown to be at the very least logically valid.

If this is not the case, you shouldn’t be arguing with me. Since we’re both right. Or we’re both wrong.

60

Further I don’t appeciate always being called a ‘militant atheist’. I don’t use use force or intimidation. I am merely placing religion into the list of possible areas of discussion with all other topics.

Well I dont know about you…but I know atheists who have advocated have advocated violence against religious believers… Including some who think that religious believers should be locked up as mentally ill.

I do however think the term ‘militant atheist’ gets thrown around too much.

But it’s certainly possible that people are going to argue against your beliefs – and influence people away from your side. And you’re not always going to have your headphones on or your hand over your ears.

I have no problem with people trying to argue against my beliefs, as long as they are somewhat respectful and non-coersive in doing so.

However I would ask that, if you are talking to an indvidual, at least learn a bit about his beliefs before you begin arguing against them. I cant count the number of times I’v had to explain that I accept evolution, reject the doctrine of ‘original sin’(at least as its traditionally expressed) and dont believe in a future anti-christ/rapture/tribulation/etc.

And yes…I’ll grant the same could be said to many evangelists.