Are most atheist? Is it more of a 'you're free to worship whomever you like as long as you don't bug me' me kind of thing? Or do many think religion is just as offensive as the state is? I know I do, and I think I prefer a heavy-handed secular state over a strong organized religous presence. Both are statist in nature, but religion is far more dangerous, imo. I'm just wondering where other libertarians come down on this issue.
razerfish: Are most atheist? Is it more of a 'you're free to worship whomever you like as long as you don't bug me' me kind of thing? Or do many think religion is just as offensive as the state is? I know I do, and I think I prefer a heavy-handed secular state over a strong organized religous presence. Both are statist in nature, but religion is far more dangerous, imo. I'm just wondering where other libertarians come down on this issue.
Would you like to expand on why you think religion is more dangerous than statism and why religion is statist in nature? Further could you actually provide a definition of religion so I know what I'm playing with here?
For the record I'm Christian and also a free market anarchist.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
Heavy handed secular states have massacred more people than any organized religious presence ever has fwiw.
I would guess that most libertarians think people should be able to practice whatever religion they want to, as long as they do not infringe on our rights.
BTW, the majority of atheists I have met are socialist.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
That's only true because those states you mention were industrial and modern. Religous states are equally blood thirsty. And two, I'll argue that they were all organized and operate like a religious state, only substitute God/Pope/Clergy with the Dictator/Dear Leader/Party. Hitler's fascist state, Stalin's communism, Kim Jung Ill's Korea, share the same playbook as any authoritarian religious state. All rely on dogma, belief and worship of their leader/party, intolerance and punishment for those that question or defy God/the state/dear leaderal, a general disdain for liberty or personal freedom, and intolerance for any thought or science that may run counter or threaten the orthodoxy. Religion requires dogma, but so do those states you mention. When I think of secular states, I'm thinking more like the Western European model. If it's secular in name only but religious in appearance (again, substitute the party or dear leader for God or the ruling Clergy) than I wouldn't consider it to be secular.
razerfish: That's only true because those states you mention were industrial and modern. Religous states are equally blood thirsty. And two, I'll argue that they were all organized and operate like a religious state, only substitute God/Pope/Clergy with the Dictator/Dear Leader/Party. Hitler's fascist state, Stalin's communism, Kim Jung Ill's Korea, share the same playbook as any authoritarian religious state. All rely on dogma, belief and worship of their leader/party, intolerance and punishment for those that question or defy God/the state/dear leaderal, a general disdain for liberty or personal freedom, and intolerance for any thought or science that may run counter or threaten the orthodoxy. Religion requires dogma, but so do those states you mention. When I think of secular states, I'm thinking more like the Western European model. If it's secular in name only but religious in appearance (again, substitute the party or dear leader for God or the ruling Clergy) than I wouldn't consider it to be secular.
Who said anything about religious states? You are shifting goal posts here.
The nurse and the teacher, like the doctor and the preacher, must be selected voluntarily, and their services must be paid for by those who patronize them. Parental rights must not be taken away, and parental responsibilities must not be foisted upon others.
b.tucker
So most libertarians are Christians? That's a surprise to me. I guess if we look at Europe where most people are Atheist and socialist, and here were we still cling to our religious myths and are supposedly less socialist, maybe it makes sense. It's just real hard for me to picture a bible-thumping Evangelical subscribing to the libertarian ideals. I see them screaming about losing their rights, but it's usually not about lamenting the loss of liberty for all, but about not being able to impose their way on others. Look at their tactics when it comes to the teaching of evolution and science in general. They don't want to teach 'alternatives' to the theory of evolution, they want to teach Book of Genesis.
So what strain of Christian is attracted to libertarianism? Most of the people I know that are 'religious right' are incredibly intolerant and statists. They are only libertarian in so much as they don't like some of the social policies of the left, but they will happily impose their 'morals' when their side wins the next election. Then their libertarian ideals sort of fade away.
That's my experience anyway. Only people I know who are libertarian bent are atheists. I figured the two had a natural correlation. Maybe I'm wrong.
No one really said most libertarians are Christians.
And Quakerism has lots of libertarian roots.
And states that have a strong religious presence have massacred far more than any heavy-handed secular state. Happy? The point is, religion, and I'll narrow it to the Abrahamic varities, are statist in nature, and I think even more dangerous than a secular state. I'm wondering if there is a natural conflict between religion and libertarianism.
razerfish: And states that have a strong religious presence have massacred far more than any heavy-handed secular state. Happy? The point is, religion, and I'll narrow it to the Abrahamic varities, are statist in nature, and I think even more dangerous than a secular state. I'm wondering if there is a natural conflict between religion and libertarianism.
You keep bringing up the "state", as in 'religious state' or 'secular state'. It's the state that necessarily violates natural rights not necessarily atheists or religious people for those latter two are essentially human and may or may not violate natural rights due to free-will.
razerfish: And states that have a strong religious presence have massacred far more than any heavy-handed secular state.
And states that have a strong religious presence have massacred far more than any heavy-handed secular state.
No, they really haven't. You seem to be forgetting the millions and millions of people that have perished at the hands of socialist regimes (who were "heavy-handed secular states"). Nazi Germany, the USSR, Red China, etc are all non-religious states.
Happy? The point is, religion, and I'll narrow it to the Abrahamic varities, are statist in nature, and I think even more dangerous than a secular state. I'm wondering if there is a natural conflict between religion and libertarianism.
So they inherently have a territorial monopoly on taxation and the legitimate use of force? Wow news to me....
No, there is no inherent conflict between religion and libertarianism.
sirmonty: No, there is no inherent conflict between religion and libertarianism.
i agree
sirmonty:Who said anything about religious states? You are shifting goal posts here.
Indeed, razerfish. You are shifting goal posts. First you say that a heavy-handed state is better than organized religion. Then you try to support your position by saying that heavy-handed states which happen to be religious are worse than non-religious states. Pick a comparison (state vs. religion or religious state vs. non-religious state) and stick with it. Or if you shift your argument, at least acknowledge that you're doing so.
Also, you commit the "no true scotsman" fallacy when you say the state is better than religion and then dismiss any state that is worse than religion as basically religious, even if it's not, strictly speaking, religious..
I'll state for the record that most libertarians, religious or not, have a big issue with forcing an ideology on others (religious or otherwise). Compare that authoritarians of any stripe that have little issue of seeing folks lined up by the dozens for extermination. Be it theocratically driven or simply driven by a strong man (cult of personality), the State is in many ways a devilish device indeed. Religion isn't marked inherent authoritarian values just as atheism isn't marked by any inherent libertarian values (and vice versa).
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
most religion = belief that an all-powerful dictator of the universe that singlehandedly determines your eternal fate exists
And, what does libertarianism mean?
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
I. Ryan,
yes logic exists, there is a natural order, and therefore science happens...
but if you mean a dictator affirms this, then it's merely your falsity as to what dictator means in the first place or you simply adhere to a different religion than I do which therefore your comment "most religion" is a baseless assertion that turns the discussion into preferences on which is the true religion, etc....
I. Ryan: sirmonty: No, there is no inherent conflict between religion and libertarianism. most religion = belief that an all-powerful dictator of the universe that singlehandedly determines your eternal fate exists And, what does libertarianism mean?
Libertarianism is a social philosophy that speaks only of man's relationship to his fellow man, and his society, nothing of the relationship between man, and a deity.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
laminustacitus: Libertarianism is a social philosophy that speaks only of man's relationship to his fellow man, and his society, nothing of the relationship between man, and a deity.
i agree...
I do not believe that the two doctrines are necessarily technically contradictory. Instead, I believe that simultaneous belief that both doctrines are true would cause cognitive dissonance.
wilderness: I. Ryan, yes logic exists, there is a natural order, and therefore science happens... but if you mean a dictator affirms this, then it's merely your falsity as to what dictator means in the first place...
but if you mean a dictator affirms this, then it's merely your falsity as to what dictator means in the first place...
I do not know what you are talking about.
wilderness: or you simply adhere to a different religion than I do which therefore your comment "most religion" is a baseless assertion that turns the discussion into preferences on which is the true religion, etc...
or you simply adhere to a different religion than I do which therefore your comment "most religion" is a baseless assertion that turns the discussion into preferences on which is the true religion, etc...
I did not want some one say "Not all religious doctrines imply that!" as an effort to derail the point of my post. Therefore, I wrote "most religion" rather than "religion".
You're wrong. Hitler was Catholic and made reference to it in many speeches. There was still a heavy religious presence in Germany. In Russia? I'll concede that. China too, though Buddhism is a religion, but I narrowed it down earlier. But what about all deaths caused by marauding armies of religous Empire building countries over the last 10 centuries? They all had strong religious presences within their state, did they not? Religion is ubiquitous, so it's really no contest viewed in this light.
razerfish:Hitler was Catholic and made reference to it in many speeches
As a history buff I'm just curious about this statement. How did Hitler reference it? Did he talk about natural law, thomism, the 5 proofs for God, aristotelian metaphysics, heretic-burning, the theological virtues, etc. I mean this is all pretty Catholic stuff and I can't imagine any modern human being much less hitler talking about his Catholicism this way except some general statments about God and Providence which is all that it takes now to be considered super-religious.
I. Ryan: wilderness: or you simply adhere to a different religion than I do which therefore your comment "most religion" is a baseless assertion that turns the discussion into preferences on which is the true religion, etc... I did not want some one say "Not all religious doctrines imply that!" as an effort to derail the point of my post. Therefore, I wrote "most religion" rather than "religion".
ok
razerfish:You're wrong. Hitler was Catholic and made reference to it in many speeches.
There's a difference between saying that you're a religious Catholic, and actually being one. Hitler was factually not a religious Catholic, nor was he even a Catholic no matter what he said in any speech. Borman, who was one of the top Nazis who knew Hitler the best, had stated that though Hitler believed in a deity, he did not believe in the Christian deity.
razerfish: In Russia?
You mean the religious presence that Stalin was actively trying to destory up until 1941?
I. Ryan: wilderness: I. Ryan, yes logic exists, there is a natural order, and therefore science happens... but if you mean a dictator affirms this, then it's merely your falsity as to what dictator means in the first place... I do not know what you are talking about.
maybe I didn't understand what you meant by dictator [was that a reference to a god(s)]... that's how I took it. if so I was stating how the God I believe in created a natural order with natural rights, thus, free-will in which science explores. It's a belief. It doesn't shun logic (meaning it is dictated A is A), but it doesn't shun the metaphorical realm of some fairy tales either. It gets personal.
razerfish: So what strain of Christian is attracted to libertarianism? Most of the people I know that are 'religious right' are incredibly intolerant and statists. They are only libertarian in so much as they don't like some of the social policies of the left, but they will happily impose their 'morals' when their side wins the next election. Then their libertarian ideals sort of fade away. That's my experience anyway. Only people I know who are libertarian bent are atheists. I figured the two had a natural correlation. Maybe I'm wrong.
Don't generalize from your limited experience. The "most Christians are Bible-thumping fundamentalists" stereotype is embarrassingly sophomoric. There is a large segment of Christian anarchists within Austro-libertarianism. Prominent ones include Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, Robert Murphy, and Jeff Tucker. It does no good to antagonize such worthy people with militant atheism. Critical dialogue? Yes. Stereotyping and demonizing? No.
You're wrong. I did not define 'heavy-handed state,' you did. I was actually thinking of America. So my bad, there. But you defined 'heavy handed' for me and object when I characterize those regimes as religious in nature. My contention is that I'd rather live in a heavy-handed SECULAR State than a Religious State because I think the Religious State will always be authoritarian and despotic.
I have doubts a libertarian state could survive if were largely populated by fundamentally religious people because I think this will inevitably lead to a religious state, and that, to me, is worse than a secular socialist state.
So I guess I'm questioning whether religion and libertarianism are compatible.
Hmm....
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.--Hitler
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.---Hitler
And there are more....
These don't really sound like something someone who believes in Christianity would say, does it?
There was still a heavy religious presence in Germany.
Oh so now we get to blame religion on things it had nothing to do with just because it is present? The fact that there was a strong religious presence in Germany means nothing in of itself.
In Russia? I'll concede that. China too, though Buddhism is a religion, but I narrowed it down earlier.
Umm Buddhism had nothing to do with the mass killings in China. You don't get to blame religion for things just because it was present. That isn't how this works.
But what about all deaths caused by marauding armies of religous Empire building countries over the last 10 centuries? They all had strong religious presences within their state, did they not? Religion is ubiquitous, so it's really no contest viewed in this light.
All those deaths don't even come close to adding up to the atrocities that have taken place at the hands of the states mentioned.
You are now just trying to pin anything you can on religion. It is very dishonest of you.
no, it seems you wonder if voluntary is involuntary...
How do libertarian religious people violate the natural rights of others "inevitably lead(ing) to a religious state."? In other words, how does a person that affirms liberty negate liberty? How is A not-A?
What you are saying seems erratic, but go on I'm listening for the moment...
wilderness: maybe I didn't understand what you meant by dictator [was that a reference to a god(s)]... that's how I took it. if so I was stating how the God I believe in created a natural order with natural rights, thus, free-will in which science explores. It's a belief. It doesn't shun logic (meaning it is dictated A is A), but it doesn't shun the metaphorical realm of some fairy tales either. It gets personal.
I meant to imply that a dictator is an individual that exercises extraordinary (coercive) control over a collection of individuals. If I assume that God exists and I anthropomorphize God as most religions anthropomorphize God, then I can say that God is an all-powerful dictator of the universe.
And, therefore, it seems that one should experience cognitive dissonance if they both advocate individual liberty and believe that and express that, ultimately, an all-powerful dictator will singlehandedly choose the fate of them and the fate of all others.
Here's one snippet I culled: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." ..."''
Here's a link to some of his speeches where he mentions religious beliefs. I can't comment on what type of Catholic he was or if you consider him one by your definition, but he remained a Catholic until he died. To me it's not important because I think Fascism as he practiced was basically a religion, just with him inserted as the deity figure. I only know a little about Hitler's beliefs because the religious fundies like to equate Atheism with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.
razerfish:I have doubts a libertarian state could survive if were largely populated by fundamentally religious people because I think this will inevitably lead to a religious state, and that, to me, is worse than a secular socialist state.
So extortion and slavery is somehow worse than extortion and slavery. Hmm.
razerfish: Here's one snippet I culled: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." ..."'' Here's a link to some of his speeches where he mentions religious beliefs. I can't comment on what type of Catholic he was or if you consider him one by your definition, but he remained a Catholic until he died. To me it's not important because I think Fascism as he practiced was basically a religion, just with him inserted as the deity figure. I only know a little about Hitler's beliefs because the religious fundies like to equate Atheism with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.
It's called using religion as a means to gain political support. This =/= a religious state.
And also lol @ the idea that you can just call whatever you want a religion in an attempt demonize all of it.
I. Ryan: ...an all-powerful dictator will singlehandedly choose the fate of them and the fate of all others.
...an all-powerful dictator will singlehandedly choose the fate of them and the fate of all others.
I guess it depends on the application of "fate". Science can make predictions about the natural order of this universe. The habits of animals, what a proton does, etc... If that's fate, then I'm all for fate. But I think you mean something else such as what happens after death maybe? That gets personal and I see that having no place in libertarianism other than the fact that I can speculate on what happens after death. I am at liberty to do so.
Was there not a strong religious presence in Germany at the time? Was Hitler a Catholic in name only to appease this presence? Perhaps. His own words suggest he was, imo.
wilderness: I guess it depends on the application of "fate". Science can make predictions about the natural order of this universe. The habits of animals, what a proton does, etc... If that's fate, then I'm all for fate. But I think you mean something else such as what happens after death maybe? That gets personal and I see that having no place in libertarianism other than the fact that I can speculate on what happens after death. I am at liberty to do so.
I meant "fate" as "circumstance" or "condition" or "situation". And, most religious doctrines imply that God is an all-powerful dictator of both the living world and the non-living world.
And, as I already said, I do not believe that the two doctrines are necessarily technically contradictory. Instead, I believe that simultaneous belief that both doctrines are true would cause cognitive dissonance. However, most religionists hypostatize religion (which is what Laminustacitus did) as an effort to remove the cognitive dissonance that many parallels and analogies between religion and science cause.
razerfish: Was there not a strong religious presence in Germany at the time? Was Hitler a Catholic in name only to appease this presence? Perhaps. His own words suggest he was, imo.
Don't be intellectually dishonest. Hitler's own words... lol. First off, as if he was a honorable man is laughable. Secondly these quotes of Hitler. And thirdly, are you trying to now source Hitler for truth?
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
Blaming religion for mass genocide is like blaming weapons; statists kill for many reasons, and attempt to justify their actions with various excuses (be it religion, economics, politics, whatever). I can honestly say that I’m libertarian-minded because of my religion: the belief that people should be free to do both good and bad, and that no man is capable or fit to govern other men. So no, I don’t know why religion and libertarianism can’t coexist; if the 20th century has taught us anything, it’s that religion can't be blamed for mass murder. Actually, to be honest, the most hateful and illogical people I have ever spoken to are radical anti-religion Marxists. They truly don’t believe in any categorical truth whatsoever; they’ll tell you that human beings are some kind of advanced virus destroying the planet (enter enviromaniacs), and rights are just a figment of our imagination.
Your attempt to link Hitler to Catholicism is quite amusing though, and shows your true intentions.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."