You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “An Atheist Defense of Christianity”.
You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “An Atheist Defense of Christianity”.
I'm an atheist and libertarian. I also know something about the Soviet period, having completed a masters in Russian studies. Dr. Block's statement that the Soviets "single[d] out for opprobrium" religion is inaccurate at best. The truth is far more nuanced and textured. The Soviets were certainly deeply venemous to the Russian Orthodox Church (which was, let's not forget, supporters of the Whites during the Russian civil war), but were far more accomodationist to Muslims. Really, oppression was more about being an "enemy of the revolution" - however that was defined. A whole people could be defined that way, as Ukrainians found, much to their loss.
I also find Dr. Block's statement that "religion and statism, are, at bottom, enemies" perplexing. They seem to co-exist quite well in, for example, many countries of the Middle East.
You're right about Muslims, but I don't see how that breaks his argument, especially when talking about America. I can tell you as a Lutheran, the individuals allegiance is to God and family, not the State. On this blog under "Christianity," I've used biblical references to back up this claim.
The key to understanding why libertarians shouldn't be turned-off by Christians, IMHO, is that Christianity doesn't seek to use force against you. In other words, nobody holds a gun to your head demanding you go to church. The State however, holds a gun to your head over anything it wants.
It breaks his argument because he's not specifically talking about America, but making a general claim about religion and its alleged use as a bulwark against the state. If he's really talking about Christianity, it's a simple matter to recall historical periods when the Christian church and the state worked hand-in-hand to suppress liberty and life. Christians of a wide variety of political persuasions have used the Bible to support their political ideologies. Communism, for example, was founded largely by Christians. Reference also liberation theology.
And Christians don't use force against you? Of course they do. They do it all the time through the ballot box. From an individual's perspective, it doesn't matter that his liberty is deprived by a dictator or a majority.
The problem is that the fundamental tenant of nearly every religion is obedience to authority. The state claims that it is the source of all liberty. Religion claims the same thing. Yes religious groups can be opposed to the tyranny of the state. In the same way in medieval Europe their were people so loyal to the king that they fought against the control of the catholic church. Does that make kings agents of freedom? No, the enemy of my enemy is not actually my friend. They may be convenient, but they do not automatically become friends.
Look at the Taliban, almost all of the middle east, most of southeast Asia, and the religious fight against gay marriage. Religion, like the state, claims that it has supreme moral authority to do whatever it wants. Religious libertarians are fine as long as they adhere to the principles of liberty over the principles of their religion. Otherwise they will oppose the state for the sole purpose of imposing a theocracy. Every single time that religion has gained power it has codified its religious strictures into law. Yes, unfortunately, many people have been threatened with a gun to the head to go to church. Even now throughout the world religions are using the law (which is forever backed by threat of violence) to enforce purely religious tenants.
Robert, you are funny! It seems you are insecure in your beliefs and so you blame it on religion.
Keep in mind, folks, that the religious are not the religion. True, most religions are man-made but you wouldn't say a mental hospital is a reprehensible institution simply because it houses those who are insane. It's WHY they're there and what happens there that matters. Don't overlook utility because of misuse. A knife can be dangerous: it can be used to kill a man. But it can also be used to cut bread and do many other good things. It would be foolish to say that we as humans are perfect. It would also be foolish to say that, though we are imperfect we don't need any guidance.
Spite is one of the most self-destructive aspects of humans. If someone says something true but you detest that person or his/her ideologies, you are likely to either deny what they say or grudgingly agree with them. Truth is universal.
One thing I disagree with in the article is that an enemy of one's enemy is a friend. What if it's a free-for-all and the enemy of your enemy also declares YOU to be his enemy?
no despotism on earth has ever matched the intransigent hatred of human freedom that characterizes the death cults that fester in the Middle East and United States. There are terrible governments and merely bad ones, but every advance humanity has ever made has been against the full weight of ignorant, authoritarian, bigoted superstition.
The ugliest charge that can be laid against libertarianism is that it has been influenced by Rand. She was a f***ing FICTION WRITER, you morons! she appeals to your ego and the critical thinking faculty just gets flushed down the old endocrine system. Zero difference from L Ron Hubbard
The state is just another religion. There's this ominous thing out there. Last time around it was called "God", this time it's called "Government". It demands your obedience, and can crush you if you falter, but do exactly what you're told and everything will be okay.
Just as there is no such thing as a god, only individuals and the things they say and do, there is no such thing as "the government", or "the state", or "the Public". Only individuals, and the things they say and do.
So somehow it becomes logical to side with a Theocracy? Hardly. If you believe that the people with imaginary cosmologies are somehow better than the power hungry, you are correct at picking the less of two evils. But there is that insidious marriage of the two.
If you have bolstered the spirits of those fighting in your rebellion by telling them of the rewards they will receive in the afterlife, then yeah, you can't start backpedaling now, you big political animal, you. You have to start teaching tolerance. Once you see the demographics on our military force's volunteers, it suddenly makes sense to compromise and kowtow and hope you can use this as a wedge between state and population. But what happens when they start electing God fearin' ppl? You know, the ones whose ultimate authority is a complete work of fiction in your view.