Priests and Collectivism

[PaulConventionWV]

yes with the qualifer that no person can own and accept payment for things that they cannot claim to be the product of their own work- for example, a river.

So you don't believe in ownership of land?

see this is childish and simplistic thinking- in order for a cheeseburger to get to my plate first there has to be land-ownership that fences off a lot for cattle feeding and slaughter, there has to be transportation and refrigeration networks, railroads, power companies, etc. Our environment is saturated with govt coercion in all industries, so, this cheeseburger that you are acting like is some island of human freedom is really a consequence of research cartels, govt subsidies, and land-holding firms. Fuck all those things.

Yes, fuck all those things. Fuck all the government regulations and subsidies that make cheeseburgers possible, I agree. The point is, the cheeseburger would still make to your plate regardless of whether all these regulations, taxes, and subsidies existed. So would religion.

haha you dont have a woman? a mother? any elders at all?

Yes, and I still don't believe in emotional violence. People can choose to react to things how they want. The state has no reason to involve themselves in the inner workings of the human brain. That would imply ownership and absolute knowledge of the working of the human psyche.

It's terrible of someone to try to hurt someone's feelings, but that doesn't mean it should be a crime, and that doesn't mean it's coercion. It's another form of persuasion, although a darker form of persuasion. Persuasion to believe that which someone does not want to believe. It's still the person's choice, however, to make a rational decision what to believe regardless of all this persuasion.

well, as religious belief necessarily contradicts sensory perception, adherence to it must neceesarily involve some form of deception and surrender to authority in place of investigation with the senses.

they monopolize or otherwise cartelize a social position of moral authority

As noted above, priests have no state authority. They have no police powers, no justification for the use of force or involuntary taxation, so your argument is moot.

 

[Mr. Perfidy]

So you don't believe in ownership of land?

no not really. No one has ever convinced me how it is not just inherited from royalist coercion.

Yes, fuck all those things. Fuck all the government regulations and subsidies that make cheeseburgers possible, I agree. The point is, the cheeseburger would still make to your plate regardless of whether all these regulations, taxes, and subsidies existed. So would religion.

well, again, first of all- the point of starting this thread was to illustrate the collectivst tendencies in the Liberty movement, and contrast one type (near universally condemning cops) to another type (my suspected near-universal defense of priests)

I have no problem with religion- we are not talking about that. We are talking about a present class of specialists who operate in a religious market that is heavily controlled and affected by coercion, be it political or personal.

Yes, and I still don't believe in emotional violence. People can choose to react to things how they want. The state has no reason to involve themselves in the inner workings of the human brain. That would imply ownership and absolute knowledge of the working of the human psyche.

why do you offer State involvement as a quality of emotional violence? Did I say anything about this relationship between emotions and government? I am only saying that what a lot of us are calling "voluntary" really just lacks a visible gun in the face- there is still coercion behind these decisions. I have said this before in other threads and nobody does anything but blink or foam: causing an individual to fear for their social status is a form of violence. It is a common tactic employed by parents and other leaders to force obedience and conformity.

It's terrible of someone to try to hurt someone's feelings, but that doesn't mean it should be a crime, and that doesn't mean it's coercion. It's another form of persuasion, although a darker form of persuasion.

lol

As noted above, priests have no state authority.

untrue. They can head up corporations that enjoy special privileges inaccessible to the regular citizenry, privileges that confer on them advantageous positions regarding resource-allocation and social capital.

 

[The Free Hornet]

A cheap swipe at priests is one more reason why libertarian collectivism is a reality.

What the fuck are you talking about? Sounds like a cheap swipe at many people here. You are fighting a false generalization ("Everything that you say about the cops, regarding their voluntary subordination to the occupying authority, is true of priests.") with a false generalization.

First of all, religion is a CHOICE; being hassled by overlords is not.

The one Catholic priest I know was sent to the seminary after 8th grade. He is OK with the profession now and could choose not to continue. Growing up, there was no choice for us not to attend to church. We have choice as adults and as children could choose not to like it or rebel.

Second, most clergy sacrifice a great deal for the good of their flock; many have only the bare essentials because they believe in what they are doing.

I can't speak to the degree of sacrifice but the priest I know works in a poor community where k-8 education is critical and so is elder care. He has a 401k (AFAIK) or similar retirement funds as his dioceses doesn't do the poverty vow. As such, he is not entirely unconcerned with the state of the economy as well as "the flock".

As an atheist, I approve of this thread if only to clear up the occasional misconceptions. I like the top post, but it is not reflective of every libertarian or every atheist or every libertarian atheist.

 

[erowe1]

well, again, first of all- the point of starting this thread was to illustrate the collectivst tendencies in the Liberty movement, and contrast one type (near universally condemning cops) to another type (my suspected near-universal defense of priests)

For what it's worth, I don't buy that there's near universal condemnation of cops. I think there's a vocal contingent who thinks there's no such thing as a good cop. But I doubt they're the majority. They're just zealous enough about that belief that the rest of us don't feel like arguing with them about it.

Plus, a lot of the condemnation of cops I see doesn't follow the "no such thing as a good cop" line. It's mainly just pointing out cases of cops abusing their authority, which the rest of us can condemn just as much as the "no such thing as a good cop" people can.

 

[libertygrl]

Yeah I agree that the libel "collectivist" is typically used in a collectivist fashion to deflect from images and reputations that Libertarians are trying to de-emphasize and discard.

I also believe though that what we call religion in america is shameless profiteering on the ignorance and insecurity of weak minds.

As a Christian, I've learned to separate "organized" religion from spirituality and the teachings of Jesus. I agree that there is definitely profiteering on what is called religion today as well as false doctrines being taught. Specifically within Christian churches. Case in point, I heard an interview the other day where evangelical leaders are actually receiving big bucks for their ministries from Israel, in return for teaching their congregations to be pro-israel/zionist. I think it was Pastor Texe Marrs who said he was talking to another Pastor who told him all he had to do was go over to Israel and tell them how much he loves the Jewish people and they will throw alot of money his way for his ministry. Marrs said he walked away feeling sick to his stomach.

Now it all makes sense why those so called conservative Christians booed Ron Paul at the Republican Primary when he advocated living by the Golden Rule when it comes to our foreign policy. They are being indoctrinated with lies and deceit. If you're a Christian, listen to this guy Hagee. I can't believe what is coming out of his mouth. He's a Christian Pastor actually denying that Christ was the Messiah:



These Pastors are also using a false reference bible that was rewritten to conform with Zionist principles:

World Zionist leaders initiated a program to change America and its religious orientation. One of the tools used to accomplish this goal was an obscure and malleable Civil War veteran named Cyrus I. Schofield. A much larger tool was a venerable, world respected European book publisher--The Oxford University Press.

The scheme was to alter the Christian view of Zionism by creating and promoting a pro-Zionist subculture within Christianity. Scofield's role was to re-write the King James Version of the Bible by inserting Zionist-friendly notes in the margins, between verses and chapters, and on the bottoms of the pages. The Oxford University Press used Scofield, a pastor by then, as the Editor, probably because it needed such as man for a front. The revised bible was called the Scofield Reference Bible, and with limitless advertising and promotion, it became a best-selling "bible" in America and has remained so for 90 years.

h ttp://rense.com/general60/zcre.htm

This is truly frightening. These Christian Zionists who are so scared of Obama destroying America because they believe him to be a Communist or Socialist, are they themselves, ushering in the very things they fear - and worse! If they would only wake up, we'd all be better for it.

 

[seyferjm]

Just listening to Hagee's voice makes me feel sick

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Right, because priests go around killing people's dogs all the time.

Dude, you cannot be serious. Unlike the police, priests are a legitimate market function. Believe it or not, people WANT to hear from someone who's studied the word of God and relate their findings to them. Not to mention that churches offer more than just preaching. They offer getaways, Sunday school to occupy the kids, and oh, guess what, they only preach to people who WANT to be preached to. Nobody's forcing you to pay for that guy's house and life. If you don't want to pay for it, DON'T GO TO CHURCH!

Police, unlike priests, are power-hungry animals who beat, maim and steal from citizens simply because they have the state's authority to do so. Priests do not do that. They take only what people are willing to give. The Catholic Church is a whole different kind of sneaky because they, in the past, were actually a part of the state in Europe, so that led to a whole bunch of comorbidization with the state's theft habits. In this society, however, all religions are voluntary, being beaten and arrested by the police is not.

That's why they're not the same thing, and the fact that you didn't already know this means you are a very, very, very, VERY stupid person. I'm sorry, but this is the first time I've actually felt justified in calling someone stupid because, in this case, it is true. How can you call yourself a liberty activist when you hate voluntary organizations for being exactly like the police when, in fact, they are almost the complete opposite? Priests don't get paid with taxpayer money. Priests normally aren't assholes to their congregations, unless, of course, their congregation happens to be into that kind of thing.

The point is, don't make an ass out of yourself by comparing priests to police. If you are really that stupid, try to hide it.

Thread winner ^^

 

[PaulConventionWV]

because they yet love their community and each other and freedom, and have a universal thirst to congregate in this spirit, but, are denied this outlet because the people and state understand this to be "religious" and so only grant such licensing/gaming privileges to the Cross.



so lemme re-state this, and you can tell me that this experience is not provable:

the christians that I know, for the most part, the main-streamers, speak in defense of their collective in weak and retreating tones and without reasonable science to back it up, as in, their "voluntary belief" is tethered to emotional dependence on this or that authority.




no as in competing social networks of like-minded individuals.



the churches CAN do what they want, while other groups cannot. This props up the Church, which is empowered with social privileges and consequent capital advantages.



ludicrous. There are a great many laws based only on christian or jewish prejudice against this or that behavior. The laws are supported by the churches, and the voters are mobilized to defend this policy by their religious leaders.



no argument. We do not live in a free society though, therefore our institutions must not be free ones.

Your mistake is that you think the churches having a miniscule amount of freedom that you don't have is the same as the church having power. You blame the church when you should really be blaming the government. The government makes them jump through these hoops. You can't blame them for wanting this freedom and jumping through the hoops. The only reason they do it is so they get stolen from less (tax breaks). That's not power, that's being a victim of state authority, like a dog that gets a treat when he is good.

The point is that this is not the priest's fault. This is the government's fault. The priests would still be there with or without the government just like cheeseburgers would still be there with or without the government. Sure, there are some laws based on christian morality, but then again most atheists hold some form of christian morality as well, such as not stealing and not murdering. You can't blame the church for that.

Another mistake you make is generalizing and collectivizing the religious sheep who defend their collective without recognizing that atheists do this as well. There's nothing inherently wrong with trying to defend a collective. The Randian cult used to preach individuality and rationality, and yet they were some of the most blind sheeple because they falsely believed that they were enlightened and independent. Don't fall into the trap of thinking you are immune to herd mentality. I'm not defending it, but that doesn't mean all, most, or even more christians are like that. Even if they were, that by itself wouldn't tell us what a real christian was supposed to be like. Preachers are free to preach what they want and people are free to listen or not listen. This is the epitome of a free society, so stop acting like it is even comparable to police. They are about the most different things you can get.

We do not live in a free society, and our institutions are not free ones, but does that mean you criticize every business for not being free? It's the government's fault. The absence of freedom doesn't illegitimate all groups and businesses.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

haha every single time I make a point that contradicts some kind of hallowed conservative image in this forum, people just fill in for me and say stupid crap that I do not advocate, and then retreat smugly into their confidence that of course their hallowed idolatry is correct.

Or maybe you're just not explaining yourself very well. Ever think of that? What you do is retreat into your own preconceived infallibility and avoid all fault. By what you said, I really did think you believed that.

My point is that you can protect your money by taking it and starting a church, and thereby use your capital to obtain social power while evading taxation. You can set up all kinds of non-profits, dole out jobs to your favored sycophants, dispatch fleets of vans and host retreats, but all only for the people that you deem worthy of such benefit. Fuck that too.

Ok, I'm sure the upper management people in Wal Mart can do that too. The clergymen may be able to live a nice life, but they don't have any social power over you. Only the state does. So stop pretending like the church is this great social evil when all it's doing is being victimized by the state. It's not just a church thing, so don't demonize them just because you have a philosophical bone to pick.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

no not really. No one has ever convinced me how it is not just inherited from royalist coercion.



well, again, first of all- the point of starting this thread was to illustrate the collectivst tendencies in the Liberty movement, and contrast one type (near universally condemning cops) to another type (my suspected near-universal defense of priests)

I have no problem with religion- we are not talking about that. We are talking about a present class of specialists who operate in a religious market that is heavily controlled and affected by coercion, be it political or personal.



why do you offer State involvement as a quality of emotional violence? Did I say anything about this relationship between emotions and government? I am only saying that what a lot of us are calling "voluntary" really just lacks a visible gun in the face- there is still coercion behind these decisions. I have said this before in other threads and nobody does anything but blink or foam: causing an individual to fear for their social status is a form of violence. It is a common tactic employed by parents and other leaders to force obedience and conformity.



lol



untrue. They can head up corporations that enjoy special privileges inaccessible to the regular citizenry, privileges that confer on them advantageous positions regarding resource-allocation and social capital.

And my point is that priests and cops are not even comparable. They are so far apart that it is illogical to even attempt to introduce them with the intent of comparing any consequence of their existence.

You may laugh at me saying emotional violence is really just persuasion, but no matter what way you look at it, it's observably true. Just because you think there is some magical brain switch that somebody else can control remotely, that doesn't mean that's what happens. If someone tries to get you to believe something without physically forcing or torturing, then you are still free to make up your own mind. That means the person doing the convincing is using persuasion, not violence, because the receiver is still autonomous and still has control of his or her own mind. Your magical form of voodoo mental coercion is not observable, and so I'm not inclined to think it exists.

After all, if somebody can convince you using logic, why can't they convince you using emotions? These are all different kinds of persuasion: pathos, ethos, and logos. What makes logical persuasion NOT coercion when emotional persuasion, according to you, IS coercion? What's the difference?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

For what it's worth, I don't buy that there's near universal condemnation of cops. I think there's a vocal contingent who thinks there's no such thing as a good cop. But I doubt they're the majority. They're just zealous enough about that belief that the rest of us don't feel like arguing with them about it.

Plus, a lot of the condemnation of cops I see doesn't follow the "no such thing as a good cop" line. It's mainly just pointing out cases of cops abusing their authority, which the rest of us can condemn just as much as the "no such thing as a good cop" people can.

I often tend to behave like a "no such thing as a good cop" person, and there are certain parts of it that are true, but in their intentions, I know there are many that I can trust to simply be people and not always be cruel beasts. They aren't evil, just misled. Even though I'll vocally speak out against cop abuse and say that there is no venue for the cop to enforce the law and still be a freedom-loving individual, I recognize that some of them truly do think they're doing good for the community.

 

[Mr. Perfidy]

haha oh boy...


I am so glad that I gave you cats some time to post for a little while; sitting down with so much argument to hash out and thrash, I feel like roman generals must have upon returning to north africa to burn carthage a final time.

Your mistake is that you think the churches having a miniscule amount of freedom that you don't have is the same as the church having power. You blame the church when you should really be blaming the government. The government makes them jump through these hoops. You can't blame them for wanting this freedom and jumping through the hoops. The only reason they do it is so they get stolen from less (tax breaks). That's not power, that's being a victim of state authority, like a dog that gets a treat when he is good.

yes so as with the collectivism as it relates to cops, we must ask: "what sort of man, knowing this to be the legal environment then says, 'praise the lord- I can't wait to be a preacher!"? A lying, dishonest, profiteering one. A holy man would just be moved by his respective gospel, and go into the world with loving kindness. An opportunist, who percieves that people are ignorant and gullible and thirst for something spiritual, scans the regulatory horizon and concludes- ahh that masonic tower with pews is my where my power is waiting!

also I think that you are proving my point (remember, as everyone keeps ignoring- my original point was only to demonstrate that some of the same people arguing against collectivist treatment of the police will treat the priests collectively) So, here you are in this thread talking about "the church" doing things, and not individual men and women. Men and women who must necessarily be intelligent enough to have some grasp of how the State dominates the Church, but wanna suckle at at that clerical titty anyway.

The point is that this is not the priest's fault. This is the government's fault. The priests would still be there with or without the government just like cheeseburgers would still be there with or without the government.

I do not believe this to be true- surely there would be holy men and preachers and teachers of the gospel, but there would not be monuments of wealth and prestige (anti-christian concepts) without the State creating wealth-havens for opportunistic charlatans, and their well-meaning but dull and trusting disciples.

Sure, there are some laws based on christian morality, but then again most atheists hold some form of christian morality as well, such as not stealing and not murdering. You can't blame the church for that.

Well, there are prohibitions against stealing and murdering everywhere in the world; it is a property of humanity that we seek harmonious relationships with each other. But there are a great many specifically christian intrustions into my life via the State, that only have any support because of the shit-eating windbag deceiver priest class and the enormous wealth that they control.

Another mistake you make is generalizing and collectivizing the religious sheep who defend their collective without recognizing that atheists do this as well. There's nothing inherently wrong with trying to defend a collective. The Randian cult used to preach individuality and rationality, and yet they were some of the most blind sheeple because they falsely believed that they were enlightened and independent. Don't fall into the trap of thinking you are immune to herd mentality. I'm not defending it, but that doesn't mean all, most, or even more christians are like that. Even if they were, that by itself wouldn't tell us what a real christian was supposed to be like. Preachers are free to preach what they want and people are free to listen or not listen. This is the epitome of a free society, so stop acting like it is even comparable to police. They are about the most different things you can get.

again- it is only the rather mediocre intellects present in this thread that keep equating the priests to the police; I only meant that they are both collectives, and seek to demonstrate that Liberty people will treat them as such. And I said my opinion of the priests, as a man who understand that god and love are not things for which you need a seminary degree and fuckin paycheck! to understand and advance for mankind.

We do not live in a free society, and our institutions are not free ones, but does that mean you criticize every business for not being free? It's the government's fault. The absence of freedom doesn't illegitimate all groups and businesses.

well, much like how the people who become policemen do so knowing that they will enforce unjust laws, the people who become preachers do so knowing the State's limitations on their church!

My neighbor behind the old house (moved out last year) is a christian family man; he uses his home to host bible-studies and worship services, has a garage that he turned into a recording studio to produce/celebrate with worship music. No one cuts him a check. He has no title to designate him as some social rank associated with State-sanctioned religious/corporate privileges. He just loves his family and jesus and practices accordingly. He loved jesus and reads the bible and likes preaching and discussing things, and yet, he surveys land for his own company. Something about him, despite being inclined toward religious devotional leadership was DISINCLINED to participate in the organized mockery. Probably this very quality is what makes him a good man, and the absence of it is what characterizes the pharisees we are here calling priests.

 

[Mr. Perfidy]

lol isnt romney a bishop? case cloooooooooosed

 

[Mr. Perfidy]

Ok, I'm sure the upper management people in Wal Mart can do that too. by do that he means: My point is that you can protect your money by taking it and starting a church, and thereby use your capital to obtain social power while evading taxation. You can set up all kinds of non-profits, dole out jobs to your favored sycophants, dispatch fleets of vans and host retreats, but all only for the people that you deem worthy of such benefit

which IS MY POINT!!!! Why unless I am getting close to the truth would you be defending as good the fact that PRIESTS and SLAVE PROFITEERS enjoy similar lifestyles and powers of wealth?!?!?!?!?!?!

The clergymen may be able to live a nice life, but they don't have any social power over you. Only the state does.

oh my god- coming to these forums actually makes me respect DHS for classifying anti-government people as dangerous extremists- do you really think that only the State has power?! You are telling me that some United Methodist (whatever they call their leaders) in NJ, and his retinue of subordinate priests, have no more influence over public policy than I do? Do you hear yourself?!

And my point is that priests and cops are not even comparable. They are so far apart that it is illogical to even attempt to introduce them with the intent of comparing any consequence of their existence.

both provide a service that is heavily regulated by the State to the advantage of their own unions/organizations/specialists at the expense of the people, among whom there are a reliable number of people daily GIVING AWAY THAT SAME SERVICE only because they are happy to contribute to making people around them safe, dignified and right with creation. BAAAAAAMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!

You may laugh at me saying emotional violence is really just persuasion, but no matter what way you look at it, it's observably true. Just because you think there is some magical brain switch that somebody else can control remotely, that doesn't mean that's what happens.

yeah it's called a fight-or-flight response, limbic system, reptile brain, whatever- I would even wager that the electricity moving through it looks similar to things we use with switches.

example: witholding food as punishment in home.
silent-treatment
harsh criticism in public situations

that all sets off alarms of panic and impending harm and affects your bio-chemistry perhaps even MORE EFFECTIVELY AS A THREAT than just a regular ol punch. For example- I am scared of how bad my wife will make me feel if I have sex with another woman, and yet, doing so might literally sick violent men on me (let's say her brother for example) I am more afraid of how negatively my gut will twist and penis will wither under her hurt and vengeful gaze than I am of a fist.

If someone tries to get you to believe something without physically forcing or torturing, then you are still free to make up your own mind.

I think now that maybe I should be pitying you, because it seems like you are trying to legitimize and defend behavior that is obviously coercive, malevolent, vile and negative, so, I would bet now that your own parents or wife or whatever is a psycho-erotic warfare sorceress that tortures you emotionally. But hey- it doesn't leave a bruise. It must not be violent.

That means the person doing the convincing is using persuasion, not violence, because the receiver is still autonomous and still has control of his or her own mind. Your magical form of voodoo mental coercion is not observable, and so I'm not inclined to think it exists.

it is in fact observable, actually, as neuro-electricity and bio-chemical output.

ok how about this:

let's say a certain poster's fam was run outta broooklyn because his father refused to lose a stickball game to a local mafioso, so, in retalliation, the poster's father's home was broken into, vandalized and robbed, and had the front door stolen. Broken shit- ohhh no, not my stuff. MISSING MOTHERFUCKIN FRONT DOOR!?! That's like a chilling terroristic threat. And yet nobody got smacked.

After all, if somebody can convince you using logic, why can't they convince you using emotions? These are all different kinds of persuasion: pathos, ethos, and logos. What makes logical persuasion NOT coercion when emotional persuasion, according to you, IS coercion?

all deception is coercion, as is all social expressions meant to threaten imposition or impose on an individual a state of social demotion, exclusion, and outsider status.

haha how are you arguing that making a kid feel like his parents don't love him, or a teenager that nobody will fuck him, or an adult that no one will ever trust him, is not violent?! You must have a real suck ass home life man, and I actually am very sorry.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

haha oh boy...

yes so as with the collectivism as it relates to cops, we must ask: "what sort of man, knowing this to be the legal environment then says, 'praise the lord- I can't wait to be a preacher!"? A lying, dishonest, profiteering one. A holy man would just be moved by his respective gospel, and go into the world with loving kindness. An opportunist, who percieves that people are ignorant and gullible and thirst for something spiritual, scans the regulatory horizon and concludes- ahh that masonic tower with pews is my where my power is waiting!

What power? He doesn't have any power over YOU as an individual. He may have some power over people that trust him, but that's just because they made the choice to trust him. They can unlearn that trust or decide to stop trusting him just as easily if he does something they don't approve of. Priests do not have state authority and they don't have any policing powers. All they have is the power of persuasion, which is a legitimate power to have. That's like a car salesman has the power to sell you a car that comes from his dealership. Eventually, you're going to meet a salesman and he's going to sell you something, so don't act like you're better than people who choose to go to church because they believe in the message that the preacher is selling them. More often than not, people go there because they already believe the priest, not because he gave them a big long sales pitch on how they should come to his church. They wanted to go to church because they wanted to interact with people of the same beliefs. What's so bad about that?

also I think that you are proving my point (remember, as everyone keeps ignoring- my original point was only to demonstrate that some of the same people arguing against collectivist treatment of the police will treat the priests collectively) So, here you are in this thread talking about "the church" doing things, and not individual men and women. Men and women who must necessarily be intelligent enough to have some grasp of how the State dominates the Church, but wanna suckle at at that clerical titty anyway.

I think you meant to say people arguing for the collectivist treatment of police will not argue for the collectivist treatment of priests. I have asked you repeatedly why they should. Police and priests are not similar at all, so why should they be collectivized like police? Just because they have the same profession? That's like saying you should collectivize plumbers. It doesn't mean anything because plumbers and priests are way different from police. There are absolutely no similarities to suggest that I should treat them the same in any way.

I do not believe this to be true- surely there would be holy men and preachers and teachers of the gospel, but there would not be monuments of wealth and prestige (anti-christian concepts) without the State creating wealth-havens for opportunistic charlatans, and their well-meaning but dull and trusting disciples.

You don't know how it would be in a free market, but my point is that they would still be there in one form or fashion. Would these people still be "dull"? Maybe so, but there are many atheists who are just as dull and set in their ways, so don't act like the church is a scourge of the earth because they get tax breaks and the people are dull. Atheists are dull, too. It's not just a christian thing. If people want to congregate to talk about Christ with their holy men, it's only natural that they would want to meet in the same place and have a roof over their heads while they do so. The church doesn't symbolize any authority over you. They just get a few tax breaks. They are victims of the government, not perpetrators of arbitrary power. They are no different from believers in liberty who may have meetups to talk about what they believe.

Well, there are prohibitions against stealing and murdering everywhere in the world; it is a property of humanity that we seek harmonious relationships with each other. But there are a great many specifically christian intrustions into my life via the State, that only have any support because of the shit-eating windbag deceiver priest class and the enormous wealth that they control.

Atheists support atheist initiatives, too. It's wrong in both cases, so I don't see why the priests are a special kind of wrong just because they have people who listen to them. Atheists tend to listen to other atheists, too. Atheists like Richard Dawkins preach all over the world and have many followers who believe in what he says even though, many times, it doesn't even make sense. You're trying to pin some kind of special stupidity on christians that actually exists in all of humanity regardless of what religion they follow.

again- it is only the rather mediocre intellects present in this thread that keep equating the priests to the police; I only meant that they are both collectives, and seek to demonstrate that Liberty people will treat them as such. And I said my opinion of the priests, as a man who understand that god and love are not things for which you need a seminary degree and fuckin paycheck! to understand and advance for mankind.

You are the one who compared them, not me. You said, JUST LIKE POLICE, priests are a collective. Why would you introduce police into the equation if they don't have anything to do with each other? Priests are not a collective like police because they don't have a badge and they don't all operate under the same authority. Perhaps they should, but that's a different theological debate. The point is that priests are free to preach what they want, not so with police. People voluntarily give money to the church, so why is it any of your business if people want to support the priest by giving money to it? This isn't like ancient Europe where the Catholic church was part of the state.

well, much like how the people who become policemen do so knowing that they will enforce unjust laws, the people who become preachers do so knowing the State's limitations on their church!

So you ARE trying to compare the two? Your comparison doesn't even make sense. If the state limits their church, that doesn't mean the priest should stop trying to preach if that is his life's calling. He's not enforcing any unjust laws, so there's really no comparison between the two. The priest isn't forcing anyone to do anything, but the police are.

My neighbor behind the old house (moved out last year) is a christian family man; he uses his home to host bible-studies and worship services, has a garage that he turned into a recording studio to produce/celebrate with worship music. No one cuts him a check. He has no title to designate him as some social rank associated with State-sanctioned religious/corporate privileges. He just loves his family and jesus and practices accordingly. He loved jesus and reads the bible and likes preaching and discussing things, and yet, he surveys land for his own company. Something about him, despite being inclined toward religious devotional leadership was DISINCLINED to participate in the organized mockery. Probably this very quality is what makes him a good man, and the absence of it is what characterizes the pharisees we are here calling priests.

That's his choice. If people want to donate money, that's their choice. Regardless of whether the state is involved or not, everything priests do is voluntary, so the only difference between him and a priest is that he doesn't accept voluntary donations. He's free not to just like the priest is free to accept donations. You may not like it, and he may not like it, and I may not like it, but that doesn't mean all priests are collectively evil for accepting donations. Some of them may have bad intentions, but those exist in any business. As I have noted, many priests do everything they can not to profit from preaching. Not all priests have bad intentions, and it's not their fault that the state is meddling in the church.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

which IS MY POINT!!!! Why unless I am getting close to the truth would you be defending as good the fact that PRIESTS and SLAVE PROFITEERS enjoy similar lifestyles and powers of wealth?!?!?!?!?!?!

Except they're not the same. Priests are not like slave profiteers because they don't enslave anyone. Case cloooosed.

oh my god- coming to these forums actually makes me respect DHS for classifying anti-government people as dangerous extremists- do you really think that only the State has power?! You are telling me that some United Methodist (whatever they call their leaders) in NJ, and his retinue of subordinate priests, have no more influence over public policy than I do? Do you hear yourself?!

Yes, I do. Priests don't have any more power over public policy than you do. Only the state has power. The state is the one that enacts the laws. You can't blame the church because the state chooses to enact laws that happen to reflect what some priests might believe. That doesn't mean the priests caused those laws to be enacted. The state enacted those laws because it supported the state's interests, not because it supported the churches interests.

both provide a service that is heavily regulated by the State to the advantage of their own unions/organizations/specialists at the expense of the people, among whom there are a reliable number of people daily GIVING AWAY THAT SAME SERVICE only because they are happy to contribute to making people around them safe, dignified and right with creation. BAAAAAAMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!

At the expense of the people? What taxes are we paying to support the church? Are you okay? You seem to be getting a little worked up. What was that whole bam! thing for? Also, police give no service. Priests do. People associate themselves with the church voluntarily, they don't do so voluntarily with police. It's just staggering how you can't see the difference here.

yeah it's called a fight-or-flight response, limbic system, reptile brain, whatever- I would even wager that the electricity moving through it looks similar to things we use with switches.

example: witholding food as punishment in home.
silent-treatment
harsh criticism in public situations

If this exists in Christian minds, then it exists in atheist minds, too, and they do exploit it. Either way, though, it's still just persuasion, and I have the choice whether I want to reject it or accept it because I am autonomous. If you want to say that this is force, then prove it.

that all sets off alarms of panic and impending harm and affects your bio-chemistry perhaps even MORE EFFECTIVELY AS A THREAT than just a regular ol punch. For example- I am scared of how bad my wife will make me feel if I have sex with another woman, and yet, doing so might literally sick violent men on me (let's say her brother for example) I am more afraid of how negatively my gut will twist and penis will wither under her hurt and vengeful gaze than I am of a fist.

It's still your choice how to respond. If you respond in a way that supports your interest in survival, more power to you. That doesn't mean it's coercion. There are many times in a man's life when he chooses between something that is good for him and something that he believes is right. Men have made both decisions. It doesn't matter why. It just matters that they made the decision. How someone influences you is entirely up to you. You can either let them influence you or you can disassociate yourself from them. No emotional influence is coercion just because of the damned fight or flight response. If this kind of coercion happens in Christian minds, then it happens in atheist minds, too, so why are you ragging on christians and priests for it? There are atheists who will exercise the same influence and persuasion.

I think now that maybe I should be pitying you, because it seems like you are trying to legitimize and defend behavior that is obviously coercive, malevolent, vile and negative, so, I would bet now that your own parents or wife or whatever is a psycho-erotic warfare sorceress that tortures you emotionally. But hey- it doesn't leave a bruise. It must not be violent.

Yeah, if some witch is trying to influence you in ways you don't want, why don't you just leave? If she is influencing you in ways you want, then who am I to tell you you can't associate with her? Nobody is forcing people to listen to these priests. They do so because they already had the urge to seek spirituality. Just because they do so in ways that are not legitimate, that doesn't mean it was coercive. They voluntarily gave themselves over to that influence much like a man will sometimes give himself over to the influence of a woman. It's not coercive, it's just really damned tempting. They're not the same thing, and it's not "obviously coercive." If it really is coercion, then why shouldn't it be outlawed like other forms of coercion? Why the double standard?

it is in fact observable, actually, as neuro-electricity and bio-chemical output.

The effects on the brain are observable, but the effects on freedom of choice are not observable. You still have the ability to choose no matter how strong the influence is. It's very possible to quit smoking even though the cigarette has a strong influence on the brain. You can still choose.

ok how about this:

let's say a certain poster's fam was run outta broooklyn because his father refused to lose a stickball game to a local mafioso, so, in retalliation, the poster's father's home was broken into, vandalized and robbed, and had the front door stolen. Broken shit- ohhh no, not my stuff. MISSING MOTHERFUCKIN FRONT DOOR!?! That's like a chilling terroristic threat. And yet nobody got smacked.

It was destruction of property, so yes, it was coercive in the real world. You shouldn't be allowed to destroy someone's property if they don't want you to. They also stole, which is coercive as well. And guess what, none of this happens in the church. Everything that goes on in the church is voluntary. As soon as you can show me a priest who starts stealing things from their people and threatening them if they say anything, then I will agree with you that that specific preacher should be arrested. Even if one preacher did that, though, would that prove that all preachers are part of the same collective that does that?

all deception is coercion, as is all social expressions meant to threaten imposition or impose on an individual a state of social demotion, exclusion, and outsider status.

haha how are you arguing that making a kid feel like his parents don't love him, or a teenager that nobody will fuck him, or an adult that no one will ever trust him, is not violent?! You must have a real suck ass home life man, and I actually am very sorry.

Deception is coercive? People go through all kinds of hate and challenges from bad people in their life, and it's wrong to use deception, but that doesn't mean it's coercive. You don't have to believe someone. If you don't trust them, then investigate and find out if what they say is true. It is still your choice to associate and trust whomever you want, and if you make the wrong choice, well, it was still your choice and I don't have any pity on someone who trusts someone who is untrustworthy.

If deception is coercive, then why shouldn't people be arrested for deception like they are arrested for stealing or beating someone?

I don't get how you can make these conclusions about my home life. If you are trying to make me feel bad about myself, isn't that coercive? Aren't you trying to coerce me right now? Well, guess what it's not working because I still have the choice not to listen to you, and I very often don't because I can see that you are deceived yourself.

 

[Philhelm]

How could anyone not like priests? They get a solid d8 hit points, can use any armor, can cast divine spells while wearing armor, can turn undead...I mean, seriously, what a deal!

P.S. There is less voluntary action when encountering cops, not to mention that priests typically aren't armed to the teeth as a rule. If I tell a priest to "fuck off" I am not significantly increasing my chances of getting seriously injured.

 

[Mr. Perfidy]

ok can we please stop arguing about whether or not priests and cops are similar- that was not my assertion, and yet people keep arguing as though it was. My point was that they are alike only in that they are both a collective; I had a theory, that the same people who argue AGAINST collectively condemning the Police would collectively DEFEND the priests. Then I said stuff to invite such a collective defense.

of course I do stand by what I said of the priests, because again, like cops- what sort of person, knowing that their profession is heavily regulated by the State and stomped upon, decides to enter it anyway? It is not like you need to be a priest to preach the gospel or spread the message of jesus or whomever else. You become a priest in an institution for the money and the status.

 

[Mr. Perfidy]

What power? He doesn't have any power over YOU as an individual. He may have some power over people that trust him

who are a multitude, who vote for politicians that promise policies that reflect their own morality. For example- the christian right is stopping me from openly getting high outside in public. The priests lobby against my freedom and their followers vote to support them.

, but that's just because they made the choice to trust him.

lambert's a wild and wooly sheep! haha you sound ridiculous man, for real.

They can unlearn that trust or decide to stop trusting him just as easily if he does something they don't approve of. Priests do not have state authority and they don't have any policing powers.

this point isn't what I meant to introduce, but, it is appropriate to mention- aren't there many church-run programs like rehab/halfway houses that are notorious abuse-factories?

but even absent them- again, you are just evading the issue- the priests have followers. They advise their followers regarding social policy. Social policy becomes Law. Law is force used against my freedom. So, if the priests are advising coercive social policy, they are my enemy, and are inciting violence against me.

All they have is the power of persuasion, which is a legitimate power to have. That's like a car salesman has the power to sell you a car that comes from his dealership. Eventually, you're going to meet a salesman and he's going to sell you something, so don't act like you're better than people who choose to go to church because they believe in the message that the preacher is selling them. More often than not, people go there because they already believe the priest, not because he gave them a big long sales pitch on how they should come to his church. They wanted to go to church because they wanted to interact with people of the same beliefs. What's so bad about that?

those beliefs come from an agent of coercion and deception?

haha I am not an enemy of the institution of religion; I would like to see MORE RELIGION EVERYWHERE. But the churches as they exist now are state-sponsored capital-havens where social policy is leaked and field-tested and advanced with bullshit. I'm sorry, with "persuasion."

I think you meant to say people arguing for the collectivist treatment of police will not argue for the collectivist treatment of priests. I have asked you repeatedly why they should. Police and priests are not similar at all, so why should they be collectivized like police? Just because they have the same profession? That's like saying you should collectivize plumbers. It doesn't mean anything because plumbers and priests are way different from police. There are absolutely no similarities to suggest that I should treat them the same in any way.

no. One more time I guess: people in the Collectivism and Cops thread argued against the collectivist treatment of the police. I wanted to see what collectivist memes would speak about the priesthood.

You don't know how it would be in a free market,

well I like drugs, so, yes I do, because the drug market that happens behind the watchful eye of the State and its regulations and enforcement is free. Filled with fuckin assholes and gangsters, but free.

but my point is that they would still be there in one form or fashion. Would these people still be "dull"? Maybe so, but there are many atheists who are just as dull and set in their ways

perfect! Collectivist alarm! Why would you mention atheists except to invoke some kind of enemy image around which to rally the faithful of your own collective? Weak

So you ARE trying to compare the two?

only as a thought-excercise, because of your continual prodding invitations to do so. And my comparison is fuckin gooooooolden so don't even try to step to me.

Your comparison doesn't even make sense. If the state limits their church, that doesn't mean the priest should stop trying to preach if that is his life's calling. He's not enforcing any unjust laws, so there's really no comparison between the two. The priest isn't forcing anyone to do anything, but the police are.

again, you just totally missed the point. I am going to just repost my Comparitive Diagnosis of the 2 classes:
both provide a service that is heavily regulated by the State to the advantage of their own unions/organizations/specialists at the expense of the people, among whom there are a reliable number of people daily GIVING AWAY THAT SAME SERVICE only because they are happy to contribute to making people around them safe, dignified and right with creation.

Regardless of whether the state is involved or not, everything priests do is voluntary,

baptism?
circumcision? (that's a rabbi but don't think that I am not including their skullduggery)

and again- let's stop CEASING OUR THINKING whenever we come across the concept of Voluntary. You have not answered me about the origins of volunteering. Whence comes the will? You might notice that often your will occurs as a thought, in language. With some thought you may notice that you were not born knowing this language, and therefore these thoughts that you call your will are implanted and downloaded, and therefore, not at all your own.

 

[Mr. Perfidy]

Except they're not the same. Priests are not like slave profiteers because they don't enslave anyone. Case cloooosed.

I made an argument, that by becoming a priest, one opens the opportunity to effectively be a CEO of a tax-free enterprise, thereby granting him power to dole out jobs as favors, to traffic and maneuver capital, to control commodities, own lands, etc. You said, "so do wal-mart executives."

which is my point. Wal-Mart executives are slave profiteers. Why would the priests be behaving like them if they were all swell fellas? Why would the incentives offered priests look like the incentives offered wal-mart executives if the motivation was not economic and political?

. Priests don't have any more power over public policy than you do.

now you're just making an ass of yourself.

Only the state has power.

I'm smoking a bowl right now. If only the State has power, and the contents of this bowl are illegal to possess, how did it get here?

The state is the one that enacts the laws. You can't blame the church because the state chooses to enact laws that happen to reflect what some priests might believe.

At the expense of the people?

my assertion was that the present environment of state-regulations assists the priest class, in the same manner that Education regulation assists the Teachers Union- it crowds competitors out of the market. If I want to host bingo, or even just read the Bible to people in the park, men with guns are going to show up and demand to see proof that the State recognizes my spiritual authority! As one who is not connected to the entrenched-class interests of the Priests, I suffer as a result of the regulations that profit them.

Also, police give no service.

how many times do you think americans dialed 9-11 in 2012?

If this exists in Christian minds, then it exists in atheist minds, too, and they do exploit it. Either way, though, it's still just persuasion, and I have the choice whether I want to reject it or accept it because I am autonomous. If you want to say that this is force, then prove it.

I thought I did... I was assuming that as a human, when you saw the words and therefore visualized the concepts I wrote (denial of food, restriction of movement, forced social demotion), that you would just realize the inherently coercive elements of these. You are evidently a sociopath though.

If your kid came home and said someone coached other kids to form a circle around him and mock him about something, then had him sit in the corner and stare at a wall and miss lunch while everyone else laughed and ate...

how would you feel about this?

"Oh don't worry son- he was just trying to convince you. It is a tactic of persuasion- you know, like, when people have a debate!"

It's still your choice how to respond. If you respond in a way that supports your interest in survival, more power to you. That doesn't mean it's coercion. There are many times in a man's life when he chooses between something that is good for him and something that he believes is right. Men have made both decisions. It doesn't matter why. It just matters that they made the decision. How someone influences you is entirely up to you. You can either let them influence you or you can disassociate yourself from them. No emotional influence is coercion just because of the damned fight or flight response. If this kind of coercion happens in Christian minds, then it happens in atheist minds, too, so why are you ragging on christians and priests for it? There are atheists who will exercise the same influence and persuasion.

well atheists who wish to use mental coercion on people can't exactly go the religious route now can they?
they become professors.

Yeah, if some witch is trying to influence you in ways you don't want, why don't you just leave? If she is influencing you in ways you want, then who am I to tell you you can't associate with her? Nobody is forcing people to listen to these priests. They do so because they already had the urge to seek spirituality. Just because they do so in ways that are not legitimate, that doesn't mean it was coercive.

well, part of deception is omission, and deception is coercion, therefore when a teacher or preacher omits facts in order to ensure loyalty, he is using coercion.

They voluntarily gave themselves over to that influence much like a man will sometimes give himself over to the influence of a woman. It's not coercive,

no, it's witchcraft

My argument is not with the deceived; their upbrining and eugenic debasement made them feeble-minded, ok. But those who are above them spiritually are employing coercion if they translate a need for spirituality into a living for themselves.

If it really is coercion, then why shouldn't it be outlawed like other forms of coercion? Why the double standard?

?

what coercion is illegal? Using the word "outlawed" implies coercion

The effects on the brain are observable, but the effects on freedom of choice are not observable.

did you sleep through the 20th century? choices are made in the brain...

You still have the ability to choose no matter how strong the influence is. It's very possible to quit smoking even though the cigarette has a strong influence on the brain. You can still choose.

good analogy- the cigarette employs many subtle forms of coercion against the would-be-quitter. It makes him uncomfortable, irritable, weak, sleepy, etc

It was destruction of property, so yes, it was coercive in the real world. You shouldn't be allowed to destroy someone's property if they don't want you to. They also stole, which is coercive as well.

ok but none of that is scary. People break your shit all the time. People get robbed all the time. Leaving a message that says, "I remove the barriers you erect between yourself and my aggression" is the scary part, and it is not violent at all. And yet it is terroristically threatening coercion.

And guess what, none of this happens in the church. Everything that goes on in the church is voluntary. As soon as you can show me a priest who starts stealing things from their people and threatening them if they say anything, then I will agree with you that that specific preacher should be arrested. Even if one preacher did that, though, would that prove that all preachers are part of the same collective that does that?

thank you so much- if I were writing up this argument as a paper, this would be my Conclusion, because you perfectly embodied the retreating collectivist defense-mechanism in these statements here.

Deception is coercive?

"Eat this."
---"Why?"
"It's delicious and good for you."
---*gulp*

poison!!!

that isn't coercion?

or how about,
"I hit you because I love you."

If deception is coercive, then why shouldn't people be arrested for deception like they are arrested for stealing or beating someone?

are you 11? Why do you keep arguing as if the laws are meant to protect people from coercion? Did you grow up in Shangri-La or something?

I don't get how you can make these conclusions about my home life.

because you are obviously defending a whole lot of behaviors that are in fact forms of violence

If you are trying to make me feel bad about myself, isn't that coercive? Aren't you trying to coerce me right now?

not really, because "you" are a screen name, not a person right now. If this exact conversation happened in a room though with other people, yes- your ears would turn red with shame, your stomach would tighten, your palms might get sweaty and your body would generally recognize my coercion and alter its physiology for a confrontation with it.

"Verily, I often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws!"