Reconciling libertarianism and religion

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

As impressed as I've been with the Revolution, particularly the diversity it's attracted, there's still something a little disconcerting lurking here. The warm winds of freedom are being polluted with the distinctly acrid stench of religiosity.

Don't get me wrong, the fact that a few evangelical shepherds have pointed their herds in our direction is fantastic, and I certainly understand the desire for more small-community based relationships, but there's another side to this coin.

When we talk about freedom of the individual and pushing back the damage that collectivism has done to society, the very core of it all is cognitive sovereignty. I can't think of any institution more deeply rooted in collectivism than organized religion. Indeed, the caustic mixture of social conservatism and liberal economics has always sounded the death knell of a nation (Nazi Germany, for example; and before anyone says it: no, Hitler did not endorse secularism). Christianity, specifically, since it was established as Rome's religion, has long been the thing that kept the peasants working and the soldiers fighting, never daring to question the motives of their masters. This is still evident today in the fact that both mainstream democrats and republicans continue to openly endorse Christian values as a model for American living.

Now, consider the rationale behind the desired abolishment of federal education; many of the same rules apply to the church. To me, the idea of terrorizing a child's mind into submission with threats of hellfire and brimstone is infinitely more reprehensible and alarming than feeding them state-approved historical distortion. At the very least, the latter is much easier to dismantle.

Simply believing in a higher power is something I would never seek to deny anyone, but when you force a young, impressionable mind to follow in your footsteps, you've taken the first step towards creating the Orwellian nightmare that we're currently living in.

I'm sure this isn't a popular opinion here, but as an individualist I feel it needs to be said. I don't understand how we can ever achieve true freedom when 75% of the population fervently adheres to moral guidelines which seek to restrict human desires, actions, and thoughts, while utterly failing to take actual questions of human suffering into consideration.

 

[amy31416]

Live and let live. Keep an open mind and never forget that just as the religious can learn things from you, you can also learn from them.

It's not all hellfire and brimstone and scaring people into submission with religion. I believe that many people believe it sets them free. And, there are sometimes good reasons to restrict your own desires, actions and thoughts that have nothing at all to do with religion.

It will never hurt you to treat other people with dignity and respect, unless it's incredibly obvious they do not deserve it for heinous reasons.

 

[banjojambo9]

thats what I like about you amy you have a good heart

 

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

Live and let live. Keep an open mind and never forget that just as the religious can learn things from you, you can also learn from them.

It's not all hellfire and brimstone and scaring people into submission with religion. I believe that many people believe it sets them free. And, there are sometimes good reasons to restrict your own desires, actions and thoughts that have nothing at all to do with religion.

It will never hurt you to treat other people with dignity and respect, unless it's incredibly obvious they do not deserve it for heinous reasons.

I definitely don't disagree with you. However, in religion, the good and the bad are meshed together into a singular, confusing whole. IE: thou shalt not kill vs. thou shalt not take the lord's name in vain. One of these things actually causes suffering, and the other does not, yet are both equally wrong in biblical canon. How is an impressionable mind to discern the difference?

 

[yongrel]

Just leave other people alone, and help foster a culture where the favor is returned.

 

[DeadtoSin]

Yeah..I better stay out of this topic, I can see where its headed and my blood pressure is already high.

 

[amy31416]

thats what I like about you amy you have a good heart

Aww, shucks...thanks. Very nice of you to say. You do as well.

 

[amy31416]

I definitely don't disagree with you. However, in religion, the good and the bad are meshed together into a singular, confusing whole. IE: thou shalt not kill vs. thou shalt not take the lord's name in vain. One of these things actually causes suffering, and the other does not, yet are both equally wrong in biblical canon. How is an impressionable mind to discern the difference?

I can't say that I understand your premise: how does either not killing or taking the Lord's name in vain cause suffering? How is it wrong to not kill?

I just don't understand the confusion here, both of those things are pretty straightforward. Christians don't take God's name in vain, how does that hurt anyone? Christians are commanded to not kill (with exceptions, I think, in the literature--"just wars," things of that nature.

There's plenty of contradiction in religion, perhaps those were just bad examples?

 

[Kalifornia]

I dont see the disconnect. My faith in a creator is what lead me to libertarianism. Without it, the ideals of the Scottish Enlightenment that our underlying philosophies are based on would never have been developed.

What you have a problem with is not religiosity, but rather the modern extension of old school european conservatism that worships the church and king, instead of the creator (no matter what you want to call him).

People who think the Church can rule the world will always be here. And yeah, some of them are gloming on to this movement. I dont mind, so long as they dont overstep their bounds and seek to replace our libertarian constitutional republic with some form of theocracy.

 

[Corydoras]

I don't understand how we can ever achieve true freedom when 75% of the population fervently adheres to moral guidelines which seek to restrict human desires, actions, and thoughts, while utterly failing to take actual questions of human suffering into consideration.

What if it isn't possible? I don't think that would change your opinions. Or would it?

 

[Kraig]

As impressed as I've been with the Revolution, particularly the diversity it's attracted, there's still something a little disconcerting lurking here. The warm winds of freedom are being polluted with the distinctly acrid stench of religiosity.

Don't get me wrong, the fact that a few evangelical shepherds have pointed their herds in our direction is fantastic, and I certainly understand the desire for more small-community based relationships, but there's another side to this coin.

When we talk about freedom of the individual and pushing back the damage that collectivism has done to society, the very core of it all is cognitive sovereignty. I can't think of any institution more deeply rooted in collectivism than organized religion. Indeed, the caustic mixture of social conservatism and liberal economics has always sounded the death knell of a nation (Nazi Germany, for example; and before anyone says it: no, Hitler did not endorse secularism). Christianity, specifically, since it was established as Rome's religion, has long been the thing that kept the peasants working and the soldiers fighting, never daring to question the motives of their masters. This is still evident today in the fact that both mainstream democrats and republicans continue to openly endorse Christian values as a model for American living.

Now, consider the rationale behind the desired abolishment of federal education; many of the same rules apply to the church. To me, the idea of terrorizing a child's mind into submission with threats of hellfire and brimstone is infinitely more reprehensible and alarming than feeding them state-approved historical distortion. At the very least, the latter is much easier to dismantle.

Simply believing in a higher power is something I would never seek to deny anyone, but when you force a young, impressionable mind to follow in your footsteps, you've taken the first step towards creating the Orwellian nightmare that we're currently living in.

I'm sure this isn't a popular opinion here, but as an individualist I feel it needs to be said. I don't understand how we can ever achieve true freedom when 75% of the population fervently adheres to moral guidelines which seek to restrict human desires, actions, and thoughts, while utterly failing to take actual questions of human suffering into consideration.

Personally I don't think think your expressed views on religion have much to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ, however they have plenty to do with the Christian church in the US. The church does need to be cleaned out but that doesn't mean it should be abolished - there are plenty of great men and women in the church who do nothing but good for our society.

You claim to be an individualist but you are treating people as collective groups. There are not even two Christians who share the same identical views but you are trying to act as if everyone of them in the entire country does.

Yes, there is always risk that severe damage will be done whenever parents, elders, and leaders shape a child's mind as he grows old. How do you plan to address this outside of letting each parent choose their own form of education? You cannot compare the socialized school system to the private church institutions that parents willingly seek out. Forcing someone to teach their kids a certain way, or not allowing them to be taught a certain way could not be farther from Libertarianism.

 

[Kraig]

I definitely don't disagree with you. However, in religion, the good and the bad are meshed together into a singular, confusing whole. IE: thou shalt not kill vs. thou shalt not take the lord's name in vain. One of these things actually causes suffering, and the other does not, yet are both equally wrong in biblical canon. How is an impressionable mind to discern the difference?

You do realize that the goal of Jesus Christ was to end the dependence the believers had on the law of the old testament? This includes the 10 commandments.

Of course each Christian will have a different explanation for the practical results of what I just said, while others would flat out disagree with me. Which is why you need to stop being a collectivist.

 

[Kade]

As impressed as I've been with the Revolution, particularly the diversity it's attracted, there's still something a little disconcerting lurking here. The warm winds of freedom are being polluted with the distinctly acrid stench of religiosity.

Don't get me wrong, the fact that a few evangelical shepherds have pointed their herds in our direction is fantastic, and I certainly understand the desire for more small-community based relationships, but there's another side to this coin.

When we talk about freedom of the individual and pushing back the damage that collectivism has done to society, the very core of it all is cognitive sovereignty. I can't think of any institution more deeply rooted in collectivism than organized religion. Indeed, the caustic mixture of social conservatism and liberal economics has always sounded the death knell of a nation (Nazi Germany, for example; and before anyone says it: no, Hitler did not endorse secularism). Christianity, specifically, since it was established as Rome's religion, has long been the thing that kept the peasants working and the soldiers fighting, never daring to question the motives of their masters. This is still evident today in the fact that both mainstream democrats and republicans continue to openly endorse Christian values as a model for American living.

Now, consider the rationale behind the desired abolishment of federal education; many of the same rules apply to the church. To me, the idea of terrorizing a child's mind into submission with threats of hellfire and brimstone is infinitely more reprehensible and alarming than feeding them state-approved historical distortion. At the very least, the latter is much easier to dismantle.

Simply believing in a higher power is something I would never seek to deny anyone, but when you force a young, impressionable mind to follow in your footsteps, you've taken the first step towards creating the Orwellian nightmare that we're currently living in.

I'm sure this isn't a popular opinion here, but as an individualist I feel it needs to be said. I don't understand how we can ever achieve true freedom when 75% of the population fervently adheres to moral guidelines which seek to restrict human desires, actions, and thoughts, while utterly failing to take actual questions of human suffering into consideration.

Why?

Let's see what a few thinkers say:


The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man's power to conceive- a definition that invalidates man's consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence...Man's mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God... Man's standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man's power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith....The purpose of man's life...is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question.
-Ayn Rand


What single attitude most stands in the way of this ethics, according to
religious writers? The sin of pride. Why is pride a sin? Because man, in this
view, is a metaphysically defective creature. His intellect is helpless in the
crucial questions of life. His will has no power over existence, which is
ultimately controlled by God. His body lusts after all the temptations of the
flesh. In short, man is weak, ugly, and low, a typical product of the low,
unreal world in which he lives. Your proper attitude towards yourself,
therefore, as to this world, should be a negative one. For earthly creatures
such asyou and I, "Know thyself" means "Know thy worthlessness"; simple honesty
entails humility, self-castigation, even self-disgust.

Religion means orienting one's existence around faith, God, and a life of
service - and correspondingly downgrading or condemning four key elements:
reason, nature, the self, and man. Religion cannot be equated with values or
morality or even philosophy as such; it represents a specific approach to
philosophic issues, including a specific code of morality.

What effect does this approach have on human life? We do not have to answer
by theoretical deduction, because Western history has been a succession of
religious and unreligious periods. The modern world, including America, is a
product of two of these periods: of Greco-Roman civilization and of medieval
Christianity. So, to enable us to understand America, let us first look at the
historical evidence from these two periods; let us look at their stand on
religion and at the practical consequences of this stand. Then we will have no
trouble grasping the base and essence of the United States.
-Leonard Peikoff found HERE

 

[Truth Warrior]

Recently read somewhere and I tend to agree.

"Politics and religion are both the same thing. They are both simply effective methods to control large masses of people. ........... It has always been that way and always will be."

 

[LittleLightShining]

This has been discussed. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1368559#post1368559

 

[RonPaulalways]

As long religious folk are not trying to impose their views through the government, I support them. Religious libertarians are the best kind of people IMO. You need voluntarily formed benevolent groups for a free society to prosper.

 

[AisA1787]

As impressed as I've been with the Revolution, particularly the diversity it's attracted, there's still something a little disconcerting lurking here. The warm winds of freedom are being polluted with the distinctly acrid stench of religiosity.

Don't get me wrong, the fact that a few evangelical shepherds have pointed their herds in our direction is fantastic, and I certainly understand the desire for more small-community based relationships, but there's another side to this coin.

When we talk about freedom of the individual and pushing back the damage that collectivism has done to society, the very core of it all is cognitive sovereignty. I can't think of any institution more deeply rooted in collectivism than organized religion. Indeed, the caustic mixture of social conservatism and liberal economics has always sounded the death knell of a nation (Nazi Germany, for example; and before anyone says it: no, Hitler did not endorse secularism). Christianity, specifically, since it was established as Rome's religion, has long been the thing that kept the peasants working and the soldiers fighting, never daring to question the motives of their masters. This is still evident today in the fact that both mainstream democrats and republicans continue to openly endorse Christian values as a model for American living.

Now, consider the rationale behind the desired abolishment of federal education; many of the same rules apply to the church. To me, the idea of terrorizing a child's mind into submission with threats of hellfire and brimstone is infinitely more reprehensible and alarming than feeding them state-approved historical distortion. At the very least, the latter is much easier to dismantle.

Simply believing in a higher power is something I would never seek to deny anyone, but when you force a young, impressionable mind to follow in your footsteps, you've taken the first step towards creating the Orwellian nightmare that we're currently living in.

I'm sure this isn't a popular opinion here, but as an individualist I feel it needs to be said. I don't understand how we can ever achieve true freedom when 75% of the population fervently adheres to moral guidelines which seek to restrict human desires, actions, and thoughts, while utterly failing to take actual questions of human suffering into consideration.

The difference is.... the "collectivism" you speak of with regard to religion isn't quite collectivism -- people are free to associate with or dissociate themselves from any religious group (except for Obama, apparently, who "can't disown his pastor"). Religion is not forced on anyone. People are free to join whatever church they want to join. If someone threatens you or forces you to join a church or to say you believe certain religious teachings, then they are already breaking the law in some manner.

You claim that you don't care what people believe in:

Simply believing in a higher power is something I would never seek to deny anyone, but when you force a young, impressionable mind to follow in your footsteps, you've taken the first step towards creating the Orwellian nightmare that we're currently living in.

But it seems that you want to disallow parents from raising their children to be religious? How can you advocate freedom, but deny parents the right to raise their children as they see fit? If you're not referring to parents and children here, then what do you mean?

I also find this quote by you troublesome:

I don't understand how we can ever achieve true freedom when 75% of the population fervently adheres to moral guidelines which seek to restrict human desires, actions, and thoughts, while utterly failing to take actual questions of human suffering into consideration.

Why should these people not be allowed to adhere to whatever moral guidelines they choose? If these people don't forcibly interfere with anyone's right to life, liberty, or property rights, then why shouldn't they be free to believe in whatever they want?

At the very least, when you set forth an argument like the one you have outlined above, you need to make the distinction between government-imposed "social conservatism" and individuals choosing to be "socially conservative." There is a world of difference. One is entirely compatible with libertarianism and freedom, the other is not.

 

[Laughingcow]

I don't understand why there are constant attacks on Christians in these forums. Why are people always saying we are forcing our religion on everyone else? I don't endorse government control over anyones faith, this is not what Jesus taught me. I kind of ticks me off that people keep blaming us for forcing our views on everyone else when in fact it's the exact opposite. My kids are being brainwashed at school by a liberal agenda, I mean my kids aren't allowed to pray in school but it's alright that someone to tell them that they should seriously consider being gay. This is rediculous, if you want to be an Athiest or Agnostic, that's fine with me, if you are a man and want to sleep with another man, thats your decision, and good for you, if you want to chase chickens around the yard and call it "THE ORDER OF THE CHICKEN CHASERS" and thats what you believe in, great. But please, stop trying to force "your" faith on me and my children, then turn around and say we're doing it to you. This is utter BULL... These attacks are ruining the solidarity of our movement. Christians aren't the problem, please stop blaming us.

 

[Kade]

I don't understand why there are constant attacks on Christians in these forums. Why are people always saying we are forcing our religion on everyone else? I don't endorse government control over anyones faith, this is not what Jesus taught me. I kind of ticks me off that people keep blaming us for forcing our views on everyone else when in fact it's the exact opposite. My kids are being brainwashed at school by a liberal agenda, I mean my kids aren't allowed to pray in school but it's alright that someone to tell them that they should seriously consider being gay. This is rediculous, if you want to be an Athiest or Agnostic, that's fine with me, if you are a man and want to sleep with another man, thats your decision, and good for you, if you want to chase chickens around the yard and call it "THE ORDER OF THE CHICKEN CHASERS" and thats what you believe in, great. But please, stop trying to force "your" faith on me and my children, then turn around and say we're doing it to you. This is utter BULL... These attacks are ruining the solidarity of our movement. Christians aren't the problem, please stop blaming us.

Nobody is attacking your precious faith, grow a pair.

 

[Laughingcow]

Nobody is attacking your precious faith, grow a pair.

Hey, I'm being nice. Please do the same.

Most Christians don't want a state run by religion either, that would be foolishness. Just remember that most of us don't have any interest in running anybody elses life, we just want the freedom to live our own lives the way we see fit. The point I am trying to make here is that we are all fighting for the same thing, we need to stand together no matter what our personal beliefs are, or our movement will fail.