Why mixing religion and politics is bad

[Shade]

Quote by: Tycoon Are you saying that we shouldn't strive to do and be better simply because we cannot be perfect?

What do you mean "strive to do and be better?"

Why do you think the current situation, where governments are anarchic with each other but impose their desires on everyone else by force, is better than what a true voluntary society would be?

[Shade]

Quote by: Sonart You've just named the two most universal institutions of civilized man... government and religion.

Yes, the two most destructive institutions in human history.

...you go live your life without government. If you want to call 'Nasty, brutish and short' living.

Odd. Most people who quote Hobbes are religious right types.

Nevertheless, your assertion is baseless. Or, do you have evidence to support it?

Don't bother. You don't.

But as a matter of fact [murder] is.

You ignore what I wrote, and then go on to refute your own strawman.

No, you just named the two things that PREVENT us from committing crimes...

Please, Sonart, you are living in a fantasy world, not reality.

YOU are the one who brought up Stalin and Mao, two of the worst mass murderers in human history and who murdered in the name of their governments.

Need you be reminded of WWII or any number of other mass murders that occurred at the hands of the state? Pol Pot?

Hundreds of millions of people in the 20th Century alone were murdered by employees of governments.

Religion, well, you know the story there, as well.

You live in a fantasy world where religion and governments do good. You are blind to the FACT that these two institutions have been tools used to convince people to do unconscionable harm to others.

... show me an example of a successful society that functions without government and I'll change my opinion.

Show me a place and time in recorded history where people did not impose governments on others, and we can talk.

Artists are adept at observation, plus I possess a logical and pragmatic mind.

Artists are not known for logic. I see no evidence that you are an exception to that rule.

[Shade]

Quote by: Cephus Government is something that naturally forms from anarchy. If you abolished all forms of government, people with the same views would naturally gravitate together and form governments again. Anarchy simply cannot continue to exist for long.

How do you explain the fact that all governments today are anarchic versus each other? They have to voluntarily (or not) cooperate with each other. There is no central authority.

How does that continue to exist if such a thing is impossible?

[Tycoon]

What do you mean "strive to do and be better?" Why do you think the current situation, where governments are anarchic with each other but impose their desires on everyone else by force, is better than what a true voluntary society would be?

Because at least within our own countries we have laws and rights protecting us and a system of education and whatnot. I think that the benefits of all of that would be fairly obvious.

[Tycoon]

Nevertheless, your assertion is baseless. Or, do you have evidence to support it?

What happens when somebody kills you? Nobody's there to find out who or prosecute them. If you can get a job, who's going to protect your contract in it? Who will prosecute a thief? Who runs the education system?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Shade Yes, the two most destructive institutions in human history.

You haven't answered my question.

Can you show me an example of a successful, civilized society without government.

Quote by: Shade Nevertheless, your assertion is baseless. Or, do you have evidence to support it?

The fact that you can't answer my question above.

Quote by: Shade You ignore what I wrote, and then go on to refute your own strawman.

It's not so much ignoring... I'm bemused by the absurdity.

Artists are adept at observation, plus I possess a logical and pragmatic mind. Artists are not known for logic. I see no evidence that you are an exception to that rule.

Ask anyone who's been on this board for a year or more. Of course, one can hardly expect someone to recognize logic who can't support their own premise.

SO ONCE AGAIN... Can you show me an example of a successful, civilized society without government?

"Governments don't kill people, people do."

.

[Jack]

Can you show me an example of a successful, civilized society without government?

You know I generally agree with your posts, Sonart, so this isn't some sort of disagreement. But this got me to thinking. I can indeed give evidence of extremely successful, functioning societies which have no central government yet manage to provide for all the members of their society. The catch? They happen not to be human societies. Ants and termites are highly organized and productive without the benefit of a central government. This could be an example of a situation where our human "advancements" actually diminish our ability to form cohesive and productive societies. We have to have a central body establishing and maintaining law and order because we've progressed beyond the ability to cooperate for the good of all.

Just a thought. Ignore me if I'm too far off base.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Ish Just a thought. Ignore me if I'm too far off base.

Actually, I loved it. But I think you're wrong in thinking societal animals like ants, fish, herd animals, etc. don't have governments... they're just not governments as we perceive them, because their members are incapable of such perception. For them it's straight instinct. An ant colony is an incredibly structured society, from the queen to the workers, to the nursery, the soldiers, etc. Each does exactly what is necessary for the colony, even if it means death... they follow the instincts and chemical instructions that govern them without question.

So too are humans social animals, and our instinct is to bond into social groups and to organize those groups into the most functional and harmonious manner necessary for its environment. The difference is that humans operate as much on conscious thought and decision making as by blind instinct (although I continue to submit that there's more of the latter than we like to flatter ourselves), so how we organize and function depends often on the nature of the Alphas who end up running things.

This is what Shade can't comprehend... religion and government aren't good or bad. They're concepts... the tools by which we organize and operate our social groups. It's the humans that are running things -- and there will always be someone running things -- evolution designed us that way -- that make a society good or bad.

Have you read "The Right Stuff"? Tom Wolfe makes an interesting point... we always associate the "Right Stuff" with heroes -- self confidence, fearless daring, coolness under pressure, etc. But folks with the right stuff make damn good criminals... they're confident, focused, analytical, daring, cool under pressure.

Leaders of governments and religions can just as easily be saints or thugs. Indeed, government gives them vastly more power to carry out their will, but government itself is no more than the blind instinct driving those ants, the organizational chart. It's people acting on their own lust, ambition, greed, ego or mental instability that kill each other, not government or religion.

.

[Median]

Quote by: Spartan 117 I am not saying that Christianity should be a part of the government, I was more speaking about schools and if evolution and the big bang theory can be taught in school then why shouldn't they also talk about creationism. Either take both evolution or also include creationism with it. I can not remember where it was or the in the bible or exactly how it said it but the basic idea was don't let small details break up a church when the church should be focused on the bigger issues.

Your trying to say that creationism is on the same level as science?
Because evolution and the big bang are backed up by science, creationism is backed up by.........you tell me?

Science is taught in school, faith in god is not. Parents that enjoy encouraging ignorance can send their kids to a religious school if they want.

[SoylentGreen]

SonartCan you show me an example of a successful, civilized society without government.

Not quite, but i can show you one good attempt at it.
Anarchism in the Spanish Revolution of 1936 - Spanish Civil War
Unfortunately they were so successful that the the then british and fascist government of the time saw them to be a threat and invaded and crushed them.
Otherwise who knows how well they might have done.

[Matt W]

Britain invaded Spain in the '30s? No, I really don't think so. Try Germany.

[Sonart]

.

Ah yes, the Spanish experiment.

The rise of anarcho-syndicalism

"There was a general consensus amongst anarchists in the early 20th century that a new, national labor organization was needed to bring coherency and strength to their movement. This organization, named the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT) was formed in October 1910 during a congress of Solidaridad Obrera. During this congress, a resolution was passed declaring that the purpose of the CNT would be to "hasten the integral economic emancipation of the entire working class through the revolutionary expropriation of the bourgeoisie...." The CNT started off fairly small, with about 30,000 members across various unions and confederations."

A national labor organization? Sounds sort of like a government to me. Wonder what their organizational chart looked like? Any politics involved in who ran the organization? Hmmmm... I wonder.

Indeed, for 30 years Spain toyed with anarcho-syndicalism, although it actually ran very little, and it's leaders (leaders? There's that political thing again) eventually had to compromise with the existing government, leading to more violent breakaway variants.

Oddly enough, the closest thing to anarcho-syndicalism is... oh dear ...Marxism.

The world has tried Marxism in various forms. Alas, it simply doesn't work very well. When you remove money as an incentive to succeed and excel, then political power becomes the new currency.

Seems that humans may be social animals, but not necessarily communal animals.

.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Matt W Britain invaded Spain in the '30s? No, I really don't think so. Try Germany.

Sorry i should be more precise. britain was very encouraging towards the idea that germany attack.

[Shade]

Quote by: Tycoon Because at least within our own countries we have laws and rights protecting us and a system of education and whatnot. I think that the benefits of all of that would be fairly obvious.

Why do you think government is the only or best way, though?

In the USSR, people ate but they had bread lines. In the USA, people during the same time also ate, but no bread lines.

Do you think central planning (government) is superior to the free market (voluntary agreements) when it comes to education, enforcing contracts, or other things you are referring to? If so, why?

[SoylentGreen]

SonartA national labor organization? Sounds sort of like a government to me. Wonder what their organizational chart looked like? Any politics involved in who ran the organization? Hmmmm... I wonder.

It should sound like government. It is an example of an organised anarchist movement.

The organisational chart , in what sense. Do you mean the workers sharing in the profit of each of the industrial areas they worked in? That this time they actually got the right to vote for who would govern?

Was there any politics ? Of course not after all it's common knowledge that anarchists believe fairy dust and kindness will fix all situations.
Really helps to believe that to when the Luftwaffe is using your city to practice war tactics on.

Indeed, for 30 years Spain toyed with anarcho-syndicalism, although it actually ran very little, and it's leaders (leaders? There's that political thing again) eventually had to compromise with the existing government, leading to more violent breakaway variants.

Compromise ?????
They got the sh*t blown out of them. And then spent the next 30 years with uncle franco.

And as for your thing about government and politics. Try looking at it in the context of politics at the time.
Spain trying to prove that living without a centralised form of government was possible and every country with a centralised government knowing they are in big trouble if spain can do it.
Germany needs a country to practice for the invasions of europe its planning. And a dictator named Franco with a willing army and good backing . And especially the rather quiet noises of protest from any other nation. Especially the ones who had two tiers ( federal and state )of government to protect.

The world has tried Marxism in various forms. Alas, it simply doesn't work very well. When you remove money as an incentive to succeed and excel, then political power becomes the new currency.

Disagree. Marxism spoke of revolution of the working class to overthrow their oppressors . In most cases those workers managed to win that revolution. The trouble came when they tried to keep it.
By the way hows politics in america since your revolution, gotten any better?

[Shade]

Quote by: Sonart You haven't answered my question. Can you show me an example of a successful, civilized society without government.

You are trying to change the subject: religion and government are the two most destructive forces in human history. You refuse to acknowledge that simple fact.

Ask anyone who's been on this board for a year or more. Of course, one can hardly expect someone to recognize logic who can't support their own premise.

Sonart, I don't have to ask anyone. I can read your posts myself. You are not a person who uses logic as a means of debate. When push comes to shove, you resort to ridicule.

You are a huge fan of trying to ridicule and put people down. Maybe you think that is a way to score points, but it is not debate. It is a substitute for debate.

You are just a bully, not a person who thinks from first principles.

SO ONCE AGAIN... Can you show me an example of a successful, civilized society without government?

A successful, civilized society? You mean like Stalin's Russia? Mao's China? George Bush's torture prisons? Yugoslavia? Cambodia? Nazi Germany? The Roman Empire? Cuba?

Are you trying to suggest that governments are the guarantee of successful, civilized societies?

You are the one who does not recognize that your own premise is false.

Governments achieve their ends through violence. History is so full of examples that it is self-evident, and yet you cannot bring yourself to even acknowledge this fact.

You still have not done so in this thread. You would rather change the subject.

In your heart, Sonart, you are a bully. That's why you love the state.

[Matt W]

Let's not make this personal, shall we? Move on.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[xyzer]

Shade I agree with you.The question Sonart asks

Can you show me an example of a successful, civilized society without government

is ridiculous?

However if one ignores the questions lack of specificity and definition one can find all sort of examples of successful groups which existed at various perods in history without any more government than a local bunch of rules, customs and mores and a leader or medicine man??
A chief in charge of a band of savages can fit the term government.
defined.."those who rule"!

Unless Sonart defines his terms. his comment is an imponderable.

Funny in this protracted discussion I find no reference to the important fact that the US Consitutional drafters ruled out religion as directing government.(First Amendment to the Constitution). One was allowed to practice religion but it was not allowed for the government to be dictating religious values. Except in the form of laws that govern the activities of any society or group. The fact is that Christian rules for human conduct may be coincidentally included in whateverer rules the people approve. The fact that some are used doesn't indirectly show that religion is invading government? The 10 Commandments were a valid attempt by a religion to codify common rules for human interaction. Needed to prevent societal chaos in virtually any societ.

[Okieslims]

The ten commandments are, for the most part, common sense written down and stamped with a religious brand. I don't think that the commandments isnpired the rule of law as many other do. I think that common sense did. If the commandments were strictly adhered to as the bible states they should be.. then all crimes would have one punishment because all sins are equal.. and we would be a perfect society.. scared of the punishment of being anything less.

[SoylentGreen]

xyzerThe fact is that Christian rules for human conduct may be coincidentally included in whateverer rules the people approve. The fact that some are used doesn't indirectly show that religion is invading government? The 10 Commandments were a valid attempt by a religion to codify common rules for human interaction. Needed to prevent societal chaos in virtually any societ.

Coincidentally?????
Was that a typo, did you mean coerce by any chance?

The 10 commandments were valid for the time and circumstances.
A recently freed, barely bronze age group of slaves. I would think that their needs to control societal chaos and ours differ.
Back then someone yelling out " hey! Guess what a talking, burning bush gave me?" would of got my attention.
These days I would wait to see what 60 minutes had to say about it.