Why mixing religion and politics is bad

[Diogenes]

There actually have been many societies without central governments...if we look at some various tribal communities whereby everyone knows their role in the tribe and carries out their role without persuasion...

a society without a central government can exist even today provided it has three qualities...

1. it is a relatively small community
2. it is a relatively isolated community
3. everyone knows their duties and carries them out without question

trying to create a tribal community on the scale of an entire Nation would be impossible...to quote Thomas Paine:

The more perfect civilization is, the less occasion has it for government Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one. The trade of governing has always been monopolized by the most ignorant and the most rascally individuals of mankind.

Society Is a Blessing, But Government Is Evil by Thomas Paine

[SoylentGreen]

Diogenestrying to create a tribal community on the scale of an entire Nation would be impossible...to quote Thomas Paine

But having many tribal communities would be possible. The general direction of advancement in our technology makes feasible the idea of living independently from the need of a centralised government.

[Mediocrates]

Quote by: Diogenes There actually have been many societies without central governments...if we look at some various tribal communities whereby everyone knows their role in the tribe and carries out their role without persuasion... a society without a central government can exist even today provided it has three qualities... 1. it is a relatively small community 2. it is a relatively isolated community 3. everyone knows their duties and carries them out without question

The tribal society isn't so much ungoverned as governed by other means: instead of the form of government common to non-tribal societies, of incentives and disincentives, the tribal society adopts what is essentially a method of governance through indoctrination: members of the tribe are taught from birth their place in society, which is why they mostly carry them out without question. For those who don't, there is the nuclear option of social ostracism: something especially horrifying to people who have never known anything but the tribal group.

Perhaps the word "indoctrination" has too much baggage attached: the method practised in the tribal society is organic rather than artificial, as it is inextricably linked to the ties of kinship and tradition that are central to any tribal group. This is where it contrasts to state indoctrination programmes, which try to create something similar to those bonds artificially, and which invariably fail to produce the same degree of unquestioning obedience. However, the result is the same: government by indoctrination rather than by force.

EDIT: Hmm, having looked at this twice I'm not sure how much it's a response to what you said and how much of it is totally irrelevant. Oh well.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Shade 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.

I'm not changing the subject, I'm making a point that you're obviously missing. Saying that government and religion are destructive forces is like saying that wind is evil. Wind is simply a fact of nature, something we been designed to deal with. Sure, hurricanes and tornadoes can be very destructive, but that's those particular winds... not wind. Indeed, lions are a destructive forces in the animal kingdom, but whatever destruction they bring, it's because they're lions, not because they live in prides. All advanced social animals have some rudimentary form of government... a wolf pack, a chimpanzee clan, a pod of porpoises, gorillas, etc. It's how they survive.

What I keep trying to point out with my question is that human societies and government are one and the same... they can't exist without each other. It's how WE survive.

NO CIVILIZED HUMAN SOCIETY EXISTS OR HAS EVER EXISTED WITHOUT SOME FORM OF GOVERNMENT! PERIOD!

So saying that government is a destructive force is simply saying that human beings are a destructive force, because governments are a defining factor of every civilized human society on earth and every civilized human society that has ever been on earth, from tribal chieftains on up.

Ask yourself this... if religion and governments are the two most destructive forces in human history... and every society on earth has a government and probably a religion... how the hell is it that we're all still here??? Yet the fact is, not only are we here, we have THRIVED to the point where humans dominate the earth and we're in danger of wrecking the planet with our own success.

If government is one of the most destructive forces, it is certainly also one of the most CONSTRUCTIVE forces in human history... all you need do is look around you. The advances in modern science, communication, travel, medicine, art and literature, on and on and on.

Now I'm sure you'll shake your head vigorously and shout, "NO, NO, NO... government and religion aren't responsible for those things, individual humans are."

Well, so are individual humans responsible for all the destructive forces you insist government and religion are responsible for. Religion and government are destructive forces only to the extent that HUMAN BEINGS ARE DESTRUCTIVE FORCES.

What's so tough to comprehend here?

And what exactly is your point? That we should all pack up our families, cut off all ties to any form of social organization, and go live by ourselves in a cave somewhere. That may sound attractive to you, Shade, but no thanks.

Quote by: Shade 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.

What's not logical about what I wrote above? What's illogical about ANYTHING that I've written in response to you?

Pardon me if I refuse to simply roll over and play dead to the blinding brilliance of your silly notion that two of the most basic human evolutionary/intellectual innovations, that have made it possible for our species to dominate the earth, are also our most destructive. Why not condemn agriculture, the wheel, sexuality or speech!

Yeah, there ya go. Human speech... the single most destructive force in all human history!

Quote by: Shade 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?

And how very convenient for you that you get to pick and choose the vilest dregs to represent human history. As opposed to say, the Egyptian Empire, Ancient Sumaria, Babylon, the Persian Empire, the Classical Greeks, Ancient China, Ancient India, the Aztecs, the Mississippi, the Greek Empire, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Moslem Empire, the British Empire or the American Empire.

And are you really including little Cuba??? Oh, the horror... but what on earth did they do, exactly, other than choose to throw off a vile dictator and replace it with a communist economy? I'll see your Cuba and raise you a Canada... and a Switzerland.

And by the way, the Roman Empire was immensely successful, advancing human science, architecture, engineering, economics, art and literature to amazing levels. The only reason we think badly of the Roman Empire today is because they ran afoul of what would eventually take over Europe... Christianity.

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

No, I'm TELLING you that you can't have a civilized society without a government, anymore than you can drive an automobile without some form of motor, wheels and steering. Whether the government is successful or unsuccessful is up to the people who devise it and run it.

THIS is why I keep asking you to name a successful, civilized society without a government... to try to get you to understand that government is simply the necessary tool of civilization. It's neither good or bad, it just is, like language. It's the PEOPLE RUNNING IT that make it benevolent or malevolent.

Quote by: Shade 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.

Really? What terrible end has the government of Switzerland achieved by violence? Or Canada? Or Australia? The United States achieved scientific breakthroughs in medicine, computers, agriculture, outer space, microbiology... by what violent means were they achieved? We've united a nation and the world through transportation and communication... by what violence was that achieved?

Quote by: SoylentGreen It should sound like government. It is an example of an organised anarchist movement.

Talk about your oxymorons... "An Organized Anarchist Movement".

Quote by: Xyzer 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"!

Are you saying that a band of savages is your idea of a civilized society? Or that you didn't just describe them as having a government?

And while you're at it, prove to 'ol Shade that those government-less bands of savages were any less violent and brutal than the governments he now laments against.

Quote by: Xyzer Unless Sonart defines his terms. his comment is an imponderable.

It's not imponderable at all. I assume you have some knowledge of recorded history. It's quite simple... name a civilized society in recorded history - without any form of government - that was reasonably successful... meaning that they existed for more than a generation or two, provided for its people, exhibited some sort of culture, co-existed and traded with neighboring states, successfully defended themselves, etc., etc., etc.

.

[WindWip]

Quote by: Apeman81 Would you deny them the right to elect officials and support initiatives or ballots? If so, what body gets to decide which beliefs disqualify the voter?

I said that unsupported beliefs are less valid than supported ones and that choices based off of those beliefs would then be less valid as well. I never even mentioned a person's rights, including their right to vote.

I have a completely different view on who should be allowed to vote, but religion has nothing to do with it.

[WindWip]

I thoroughly enjoyed reading that post Sonart. Not much I could add on without simply repeating what you've already said. Well, one thing I would like to add. There has apparently been some confusion as to what government is.

Government -
the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states.

A government can be ANY organization that does something where there is an unequal distribution of power. That said, all organizations which do anything are governments because none of them have a completely equal distribution of power. So any 'anarchist' ideal that has multiple members is in fact the very thing it is trying to break away from.

Of course very often people use the term to refer to nations, but when one is being so precise on their language in a debate, they really should clarify if they are using a different definition.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: WindWip I said that unsupported beliefs are less valid than supported ones and that choices based off of those beliefs would then be less valid as well. I never even mentioned a person's rights, including their right to vote. I have a completely different view on who should be allowed to vote, but religion has nothing to do with it.

Ah! Then we agree. People have a number of influences that shape their belief systems and none should be denied political participation based upon the subject or substance of their beliefs.
Thanks

[Apeman81]

Government is the ceding of freedom by the individual to support the collective.

If we are not governed, then we are free to act upon our unchecked will.

Anarchy contains none of the checks on individual freedom that are required in any form of collective larger that the individual. When more than 1 person is involved, without governance the most able to enforce his will gains the ability to do as he wishes. Naturally, the other is therefore governed by the "stronger."

For that matter, the stronger becomes governed in his actions in as much as he will lose his ability to take from the other should he kill or lose power over the other. He must, therefore, act accordingly to protect his ability to exert his power.

So I find myself in agreement with Sonart. Government is not a destructive force, it is a natural force. It is unavoidable where 2 or more attempt to coexist.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Diogenes There actually have been many societies without central governments...if we look at some various tribal communities whereby everyone knows their role in the tribe and carries out their role without persuasion...

Number 1) - where are these wonderful societies now? Tribalism thrives when human population densities are very, very, VERY low. For example, it's estimated that in 1492, the population for the whole of North and South America was around 112 million, and about 18 million for what is now the United States.

Number 2) - Read a decent anthropology text. Where on earth did you get this "Noble Savage" notion... tribes have their own governments - INCLUDING the religious sector... the Shaman or witch doctor. Those governments may be small and less formalized, depending on the size of the tribe, but they existed, complete with the means to compel behavior. The worst punishment of all was not death, but banishment. Surviving in nature without the benefit of the support of a tribe usually meant a horrible, lingering death... better to be executed.

As to carrying out ones roles without question, what choices were there? You think small town society is bad, in a tribe of 40 to 60 people, EVERYONE knew exactly what everyone else was doing. Decide not to contribute, I daresay life would get real unpleasant real fast. There were also very clear 'Pecking Orders'. He who contributed the least probably got exactly that.

Number 3) - what makes you think these idyllic tribes were any less brutal, aggressive or murderous than modern governments? Do you have some sources that suggest that, or were they just as warlike and brutal as today?

Number 4) - would you trade your life now to go live in some Hunter/Gatherer society?

Quote by: Diogenes The more perfect civilization is, the less occasion has it for government

For instance? I'm sure Thomas Paine was a swell guy and all, but please, an example of that perfect, governmentless civilization.

.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Apeman So I find myself in agreement with Sonart. Government is not a destructive force, it is a natural force. It is unavoidable where 2 or more attempt to coexist.

ohmigawd, Apeman and I agree on something.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Sonart . ohmigawd, Apeman and I agree on something.

Indeed!

[SoylentGreen]

SonartTalk about your oxymorons... "An Organized Anarchist Movement"

Not at all and not even in both meanings of the word.
Any resistance against a centralised coercive government must have organisation to succeed.
One of the more enduring tenets of anarchism is that it is self government , not no government. People are free to organise themselves as they see fit, whether it is in a clan or guild or a union or a township.

[Sonart]

.

And yet notice how your examples tend toward small units. Specifically, where small groups -- a clan or guild or a union or a township -- can actually get together to make mutual decisions.

I daresay you get anything larger than a small township and the concept begins to collapse under it's own weight.

I remember reading once that the average human had the capacity to know and remember about 100 or so people... which turns out to be about about the average size of an aboriginal tribal unit. Tribes that got much bigger tended to split apart into smaller tribes, because hunter/gatherer economies simply couldn't support much more than that.

But with the advent of agriculture, it became possible to support much larger populations, much more comfortably with the economies of scale, with more sophisticated divisions of labor, etc. etc. but...

... with the need for a consolidated governing body.

.

[Diogenes]

Sonart...take another look...I was responding to the question regarding there never being a governmentless society...and pointed out that there have been...witch doctors or hospital surgeons notwithstanding they did not have a government as we know it.

All your responses beyond that are mere assumptions on your part ..a rant without purpose or foundation...as I made no claims or assertions beyond responding to the question.

[SoylentGreen]

Sonartwith the need for a consolidated governing body.

Yet you can see for yourself the first seeds of anarchism principal in your own constitution. A government by the people, not by a centralised authority.
We do not have a need for centralised authority but we do need to pass through the stages of evolving that contain centralised government in order to reach that point in which we can organise without one.
It is not possible for a simple primitive social; group to transfer overnight into a democratically elected representative style government without first going through the stages of creating hierarchical leadership

I remember reading once that the average human had the capacity to know and remember about 100 or so people..

The key word there is once. technology changes what we are capable of. Where once carrier pigeon was the fastest form of communication, now light is.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Diogenes Sonart...take another look...I was responding to the question regarding there never being a governmentless society...and pointed out that there have been...witch doctors or hospital surgeons notwithstanding they did not have a government as we know it.

My, aren't we clever ... nuthing up my sleeve... presto.

Sure, Diogenes, a swell point... provided you can show me those clans, guilds, unions or townships that are completely sovereign entities unto themselves. The Democratic Republic of Sheep Shearers, perhaps? The Sovereign People's Township of Twin Falls? Or are you talking about semi-autonomous organizations that still fall within the jurisdiction of some larger municipal, provincial, feudal, or national government.

Villages that, today, are so isolated as to be completely autonomous from, and completely self-sufficient from the surrounding jurisdiction I suspect are rare to the point of non-existence.

If you're still talking about witch doctors, or arctic fishing villages, the Tribal Chief and his tribal council of whatever hunter & gatherer clan still smacks of government as we generally know it, albeit given the minute scale. Whether it qualifies as a civilized society remains another question. One doesn't think of a civilized society as one that must spend all its time and talent simply hunting and finding food. And let's not lose sight of the fact that the more isolated and tribal the group, the more likely they'll probably be to rely on some form of religion to sustain and fortify themselves.

Quote by: Soylent Yet you can see for yourself the first seeds of anarchism principal in your own constitution. A government by the people, not by a centralised authority.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of democracy, but at the same time our founders were under no illusions that their country could survive without a clear and well-planned government. And that was back when we were a simple agrarian society, in which 90% of Americans worked small farms, and the rest were self-emplyed craftsmen, family businesses, and limited partnerships.

Quote by: Soylent We do not have a need for centralised authority but we do need to pass through the stages of evolving that contain centralised government in order to reach that point in which we can organise without one.

To the contrary, the exact opposite appears to be true. As life has gotten more and more complex, government has had to become more intrusive and centralized. And that's not because government is inherently evil but because we citizens ourselves have demanded it.

Our increasingly regulated economy hasn't come about because the corrupting influences of wealth and power created by the expanding corporate, industrial age demanded it. Hell, they HATE regulation. It's what the people - the VOTERS - demanded as protection against the excesses of corporate, industrial wealth and power. Work place regulations, health and safety regulations, environmental regulations, economic regulations. They protect us, not free market liberties.

And while American politicians certainly love the money and power of political give and take, in the end it's their constituents who vote them back into office that they're pandering to.

Quote by: Soylent The key word there is once. technology changes what we are capable of.

Wrong... technology does wonders and can remember things for us, but humans are still only capable of knowing about a 100 people or so. In most cases that would be the folks you work with and your social neighbors. Humans haven't evolved significantly from the illiterate, small village peasants most of us were 500 years ago, Soylent.

Besides... technology is a product of industrialized societies with strong, complex governments, not isolated feudal villages.

.

[WindWip]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Yet you can see for yourself the first seeds of anarchism principal in your own constitution. A government by the people, not by a centralised authority.

That was the Gettysburg Address actually, but I know what you meant.

"A government of the people, by the people, for the people..." implies that it is made up of American citizens and is an institution for the people. You have to reach quite a bit for that statement to mean a government with no central authority.

We do not have a need for centralised authority but we do need to pass through the stages of evolving that contain centralised government in order to reach that point in which we can organise without one. It is not possible for a simple primitive social; group to transfer overnight into a democratically elected representative style government without first going through the stages of creating hierarchical leadership

A near perfect recital of Marx. If I agreed with Marxism I would applaud you.

The key word there is once. technology changes what we are capable of. Where once carrier pigeon was the fastest form of communication, now light is.

There is a physical limit to how fast a person can run. New training methods or fancy shoes will help but we will never be able to run a 10 second mile, ever. My point is that although improvement can be made, the goals which you hope to reach are unobtainable, regardless of the advances we make.

[SoylentGreen]

SonartDon't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of democracy, but at the same time our founders were under no illusions that their country could survive without a clear and well-planned government . And that was back when we were a simple agrarian society, in which 90% of Americans worked small farms, and the rest were self-emplyed craftsmen, family businesses, and limited partnerships.

Now i have you, define a clear and well-planned government.

As life has gotten more and more complex, government has had to become more intrusive and centralized.

Right, so on one hand the capitalist argues the benefits of technology their system creates and on the other complain of the governments using the technology.

Complex is relative, It has only been a hundred years since the first cars came into existence. My own mother can still remember horses and carriages. My kids communicate through cyber space.
The industrial revolution isn't finished, the technology is opening new doors of possibilities and if we survive, the prediction is it will lead to anarchism.

[SoylentGreen]

WindWipYou have to reach quite a bit for that statement to mean a government with no central authority.

True, which is why i qualified it by saying, first seeds.

A near perfect recital of Marx. If I agreed with Marxism I would applaud you.

Thank you, but what is it about historical materialism you disagree with.

There is a physical limit to how fast a person can run. New training methods or fancy shoes will help but we will never be able to run a 10 second mile, ever. .

I am not sure what the limits of our physical bodies have to do with it.

My point is that although improvement can be made, the goals which you hope to reach are unobtainable, regardless of the advances we make

A point many men were quick to bring up when a woman once asked why they could not vote.

[Charlatan]

Today religion and politics is are rather seperate - look at how far we have come from the time when the bible was the law and the law we have today. Then look at places where the bible is still the law and places where it is not. You will see that there has been more progress in places where there is seperation between the bible and the law, but that could also be due to resources too. So what is it? Does religion turn you into a poor nation? If it does then it must be a bad thing, right? But if religion is the way to God, then it is a good thing and people should be obliged to follow it, writing it into law if necessary, as it is for their own good. Following God's word might not make life here on earth better, but it sure will make your afterlife better as you will be with God, so, is leading people to a richer life full of wealth and freedom not the wrong thing to do as opposed to leading them to God? That is of course saying there is a God.

I think the seperation of church and state came about when there were people of another faith licing in the same country. In the past many people have travelled the lands and mixed with new religious types and have come to argue about religion. Seeing as how there was a problem this way, and the state supported only one view of things, they decided to let people pray to whomever they wanted to pray and dropped religious laws from the laws of state, leaving people free to do as they would. This of course affected the laws, as when you follow something, then abandon it, you turn askew of the previous teachings opting for a new more rational set of laws.

As people have gone through time they have all looked for the rationality of their laws, and fought to have them rationalised. The most irrational laws were the ones dropped from the laegal system, leaving a clear cut view of the law, what was right and wrong logically instead of what was right and wrong religiously. However the right way to live to please God is different from the right way to live to please yourself, and the laws we have come up with please ourselves rather than God. All our laws are there for our benefit here on earth instead of being for the well wishes of God. So, is sending people to hell not a crime, as an exaggerated example? Letting people commit adultery with just a pinch of the cheek is not going to deter them, and if you are not deterring them it is negligence. It is like placing a slippery floor sign in the interior of a wet floor in the shopping mall, for the people's own good.

I think there should be more religion in the laws that govern us, and that is based on the idea there is a God.