The Fall of Religion, and Why the State is Next.

Remove all ads!

And what percentage of the people actually get their way? and of that percentage, how many are happy about getting their way? The people that are happy in religion have adopted it as their way...

But anymore some nations give their governments the mandate to adapt to the wishes of the minority. That manages to piss off the majority...

But what if the majority want that? Is the majority who want a particular morality doomed to accept something less than what they want? If so, then they become dissatisfied with government...

Sorry, in Canada, once one party gets a majority, they can remain in power up to 5 years with the ability to force through any bull**** legislation they want...

I've heard the number of parties in Canada run about 13, but only 4 that actually get any seats. The remaining 9 have no say at all in what goes on in Ottawa...

{major edit, I've hit the add reply too soon too}

They are observations, and I really see things going to pot hardcore in the very near future.

Actually, I put more faith in that book than in any mortal government. At what point do the laws of the land fall into the same category? But why can't we smoke Marijuana? Because it's illegal. Why is it illegal? It just is.

Actually, I think that they would bugger it up too. No matter what, they will fail to please someone, and the cycle of dissent will begin again...

Yeah, the more the government tries to open the doors to legitimize things that people want to do, the more it will offend those wanting the traditional morality to thrive.

And the people opposed will go to greater lengths to get their way.

Which is the division of thought within the socialization network. The more these ideas split, the fewer people will support the status quo. The more the people feel ignored, the less likely they will respond when the country needs them--like when they are going to war or something...

I like that line. It suits the politicians perfectly. Maybe that's why my church chooses who serves in the various capacities without public consultation until they're ready to put the person in place...

[/quote]Despite this, there will always be a core group of laws/rules/regulations that just about everyone will agree is necessary to the functioning of any society. The basic stuff, like not killing each other.[/quote]

I'm not so sure. Would the KKK want to kill those of the minorities they hate. Muslim extremists would want to be legally able to kill infidels...

[ March 27, 2006, 06:56: Message edited by: Gnarfflinger ]

 

The problem is that the majority does not want a theocracy, at least I don't think it does. And, supposing I'm wrong, then it would still be unjust to impose the majority's will on the minority by establishing a theocrcy. The reson for this is that, while someone in favor of stricter, religious-orientated moral laws might argue that the government is mistreating them by NOT imposing such rules, such a person is free to bind themselves by whatever moralals and rules they see fit. The government is not stopping anyone from upholding their virtues and morals, its simply preventing those virtues and morals from being focibly imposed on anyone else.

 

And where these morals don't fit with the law, then they will simply disobey the law, and thus make it a joke.

 

But thats the point. People should be free to disobey these morals if they want to, AS WELL as be able to follow them if they want to. No one, especially not government, should force any morals on anyone else, except for the very basic ones that are needed for society to function.

 

Law is not necessarily good. Law is just a collection of words with a purpose; it has no inherent will of its own. Apartheid was law in South Africa - that was certainly no joke. Political laws designed to allow legal permanent incarceration of anyone who opposes or criticises a government are no laughing matter, either.

But to give you another view on this, consider jaywalking. Strictly speaking, it's an offence. In Australia, crossing the road against the lights within 50 metres nets you an automatic fine. If you get caught, and if a cop decides it's worth the time to book you, that is. Most police won't bother enforcing this law, because it's not one that people respect and it really achieves nothing. It's still on the books, though.

Now, consider the situation in Tasmania in the early 1990s. Tasmanian laws made homosexual acts between males illegal (lesbianism, IIRC, has never been illegal under British or Australian law). Fine, you might say. But how do you enforce such laws? Do you break into people's houses mid-coitus and arrest them? Do you monitor phones, arrivals and departures? Establish surveillance on suspected or known gay men? Can you justify that on the grounds that they may be engaged in unlawful behaviour?

Was that an example of a "good law", whether or not you agreed with it? Was it enforceable? Which brings us nicely to...

Hey, I'd like things to be a particular way, too. I'd like to start by putting the CEOs who determine their own salaries even as they lay off thousands in the dole queue. That doesn't mean it's going to happen, and even if it's morally right (to me and millions of others - which it is), I have no entitlement to enforce that view.

To be quite honest, I think this is a matter of two people approaching the same matter from different perspectives. I view it as the government reducing controls on its citizenry, whereas it seems you see it as government legitimising activities. Do correct me if I'm wrong, please - I don't mean to misrepresent you if that's inaccurate.

While some things may be viewed disfavourably, that alone is insufficient to warrant legal control. The phenomenon of "moral panics" is just one example of how a relatively minor issue of morality can be blown out into a horrendous, society-threatening calamity by those who know that statement to be true but choose to push their views nonetheless. It's one of the reasons why I though John Kerry's stance on abortion in the 2004 US election was laudable - even though it was a political move as well, and one which somehow backfired on him due to the over-simplification of issues that results from political polarisation.

Law, control and punishment require more than just "moral damage" to a sub-section of society as a justification, IMO. In that sense, I agree strongly with deepfae.

Thought you might - it's a good one.

It's a two-way street. One will drive the other, and vice versa. It's a recipe for disharmony, as opposed to debate or constructive assessments. In the end, neither side is truly acting in the interest of anything except screwing over the other - and the majority, who are still more or less in the middle, getting on with their lives, are the ones who suffer for it.

Well, I did say just about everybody...

Extremists, by definition, are virtually incapable of contributing to a pluralist society except to define its boundaries of acceptance. That isn't to say they are not welcome to think that way, only that they cannot expect general adherence or acceptance within most societies. They're entitled to their views, but if they persist with their doctrines, they can't expect anyone to take them seriously.

 

I don't see why people are so eager to write off big, good sounding (well, that's totally subjective, but often people will say 'oh yes, that's great, but...') ideas. Why is it so inconceivable that people can look after their own problems together?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_and_present_anarchist_communities
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA5.html

Anarchism is a form of socialism...

@NonSequitur: Um, yeah, true. My statement was a bit ambitious in scope. There will be no *institutionalised* power of people over others.

On the other hand, I think I disagree with Gnarff's reasoning that the state will fall because people doon't like being told what to do - it is more likely (just judging from historical stuff) that people won't actually try for a revolution or change the system until working and such conditions go far downhill. Anti-state movements seem to feed off crappy economic conditions.

 

The real problem here is one that has plagued humanity since the beginning: Everyone thinks they know what's best and few, if any of us, really do.
If we all follow the most inteligent, most wise, most selfless human on Earth, we're in a dictatorship, but an enlightened one, a good one. The problem is that everyone thinks they, or their favorite candidate, knows what's best for humanity and has the guts to do it, regardless of government, party, or history. The only truely perfect government is an enlightened theocracy, where God rules, but then we come across the problem of who's God is God. Crap, I guess we're all screwed. Every man for themselves, then we can rebuild society from the beginning.
Read the social contract, people (not you guys). The entire purpose of a society or goverment is to benefit the people, so whichever government does this best and most consistently must be the best one so far, and we should stick with it. If you don't like that government, re-read all this and realize that it's the best you can do, if you don't have this government, work to get it.

All that is kind of rambling and not well thought out, but I hope someone can make some sense out of it.

 

I agree with NOG. Since its impossible to determine who is ideologically right, we can only rely on what government has preformed best historiclly, and what methods have worked best within that government, then continue on that course in hopes that it will get better and better...or at least in hopes that it won't get any worse.

 

An anarchy cannot work. It is part of human nature to organise ourselves. We created governments to protect the many from the few. In Anarchy, the strongest would face no consequences for taking whatever they want. People would then organise themselves (form governments) around a strong leader they felt could protect them. This would be similar to monarchy, dictatorship....take your pick. It's all the same thing. In other words, we can't have Anarchy because the first thing people would do when stripped of the protections of government would be to create a new government to protect themseleves.

 

Aik, looking at that Wikipedia article, none of those examples are currently working examples. Infact, many of them are not even anarchy.

Quickly looking through the 13 examples they gave:
1 Celtic Ireland (650-1650)
The very first sentence mentions laws and courts. They had, if I'm reading the article right, elected 'kings'. To quote directly; All "freemen" who owned land, all professionals, and all craftsmen, were entitled to become members of a tuath. Each tuath's members formed an annual assembly which decided all common policies, declared war or peace on other tuatha, and elected or deposed their "kings."" This shows some form of government and order. Not, atleast as far as I am aware, Anarchy.

2 Icelandic Commonwealth (930 to 1262)
This section mentions itself it was ruled by warlords. Also, Anarcho-capitalists communities, from what I've raed, in many peoples opinion are not true anarchy, as they have forms of law in place to, and correct me if I'm wrong, ensure that contracts and the likes are kept to and that monopolies do not develop.

3 Albemarle (1640's-1663)
Says quasi-anarchial society. Quasi is certainly not the same as a full anarchial society, as it has rules set in place. Anarchy is one of these things that it either is or isn't, IMO.

Holy Experiment (Quaker) Pennsylvania (1681-1690)
Mentions juries. Had a treaty involved somewhere. Juries and treaties show some form of law and order.

Libertatia (1670's to 1690's)
It's real existance seems to be doubted. Even if it was true, they practiced, the article mentions, forms of direct democracy.

Utopia (1847 to 1860's)
This one seems the truest version so far. Might even go as far as saying a proper version of anarchy.

Modern times (1851 to late 1860's)
Once again, does appear to be a proper form.

Whiteway Colony (1898 to present)
The only one that still exists today, although the article says it has lost its anarchic roots. Doesn't say anything about before it lost its roots though.

Spanish revolution (1936 to 1939)

Ukraine and the Makhnovist movement (1918 to 1921)
Even this I wouldn't regard as an Anarchic community. We have congresses of workers, we had elected councils of workers and freemen who ran the sovieties. They were for the removal of both private and public property, which I don't quite understand. It must be one or the other, shouldn't it be? Not that that last point has anything to do with anarchy.

Tolstoyan Agricultural Communes (1921-1937)
This is a small community living inside a country. They were taken to court, which shows that they were not above laws.

The autonomous Shinmin region (1929-1931)
This, from the looks of it, was a rebellion, which was lead by a political party called Korean Anarchist Communist Federation. They decleared the place independent under the rule of the Korean People’s Association. Need I say more?


To add to the matter there, none of those have succeeded in lasting more than a few years (bar the first few). Very few of them state the number of the 'state'. An anarchy community consisting of 5 people isn't really a land-mark in the ways of anarchy, is it? A slight exaggeration, I'm sure, but none of these examples were as large as modern states are.

 

And the ones enshrined in law? What of them? Would they still hold power if nobody took them seriously?

Even what morals are needed to allow society to function is in dispute.

And the fewer peole support that purpose, the more likely that purpose will be overthrown--byu whatever means necessary.

You'd have to catch them in the act of course. And in cases where is was consentual, nobody would likely catch them in the act.

Moral damage spawns moral decay. By not standing for morality, governments facilitate the decay of morality to the point where there will be very little left--even challenging the things that are supposedly understood to be right...

But that rare few that continue to get involved with these extreme beliefs will perpetuate this extremism and continue to challenge the laws that prevent them from doing what they want.

Edit: Replying to page 2 now.

When the economy goes to pot, it means that those that are pissed off have less to lose by revolting...

And the longer a system maintains itself, the more the people can ruin it...

Winston Churchill once said that democracy is the worst form of government, save all the others that have been tried. I guess that means that we're all screwed...

[ March 28, 2006, 07:34: Message edited by: Gnarfflinger ]

 

You're right, if no one took morals backed up by the law seriously, they would not hold power. But the only morals that should be "enshrined in the law" are morals that everyone agrees are right. Unfortunatley, since there is so much disagrement over what morals are "right", society as a whole is never going to agree on a common set of morals, except for those morals that can be logically proven to be necesary for society to fuction.

Perhaps, but I'm sure that with discussion and compromise society could agree on a set of morals that more or less keep civilization from crumbling into dissaray and "falling". But determining this is much different from instituting a powerful theocracy or establishing a set of quasi-religious morals enforced by the government. Because in the later instance, the only way to prove that the new code of morals instituted are "right" would be to rely on a faith which not everyone shares.

 

Religion didn't invent morality and ethics. We have a word for people who have no morals and it isn't atheist. The word is sociopath.

 

I understand that religion did not invent morality and ethics. But it seems to me (though correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to be putting words in anyone's mouths) that Gnarfflinger is advocating a sort of theocracy in which the government enforces moral-based laws onto the population. But it doesn't need to be a theocracy. Any government that decides that people shoud live a certain way, and adhere to certain ethics, is wrong, unless those ethics are the fundamental to the society's function. I'm not advocating that people do whatever the h*** they want, In fact I'm often disgusted with the lack of respect and common decency that is apparent today, especially in the media. My point is, moveover, that since no one can agree on what is ethical beyond what can be logically proven is necesary, no one should impose THEIR particular opinions of what is ethical on anyone else.

 

So what you are saying is that you feel the law should step in the moment before my fist connects with your face, right? That the law doesn't exist to enforce a uniform standard of ethics, but to protect the rights of each individual (thereby, vicariously supporting most, but not quite all, of the ethical and moral viewpoints of most major religions.....since murder, rape, libel, etc would count as a violation of the victim's rights)?

 

Yes, pretty much. You put it bluntly...but I have to admit thats more or less what I believe. I don't think that the law has any right to enforece arbitrary codes of ethics, unless of course the people of a particular nation unanimously (sp?) or near-unanimously decide they want those ethics to be enforced by the law. The reason I believe this is right is because most morals beyond the basic do not harm another ("harm", of course, including stealing or decieving another as well as physically or severely emotionally injuring another), while they may be great, do not affect society if broken. Take, for example, someone who thinks that homosexuality is wrong, and that the "right" thing to do is to ban homosexuality. But how do homosexuals affect that person? They don't harm them, and if the mere presence of homosexuals offend that person, too bad. What if a gay man decided that the gay-hating man's presence offended HIM? Who is right? No one can decide that, especially not the government, so the government should not take sides, rather it should mantain the peace between these two warring factions.

 

Not completely true. The US won their independance in a war. Canada gained theirs through the Statute of Westminster signed in 1931. England gave us the right to decide the fate of our country as we chose and not as they dictated. It was a rather peaceful process if I say so myself. Today, even though laws are still signed by the Queen, it's kept more as a tradition and sign of respect and friendship than for any authoratative powers.

There may never be a society of perfect harmony since we all have different ideas on how that society will come about and be. The only way it could be done is if we were all programmed to be the same, think the same, look the same and essentially rob us of what it is to be human. A world of automatons.

Most governments or religions fall because they don't practice what they preach. When people follow an idea, they expect a leader that they voted for/endorsed/follow to lead by example. There will always be a leader, people needs leaders, people want to be lead, it's undeniable. We're no different now than however long ago when we were living in huts in small families or tribes, we've just gotten bigger. We need leaders to make the hard choices for us when it affects things on a larger scale. To that end though, we also hold them up to a higher standard than ourselves. Therefore, when they fail to consider the needs of the majority of the tribe or fail to live up to to our standards, we remove them. Granted we do it through more peaceful means now than we did ages ago but the process is the same. When the tribe loses faith in the chief, the chief is replaced by someone wiser who better represents and acknowledges the needs of the tribe.

As to everyone following the same moral code, your own moral code defines what's wrong in your books for you alone. Morality also changes definition with time. In times past, human sacrifice was considered an honour and the one chosen was honoured as well. It was the "moral" thing to do to burn human beings alive for suspicion of witchcraft, despite a commandment saying "Thou shall not kill".

If American politicians play the Christian card it's because the majority of Americans are probably Christian so you have to woo them to get elected. Is it the fault of politicians that the country was founded by Christians settlers? Turn the table a moment and think of if the country had been founded by Muslims. Would you still be preaching the rhetoric had you been raised to follow the laws and word of Islam?

Religon, morality, law, it's all subjective and tainted by the views and opinions of the individual. There is no one true word, no ultimate law. The best we can hope for as a group of different minded individuals is to come to a compromise that everyone accepts. Countries are simply large gatherings of like minded people.

 

That's my point. Once people decide that there is not a consensus on morality, the Government has nothing to legislate on...

I don't think that will work. There will be those that cling to their own religious beliefs (myself one of them), but some that will go so far as to claim that their religious freedom is imposed upon by laws that prohibit things their religion encourages/requires. There was a case in Montreal where a Sikh boy was suspended from school for carrying a kirpan (ceremonial dagger), which is against the school's weapons policy. The Courts ruled that his rights were indeed violated by that policy. How long before a Muslim extremist tries to defend his right to kill infidels because it violates his freedom of religion. I'm not saying this boy wanted to use the kirpan for aggression, but it opens a can of worms that can't be closed back up...

I'll accept sociopath, but I use other words that we're not supposed to use on SP...

I'd like it if it was my religion or one similar to it, but I certainly wouldn't want to live under Islamic law...

But what one group says is integral to a Society's function can be a violation of the rights of another group. Slavery was once seen as vital to the survival of the economy of the Southern states. The obligation to kill infidels under Islamic law is a violation of the rights of the infidels...

That's part of the problem. When Society held clearer views of right and wrong, there was the ability to instill in children ruiles of Ettiquette. Now, there will be people that get pissy about that too...

But what then is government to do if they aren't to do that? What the hell are we paying them to do?

If that's a case, they do a poor job of it...

That's a slippery slope, that will cause the role of government to shrink and ultimately disapear altogether.

That's what I was referring to.

That ends about where the leader tells them to do something they don't want to do...

And we bitch louder when we don't like what they put in place for us...

But what of those of us that choose to follow the same moral code because it makes sense? Does that make our rights less important than others?

That's the problem. What is that change in morality is not considered to be progress, but degradation of society? Does the law have to degrade itself to accomodate these changes?

But if the majority are Christian, why should a law that offends the majority be pushed into law to accomodate a minority. Shouldn't the law be required to say sorry about your luck?

That's what they do. You don't like it? They shoot you unless you move to Canada and bitch about Canada...

As long as that is believed, society will ultimately crumble...

On the contrary, there are many people who do believe in such a thing. Unfortunately, they arren't necessarily the same word and law...

The more different the minds are from each other, the less cohesive the nation in question becomes. Basically, too many chefs spoil the broth...

 

The answer to this is actually rather simple. It's because the basis for the American government is a document that says there will be no State religion. Laws cannot accomodate one religion while disenfranchising any other group, including the nonreligious. It's a hard line to walk.

 

Good luck debating that one. There are so many answers. The most obvious one, following a classical libral (or neoliberal, if you prefer) approch, is that they are there to act as a 'night watchman'. ie. they are there as a neutral body that only role is to protect the freedom of individuals.

Ummm... When did society have a clear view of rights and wrongs?

That's an interesting statement there. Care to expand on that? I'm not quite sure where your claim is coming from.

And that's where this modern thing called democracy kicks in to allow us to vote out the leaders who tell us to do things we do not wish. That is where state differs from church.

Once again, one of the joys of democracy. We are able to bitch when we do not like things. Bitch isn't the word I would use though. To be able to have freedom of speech to express your opinions is a good thing. It allows reasoned debate, which leads to new ideas forming and improvements.

To expand on what Rally said, this is in place to do exactly what you (or someone else...) were (was) saying before, to prevent the tyranny of majority. It is to stop the forcing of views upon people. So all those who are not christian are not forced to follow the religion.

I think someone is avoiding the question here

That's why (a) direct democracy will not work on a national scale, and (b) nor will anarchism. Another thing about representitive democracy (particularly if it's proportional instead of majority orientated) is that it allows for, or even encourages, different thoughts. Can you imagin how boring this forum, no, this world, would be if we all thought the same? JS Mill, the 'founder' of modern liberalism believed that state schooling was a terrible thing, as it made us all think the same. He believed, rightfully too, that for advancement to happen there must be different thoughts. If we did all think along the same lines, as the church tells us, we would still be scared of sailing off the edge of the world.

You seem to be arguing both sides of the case here. First you ask why shouldn't Christian laws be forced on everyone as they are in the majority. Next (or prehaps it was first) you ask why your personal beliefs are any less than others. Prehaps I'm not quite understanding you right.

To answer the question though, IMO, and the 'modern' line of thinking, your thoughts are just as important as anyone elses, even if you are in the minority. I believe this has been answered over the page somewhere. Might pay to read it