Relation between Liberty and Religion

[Skeyrz]

I was lurking about the forums and I noticed some arguments that rather cheered me. It wasn't the content of the arguments that cheered me so much as their presence at all. Occasionally I feel quite alone in caring about liberty and not being Christian. Something struck me when I was reading the thread over here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=189646

Ron Paul really raised a lot of awareness for liberty among secularists. A lot of the movement was pushed forward by the youth, by college students, and by others who aren't usually thought of as sitting in their churches and praying to god for the souls of the politicians. Liberty became respectable in a number of quarters where it hadn't been before. No longer is 'free thinking' associated automatically with 'socialist' as it seems to have been for a while. It's still associated more than I would like, but not as rigidly as it used to be.

I want to push this trend forward. Quite frankly, the cause of liberty transcends religious boundaries, and from as freedom-centric a religion as Dischordianism, that's quite a thing for me to say. As disheartening as arguments in general are, the presence of these arguments I believe to be healthy for our movement. I expect they'll lead to some sort of concord between those who are Christian and those who are not, but who nevertheless feel the common drive towards freedom.

I wasn't actually sure where to put this, so I won't feel too bad if it gets moved.

P.S.: As a Dischordian, I feel compelled to tell you. You're all Popes. Also, I excommunicate you. Go read the Principa Dischordia, then eat a hot dog with relish, you heathens. :D

Edit: Wait, this is my first post? Wow. I've really been lurking for far too long.

[TER]

Freedom is popular! Welcome to the forums!

[OptionsTrader]

My opinion has always been that organized religion tends to condition the human mind at an early age to believe in otherwise obvious fabrications via endless repetition and reinforcement and this conditioning prepares the human mind to be manipulated later in life by other authority figures in fancy clothes.

[TER]

My opinion has always been that organized religion tends to condition the human mind at an early age to believe in otherwise obvious fabrications via endless repetition and reinforcement and this conditioning prepares the human mind to be manipulated later in life by other authority figures in fancy clothes.

oh really? obvious to who? you wouldn't be speaking for humanity, would you?

[Skeyrz]

Organized religion is an illusion. Like all apparently behemoth structures, it's still in the end composed of a great many individuals and small groups. It can't condition human minds for anything. Only individuals who already associate with it can do the conditioning - and I believe as this forum demonstrates in itself, there are plenty of people who either didn't get the conditioning, or who escaped it successfully.

[TER]

and so you are free of conditioning?

[Skeyrz]

No, of course not. I am at least aware that I'm choosing my own outlooks, as pretty or ugly, ordered or disordered as they may be. That is - ironically - a teaching of my religion. I have no shortage of empathy for people who hold religious ideals as important to their politics. It would be hypocritical of me to hold it against anyone. I just want to see everyone capable of cooperating without getting 'stuck' on religious disagreements, to the extent that they agree on other matters in spite of those disagreements.

[OptionsTrader]

Obvious to anyone capable of independent thought.

[hugolp]

My opinion has always been that organized religion tends to condition the human mind at an early age to believe in otherwise obvious fabrications via endless repetition and reinforcement and this conditioning prepares the human mind to be manipulated later in life by other authority figures in fancy clothes.

I am an atheist, but I have come to realize that happens in society no matter if you recieve a religious or not religious education. Indoctrination is not necesarely a religious attitude. I know a lot of intolerant atheist.

[shenlu54]

I think one important reason that those protestants came across the ocean to the America in 17th century is that they could not tolerate oppression by the church of England.They came to America to seek for a land in which everyone regardless of his religion could live together in peace,that is, freedom for everyone.

The founding farthers derived the spirit of freedom from their ancestors and wrote that spirit into the U.S Constitution.They knew there were always tyrants somewhere in the world and when that day came,when those tyrants managed to seize the power,the U.S Constitution would be the last defence for the freedom of the people.

The U.S Constituion is the last check,you lose it,you lose everything.

[Bman]

I am an atheist, but I have come to realize that happens in society no matter if you recieve a religious or not religious education. Indoctrination is not necesarely a religious attitude. I know a lot of intolerant atheist.

Yeah. You know there is something totally screwed up with the vast majority of outspoken atheists.

It's almost as if they feel that they have to substitute God with a Frankensteinish creation of government. One in which God doesn't exist so we must be the ones who carry out the punishment. So they create these philosophical monstrosities and then complain when they have civil issue problems. Then they try to "fix" government with no idea of the powers that they are granting it.

Being Agnostic I've tried debating a lot of socialist atheists, and agnostic people and have come to the conclusion there as crazy as the Religious right they fight against.

After they find out you aren't religious they just yell and scream that government must decide everything and never admit that the reason they have these problems is because they ask Government to be their God in the first place.

I just don't get why some people don't understand less Government = more Freedom.

[revolutionman]

I agree, destroying the communists choke hold on rational thought is very important.

There is a great Rand interview on youtube where she admonishes the GOP for arguing for capitalism from the stance of Christian principals.

YouTube - AYN RAND's message to the GOP CANDIDATES (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTf6NK0wsiA)

[Objectivist]

Interesting.

[Kludge]

Whoooooa, Rand used the term "neoconservative" in the 1960s.

[Objectivist]

Whoooooa, Rand used the term "neoconservative" in the 1960s.

Thanks for the bump Kludge, I hadn't seen that clip before and my previous post was directed at the OP.

[fisharmor]

I was lurking about the forums and I noticed some arguments that rather cheered me. It wasn't the content of the arguments that cheered me so much as their presence at all. Occasionally I feel quite alone in caring about liberty and not being Christian. Something struck me when I was reading the thread over here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=189646


Who told you that Christians care about liberty? I don't see it a whole lot of Christians who will fully espouse the idea, and unlike you, I'm looking from the inside.

Also, I would advise that the word "Christian" is generally a stereotype, and a bad one, to boot. Joel Osteen has as much in common with Ignatius Zakka I Iwas as an apple has in common with a river stone. Both are round, and both are "Christian".


Ron Paul really raised a lot of awareness for liberty among secularists. A lot of the movement was pushed forward by the youth, by college students, and by others who aren't usually thought of as sitting in their churches and praying to god for the souls of the politicians. Liberty became respectable in a number of quarters where it hadn't been before. No longer is 'free thinking' associated automatically with 'socialist' as it seems to have been for a while. It's still associated more than I would like, but not as rigidly as it used to be.

Just a point of interest here: if you're talking about the Judeo-Christian god, it's "God", since it's a proper noun. My younger daughter's name is Paisley. We would not write "We're taking paisley to the store" just because paisley also has a non-proper noun context: that would be grammatically incorrect. Capitalizing "God" is therefore not an honorific, it's grammar; you wouldn't write "kaiser söse" just because you don't believe he exists. You could get around it by writing "a god" or "your god".

But addressing your point.... 'free thinking' can't be associated with socialism; at least not as we tend to think of it. I think most people think about the thinking part, and miss the 'free' part.

Truly free thinking requires that we think about things that we don't think we're free to think about. So in that sense, I think the thing we need to convince people that they need to think about is foreign policy. Most people seem to be getting on board with the domestic freedom at this point - but they still refuse to analyze what's going on overseas. And what I see is that the people who need to put some freedom into their thought are, to employ the stereotype, generally "Christians".


I want to push this trend forward. Quite frankly, the cause of liberty transcends religious boundaries, and from as freedom-centric a religion as Dischordianism, that's quite a thing for me to say. As disheartening as arguments in general are, the presence of these arguments I believe to be healthy for our movement. I expect they'll lead to some sort of concord between those who are Christian and those who are not, but who nevertheless feel the common drive towards freedom.

Make no mistake: liberty is not the primary goal of "Christians". It is not an end. For Christians (of the more orthodox stripe, anyway) there is only one end. The cause of liberty can not transcend that end.

The religion is that boundary - if you step outside that boundary, there is no religion. For a Christian, without that end point, all humanity is reduced to so many soul-less, walking, talking piles of chemicals. Without that end point, that spark of specialness in each of us, there is no reason to be nice to each other.

Oh, I know there are economic reasons to be "nice" to each other - to get stuff. But economics doesn't raise children, and doesn't care for the sick and elderly. Economics mandates that children be cut from the womb and the elderly smothered with pillows.

In short, I don't see a basis for individual liberty outside of that perspective. Once I free-think about the potential nonexistence of God, I jump to a world where might makes right, there is no morality other than force, and we get colored gems implanted in our palms at birth.


P.S.: As a Dischordian, I feel compelled to tell you. You're all Popes. Also, I excommunicate you. Go read the Principa Dischordia, then eat a hot dog with relish, you heathens. :D


I love hot dogs, and I too reject the notion of a single Pope. However, as a "chordian?", I feel compelled to point out that I would be perfectly happy adopting the Dischordian calendar, as it is far more ordered than the Gregorian!

Edit: in contrast with other atheists, I note that you didn't throw any punches, and I appreciate that. And I hope I came across as informative, not deriding.

[Skeyrz]

Quite informative, I suppose. I'd forgotten the rule that 'God' is a proper noun rather than an honoriffic, but I must say. It feels like an honoriffic.

In any case I like the tone of your writing. You don't sound deriding in the least. I hope that I seem respectful as well. I'm trying to be.

I truly wasn't assuming Christians as a monolithic and unified group. It isn't that Christians care about liberty, it is that many prominent liberty-minded individuals mix in references to god, and it creates this sensation of a barrier to entry to those who doubt the existence of god (or who are pagan-minded like myself). When I offer people texts, they wonder aloud why I'm distributing the works of "fundies" and vocal Christians, as if that disparaged their thoughts intrinsically, or as if the ideas couldn't be removed from their Christian implications. When liberty becomes "more hip" (I hate that word) it becomes easier for me to convince others in my peer group that liberty isn't a religious thing.

I would note that economics doesn't imply children being cut from wombs. That implication is very specific to our culture. Macroeconomics loves children. Most children increase the amount of wealth in the world more than they cost to support - and moreover, more children has historically usually meant more income per capita! More children means more division of labor and more chances to find brilliance.
If children are so great in the macroeconomic sense, why are they bad in the microeconomic sense? That doesn't really follow. Most micro/macro divides are illusory in the end. This one could be illusory too. If parents were better at gaining resources through their children, economics would support having children. In other cultures presently, and in most cultures historically (including our own), this circumstance has obtained.

I'd also like to say that I've considered the world from the point of view of not having gods, the Judeo-Christian one or mine, or others for that matter. It doesn't change much for me, not in terms of my behaviour or desires. For you see, even without any true religion at all, people are more than sacks of chemicals. They're sacks of chemicals that are capable of tremendous beauty and tremendous corruption, tremendous good and tremendous evil. Even if all religions were false, the world is full of fascinating stories, and those stories should be advanced and extended. The spark of uniqueness that gives people value relies on no deity and no religion; the soul transcends its own existence. The soul exists even if the soul does not exist.

Edit: I think I just figured out why it feels like an honoriffic. Imagine if there was a fellow who was the general of an army, and his name was General. Now imagine if there were people who said, "There is no general but the General" and otherwise praised his name as, y'know, General of generals. This general example should illustrate why God with the capital letter feels like an honoriffic. ;)