NationStates Jolt Archive

In my opinion, there is no greater corruption of morality than to wish for one's religion to be adopted by government. Not a single one of you can deny that religion is of the most personal and identifying characteristics of one's own being. Not a single one of you can deny that your faith lies between you and the god you appeal to. So would it not be a an affront to your faith to assume that government is needed to strengthen your resolve? Would it not be an affront to your fellow man to assume that only through your work through government can he find the true faith? And foremost, is it not an affront to your god to assume that he needs government to act in his favor?

Through these observations, I can only assume that any action that attempts to degrade religion through politicization are selfish, morally reprehensible, and lie in the deepest depths of hypocrisy.



I'll step down off of my pulpit now.

Let me just give a big "Hell yeah!"

Good stuff.

I'm with ya, 99% as always, VO. Except on the 'selfishness' part ;)

If one were truly being selfish about it, his/her faith would be an utmost issue of personal conviction, and no selfish man would wish for his faith to be compromised in such a fashion. As you admitted early on in your post, faith is "[one] of the most personal and identifying characteristics of one's own being." To distribute it to the masses prevents it from being 'selfish' at all.

I'm with ya, 99% as always, VO. Except on the 'selfishness' part ;)

If one were truly being selfish about it, his/her faith would be an utmost issue of personal conviction, and no selfish man would wish for his faith to be compromised in such a fashion. As you admitted early on in your post, faith is "[one] of the most personal and identifying characteristics of one's own being." To distribute it to the masses prevents it from being 'selfish' at all.

Selfish was actually the last word I typed, as I just through it in after I finished.

But I really do think that it is driven by selfish and nonreligious religions. It almost seems to be a "we can tell you what to do, and we know what is best" sort of thing. It is done to reaffirm one's own belief.

But I am sure that I will get many who disagree with me on that, though.

In my opinion, there is no greater corruption of morality than to wish for one's religion to be adopted by government. Not a single one of you can deny that religion is of the most personal and identifying characteristics of one's own being. Not a single one of you can deny that your faith lies between you and the god you appeal to. So would it not be a an affront to your faith to assume that government is needed to strengthen your resolve? Would it not be an affront to your fellow man to assume that only through your work through government can he find the true faith? And foremost, is it not an affront to your god to assume that he needs government to act in his favor?

Through these observations, I can only assume that any action that attempts to degrade religion through politicization are selfish, morally reprehensible, and lie in the deepest depths of hypocrisy.



I'll step down off of my pulpit now.


Yeah, but that's just your view of religion. Some people's religion - or at least their interpretation of it - demands that they take steps to create a theocracy. Should we lock those people up, stop them from voting, silence them somehow?

I mean it's easy to say, that politics and the religion don't mix, but when a sizeable fraction of the worlds population doesn't agree with you, it's a little harder to realize.

Yeah, but that's just your view of religion. Some people's religion - or at least their interpretation of it - demands that they take steps to create a theocracy. Should we lock those people up, stop them from voting, silence them somehow?

For me to silence religious speech, I would have to endorse the same hypocrisy that I just denounced.

I mean it's easy to say, that politics and the religion don't mix, but when a sizeable fraction of the worlds population doesn't agree with you, it's a little harder to realize.

I have no doubt that it will be hard to realize, but more and more people will eventually realize the intense personal nature of religion, and the damage done to faith when government becomes involved. We are slowly growing aware as a people that when government interacts with our personal lives, it is almost solely for manipulative purposes.

Selfish was actually the last word I typed, as I just through it in after I finished.

But I really do think that it is driven by selfish and nonreligious religions. It almost seems to be a "we can tell you what to do, and we know what is best" sort of thing. It is done to reaffirm one's own belief.

But I am sure that I will get many who disagree with me on that, though.
I'm one of them. The desire to spread one's beliefs, labor, or money around to an enormous mass of people is not 'selfish' in any conceivable use of the word. Saying "we can tell you what to do because we know what's best" assumes that the speaker is acting in what he thinks is the public's best interests, i.e., salvation. Therefore, it is not selfishness, rather it is another wretched perversion of the already wholly disgusting doctrine of 'altruism.'

I'll agree that it's rooted in a selfish desire [all voluntary action is], but most of these people have convinced themselves that they're trying to save their society/region/species or what-have you from catastrophe at the hands of an angry god.

I have no doubt that it will be hard to realize, but more and more people will eventually realize the intense personal nature of religion, and the damage done to faith when government becomes involved. We are slowly growing aware as a people that when government interacts with our personal lives, it is almost solely for manipulative purposes.

Yes, but for some, religion is not intensely personal, but rather intensely political. That doesn't mean that it is any less valid as a religion qua religion. (To the extent that any relgion is valid). So saying that the "correct" view of religion is one where it is totally divorced from politics is, in a sense, the same as those who insist that the correct view is where they are co-mingled.

*sigh*

Freedom is not everything.
It is better to be enslaved by great men and help accomplish great things than to be free and accomplish nothing.

That being said, I have nothing against religious people trying to force their beliefs on others. It's flattering, and in a weird way loving.
Most do it to save your soul.

So although I full-heartedly disagree with them, their attempts to force their beliefs on me is as loving as a parent teaching their child the difference between good and evil, at least in their eyes.

I forgive them.

I'm one of them. The desire to spread one's beliefs, labor, or money around to an enormous mass of people is not 'selfish' in any conceivable use of the word. Saying "we can tell you what to do because we know what's best" assumes that the speaker is acting in what he thinks is the public's best interests, i.e., salvation. Therefore, it is not selfishness, rather it is another wretched perversion of the already wholly disgusting doctrine of 'altruism.'

I'll agree that it's rooted in a selfish desire [all voluntary action is], but most of these people have convinced themselves that they're trying to save their society/region/species or what-have you from catastrophe at the hands of an angry god.

You are most likely correct. I understand this aspect of moral legislation. But doesn't stand true that it is insulting to god to assume that government is needed for salvation?

But really, it is in these arguments concerning the Pledge that I came to my conclusion. Those in favor of keeping the phrase intact are fighting tooth and nail to retain a religious connotation to something that is socially insignificant. I have not yet seen one make the argument that it will save the souls of those who recite it. To me it seems they are simply reaffirming their faith, and trying to maintain a theocratic hold on the government for their own benefit.

Yes, but for some, religion is not intensely personal, but rather intensely political. That doesn't mean that it is any less valid as a religion qua religion. (To the extent that any relgion is valid). So saying that the "correct" view of religion is one where it is totally divorced from politics is, in a sense, the same as those who insist that the correct view is where they are co-mingled.

And like I said, even though I see the politicizing of religion as morally reprehensible, I would be hypocritical to refuse their right to attempt to politicize it.

*sigh*

Freedom is not everything.
It is better to be enslaved by great men and help accomplish great things than to be free and accomplish nothing.
Yeah it is.
I’d rather have the freedom to choose to lead my life the way I want and fail, than to have somebody make all the decisions for me and succeed, because then success would be artificial, manufactured, illegitimate.

And like I said, even though I see the politicizing of religion as morally reprehensible, I would be hypocritical to refuse their right to attempt to politicize it.
Complicated isn’t it? Good ol’ Voltaire said it best.

*sigh*

Freedom is not everything.
It is better to be enslaved by great men and help accomplish great things than to be free and accomplish nothing.

You could not have expressed any opinion that could have been more radically different from by own.

What good is life when you are living it for someone else?

That being said, I have nothing against religious people trying to force their beliefs on others. It's flattering, and in a weird way loving.
Most do it to save your soul.

I have a great problem, as you can see from my first post, with people who try to force any belief on me.

So although I full-heartedly disagree with them, their attempts to force their beliefs on me is as loving as a parent teaching their child the difference between good and evil, at least in their eyes.

I forgive them.

And I explained why it is offensive to themselves, me, and whatever god they believe in.

The best of intentions do not make up for a horrible injustice.

Yeah it is.
I’d rather have the freedom to choose to lead my life the way I want and fail, than to have somebody make all the decisions for me and succeed, because then success would be artificial, manufactured, illegitimate.

Thus spoke the plebeian.

Your accomplishments ehh? Is that what matters most? This is not a matter of how you feel, especially if you are unable to figure out what is in your own best intrest. How the hell do so many claim to know what is in their own best intrest, and yet they are all miserable, nihilist, depressed... It is so youthfully arrogant.

Freedom is a means, not an ends, all good philosophers knew that.

I want

And you call others "selfish"

Plebeian is "name calling?"

Is there not a legitimate point in there?
Or is it just that I come off as overtly proud?

Thus spoke the plebeian.

Your accomplishments ehh? Is that what matters most? This is not a matter of how you feel, especially if you are unable to figure out what is in your own best intrest. How the hell do so many claim to know what is in their own best intrest, and yet they are all miserable, nihilist, depressed... It is so youthfully arrogant.
How can you claim that somebody who doesn’t know me at all can decide what is best for me?
I want

And you call others "selfish"
I never said anyone was selfish. I am a selfish bastard, though. What’s wrong with that? What entitles anybody else to anything I have? The mere fact that they don’t have it as well?

Plebeian is "name calling?"

Is there not a legitimate point in there?
Or is it just that I come off as overtly proud?
Actually, I had initially thought that "Plebeian" was a word that meant "dumbass," essentially. Seems I was wrong. I'll go ahead and delete the warning above. I don't happen to think there was a legitimate point in there [philosophically speaking] but the presence of one wouldn't validate name calling even if "plebeian" had meant what I thought it did. I guess ya learn something new every day.

Thus spoke the plebeian.

Your accomplishments ehh? Is that what matters most? This is not a matter of how you feel, especially if you are unable to figure out what is in your own best intrest. How the hell do so many claim to know what is in their own best intrest, and yet they are all miserable, nihilist, depressed... It is so youthfully arrogant.

So it is best to put them in shackles and tell them what to do?

Life is all about experience, and if you cannot choose your own experiences, your life is a waste.

Freedom is a means, not an ends, all good philosophers knew that.

Assuming you are right (and a majority of modern western thinkers are wrong), what is your point?

bump

I agree 100% with the original post. You express my view perfectly. Thanks.

Reading the responses, and having read and participated in some other religious issue threads, I see a division between people who wish to determine their own direction/fate, and those who wish to be led by a higher authority. I'm on the self-deterministic side. The higher authority I follow speaks within me, but to say that that means I'm following only my own selfish desires is a huge leap. It is based on an assumption that human beings have no inherent will to compassion, generosity, or ethics. As pessimistic as I am about people's actions, I'm still more optimistic than that about their potential.

I've noticed that many who wish to infuse government and law with religion tend to idolize leaders and authorities. They frequently argue that this or that is so because the church says so, or the courts say so, or the government says so, or the majority say so. But all of these authorities are just human beings. So I would ask those who trust them so much, what makes them less fallible than you, yourself? Why should you trust their judgment over your own, and why should you hand control over the definition and exercise of your religion over to them?

This is related to the question of why isn't it enough to experience religion personally and privately, but necessary to take it public.

[ADDITION: I have another question about relating to people whose views/lifestyles are different from our own, but I'll save that for a later post.]

I've noticed that many who wish to infuse government and law with religion tend to idolize leaders and authorities. They frequently argue that this or that is so because the church says so, or the courts say so, or the government says so, or the majority say so. But all of these authorities are just human beings. So I would ask those who trust them so much, what makes them less fallible than you, yourself? Why should you trust their judgment over your own, and why should you hand control over the definition and exercise of your religion over to them?

Exactly. Also this establishment of religious intermediaries works to create a distance between you and what you believe in. It takes away from God's ultimate authority by putting some religious authority in the hands of those who are completely unable to assume it.