Religion And The State Are The Same

Last week I listened to podcast 1103 of Freedomain radio where Stefan Molyneux addresses whether or not atheist libertarians should be concerned about religion within government, specifically whether or not political candidates are religious. For the record, I do not understand how a libertarian can be religious in the first place. However, the fact that there are religious libertarians indicates that the libertarian party, and libertarians in general, do not have a philosophical basis for their policies. Instead, libertarians overemphasize the founders' intent. The truth is, the founding fathers' intent does not make a policy legitimate. The truth, what is virtuous, makes a policy legitimate. As it stands now, libertarians argue that modern policies should mirror the founders' intent; however, they pick and choose which of the founders' intents they will follow. The most obvious example is slavery. Some founders were against slavery, others opposed, others unsure. If the founders' intent was infallible, libertarians would not ignore the fact that the founders' were really not interested in eradicating slavery. The intents of slave-owning and blood-letting relatives does not make something legitimate, truth and virtue do.

However, I have digressed. Before I even listened to this post I already knew there was something wrong with politicians who were religious. Religion is just another way to spell i-g-n-o-r-a-n-t. Therefore, a religious politician is susceptible to ignorance. Furthermore, a large segment of religious beliefs is devoted to morality, a warped one at that. Thus, a religious politician has an ignorant basis for his morality. Consequently, he has a legitimate basis for his actions, specifically his policies, for every action is a moral action. That is why I decided before I even listened to this post I would not vote for a religious politician. For the record, Molyneux is an anarcho-capitalist. I have been approaching these beliefs for some time, but I still have some reservations. However, not about the capitalist part, the reservations are solely for anarchy. Of course, I am not ruling out anarchism. I find significant value in most if not all of its arguments. There is just this problem I need to work out, which I will explain at some later date.

Once again, I have digressed. A large part of Molyneux's podcast was about how religion and tyranny run together. Basically, as religiosity increases tyranny increases. There is always the fan favorite argument, especially among college professors as I noticed in my first year, that religion acts as a check on tyranny. Personally, this never made sense to me, but I never invested the time in discovering whether this made sense or not. The argument of those in favor of a religious presence is that religion provides a morality. In A Letter Concerning Toleration, John Locke wrote that the government was responsible for governing bodies, while religion was responsible for governing souls. The government was concerned with physical actions, like murder. However, the government never had to explain why murder was wrong, the government just had to do something about it. Religion, however, was not responsible for stopping murder, or doing anything about it. Religion's only responsibility was to explain why murder was wrong. However, religion was not supposed to justify everything the government did. Religion was just supposed to provide an objective morality, which in reality, is not all that objective. Therefore, if the government did something out of line, meaning tyrannical, the people would know because religion provided them with an objective morality. Of course, this is not the case. In the podcast Molyneux sites several examples of religion causing government tyranny. He explains that even seemingly atheist countries like the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China were extremely religious immediately before the communist revolutions. Some of the other less questionable examples Molyneux sites are the Thirty Years War, the French Religious Wars, the Boxer Rebellion, the Crusades, St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, Spanish Inquisition, Northern Ireland, Jonestown, Russian pogroms, witch hunts, Arab-Israeli Wars, Al Qeada, KKK, Holocaust, Christian Romans. Obviously, there are several more.

However, what I found most interesting was how similar the government and religion are. Before listening to the post I had my suspicions but Molyneux confirmed them. Actually, thinking back on the post I am not sure if Molyneux said anything really related to what I am about to explain. Maybe something he said in his podcast helped my mind take the next step, or he actually did say it. If anyone wants anything exact they should probably listen to the podcast, I would recommend it anyway. I just want to make clear that I am not stealing any ideas here. The problem is that I just cannot remember. Just be aware Molyneux deserves some credit.

Anyway, religion and government each have a term that basically means the same things. Religion has faith and the state has patriotism or nationalism whatever one wants to call it, personally I see no difference. In both cases the believer or the citizen is asked to have pride in his collective regardless of what that collective has done, and to support that collective also regardless of what that collective has done.

In the case of religion, the beliefs are contradictory and incomprehensible. God is all powerful and all knowing, but he cannot be both, there is an enormous conflict there, I have explained it in a previous post. God also exists outside of time; however, he can interact with the timed world. Creation itself takes time, it is the essence of time. Day one God does this, day two God does that. However, God is not bound by time. If is outside of time, why is it taking him multiple units of time to create something? How can he even be creating something without time? God promises man free will, then he constantly interferes: the flood, Cain and Abel, Abraham's almost sacrifice of his son, Sodom and Gomorrah, raping Mary, the existence of Jesus, converting Saul and making him change his name to Paul. Furthermore, many of these examples contradict his own teachings most notably one of the commandments, thou shalt not murder. Once again, the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, there are more examples. God violates his own teachings. He is impossible to understand. Furthermore, his actions, practically all of them, are vicious. Yet faith demands that the believer follow God and heed his word. No one should follow God. No one should listen to him. He is clearly corrupt. He is clearly pure evil. Personally, I think Satan is a whole hell of a lot better than God.

In the case of the state the citizen is asked to do the same. Blind adherence to the homeland. Pride in the homeland, regardless of the homeland's actions. Support for the homeland, regardless of the homeland's actions. However, the state steals through taxes, murders through executions and unjust wars. At the same time, as I have explained in my Ionic Column article about democratic despotism, the state identifies murder and thievery as wrong, yet murders and steals itself. The state is contradictory and incomprehensible like religion. Of course, the only difference is that democracy offers the chance for people to change the government. Obviously, that never happens though because people do not think the government needs any changing. The state will remain tyrannical as long as the people are the same. Thus, voting, participating in government is useless, let alone that fact that by participating in government one must participate in the government's vices. For example, one's pay check will come from taxes, meaning armed robbery. However, as I have come to understand there is some consent in regards to taxes. It is an incredibly loose connection, and I do not think it is all that legitimate, but there is some element of consent there, especially on the part of those who vote. However, as I stated earlier, I am saving this discussion for a later post. Another part in my philosophy series.