This morning, I stumbled upon a very popular blog (judging by the number of comments per post) titled Vox Popoli. The author, who calls himself Vox Day (bonus points for the pseudonym), refers to himself as "Christian Libertarian".
I lol'd.
How can you be a Christian apologetic and a libertarian?
Libertarianism is all about the non-aggression principle. Live and let live.
Christianity, on the other hand, is all about telling people what to do and what not to do. It's all about telling your neighbor who he can make love to, and how and when and why. It's all about telling women that their place is to be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. It's all about either converting, enslaving or murdering everyone who is not one of "God's chosen people".
Christianity and libertarianism are diametrically opposed concepts.
Mr. Day recently wrote a book called "The Irrational Atheist", that is supposed to be "not so much pro-God as anti-atheist". I'll give it a read if he keeps his promise to offer it as a free download, but I don't really expect anything that hasn't been refuted a thousand times.
About Me
Recommended blogs
- Ambulance Driver - A Day in the Life of ...
- Better And Better: Matt G
- Bruce Schneier on Security
- Coding Horror
- Elbbalkon - 5 Monate in der Hansestadt
- Greta Christina
- Home on the Range
- Kelly O'Connor: Rational Responder
- Rachel Lucas
- Roberta X - The Adventures of ...
- Sharp as a Marble
- Squeaky Wheel Seeks Grease
- The Breda Fallacy
- The LawDog Files
- The Munchkin Wrangler
- View From The Porch: Books, Bikes & Boomsticks
Labels
- bloggery (37)
- childfree (41)
- crime (4)
- culture shock (24)
- entertainment (25)
- firearms (14)
- geekery (23)
- in the news (45)
- lulz (49)
- memes (11)
- narcissism (83)
- politics (90)
- religion (20)
- snark (108)
- TMI (8)
Blog Archive
18 comments:
Friend,
You're going to have to try harder than that if you want to swim the deep end of the gene pool with Vox.
Also, it may or may not be of interest to learn that my (WELS) Lutheran church in Wisconsin (USA) supports missionary work in Germany. Our church synod was founded 160+ years ago by German missionaries, and now we get to return the Gospel to the land of Luther.
I'm not sure what Haymaker is getting at exactly, but I saw Vox linked to you, so I dropped by. I've been reading your blog, and I am curious...
You seem very anti-government (which I like), yet you also seem to harbor some resentment toward Christianity. I don't care one way or the other. I only point it out because most anti-statists tend to be religious. You seem to be against propegation, and you use the term "breeder" in your posts. I have only heard that used (in the US) by gays as a mark of their "superiority." The term may be more common in Germany.
I guess there was no question there - just trying to get a read. Anyhow, you ought to read more Vox. He has written about God being libertarian as well. He has an insight that goes far beyond the usual "happy-clappy" Jesus-loves-you stuff.
I may read your stuff more often. An interesting mix of ideas that don't often converge in one person
Thanks for your comment, wompa1.
The term "breeder" is actually one I learned from Americans; it's completely unheard of in Germany. The term is indeed most frequently used by LGBTs. Among those who intentionally remain childless, it refers to people who reproduce irresponsibly and are unwilling or unable to parent their offspring. It has nothing to do with a sense of superiority (although I do feel quite smug about my choice to remain childless).
I can't quite imagine the Judeo-Christian god as a libertarian, though. Someone who was not elected, but gets to make arbitrary, yet absolute laws; who is legislative, judiciary and executive in one (yet three, yet one) person; who is accountable to no one, especially not the people, does not ring libertarian to me. Sorry, but I think totalitarian fits more accurately.
I don't harbor resentment towards Christianity in particular. What I resent are the efforts of some Christians to introduce legislation that forces their beliefs and lifestyle on others.
Although I find the idea of a god, especially as presented in the Bible, rather unbelievable and somewhat mock-worthy, I don't really care much about moderate Christians who consider their faith a personal matter that is to be kept out of politics.
If, for example, someone still believed in the Easter Bunny, that would be fine with me, too. I would probably make fun of them, though.;-) If, however, they sought legislation to force me to hide and seek easter eggs with the power of the law, I would resent them for it. Very much so.
Anyway, thanks for your interest and I'd love to read from you again sometime.
I honestly suggest you don't read it without your teady bear and a stiff shot of whiskey. You are infor a big surprise.
Didn't some family flee to Iran to escape from Germany's still intact Nazi anti-homeschooling laws?
I think that would be a more interesting post than your inability to understand Christianity.
When you read The Irrational Atheist (TIA) or just more of Vox's blog, I think you'll realize that Atheists are far more controlling than Christians or other religious people.
Just look at the worst totalitarian regimes of the last century. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler - all Atheists.
And as TIA will document, 93% of all wars were not fought over religious reasons.
Christians may push for a few laws limiting individual freedoms but the Atheists tend to kill those they disagree with. I know which I fear more.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/01/its-not-cherman-thang.html
The truth of the matter is that all politicians are affected by their religious views, be they Christian, muslim, atheist or other. As things stand now in North America, secular humanism is being forced down the throats of children in schools, and anyone who disagrees with this practice is branded a bigot, a sexist, a homophobe, or any label which the establishment can think of. The same kinds of policies are also in vogue in corporations and out in society.
I can see why people would cry out for more liberty in such circumstances.
It sounds like you are mistaking the Christian God and his likely style of rule with the preferences of a Christian Libertarian in the context of secular rule on a planet where the Kingdom of God has manifestly *not* come (yet).
True enough the rule and reign of Christ will be absolute. In the mean time however a libertarian political philosophy is perfectly compatible with Christianity--at least the brands and flavors of Christianity that eschew seeking after secular power.
A Christian Libertarian is certainly not the kind of Christian interested in passing laws that mandate easter egg hunts (or what have you).
"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty."
~II Corinthians 3:17~
Hitler wasn't an atheist and neither was the Nazi regime. It began as Christian and morphed into a kind of Aryan pagan worship. The religion/non-religion of Pol Pot is immaterial since he was primarily just insane. I guess you could call Stalin and Mao atheist. The whole argument is a bit off. The real question is did their atheism contribute to their atrocities as did the religion of the Inquisition contribute to its. That religious friction instigates violence is an open/shut case, just read a newspaper on any given day. But what about atheism?
Mr ed,
Name one theist who came close to the sheer number of bodies as these men(the answer your looking for is genghis khan). Is there something odd about the sheer number of slaughters in recent times when an atheist or non religous person attains power? Oh and if you want a fun name try looking up Hoxha.
You postwar Germans sissies better start breeding if you don't want your heads cut off.
:-0
No need to be ashamed of the past.
Stop with the self-phlegmatic crap!
BTW, my mother lived through the Wurzburg bombings and my father served in the Waffen-SS in the Balkans.
Do they teach anything other than the guilt trip in Germans schools today?
Germans need to question authority better. Anyone with a title attached to their name should be suspect. Remember that and all will be okay.
chairmanmao,
I still say Hitler was theistic and racked up quite a body count. Mao and Stalin are significant only if you can prove a causative connection between their lack of belief and their actions. Statistics won't help you since n=2 isn't going to convince anyone of anything. It's like seeing two men in shorts rob a bank and concluding that all men who wear shorts are bank robbers.
I reiterate, Is there something odd about the sheer number of slaughters in recent times when an atheist or non religious person attains power? Give me some religious mass murderers.
There's one thing I noticed and found worthy of mention in Vox Day's response to my post on his own blog and in the comments to that response is the impressive number of ad hominems: I didn't count, but Vox Day himself and (estimated) about half of the comments directed at my original post attack my nationality. Interesting.
Anyway, about the old Hitler/Stalin/Mao argument against atheism... Mr. Ed did an excellent job of debunking it, but I want to reiterate.
First, Hitler is right out, as he almost certainly wasn't an atheist. He never left the Roman Catholic church and even maintained good relations with them. Most (if not all) of his Generals and high-ranking party members were Christian. He also didn't target the Jews as a religion, but as a culture or "race". Hence the biological criteria in determining whether someone was a Jew or not. His victims' professed faith, if any, didn't matter.
Second, and most importantly, it should be pretty obvious that Stalin, Mao, Hoxha and their kind were totalitarian statists first and atheists not even second.
They did not murder religious people because of some sort of grudge against God or religion, but because they considered them to be political enemies. In fact, the religious were just one of many groups of political enemies that were murdered under their regimes.
I never really understood why they were regarded as such, until shortly after reading wompa1's comment. Thanks again!
One can only serve one master. There cannot be two absolute authorities, i.e. God and (the leader of) the state. That's why the monarchs of feudal Europe sought, even needed, the endorsement and support of the church. In return, the monarchs established Christianity as the state religion, taxed the people for the church (Germany does it to this day) and allowed the church to torture and murder heretics.
The commies didn't want to share (irony, anyone?) their power, but they didn't want to force the religious to make a tough choice between following God's law and following state law. They especially didn't want them to make the wrong choice.
Religious mass murderers? How about the Popes and kings responsible for the Crusades and Inquisitions? The number of their victims is irrelevant. Stalinists (who happened to be atheists) have murdered x million people whereas Christianity has murdered "only" x - (y < x) million people, so you think you have the moral high ground? Please tell me you're kidding, chairmanmao.
I also read up on the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS). These are obviously people who take their religion somewhat seriously. As such, they believe that the Bible is "the only authoritative and error-free source for doctrine". So I would assume that the law as it is laid down in the bible is, according to their beliefs, God's law for all of mankind, not just Christians. Although they profess to support a separation between church and state, I can't help but wonder how many of them support obscenity laws like the criminalization of prostitution (for example).
Again, if you have a working moral compass of your own and believe that Jesus was a guy who said some things that were pretty smart and that there may be an afterlife with a reward for decent people and punishment for bad people; but that it is not up to us to judge, only to try and be generally nice to each other - I don't have a problem with you and you may very well be a libertarian.
If, however, you think that the acts of two consenting adults (or anything else that neither breaks your leg, picks your pocket or abridges your liberty) is a crime against God that should be punished not only in the next world, but also in this one (as the bible stipulates), you are not a friend to liberty. You may be opposed to big government, but you'd still like to impose your beliefs and lifestyle on your neighbor by force or threat of force.
That's all I was saying.
How fascinating, how teaching is this thread! Nothing Ibex ever has posted was taken so controversy - although he had a few provokingly threads. How is it that exactly those people telling us that there are no religious wars anymore are the most fighting when it comes to a point when some “Til Eulenspiegel” holds the mirror up to them? Does that not proof what he says: that Christianity and Libertarianism does not go together?
And how cheep and most of all tiring is it that the last and “best” argument is “Nazi” when one noticed Ibex is German.
To those who want the name(s) of some religious mass murders: How about a Pope - a so called substitute for God on earth - turns a blind eye on mass murder, as Pius XII. did when Hitler awarded him with 10% of all income tax of German people (9 % nowadays), which was (and is still) collected by Government for them! Praying for the poor souls was (and again still is!) not enough.
Another Pope (John-Paul XXIII.) did not dare to go to Bosnia while there was a war at hand (perhaps he did not trust enough that God would protect him) but did not mind going to Africa’s Ivory coast to bless a Cathedral - a replica of St. Peter in Rome!! - instead of telling the builders off that the money could have done better.
And how serious can I think of a Pope (Benedict XVI.) who declares limbo as non existent?! Does he have influence on Heaven’s or Hell’s architecture?
OK, that is not mass murder - but I beg your pardon! Common Sense?? Christianity??????
Post a Comment