Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7   Go Down

Author Topic: NH almost the least religious state  (Read 21314 times)

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: NH almost the least religious state
« Reply #30 on: May 14, 2014, 01:25:27 pm »

1) If you look at the most ruthless leaders in world history, many of them are atheists.

"Many" is not a meaningful term.

2) Of all the people I know, those who are atheists are the first to push for government force to "help" people where as the more religious people I know are the ones who are most willing to step up and actually volunteer to help those who need help without forcing others against their will to do so with them.

And do you imagine that you know an even cross-section of society?  Anyway, anecdotal evidence is not meaningful, due to confirmation bias.

This is where you and I differ on our views of religion.  Yes there are those who believe Jesus walked the earth with the dinosaurs and that the earth is only 2000 years old (or whatever date they give) but religion as a whole is more about morality then it is about the stories themselves.  At least in my opinion anyway.

If you look at a lot of the religious stories, they were more about morality and things that would save your life because humans hadn't learned things like cleanliness.  So keeping your fish and meet separate was more about health lessons for instance.

But the basics are about morality and how to be better people.

And that you should invade someone else's country, kill the men, rape the women, and sell the children as slaves.  Wonderful "moral" lessons like that, that make folks into "better people."
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

dalebert

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1761
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: NH almost the least religious state
« Reply #31 on: May 14, 2014, 11:55:53 pm »

But they use arbitrary weighting of factors (ie, freedoms that the authors value most are given extra consideration), numerous cases of outright incorrect information, false standards, etc.

Exactly. Reagan effectively recruited a lot of religious people to the right. If you have a right-leaning person gauging freedom, then they'll rate it differently than someone more consistently libertarian. Those rankings have to be taken with a grain of salt.

But the basics are about morality and how to be better people.  Granted there are many out there though who use religion to try to force their own personal views on everyone else but that's no different then those who use government to force their views on everyone else... I don't see that as a religious vs non religious thing as much as it is human nature to try to control others.

There's nothing wrong with trying to convey moral lessons through stories but I would hope the moral structures themselves were based in reason. I said myself that I'm a fan of fantasy as long as it's not confused with reality. Morality is way too important to base on religion. The Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey goes into this. It's not enough to acknowledge that stories in the Bible are ridiculous and didn't really happen. A lot of the morality is actually pretty messed up and needs to be rejected along with that. "Love thy neighbor"-- sure that seems decent but there's stuph like original sin that has no basis in reality and teaching it to a child is arguably a form of emotional abuse.

1) If you look at the most ruthless leaders in world history, many of them are atheists.

Where do I start on this? Okay, who? Please don't say Hitler. That's just a lie that Christians tell that has no basis in reality. There's clear evidence he was a theist. He was also a vegetarian. Can we now associate vegetarianism with tyranny? Statistically, everyone throughout history was overwhelmingly theist and so the huge, vast, overwhelming majority of tyrants were theists. I'm not saying theism was the cause of their tyranny. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of trying to link atheism with it. Rejecting faith-based beliefs (i.e. those not found in reason and evidence) is not a silver bullet that fixes all problems. It's just the first step in seeking rational solutions based in the actual reality we live in.

2) Of all the people I know, those who are atheists are the first to push for government force to "help" people where as the more religious people I know are the ones who are most willing to step up and actually volunteer to help those who need help without forcing others against their will to do so with them.

Really? Don't you live in NH now? I've never been surrounded by so many atheists and agnostics as when I made so many friends within the FSP. Religion seems like the exception to the rule here.

Outside of libertarian circles, this isn't about atheism so much as it's about the polarizing nature of our binary political structure in the U.S. It tends to group everyone onto two opposite sides. Just as Reagan effectively recruited Christians to the right, people who found that off-putting tended to migrate in the other direction. Most people think there's a good side and bad side and their politics tends to be shaped by the side they think is the lesser evil. Folks like us (libertarians) are the exception. The left and right were not really polarized over religion before Reagan. If anything, the Democrats were a little more popular with Christians.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2014, 12:20:14 am by dalebert »
Logged

dalebert

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1761
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: NH almost the least religious state
« Reply #32 on: May 15, 2014, 10:29:00 am »

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: NH almost the least religious state
« Reply #33 on: May 15, 2014, 01:33:07 pm »

I don't think it came up as part of the selection process, but I think it has a huge impact on the liberty culture on NH, which obviously was part of the selection process.

Those who think critically about the role of government, are also likely to think critically about religion, as well.  Those who are highly religious tend to be highly supportive of the government, and of using the government to impose their beliefs on others.

I disagree with this claim on two points...

1) If you look at the most ruthless leaders in world history, many of them are atheists.

2) Of all the people I know, those who are atheists are the first to push for government force to "help" people where as the more religious people I know are the ones who are most willing to step up and actually volunteer to help those who need help without forcing others against their will to do so with them.
Only Protestants that actually attended Church voted for the original NH Constitution, and it has several clauses in it that derive help to others through taxation. It would be hard to suggest that the majority of those Protestants were actually athiest. We have further evidence through statutes and public hearings - and again it would be hard to derive that much of those speaking in support of help for others are atheist.
Logged

Argentum

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 171
Re: NH almost the least religious state
« Reply #34 on: May 15, 2014, 01:54:01 pm »

The US has grown more and more secular through each succeeding generation.  At the same time it has become less and less free.  I'm not claiming causation but I do offer it as a counter-example.  The underlying implication of the original post is that religion is some sort of impediment to achieving a free society. 
Logged

Argentum

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 171
Re: NH almost the least religious state
« Reply #35 on: May 15, 2014, 02:04:20 pm »

Some general comments.

Liberals, especially environmentalists, are extremely religious.  Their religion is secular.  And they are very statist in orientation.  They literally worship the government.  The people that liberals, and many libertarians, called religious conservatives, are in my view hardly that religious at all.  It's all superficial.  They've thrown in the towel.  They have pro-military sermons.  They don't believe in good and evil anymore.  They accept the secular religion of Psychiatry which has replaced good and evil with mythical concepts like mental health and mental illness.  True Christians, Muslims and adherents to Judaism (not the same as Jews) should be radical in their devotion to liberty.
So you believe that no religion is based on the environment? And liberals supported same-sex marriage and choice because they are in opposition to liberty?

I really don't understand your first question.  And no, I don't believe liberals support same-sex marriage and choice (I assume you mean abortion) because of a devotion to liberty.  They support the former because they are egalitarians and reactionaries.  They support legalized abortion because they think its some sort of sexism and/or they are reacting to what they perceive as an anti-female oppressive religious based attitude.  They don't really think a woman owns their body.  If they did, they would be libertarians.
Logged

dalebert

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1761
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: NH almost the least religious state
« Reply #36 on: May 15, 2014, 02:42:09 pm »

The underlying implication of the original post is that religion is some sort of impediment to achieving a free society.  

I believe it is, but that's not an implication of the original post. The only implication of "Yay!" is that I find it preferable. Whether that's actually tied to achieving liberty is incidental. I'd like to live in a free society. I'd also like to live in a rational society. Those are two different things that represent my preferences. If I had posted that there were a lot of tech jobs in Manchester or that the hunting was good or that there are a lot of ski resorts under "NH Information and Discussion" where those things seem completely on topic, would you then badger me for what that has to do with freedom?

If you said "I don't like ski resorts! They bring a bunch of annoying tourists." I guess I'd say "Well, I like them and so do a lot of other people who might be interested in the FSP so I decided to let people know." And then you could try to do something about them when you get here, I suppose.

It's just information. Take it for what it's worth. At least you know what you're getting into.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2014, 02:47:32 pm by dalebert »
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: NH almost the least religious state
« Reply #37 on: May 15, 2014, 02:50:26 pm »

The US has grown more and more secular through each succeeding generation.  At the same time it has become less and less free.  I'm not claiming causation but I do offer it as a counter-example.  The underlying implication of the original post is that religion is some sort of impediment to achieving a free society.

The entire planet has become less and less free.  The US has not fallen as fast as the rest.  Maybe becoming more secular actually slowed the fall?

Religion is by definition, an impediment to rationality, as dalebert notes.  If it were plainly logical and rational, then it would not be religion.

Liberty is a rational position.  While someone could be irrational about religion, and rational about liberty, it's harder than just being rational about everything.  So, yes, religion is an impediment.  Maybe not an insurmountable one, but definitely an impediment.
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: NH almost the least religious state
« Reply #38 on: May 15, 2014, 04:37:48 pm »

Some general comments.

Liberals, especially environmentalists, are extremely religious.  Their religion is secular.  And they are very statist in orientation.  They literally worship the government.  The people that liberals, and many libertarians, called religious conservatives, are in my view hardly that religious at all.  It's all superficial.  They've thrown in the towel.  They have pro-military sermons.  They don't believe in good and evil anymore.  They accept the secular religion of Psychiatry which has replaced good and evil with mythical concepts like mental health and mental illness.  True Christians, Muslims and adherents to Judaism (not the same as Jews) should be radical in their devotion to liberty.
So you believe that no religion is based on the environment? And liberals supported same-sex marriage and choice because they are in opposition to liberty?

I really don't understand your first question.  And no, I don't believe liberals support same-sex marriage and choice (I assume you mean abortion) because of a devotion to liberty.  They support the former because they are egalitarians and reactionaries.  They support legalized abortion because they think its some sort of sexism and/or they are reacting to what they perceive as an anti-female oppressive religious based attitude.  They don't really think a woman owns their body.  If they did, they would be libertarians.
The first question is easy... do you believe that no religion is based on nature? And if only those people that believe a woman owns her body (can opt for an abortion) are libertarian; wouldn't that make anyone that opposes choice anti-liberty?
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: NH almost the least religious state
« Reply #39 on: May 15, 2014, 04:40:46 pm »

The US has grown more and more secular through each succeeding generation.  At the same time it has become less and less free.  I'm not claiming causation but I do offer it as a counter-example.  The underlying implication of the original post is that religion is some sort of impediment to achieving a free society. 
No it hasn't. Non-protestants can now vote and hold office in NH. And differences within Christian interpretations have placed limits on the scope of public intervention - not atheism.
Logged

Argentum

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 171
Re: NH almost the least religious state
« Reply #40 on: May 15, 2014, 05:24:54 pm »

Some general comments.

Liberals, especially environmentalists, are extremely religious.  Their religion is secular.  And they are very statist in orientation.  They literally worship the government.  The people that liberals, and many libertarians, called religious conservatives, are in my view hardly that religious at all.  It's all superficial.  They've thrown in the towel.  They have pro-military sermons.  They don't believe in good and evil anymore.  They accept the secular religion of Psychiatry which has replaced good and evil with mythical concepts like mental health and mental illness.  True Christians, Muslims and adherents to Judaism (not the same as Jews) should be radical in their devotion to liberty.
So you believe that no religion is based on the environment? And liberals supported same-sex marriage and choice because they are in opposition to liberty?

I really don't understand your first question.  And no, I don't believe liberals support same-sex marriage and choice (I assume you mean abortion) because of a devotion to liberty.  They support the former because they are egalitarians and reactionaries.  They support legalized abortion because they think its some sort of sexism and/or they are reacting to what they perceive as an anti-female oppressive religious based attitude.  They don't really think a woman owns their body.  If they did, they would be libertarians.
The first question is easy... do you believe that no religion is based on nature? And if only those people that believe a woman owns her body (can opt for an abortion) are libertarian; wouldn't that make anyone that opposes choice anti-liberty?

I don't equate "the environment" as it is commonly understood with "nature".  I think that anyone who bases their support of abortion rights on bodily self-ownership but is not a libertarian is not being consistent with their own beliefs.  That doesn't mean that a person who opposes "choice" is anti-liberty.  There is a strong libertarian argument against abortion (which I incidentally subscribe to).  I'm sure I'm not being perfectly clear. Please let me know where I should clarify.
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: NH almost the least religious state
« Reply #41 on: May 15, 2014, 05:52:55 pm »

I think that anyone who bases their support of abortion rights on bodily self-ownership but is not a libertarian is not being consistent with their own beliefs.  That doesn't mean that a person who opposes "choice" is anti-liberty.  There is a strong libertarian argument against abortion (which I incidentally subscribe to).

Actually, yes, it does.  And no, there isn't.  Self-ownership is the absolute basis of libertarian thought.  Ergo, all libertarians are pro-choice, because that's the only position that is compatible with self-ownership.  You don't have to like it (I sure don't), but you do have to accept it, if you want to honestly call yourself a libertarian.
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: NH almost the least religious state
« Reply #42 on: May 15, 2014, 06:22:50 pm »

And what do you think environmentalists believe they are protecting?
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: NH almost the least religious state
« Reply #43 on: May 15, 2014, 06:31:20 pm »

I think that anyone who bases their support of abortion rights on bodily self-ownership but is not a libertarian is not being consistent with their own beliefs.  That doesn't mean that a person who opposes "choice" is anti-liberty.  There is a strong libertarian argument against abortion (which I incidentally subscribe to).

Actually, yes, it does.  And no, there isn't.  Self-ownership is the absolute basis of libertarian thought.  Ergo, all libertarians are pro-choice, because that's the only position that is compatible with self-ownership.  You don't have to like it (I sure don't), but you do have to accept it, if you want to honestly call yourself a libertarian.
I find the position odd. The State Constitution could have clearly defined the Right to Life beginning at conception, but didn't... and was ratified by registered, church-going, Protestants... that I'm almost positive believed in a God... and definitely existed in the period that was stated to be more liberty-oriented.
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: NH almost the least religious state
« Reply #44 on: May 15, 2014, 07:30:31 pm »

I find the position odd. The State Constitution could have clearly defined the Right to Life beginning at conception, but didn't... and was ratified by registered, church-going, Protestants... that I'm almost positive believed in a God... and definitely existed in the period that was stated to be more liberty-oriented.

Well, it wouldn't really matter if the right to life was listed that way.  I would say that, if a baby is born human, with human rights, then it must have been human and had those same rights a moment before birth, or a week, or a month, or half a year, or whatever.  There's no point at which one can announce, "rights have now attached to this entity!"

But, despite having all the rights of any other human, the fact of the matter is that no human has the right to occupy another human's body.  That is not a human right, ergo the fully-human baby does not have it.

In any case, there would not have been any reason for them to even put a specific prohibition against abortion into the Constitution, regardless of their concern for human rights.  The idea that Christians must oppose abortion is actually fairly recent.  Half a century ago, before Falwell went on his rants about it, the issue was far more divided, with many Christian theologians taking the (scripturally-accurate) position that abortion should be avoided, but because it "encourages promoscuity," not because it's "murder" (according to the actual text of the actual Bible, a fetus is not a human life).
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7   Go Up