RE: Statheism/Elitism
November 28, 2016 at 10:40 am
(This post was last modified: November 28, 2016 at 10:42 am by Crossless2.0.)
(November 28, 2016 at 6:05 am)Cobainism Wrote: Statheist
One who rejects religion as irrational but who advocates the existence of the state, usually as a desperate compensation for the comfort that religion brings. The term is most often used by anarchist-atheists to demonstrate to the statheist that the logic they use to justify the state is faulty even though they had sufficient logic to reject religion, implying that they are reproducing the same errors in thinking that they profess to despise in religious people.
Source: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.ph...=Statheist
"Sta·the·ist
STˈāTHēˌist/
noun
1.
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods, yet believes in the religion of Statism. Worships and Pledges Allegiance to a Flag or Country. Thinks voting and the political process is progression for humanity. Casts out fundamentally religious people who participates in “voluntarily” organizations yet forces people to participate in their dogma via the barrel of a gun. Treats other humans as omnipotent “humans” with extra special rights over the ones below them. Feels obligated to pay “tithings” to the religion of the State because of the logical reasoning you were born here. Feels the fallible human race cannot progress without the leadership or ruling class of fallible humans."
Source: http://ericpetersautos.com/2013/10/16/de...statheist/
I'd need a fucking forklift to unpack all the straw men in the OP.
I believe in "the state" in somewhat the same way that the U.S. founders did: a necessary evil to be used for such good as it can reasonably accomplish but also an entity that needs constant, vigilant watchfulness on the part of the citizenry -- certainly not something to worship or even be trusted, left to its own devices. Since the anarchists/Libertarian-Capitalists can't point to a single successful example of a society built along their lines, their critique doesn't amount to a fart in a gale, as far as I'm concerned.
I should also mention that I don't indulge in hero worship of the U.S. founders or constitutional fundamentalism (as in Scalia, for example) when it comes to U.S. origins. The founders weren't demigods handing down Holy writ. They were highly talented, learned men who would put our contemporary "leaders" (not to mention voters) to shame, but who were fashioning a flawed compromise and making the best of an un-ideal situation. And their efforts have required tinkering (and occasional major overhauls) over the years -- rightly so.
