Government as a Religion

[Koolay]

There are several and very clear parallels between Religion and Statism. This post will explore these. I will use Christianity as the comparison.

They are hierarchical: The hierarchy of both religion and statism is very similiar, you usually have the person ontop of the Church; The pope/Queen then regionally you would have archbishops and such. A democratic government has a president or prime minister, and then regionally you would have mayors and such. These figures have the power to infringe on their subjects rights and command violence upon the people.

They are always violent: Whether they be in the form of crusades or 'liberation wars', state and religion have always been killing people in the hundreds of millions. For lesser 'crimes' you can be thrown in a cage for several years.

They always want to take your money: Both religion and state are always desperate to manipulate you or violently take your money. To be seen as not paying your church/government tax is to be punished by social ostracism, by not complying to the coercion you are seen to be 'hurting your fellow citizen'. The ultimate punishment, is being thrown in a cage for not submitting your resources.

They are desperate for children: Both religion and government are desperate to get their hands on children, children for propaganda is the most valuable commodity in any violent monopoly, if you can propagandise the children, you own the people. Verbally or even physically abusive institutes teach children to obey the authority of the religion or government. For someone to disagree with the state/religion taking their children, they are seen as 'Anti-education' by their fellow livestock.

Abstraction and Avoidance of Principles: Priests and statesmen do not like talking about principles, because socratic principles reveal the state or religion for what it really is: A violent monopoly. Universal principles are terrifying and should never be talked about or acknowledged. If you ask a priest, "How could a God that says killing is wrong flood the entire world voluntarily?" or a statesman "How could a state that says stealing is wrong, put the unborn into tens of thousands of dollars in debt and take 50% of citizens money?". You understand, they hate those questions, and will not answer your question.

You are evil!: Religion claims children need to pay back for the original sin to be a good citizen. State claims children need to pay back for the fiscal debt (upwards of $50,000 per newborn) to be a good citizen.

[LastPoet]

This guy keeps pushing the same key, over and over...

[genkaus]

There are several and very clear parallels between Religion and Statism. This post will explore these. I will use Christianity as the comparison.

Great. The nutjob strikes again.

They are hierarchical: The hierarchy of both religion and statism is very similiar, you usually have the person ontop of the Church; The pope/Queen then regionally you would have archbishops and such. A democratic government has a president or prime minister, and then regionally you would have mayors and such. These figures have the power to infringe on their subjects rights and command violence upon the people.

Wrong. Religious leaders do not have the power to infringe upon others' rights or to command violence - atleast not in secular countries.

They are always violent: Whether they be in the form of crusades or 'liberation wars', state and religion have always been killing people in the hundreds of millions. For lesser 'crimes' you can be thrown in a cage for several years.

Wrong. There are peaceful religions and peaceful governments.

They always want to take your money: Both religion and state are always desperate to manipulate you or violently take your money. To be seen as not paying your church/government tax is to be punished by social ostracism, by not complying to the coercion you are seen to be 'hurting your fellow citizen'. The ultimate punishment, is being thrown in a cage for not submitting your resources.

Invalid comparison. Religion wants to take your money while giving nothing in return. Government only wants what you owe it for all the benefits it provides you. Wanting your money in exchange for services is not a bad thing.

They are desperate for children: Both religion and government are desperate to get their hands on children, children for propaganda is the most valuable commodity in any violent monopoly, if you can propagandise the children, you own the people. Verbally or even physically abusive institutes teach children to obey the authority of the religion or government. For someone to disagree with the state/religion taking their children, they are seen as 'Anti-education' by their fellow livestock.

Wrong. Secular education requires absence of propaganda. And the government doesn't force everyone to put their children in state-run public school - which is what it'd do if it was, as you say, after children. If the parents can afford it, children can easily be put in private school. And abuse and brainwashing isn't allowed in public school either.

Abstraction and Avoidance of Principles: Priests and statesmen do not like talking about principles, because socratic principles reveal the state or religion for what it really is: A violent monopoly. Universal principles are terrifying and should never be talked about or acknowledged. If you ask a priest, "How could a God that says killing is wrong flood the entire world voluntarily?" or a statesman "How could a state that says stealing is wrong, put the unborn into tens of thousands of dollars in debt and take 50% of citizens money?". You understand, they hate those questions, and will not answer your question.

Wrong. Priests always want to talk about principles because talking about principles is all they have. Government, on the other hand, has a very real job of running the country and they have to figure out how their broad universal principles can be in practice. They don't have the time to go around talking principles to satisfy kooks like you.

You are evil!: Religion claims children need to pay back for the original sin to be a good citizen. State claims children need to pay back for the fiscal debt (upwards of $50,000 per newborn) to be a good citizen.

Wrong. Unlike religion's claim of original sin, the government cannot just wish the debt away - but does it's damnedest to reduce it.


And then you forgot the big key difference between the two.

Government is necessary for a civilized society. Religion is not.

[Bad Writer]

All you showed is that you think there are parallels. And the significance of this is...?

[Koolay]

All you showed is that you think there are parallels. And the significance of this is...?

It's significant because government is wrong.

Are saying the pattern is incorrect?

[Bad Writer]

The pattern might have some truth, but your conclusion is wrong. Government isn't wrong simply because it's necessary, whereas religion is wrong because it's based on falsehoods.

[Koolay]

The pattern might have some truth, but your conclusion is wrong. Government isn't wrong simply because it's necessary, whereas religion is wrong because it's based on falsehoods.

But the government lies all the time, so if you ascribe religion to be wrong for being false, then you should apply that principle to government surely.

Didn't people also used to say Religion is necessary for society to function?

[Bad Writer]

Didn't people also used to say Religion is necessary for society to function?

Used to say?

That aside, even if you have anarchy, you still haven't done away with government. There may not be a governing body, but individuals will still govern themselves, so you haven't exactly done away with choice or consequences for actions if you have gotten rid of government.

If you're unhappy with government, then your best bet is to try and reform it; that is, in my opinion, the most rational way to approach the topic.

[genkaus]

It's significant because government is wrong.

Are saying the pattern is incorrect?

Yes. In all the ways already pointed out. Which is why government is not wrong.

---

But the government lies all the time, so if you ascribe religion to be wrong for being false, then you should apply that principle to government surely.

Didn't people also used to say Religion is necessary for society to function?

There is a big difference between lying and being based on lies. Religion, being based on lies, is fundamentally unnecessary. Government, on the other hand, is based on factual societal need for it. Thus, a lying government needs reform, not abolition.

[Koolay]

Didn't people also used to say Religion is necessary for society to function?

Used to say?

People have always said in history that without religion or God we would all be killing and stealing from each other.

That aside, even if you have anarchy, you still haven't done away with government. There may not be a governing body, but individuals will still govern themselves, so you haven't exactly done away with choice or consequences for actions if you have gotten rid of government.

Isn't that preferable? Surely you want people to self organise and govern without initiating violence.

If you're unhappy with government, then your best bet is to try and reform it; that is, in my opinion, the most rational way to approach the topic.

Nonono. It's not that I am unhappy with the government. The government is morally and logically wrong by it's own test of logic and morality, it is an irrational entity as it tells citizens that using aggression is wrong, but they can bomb kids houses half way across the world.

This has nothing to do with my preferences, it is logically and morally wrong.

Why would I try to reform something which is evil by definition? The belief that government can be good 'if only I can reform it' is like joining the Mafia to try and change it into a peaceful and voluntary society. A predator can not be persuaded and convinced to not to eat the gazelle.