Comments on: All Religions are Authoritarian http://blog.firetree.net/2005/08/18/all-religions-are-authoritarian/ Sharing useful things with the world. Sat, 17 May 2008 02:37:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2 By: alex http://blog.firetree.net/2005/08/18/all-religions-are-authoritarian/#comment-234 alex Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:57:15 +0000 http://blog.firetree.net/2005/08/18/all-religions-are-authoritarian/#comment-234 <p>Further reading. Here are a few excellent links on the would-be theocrats in the USA:</p> <p><a href="http://www.harpers.org/SoldiersOfChrist.html">Soldiers of Christ I</a><br /> <a href="http://www.harpers.org/FeelingTheHate.html">Soldiers of Christ II</a><br /> <a href="http://www.theocracywatch.org/">TheocracyWatch.org</a></p> Further reading. Here are a few excellent links on the would-be theocrats in the USA:

Soldiers of Christ I
Soldiers of Christ II
TheocracyWatch.org

]]> By: alex http://blog.firetree.net/2005/08/18/all-religions-are-authoritarian/#comment-233 alex Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:45:58 +0000 http://blog.firetree.net/2005/08/18/all-religions-are-authoritarian/#comment-233 <blockquote><small>Liberalism [...] acts as a secular political religion that denies any validity in any other system... There’s nothing instrinsically non-authoritarian about Liberalism.</small></blockquote> <p>Interesting response. Dan has no answer to my argument, so he's made up a novel definition of liberalism in order to decry it. He then goes on to criticise what I "probably meant to say", instead of thinking about what I actually did say:</p> <p>Every society needs rules, but eventually those rules always need to adapt to changed circumstances. Liberal democracy is a process that allows the rules to change, without the need for revolution or other unpleasantness. Theocratic systems are inflexible, because their rules derive from a 'higher authority' which cannot be challenged.</p> Liberalism […] acts as a secular political religion that denies any validity in any other system… There’s nothing instrinsically non-authoritarian about Liberalism.

Interesting response. Dan has no answer to my argument, so he’s made up a novel definition of liberalism in order to decry it. He then goes on to criticise what I “probably meant to say”, instead of thinking about what I actually did say:

Every society needs rules, but eventually those rules always need to adapt to changed circumstances. Liberal democracy is a process that allows the rules to change, without the need for revolution or other unpleasantness. Theocratic systems are inflexible, because their rules derive from a ‘higher authority’ which cannot be challenged.

]]> By: Dan Knauss http://blog.firetree.net/2005/08/18/all-religions-are-authoritarian/#comment-227 Dan Knauss Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:24:51 +0000 http://blog.firetree.net/2005/08/18/all-religions-are-authoritarian/#comment-227 <p>If we say Liberalism reduces to a minimum dogma of "There is no 'one true answer,'" that is still a "one true answer," and it is necessarily at odds with all others. Most religions admit more agreement and shared truths between them, but Liberalism--an anti-metaphysical, materialist Enlightenment ideology with a strong anti-religious history--acts as a secular political religion that denies any validity in any other system except to the extent that the other system can be radically mis/construed (and thus co-opted) as proto-liberal. E.g, the gospels as being focused on tolerance and humility. </p> <p>There's nothing instrinsically non-authoritarian about Liberalism. Perhaps it is quite the opposite. "Modern" history--the self-aggrandizing eurocentric history of the "modern liberal west"--is the most destructive, brutal and repressive period. </p> <p>At any rate, all social organization requires exclusivistic principles and practices backed by authority. What you probably mean to say is that 'religion' is inherently predisposed to what you deem excessive uses of authority, in contrast to 'liberal statism.' That is a very sweeping and questionable generalization, considered historically and theoretically. It is a common sentiment, however. Prejudicial characterizations are usually in effect for the assumed one-size-fits-all definition of 'religion' and 'authoritarian'/'excessive uses of authority.'</p> If we say Liberalism reduces to a minimum dogma of “There is no ‘one true answer,’” that is still a “one true answer,” and it is necessarily at odds with all others. Most religions admit more agreement and shared truths between them, but Liberalism–an anti-metaphysical, materialist Enlightenment ideology with a strong anti-religious history–acts as a secular political religion that denies any validity in any other system except to the extent that the other system can be radically mis/construed (and thus co-opted) as proto-liberal. E.g, the gospels as being focused on tolerance and humility.

There’s nothing instrinsically non-authoritarian about Liberalism. Perhaps it is quite the opposite. “Modern” history–the self-aggrandizing eurocentric history of the “modern liberal west”–is the most destructive, brutal and repressive period.

At any rate, all social organization requires exclusivistic principles and practices backed by authority. What you probably mean to say is that ‘religion’ is inherently predisposed to what you deem excessive uses of authority, in contrast to ‘liberal statism.’ That is a very sweeping and questionable generalization, considered historically and theoretically. It is a common sentiment, however. Prejudicial characterizations are usually in effect for the assumed one-size-fits-all definition of ‘religion’ and ‘authoritarian’/'excessive uses of authority.’

]]>