Both religion and the state argue that they are the ultimate moral barometer, omnipotent, the law above all laws and are allowed to break their own laws because . . . they say so!
If you find religion repugnant, why aren't you an anarchist? The state is based on flimsier pretences, and is far more dangerous - at least you aren't forced to be religious in the modern world.
The state is based on pooling resources and providing roads, school, firefighters and a way to keep the peace. I find that extremely tangible and immediate.
Also the State is seen as imperfect and thus can be changed, whereas God is not.
The state is based on stealing resources - this is the central presumption of the state that is never challenged. People don't need the threat of violence to be persuaded to pool resources to provide services.
Tell that to Somalia. I would rather have cops, courts, schools, hospitals and road funded by tax rather than some sporadic charity from whoever feels like it.
Did you know that Somalia is safer, healthier and more prosperous since statelessness arrived there?
I don't see how that makes the horrendous standard of living there seem attractive.
It is like saying, pets are clearly terrible for your health, I know a man who was eaten by his pet tiger.
Good states are good, bad states are bad, having no state at all is always bad.
In any case the analogy with religion is fallacious. The state actually exists and has tangible effects on my life. Whether I believe in it or not.
Religion has tangible effects on your life whether you believe in it or not!
Conservatives Christians want to institute a theocracy in the United States, and radical Islam believes in terrorism.
I'd say those both affect you, tangibly.
I'm not saying Somalia is attractive, I'm simply pointing out that citing it as evidence of the failure of anarchism is absurd considering the generally poor state of affairs in central Africa anyway. 10-15 countries in Africa are poorer and have less quality of life than Somalia. It's a non-argument, so you're going to have to do better. Besides, the anarchist claim is not that anarchism will create an instant utopia, but that the state can only make things worse.
The state doesn't really exist in the form it claims to: it claims to be a representative of the peoples' will, yet needs aggression and theft to sustain itself, therefore contradicting its claim. All a government is is people with guns.
http://www.voanews.com/content/somalia- … 12895.html
And who comes to the rescue? Why government of course!
I think psyche makes a good theoretical point about the fact that the state can theoretically be changed, whereas God cannot.
But hasn't God changed? People's understanding of God keeps changing. Just recently the Pope said not to judge gay priests, but historically the Catholic Church has not been a friend of gay people.
Perhaps God can change, when enough of his followers begin to change their views. Protestant chuches are now much less likely to preach against homosexuality and science. It's because millenials are the future, and they are being completely alienated by such ridiculous nonsense. One thing my generation gets right, we don't put up with bigotry.
Anyway, I think your analogy is pretty good. The state claims moral authority above everyone else, and if you disagree with the state's moral authority, you go to prison and/or are killed, assuming you take any action the state doesn't like (even non-violent protesters are often arrested).
So the State is kind of like God. Disagree with God's "moral authority," and you go to hell! I'm an anarchist in my mind, but my emotions still haven't ridden me of the fear that without a state people would go insane (more than they already do), though countries that have given up God are the most peaceful. Perhaps that's how it would be with people who didn't want a state.
This is just me musing.
You should also read Bakunin's "God and the State" if you haven't already.
I haven't but I'm familiar with his thesis.
What about the point that the state is a more dangerous religion than any other? Do you agree?
by Claire Evans5 years ago
It's easy to deconvert to atheism because they are disappointed, hurt or because they have lost their faith due to God making sense. It's harder to suddenly make a rational atheists convert to Christianity, which...
by Jeff Berndt6 years ago
So we punish premeditated murder, or first degree murder) more harshly than we do unpremeditated murder (or second degree murder). The idea, I guess, is that someone who would deliberately kill another person, make a...
by Mick Menous5 years ago
As we all know, most atheists in America only support the Establishment clause in the US Constitution because of the following dumb excuse:They ONLY THINK that it literally means Separation of Church and...
by Claire Evans5 years ago
If somebody truly believed that Santa was God, I would not even bother addressing that person because the insane CANNOT be reasoned with.
by Eng.M8 years ago
more dangerous for whome ?I think it dependsbut they both are affecting communities badlywhat do you think?
by Brittany Williams3 years ago
Atheism only means the lack of a belief in God. Why is it so hard for Christians to realize that we dismiss their religion for the same reasons that they dismiss all other religions? It doesn't make us horrible people,...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.