|
>> There are two links between the church and Libertarian viewpoints. One is the
>> subsidisation issue, which you mentioned. >> The other, though arguable, is that the church is a substitute state in many
>> places. In many places the church is the state, but that doesn't make it a
substitute. Islamic teaching is that the church must be the state, but
that doesn't make it a substitute either. >> In theory people have a choice of whether to join or remain in a church
>> or not, but in practice many people are indoctrinated from an early age and
>> have extremely constrained choices. I too was indoctrinated from an early age by a bunch of leftie no-hopers. I
still recall the feminist social-studies teacher who made us design and plan
our own commune as part of a project on China. My choices were pretty limited then (extol the virtues of Collectivism or
fail). Fortunately now I am free to say she was just a stupid feminazi. It's
called adulthood. Where are all those people with 'extremely constrained choices' under
Pell's control? And if they are so indoctrinated as to be unable to make
rational choices, why do they have the same voting rights as me? >> Those in the developing world in particular are highly influenced by
>> church-made law. I am a little suspicious of "church-made laws" this is a little bit like the
government giving employment licenses to businesses and saying 'look at all
the jobs we created'. The first party to document something, or order it
to be done is usually not the party who created it. Just because the church
documented a story about a plaque with 'thou shalt not kill' chiseled into it
doesn't mean they made the law. Not killing people usually made pretty good sense
before the church formed, and it will make pretty good sense when the church is gone. >> I agree that you can argue that this is not the concern of Libertarians,
>> but I am swayed by the view that for many people the church and the state
>> are effectively little different. You sound like the lefties who complain about being 'forced' to consume
MacDonald's, or 'forced' to work for filthy rich capitalists who grow obscenely
fat sucking the blood of the hardworking proletariat in a world build to
exploit the workers who are victims of their needs. I mean, really .. This reminds me of an argument I had with this sniveling leftie about five
years ago who was trying to make everyone victims ..
Him: .. and so what do you do about women who are stuck with kids ..
Me: You mean the kids they chose to have?
Him: They didn't have a choice because they were married ..
Me: You mean they chose to get married?
Him: They had to because that their religion ..
Me: You mean the religion they chose?
Him: You don't choose your religion ..
Me: Of course you choose your religion ..
Him: ....[At this point he looks around the table at everyone who is
listening, and now looking quite strangely at him.
No one else at the table thinks that people didn't choose
their religion.
The Leftie squirms uncomfortably, and falls back on
ground which seems safer]. Him: You are just like people who say that a child who has
been raped deserves it because they chose it.
Me: No, a rape victim doesn't choose to be raped - otherwise
it's not rape. That's the definition of rape.
Children cannot choose to be raped because they
are not competent to consent - by definition. [Leftie lapses into sullen silence waiting for someone to change
the topic].
.. OK, you had to be there, but it was kind of funny. Lefties - they claim to have no choices, and then spend their
whole lives trying to take choice away from other people.
| 
