| From | Message |
Jason Eubanks
Guest
6/16/2002
09:24:31
|
 Subject: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
I read a comment about the recent poll: Human Rights vs. Islam. It was about the possible connection between Islam and Protestantism. This seems very plausible to my mind. Calvinism and Islam strike me as very similiar is some important respects. Regardless of their theological differences; their basic approach to religion is essentially the same:
1. Rigid moral philosophy that favors draconian punishment of sin rather than the spiritual rehabilitation through the religious participation.
2. Services that are devoid of any sensuality in worship (no incense, candles, icons, and plain building interiors etc.) which places emphesis in the distance and difference between man and God.
3. Propensity toward theocratic government. Compare the Taliban with Colonial New England and the original Caliphate with Geneva.
4. Theological systems which rely heavily on "concrete" logic rather than elucidated logic or celebration of mystery.
5. Legalistic interpretation of scripture.
Aside from theological differences, note one important difference: Islam is intensely militaristic, Calvinism is not. Islam is like Naziism in this regard: it seems to require an outgroup to constantly attack and demonize whether it be Christians, Jews, Hindus etc. or its essential militarism evaporates.
Calvinism in it's original form is dead, transformed into other things. Islam is very much alive. Why did one die out and not the other? Is it the militarism or something else that makes Islam more durable?
|
Jim Kalb
Administrator
6/16/2002
10:26:29
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
Maybe one thing that's kept Islam alive is Sufism. Muslim poets, philosophers etc. tend toward it because it allows a more direct and complex experience of God than othodox Islam. Ibn Khaldun - who was involved in it - said it was really the same as Christianity. Orthodox Islam makes room for it by saying that what its practitioners say should be treated as an intoxicated outburst rather than taken literally.
|
Jason Eubanks
Guest
6/18/2002
07:09:17
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
Sufism does impart a much more intellectual and mystical experience than orthodox Islam.
My impression of Sufism's status is that it's more or less viewed as heretical among more properly constituted religious leaders. I'm not too familiar with it's history though. You're right about the last sentence. Of course, it doesn't help if your Dervish associates act intoxicated by necessity.
|
John
Guest
6/18/2002
16:14:56
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
Calvinism (and Islam for that matter) seems to me to be a revival of Manichæism. I'm sure you are all aware of that particular religion-heresy.
But here is a link:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09591a.htm
|
Chadwick
Guest
6/22/2002
14:02:58
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
Jason:
Why do you say Calvinism in its original form is dead? Into what things has it transformed?
|
Jason Eubanks
Guest
6/23/2002
04:59:06
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
Calvinism as a complete system required a theocratic state. The Puritans ultimately transformed into Congregationalism which itself was absorbed by the Universal Unitarian movement. I'm not sure what caused the fall of Geneva, nevertheless I'm certain that Calvinism is no longer a force in that area's social life.
Calvinism as a theology eventually became Reformed theology in which the strict moral code, punishments and theocratic intentions have yielded to modern concerns. Some denominations, like the Baptists, largely no longer identify with Calvinism. Of course, people still follow Calvin's teachings with varying degrees of fidelity but there are no longer any strict Calvinist denominations with the capitulation of the Presbyterians with the exception of small sects within the Presbyterian and Baptist fold.
|
Brian T. Hickey
Guest
7/26/2002
20:05:45
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
I've heard it said that Islam has stayed strong and healthy because it is less metaphysically ambitious than Christianity, does not enquire too deeply into then nature of God etc, and therefore leaves less room for division and dissent. The differences between Sunni and Shia Islam do seem rather small compared to those among Christian denominations.
As regards Calvinism - well, President Khatami did say, the last time he visited the States, that he admired the old New England puritans. But if you want to see a community where Calvinism is very much alive and politically influential, look at Northern Ireland. Most Baptists there are confessed Calvinists, unlike in the US, and more rigidly Calvinist Presbyterian sects are there in abundance. Nevertheless, I don't think Calvinism, with its emphasis on individual accountability etc, is necessarily inherantly theocratic.
I must add that I have never believed all that stuff about Calvinism giving rise to Capitalism. Most Calvinists I know (admittedly not that many) are as unworldly as they come.
|
Steven Laib
Guest
8/04/2002
23:00:49
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
In my opinion Islam tended to survive better than Calvinism because it became somewhat geographically islolated. This combined with the militaristic attitude of many of its followers to grant a survival advantage. Calvinism began in Europe during the rebirth of heightened intellectual discourse, which included, not by mere coincidence, challenges to traditional religious beliefs and authorities. The Calvinist system essentially had to endure attacks from other systems of belief as did the other Protestant systems, even as they challenged the Catholics. This combined with rising literacy, the printing press, and communication spreading with trade to make it more difficult for this system to survive.
Islam, in contrast suffered from climatic and geographic considerations which eventually made the regions where it dominated disinteresting to European civilization. The Arab peoples tended to be less literate, as is partly evidenced by the interest in memorizing the Koran, rather than reading it. Even today, this trend continues. The ability to read and write is not as widespread in Islamic societies as it is in Judeo-Christian societies.
Militarism in Islam is, I believe more of a cultural value than a religious one. Christianity had and sometimes still has its moments of militancy, but for the most part it has outgrown the idea. Will Durant, I believe, supports the belief that Islamic militancy arose out of Arab militancy which has never died out. The two are now so intertwined that it is difficult to separate them, possibly because the vast majority of wealth in the Islamic world rests in the Arab peoples which enables them to spread their attitudes to other areas.
Interestingly, I have met two families who were Vietnamese Muslims. They had not the slightest interest in holy war, although they did tend to be isolationistic. Neither seemed to take the orthodox Taliban type stance on political or social issues.
|
A Kamel
Guest
11/08/2002
11:32:49
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
Peace unto All,
Actually, it seems that most of the comments preceding mine, are based on a perception of Islam as it appears today (and recent history). Traditionally, there has been no seperation of Tasawuf (Sufism) and Othodoxy. As many of you must know, Tasawuf is none other than the internalization of Islamic Orthodox beliefs and law.
|
Serveto
Guest
12/14/2002
00:27:50
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
For those who might be interested:
"The Complaint of Nicholas de la Fontaine [“John Calvin is to be regarded as the author of the prosecution”] Against [Michael] Servetus, 14 August, 1553
[...]
Item, whether he [Servetus] did not know that his doctrine [On the Errors of the Trinity and Christianity Restored] was pernicious, considering that he favors Jews and Turks, by making excuses for them, and if he has not studied the Koran in order to disprove and controvert the doctrine and religion that the Christian churches hold, together with other profane books, from which people ought to abstain in matters of religion, according to the doctrine of St. Paul.
Item, whether the said book Koran is not a bad book, full of blasphemies."
Ref:
http://www.exchristian.net/xtains/servetus2.html
|
Serveto
Guest
12/14/2002
19:25:59
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
Addendum:
Please accept my apologies. It was an oversight on my part to link, as a reference, a site entitled "Ex-Christian Network." Here, if I am not mistaken, is the Hanoover site:
Ref:
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/comserv.html
|
Lance Brisbois
Guest
1/05/2003
13:21:25
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
I think this topic is very interesting and timely. As a New Englander I've been fascinated by the transformation within a century and a half of Puritanism into Unitarianism. I think the Calvinist conception of God as the Absolutely Other, and the conception of Providence which makes the experience of free-will (even prayer!) into edifying illusions, was very conducive to a watch-maker-god, to use an hackneyed phrase; and the conception of an all-holy God which can't coexist with sin led Puritans from notions of hell to Universalism where even hell can't coexist with God! I agree it's a form of Manichaenism/Gnosticism which undervalues (relative to Cathoicism and Orthodoxy) the incarnation and is uncomfortable with the word becoming flesh and dwelling among men, among us.
|
Matt
Guest
1/06/2003
15:09:47
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
There is a possible historical vector. There was an Islamic King in what is now Argyll in Scotland as early as the 700's, and the Moors traded in what is now the British Isles for centuries. I've seen a reference to a Moorish trading post in Oxford during the time of John Wyclif, and the Oxford English Dictionary says that the word "trialogue" is attributable to Wyclif, probably w.r.t. discussion amongst Jews, Moslems, and Christians. It is well known that John Huss brought Wyclif's philosophy of religion to Prague, where it was picked up by Luther (Luther was often accused of favoring "the Bohemians and the Turks"). Luther wrote very favorably of the formal aspects of the Turkish religion, although he condemned the Koran as false of course. So the notion that Protestantism has Islamic roots is not completely untenable from an historic perspective.
|
Priest
Guest
2/24/2003
16:33:17
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
I think John Eubanks is an absolute idiot for saying that Islam is Militaristic because a few frustrated people take to that route whereas the majority of people are nothing like that.
Remember it was the Caliphate of the Ummah that allowed different religions to exist peacefully and encouraged people to live and work together. Even the Taliban despite being mis-represented by Western Media and evil Feminists and stupid Liberals did a lot to uphold this idea (destroying statues people were worshipping is an exception because that was part of the requirement of Islamic Law).
The reason I believe that Islam has these militaristic components is because of the oppression of the West and secular societies that seem hell bent on oppressing the peoples of those societies and preventing them from living the way they want.
This includes intrusions by femiNAZIs who can't mind their own business and must bitch about other cultures. They are the biggest imperialist voices. It also has to do with the oppressive education system that seeks to create good "liberals" by feeding them European bullshit about militant enlightenment and anti-religious sentiments.
Comparing a diverse religion with more than a thousand years of legal interpretation and discussion like Islam to an idea for secular democratic gain like Nazism is fucking stupid. I hope someone comes over to you and smacks you in the head you dumbass.
Islam is based on the root of God moreso than Christianity. Whereas Christianity isn't even a real religion with differeing opinions everywhere, Islam rationally asserts the universality of God and seeks to create a moral order based on these observations. Calvinism is pure militancy (Witch Trials), nothing more nothing less. Islam on the other hand is a very open religion, although as you pointed out there are certainly specific moral orders to follow and maintain (they are not extreme like Calvinism).
Try doing some fucking research on Islam before you act like an idiot Jason.
|
Shawn
Guest
3/06/2003
06:06:36
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
"Remember it was the Caliphate of the Ummah that allowed different religions to exist peacefully and encouraged people to live and work together."
This is false. Islam under the Caliphs turned Jews and Christians into second class citzens who did not have the same rights as Muslims. Prior to the Islamic invasion, the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire was one of the great flowerings of Christian civilisation. That civilisation was destroyed and Christians made into second class citizens. This is far from your claim that they were "encouraged to live and work together". And this was only the first example of Islamic Imperialism. In India the plight of that civilisation was much worse. Hindu Temples were destroyed and looted, and hundreds of thousands of Hindu's who refused to convert were murdered.
Here are two articles detailing the Muslim mass murder and persecution of both Christians and Hindues, long before the rise of Western Imperialism.
Islam's Other Victims;Christians:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5230
Killing Christians:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4560
Islam's Other Victims;India:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4649
"This includes intrusions by femiNAZIs who can't mind their own business and must bitch about other cultures. They are the biggest imperialist voices."
I am no pro-feminist, but the treatment of women in many Islamic countries has no justification. Acid is thrown on young women's faces for being raped. Under the Taliban women were beaten to death and often forbidden to go into the light of day. After the liberation of Afghanistan, one women was released from her home after having been forced to remain inside in a room with no windows for over three years. She broke down and cried at the simple pleasure of seeing the sun. There is a higher moral order than mere national or cultural sovereignty. People cannot simply behave in any way they choose.
"Islam is based on the root of God moreso than Christianity. Whereas Christianity isn't even a real religion with differeing opinions everywhere, Islam rationally asserts the universality of God and seeks to create a moral order based on these observations. Calvinism is pure militancy (Witch Trials), nothing more nothing less. Islam on the other hand is a very open religion, although as you pointed out there are certainly specific moral orders to follow and maintain (they are not extreme like Calvinism)."
This statement is so absurd that it suggests that you know very little about the subject of Islam. Islam has killed more people in it's history than any other religion in existence. Contrary to your claims of it being open and tolerent, Islam often carries out viscious persecutions and pogroms against those deemed to be heretics. You should read about the plight of Bahai's in Iran and how they are treated. Also your claim about Islamic diversity is also false. There are many hundreds of different Christian traditions, there are only four Islamic: Sunni, Shia, Sufi and Wahabi. Christianity is a religion of Grace, Islam is a religion of law. The Calvinists are only one tradition within Christendom, and throughout it's history Grace, not moral legalism, has been the primary emphasis. Islam on the other hand is far more brutal in it's practice of Sharia Law than anything done by the Puritans. And Wahabi Islam in particular, which is the main force behind Islamic terrorism in organisations like Al-Qaeda is pathlogically brutal in ways that make the Medieval Inquisition look positively tame by comparison.
"Try doing some fucking research on Islam before you act like an idiot Jason."
Given your factually incorrect and facile rant above I think it is you who are in need of doing some research. Here are a few places to start.
The Golden Age Of Islam Is A Myth:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4626
Islam's Record On Slavery:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4686
And yes, there IS a historical connection between Islam and the Nazi's.
Islam's Nazi Connections:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4934
Lastly, do you think you could try debating people here without resorting to swearing and abuse? This only leaves the impression that you are not a moral person.
|
A Kamel
Guest
3/06/2003
09:26:04
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
Peace Unto You All,
Shawn, I agree with you with regards to the vulgar use of language. As to the historical claims you reference, I most certainly do not. I am afraid it also indicates that you are a little misinformed about Islam.
For example, you state that there are only 4 "varieties" of Islam: sunni shi'a sufi and wahabi. This is not a valid classification.
There is no such thing as Sufi without being a Muslim. Sufism is the Islamic Science of "Ihsan" as in the pivotal hadeeth of Gabriel (peace be upon him). Ihsan literally means to make beautiful, and loosely refers to being sincere, in religous jargon.
In the most general sense, any Muslim striving for sincerity with God, and God's creation, is a Sufi, wether they are Sunni, Shi'i or even Wahhabi (this last one is not common, but not theoretically impossible).
In the more specific sense and practical manifestations of it, there are many Sufi Tariqa's (or paths); Naqshabandi, Ba'Alawi, Shadhilli, Tijani, and so on. These are like orders or brotherhoods that follow the instruction of a personal Scholar. By the nature of the struggle for sincerity and purity of heart (jihad of the nafs/self), a person needs someone who is more spiritually accomplished than themselves to help them identify their faults and shortcomings, and find the appropriate spiritual medecine to overcome them. Thus, Sufism is essentially none other than following Shari'ah with all of ones essence.
As to Sunni or Shi'i, this is a secondary matter in the Islamic science of Aqida/belief. Both Sunni and Shi'a believe in the Oneness and Uniqueness of God. Both belief in the Prophethood of Muhammad (Peace be upon Him). About 90-95% of Muslims throughout history have been Sunni.
Where the Shi'a mainly differ from the Sunnah perhaps is the doctrine of infalliability of persons other than the Prophets of God (peace be upon them all). This leads the Shi'a to beleive in certain Imams and a whole lore that develops around them. However, even within the Shi'a there are different factions based on slightly different beliefs. These groups include the Isma'ilis and Ithna Ashri's for example.
The divisions within Shi'is are largely a matter of beliefs. Furthermore, the legal ruling from the Sunni perspective, is to treat the Shi'a as Muslims. That is why they are allowed to make the pilgramage to Makkah annually. Historically this has been the rule, though the last century has seen a break from this tradition.
Within the Sunni tradition, there are two major schools of Kalam/theology; the Ash'ari and the Maturidi. The difference between these schools is more a matter of expression in technical jargon, than in essence of the beliefs. In fact, the vast majority of Muslims do not even know, nor are they required to know the technicalities of these schools. Whoever says the testimony of witness is considered a Muslim (There is no deity but God, and Muhammad is His messenger).
The schools of theology really developed to counter and correct the growth of philosophical ideas not harmonious with Islamic beliefs, and refute allegations and attacks from non-Islamic dogmas. It is really a scholarly pursuit that does not affect the lay-person.
These schools delve into matters such as: the oneness of God, His begingless eternalness, His dissimilarity to creation, His omnipotence and what is possible and impossible, etc...(if you will be in the Chicago area near mid April, there is a 1.5 day seminar on Islamic Theology www.nawawi.org).
I must stress that both Ash'ari and Maturidi schools are considered Muslim. In fact, if you look in the compendia of relegions and factions issued by Islamic institutions and scholars, you will find that the definition of a Sunni Muslim is one who conforms in beleif to either of these schools.
When it comes to Islamic law, there were many schools of law over the centuries, that have culminated in the four schools we have today: Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali. All of these schools are Sunni and it is valid to follow anyone of them. In fact it is valid to follow one for some issues, and another for other issues, depending on the circumstances one is in.
Essentially what a legal school is, is a set of legal rulings derived from the legal sources of Islam (Qur'an and Sunna), using a consistent legal methodology. The reason there are differences of opinion are because some texts are open to multiple interpretations. This is something the Qur'an and Hadeeth (the records of the Sunnah - the Sunnah being the example of the Prophet Muhammad) themselves attest to, and allow. The wisdom in this we are told, is to accomodate the weaknesses of humans, and their varying spiritual resolves and circumstances.
For examaple, on any issue of law, there might be several legal opinions. These opinions will generally agree in the basic direction, but will have have slight variations within the details. Some may be more strict than others. Some may be more appropriate to the context than others. The Muslim is obliged to choose what they feel is the most appropriate to them, without looking for the easiest way out. Does this allow for people to slack? Yes. But it is also tempered by the knowledge that God knows what is in our hearts and intentions.
As I mentioned there were more than these four schools in the past, but now only four. The reason being that it is only these four that have remained with an unbroken chain of transmission from scholar to student, all the way back to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Other schools did not continue this chain, and as such are no longer in practice, though much of their intellectual legacy is left for study.
As to the issue of Wahhabi, this is a "reform" movement that started aproximately 2 centuries ago. There are other reform movements that are related and unrelated. These largely arose during the last period of the Ottoman Caliphate as it was disintegrating and as colonial powers were infiltrating the Muslim world.
Wahhabism today prefers to call itself Salafism (in refernce to the Salaf - the generation of Muslims who learned at the hands of the companions of the Prophet). It sought to reform much of the decadence in its region of the Islamic world (Najd - in Arabia) by rejecting many of the "superstitions" that had developed in that society.
In my opinion, they unfortunately threw out the baby with the bath water. In large part, the Wahhabi's follow the Hanbali School of Law, though: 1-Many of them do not realize this (after all it is a practical issue not a theoretical one), 2-Many of them deviate from this preffering to follow personal opinions (which unfortunaely are not valid due to their lack of expertise in legal deduction, reasoning, and knowledge of the sources of law).
Due to the second reason in particular, some of the Wahhabis arrive at incorrect conclusions such that suicide attacks are Islamically sanctioned. Had they studied a little of the law, they would have realized that this matter was addressed many generations ago, and was ruled illegal.
The other main issue in which they deviate from the majority of Muslims, is in issues of theology. Once again, because of their lack of education, they tend to follow a "do it yourself" means of interpretation, which completely bypasses the wisdom of 1400 years of precedent and refined scholarship that has been transmitted from scholar to student, going all the way back to our teacher of teachers, the Prophet Muhammad who learned from the Angel Gabriel, who transmitted the Word of God from the Almighty.
Unfortunately, it results in them arriving at absurd conclusions. What is really threatening however to both Muslims and non-Muslims, is that some of these conclusions lead them to declare many people (Muslim or not) as heretics whose lives are disposable. Furthermore, since their arguements usually appeal to the emotions and psyche of angry fiery youth who are genuinely oppressed in their homelands, many of these "ideas" spread quickly. However, it is none other than a disease of the ego.
Once again however, the majority of scholars, though they fervently disagree with these false inovations, and encourage that they be refuted and routed, will still not declare such people (Wahhabis and the like) out of the fold Islam. The excuse they give them is that they do not understand what they are talking about.
That is not to say that they should be treated leniently. Their capacity to harm others is obligatory to curtail. In general, such modernist Islamic movements fall into the category of Khawarij/cessionists, as they declare themselves different and not bound to the general body of Muslims.
So I hope this explains:
1-Why those four categories are not an accurate representation of classifications within Islam.
2-That Islam allows for a great deal of diversity within it.
3-That this diversity is sanctioned by Islam itself and not something alien to it.
4-That Islam is not only a religion of Law, but also a religion of Belief and Spirituality.
5-Much of the trouble in the Islamic world today is abberation and not norm.
Does anyone know how I can be removed from this discussion board? Not that I dislike anyone here :-). It's just that I need to attend to personal matters of higher priority at this stage in my life, and I want to minimize the amount of e-mail I sort through.
ahmedmkamel@yahoo.com
Peace Unto All
|
napnip
Guest
5/24/2003
20:19:10
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
I can't speak much on the topic of Islam, since I'm not Muslim. However, I am looked at as an oddity by my friends, since I am a staunch Calvinist (and Lutheran, yeah that's rare), and also an Ayn-Randian Capitalist. :o)
Will wonders never cease?
|
Ryan S
Guest
5/25/2003
00:03:25
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
I'm a traditional Congregational Christian- (which hint-hint nudge-nudge means I'm a Calvinist). I just had to click this thread to see where it was going. It never ceases to amuse me how people misinterpret Puritan theology... Geneva and Puritan New England were no theocracies... They were governed by magistrates who were mere stewards. Misrepresentation of traditional Reformed Christianity is to be expected in a the world of post-modernism where what people know about our Puritan forefathers is interpreted through Arthur Miller's the Scarlet Letter.
Yet I still avow we're under a theocracy now and then? Why? Because all authority has been given to Jesus Christ... read the Gospels sometime. Theo- simply means God and -cracy means 'rule of.' God is SOVEREIGN and all things work together for good to those who are called according to God's purposes. (Rom. 8:28)
Islam and Reformed Christianity have nothing in common. This analogy is absurd as equating fundamentalist Islam with so called "fundamentalist Christians" like Jerry Falwell.
|
Will S.
Guest
5/25/2003
02:57:56
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
Different devout Calvinists, whether Reformed, Presbyterian, Anglican, or Baptist, have had different ideas of the degree to which the laws of a given polity must be brought into line with Biblical principles.
But as I understand Islam (from what little I know as an outsider), devout Muslims have generally felt, almost as a rule, that "mosque" and State should be one, under a caliph. Islam divides the world into the Dar-al-Islam (the Domain of Submission, where Islam [which means "submission"] holds sway) and the Dar-al-Harb (the Domain of Struggle, i.e. where Islam does not hold sway, either in terms of faith or politics). It is held to be the duty of faithful Muslims to extend the Dar-al-Islam till the Dar-al-Harb is eventually extinguished. History has shown, this is done, usually, by the sword.
In my observations of Muslims in the West or secular Muslims in Turkey, insofar as they denounce their fundamentalist co-religionists, they are not in fact being true to their faith (contra those idiots who've all told us, post 9/11, that "Islam is a religion of peace", and The West Wing TV show making the false analogy of fundamentalist Islam being to "true Islam" as the KKK is to Christianity. What utter rot! Just examine the historical record.)
Hence, in terms of their views on the degree to which faith and State should be separate, I think there is a world of difference between Islam and Reformed Protestant Christianity.
|
napnip
Guest
5/25/2003
10:26:09
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
A lot has been said about various forms of government as they relate to Calvinism, Islam, etc. I'm not even going to pretend that I could debate that issue, because honestly, the historical component of it is kinda out of my league. I can only present my views, and do the best that I can to defend them.
As I see it, State has absolutely no business getting involved in the Church, and likewise, Church has no business getting involved in the State. If a country truly offers "freedom of religion", then the laws must be neutral, as far as religion goes.
I would be the lowest sort of hypocrite if I enjoyed my freedom (politically speaking, that is), and yet advocated laws based on my religion, which people of another faith must abide by.
That being said, do I believe in the concept of "free will"? Absolutely not. Do I believe in the concept of predestination? Yes, with a capital "Y"! Have Calvinists had a tendency to advocate theocracies? Perhaps so. However, in my view, it isn't the place of the State to save souls. That's God's job. The State is there simply to protect your rights as an individual. You are "free" to worship whatever god you see fit, in whatever manner you see fit, to the extent that you don't cause physical harm to another person. Whether or not you accept the Truth (capital "T" there) is in God's hands. If you accept it or reject it is ultimately part of God's plan. Either way, the State has no role in your spiritual health, or lack thereof.
I may not believe in "free will", but I most certainly DO believe in political freedom. What you do with that freedom is between you and God.
|
Will S.
Guest
5/25/2003
14:51:05
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
"I would be the lowest sort of hypocrite if I enjoyed my freedom (politically speaking, that is), and yet advocated laws based on my religion, which people of another faith must abide by."
If one means laws establishing a State religion, forcing one to pretend to observe it, then I heartily concur.
However, "laws based on my religion" could refer to any laws...
Laws against abortion, are based on the principle that abortion is murder, and thus wrong. (The law against murder is based on its immorality, which comes from the Sixth Commandment.)
Laws against businesses being open Sunday, which still exist in some jurisdictions, are based on the principle that the Sabbath is holy, and should be a day of rest.
Laws against theft, are based on the principle that theft is wrong - see the Eighth Commandment.
And so on. In short, most laws in Western civilization reflect values inherited from the Christian faith of our forefathers. These laws are binding on all, whether or not one holds to the faith which is implicitly recognized behind them. In this sense, the laws can never be neutral - they will always reflect some principle, Christian or otherwise.
So, one need not be a theocrat in order to wish to have the laws of the land reflect the values one holds, as a Christian. Indeed, it is our duty, as Christians, to stand for justice, and to fight for it. (These values are not values we came up with on our own; they're the Lord's values.)
|
Will S.
Guest
5/25/2003
14:51:10
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
"I would be the lowest sort of hypocrite if I enjoyed my freedom (politically speaking, that is), and yet advocated laws based on my religion, which people of another faith must abide by."
If one means laws establishing a State religion, forcing one to pretend to observe it, then I heartily concur.
However, "laws based on my religion" could refer to any laws...
Laws against abortion, are based on the principle that abortion is murder, and thus wrong. (The law against murder is based on its immorality, which comes from the Sixth Commandment.)
Laws against businesses being open Sunday, which still exist in some jurisdictions, are based on the principle that the Sabbath is holy, and should be a day of rest.
Laws against theft, are based on the principle that theft is wrong - see the Eighth Commandment.
And so on. In short, most laws in Western civilization reflect values inherited from the Christian faith of our forefathers. These laws are binding on all, whether or not one holds to the faith which is implicitly recognized behind them. In this sense, the laws can never be neutral - they will always reflect some principle, Christian or otherwise.
So, one need not be a theocrat in order to wish to have the laws of the land reflect the values one holds, as a Christian. Indeed, it is our duty, as Christians, to stand for justice, and to fight for it. (These values are not values we came up with on our own; they're the Lord's values.)
|
napnip
Guest
5/25/2003
18:26:58
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
"Laws against abortion, are based on the principle that abortion is murder, and thus wrong. (The law against murder is based on its immorality, which comes from the Sixth Commandment.)"
http://www.l4l.org Every argument against abortion there is from an atheist perspective. One need not be a theist to believe abortion is murder.
"Laws against businesses being open Sunday, which still exist in some jurisdictions, are based on the principle that the Sabbath is holy, and should be a day of rest."
And as such I am against them. Should the 7th Day Adventists be able to have businesses closed down on Saturdays? If not, why not? (Incidentally, Sunday isn't the Sabbath.)
"Laws against theft, are based on the principle that theft is wrong - see the Eighth Commandment."
Ayn Rand was the most staunch supporter of property rights that ever existed. As such, she strongly opposed theft. She was also an atheist.
"(These values are not values we came up with on our own; they're the Lord's values.)"
True. However, that does not mean that some of those same values could not be arrived at apart from a religious basis. Values such as no murder, no theft, etc... are completely compatible with all religion, and with no religion as well. One need not use such-and-such a religion as the basis for law when the same conclusion can be reached apart from religion.
|
Will S.
Guest
5/27/2003
01:07:33
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
Napnip:
You misunderstood my point completely. I'm not saying that one cannot arrive at these principles from non-Christian perspectives; I'm saying that it is because of our Christian heritage that our civilization arrived at these principles and codified them in our legal traditions, and that's why we have them today. And that, of course, all people must obey the laws of the State for the polity in which they live, regardless of whether or not they agree with the laws, for whatever reasons they agree or disagree with them. (Obviously, in a free, open society, they can seek to change laws. But that's not my point.)
I don't see how one can be a Randian and identify oneself as a believing Protestant, seeing how much Rand not only hated Christianity, but saw unbridled anarcho-capitalism as a means to destroy Christianity and traditional morality (she was an unrepentent fornicator); why, then, a Christian would count himself one of her political disciples, I can't imagine.
But then again, I don't know how one can be simultaneously a Lutheran and a Calvinist, when there are serious differences between the two traditions, and they each have their own confessions (which doubtless contradict each other in some doctrinal points, being different traditions.). (I can't speak for the Lutherans, but I know that the Reformed confessions preclude anarchy as an options Christians can support - read the Belgic Confession, Article 36, and the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 39, for example. So one can't be a true Calvinist and an anarchist simultaneously. From what I know of Lutheranism, they hold the same view, according to the "two kingdoms" or "two cities" view, that of Man, and that of God.)
Nor do I see how one could, as either a Lutheran or a Calvinist, let alone some weird combo of the two (is there even such a tradition out there, other than this one individual?), be a Seventh-Day-Sabbatarian, when both the Lutheran and Reformed traditions concur with Rome and Constantinople in observing the Lord's Day as the first day of the week, the day of the week on which Christ's resurrection occurred, and established the New Covenant, which instituted a clear break in a number of respects from the Old Covenant - e.g. circumcision, dietary laws against pork and seafood consumption, and others; even though the Law of Moses, i.e. the Ten Commandments, was maintained, the ceremonial law of Leviticus and so on was abolished.
So you're, in your own words, a mixture of a Lutheran and a Calvinist and an Ayn Randian, combined with some Sabbatarian beliefs of the Seventh-Day Adventists or the Worldwide Church of God - or Judaism. "I am looked at as an oddity by my friends". Hmmm, for the life of me, I can't imagine why...
|
napnip
Guest
5/27/2003
08:57:45
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
Let me state up front that I have little-to-noting in common with 7th Day Adventists. I don't observe a Saturday worship. I was pointing it out to make a point: if one can ban the sale of such-and-such on Sundays, or make businesses close down on Sundays, for religious reasons, then the 7th Day Adventists can rightly demand that the business also close down on Saturdays. And, it would only be fair to oblige them. (BTW, I worship on Sunday.) :o)
Let me also state that I am not in agreement with Ayn Rand 100%. More like 85%. (I disagree with her atheism and her support of abortion.)
Rand was an unrepentant atheist. However, it's going a bit far to say that she saw "anarcho-capitalism as a means to destroy Christianity". (Yes, I have read most of her works, so I think I know what I'm talking about.) First of all, Rand was anything but an anarchist. Rand was a capitalist, not an anarchist. (Contrary to popular myth, anarchism and capitalism have little in common.) See "The Nature of Government" in her collection "The Virtue of Selfishness" for details.
Secondly, it wasn't her goal to "destroy" Christianity. Her goal was freedom. That would include freedom to believe in whatever god you wanted, or no god at all. (In her case, no god.) It might be argued that she wanted to dissuade people from believing in God, and that would probably be right. However, and this is a big HOWEVER, she did so APART from the power of the State. You will never, ever ever ever ever find one single reference by her wherein she advocates using the power of the State to abolish Christianity. If she tried to turn people away from any and all religion, she did so with her arguments, NOT with a gun. (Unfortunately, she realizes her error now. She is no longer an atheist.)
"Why, then, a Christian would count himself one of her political disciples, I can't imagine."
The key words there are "political disciples". I disagree with her atheism, but agree with her economic and political principles. It's a matter of Church and State. I disagree with her views of Church (i.e. religion, God, etc....), but agree with her views of State (i.e. economics and politics.)
How can one be a Calvinist and a Lutheran? Easily. They have far more in common than appears on the surface. That's an important point: the surface. Today's Lutheranism has strayed a bit from the Lutheranism of Luther's era. Read "The Bondage of the Will" and you'll see Calvinism all throughout the work. Read "The Augsburg Confession" and "The Apology to the Augsburg Confession", in particular their denunciations of "free will".
This must be stated: Were Lutherans back then full 5-point Calvinists? Probably not. I simply see myself as taking Luther's position to its logical conclusion.
|
Will S.
Guest
5/28/2003
01:51:00
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
"How can one be a Calvinist and a Lutheran? Easily. They have far more in common than appears on the surface. That's an important point: the surface. Today's Lutheranism has strayed a bit from the Lutheranism of Luther's era. Read "The Bondage of the Will" and you'll see Calvinism all throughout the work. Read "The Augsburg Confession" and "The Apology to the Augsburg Confession", in particular their denunciations of "free will".
This must be stated: Were Lutherans back then full 5-point Calvinists? Probably not. I simply see myself as taking Luther's position to its logical conclusion."
Well, I've not read "The Bondage of the Will", but I've certainly heard it praised in Reformed circles; in general, much of Luther's beliefs, especially the five Solas, are shared by Calvinists, and we tend to look on Luther himself quite favourably.
But are there churches which attempt to tie together Calvinism and Lutheranism in some way, which have their own confessions (or combinations of Lutheran and Reformed Confessions which they jointly subscribe to, or something such)? I've never heard of any such churches. Do you attend any such church? If not, which kind do you attend, and how do find that as a compromise?
|
Shawn
Guest
5/28/2003
06:06:21
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
" (I can't speak for the Lutherans, but I know that the Reformed confessions preclude anarchy as an options Christians can support - read the Belgic Confession, Article 36, and the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 39, for example. So one can't be a true Calvinist and an anarchist simultaneously. From what I know of Lutheranism, they hold the same view, according to the "two kingdoms" or "two cities" view, that of Man, and that of God.)"
This is correct. A person can not be an anarchist and a Lutheran. I would further argue that one cannot be a Lutheran and a Marxist, but that has not stopped some liberal "Lutherans" adopting and promoting the obscenity known as "liberation theology".
"And as such I am against them. Should the 7th Day Adventists be able to have businesses closed down on Saturdays? If not, why not?"
Seventh Day Adventists cannot be said to have contributed greatly to the Protestant culture of America. America, both prior to and after the Revolution, was largely based on traditional Protestantism, Lutheran, Reformed and Anglican. Even if one adds in to that mix Roman Catholicism, then we still have a dominant culture that recognises Sunday as the Lord's Day. Therefore laws reflecting those cultural values, such as business free Sunday's, are perfectly reasonable.
I have read Rand myself. To be fair she was not an anarchist, nor even a libertarian as is sometimes claimed. But while I respect her in many ways, her views on economics and government, if implemented, would be a disaster for America, or any Western nation. All laws regulating immigration for example would be impossible under a Randian system of government and law. Also impossible would be measures to regulate trans-national corporations, and protect American businesses and jobs through tariffs. For these and other reasons I would reject Randian economic and poltical theory as useless and dangerous in any endevour to preserve the West, Western Man, and America as distinct national, racial and cultural entities.
|
napnip
Guest
5/28/2003
08:59:43
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
"But are there churches which attempt to tie together Calvinism and Lutheranism in some way..."
Not that I know of. I'm sort of an oddity. :o)
|
napnip
Guest
5/28/2003
09:15:53
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
"Therefore laws reflecting those cultural values, such as business free Sunday's, are perfectly reasonable."
"Perfectly reasonable" according to whose definition? Who decides what is "reasonable"? And how do you respond when a different religious group tells you "Well, we think that its reasonable to implement our ideas as law." Just because such-and-such a group didn't "contribute greatly to the Protestant culture of America" is no reason to dismiss their demands. Why shouldn't their ideas be implemented as well?
A Muslim group could justly and fairly demand that pork be outlawed. "Oh no! They don't represent the majority!" So? (That's exactly why we have a constitutional republic and NOT a democracy.) If you're going to force Christian dogma on non-Christians, then it's only fair that non-Christian dogma be forced on Christians.
Here's a solution: keep the Church out of business.
It seems to me that if the Church militant is so convinced that Sunday operation is bad, then perhaps what it should do is try to convince the people through reasoned argument of such. Instead, bypassing debate over the issue, it is content to have its ideas implemented at the point of a gun. Reminds me of a parent telling a child "Because I said so!"
|
Shawn
Guest
5/28/2003
17:32:30
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
"Perfectly reasonable" according to whose definition? Who decides what is "reasonable"? And how do you respond when a different religious group tells you "Well, we think that its reasonable to implement our ideas as law." Just because such-and-such a group didn't "contribute greatly to the Protestant culture of America" is no reason to dismiss their demands. Why shouldn't their ideas be implemented as well?"
For most of its history America was a Protestant nation, with traditional Protestants making up the vast majority of the population. Laws reflecting that are reasonable from any conservative point of view. If the various states and local counties and towns wish to pass laws, for example, prohibiting sodomy, then that is their right, and it is their right under the constitution. Your claim about tiny minorities like the SDA or Muslims also having that right are baseless, as these groups are not reflective of the dominant and traditional culture in this country.
" If you're going to force Christian dogma on non-Christians, then it's only fair that non-Christian dogma be forced on Christians."
Fair? Whats "Fair" got to do with it? Laws reflecting traditional Protestant Christianity have in fact been the norm in America since before the Revolution. The idea that if laws reflect that fact are implemented, then its also "fair" that tiny minorites do the same, is specious. What I find fascinating is that your argument is straight out of the Liberal play book.
"Here's a solution: keep the Church out of business."
If the majority culture is Chritian, then it is not possible to do this, as Christianity is not simply a private affair. How A Christian does business will not be the same as how someone else does business, so your "solution" is simply a denial of reality, a pretence that Christians should have to leave their faith at home when going to work or running a business.
"It seems to me that if the Church militant is so convinced that Sunday operation is bad, then perhaps what it should do is try to convince the people through reasoned argument of such. Instead, bypassing debate over the issue, it is content to have its ideas implemented at the point of a gun. Reminds me of a parent telling a child "Because I said so!""
All laws are a reflection of the cultural and religious tradition within a country. Many laws in America, against murder for example, are reflections of traditional Christianity. To claim that such laws cannot be passed "at the point if a gun" is nonsense. Yes non-religious arguments can be made for the law against murder, but that alone is not a sufficient basis for law.
There are some liberal groups, such as NAMBLA, who argue that having sex with children is a right that should be protected by law. They woould also provide arguments to support this. According to your argument, their "rights" should also be protected.
If we simply throw out traditional religious morality from any influence on the laws of the land then what are we left with? Either the liberal managerial state on the one hand, or the loss of national sovereignty that would result under a libertarian state ruled by transnational corporations, on the other.
The Founding Fathers were not libertarians. In giving us a constitution that does not allow the Federal government to establish a state denomination, they did not intend for Christianity to have no say in the laws and customs of the land, nor does the constitution forbid the various States and local communities from passing laws reflecting traditional morality.
For more information on this issue read the Conservative FAQ that is part of the CounterRevolution web site.
http://jkalb.freeshell.org/web/consfaq.html
|
napnip
Guest
5/28/2003
17:50:22
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
"For most of its history America was a Protestant nation, with traditional Protestants making up the vast majority of the population. Laws reflecting that are reasonable from any conservative point of view. If the various states and local counties and towns wish to pass laws, for example, prohibiting sodomy, then that is their right, and it is their right under the constitution. Your claim about tiny minorities like the SDA or Muslims also having that right are baseless, as these groups are not reflective of the dominant and traditional culture in this country."
And the best that your argument can resort to is "it's tradition, therefore it's right". You use the word "tradition" several times in an attempt to use it as a basis for making laws. You're assuming, however, that the idea of "tradition" holds any weight with me. It doesn't.
"How A Christian does business will not be the same as how someone else does business"
That's exactly right. However, within a free market, a Christian is free to do business however he sees fit, as are non-Christians. If a Christian doesn't wish to shop on Sunday, nobody is going to force him.
"What I find fascinating is that your argument is straight out of the Liberal play book."
That's exactly right. I am a liberal. A classical-liberal. (Not a "liberal" in the modern definition of the word.) I am a laissez-faire capitalist, so I couldn't be a "liberal" in the modern sense of the word, as its meaning has been perverted.
"There are some liberal groups, such as NAMBLA, who argue that having sex with children is a right that should be protected by law. They woould also provide arguments to support this. According to your argument, their "rights" should also be protected."
No, because children have not attained the physical and emotional maturity needed to make sure decisions. To take advantage of a child is an act of aggression. Nobody has a "right" to initiate aggression against another person, so your argument isn't valid.
"If we simply throw out traditional religious morality from any influence on the laws of the land then what are we left with?"
A morality of reason.
"Either the liberal managerial state on the one hand, or the loss of national sovereignty that would result under a libertarian state ruled by transnational corporations, on the other."
The State cannot be run by corporations in a laissez-faire system, as the State is separate from Economics. Just as the State could not inject itself in the market, so the market cannot inject itself into the State. Under a TRUE laissez-faire system, the purpose of the State is to protect your individual rights, nothing more.
"The Founding Fathers were not libertarians."
I never said they were perfect.
Incidentally, I am not a libertarian, despite your wishing that I was. While I agree with some of what libertarians state, their means of reaching those goals are flawwed. I suggest reading "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty" by Peter Schwartz
|
Will S.
Guest
5/28/2003
19:48:37
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
"Rand was a capitalist, not an anarchist."
"I have read Rand myself. To be fair she was not an anarchist, nor even a libertarian as is sometimes claimed."
Ah, okay. I must admit, I haven't in fact read any Ayn Rand; but I've noticed who are her biggest fans - the libertine libertarian crowd (e.g. people who write for and/or read Reason magazine; as opposed to morally conservative, traditionalist libertarians like LewRockwell.com, whom I much prefer and even enjoy reading, though I'm not by any means a libertarian myself.) Indeed, many anarcho-capitalists have claimed Rand as a hero and a major influence, which is probably what misled me to think she may have been one herself.
I *have* read essays saying things to the effect that Rand was hopeful that her ideas, if implemented, would be harmful to traditional Christian values. (Alas, I can't cite any right off the top of my head, but I'm sure if I or anyone Googles the right keywords, they can be found.) I'm convinced that a society that tries to remain strictly neutral on all moral and faith issues would in fact be antithetical to traditional Christian morality and faith, and put itself in opposition to it. Indeed, such is exactly what has happened with our world today - for example, increasingly, religious aspects of Christmas celebrations are shut out of public schools, but instead of neutrality, official anti-Christianity is combined with teachings on non-Christian festivals at that time of year, from Chanukah to Eid-el-Ftr to Divali to "Kwaanzaa" (not even a real holiday). So I don't think neutrality is in fact possible (nor do I consider it desirable, either).
' "If we simply throw out traditional religious morality from any influence on the laws of the land then what are we left with?"
A morality of reason.'
Morality of reason?! What the heck does that mean? Reason is merely a logical tool for analysis and evaluation; it can't be either moral or immoral in and of itself. It can be used for good or evil.
|
napnip
Guest
5/28/2003
20:51:10
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
"Reason is merely a logical tool for analysis and evaluation; it can't be either moral or immoral in and of itself."
That's why you owe it to yourself to read some of Rand's works. I would obviously suggest starting with Atlas Shrugged. :o)
|
Shawn
Guest
5/29/2003
04:04:05
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
"And the best that your argument can resort to is "it's tradition, therefore it's right". You use the word "tradition" several times in an attempt to use it as a basis for making laws. You're assuming, however, that the idea of "tradition" holds any weight with me. It doesn't."
I'm not assuming that at all, I'm simply giving you my response. Counter-revolution net and its associated web sites are a forum for traditionalist conservatism, so your going to find a large number of people here who place a great deal of weight on the importance and validity of tradition.
"That's exactly right. However, within a free market, a Christian is free to do business however he sees fit, as are non-Christians. If a Christian doesn't wish to shop on Sunday, nobody is going to force him."
There is no such thing as a "free market". All markets are regulated in one way or another.
"That's exactly right. I am a liberal. A classical-liberal. (Not a "liberal" in the modern definition of the word.) I am a laissez-faire capitalist, so I couldn't be a "liberal" in the modern sense of the word, as its meaning has been perverted."
Has it? Modern liberalism may well be little more than a form of cultural Marxism, but Marxism itself is still a form of liberalism. It matters little if the form of liberalism is classical or Marxist, it is still liberalism, and even in its classical form, liberalism is still the root problem and disease affecting the West.
" No, because children have not attained the physical and emotional maturity needed to make sure decisions. To take advantage of a child is an act of aggression. Nobody has a "right" to initiate aggression against another person, so your argument isn't valid."
It is your opinion that children have not attained such maturity. I happen to agree, but on what do you base your opinion? Someone from Nambla, would say that your simply forcing your opinion on them. And not just extremists like Nambla, but a number of academics have argued that sex between adults and minors is not always in every circumstance force and aggression. Who is right? The fact remains that you have chosen to believe that children are not mature, and your prepared to force that belief on others.
"The State cannot be run by corporations in a laissez-faire system, as the State is separate from Economics. Just as the State could not inject itself in the market, so the market cannot inject itself into the State. Under a TRUE laissez-faire system, the purpose of the State is to protect your individual rights, nothing more."
The outcome of such a system would in fact be rule by the corporations, as nothing would stand between them and the people. Laissez-faire leads to globalisation, the loss of national soveriegnty, the destruction of borders, and mass immigration. Goodbye to Western civilisation, hello homogenous global soup. No thanks.
A proper role for the state, as the representaive of the American people, is to protect American jobs, small businesses and family farms through the regulation of corporations, including laws limiting the size of such, and through tarriff protectionism. A nation is not simply a collection of individuals, it is a family, representing a culture, a tradition and a distinct people.
|
Shawn
Guest
5/29/2003
04:08:42
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
"A morality of reason."
Whos reason? A Marxist will tell you that Marxism is a science based on reason. They would tell you that communism is a rational system. All liberals, communist or libertarian, claim reason as the highest moral authority. The result of such ideology as far as the communist version is concerned is one hundred and fifty million dead in less than a century, and counting. The 20th century is littered with the corpses of those killed by people claiming "reason" as their authority.
|
napnip
Guest
5/29/2003
08:33:45
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
"Counter-revolution net and its associated web sites are a forum for traditionalist conservatism, so your going to find a large number of people here who place a great deal of weight on the importance and validity of tradition."
You just made my point for me. Concerning the notion that minority religious groups should or shouldn't have the right to force their opinions on others through law, your best answer is "No, because they didn't make our traditions." Tradition seems to be the Holy Grail of conservatism. (I don't mean that to sound offensive, please don't take it as such. Just an observation on my part.) That's the best that your argument contains. Tradition. What it means is that you are willing to force (FORCE) other people to conform to what you consider the "good" all because of tradition. ("Force" being the key word in that sentence.) And just how is the "good" defined? Why, by tradition!
"There is no such thing as a 'free market'. All markets are regulated in one way or another."
I never said they weren't. I'm talking about the way I feel they should be.
"It matters little if the form of liberalism is classical or Marxist, it is still liberalism, and even in its classical form, liberalism is still the root problem and disease affecting the West."
And that tells me that you don't actually know what classical liberalism actually is. Friedrich Hayek is an example of a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is the virtual opposite of modern pseudo-liberalism because it takes away the one thing that modern "liberals" (and apparently conservatives) need: a big statist system.
"The outcome of such a system would in fact be rule by the corporations, as nothing would stand between them and the people."
Why would something need to "stand between" corporations and the people. What are corporations going to do that government needs to "stand between" and prevent? What sort of malevolent goals do you think corporations have? You act like there would be no rule of law in a laissez-faire system, but such would not be the case. The initiation of force could and would be outlawed in a laissez-faire system, and as such, corporations would not have the right to initiate force against an individual or group. (Hence SOME environmental law would exist, as well as laws requiring a safe working environment.) Again, laissez-faire does NOT equate to anarchism.
"A nation is not simply a collection of individuals, it is a family, representing a culture, a tradition and a distinct people."
Now who's the "liberal" here? Not me. You're the one advocating a type of collectivism. Ultimately you're accepting the same philosophical base that modern "liberals" have: that the Public is an entity, and your moral duty is to serve it. And it all came from the mind and pen of Immanuel Kant.
"The 20th century is littered with the corpses of those killed by people claiming "reason" as their authority."
Actually, the 20th century is littered with the corpses of those killed by people claiming that the moral "good" is to serve the Collective. (Whether that be the People, the State, the Race, the Economic Class, whatever.....) It isn't reason that's at the heart of that destruction. All those people were sacrificed on the altar of altruism.
|
napnip
Guest
5/29/2003
08:58:40
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
Incidentally, let me state up front that I generally vote for conservatives/Republicans. Not because I necessarily agree with everything conservatism stands for, but because I cannot in good conscience vote for the Libertarian party. I refuse to vote for anybody who says it's OK to murder unborn babies. All the rights in the world don't amount to squat if you don't have the right to live.
And while conservatives/Republicans may not advocate a totally free market, I know they'll deliver a FREER market than Democrats ever will. :o)
|
Shawn
Guest
5/29/2003
19:01:09
| RE: Islam and Calvinism
IP: Logged
Message:
""No, because they didn't make our traditions." Tradition seems to be the Holy Grail of conservatism. (I don't mean that to sound offensive, please don't take it as such. Just an observation on my part.) That's the best that your argument contains. Tradition. What it means is that you are willing to force (FORCE) other people to conform to what you consider the "good" all because of tradition. ("Force" being the key word in that sentence.) And just how is the "good" defined? Why, by tradition!"
Of course. Tradition is a valid form of knowledge, in fact it is one of the most important. Yes reason has its place, but only as it is informed by tradition. And yes I am perfectly happy about the use of force, as I do not subscribe to the libertarian notion that force is morally wrong.
To learn more about why conservatives value tradition, and its role in society:
http://jkalb.freeshell.org/texts/trad_con.html
" And that tells me that you don't actually know what classical liberalism actually is. Friedrich Hayek is an example of a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is the virtual opposite of modern pseudo-liberalism because it takes away the one thing that modern "liberals" (and apparently conservatives) need: a big statist system"
I know perfectly well what classical liberalism is, it is the small state version of big state liberalism. I know about Hayek, Locke and other classical liberals. But your still talking about a form of liberalism. Modern cultural Marxism is not psuedo-liberalism, it IS liberalism in a different form. It makes no difference to me if your talking about large state collectivist liberalism or small state individualist liberalism, your still talking about liberalism.
Now I happen to believe in a small limited government and constitutional republicanism, as well as the devolving of a large degree power back to the States and to local communities. But that simply means that the States and local communities have the freedom to enforce their own laws, including laws upholding traditional morality, such as laws against sodomy and abortion.
"Why would something need to "stand between" corporations and the people. What are corporations going to do that government needs to "stand between" and prevent? What sort of malevolent goals do you think corporations have?"
Corporations do not always serve the interests of the people or the nation. Corporations have been responsible for laying off thousands of American workers and moving offshore to employ people in the third world for little pay. I happen to think thats wrong, and that if corporations want to operate in America they should have to abide by certain standards and have a real patriotic committment to the nation.
While I vote Republican I support an America First economic policy that:
Operates within the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution;
Restores Congressional authority to regulate commerce;
Safeguards American labor, health, safety and environmental standards from cheap imports;
Eliminates trade deficits;
Protects U.S. jobs and industry in order to ensure the blessings of liberty to all Americans and their posterity.
A vital national trade policy should require:
A strict "Buy American" policy that patronizes American made goods;
A rigid ban on imported products of child, prison, or slave labor;
U.S. ability to manufacture and stockpile all products vital to maintaining U.S. strategic military strength and national security;
The ability to feed our own people;
All food sold in the United States must be clearly labeled with the country of origin.
All international trade agreements are in fact treaties and as such must be passed by a 2/3 super-majority in the U.S. Senate.
"Fast Track" trade negotiating authority should not be abdicated to the Executive Branch
A complete U.S. withdrawal from the following institutions: World Trade Organization (WTO), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank
Revocation of Most Favored Nation trade status from any nation that restricts the basic human rights of workers.
Required revenue tariffs on all foreign made goods sold in the United States to achieve balanced trade, and replace federal income taxes.
The above positions demonstrate that the economic process currently labeled as "free trade" actually represents a "race to the bottom". By adhering to the above positions, the United States will guarantee its ability to be self-sufficient through bilateral trade and negotiation with other nations.
http://www.americafirstparty.org/docs/platform.shtml
Such policies would not be possible in a libertarian system.
" The initiation of force could and would be outlawed in a laissez-faire system, and as such, corporations would not have the right to initiate force against an individual or group."
As I pointed out above, their are a number of things other than the intitiation of force as defined by libertarians which do not serve the national good.
"Now who's the "liberal" here? Not me. You're the one advocating a type of collectivism. Ultimately you're accepting the same philosophical base that modern "liberals" have: that the Public is an entity, and your moral duty is to serve it. And it all came from the mind and pen of Immanuel Kant."
Wrong. Collectivism has been around far longer than liberalism. Collectivism in and of itself is not automatically liberal, though there are liberal forms. National collectivism, religious collectivism, racial and cultural collectivism have been a part of Western Man for more than two thousand years. The problem is not traditional collectivism, but liberalism in all its forms, collectivist or individualist.
|
|
|