Tensional Values

An interesting topic is which cultural values are compatible or incompatible with libertarianism. On one hand, some Libertarians such as Walter Block maintain that libertarianism does not require any particular cultural values, that cultural questions are irrelevant to libertarianism. On the other hand, other libertarians believe that libertarianism will require some rather specific cultural values in order to be sucessful. Perhaps a position somewhere in between the two is the most sensible.

Libertarianism is, in a sense, profoundly cosmopolitan, which is to say that people of all sorts of cultural and religious backgrounds can co-exist under libertarian principles and accept them. It is possible for libertarians to disagree sharply with eachother in their cultural world-views while remaining entirely consistant with libertarian principles. A libertarian can be an atheist, a Christian, a racist, an anti-racist, an urbanite, ruralite/country-dweller and so on. So long as such groups persue their ends within the context of non-aggression, they are perfectly compatible with libertarianism.

On the other hand, it is undeniable that certain cultural values may be more or less conductive to libertarianism. Some cultural values, while in theory not violations of libertarianism, may produce tension. A cultural value that produces tension can theoretically co-exist with libertarian principles, but there is a danger of the cultural value in question overriding libertarian considerations. In other words, some particular cultural tenets may lead some people to abandon the libertarian means towards desired ends. On the other hand, perhaps certain cultural values more easily lead people to application of libertarian principles than others.

So what particular values are tensional with libertarianism? And which may more easily lead to libertarian conclusions? Let's take a look at some cultural values and see how compatible or incompatible they are.

Religion

There are many religious libertarians, if anything simply because of the fact that most people are adherants of a particular religion. There is nothing inherently contradictary about being a religious libertarian so long as one persues their religious beliefs and advocacy within a voluntary context. Since religion is a highly interpretive thing, some people interpret their religions in a manner that sanctions a voluntary ethic, and may even interpret it as a sanction for anarchism (I've seen some rather intrigueing intepretations of Jesus as an anarchist).

On the other hand, religions clearly have an authoritarian history. Religions may be prone to encourage absolute obedience to religious authorities, which has the potential to produce tension with libertarianism as it may manifest itself in politics as well. In many ways, religious institutions can be viewed as political institutions, and historically they have by the very least engaged in patronage with states. Religious zealotry may very well lead some people to support coercive measures against non-believers or wars, and hence abandonment of libertarianism.

Psychologically speaking, a belief in a god is in many ways comparable to belief in a state. Religious fatalism, which is the idea that a diety controls all of our fates in a deterministic manner, can easily lead to political fatalism, which is the idea that the state controls our fates in a deterministic manner. Furthermore, people's religious beliefs are easily exploited by political figures in order to obtain obedience and participitation. In many ways, religions can be viewed as the spawn of states, for historically states have both created and relied upon religious beliefs in order to maintain their power, even to the extreme of regaurding the prime political leader as literally being a god.

While religion can exist within a libertarian paradime, a libertarian society quite likely would experience a gradual diminishing in religious belief, or at least religious institutionalism, and given enough time it may even lead to the end of organized religion as we know it in a considerably long-term context. Already in our modern world, people have become more secularized, to the extent that medieval-style religious traditionalism isn't too popular even among many religious people. At least in the western world, while it has some proponents to be sure, religious traditionalism, absolutism and literalism is on its way out.

Communalism

While many right-wing libertarians may protest the idea, there is nothing contradictary per se between certain types of communalism and libertarianism. It is true that libertarianism is generally an individualist phenomenon, but there are people who have some rather socialistic economic values that are willing to work within a voluntarist context. If someone genuinely wants to go form a hippie commune or an entirely worker owned firm in a libertarian society, so long as it is done voluntarily there is nothing we can do to stop them outside of persuasion. In this sense, it is possible to have "libertarian socialism", although the term does seem quite contradictary taken at face value.

On the other hand, these collectivistic values may very well tend to produce some tension with libertarian principles. Very few socialists, even of the anarchistic variety, are actual voluntarists. On the contrary, most of such people actively advocate expropriation of the means of production by workers and the deliberate use of violence. Since they have adopted Karl Marx's fallicious class analysis, anyone who is identified as being within the capitalist class is apparently subject to having their property taken from them by the masses at large, if not murdered. Thus, all sorts of aggressions are condoned by such people.

Afterall, how can a universal ban on the initiation of aggression be mantained when who exactly is the aggressor cannot be properly ascertained? If all people of relative wealth and success are considered as being aggressors, then aggression against them suddenly becomes "justified" as a defensive or retaliatory action. If one genuinely believes that the factory equipment is the rightful property of all the workers of a factory, and it currently is in the control of a buisiness owner, then the initiation of force against the current owner of the factory becomes condoned. The violent methods by which communists tend to persue the end of their "worker's revolution" are clearly incompatible with libertarianism.

Territorialism

Territorialism is a person's identification with a particular territory of land beyond that which they actually control. That is to say, people's identification with their town, their state and their nation is territorialism, for the individual is identifying themself with a territory that is external to them. Territorialism does not refer to, for example, one's sense of ownership of one's own home, for one's own home actually is an extension of oneself in a sense. The term territorialism refers to a sense of an extension of oneself over areas that clearly are not. At face value, this may seem innocent enough, but a closer look reveals some potential problems that can arise from this way of thinking.

This way of thinking may lead people into thinking of themselves primarily as members of groups as opposed to independant individuals, and thus it tends towards groupism. It leads people to speak of an entire territory as if it actually were theirs, or as if it actually were collectively owned by everyone. For example, the simple statement "my country" taken literally implies that you actually own the entire territory of the country. And if one acts as if they own the entire territory, they will be prone to try to exercise control over that which is not really theirs to exlude people from entering or making use of their "country" or "community".

Consequentially, territorialism may lead people to condone aggressions against others in the name of the "nation" or "community". This can most clearly be seen in some people's attitudes towards immigration, as well as the ideology that leads some people into support their government's wars, under the notion that the state is protecting their "country" against a bad-guy "country". But this becomes mighty anthropromorphic, treating territories of land as if they were individuals, while simultaneously ignoring the diversity of traits between the people within a given territory of land. This way of thinking has lead many well-intended people down an unlibertarian path.

Racism

It may come as a surprise to some, but it is theoretically possible to be a libertarian racist. They aren't the majority, but they exist. Technically so long as they persue their racism within a voluntary context, it is completely compatible with libertarianism. They can refuse to invite or allow racial minorities onto their property all they want under a libertarian order. What they cannot do is use the law towards these ends or control what other people can do with their own property with regaurds to racial interrelations.

Unfortunately, especially for their victims, the vast majority of racists are not willing to work within a voluntary context. The history of racism is filled with the use of the government to enforce a separatist policy onto society, lynchings and the general use of force against racial minorities. Much in the same way that many communists cannot resist condoning violence against "capitalists", for the most part racist groups are all about institutionally engaging in coercion or force against the racial groups that they do not like.

In a libertarian order, a racist policy from a buisiness standpoint is suicidal. Consequentially, racial separatism, to the extent that it may exist at all, would be highly disincentivized and unpopular. In a Spencerian sense, people have fortunately developed more and more "moral sense" with respect to racial relations, and in a libertarian order there is no reason why this trend will not continue until racism is little more than a thing of the past. People have nothing to gain by isolating themselves from eachother in the way that racists desire.

Tolerance

In many ways, tolerance could be viewed as a prerequisite for libertarianism, for one must be able to tolerate voluntary relationships between people of all sorts of different religious beliefs, ethnicities and so on. A sense of tolerance most certainly can lead one to see why there is something wrong with forcing disagreeing groups to associate or disassociate with eachother. Indeed, in order to be a consistant libertarian, one must be able to tolerate a whole host of things that one may disagree with so long as they are voluntary. As the old Voltaire saying goes, "I disagree with what you say, but will fight for your right to say it".

On the other hand, there is a sense in which tolerance can be taken too far. What if someone's cultural practises includes something that blatantly involves the initiation of aggression? What if the sacrifice of children is involved in a given group's cultural or religious practises, against the will of the children? Why should such a thing be tolerated? If the basic non-aggression principle is accepted, then logically one must oppose such things. It doesn't make sense to be tolerant just for the sake of it. There may come situations where tolerance breaks down as a value. Barring that, it does seem to be quite conductive to libertarianism though.

Agrarianism and Environmentalism

Obviously, there is nothing contradictary between libertarianism and a rural lifestyle. One could choose to live a rural life as one pleases. There is also nothing contradictary between libertarianism and desiring an environmentally safe and naturalistic lifestyle. This too would be nothing but a voluntary choice. If one wants to live the life of a hermit, or cabin-life in the woods, or a teepee in the middle of the desert, one is perfectly free to go do just that in a libertarian order. And the developement of environmentally sound technology is perfectly compatible with libertarianism, and indeed can only genuinely arise as a consequence of the market.

A potential problem that may arise from a rural world-view is opposition to the advancement of industry and technology, and urban growth, and thus one may be lead to become rather luddite. The term "burgeiosie" could be seen as coming from the term "burg", which means city. The rise of cities and industrialization was in some ways opposed by rural people historically, for it represents a move away from their traditional way of living. A luddite attitude may develope among those with a naturalistic or rural world-view, in which technology is viewed as corrupting. Consequentially, an urge arises to supress or destroy technology. Combine this attitude with the means of modern politics, and we have a potentially dangerous phenomenon indeed.

The ideology of contemporary environmentalism is very troublesome because it seems, at base, to be opposed to industrial living and modern technology itself. Industrial civilization is portrayed as inherently destroying the planet itself and infinitely corrupting of the human soul. While it is theoretically possible to hold such irrational views and persue environmentalist goals within a libertarian context, contemporary environmentalists tend to wish to impose their ideals on everyone else. Most modern environmentalists clearly have a political agenda and are not willing to keep it personal and voluntary.

Conclusion

So after overviewing the possible tensions that certain values may create, what particular values may be potential prerequisites for a libertarian social order? I would say the following: a healthly dose of cultural tolerance or cosmopolitanism, a sense of aterritorialism/non-territorialism, secularism (one can technically be a secular religious person), individualism and industrialism. These things may not necessarily be absolute requirements, but it seems to me that they are much more conductive to a libertarian order than ideologies such as racism, communalism and religious traditionalism. With the advancement of technology, a sense of modernity seems necessary. With the inevitable intermingling of ethnicities, a sense of racial tolerance seems necessary. With the process of secularization, liberation from the constraints of religion seems necessary. And with the increased decentralization of society, aterritorialism seems necessary.

Culture: The Missing Link

The standard one-dimensional left-right spectrum is incredibly fallacious. It represents a false dichotomy, and therefore a two-dimensional spectrum has to be introduced in order to resolve the contradictions of the one-dimensional spectrum. What is meant by this is that the one-dimensional spectrum has no reasonable way of being able to categorize anarchists and a whole host of specific political positions, and that it generalizes the matter to the point where people who differ very much are placed close together on the “left or “right” and people who aren’t that different are placed on opposite ends. Hitler is placed on the “far right” and Stalin on the “far left”, but in reality there is hardly a dime’s worth of difference between their political positions.

Thus, the two-dimensional spectrum corrects this problem by splitting things up into an economic and personal axis. Consequentially, it better distinguishes between different types of the political “left and right”. Two people can have similar economic views but differ on personal liberties issue, and two people can be identical about personal liberties issues while having very different economic views. For example, Ron Paul and Adolph Hitler are both on “the right” but differ considerably in both economic and personal liberties views. And Benjamin Tucker and Stalin are both on “the left” but differ radically in both economic and personal liberties views.

But the two-dimensional spectrum is also flawed, for theoretically one can have a very low personal position and a very high economic position, and be put on the “far right”, yet the political “far right” doesn’t consistently favor economic freedom. And vice versa, the political “far left” doesn’t consistently favor personal freedom. Thus, a third dimension is needed to resolve this conflict as well. The addition of a third dimension seems to clear a lot of things up. The third dimension is culture. Consequentially, the revised political spectrum looks something like this:

Axis A - Economic
Axis B – Personal
Axis C - Cultural

The economic axis represents questions such as government ownership vs. private ownership of the means of production, government regulation of material property and government redistribution of wealth. The personal axis represents questions such as war vs. peace, personal privacy, free expression and in general one's ability to control one's own person free from force. The cultural axis represents questions such as one's views on subjects such as the family, religion, ethnicity, art and one's consumer preferences.

Two people can be fairly identical on the economic and personal axises while differing radically between their cultural values. There can be two anarchists (Roderick Long vs. Hans Herman Hoppe, for example) or two totalitarians (Stalin vs. Hitler, for example) with virtually identical political positions, but different cultural values. At the same time, an anarchist can theoretically share a lot of cultural values with a totalitarian while simultaneously being at opposite ends of the political and economic axises.

Hans Herman Hoppe's cultural values are "conservative": separatism, traditionalism, religiosity and opposition to multiculturalism. Roderick Long's cultural values are "liberal": cosmopolitanism, opposition to racism and sympathy with some feminist elements. Yet their political and economic positions are virtually identical: they both favor a free market anarchist society. There's not a dime's worth of difference between them on non-cultural criteria. Where they differ is mainly on their cultural preferences and ideas as to what cultural values are most conductive to reaching the goal.

Culture is always the "zinger" that potentially produces tension with political and economic principles. It seems that left and right is just culture. It is not politics or economics so much. It is not easy to more or less maintain a "cultural centrist" position (I'm admitedly a wee bit to "the left" on such criteria, since I oppose racism and encourage voluntary multiculturalism). When culture is taken too far "left" or "right", a scenario arises in which one must choose between their cultural tenets and their political or economic principles. When the cultural tenets override the political or economic principles, then the individual has created tension or cognitive dissonance within a given movement.

Culture also obviously produces tension between groups of people. This is manifested every day in politics, by a multitude of interest groups warring over what should be taught in schools, how marriage should be defined, what specific class/group of people should be privileged, and so on. In short, these things are personal preferences, and when mere whimsical preferances are superimposed into the political and economic domain, one has the choice between exercising restraint or advocating some kind of government intervention. It is very hard for people to separate their cultural views from their politics. Consequentially, they often end up using politics as a means to their cultural ends, rather then persueing their cultural ends within a voluntaristic framework.

Two people can share cultural values while differing greatly over the means they persue to cultural ends. For example, I think that racial discrimination is a horrible thing and wish to combat it, but do not support political interventions such as affirmative action laws. Many modern liberals, however, think that such means are proper, and indeed that they are the only possible means to their end. For another example, many people on the "religious right" support government patronage with and subsidization of religious institutions, but the "voluntarist" religious person opposes such measures and quite likely views them as a corruption of their religion with the poison of politics.

In many ways, politics depends entirely on culture. Career politicians try their best to appeal to people's cultural values in order to get their support. People's cultural identifications with the overall territory (territorialism), concern for the poor and disabled, particular religious creeds and concern for the state of health are exploited by political power (and many people representing such views in turn use political power for their own gain at the expense of others). In this sense culture is a poison that provides the rationales given to the masses for political power.

Definition of One's Terms

The State

A state is a territorial monopoly that possesses ultimate decision-making power, a monopoly on the use of force, over the individuals who live within that territory. It is made up of either a single absolute monarch/ruler or an oligarchy (a multitude of rulers) of some sort, a relative minority of the overall population of the given territory. Thus, a state is an institution constituted by a minority of the populution of a given territory (I.E. all states are oligarcies) that exercises a monopoly power over the use of force within that territory. It is the final arbiter of all disputes not only between its subjects, but between itself and its subjects, and therefore it is a judge in it's own case. Since it is a judge in it's own case, the state can be considered lawless, as it is not bound by any arbiter above itself and possesses the capability to exempt itself from its own rules. This is true no matter what type of state is in question.

The defining features of any state are (1) the power of taxation, that is, the organization unilaterally fixes a "price" for living within the territory, and enforces this under the threat that force will be used in some way if payment is not made (2) the placement of barriers to competition from any other institutions in the enterprise of law, security and arbitration within the territory (3) control over who is allowed to enter and exit the territory (4) enforcement of both economic and social regulations of the lives of those who are within the territory and (5) the propogation of mystical or false justifications for its power, which is usually coupled with the formation of a class of intellectual elites and the use of "bread and circuses", economic and social bait, to lure the populace into compliance.

The formation of a state is very much like how a mafia works. Every state's creation is founded on some very basic things such as the invasion and occupation of a territory, the confiscation of land property within a given territory, familial inheritance of stolen property, extortion of a community by a small band of thugs for an extended period of time and the practise of having a syndicate bait people into remaining complacent. When such a practise becomes institutional, a state has formed. States expand their power by expanding the jurisdiction of their territory and trying to control areas outside of its jurisdiction, increasing taxation and finding other methods of accrueing funds such as cartelization or control of banking, increasing the amount of people directly working for it and "buying out" and colluding with special interests within the public.

Monarchy and Tribe

An absolute monarchy is a state in which one individual possesses ultimate decision-making power over everyone within the territory. Tribal and primitive societies are localized forms of absolute monarchy. Both tribal states and European absolute monarchies share a hereditary aspect. In hereditary monarchy, membership of the state is determined by "birthright" from particular familial chains, and incest and hegemonic arranged marriages between multiple states is common due to the incentive to keep the familial ties established. The most primitive form of government stems from the family, when a particular family is given monopoly power over the given territory, and a patriarchal shaman or king is put at the top. Monarchy can be generalized as rule of the many by an extreme few, in its purest form by one person.

Non-absolute monarchy starts to form when the monarchal family begins to collude with or grant power to particular interest groups and oligarchal bodies within the territory. This means that something resembling a parliament forms, but the system continues to be a monarchy so long as the monarch is given ultimate decision-making power to the extent of putting the parlaiment in a suboordinate position. The union of church and state was one mechanism by which the monarch came into collusion with oligarchies such as the clergy. It also functioned as a mechanism to attempt to justify the power of the king, not from familial ties so much as the idea of "the divine right of the king". Economically, the increased bereaucracy of the monarchy was the result of patronage and protectionism between the king and nobles, which formed the fuedal system.

The ancestral aspect of tribal states is also religious. That is, the earliest states literally considered the ruling family to be gods. And over time, if the current ruling family were not considered gods, they were considered the ancestors of gods, and so the bloodline of the monarchs was the main justification given for state rule. As this idea too had worn threadbare in European societies, the divine right of the monarch became the main justification given for state rule. Thus, the essence of popular justification for state power in primitive societies and monarchies stems from the divine and the familial. Even when the familial becomes less relevant, the divine is commonly used to justify it. In either case, ancestor-worshop is the primary derivation of such systems.

Representative Democracy

A state starts to transform into a democracy when the role of the monarch is phased out, and the role of the oligarchy is expanded. While the state has one ruler in an absolute monarchy, and one ruler in collusion with an oligarchy in parlaimentary monarchy, in a democracy the state is made up of a multitude of rulers. Democracy does not get rid of privileged rulers. It replaces a system in which one person is at the top of the heirarchy with one in which multiple people are at the top of the heirarchy. Indeed, democracy does not get rid of heirarchy. What democracy does is allow more people to become part of the political class, and hence it actually expands special privileges.

The initial premise of democracy is that by expanding access to the governmental apparatus to everyone, wether that be through voting or through eligibility for holding political office, we will get rid of exploitation of men by men. The idea is that this will get rid of the special privileges in society, converting everyone into more or less a state of "equality under the law". This premise of democracy is practically universally accepted, especially in west. It is simply assumed that democracy is the best form of government. But these premises are wrong. In a democracy, the state itself is still constituted by a relative minority in comparison to the overall population; an oligarchy.

The introduction of the institution of voting does not make "the people" unanimously consent to the state. To begin with, many of the people in a democracy choose not to vote, and therefore have not demonstrated consent to the state. As for those who do vote, democracy forces "the people" into a hobbesian state of cultural warfare in which those who take part in the voting process are battling over how to use the state for their advantage at the expense of others. Since majority rule is the standard for voting in a democracy (and it is important to keep in many that it is almost always a numerical majority rather than an actual one) out of those who participate in the voting process, those who "win" are in effect forcing their will on the minority, those who "lose". Thus, those who "lose" cannot be said to have demonstrated consent either. Furthermore, even those voters who "win" are not directly controlling the state, they are voting for what is supposed to be representatives, and those representatives still possess the power to go against the will of even those who voted for them.

Constitutional Republic

A constitutional Republic is a type of state that, while containing certain aspects of representative democracy, relies on the existance of a "rule of law" in the form of a written constitution that is meant to limit both the power of the state and to protect the citezen from the excesses of majority rule. It is therefore more aristocratic than a more pure democracy would be. Ideally, a constitutional Republic is supposed to avoid having a monarch, while at the same time avoid having an absolute participatory democracy. The concept of a "limited state" can be considered largely synonimous with a constitutional republic.

Over time, written constitutions restrain a state less and less because they become interpreted and nullified by the state itself, since it is a judge in its own case as the courts are most likely still within the state apparatus itself. While the constitution in a Republic is supposed to be the supreme law of the territory, the state has the ability to simply not enforce it, or to either change it or interpret it as to reverse its original purpose. Furthermore, even if such a constitution were fully enforced by the state, constitutions typically contain imperfections in themselves, being written by fallible men and having vested interests create loopholes within the document from its inception.

A constitutional Republic has been transformed into a democracy or some other type of system when either the rule of the majority (numerical or not) or the state itself has produced the effect of a nullification of the constitutional document that is supposed to bind the state. Furthermore, constitutional contracts have never been signed by the entire populace as sensible common contract standards would require, but rather signed by aristocracies made up of a small band of individuals constituting or allied with the state apparatus itself. That is, no constitutional contract has ever been an actual voluntary contract with the people because the people at large have never had any choice in choosing the contract, signing it or making it. Those who are born into the system are simply assumed to have tacitly consented to the contract.

Theocracy

A theocracy is a state either constituted by or subject to religious institutions and leaders. A theocracy may be monist in form, where the administrative heirarchy of the government is identical with the administrative hierarchy of the religion, or it may have two "arms", but with the religious hierarchy dominating the state administrative hierarchy. The union of church and state in European monarchy was theocratic. The word theocracy originates from the Greek θεοκρατία (theokratia), meaning "the rule of God". This in turn derives from the Greek words θεος, meaning “god,” and κρατειν (kratein), meaning “to rule.” Thus the meaning of the word in Greek was “rule by gods" or human incarnation(s) of god(s). The most primitive theocracies were therefore primitivist and tribal societies in which the ruler was literally considered to be a god, or descended from one.

Communism

Ideologically, communism proposes that the individual must be subordinate to the collective, while as a system it makes the individual, and the masses of individuals constituting the overall populace, subordinate to the state. A communist state is a state that owns most if not the entirety of the means of production within the territory. That is, the state claims and enforces ownership over as much of the property within the territory as possible, in the name of collective ownership of property. Communism is genuinely opposed to private property and market transactions that are free from state control.

The stated purpose of the communist state is to equalize economic ends to flatten everyone out on a certain level, and for this reason the state takes control of the means of production and attempts to centrally plan the economy. In communism, production and consumption of goods and services are attempted to be essentially completely controlled by the state apparatus, leaving pretty much no room for individual choice in such matters. Typically, a communist state is ruled by one party and does not have genuine democratic voting. Ideologically, communism is ideally supposed to be a global system.

Fascism

Fascism, as a political ideology, considers the individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state. Fascism as a modern political system formed out of socialism, with the merging of socialist and conservative viewpoints around the time of the end of the 19th century and in the early 20th century. Fascism tends to embrace nationalism, more specifically national socialism, which is to mean national territorialism, which is a reinforcement of the state's monopoly of a nation-sized territory. Since nationalism is strong in fascism, fascism is opposed to communism only insofar as communism is globalist, but it also just as opposed to international capitalism.

Economically, the fascist system is more about government regulation and control of property than government ownership of property. More specifically, the main economic difference between communism and fascism is that in fascism, the state colludes with private buisiness and heavily regulates private property, while in the communist system the state attempts to absorb all property into itself and there is hardly any private property to regulate. Fascism is typically very aggressive in its foreign policy. In practise, both fascism and communism don't have too much difference between their results, but do differ somewhat in their economic content.

Imperialism

Imperialism is the forceful extension of a state's authority by territorial expansion or by the establishment of economic or political dominance over territories outside of its jurisdiction. An imperialist state is one that engages in a lot of warfare. Imperialism involves invasion and occupation of territories by states, as well as the practise of nation-building. Imperialism and an expansive and aggressive foreign policy go hand in hand. It can be represented by control of a state by another (a puppet state type of deal) or forced citezenship to the imperial state on the part of people in foreign territories. Colonialism is a peculiar form of imperialism where people from the territory of the imperial nation literally move to the occupied territory to live.

Reconciling Agnosticism

I am only an agnostic with respect to the question of creation, because I do not believe that the big bang theory entirely sufficies as an explaination for the beginning of the universe. However, on the question of the existance of god, there is clearly no evidence. The concept of dieties is entirely illogical and contradicts every known fact about physics and the property of matter.

In retrospect, agnosticism is an ambiguous position. An agnostic is like an atheist that lacks the courage of their convictions (and a centrist is like a totalitarian that lacks the courage of their convictions). Someone who is afraid of reaching a conclusion. An agnostic is someone who tries to claim that there can be no truth-statements with respect to the existance of a diety. However, there can be truth statements about it when all physical and logical evidence contradicts the claim that dieties exist.

That being said, I do reject the "radical atheist" viewpoint that anyone who is religious is inherently stupid. Ignorant perhaps, but not stupid. People who are religious are not that way because of they have lesser intelligence than people who do not. They are religious because (1) they were socially conditioned into being religious by their parents and the general culture and (2) they purposefully choose to ignore the evidence to the contrary before their own eyes.

The main flaw with agnosticism is that it easily becomes a form of radical subjectivism. Radical subjectivism as a philosophy can be very irrational because it refuses to aknowledge the extent to which reality exists independantly of what people think. While it is true that there is a degree of subjectivity with respect to what people think, objective reality still exists regaurdless - it does not bend to people's wills.

The entire principle of science is that people's ideas must change and conform in the face of evidence that contradicts those ideas. Radical subjectivism, however, defies the scientific method by implying that reality does conform to people's subjective wills. Objective reality does not function this way. If someone thinks that apples fall upwards, the laws of physics do not reverse as to make the apple fall upwards. Apples still fall downwards. Objective reality still exists, contrary to such irrational beliefs.

Why do people hold irrational beliefs? Not because they are incapable of seeing the truth. Most people are perfectly capable of seeing what is wrong with such beliefs. People hold irrational beliefs because, while they are perfectly aware of the implications of the truth, they fear the implications of the truth. People fear the consequences of the truth, especially in terms of the limits on human capability and life. As a consequence, they hold onto irrational ideas as a protective mechanism. They choose ignorance.

People should not be afraid to point out irrational ideas for what they are. Agnostics are too afraid to declare that the emperor (or diety) has no clothes. This is because the agnostic is not entirely sure wether or not the diety does have clothes. They may very well know that it does not, but their set up a methodology in which they refuse to aknowledge that they do know. While the agnostic proudly proclaims, "I do not know", they most likely actually do know and are in denial, or too afraid to offend the senses of either themselves or others.

The only way to get people to move away from mysticism and towards rationality is to make them, through peaceful arguementation (NOT violence), to reconcile the contradictions between their ideas and objective reality. Their ideas must give way to objective reality or they are choosing to be ignorant. The route of blind, indiscriminate tolerance of all irrational ideas cannot decrease the net amount of irrationality. To the contrary, it only encourages it. This is not to say that people who hold irrational ideas should be persecuted in any way. It does mean, however, that we should not be afraid to employ powerful arguementation to refute their irrationalities.

Muslims are not your enemy...

Videocast by Stephan Molyneux

Don't Be Fooled by Propaganda

by Charley Reese

There is an ongoing slander campaign against Islam, claiming that it is a religion that promotes violence and hinting that it seeks world conquest.

Before you buy the malarkey that is being produced by people with their own agendas or prejudices or who are just plain ignoramuses, follow these few suggestions:

Compare the history of Islam with the history of Europe, which for centuries was called Christendom. An objective look will show you that Christendom wins by a landslide when it comes to violence and wars. After all, Europe and its offspring did not come to dominate the world, including the Islamic countries, because they practiced the gentle virtues of Jesus.

As for the common practice of cherry-picking Scripture from holy writings and presenting it out of context, just check out what Christians call the Old Testament. There you will find God advocating a double standard of morality, condoning slavery, ordering the Israelites to commit genocide and committing infanticide himself on a mass scale. I don't believe you will find anything comparable in the Quran.

The word "jihad," which is so over-used these days, has, like a lot of words, more than one meaning. It means basically to struggle, but this can be personal or spiritual, or a peaceful political struggle. Only if Islam is attacked are Muslims required to defend it. As for that obnoxious propaganda term "Islamo-fascist," just recall that fascism is a European invention by nominal Christians. To my knowledge, the only fascist governments ever to exist on this planet were all European and nominally Christian.

Another canard is that Islam promotes forced conversion. Not so. Even when the Arab empire was expanding, rarely were any of the conquered people forced to convert. The Quran even forbids it, as I recall. Naturally, once Muslims were in charge, a lot of people decided it was in their own self-interest to convert, but this is just one of the sleazy aspects of human nature.

I remember when Florida elected its first Republican governor of the 20th century. I saw plenty of people crawl out from under their rocks and convert to the Republican Party, drawn by the smell of patronage. With some rare exceptions, human beings always act in what they perceive, rightly or wrongly, to be in their self-interest.

It was Christian Europe that slaughtered the Jews, and nothing remotely resembling the Holocaust is to be found in the history of Islam. In fact, during the past, when Jews were being persecuted by Christian Europe, they frequently fled to and found sanctuary in the Muslim countries. Until Israel was established, practically every Muslim country had sizable Jewish populations dating back centuries. And there are still Jews and Christians in some Muslim countries.

A final suggestion is that when you hear some individual radical Muslim being quoted, just remember he is one of a billion people and speaks only for himself and his small following. And be wary of the quotations he uses, for they are often deliberately fabricated or distorted.

If Muslims really desired to conquer the world, don't you think it's strange that we've been living in peace with them for nearly a millennium and a half, except for those times when we attacked them (the Crusades, the European colonial movement and our invasion of Iraq)? Don't forget either that some of the countries the Bush administration calls allies are themselves Muslim – Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc.

You have nothing to fear from Islam. The al-Qaida movement is a tiny percentage of Muslims and wouldn't be the force it is except for the fact that the Bush administration has gone out of its way to make all of Osama bin Laden's propaganda become true.

Democracy and Islam: Are they compatable?

The short answer:
hat question has been asked in more papers and books than I care to think about. MOST authors and scholars would say no, not with American style "democracy" anyways...

We have three main forces at work:

1. Liberalization (or westernization)
2. Islamic civilization
3. Democratic institutions

As far as I can tell with the fight between the global markets of the west and Islam effectually cut the legs out from under democratic institutions. The level of dialectic interaction between the forces of westernization and Islamic society have been inadvertently tyrannical. That relationship has been ranging from invisibly constraining consumerism to an all too palpable barbarism. Islamic society views the westernization as surrendering there judgment and abjure common willing, leaving public goods to private interests and subordination communities and their goods to individuals and their interests.

Islam has shown itself to be politically willing to make democracy an exercise of exclusion and resentment. Look at Iraq if you want a illustration. Even though it promotes community, it is usually at the expense of tolerance and mutuality and hence creates a world in which belonging is more important then empowerment and collective ends posted by charismatic leaders that the place of common grounds produced by democratic deliberation. Islam seems to be a culture of self-determination but its fatal flaw is it severs collective independence from the active liberty of individual citizens.

However, what we need to be most weary of in the Middle East conundrum is carefully crafting an image of democracy that does not decry of “exploitation. ” It was John Pocock who asked “whether the subordination of the sovereign community of citizens to the international operations of post-industrial market forces would create a disaster to a fledging democracy.” The answer is yes. Which is the situation in Iraq right now.

Most in Islamic society will not see the difference between totalitarian collectivism and Democratic search for common goods will want to dispute quasi-capitalist dogma. I think that attitude is based on historical interactions with the west.

As far as I can tell, we either have radical collectivism (islam) or radical individualism (westernization). Democracy will not survive either extremes.

Have Christians Become Dupes?

Chuck Baldwin on government corruption of religion.

Environmentalism as Religion

by John M. Ostrowski

"What harm is there in saying, Lord Cæsar, and in sacrificing, with the other ceremonies observed on such occasions, and so make sure of safety?"

~ from The Martyrdom of Polycarp

A Roman imperial official posed the above question to St. Polycarp in 155 A.D. All Polycarp had to do was swear on the emperor’s Genius – his personal guardian spirit in Roman mythology – perform some sacrifices for Caesar, participate in the necessary social events, and thus have his life spared. But Polycarp did not do this and for that we remember him as one of the great Christian martyrs.

Roman religion was a deeply engrained part of Roman life – it was difficult for a Christian to stay completely true to their chosen faith without appearing at least a tad bit anti-social. Sometimes, when social isolation and the threat to stability in Roman cities grew too great, Christians were killed. Not very often, but every now and again.

We live in the 21st century now. We don’t persecute people because of their religion, no matter how socially awkward it makes them. Right?

Roman mythology and imperial cults have been left behind, but they have been replaced by a new religious mythology. It has begun to ingratiate itself into every aspect of American life, so that simple social activities demand adherence to the new ideology. The prime deity is none other than the Earth, or Mother Earth as adherents to the new religion call it. Adherents treat threats to their deity – quixotic as they may be – with ultimate seriousness. And the prime threat to Mother Gaia is anthropogenic climate change. This, of course, is just the most recent threat to occupy the majority of the environmentalists’ (a name they happily ascribe themselves) ire. In the past it has been such things as overpopulation, deforestation, man-made global cooling, nuclear power, etc. As with any religion, there is a church – the means through which religious goals are effected. That church is the modern state, for no "sensible" country on this planet denies that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. Dissenters from the Kyoto Treaty are treated as churches in heresy – anomalies that must be re-converted to the faith.

If it seems absurd that environmentalism is a religion that has inculcated itself into much of everyday life in America – nay – the developed world, then chances are you are ignoring the reality around you.

"What harm is there in … sacrificing … [to] make sure of safety?" asked the Roman imperial official. Environmentalists demand sacrifices of people each and every day. Recycling is an activity subsidized by many levels of the government. Most people – and this is evidence of the pernicious degree to which environmentalism has ingratiated itself into the minds of most people – think this is a good thing. Is it? The promise is that recycling saves money and energy by turning waste into usable products. If this were actually the case, there would be no need for subsidization, and the act of recycling wouldn’t even be sacrificial. Waste management companies would see the economic incentive in collecting trash and turning into a product that people will buy. Instead, government needs to subsidize recycling programs in order to keep them running, meaning recycling is not an efficient use of energy and resources. As a simple example, it is often better for the environment and for our pocketbooks to simply produce new paper than recycle waste paper. American citizens have to pay for this government indulgence via higher taxes and wasted time spent sorting and recycling their own waste.

This sacrifice has been beaten into the heads of American citizens by environmentalists and their state supporters so much that it has become a daily routine for most. Now, environmentalists are demanding more sacrifice. Carbon dioxide is the cause of the recent global warming, they claim, and thus we humans must cut back on our contribution of carbon dioxide. This means that environmentalists are demanding that we drive less, use less oil, and find ways to go about our daily business that use less energy than normal. For many people, this is a hassle. Environmentalists will counter that one need not make drastic changes in lifestyle to make a difference. The Internet is littered with lists of simple ways to help reduce global warming. To anyone willing to crunch the numbers, it is evident that small changes will not result in a significant decrease in carbon dioxide emissions. Only huge changes in lifestyle will result in a huge decrease in human carbon dioxide emissions.

It should not surprise us that environmentalists demand sacrifices, for any religion demands sacrifices. And like other religions, environmentalism is a human-centered one. Yes, in its purest form, it is Earth worship; its reverence is directed at something decidedly non-human. However, the beliefs and tenets of the faith concern humans and their role in natural history. Inevitably, in the modern world, this role is an antagonistic one for the environmentalists. Humans are the problem, and the solution will demand some bane to human beings. It is this simple fact that has led Peter Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace and a man who has become disaffected with the environmental zealots, to call environmentalists "anti-human."

Whereas most religions seek the betterment of humanity, environmentalism is unique in that it seeks the opposite. The sacrifices that it demands be made will result in severe harm for those who need help the most. In the developing world, environmentalists see an excellent area for proselytization and a place to implement their policies – for existing infrastructure is hard to change, but poor countries provide environmentalists with a tabula rasa. They preach the need for solar and wind power in the developing world. These two forms of energy, however, are not reliable or powerful enough for a world that is looking to industrialize. Imagine, for example, a modern factory of any type running completely on solar or wind power. Difficult to imagine? Of course. If the environmentalist vision of the developing world is allowed to take root, billions of people who can benefit greatly from industrialization will be condemned to poverty for the rest of their life. It’s sad that rich, Western environmentalists are so quick to demand this sacrifice of others. That the people they demand it of are the ones who will be harmed the most by it is downright reprehensible.

Finally, like many religions, there is a strong emphasis in environmentalism on the end of the world. Fear mongering and predictions of the apocalypse are the primary evangelizing tools of environmentalists. In the past we’ve endured warnings about overpopulation, nuclear holocausts, and now a global climate disaster. And like the apocalyptic predictions of other religions, those of environmentalism have never come to pass. But luckily for them, people have a short memory, and fear is a powerful persuasive tool. By the time it is clear that anthropogenic climate chance not only won’t cause the end of the world but also isn’t even happening, no one will remember the hyperbolic claims made by environmental zealots. Instead, we will be entertaining their latest apocalyptic fantasy.

It should be clear, now, that environmentalism constitutes a religion in every sense of the word. The fact that environmentalism is a religion does not bother me. If progressives (who constitute most of the movement) find their lives empty of meaning absent a real religion and thus decide to channel energy into Earth-worship and all that it entails, that is their business. When they try to use the violently coercive powers of the state in their favor, it is fitting that reasonable people challenge the basis for their beliefs.

In the case of environmentalists, it is fairly easy to show that their beliefs are informed by faulty logic and are perpetuated by out-and-out zealots. The claim of environmentalists is that carbon dioxide is causing us to experience unprecedented warming. Unfortunately, every element of this assertion is patently false. First, the warming humans are experiencing right now is not unprecedented. During the Medieval Warming Period, which occurred between 800 and 1300 A.D., temperatures were higher than they are today. More importantly, the fundamental assumption of environmentalists concerning global warming – that carbon dioxide causes warming – is false. If one examines the timeline that Al Gore used in his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, which showed the impressive correlation between carbon dioxide levels and global temperature, one encounters a telling fact. Changes in global temperature precede changes in carbon dioxide levels by about 800 years. Carbon dioxide cannot be the cause if it follows what it is presumed to affect. Why does this phenomenon happen? When global temperatures rise, the seas get hotter, and carbon dioxide dissolved in the water starts to escape (gasses are dissolved more easily in liquids at lower temperatures). Because of the vastness of the oceans, it takes hundreds of years for ocean temperatures to rise. And finally, even if one does accept the environmentalist belief in carbon dioxide as the causal variable, one still has to deal with the fact that humans are responsible for a very small percentage of total carbon dioxide emissions. Volcanoes, animal flatulence, and rotting vegetation all contribute heavily to the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Humans currently account for about four percent of total carbon dioxide emissions, and carbon dioxide makes up about 0.038% of the atmosphere. Our effect on Earth’s climate is extremely minimal at best. All this evidence against global warming, plus more, is documented very well in the recent British documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle."

Thus far, despite the apparent falseness of their beliefs, environmentalists have been extremely successful in achieving their goals. They have convinced the American people to sacrifice at the altar of Mother Gaia, and they have turned the already ignoble state into an even uglier beast – their church, the effecter of their religious goals. If allowed to continue, they will destroy the American economy and doom billions of people in developing countries to perpetual poverty. Secularists are quick to call for a wall of separation between church and state. It is time that environmentalism be held to the same standard.

No Muslim Peril

No Muslim Peril
by Charley Reese

Let's suppose that I interviewed David Duke, the Louisiana politician who rails against what he calls Jewish supremacy, and also interviewed the lunatic preacher who disrupted the funerals of American servicemen with his message of killing all the gays.

And let's suppose I presented these men's views as typical of American Christian thought.
You'd say, and rightly so, that these men are not representative of mainstream Christianity, much less mainstream America. Well, the same thing applies to Islam. There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. Broadcasting or reporting the words of a few extremists does not reflect mainstream Muslim thought.

Yellow journalism is never all right, but as long as it's confined to celebrities and other nonimportant matters, it is at least not too harmful. But yellow journalism applied to national security and to foreign affairs should be considered unacceptable.

A number of irresponsible journalists and broadcasters, egged on by the crazy neocons, are trying to duplicate the mass fear of foreigners that characterized earlier times in America when demagogues spoke of the "yellow peril." Now demagogues speak of the "jihadi peril." And, as was inevitable, the demagoguery slips away from Muslim extremists and talks about Muslims and Islam as if there were no difference.

Yes, there are some Muslim extremists, just as there are some Christian extremists, Hindu extremists, Jewish extremists and so forth. Extremism is a personality disorder not confined to any one religion or political system. Anyone can become infected with it.

Islam has been around for more than 1,300 years. The overwhelming majority of Muslims are peaceful people, just like you and I, and they are not plotting to storm the citadels of the West. Muslim countries are full of universities, professors, poets, novelists, scientists and engineers. It was the Muslims who preserved the wisdom of the classical world and passed it on to the Europeans, thus making the Renaissance possible.

And there have been American Muslims since at least the late 1800s. Most of them so assimilated into American society that no one noticed them. They are as patriotic as any other American.

Most of the conflict in the Middle East – at least until we stirred the caldron in Iraq – is about secular matters, not religion. Hamas and Islamic Jihad oppose Israeli occupation of Palestine. Hezbollah opposes Israeli occupation of Lebanon. Even Osama bin Laden, if you bother to read what he says, opposes us on secular matters – support for Israel, the invasion of two Muslim countries and our massive military presence in the Persian Gulf.

The neocons would like to convince you that it is a war over religious matters so they won't have to address the real causes, which are our own bad policies in that part of the world.

You should know that the wealthy powers in this world wouldn't waste a dime on a religious conflict. It's control of the world's oil that interests them, and also the arms business. War to them is a profitable enterprise, especially since they and their children don't have to fight the wars.

These elite almost panicked when communism collapsed. How could they maintain power and make money without an enemy at the gate? Then bin Laden gave them exactly what they wanted with the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Now they have an enemy so ill-defined, their "war on terror" can go on forever, provided they can keep the American public ignorant and ill-informed.

The Troubling Worldview of the "Rapture-Ready" Christian

The Troubling Worldview of the 'Rapture-Ready' Christian
by Bill Barnwell

When the subject of the "end-times" comes up, many Christians and non-Christians don’t want to talk about it. Some Christians, annoyed with all the competing theories and terminology just say, "What difference does it make? Jesus is coming back and I just need to be ready." Non-Christians just assume that since Christianity isn’t true, then the whole issue doesn’t matter. Well, actually, it does matter. I will submit that the popular doctrines of the Left Behind series pose very real threats not only to Christianity, but also to the wider culture.

Probably most conservative Protestants (though not all of us) believe that humanity is certainly in the final generation of life on earth as we currently know it. Not that we "could be," but that "we must be." That’s a big distinction. They believe this because of their views on a couple key Biblical texts. The first is the Olivet Discourse. This discourse by Jesus about the "end of the age" can be found in Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21. Dispensationalists – a group that believes God has two separate prophetic programs for Israel and the Church and generally believes that Christians will be removed from the earth before a final tribulation – see all of the events or signs spoken of by Jesus as referring to events that are happening now or going to happen very soon. Never mind that Jesus was first and foremost referring to events that would occur within his own disciples’ lifetime (Matthew 24:34). They believe that nothing past chapter 3 in the book of Revelation has occurred yet. It is all in the future, and all relates to the tribulation period, which true Christians will avoid.

Another key text is Daniel 9:27. It is from this verse alone that we get the idea of a "seven-year tribulation" during the end times. But the New Testament says nothing about a seven-year tribulation. The book of Revelation refers to a 3.5–year period – five different times. They are most likely referring to the same time period. Dispensationalists believe by prophetic necessity a number of things. First, they assume that the world must get worse in just about all ways. Second, they assume that Daniel 9:27 calls for the rebuilding of a Third Jewish Temple at the site of the Dome of the Rock. Therefore, prophetic necessity demands that the current Islamic al-Aqsa mosque must be torn down to build this new Jewish Temple. Halfway through the tribulation period, the antichrist will come and exalt himself in the new Jewish Temple, stop sacrifices in the Temple, break a peace treaty he had earlier made with Israel, and proclaim himself to be God. They get all this from cutting and pasting Daniel 9:27, Matthew 24:15, 2 Thessalonians 2:4 together and then associating those passages with everything that will be going on in Revelation 4–19.

There are all sorts of problems with these interpretations. First of all, the New Testament says nothing about a "pretribulational rapture." To see how bankrupt that position is, read my offering on the subject here. The evidence for a "pre-trib" rapture is not just weak, it is non-existent. Regarding the key verse of Daniel 9:27, see my refutation of the dispensationalist position here. Read those, especially if you are a dispensationalist who already presupposes that I’m wrong.

Once you begin thinking of the implications involved, you begin to see why this doctrine is so dangerous to everybody. Dispensationalists seem to have a preoccupation with war. In fact, right now, dispensationalist mega-church pastor John Hagee is preaching that a war with Iran is not only the right thing to do, but is prophetically inevitable. Apparently, Bible prophecy demands a showdown with Iran. You see, if you aren’t on the side of war, then you aren’t on the side of God. Talk of peace now becomes irrelevant. It’s God’s will that we be militarists. In fairness, not all dispensationalists are militarists. Our own Laurence Vance is an example. But they are in a definite minority. The prevailing worldview of dispensationalism glorifies war, militarism, and the State.

The dispensationalist view of Daniel 9:27 provides some troubling implications as well. They don’t care that tearing down the al-Aqsa mosque would result in a regional war and cause all sorts of global distress. This would not be a bad thing in their minds. They believe that it was all foreordained and is a sign that the end of the world would be soon upon us.

Also, if you buy into these interpretations, talks of peace in the Middle East are futile. Jews and Muslims must continue killing each other at high rates. And who will be the one bringing peace to the Middle East in this popular end-time paradigm? Not Jesus, but the Antichrist. Therefore, talk of Middle East peace during this current "dispensation" is not from Jesus, but the Antichrist. When dispensationalists hear talk of peace summits or treaties in the Middle East, they assume it must have evil origins and be antichristic. If that’s the cause, why bother trying to make the world a better place? All we need to do is be good Christians and wait for our ticket out of this earth and make way for the Antichrist.

Dispensationalists are numerous and popular. Well-connected preachers like Hagee have political connections. Dispensational preachers and lobbyists have the ear of the White House and are directly trying to influence foreign policy based on their very questionable theological views, which, by the way, are less than 200 years old. This is more than just a quirky theology that doesn’t affect those who do not hold it. Dispensationalists want to bring about world events that would have catastrophic implications for other Christians and for non-Christians.

If they are correct, why should any of us bother trying to make the world a better place? Dispensationalists get very annoyed at this question. They say, "Final peace on earth will only come through Christ!" They basically insist Christians trying to do good in the world should only focus on "spiritual things." Trying to change social institutions for the better is futile and presumptuous. Apparently the only two options are handing the world over to Satan or believing that humans can do everything in their own strength. Not much room for nuance here.

Ironically, many dispensationalists are involved in the Religious Right movement and want to stem abortions, ban gay marriage and make America more Christian. But at the same time they believe in a theology that says the world can only get worse, that there’s nothing any of us can do about it, and that it’s about to get so bad Christians are going to be taken off of the earth. If the ship is irreversibly sinking, why try and patch up the leaks?

If you need more proof that many dispensationalists hold troubling worldviews, just take a visit over to the Rapture Ready message board. The main site is one of the bigger dispensationalist/pretribulational sites on the web. You can read for yourselves how they view the world, how they can’t wait to escape it, and their obsession with war.

One angry pre-tribber wrote me a few weeks back. He had this to say:

When the RAPTURE of the CHURCH takes place, and mark my words it will, maybe them you will see the light! After you have been left behind you are going to look back on all the people that you deceived, who will probably be in your face at that time, and hopefully repent of the false gospel that you were teaching! It's not to late to be saved during the 7 year tribulation period but it will be harder when you hear that Christians, who become Christians after the Rapture of the Church, are being beheaded for the witness of Jesus! Hopefully you and those who partake of your beliefs will see the light before Christ comes for the Church!

Notice in his mind I’m not even a real Christian. The reason? Because I happen to have a different position than he does on the issue of the "rapture." I’ll also apparently be too much of a coward to "convert" during the "7 year tribulation" because other people who become Christians after the pre-tribulational rapture are being beheaded. Ever notice with people who so strongly believe this doctrine that they assume everyone who will be "left behind" is going to be absolutely clueless? Maybe I too will just assume aliens came and abducted the "true Christians." Apparently I’d be too scared to be beheaded, even though I’d find myself instantly in heaven along with all the real Christians who were taken up in the rapture.

Finally notice the great confidence of this guy. He is so convinced of his position that only an idiot or heretic would disagree. Well, I challenge people like this, and the crew over at Rapture Ready to actually put their interpretations up against the Scriptures and think about the logic and implications of their beliefs.

The logic and implications are clear. Society is going to hades in a handbasket. There’s little we can do to stem the tide of evil. The Middle East must further deteriorate. Anyone who disagrees with Israel’s foreign policy is opposing God. The third most important site to Muslims must be crushed to make way for a new Jewish Temple. Good Christians should support the building of a new temple with new animal sacrifices taking place inside of it (compare Hebrews 10 to the theology of Darby and Hal Lindsey). And in a strange sense, war is kinda good and peace is kinda bad – since war is a sign that the end is near and peace on earth is a sign of the Antichrist. Any Christian who doesn’t agree with all this is deceived at best and a heretic at worst.

When you understand that millions of Christians believe this way, and that some of them are actually fairly influential on the political scene, you begin to see why this theology needs to be refuted. By refuting it, dispensationalists think you’re trying to refute God. I would argue that you’re being more faithful to God and the very Scriptures themselves. This is not just an in-house debate that only affects myself and other Christians. Dispensationalists have a vision for the world and it is bad news for everybody. Therefore, it would do you all good to spend some time in the Bible and see what exactly the Scriptures have to say on this subject.

Enough With the Jewish Conspiracy Theories

by Bill Barnwell

Every so often, I have the privilege of being bombarded with emails from people who believe that Jews are responsible for everything from 9/11 to slow restaurant service. In the strange little world of these guys, Jews are to blame for every evil under the sun. Also if you don’t have the "courage" to admit it, then you are a "coward," "fool," "Jew-lover," or worse. Well count me among the dissenters who believe that this group is full of it.

Yes, that’s right. I’m a fool for not believing that 9/11 was a staged event planned by the U.S. and Israel. I’m also a fool for not believing that these characters are heroic truth seekers for buying into all sorts of paranoid delusional nonsense with no real evidence to back it up. I hardly see how such people are either heroic or a help in the cause for liberty.

Let’s take 9/11 and events that followed for an example. There is a difference in saying that the U.S. government spun the aftermath of 9/11 to win public support for its war on Iraq and that the government caused 9/11 just so it could attack various Middle Eastern countries to do Israel’s bidding. There is a difference between saying Israel was happy about, or supported our invasion of Iraq, and saying that Israel forced or caused these events to happen through their omnipotent influence. The problem with conspiracy theorists of all stripes, especially from the racist branch, is that they wildly blow things out of proportion and read events into the past and present without much support for their positions. There’s no nuance of thought. It’s always the worst-case scenario and "the Jews" are always cast in the worst possible light.

This most recent wave of attacks from those who believe that Jews are hiding under their beds each night came as a result from my most recent column on the Bush/McCain policy of escalation in Iraq. This particular column didn’t attract a ton of attention until one particular nutty talk show host – who believes in paranormal activity and takes seriously every conspiracy theory involving Jews – linked to the piece on his site. As a result, I received many emails from his readers informing me that the real problem wasn’t Bush or McCain. The real problem is – you got it – the Jews!

I’ve noticed that people who suffer from paranoid hatred of any particular racial or ethnic group are able to work their targets into any conversation and blame them for any problem. If you were to actually read the above-cited column, it had nothing to do with Jews or Israel. But these people sincerely believe, however, that when you get down to it, the root of the problem is really the Jews. That’s whether we are talking about an Iraq escalation or anything else they don’t like. While this group claims to be lovers of liberty and further claims to oppose the War Party, I have a feeling that they would have no problem with the idea of waging war on Israel and/or imposing anti-freedom measures upon Jews in America and around the world.

The problem with plenty of such racists (and yes, the term "racist" – while one of the most misused and overused words in political and cultural debate – perfectly fits this crowd) is that they are only selective in their views of liberty and freedom. Because they are sincerely convinced that "the Jews" really do "cause all the wars in the world" (my email box indicates that the drunken Mel Gibson is not the only person who believes this) many of them feel justified in urging the most anti-freedom attitudes and beliefs towards Israel and Jewish folks. These guys rightfully deplore racist statements towards whites, Arabs, and others, but they have no problem changing their tune when it comes to Jews. As such, it makes little sense for libertarians to take these people seriously.

Another problem is that some of the wilder conspiracy theories, particularly those that are obsessed with Jews, is that they completely dumb down the wider debate. Conspiracy theorists on a whole are not real keen on nuance. They can’t distinguish between "the government might not be telling us everything about 9/11" and "the government caused 9/11." For those who are obsessed with Jews, they would qualify that last statement with "the government caused 9/11 by colluding with Jews and their Zionist supporters." Or better yet, "Jews caused 9/11." For the conspiracy crowd, if there are some inconsistencies they immediately jump to the worst and most wild conclusions, regardless of whether or not the evidence supports their cause.

Now I know my audience, and I know that last sentence has just ticked off a lot of people who might be reading this. You’re now going to be tempted to fire off an angry email denouncing my ignorance of the government’s almighty strength and/or the all-powerful influence of the Jews. You’re going to send me links to websites proving "the truth" about 9/11 or links showing "the truth" about "the Zionist agenda." Well, I’ll do you guys a favor. I call on every LRC reader who is actually interested to do a web search and read the garbage out there "proving" the government blew up the Pentagon and/or that Jews have their hands in everything. Then make up your own minds. If you were able to recognize the reference to the paranormal talk show host who blames most things on Israel, go read his stuff too. Then you can decide for yourself if the whole rest of the world has it wrong and some guy who believes in space aliens and his gullible followers has it right.

There is, of course, an opposite end to this silliness. Plenty believe that one cannot legitimately critique the Israeli government in any way, shape, or form, without being "anti-Semitic." Millions of Christians support a variant of "Christian Zionism" (a term they themselves use) because they believe that the "end-times" will focus around the modern nation of Israel. They further believe in tearing down the Al-Aqsa mosque at the Temple Mount and rebuilding an Old Testament style Jewish temple for renewed Mosaic sacrifices. Thus, many in the dispensational crowd of Christianity condemn Arabs outright and believe that Israelis can do little wrong.

These points of view are dangerous in many respects, but at the very least these types of folks are infinitely more pleasant than those who sincerely believe that Jews are the root of all evil.

Unfortunately, I have to hear it from both sides. As an Arab, I constantly have to listen to bizarre claptrap from some family members about how bad the Jews are. As I writer, I hear it all the time from the conspiracy crowd. In such cases, I am proud to defend the Jewish people against these kinds of nutty attacks. However, as a Christian, I am always hearing from fellow Christians how I don’t support Israel enough. I also hear from this group that I don’t really know or believe the Bible since I do not teach or adhere to the very bad theology of pretribulationalism and dispensationalism.

Are we really that simple of thinkers? Is the choice really between being a politically correct (and/or dispensational) cheerleader of modern Israel or the even worse choice of being a conspiracy theory believing nut who blames Jews for all problems in the world?

As for the second group of Jew-haters, I really don’t want much to do with them. Taking them or their baseless ideas seriously does absolutely nothing for the cause of freedom. In fact, it detracts from it. I also have no problem with this group wanting nothing more to do with me. I highly welcome such an outcome. As for the rest of you, go ahead and read their stuff if you want, use your brain, and ask yourself who really has a hold on truth and reality.

Man, those mind controls from the Jews really must have their hold on me. Yeah…right.

A Exploratory Look at Religiousity in the 2000 and 2004 Elections

In recent times we have seen a new reemergence of conservative fundamentalism expressed at the polls. Christianity in the United States has had long and combative history especially the Protestant-Evangelical denominations. Although the message has never been overly political or economic, there has been a shift towards a more paternalistic and politicized religious movement using party politics as a universalizing method of legislating “morality”. One particular aspect of this change is the introduction of radical Protestantism into mainstream culture. Unlike the United States, other western democracies’ elected officials do not share the direct belief in Revelations or the apocalypse if you will. Nor do they acknowledge there faith in public policy making. As matter of fact, religion has fallen out of the public arena in Europe and other democratic neighbors as a tool of statecraft. “No other contemporary Western nation shares this religious intensity and its concomitants proclamation that Americans are God’s chosen people and nation” (Philips, 2006 pg.4). The question then becomes what overall effect does religiosity have on an individual’s choice of candidate or party in the United States?

When exploring a topic like religion and voter behavior together, the deep polarizations between liberal and conservative become immediately apparent. Since the division goes deeper than just the parties –Democrats and Republicans- themselves it becomes a virtual phenomenon that has taken on a life of its own embodied in the “red v blue” state conflict. The polarizations that divide this country’s electorate are far more complicated than just simply whether the individual is religious. There are many other contributing factors to this divide, keeping in mind that the deep division in ideology can not be explained by a single problem or trend in the general population. Clearly there are many secondary factors involved in the voter’s method of choice for candidate or party.

Part 1: It’s an Evangelicals world:

Recent presidential elections have drawn attention to the role religion plays in shaping how Americans vote. The election also highlighted the political significance of Evangelical Conservatives, as a considerable influence and a base of support. Evangelicals see themselves in a kind tension with secular society, which affects their political behavior and choices deeply. Conservative Evangelicals say what makes them different from other denominations is there desire to govern themselves under the direct and absolute belief in the bible- its verse and commandments. They also use non-religious sources to bolster there views which makes it difficult to explain them away as simply zealots. “They also seek to gain more influence in the principle U.S. culture, especially through the media which they perceive as dominated by secular liberals” (Giroux, 2005). Thus what makes them Evangelical, there desire to proselytize and spread there values. This makes them an especially potent force in helping shape their chosen party’s or candidate’s platform.

Church leaders generally appeals to these people in there congregations, convincing them that a particular candidate or party will bring traditional American values back to replace what they see as a destructive secular tidal wave. Not only do the leaders of these churches offer the return to “traditional values.” Perhaps more importantly, they offer answers to difficult questions, and comradely with likeminded people in the face of a changing and increasingly uncertain world.

“In the early 1990s an uncertain alliance between Evangelicals and Catholics resulted in a series of joint declarations. There was an original declaration, Evangelicals and Catholics Together, sometimes known by its initials, ECT, and a series of subsequent statements on justification, on the Bible, and on the communion of saints. Prepared by a group of roughly fifteen Catholics and Evangelicals, it was signed by an additional twenty prominent members of the faith” (Lauritzen, 2006). After looking at the ECT document, it seemed a somewhat historical alliance due to the deep resentment that has existed between Catholic and Protestant sects in the United States since its founding. The articles belay “… a strongly dualistic and apocalyptic vision of human existence as a struggle between good and evil, a zealous commitment to missionary work and proselytization, an unapologetic commitment to an unfettered market economy, a conviction that American democracy is the last best hope in the fight against the Evil One, and a belief that secular humanists are the agents of Satan and threaten the very existence of democracy. All of this is tied together by a fierce opposition to abortion as illustrative of everything that is wrong with contemporary culture” (Laurtizen, 2006). With abortion acting as a cement there is consensus among the two denominations that have been practically at war with each other since there emergence. It is the idea of “us against them” that has been used recently by traditional conservative and neoconservative politicians, and is a synonymous part of Evangelical religious rhetoric which illustrates there point of view. It is this thinking in absolutes that good v evil, which is the driving force of our foreign policy: The Bush doctrine.

It is generally stereotyped that all Evangelicals are allied with the GOP. This is not completely accurate. Although it may seem like difficult to believe, there are a great many divides inside both respective parties regarding religiosity. There are a relative number of Evangelicals that fall under the heading of Democratic Party and Independent. “Conservative Democrats are quite religious, socially conservative and take more moderate positions on several key foreign policy questions. The group is older, and includes many blacks and Hispanics; of all the core Democratic groups, it has strongest sense of personal empowerment (Pew Research Center, 2005 pt: 5).” According to a poll done by Pew Research Center (2005) 44% of Conservative Democrats call themselves “deeply devoted to there faith” They also show 55% saying they regularly attend services/bible studies. They show traditional Liberals at 14% on devotion. Only 5% attend service regularly . “Secular individual’s ,those who say they are agnostic, atheist, or say they have no religious affiliation are a significant portion only of Liberals: 22%” (Pew Research Center, 2005 Pt: 6). This creates deep divides with in the Democratic Party.

This divide also exists in the GOP but in a different configuration. For example, Republicans generally agree on social issues, the percentages being very close and hanging at about 50%-55% on homosexuality and belief in a God or a Supreme Being . “Despite differing degrees of religious intensity among core Republican groups, there is little evidence that the current slate of moral and values-oriented issues threatens to divide the Republican electoral base in any significant way” (Pew Research Center, 2005 Pt: 4). Basically, religious intensity and social issues seems to be far more divided on the left than the right.

Part 2: Victory in the 2000 and 2004 elections:

“George Bush won eight out of ten "values voters" in the last election, and the identification of the Republican leadership with the “religious right” has tightened during the struggles over euthanasia and gay marriage” (Green, John C., Corwin T. Smidt, James E. Guth, & Lyman A. Kellstedt, 2004). Using issues like these the conservative coalition and moral majority have been extremely successful at mobilizing their populations at the grassroots. “According to exit polls taken in the Midwest, over 59% of Protestants voted Bush where only 38% cast there vote for Gore in the 2000 election” (Edison Media Research, 2004). When respondents were asked wither the country was on the right or wrong track-morally, over 70% of respondents answered the country was on the wrong track. Almost all of them were Bush voters (Green, John & Smidt, 2004). This seems to show that many people- those of the moral majority- were unhappy with the Clinton legacy and felt Gore was just a continuation of what they saw unacceptable and immoral behavior on the part of one who holds the highest office in the land. During the election in 2000, the most important issue Bush voters cited were “moral issues.” “Two-thirds of voters who attend religious services regularly (once a week or more) backed President Bush rather than Senator Kerry - and they make up 40% of the electorate” (Green, John & Smidt, 2004). The ability of the Republican Party to mobilize its religious base proved to be the decisive factor in what was one of the closest elections in United States history. The aptitude of the Religious organizations, especially conservative Evangelicals have been successful at providing a number of benefits like encouraging members to register to vote, distribute propaganda for there chosen candidate, and publicly presenting political issues in a church setting.

Therefore one can assume that mobilization will spike under single issues like homosexual marriage or abortion. This is the divide where religiosity becomes a key factor in the individual voter’s decision of party or candidate. In theory, many scholars have said that when a group or individual voter becomes connected to a particular party, candidate, or single issue in agreement with their religious identity, that relation is likely to advance and influence the policy positions that party has chosen to adopt. Since those positions are allied with the values of the individual voter’s religious identity. As a result religion has a profound influence on party affiliation and voting tendency of individuals, although the change has been occurring slightly over time. This has led some to believe that “religious affiliation with politics is greater than any correlation between race, gender, or class” (Brooks, Clem & Jeff Manza, 1997). However, historically speaking, “it is […] a rare event for a specific religious group to move decisively toward or away from support for a major party’s presidential candidates” (Brooks, Clem & Jeff Manza, 1997). Much of the research has shown that this is not a systemic trend but rather heavy dependent on single issues that are most salient with the respondents polled. This “alliance” with a political party is a recent on-going trend, but permanent alliance has been rather inconclusive (there is not enough empirical evidence yet). Still, this connection seems to be strongest when tapped by a single provocative issue. For example, homosexual marriage and abortion mentioned above, were the most salient issues for white Evangelical Protestants in the 2004 presidential campaign. “Foreign policy and economic priorities were far more important to the overall vote than social issues, such as abortion or same-sex marriage. However, social issue priorities were most important to Bush’s religious constituencies” (Green & Smidt, 2004). The poll showed that those that voted for Kerry thought that economics were the most important. This shows some very fundamental differences in the two constituencies between religious conservatives and liberals.

It is important to not generalize because there were significant divisions in the Protestant denominations in both elections. In 2004, John C. Green in conjunction with the Pew Research Center did a post election poll quantifying and grouping different divisions in the religious landscape. The overall Evangelical vote was 78% for Bush and only 22% for Kerry which shows he captured a nearly a quarter of that demographic. According to their research several groups within the Evangelical label emerged: Traditional Evangelicals, Centrist Evangelicals, and Modernist Evangelicals with a separate set for mainline Protestants categorized along similar lines. Traditionalist voted over 88% for Bush and turn out about 69%, where centrist voted only 64% and turned out at just over 52%. In what many would see as a contraction the Modernist Evangelicals were extremely split casting only 48% for Bush and 52% for Kerry and sporting almost a higher turnout than there counterparts at 65%. The mainline Protestant vote was far more divided than the Evangelical. The Traditionalist mainline split at 68% for Bush with a turnout rate of 78%. The Centrist cast there vote at 58% for Bush and came out just about 68%. Modernist mainliners voted only 22% for Bush and a very high 78% for Kerry there turnout numbers were just about 71%. Black Protestants were still loyally Democratic voting heavily for Kerry. The Latino population was split far more in the 2004 election than in 2000 almost 10% more went to Bush over Kerry. Catholic Latinos voted 69% for Kerry where there counterparts only caste 37%. Bush’s biggest gain came among Latino Protestants, who moved from the Democratic column in 2000 to the Republican column in 2004 .

Part 3: What does it all mean?

“The single most important group for Bush was Traditionalist Evangelicals, which provided more than one-quarter of his total votes (27 percent). Traditionalist Evangelicals supplied more than twice the proportion of Bush ballots than any other group” (Green & Smidt, 2004). According to the American Religious Landscape and the 2004 Presidential Vote: Fourth National Survey (2004), Evangelical traditionalist, Mainline Protestant, traditionalist according to the study were combined for nearly half of Bush’s total ballots which ran about 47%. The other groups were Centrist Evangelicals and Catholics which were about one third of his total ballots. The other categories in which the support for Kerry was higher, but Bush still got near 50% at least one fifth of the total ballot percentage. This means that given the history of how close the 2000 election was, focusing on the religious base and maintaining its support was critical to a Bush victory. Why was Bush so successful at not only maintaining this demographic but increasing it in comparison to 2000 election results? “[…] the top four Bush constituencies regarded social issues as very important to their vote, exceeding the figure for the entire sample (out of 4 issues social issues, environment, economics, and foreign policy). Each of these groups was also more likely to choose social issues as most important. Here Traditionalist Evangelicals stand out in giving social issues top priority” (Green & Smidt, 2004). However, the overall percentage on the importance of social issues was “rated third in terms of relative importance 49 percent very important and top priority 24 percent most important”(Green & Smidt, 2004) The study not only suggests, but confirms that moral or social issues were a very important to the Bush electorate. Therefore, considering all the evidence, social issues has a direct effect on the individual voter’s decision in choosing a candidate. Bush was successful in convincing his constituency that he shares their most basic religious convictions. The importance people placed on faith as a guiding factor in deciding for whom to vote was overall just over 21% in the general electorate; these people said “faith was the most important factor over any other. ” However, the majority of the Bush supporters claimed faith was most important. “Here Traditionalist Evangelicals ranked first (56 percent said faith was more important than other factors). The exceptions were Centrist Catholics (38 percent) and Centrist Mainline Protestants (31 percent)” (Green & Smidt, 2004). In spite of that religious Kerry supporters “reported that their faith was less important or not at all important to their voting decisions.” What all of this illustrates is the deep divides between those who consider themselves highly religious and those who do not. It also shows that if a particular party or candidate identifies themselves with the religious community they will be highly successful in gaining there support. Simply because religious values are something people feel very personal about, and if a candidate can appeal on a personal level (like Bush did) to individuals and not just on a secular political level they will be able to maintain that groups support. This is a very effective strategy and as old as politics itself. As fear and uncertainty grow especially in the shadow of terrorism and war people will turn to something familiar for answers. Thus there will always be demagogues ready to exploit that fear. Since America has always been a very fearful country, we can expect to see much more of this type of behavior (backtracking) or (claiming traditional American values ).

Part 4: Regions and States

The impact of religiousness on U.S. voting patterns varies by state. Bush and Kerry each won four regions of the country. Cited by Greenberg Center’s Religion in the News (2005), “Bush carried the Southern Crossroads, Mountain West, and south handily and just squeaked by in the Midwest. Meanwhile, Kerry won big in the Pacific, Middle Atlantic, and New England and prevailed narrowly in the Pacific Northwest” (Green, John C & Mark Silk, 2005). What is most important about regions, especially the ones captured by Bush was “moral values” were cited as the issue that mattered most which went against the national average of 26% of the total electorate. “In fact, “moral values” came in first place in all four of the Bush regions and in none of the Kerry regions” (Green & Silk, 2005). This shows that there was a great deal of importance in the saliency of morals in the 2004 election. As it was stated above, this was only an essential issue in regions captured by Bush.

“In all the regions Bush won, moral values trumped Iraq by margins of 2-to-1 or more, while in the Kerry regions the two issues were closely balanced, except for the Pacific Northwest, where Iraq had a 3-to-2 margin over “moral values ” (Green & Silk, 2005). Very much like the national exit poll totals, religious voters tended to name this issue as most important in localities. Regionally, “Evangelicals were the backbone of the Bush moral-values vote in all regions, with the Latter-day Saints making a significant contribution in the Mountain West and Pacific, and Catholics doing the same in the Middle Atlantic and New England” (Green & Silk, 2005). An important issue to look at is regular church attendance in the regions captured by Bush in 2004 as a contributing factor to the level of religiosity encountered at the polls. “Regular worship attainders (once a week or more) regardless of religious affiliation are nationally, 71 percent of the Bush moral-values voters were regular attendees. These figures were comparable or greater for the Bush regions, and lower for the Kerry regions, but still substantially above 50 percent” (Green & Smidt, 2005). The church attendance however has stayed just about the same according to a Gallup poll. It claims 35% saying they attend a church at least once a week . It is only a 1% difference from 1992 and proves that although attendance has stayed consistent, it is a stable trend sitting just above a quarter of the population. “The percentage of Americans who claim to be members of a church, synagogue, or mosque is currently about two-thirds (66%) . Since 1990, this percentage has remained somewhere in the mid- to upper-60% range, with that figure touching 70% in 1992 and 1999 .” The amount of attendance, although it will not decide the individual’s level of religiosity is an important factor. The influence of peer groups and intuitions hold a great deal of sway over individuals and can over time even change there opinions and values. Basically, “moral values” has the greatest influence in those regions Bush captured, where there are the most evangelicals and the largest number of regular church-goers.

Regional culture matters when trying to understand the “why” instead of just the “how.” However, the election is a state-by-state basis and everyone who follows politics knows that states in the same region can be very different from each other. In the 2004 election it came down to Ohio where when exit polls that were taken showed that “[…]Ohio voters named “moral values” as the most important issue, in contrast to the 20 percent of Michiganders who did—a disparity about equal to the difference in the president’s performance in the two states on November 2. That this disparity was rooted in religion can be seen in the contribution made by the Bush moral-values voters to the total vote in each state” (Green & Silk, 2005). Lucky or not for Kerry there were more Evangelicals in Ohio than Michigan which probably helped him win. Although Kerry lost some of his key demographics in Ohio he won others in Michigan like the Catholics and lost most mainline Protestants in Ohio (Episcopalian and Pentecostals) . It is interesting that two states in nearly the same region can vote so differently. Looking at the results it seems morals/values were far more important to the Ohioans than Michiganders. In the end, “Geography matters in American politics today above all because the religious configuration of the country varies considerably from one region to another. In the final analysis, those first-day stories about moral values -and the red-and-blue maps that went with them- conveyed something real” (Green & Silk, 2005).

Conclusions:

What has this new trend done for the United States? It has produced “[…] an elected leader who believes himself in some way to speak for God, a ruling political party that represents religious true believers and seeks to mobilize the churches, the conviction of many voters in that Republican party that government should be guided by religion, and on top of it all, White House implementation of domestic and international political agendas that seem to be driven by religious motivations and apocalyptic style, biblical worldviews” (Philips, 2006 p.15). So what have we learned from this trend? As the United States moves into the 21st century we must try to take a lesson from civilization of the past about religion and secular politics. I have found that all religious fundamentalist movements have a common dogma, fear of the modern, an inability to cope with an ever changing scientific and increasingly technological society. As the social structure of old, begins to break down, fear becomes the adhesive of there movement back to “tradition.” Ignorance is there shield against the cosmopolitan, the new, and the diverse. One can never argue rhetorically, politically, or otherwise against them. Since what they fear the most is you’re casting doubt upon there universe and most cherished beliefs that they have come to understand in absolute certainty. They are a constant in any time of major change or flux. Despite all that, there is evidence to support these trends in “church and state” politics will continue to become more influential. The changes in the parties from an election centered more pragmatic approach to a far more ideological platform will dictate greater participation from certain social groups. However religion will continue to be deeply related to individual voter preference and since elections in the United States have been “candidate centered” its politicians will also have a major effect on the continuance of this trend by how they use moral and social issues in there campaigns and parties.

For full biblography E-mail me