EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

Why I rejected theocracy

< Return to subforum
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Aug 17 2016 2:42 PM
I had "utopian totalitarianism" as my stated ideology for a while. That's no longer the case, and I'll tell you why.

The main premise behind my idea is that human behaviours and attitudes are shaped by a combination of environment and genetics. That is, "nurture" and "nature". The base nature of man is without any moral values, but society can instill moral values. Some individuals will develop their own sense of morality independent from their upbringing, but they're the exception rather than the rule. This applies to religiosity too. Atheists like to say that "Babies are atheists", and that's a true statement. The blank slate human won't usually be religious.
Given these factors, a human who grows up in our contemporary United States will be unlikely to have any devout religiousness (which I define as having a genuine relationship with God, but simply being sincere in following religious traditions can count somewhat). Even those who grow up in religious households will eventually grow up and come to be surrounded by people who aren't religious, those who have totally contrary values to the religion they were raised under. Some people may even be raised religious and then spend their adult lives surrounded by religious people but then forsake religion. After all, even church kids will often have access to pornography, or even drugs. At any time during their lives they'll have the option of visiting a bar, and if they go online they'll be sure to find nonreligious people who swear a lot. In short, there's plenty of opportunities for even these people to stray from the faith of their youth. These people in turn will influence others towards that same path.
It can ultimately be translated into an equation. A person who grows up in the United States will have a less than 50% chance of remaining religious throughout their lives. In other cultures this percentage would be higher. Much higher, even.
For this reason (and some others) I did not consider it an acceptable option for Christians to remain a part of the United States. They and their children would be in an environment which discouraged religiosity and encouraged living wild, godless lives. My belief was that an environment which'd encourage religiosity would result in a more religious society, and that this society was needed. To create this society, it was necessary for Christians to secede from the United States with a single state.
Obviously, a person who grows up with a ton of chores will be more used to chores than a person who didn't do a lot of chores growing up. The former will consider chores to be a more normal and less inconvenient part of life. The same would apply to a person who grew up in a strict religious home with a lot of rules dictating behaviour. An outsider would consider such a life practically unimaginable (the "how could you live without X?" mindset), but the person in question obviously wouldn't mind. That's how this overly controlled society wouldn't be a miserable place to live for its people. This society would not, of course, be defined only by its religiosity. The capitalist mindset would be rejected, and income inequality would no longer exist. There would be no gender or race tensions; the population would sustain itself through adoption people from all over the world, so it would be the single most diverse society on planet earth and race would not be connected with socioeconomic status. Both men and women would have fair, pre-determined responsibilities and privileges in this society. People would not have as many things as they do in this society, but they would be secure, relatively comfortable, and have less stress. It would be a utopian society, perhaps the closest thing to perfection that this world has ever experienced.

So why have I rejected this idea? The reason is that this religiosity would be basically imposed upon people by human hands. Their mental processes would be manipulated and shaped from birth by the policies set forth by a few human elites.
This is not how Christianity is supposed to work. The work of bringing people to the saving knowledge of God and of transforming lives and the very souls of men has been done by the Holy Spirit. It is a supernatural process, independent of human constructions. The only role that Christians have to play in this is to obey the will of God and to be the witnesses for Christ to an unchristian world. Christianity grew the most under conditions of persecution in the ancient Roman Empire, and in today's communist China (and, according to some reports, the modern Middle East). It would be perhaps blasphemous for humans to try to force the work of the Holy Spirit through a large scale social experiment.
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Aug 17 2016 2:55 PM
Dassault Papillon: Interesting, someone changing their mind on their political ideology.
Is there any other idea you accept now?
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Aug 17 2016 2:58 PM
Bi0Hazard: No. I have no bleeping idea what to call myself now.
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Aug 17 2016 2:59 PM
Dassault Papillon: The reason is that this religiosity would be basically imposed upon people by human hands. Their mental processes would be manipulated and shaped from birth by the policies set forth by a few human elites.
This is not how Christianity is supposed to work.

Does this mean you deny legislated morality(state conservatism) now?
Do you now want a society built on voluntary cooperation now?
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Aug 17 2016 3:01 PM
Bi0Hazard: Any society needs some rules, religious or secular. So no, I'm not an anarchist or anything like that.
Crow
By Crow | Aug 17 2016 3:33 PM
Dassault Papillon: I believe in rules.

I just do not believe in written law, political offices, and any system that has a select amount of people controlling the entire population.
The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Aug 17 2016 3:46 PM
Dassault Papillon: Do you still accept the state?
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Aug 17 2016 3:47 PM
Bi0Hazard: Of course.
Crow
By Crow | Aug 17 2016 3:54 PM
Dassault Papillon: Pshh... why?
The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Aug 17 2016 4:00 PM
Crow: Uhh...because most people need to be forced to behave?
Crow
By Crow | Aug 17 2016 4:01 PM
Dassault Papillon: Actively forced or under threat of retaliation?
The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Aug 17 2016 4:04 PM
Crow: Retaliation wouldn't always be a thing. For instance, if you killed some loner old guy with no friends or family, nobody would retaliate against you (except the government). If you littered, no one would retaliate against you (except the government). If you were driving unreasonably fast or unreasonably slow, nobody would retaliate against you (except the government). If you raped and murdered your child (assuming you were a single parent), no one would retaliate against you (except the government). The list goes on and on.
Crow
By Crow | Aug 17 2016 4:18 PM
Dassault Papillon: For instance, if you killed some loner old guy with no friends or family, nobody would retaliate against you (except the government)

Not sure what community you are living in.

In an armed and civil society, anyone who shoots at anybody is going to catch a bullet.

If you littered, no one would retaliate against you (except the government).

The government being the eco-police doesn't work, since governments are always corrupted by corporations which usually are not keen on eco friendly policies.

If you want to attribute the continued destruction of mother earth to anybody, then it should be governments. They are literally giving away money to have it happen.

Ecological well being needs to be a priority. Through civil action at best.

If you were driving unreasonably fast or unreasonably slow, nobody would retaliate against you (except the government).

Clearly you are unaware of road rage.

If you raped and murdered your child (assuming you were a single parent), no one would retaliate against you (except the government).

The government is as likely to find out as anybody else.

If there was suspicion, then a detective's agency could get to the bottom of the case as fast as anyone.
The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.