The Religion of "The State"

[untermensche]

What would you call people who cheered as their nation dropped bombs on another that had not attacked it?

Sadists? Insane?

Or merely humans lost in a delusion?

We recognize the delusions of religion easily. We see that the violence done in the name of religion is not only immoral and criminal but delusional.

Yet so many are blind to delusional aspects of those who support the violence of "The State".

And these delusions arise out of the religion of "The State".

It has it's myths and legends and it has it's holy mission, and like questioning the existence of god in other forms of religion the questioning of the legitimacy of violence from "The State" is also a sin. We have taken this religion so far and built such elaborate institutions to protect "The State", not the people, "The State".

The question is: How do we overcome this religion and move past it?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The question is: How do we overcome this religion and move past it?

I think that the best way would be to have faith that the government will come up with a solution for us.

 

[untermensche]

The question is: How do we overcome this religion and move past it?

I think that the best way would be to have faith that the government will come up with a solution for us.

Exactly. That is part of the religion.

And so we have candidates who tell us what THEY are going to do as opposed to the people telling their so-called representatives, their servants, what to do.

 

[dismal]

The question is: How do we overcome this religion and move past it?

Dude, you realize you're about the most consistent defender of oppressive statism here right?

Anyway, whatever you're doing to get past it does not seem to be working.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think that the best way would be to have faith that the government will come up with a solution for us.

Exactly. That is part of the religion.

And so we have candidates who tell us what THEY are going to do as opposed to the people telling their so-called representatives, their servants, what to do.

I don't understand your objection to this. That's what democracy is. A candidate explains that they will do X, Y and Z if elected and the people then vote for that candidate if they want X, Y and/or Z to be done.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What would you call a policeman that arrests a criminal that did not in any way harm the policeman?

 

[SLD]

What would you call a policeman that arrests a criminal that did not in any way harm the policeman?

And how dare the U.S. bomb Germany! Or Japan for that matter (Japan attacked Hawaii, not a US State at the time).

The OP is absurd of course. War is not so simplistic. We fought Gulf War I because Iraq attacked a sovereign nation and took it over in gross contradictions to the basic principles of the UN Charter. We have important interests in the world that cannot be so simplistically dismissed as to assume that since they didn't attack us we don't need to have any military response. We, along with numerous other allies and the entire world community, have a strong interest in maintaining an international peaceful order, and that means punishing transgressors (although using the least amount of force necessary to do the job).

And I am not being some shameless apologist for any military action we take. I get it. Gulf War II was a bad idea. Wrong in every way, and it is the ultimate cause of what is happening now in Syria and Iraq. But that fact doesn't relieve us of the problems we have to face now when confronting what is arguably one of the most violent and warlike states since WWII. You can argue against our air strikes, and there are good ones to make, but this is not one of them.

SLD

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What would you call a policeman that arrests a criminal that did not in any way harm the policeman?

And how dare the U.S. bomb Germany! Or Japan for that matter (Japan attacked Hawaii, not a US State at the time).

Didn't Japan attack a US military base which happened to be in Hawaii? If you send your military to attack somebody else's military, you're kind of declaring war on that person, regardless of where the military happens to be.

 

[untermensche]

Exactly. That is part of the religion.

And so we have candidates who tell us what THEY are going to do as opposed to the people telling their so-called representatives, their servants, what to do.

I don't understand your objection to this. That's what democracy is. A candidate explains that they will do X, Y and Z if elected and the people then vote for that candidate if they want X, Y and/or Z to be done.

That's not democracy. It is elitism.

It is the trappings of democracy without any of the benefits.

- - - Updated - - -

What would you call a policeman that arrests a criminal that did not in any way harm the policeman?

The policeman does not decide for himself what his jurisdiction is and what the limits of his powers are.

 

[ronburgundy]

Interesting OP coming from someone who supports the religion of the State using force against its own citizens for the words they speak.

 

[untermensche]

The question is: How do we overcome this religion and move past it?

Dude, you realize you're about the most consistent defender of oppressive statism here right?

Anyway, whatever you're doing to get past it does not seem to be working.

You have over 20,000 posts to choose from yet you make accusations without even one reference.

You are full of it.

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting OP coming from someone who supports the religion of the State using force against its own citizens for the words they speak.

Do you think harmful behavior should have sanctions?

 

[untermensche]

What would you call a policeman that arrests a criminal that did not in any way harm the policeman?

And how dare the U.S. bomb Germany! Or Japan for that matter (Japan attacked Hawaii, not a US State at the time).

The OP is absurd of course. War is not so simplistic. We fought Gulf War I because Iraq attacked a sovereign nation and took it over in gross contradictions to the basic principles of the UN Charter. We have important interests in the world that cannot be so simplistically dismissed as to assume that since they didn't attack us we don't need to have any military response. We, along with numerous other allies and the entire world community, have a strong interest in maintaining an international peaceful order, and that means punishing transgressors (although using the least amount of force necessary to do the job).

And I am not being some shameless apologist for any military action we take. I get it. Gulf War II was a bad idea. Wrong in every way, and it is the ultimate cause of what is happening now in Syria and Iraq. But that fact doesn't relieve us of the problems we have to face now when confronting what is arguably one of the most violent and warlike states since WWII. You can argue against our air strikes, and there are good ones to make, but this is not one of them.

SLD

You express your belief in the religion of "The State" well.

A bad idea?

How about a massive crime against humanity? The kind of thing we hung the Nazi's for.

 

[dismal]

Wait, are we "the state" or are the Nazis?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't understand your objection to this. That's what democracy is. A candidate explains that they will do X, Y and Z if elected and the people then vote for that candidate if they want X, Y and/or Z to be done.

That's not democracy. It is elitism.

It is the trappings of democracy without any of the benefits.

It's only as elitist as the voters demand it to be. They select people to represent their interests because they have actual lives and can't take the time to fully investigate and educate themselves about the complex intricacies of each and every issue which comes before the government, so they elect someone to do that for them. That's no more an indicator of an elitist system than having car mechanics is elitist because people are too busy to learn how to rebuild their own engines.

 

[untermensche]

Wait, are we "the state" or are the Nazis?

The Nazi's had their religion and many today have theirs, and there is not much of a difference.

In both religions massive crimes are overlooked by the believers and even justified.

 

[untermensche]

That's not democracy. It is elitism.

It is the trappings of democracy without any of the benefits.

It's only as elitist as the voters demand it to be. They select people to represent their interests because they have actual lives and can't take the time to fully investigate and educate themselves about the complex intricacies of each and every issue which comes before the government, so they elect someone to do that for them. That's no more an indicator of an elitist system than having car mechanics is elitist because people are too busy to learn how to rebuild their own engines.

What you are talking about is the difference between top-down systems and bottom-up.

Democracy is supposed to be bottom-up. The will of the people is supposed to be expressed in their representatives.

What we have is a top-down system controlled by wealth.

It is a phony democracy. It has a few trappings, elections and such, but that is all.

 

[dismal]

Wait, are we "the state" or are the Nazis?

The Nazi's had their religion and many today have theirs, and there is not much of a difference.

In both religions massive crimes are overlooked by the believers and even justified.

You didn't answer the question.

If the Nazis are the State then I'm like "boo, Nazis, the State sucks".

But if we're the State then I'm more like "boo, Nazis, the State rules for kicking their ass."

 

[untermensche]

The Nazi's had their religion and many today have theirs, and there is not much of a difference.

In both religions massive crimes are overlooked by the believers and even justified.

You didn't answer the question.

If the Nazis are the State then I'm like "boo, Nazis, the State sucks".

But if we're the State then I'm more like "boo, Nazis, the State rules for kicking their ass."

I have no idea what you're yammering about.

If you support things like the invasion of Iraq and nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan then you are caught up in the religion of "The State".

If not, you may have advanced to a point where you can see people caught up in the religion.

But what we see today is a clash of religions. The religion of "The State" against other religions, like Islam. In terms of human delusion, no difference.

 

[skepticalbip]

.... snip .....

The question is: How do we overcome this religion and move past it?

By adopting that political philosophy that you detest... Libertarianism.

If you want the people to dictate to the government and the government only do what the people tell it to and no more then this is what you are advocating even though you hate the word.

 

[dismal]

If you support things like the invasion of Iraq and nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan then you are caught up in the religion of "The State".

Wait, weren't Iraq and Afghanistan already nations?

It seems a bit non-sensical to say 'I'm going to build a nation in Iraq" when there is already one there.

I'm not generally a big fan of invasions (unlike Saddam) but it seems like there would still be states without them. Some might have different names, I guess.

But if we take it as a given that invasions are bad, it seems like we'd want to organize some means to defend against them.