Walter Block: Wrong on Religion

re: Walter Block: Wrong on Religion

nicolaas — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 05:12:22 GMT

All your argumants are based on pre-scientific assumptions with their source in your belief system of the 'reasonable self'. In this sense there is no difference between christianity, atheism, the 'brainpolice' faith.as such the same arguments tabled against other religions would be valid arguments against your own brainpolice religion.

re: Walter Block: Wrong on Religion

Freecitizen — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 09:13:59 GMT

I do think that Block has more than a point. Yet, his article does not explain, what I think he is referring to. It is the fact, that in the medieval the catholic church was a counterpart of the secular powers (no states in the modern sense existed until absolutism entered the scene). Ron made another important point when he mentions "splitting allegiance".

Unlike other empires where state and church are one, the western world developed the liberal (in the classical sense) creeds because the two antagonists secular power and church where fighting over wealth and left the people to do their business, much more than in any other despotic ruled country where the priests and the ruling class where one or where the church was defined within the boundaries of the nation.

Western civilization benefited from the fact, that the church was international. So, a Christian, and all but a tiny(though very important) fraction where christians , could just leave an environment where oppression became to hard and go somewhere else.

Bottomline, what I believe Walter Block wanted to highlight is the fact that family and faith in a non-state religion that bond people over national(another made up word) borders has a positive impact on the independence of people.

Again, Ron is right about the splitted allegiance and states always tried to either eliminate (USSR) international churches or to nationalize(Nazi Germany) them.

Although his comments about the catholic church being the state does not hold in spite of the historical account :-)

re: Walter Block: Wrong on Religion

Juan — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 02:19:58 GMT

Yeah, Block's article was pretty weird. He also

defended the catholic church with arguments like 'yes, the inquisition did burn some people but the were worse'...

re: Walter Block: Wrong on Religion

Ron Jones — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:37:17 GMT

"The main reason religion sticks in the craw of secular leaders is that this institution defines moral authority independently of their power."

This is a valid and important point. However, subtler, and perhaps more important in the long run is the fact that religion has the effect of 'splitting ones allegiance.' And with your allegiance divided between two separate entities, there is less chance that you will be completely loyal to either one.

"...that knowledge must be held and selectively passed down from an elite ... who are exclusively able to properly interpret relevant texts..."

The proper response to this is "it depends upon the religion in question." The various religions, it seems, are quite diverse. So, it would be hard to cram the whole square lot of them into one round hole.

Owing largely to my western european roots I suppose...my knowledge of organized religion is limited to the catholic church. And throughout much of history rome wasn't a bulwark against state power, it WAS the state for all intents and purposes. (sure, you've got a king, but he won't make a move unless the pope/bishop/whatever approved). A religious legacy such as this would have long ago piqued my interest in atheism.

re: Walter Block: Wrong on Religion

Curtis Plumb — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:33:44 GMT

There is no appropriate libertarian response (that's why you are asking the question) since principles are different from libertarian to libertarian.

re: Walter Block: Wrong on Religion

Cork — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 04:08:40 GMT

I also thought that Block's column was pretty strange. He argues for religion as a bulwark against state power, but never explains why it has to be religion. One could just as easily come up with a reasonable secular set of ethics that could spread and become a bulwark against state power. So why bother with religion? Religion has dragged down the human race almost as much as socialism and statism, and is one of the worst things to have ever happened to the world.

The place where I get conflicted is deciding how religious parents would be handled under ancap. Religious parents who pray to an imaginary sky pixie instead of taking their sick children in for treatment are clearly guilty of child abuse. The question is: what is an appropriate libertarian response?