Should religion influence government?

Godless...Eric Voegelin was a fool? That sure is a minority opinion. Never heard anyone express it before. Not a very rational observation.

You seem to have trouble disguishing between form and substance, between framework and content, between premise and practice.

I believe no one needs an explanation of Rand's anti-collectivists thought. Voegelin certainly never said Rand and Marx had the same ideology in practice.Voegelin did say the reliance on reason alone, the utopianism of both, the claim to an absolute, all-encompassing truth makes both gnostic pseudo-religions.

No accident a cult developed around Rand just as many did around Marx. No accident either that both expressed intense hostility to the Christian religion. For both, transcendant belief is a competing faith, a heresy which must be put down.

Scroll down to Eratz Religion for an outline of Voegelin's analysis of secular gnostic movements .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

madanthonywayne...agree with you on Rand. The antistatism is fine. The trouble with it in practice is Randian thought accomplishes nothing. Libertarianism, for instance, serves as a societal wrecking ball which clears the way for the authoritarians and totalitarians to seize control (same way Emma Goldman's anarchism helped clear the path for Lenin and the Bolsheviks). Gramscian socialists and Libertarians have more in common, as a practical matter, than they like to admit.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

M. I never read Eric Voegelin, however when you depicted that objectivism is more like fashism it seemed real silly to me.

As for cultists, well this is what happens, people are mindless this is why cults forms out of new or popular philosophical ideals. I for one don't follow hard headed just one ideology, that would be silly. However I do express an anti-metaphisical belief of the beyond, and reason is what has led society to where it is today. A wish for a utopian society is also a silly idea, people will never be homogeneous on one ideal.

Then what the hell would you call Bushism? today, it has given way for authoritarians and totaliritarians to seize control of the media, production, and distribution of goods. The little man is being driven out, and if we continue at the same rate all that will be left is gigantic conglamerates. Corporations influence governments more than religious ideals do, it is corporate America that put the pundit in office, thus we are more like a faschist country than ever before in our past. click here And this time read it.

I find that however; that any fool that wants to make a name for themselves will either write a book complementing or dishing the works of other philosophers, thus if an individual does not come up with his own original ideals to publish, he will either compliment or dish the works of others because he has no original ideals of his own wit. Many can be fooled by well spoken pundits such as this Eric character, though I would give him a glance and come up with my own conclusions. But has he come up with his own philosophical ideal, such as Ayn Rand's Objectivism? I doubt it!.

And you gather this just from a forum?. Wow it shows that you perhaps are rationalizing an idividual that you've never met. I've no problem understanding a god damn thing, I fully understood the content of objectivism I've studied it for over 20 years sunny!!. Enough to the point to understand that the Libertarians would be something that Ayn Rand herself would not stand for, they are a cultist bunch that totally depend on the ideals of one sole individual, Ayn Rand would not stand for this kind of behavior.

Godless.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Godless..."Bush does it too!"

Oh sheesh...forget I replied. Forget me. Don't waste your time replying. I'm not interested in debating those who use the Clinton excuse.

Pointless.

 

I suppose owning slaves wouldn't be allowed in a fair government, you know, like the kind of slaves that are mentioned in Leviticus, the ones we can buy from neighboring states.

 

Who is anybody to dictate the reverse?

I didn't find RepoMan's definition of 'secular humanism' patronising at all. In fact I found it useful. You see I am moderately certain I am not an idiot: I have a way above average IQ, a way above average education, and fifty plus years of diverse experience, but despite all that I have never encountered that specific term. I've never thought explaining things was a bad thing. Why do you? Do your arguments hold together more effectively if shrouded in vagueness and uncertainty?

 

Who the hell is using the Clinton excuse?..

It is merely an observation of were BOTH!! parties of this country have been heading towards. However if you'r too ingnorant to realize it, then yea, it's pointless debating with ya!!.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

BTW I was a Republican when Clinton was running the presidency, you are assuming shiet you don't know about!. again.

Godless.

 

Godless
I don't think Rand would go for your corporations are evil theme. For one thing, she was completely opposed to anti-trust laws. For another, if you believe in seperation of economics and state, how can you justify outlawing a voluntary association of individuals for the purpose of doing business (aka a corporation)?