INDEPENDENT COUNTRY
Faith in Authority
Believing in the State is believing without
evidence.
by James Leroy Wilson
December 28, 2010
On Christmas several of my Facebook friends posted Biblical verses or
otherwise alluded to the "true meaning" of Christmas. Others
took the opportunity to call the Christmas Story a myth, to blame
religion for all the world's problems, or to mock Christianity.
Christianity, along with other religions, has received quite a bit of
criticism through the ages, and with good reason. Some of the criticism
of it, however, goes overboard. People who blame religious wars for all
the world's problems tend to forget the last 100 years. Did the U.S.
invade Iraq for religious reasons? Even famed atheist Christopher
Hitchens zealously supported it. How about the bombings of Serbia in the
1990's? Were they religiously-motivated? How about the original Persian
Gulf War?
Or Vietnam? Korea? World War II? World War I?
The causes of these wars were nationalism, and ideologies such as
communism and democracy. George W. Bush didn't seek to
"Christianize" Iraq, but he wanted to install a democracy
there. World War I was an imperial power struggle that had Catholics and
Protestants fighting on both sides. The decisive turn in the war was
U.S.'s entry into it – and again, the motive of the American President
was democratic ideology rather than his Christian faith.
Even the presence of a State church is hardly evidence of tyranny. Many
of the colonies retained state-supported churches before Independence,
and some retained the practice well into the 19thCentury. (At the time of
its ratification, the First Amendment was understood to be a restriction
on federal power only, and was not intended to shut down established
churches within the states or to ban prayers at public events.)
While there were exceptions (the Salem Witch Trials most prominent),
Colonial America was hardly torn asunder by religious conflict. Living
under a State church isn't always so terrible. All told, one would rather
have lived under than Spanish Inquisition than under the atheist rulers
like Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. One would have rather lived in a European
nation with a State church, than under Saddam Hussein's secular
rule.
Yes, religion has sown conflict, but so has secularism. It isn't faith in
a supernatural god that is so dangerous, it is faith in
authority.
The people who have the greatest faith in authority are those who stand
to gain the most from it. Let's say an employee believes in his company's
product. By believing in the product, he joined the company in the first
place. But now he wants to climb the ranks of the company, earning
prominence and bigger paychecks along the way. His living, his ambition
and his faith in the company are intertwined.
We see this in all kinds of institutions. Organized religious
institutions pay their clergy, who are also (generally) the most devout
adherents to their faith.
The State is also like this. Those who believe most in its authority also
see their lives and livelihoods connected to it. Not just politicians,
but also soldiers and public school teachers – or anyone with a paycheck
from the government. They want the State to grow because they believe it
is the right thing to do, and also because they benefit
personally.
And yet people who have the authority, without your personal
consent, to discipline your children in school, to pull you over on a
highway, to inspect your business establishment, or to review your
financial records, are really your masters – even if they are called
"public servants." Their "right" to do these things
is just assumed. It is taken on faith, even though there is no
evidence whatsoever that any of these intrusions on your life,
liberty, and property serves "the common good." The only people
who really benefit are those in authority who are paid to do these things
to you.
Does it really matter if they do these things in the name of an
ecclesiastical State or a secular State?
Many secular Statists will say that a religion is discredited when its
adherents kill in the name of God. But then they have no qualms about
sending our soldiers to some remote land to kill in the name of Freedom
and Democracy. They will say it is wrong to censor blasphemy, but see no
problem in censoring political speech to ensure "clean"
elections. They think it's wrong to regulate personal choices for
"moral" reasons – but will regulate all aspects of your life in
the name of "public health."
They think people are stupid and can't run their own lives, but then
think of democratic election results as validation for government policy.
They believe businesses will abuse employees and consumers, but refuse to
see the government's propensity to abuse the people.
Perhaps there will always be some sort of institutional power
relationships on Earth. Perhaps it is imprudent to resist them. But there
is no need to have faith in them.
The sooner one accepts that States and many other forms of authority, do
more harm than good, the sooner one can take responsibility for one's own
life. Faith in God may constitute "belief without evidence."
But, then, so is faith in the State.
http://partialobserver.com/article.cfm?id=3559
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
