Why does Socialism seem to lead to the decline of religion?

[FunkyTown]

So Capitalism uses religion to keep people under control?...

...do tell.

The thing about those on the left is that they have a number of beliefs that aren't crazy:

1) They believe that it is the duty of society to care for those who are unable to care for themselves. Not crazy.

2) They believe that the excesses caused by the pure pursuit of profit must be pulled in. Not crazy.

3) They strongly support education and the arts. Not crazy.

4) They strongly support environmental initiatives, pointing to the devastation wrought by things like bottom trawling fishing that prevent sustainable use of resources. Not crazy.

Those who are on the far right have a number of beliefs that aren't crazy:

1) They believe that placing the wealth distribution model in the hands of a few will result in corruption. Not crazy.

2) They believe in personal responsibility, pointing to the rampant abuse of the welfare state as evidence that people need a hand up and not a hand out. Not crazy.

3) They strongly support the military, pointing out that a weak nation often loses its sovereignty and is dictated to rather than the other way around. Not crazy.

4) They believe that over-taxation results in economic stagnation and, while it doesn't hurt those at the top of the economic ladder, crushes those in the middle class. Not crazy.

There is a serious false dichotomy being played right now in the US: This left versus right thing has got to stop. The word 'Socialist' has become a club that is essentially meaningless, so broad are the strokes it's used. EVERYone can be termed a socialist. Nobody truly wants a completely free market and everyone wants some term of government interventionism.

Don't believe me? Here's a test:

The year is 1946. The US has the atomic bomb and is the only nation in the world to have it. An enterprising scientist realizes that, now that he's free, he could go work for the Soviet Union and provide them knowledge. In a completely unregulated market, where the free market was to be completely unregulated and pursuit of profit sacrosanct, there is literally no reason for him not to. He's not dropping bombs. He's just providing a service with the skills he's been furnished.

If you disagree with this and think it's wrong, then you agree that there must be some excesses reigned in by the government.

Next question: Do you believe that your country should maintain a standing army?

If you do, then the government must necessarily pay its soldiers, provide them with equipment and feed them. That can only be done through recourse to public funds. That indicates taxation - Which has been termed 'Theft' more than once on here - in some way.

Once you agree that there must be some taxation and some government interventionism, the question ceases to be 'Socialist vs Capitalist'. Once that's understood, bridges can be built.

******

One last point to make: The presidents who had the biggest impact on history were those who were most passionately centrist. JFK believed in small government and lower taxes. He was a Democrat that presided over the greatest boom for America the world has ever known - He brought us to the Moon. He sought to pull out of a war he knew couldn't be won.

President Eisenhower. He was a Republican. He ended the Korean War in his term and created the Interstate Highway system. You can thank him for the ease with which American goods get to places, and is a major reason of American prosperity. Did you recently go to the Mall or do you work in a city that isn't by a major port of call? Thank Eisenhower. He also vigorously defended having a social safety net.

Unfortunately, there is a major lie going that the only real options are to take the extreme and ridiculously stupid left or the extreme and ridiculously stupid right. It's clearly not true, but that's what's being fed to both sides.

[Guest]

Funky. You won the internet. Again.

[Vort]

Good post, Funky.

Consider the limited liability corporation, invented a few hundred years ago. The very idea of limited liability is anti-capitalistic. By very definition, it socializes risk, but leaves profit privatized. Yet would we want to do away with LLCs? Talk about stifling innovation!

[Windseeker]

I agree that the battle in the U.S. for those who love Freedom is not a fight so much between modern Socialism and classic Capitalism, it's a fight between Facism and a Free Republic. It's a fight against cronyism and corruption and despotism.

The U.S. pays the highest corporate tax U.S. Corporate Tax Rate To Be Highest In The Developed World

We have the government taking over private enterprise at a record pace, "No Corporate Welfare!" used to be the cry from the Unions, now they are embracing it in the name of "to large to fail". Cronyism under the guise of the helping the environment or creating jobs. Our country is becoming more and more divided amongst the sexes and economic, racial, and religious lines.

I don't have time to really say allot more.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Windseeker

[Desertknight]

I agree with much of FunkyT's post but think that the problem is that western societies have become so secular, so detached from basic Christian morality, that much of what the government tries to do regarding the "safety net" has been highly destructive of traditional family structure, and therefore, the common good it is obligated to protect. I have a little blurb that I posted on my Facebook profile where it says to describe your political views...

"Republican, but one who holds that conservatism without the concept of the 'common good' is as immoral as liberalism without the concept of God and the natural law."

It is the later danger, that our country is plagued with. It's policies have helped to encourage the mothering of children out of wedlock and the abandonment of those children by their fathers. They encourage either a near permanent dependency on the state to care for those children, or more evil alternatives like artificial contraception or worse, simply killing those children in the womb. It's public housing has served as fertile ground for gangs and drugs. Some of it's activity in education, has been to assault the very morality that would keep the other evils described above, from happening at the rate they do, in the first place.

I am not a libertarian, but the State cannot simply be 'centrist'. It must also be moral in it's actions. That it isn't, is the reason we see the rise and popularity in America, of the evil idea that the State and it's political authority have no business in ensuring social justice and are by definition, evil. Both are wrong.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Desertknight

[Hala401]

Regardless of the nation you're in, I've noticed a tendency for people with left-wing political leanings to want to reduce the influence of religion in our society.

Have you noticed this to be a general theme in socialism? And if so, why do you think socialism and the decline of religion in society are so related?

What I will say probably skirts the limits of permisibility in this forum and I am sorry. I don't know that I fit in any orderly little box. Some things I think are from the liberal table and others from the other one.

I know lots and lots of Democrats that are not religious or very liberal, and it sometimes feels odd that I am Mormon. I guess I am surprised that the church accepted me, because I have many faults and weaknesses. It is humbling, astonishing and warm and fuzzy that Mormons would want me!

I also feel that the religion practiced by some conservatives is anathema to Heavenly Father and is a clear example of the apostate church. I think certain churches have effectively murdered many people by practicing condemnation and shunning rather than prayer, mercy, and understanding.

I was totally against the present wars, and believe that we got into them on falsehoods. Lots of our best young paid for the decisions made and that makes me sad. I am also very against women in the military in any capacity. Men start the wars, let them fight them.

On a personal note, I will never cut my hair again, would not be caught dead in pants, and like it when a man opens my door.

I think every human should have health care, but am unsure about what to do with the morbidly obese, those who smoke, drink and practice other activities that we know will have medical consequences if not immediately then later on.

I think that those of us who worship Heavenly Father should work very hard to practice the principles that he shows us, namely Love Heavenly Father, and love one another.

[volgadon]

Is Socialism the United Order? by Marion G. Romney

Is Socialism the United Order? – Marion G. Romney - Latter-day Conservative

if you scroll down to the "differences" area, that says it all I think.

Marion G. Romney was an apostle, but in this famous article it is quite clear that he is talking apples and oranges. Was the United Order the Stalinist government of the USSR? Of course not. Was the UO a form of the economic theory called communism, or as Arrington cautiously worded it, communalism? Of course!

[mnn727]

I would rather have an atheist as a neighbor than someone who claims to be a Christian but who shows by their actions they do not follow Christ.

Please note that to many of us, the far right wing of politics in the U.S. today, does not appear to be too Christian.

Edited May 24, 2012 by mnn727

[annewandering]

I would rather have a good neighbor who leaves me alone. Dont care what their religion is. Now if we are going to talk about friends then the criteria is different.

I am getting good and tired of people judging Christians for not being perfect. The right thinks the left are satanists and the left thinks the right has lost their minds.

None of the manmade governments are working very well right now. Doesnt matter what label they call themselves. It is my opinion that they have all been conceded to the Gadiantons who are perfectly good at using any form of government to further they own causes. Power and Riches.

I seriously doubt it will change till the Second Coming when Christ can sort it all out.

[james12]

Marion G. Romney was an apostle, but in this famous article it is quite clear that he is talking apples and oranges. Was the United Order the Stalinist government of the USSR? Of course not. Was the UO a form of the economic theory called communism, or as Arrington cautiously worded it, communalism? Of course!

Joseph Smith in 1838 answered a number of commonly asked questions. Question number six was as follows, "'Do the Mormons believe in having all things in common?'" Joseph's answer, "No." (HC Vol 3: 28).

Now there have been quite a number of different tries at living the United Order but J. Ruben Clark says they were not according to the revelations, "I may say to begin with, that in practice the brethren in Missouri got away, in their attempts to set up the United Order, from the principles set out in the revelations. This is also true of the organizations set up here in Utah after the Saints came to the Valleys." (The United Order vs. Communism) Thus a look back through LDS history does not present adequate evidence for how the United Order was to function.

Independence and private property ownership are necessary. The church was never to own all the property! Additionally, Elder Clark says the brethren got away from the revelations in their take on equality. The scripture given is the following, "every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs." (D&C 51:3) Now any person should agree that a persons family, circumstances, wants and needs may vary widely.

I do not equate the United Order with Communism, Socialism, or Capitalism for that matter. It does have elements of these for sure but it is a unique form of economic order.

[volgadon]

Joseph Smith in 1838 answered a number of commonly asked questions. Question number six was as follows, "'Do the Mormons believe in having all things in common?'" Joseph's answer, "No." (HC Vol 3: 28).

I've heard that rebuttal before. It is weak. Not all forms of communism have all things in common. In the UO members placed everything in the common fund and weregiven what they needed. Each had their own plot of land. Doesn't make it anything other than a form of communism. Other communist systems followed along the same lines.

[james12]

I've heard that rebuttal before. It is weak. Not all forms of communism have all things in common. In the UO members placed everything in the common fund and weregiven what they needed. Each had their own plot of land. Doesn't make it anything other than a form of communism. Other communist systems followed along the same lines.

So, apostles and prophets have repeatedly commented that the united order is not Communism, yet you disagree. And dispite the fact that the UO is based upon private ownership of property, private ownership of the means of production, voluntary entrance, and equality according to needs and wants you still insist it is Communism. Well then all I can say is that your definition of Communism is the strangest I have ever seen and does not accord with the commonly understood definition.

[FunkyTown]

So, apostles and prophets have repeatedly commented that the united order is not Communism, yet you disagree. And dispite the fact that the UO is based upon private ownership of property, private ownership of the means of production, voluntary entrance, and equality according to needs and wants you still insist it is Communism. Well then all I can say is that your definition of Communism is the strangest I have ever seen and does not accord with the commonly understood definition.

James: Communism(That is, what happened in the Soviet Union) doesn't accord with the commonly understood definition of Communism.

There are many different types of Communism. Stalinism is one and most certainly is every bit as wicked and evil as the prophets said. A bunch of hippies living in a commune? Not so much. I never saw thirty million people get starved by a monomaniacal dictator under the peace and love Hippie communes that exist.

[Dravin]

James: Communism(That is, what happened in the Soviet Union) doesn't accord with the commonly understood definition of Communism.

There are many different types of Communism. Stalinism is one and most certainly is every bit as wicked and evil as the prophets said. A bunch of hippies living in a commune? Not so much. I never saw thirty million people get starved by a monomaniacal dictator under the peace and love Hippie communes that exist.

You know, I really wonder if that's true. Though I suppose it depends on what you are calling the 'commonly understood definition'. I suspect in the US at least, Stalinism/Maoism is what comes to mind in a lot of conversation. If we're going with the common denotative dictionary definition you're right, communism != Stalinism/Moaism

Interesting, looking at Merriam-Webster the difference is in the capitalization... don't pay much attention to me, my comments are more musing than anything of substance.

[FunkyTown]

You know, I really wonder if that's true. Though I suppose it depends on what you are calling the 'commonly understood definition'. I suspect in the US at least, Stalinism/Maoism is what comes to mind in a lot of conversation. If we're going with the common denotative dictionary definition you're right, communism != Stalinism/Moaism

No doubt, no doubt.

And that's a major problem in any real, meaningful discussion between the left and right.

Actually, I'm not even sure on this and I'm totally serious about this next question:

When the 'SOCIALIST!' cry goes out against something that clearly isn't evil, does it mean 'I disagree with this particular expenditure. I think the downsides of this particular expenditure outweigh the good it will do' or is it said with the same venom as, 'King Barak' or 'Barack HUSSEIN Obama!'?

[MarginOfError]

So, apostles and prophets have repeatedly commented that the united order is not Communism, yet you disagree. And dispite the fact that the UO is based upon private ownership of property, private ownership of the means of production, voluntary entrance, and equality according to needs and wants you still insist it is Communism. Well then all I can say is that your definition of Communism is the strangest I have ever seen and does not accord with the commonly understood definition.

It's important to note that when apostles and prophets were stating that the united order was not communism, it was during the Cold War, where the only form of communism recognized widely was Soviet communism. In that context, those prophets and apostles were correct; the united order was not Soviet communism. But it was still a form of communism.

[Dravin]

No doubt, no doubt.

And that's a major problem in any real, meaningful discussion between the left and right.

Actually, I'm not even sure on this and I'm totally serious about this next question:

When the 'SOCIALIST!' cry goes out against something that clearly isn't evil, does it mean 'I disagree with this particular expenditure. I think the downsides of this particular expenditure outweigh the good it will do' or is it said with the same venom as, 'King Barak' or 'Barack HUSSEIN Obama!'?

If the only cry is, "It's socialist!" with no back up I'm inclined to take it as a battle cry rather than an argument. The term is used so loosely that it basically boils down to, "Government spending or influence I don't like." The tightest definition I can think of from actual use (rather than a dictionary) would be the government appropriation and use or redistribution of resources. But obviously that's not de facto horrible, else the same people who complain against universal health care based solely on it being socialist* would need to disagree with any amount of military spending, I suspect a rather strong negative correlation between those two positions. The more nuanced discussion is what that particular socialism is bad or more generally what level of socialism is bad.

*Not everyone just says, "Socialism ergo no." and walks away, but that's what battle cry tends to boil down to.

Edited May 25, 2012 by Dravin

[HoosierGuy]

Hoosier Guy noted that "denying health care is Satanic."

In what way is that Satanic? When did providing health care become a natural or spiritual right?

That's the big difference. I and others believe healthcare is a right. I guess you and others don't. Of course I'm siding with nearly all the modern world except the U.S.A.

[Desertknight]

That's the big difference. I and others believe healthcare is a right. I guess you and others don't. Of course I'm siding with nearly all the modern world except the U.S.A.

I believe it is a right, but that does not commit me to any particular way that such an obligation should be fulfilled.

[MarginOfError]

Then there are people like me who think we should have a single-payer system. But I don't think healthcare is a right. I think the idea that healthcare is a right is absurd. What I do believe is that universal access to health care is good public policy. With that assumption, there's a valid debate to be had about what the best way to implement that public policy is, whether it be single payer of free market.

[volgadon]

So, apostles and prophets have repeatedly commented that the united order is not Communism, yet you disagree.

I agree that it isn't Communism, if by which you mean the Stalinist government of the USSR. The UO was however a form of the economic system communism. Apples and oranges, as I have said.

And dispite the fact that the UO is based upon private ownership of property, private ownership of the means of production,

Not entirely private.

voluntary entrance,

Most communist systems have voluntary entrance.

and equality according to needs and wants you still insist it is Communism.

Yes, that is still compatible with a form of communism.

Well then all I can say is that your definition of Communism is the strangest I have ever seen and does not accord with the commonly understood definition.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the commonly understood definition is baloney.

[james12]

I agree that it isn't Communism, if by which you mean the Stalinist government of the USSR. The UO was however a form of the economic system communism. Apples and oranges, as I have said.

Not entirely private.

Most communist systems have voluntary entrance.

Yes, that is still compatible with a form of communism.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the commonly understood definition is baloney.

By the word Communism I do not mean to imply Communism under Stalin or in the USSR. Clearly there were major differences between the United Order and this form of Communism. My point is that even a Marxist or Engels definition of Communism does not equate to the United Order. Further, even the UO as practiced by the saints is not in keeping with what has been defined by the Lord. In fact, I believe it is some of these "supposed" similarities that lead people to not appreciate the UO order for what it may be.

Thanks for commenting on specific items I have mentioned. I may not completely disagree with your comments but please expound on a few.

In what way do you see property as not completely private under the UO?

How do you see individuals economic standing divided by needs and wants as compatible with communism?

[Desertknight]

Then there are people like me who think we should have a single-payer system. But I don't think healthcare is a right. I think the idea that healthcare is a right is absurd. What I do believe is that universal access to health care is good public policy. With that assumption, there's a valid debate to be had about what the best way to implement that public policy is, whether it be single payer of free market.

The reason it is considered a right, is that it is something that the State is obligated to ensure for the common good. Think of it this way, if the person in question were a child, virtually no one would question, (whether that is done by a private hospital or the local government, national health insurance, etc., it not the issue.), that the sick child has a right to expect care. The child does and so the the community or country they live in is obligated to meet that moral right, just as the State has a obligation to ensure people treat their animals with dignity, or protect the unborn, or that the environment is protected. The State is obligated to ensure those things and people have a right to expect that it does. My 2 pennies, anyway.

[annewandering]

If it is not a right to have health care in a 1st world country then it should be. What is wrong with making sure the sick, injured or disabled are taken care of?

Oh well we should be able to spend more money on what we want? Not making sure the needy are taken care of? As I recall Christ was pretty clear that He cared for them. It is just astounding to me that anyone would argue that health care should only be available to the 'right' kind of people. Wealthy, farseeing, conpletely self supporting, and if they cant pay for it then they deserve to suffer or die. Perhaps preferably to die then they wont be bothering anyone again. Is this really what we saw Christ doing? He never asked people if they were deserving before He healed them. In fact it is obvious many were not particularly upstanding citizens.

[JohnnyRudick]

The reason it is considered a right, is that it is something that the State is obligated to ensure for the common good. Think of it this way, if the person in question were a child, virtually no one would question, (whether that is done by a private hospital or the local government, national health insurance, etc., it not the issue.), that the sick child has a right to expect care. The child does and so the the community or country they live in is obligated to meet that moral right, just as the State has a obligation to ensure people treat their animals with dignity, or protect the unborn, or that the environment is protected. The State is obligated to ensure those things and people have a right to expect that it does. My 2 pennies, anyway.

I like your sentiments.

But I do believe this brings us back to the old question.

Can we expect the government to legislate morality and not go berserk in the process?

Edited May 25, 2012 by JohnnyRudick
Spelling