But, before we get to that, a brief introduction:
My name is Hank & I run a blog called Ethics Gradient (which, it should be noted, may – does – contain some coarse language. In my mind, it’s all perfectly justified but I realise not everyone digs the sailor-talk). I also go by “Mandrellian” on various threads on various blogs, youtube videos and forums. After a few comments on a recent DI thread, Erich Vieth did me the honour of inviting me to be a contributor here at Dangerous Intersection. For my first post I’ve shared one of my previous works from my personal blog and edited it very, very slightly to improve the flow and readability [permalink]. Hopefully it will give people an idea where I’m coming from (besides Melbourne, Australia).
Many thanks to Erich for his faith in me. I shall attempt to justify it with my future posts. OK, let’s get on with it.
Why I am not an atheist …
… and why I am.
I am not an atheist because:
- I hate God
- I prayed to God and my prayers weren’t answered
- Militant/fundamentalist atheists converted me away from God
- I worship science and the works of man instead of God
- I’m rebelling against God like I rebelled against my parents & teachers in high school
- I think I’m better than God
- I had a bad experience with a priest or church or religious person
- I can’t decide which religion to subscribe to
- atheism is my religion
- I think religious people are idiots
- I worship Batman
- I worship Satan
- I’m immoral/amoral and would rather do what I want
- I want to destroy religion
I distrust and criticise (sometimes strongly) certain organised religions because:
- they are human inventions and many seem to be preoccupied with obsessively controlling aspects of peoples’ private lives instead of improving them
- many Christian churches seem primarily concerned with attracting money and then keeping it rather than using it charitably
- many holy books get descriptions of the world & nature completely wrong, which you would not expect had they been dictated by the omnipotent creator of the universe
- many holy books contain descriptions of human events that cannot be historically verified and in all likelihood never happened (eg. Exodus)
- many holy books contain numerous laws, acts & stories of a morality that modern, free societies find repugnant; these societies have passed many of their own laws contradicting such biblical “morality”
- as well as innumerable separate religions; there are so many separate & often violently opposed sects of each religion that it is more likely that none of them are correct than just one of them being so
- many religious groups demand special treatment such as the right not to be offended by statements, artworks, songs or anything else that may criticise or disagree with their dogma; their protests quite often run contrary to ideas such as free speech, beloved by most modern democratic societies
- religious groups frequently try to have laws passed which unfairly impose their narrow standards of behaviour, based on interpretations of specific holy commands, onto the rest of society
- religious people often tend to pick & choose from, or “interpret” their holy texts, discarding what does not conform to modern standards of morality, law & political freedom; they then bizarrely imply that modern morality, law and political freedom rests on the foundations of their particular religion
- there is such a wide spectrum of religious belief & adherence to dogma, ranging from light, barely-existent deism to the kind of rigid fundamentalism that oppresses and kills many, many people in its name, that it leads me to conclude that either their God wasn’t clear enough with his message, didn’t spread it to enough people or that humans have basically made their religions and associated rules up as they went along and have been in conflict with each other about them ever since
- many religious people & groups wilfully mis-characterise atheists as immoral, empty beings with no appreciation for beauty or mystery simply because we prefer natural explanations for the universe’s phenomena rather than defaulting to “God did it”; they believe that any explanation, even a wrong one, is better than “we just don’t know yet”
- many religious groups continue to deny long-accepted scientific facts such as the divergence of species through evolution and the verified age of the Earth; some wish their particular mythology taught as fact in science classes and go to extraordinary lengths to accomplish it; some even insist there’s a huge, dark Scientist Conspiracy quashing “academic freedom”
- many religious people & groups attempt to cherry-pick science (as they do their scriptures) for those parts which conform to their belief system while actively denying others, e.g. creationists agreeing with “microevolution” while denying “macroevolution” (which is like believing that matches cannot start bushfires) or attempting to use the Second Law of Thermodynamics to debunk the theory of evolution (which is like ajudicating a baseball game with a cricket rulebook)
- some religious groups deny the efficacy of modern medicine in favour of treating an ill person with prayer, a practice which has led to many preventable deaths, often of children
- they all make extraordinary claims based on their scriptures, provide no evidence beyond referring to their (unsurprisingly) self-confirming scriptures and then insist that the onus is on non-believers to disprove their claims
- many religions have become inextricably intertwined with the laws of the patriarchal or tribal cultures which spawned or adopted them, leading to divine justifications for such horrors as female circumcision and “honour killings”, which more often than not punish women, already under the thumbs of domineering males, for seemingly minute transgressions of law
- when it comes to the hot-button issue of sexual abuse by priests, many religions seem more concerned with good public relations, shielding themselves from culpability and keeping numbers in churches than with compensating victims and being active about either punishing perpetrators or preventing further abuse
I am an atheist because:
- any & all claims of and explanations for the existence of God or any other gods have thus far fallen far short of my standards of evidence
- my understanding of the natural universe is that it functions in such a way that doesn’t require (or indicate) the presence of any supernatural entity intervening in either the laws of nature or selected peoples’ lives
That’s it. They are the only two things that I can say I absolutely have in common with any other atheist. In matters of sex, politics, architecture, gaming, interior design, pets, music, clothing, hobbies, language, philosophy, education, sports, typing speed, preferred drugs, affinity with beagles & frogs and any number of other categories I may be diametrically opposite to any (or every) other atheist in the world. To label one atheist with the same attributes you label another atheist is ignorant at best, flat-out dishonest at worst. As such, I try not to do the same thing with religious people.
But what could steer me in the opposite direction? Probably the same things that could steer any atheist …
I could be converted to theism if:
- God, or a god, showed himself or performed an act that unambiguously proved his existence as an immortal, omnipotent being. As to what that proof would constitute: that god himself would be the perfect arbiter of what would conclusively prove to six billion people that he existed.
Such things as tortillas depicting blurred, apparently Mary-shaped silhouettes do not count. If you’re there, God, you’re on notice! Any time is fine. But no tricks – and come alone (if indeed there’s only one of you, otherwise, bring the whole parthenon).
—
In hindsight, there are quite a few things I left off both of those two longer lists, but I haven’t added them here. To add a large amount of new content to a re-post in the hope that a “special edition” would make it heaps, heaps better might (a) make me feel a total hypocrite, like I’m pulling a George Lucas (may he drown in his money-bin) and (b) turn people off, TL;DR style. I also believe that excessive after-the-fact editing takes a bit of the “blogginess” away from what I write. I like the sort-of “stream of consciousness” aspect of blogging, in that it provides a snapshot of my mindset at the precise time I was writing a post, warts & all, as opposed to being a considered, well thought-out post that took a very long time to compile. I don’t do many drafts. If I can’t finish something the day I start, it simply never gets published. Suffice it to say that philosophy didn’t serve me well at school!
OK, that’s enough of that. Keep enjoying the DI experience, readers. I hope to get into some serious/thoughtful/entertaining dialogue with some of you soon.
Hank
To Hank,
Thanks and live long and prosper my friend! I have been to this site before and I have always enjoyed and learned from the exchanges.
The "Apollo" episode of Star Trek always made me think too. In my period of doubt it was one of the causes of my concern. The whole idea that man created God rather than the other way around has always been a troubling possibility to me. There is a logic to it that is undeniable. Nature abhors a vacumn as they say.
However, we could turn that around and say that ancient man understood that there was a God, but in their first primative attempts to understand and define the concept we saw God as we saw ourselves, a fractious bunch of maniacs trying to conquer our environment. The Greek gods were just "suped up" reflections of the personalities found in tribal life. A powerful chief surrounded by all sorts of talented (and jealous) subordinates. The main difference was that they could hurl thunderbolts and turn themselves into wild animals. To me, comic books have been the natural continuation of Greek mythology that humanity seems to need at some core level.
The ancients would have found Jesus to be a real nerd in terms of Olympian standards. I finally came to realize that possibly it was not God who had failed us, but maybe that we were failing to comprehend Him. It is ultimately unprovable either way I admit, but that is what I believe.
To Erik:
What can I say to you my friend. We could study the bible to death and we would still disagree. You see the letter of the Law and I see the spirit. Jesus also had friends in the Sanhedrin too. They did not all necessarily proclaim Him the Messiah (particularly during His lifetime) and yet He did not call them names. Jesus helped people who were not even Jewish (much less Christian) as exampled by the story of the Roman Centurion with the dying servant. When he needed an example of charitable behavior He chose a Samaritan and not a Temple priest or one of His followers.
Erik you are trying way too hard. You are a very intelligent person and you have a wealth of knowledge that you seem to like to weild like some mental or spiritual mace. You want to smite those who disagree wuth you when simply putting forth your ideas should be enough. One of the things that I respect about most atheists is that they do not threaten those who disagree with them with eternal damnation or terminal jock itch. Jesus came to persuade and not to punish. If He had then the world would have gone up in a fireball two thousand years ago just as He was being led to the cross. Your view of God resembles an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie way more than mine. He'll be back!
I know that a few agnostics and atheists feel that we believers are deluded idiots and will say so. They might also feel the same way about Yankees fans. However, since I do not agree with their assessment of my mental state I don't feel the need to return hellfire on them. Sometimes Erik, silence is far more eloquent than words – if we really believe in what we think. Threatening people or calling names on behalf of ourselves or the Lord speaks more of impotent rage than of the zeal of true faith. Just my thoughts.
To my buddy Mike:
Great question: Is God all powerful? I honestly don't know. It is a fascinating question that religous scholars have argued about for centuries. Frankly, in my faith I don't think that He needs to be. What I can say is that the universe that you seem to be proposing under an all powerful God sounds pretty boring. A humanity that is nothing more than a tape loop of the knowledge and experiences of the Creator. No first hand experience? No knowledge or insight that might differ or enhance the relationship? We would be worse than robots -carbon copies. Your concept of a God is a first class narcissist. All He would really need is a mirror. Why bother? If I was an all powerful being the last thing that I would try to do is duplicate myself. I would try to do better.
Vesperiant: Thank you so very much for your kind and thoughtful words. I really do enjoy having you appear to share your perspective.
Vesperiant, I'm curious. Have you studied the Cosmos? Does the God you believe in favor Earth over the billions of other planets? Does he hang around our Solar System or Alpha Centauri's or both equally?
Do you believe in Adam and Eve? Noah? Virgin Mary? The Trinity?
What about miracles, or "faith" healing or "fate"?
Do you believe than Man/Woman are Sacred or are the reasonCreation? If so, why would God need Evolution to get us from slime to "modern" humans? Just to give us scientists something to crow about?
I see no logical reason to cram God into the cracks of human knowledge. I prefer to fill the unknown with fact or admire study and accept (or battle) nature with its imperfections.
This is not to say that religion does not comfort those who use it… Or whether religion is actually a boon to humanity, points both sides can argue. (for the record, I still say that religion is more harmful than good.)
Vesperiant wrote: "Your concept of a God is a first class narcissist."
Hmmm…I never thought of it that way. You've got a point. So, you're saying He may have introduced some "play" in the system to give us a chance to be better than he intended? We call it "free will"? Interesting theory.
I like your God. The way you describe Him, He always reminds me of you. Thoughtful, kind and generous. Erik's God is rigid and stern. A lot like Erik. Norman Mailer's God (if you read his final book) was a lot like Norman Mailer. Hmmm…paging Dr. Freud! Paging Dr. Freud!
Ben: Why get your back up with Vesperiant? There is no one as devout as he who is also as reasonable about it. Trust me, I know! Ben, Erich, Hank et al, I guarantee you would enjoy sitting and having a beer with V.
Erik claims to Mobius, "I have already debunked several [Bible contradictions] and can do it for all of them because they all have the same fallacy (taken out of context, avoiding the original language, lack of knowledge of the culture."
How about some specific examples?
Erik also claimed to me, "God is the only one who can change a person’s character."
More than a billion non-Christians (Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, etc.) disprove that claim every single day. And, if you believe that Muslims do not worship the same god that Christians do, more than a billion Muslims also disprove that claim every single day.
Erik also claimed to me that things such as "fulfilled OT prophecy, Israel, changed lives etc" are proof that the god-of-the-Bible exists. Unfortunately for Erik, there is no objective evidence that any OT prophecy has ever been fulfilled. Indeed, there is no objective evidence that OT prophecies actually were prophecies and not merely the result of, for example, selection bias or revisionist history. Even Israel is an invalid example because it can be written off as self-fulfilled prophecy. Of course, one of the biggest problems with Bible "prophecies" is that they are invariably ambiguous and without due dates, thus virtually guaranteeing that they can be said to be "fulfilled."
Bottom line: Erik's self-described "rational" arguments are ridiculous. Moreover, if you read his comments with any care, you'll notice that he never responds substantively to the arguments against him. The thing I wonder most about is what event(s) in Erik's life caused him to become a believer. He claims God changed him. How, exactly?
Mike, I like the way he explains things. I don't mean to seem aggressive, just have a lot of questions. In terms of the beer, I do normally knock back a few before posting at DI 😉
Just wanted to clarify something… I realize (but didnt write) that "cramming" God into the gaps of science is not the only way its done. Some religious people begin with God as Truth and then work their way from there, i'm not sure which Vesperiant would be, I'm genuinely curious.
To Erich:
Thanks for inviting me onto the site. As I say I get just as much (or maybe more) out of my participation as I put in. I enjoy the conversation.
To Mike: You make a good point there sir. Our personal view of God can be a reflection of our own personalities, however I do believe that my faith has helped to shape my personality to some degree. So which came first? I don't know. Some psychologists I know would argue with the selection of Dr. Freud as our analyst.
To Ben: I understand your point and no offense taken at all. I can see the validity of the idea that science could be enough for many people. No great being in the sky necessary. While science does engage in some speculation it is backed with genuine facts to a large degree- most of the time. The fault that I find with science is that while it often explains the how very well it never really even attempts to explain the why. I find the why to be just as important a question as the how. Maybe even more so.
Basically, I see science and religion as companions. Religion begat science out of the wonderful curiosity that is endemic to human nature. It was not enough (even for theologians and priests) simply to know God. They too desired to understand how things were done and how they continue to operate. Now these days many people feel (justifiably) that science has obviated the need for religion. But, as I say I am not in that group. I see the wonder of the Cosmos and celestial mechanics and I see a magnificent design that may very well have a designer. You feel differently and I can understand that attitude as I have no empirical data to prove my belief. Just faith and personal experience.
I fully understand that we may never get the proven answer to the why. I even admit that there may not even be a why. The answer to the existence of the universe may all be wrapped up in chaos theory. I just ask that my scientifically oriented friends be just a bit open to the possibility of a designer. Whomever or whatever you might deem that to be. I don't think that this possibility has been completely ruled out to this point.
Between you and me I don't think that most agnostics and atheists have as much of an issue with spirituality or even a potential God as they do with organized religion. Please read below:
To grumpy:
You are right about Erik. In my opinion God mainly changed Erik by giving him a sense of personal empowerment that he did not have before. Unfortunately, Erik apparently exercises this power by judging this idea or that person good or evil under the umbrella of (his understanding/interpretation of) God's Word. Erik's decisions are final and binding as he sees God's to be. That is the fundamentalist paradigm. No gray, no way.
The major problem that I have with most organized religions and with many people of faith is that there can be no gray in the universe for them. Nearly everything in the universe must be identified and categorized as good or evil. Nothing can just simply be in that paradigm. Value judgment is critical. No scientific theory can exist without being judged by this criteria (Big Bang = good and evolution = bad). It often gets very silly. I wonder which brand of TV dinner is on God's side (Healthy Choice) and who is batting for the devil (gotta be Stouffers or Lean Cuisine). Value judgments are far too important a decision to be wasted and spent as easily as some folks tend to use them. I suspect that we bore God to death with this sort of childish behavior.
Most heretics who were burned at the stake were NOT atheists. They were by and large passionately religious, but their ideas were found to be worthy of execution. Can it be possible to love God to the point of martyrdom in the wrong way? Those evil God lovers! I think that this mania to create and adhere to dogmas and to kill or punish those who disagree with them as evil is solely the work of deluded and power mad men. God has nothing to do with it.
My two cents worth.
Vesperiant wrote: "Some psychologists I know would argue with the selection of Dr. Freud as our analyst."
To clarify, I was jokingly referring to Dr. Freud's treatise, "The Future of an Illusion" in which he describes God and religion as man-made "inventions" in order to satisfy the "…fulfillments of the oldest, strongest, and most urgent wishes of mankind".
I did not mean to imply you needed a shrink!
Do, or do not, there is no Why…
http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/42
Vesperiant wrote, "The major problem that I have with most organized religions and with many people of faith is that there can be no gray in the universe for them."
This observation reminds me of a conversation I once had with a self-described "born-again Christian" relative of mine. My relative declared with absolute certainty that "hell is a real place." I replied, "You don't know anything more about death than I do. In fact, none of us knows what happens to us after we die." My relative was speechless. Apparently my relative was used to being surrounded by like-minded people who never bothered to notice the limits of human knowledge or the absurdity of Christian doctrine.
Vesperiant! Sorry for the belated reply, I was, um, out.
Fascinating point of view, that primitive humans knew there was a god/were gods, couldn't comprehend them and projected their own personalities onto them in order to understand them. I more or less agree with that except I'd probably subsititute "nature" for "gods". Incomprehensible things such as thunder, fire, rain, the stars themselves, were given agency and intent and were attributed to a cause, much as an early man may have identified himself as the "cause" of his family and the food in his lap and thought himself rather clever.
I think it's highly likely that early forms of animism – where totem animals or mountains or forces of nature were given sacred powers and worshipped as deities – evolved into the more "human" gods that we see in the ancient world. Zeus & Co. for example posessed great, but not ultimate, power and were subject to the same jealousies, rages and affairs of the heart as their human subjects. This may quite plausibly (it seems to have, almost undoubtedly) have developed onward to monotheism where the single god in question is, for all intent & purpose, some sort of ultimate human, posessing all knowledge and all power, which to me goes a way to explain the enduring power of Abrahamism – when there's only one, you can't reduce that any further. But that's not to say the evolution (by artificial selection now, mind you) stopped at Yahweh. Even he changed from an unpredictable, vengeful, jealous monster in the OT into a comparably loving & charitable avatar, in the form of gentle Jesus, in the NT. Some would presumptuously say he still has a way to go! But hey, if God's out there, maybe it's meant to be our job to find him and not his job to just turn up and say "hey." We humans have only been around a hundred millennia or so too – a geological heartbeat. You'd think that'd also be a swift eye-blink for the God of Abraham.
As a somewhat cheeky afterthought, we even have 'transitional fossils' in the timeline of deity development – between the ancient Thunderbird of North America & Rainbow Serpent of Australia and today's single, perfect God – the half-animal gods of Hinduism (eg Ganeesha) and ancient Egypt (eg Anubis) have long been favourites of mine…
As for comics, I do believe they have taken – and dramatically expanded – the roles once filled by the Greek & Norse pantheons and superhumans such as Odysseus & Achilles. Having said that I prefer mortal, fallible Batman over all others. Probably because it's his keen mind and massive vengeance complex that keep him ahead of the badguys. He has a cerebral edge which ironically probably wouldn't even exist without that dark rage. He's not a superhero, or even a hero. He's just an angry, angry man who's fortunate enough to have gazillions of dollars to buy toys with and provide himself with a cover. But I reckon he'd be just as fearsome without the money – he'd still have his angry, angry brain. Maybe I like his character because he's a mortal man responding to an extraordinary world in an extraordinary way – plus he's only a whisker from turning into a crazed psycho! The ultimate noir protagonist. For the same reasons I also get a lot of joy from Ironman – a drunken womanizing billionaire with a totally sweet battle suit. Guess I just love my flawed heroes.
OK, that's it. Let's have that beer one of these days.
Hank: I do love superheroes too. I learned to read by reading superhero comics. This connection between superheroes and gods is intriguing. I suspect that I learned to "feel" right and wrong (as opposed to intellectualizing moral commitment) when I read stories of Batman, Flash, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, etc.
BTW, if you'd like to watch some pretty impressive animation enjoy some even better story telling, check out the animated Justice League video series. You'll see that your hero, Batman is smitten by Wonder Woman (and vice versa) though he's fighting it (because he's Batman). I, on the other hand, dream of Hawkgirl.
There's four total sets of videos by the same writers and animators, two each under the names of Justice League and Justice league Unlimited.
Interesting how this thread worked it way through much passion and then comes to a near screaching halt by a discussion of "superheros."
Non-existent humans with projections of greatness and super-human abilities. Send in the gods, there ought to be gods.
Yes, Karl, but everyone knows superheroes are fiction. Fantasy indulgences without the need to worry about the deep, penetrating questions.
Unlike gods, which are still fantasy indulgences, but demand concern over the deep, penetrating questions.
The one true God, the creator of heaven and earth and everything above, below and inbetween allows everyman the perogative to believe what they will.
Is it not conceivable that people who believe that macroevolution is true have made science to operate upon their imaginations and have themselves created an alternate reality conceived as some remote yet the only naturalistic possibility based soley upon a material existence?
Those who imagine that billions of years have turned non-life into life and then hundreds of millions of years have changed simpler organisms into more complex ones also have a god (or religion) of their own making?
Yet this god (naturalism and evolution) is impotent and fully lacking in any supernatural abilities. Is this why you still insist in toying with the idea of super-heros?
Well, it's been a while since I personally toyed with superheroes, but to answer your question, Karl, people insist on toying with them because they're fun.
Mark says:
(Superheros are) "Unlike gods, which are still fantasy indulgences, but demand concern over the deep, penetrating questions."
and, "people insist on toying with them because they’re fun."
I'm all for fantasy and fun as long as I can tell the difference from reality. For me its only fun and fantasy until someone innocent gets hurt. Then who decides whose fantasy went a little over the edge?
Interesting root similarility between the words fantasy and fanatic. Are fanatics people who believe and act upon their imaginations and fantasy? Perhaps it starts as a distraction from reality, but then it becomes the individual's reality. Sounds similar to Grumpy's descriptions of how people create gods either knowingly or unknowingly.
I'd say you've got it, Karl.
"1. Israel – God said that they will always be a people once He brought them into existence and they have been. They are here today even though many atheists have tried to destroy them (Stalin as one example).
2. The over 300 Old Testament prophecies (some written 1500 years before His birth) of the first Advent of Jesus Christ. Could not be a coincidence because we do not have a number large enough to show the odds against all of them being fulfilled in One person.
3. The resurrection – yes the one with Christ Himself but also the one that I experienced. I was spiritually dead in my sins (a slave to sin) and God brought me to life (changed my life and set me free from slavery to sin). "
——–
erik, those aren't proofs. They don't even approach.
1. God totally failed to promise the Cherokee people anything, and yet, they are still here. Lots of ethic groups are. God didn't promise the Tamil eternal existence, but they still exist, despite other people's attempts to kill them off. Is that proof that their deity exists? I think not.
2. So what? There are lots of prophecies of all kinds of things in lots of books. Given enough time and spin, you can apply them to everything, especially if you know the prophecies and get to write the book at a time when very few can contradict you as to what happened. Has it occurred to you that the Jesus story might have been tailored to fit prophecy? No? Well, regardless of whether it has occurred to you, that dispatches your second "proof".
3. We don't know with any certainty that Jesus rose, and your personal revelation is personal. It means nothing to me that you were convinced to behave differently because you found a new religion. People do that with Islam too… does that prove that Muhammed was truly a prophet of god? No?
Seth makes some good points, apropos of Erik, over here: Once a Skeptic
Seth
You want to compare apples to oranges (another good liberal tactic) but it just does not work.
There are no prophecies that are specific and exact like the ones in the Bible, there just is no comparison. Plus you do not have to spin the promises of God, they are clear to see (even for a child) as long as you do not have an agenda blinding your eyes.
We have lots of proof that Jesus rose. You just chose to ignore the details and facts. You already have your mind made up. Have you heard of Josh McDowel? He was an unbeliever who wanted to disprove the resurrection. He studied the details and facts and became a believer.
Hank: Have you heard of the "cargo cults" before. I just ran across this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1skNgYdJXK8&featur…
Having long (and probably stupidly) been puzzled by the connection between a political leaning (Left/Right/Socialist/etc) and religious conviction, certain comments on a certain someone's behalf have caused my backbrain to come to grips with it:
Left = permissive = letting people make up their own minds about truth
Right = disciplinarian = letting people pretend to make up their own minds about important matters as long as they conclude that religious doctrine is correct.
The puzzling part comes from the connection of Libertarianism to Right of Center political doctrine and in some instances with religious doctrine.
(Basically, Libertarianism says that people should be allowed to do what they want and make their own decisions, but don't ask us for any help in education or community support. You can supply that support if you—YOU—are so inclined, but it's your decision and should not obligate me (anyone else) to do likewise, which leaves wide distribution of such support in the hands of charities which have no power to tax. As soon as it becomes a community-based movement that requires members of said community to contribute. it is automatically Left and therefore punitive to individual freedom of choice. Which means, bottom line, that Libertarianism functionally affiliates with the Right even while holding sometimes radically Left viewpoints.)
The addition of a religious element to Right political doctrine is a justification based on "There have always been poor, disadvantaged, etc because god wills it so (as Mike Huckabee would put it, "the world is broken" and so attempts to correct the inequities are automatically in opposition to The Way Things Must Be." It is therefore punitive to those who have "clearly" been blessed to make them share what they have with those who have "clearly" not been blessed. (Perhaps they don't say it this way, but it comes out that way in practice. See my DI post: http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/11/18/the-p… )
Anyway, I must be grateful for having this rendered finally so "clearly."
Congratulations to Hank, whose post "Why I am not an atheist" recently appeared at the "Carnival of the godless." http://ranaban.blogspot.com/2009/01/carnival-of-g…