Who Is Most Likely to Oppose Totalitarianism?

78 Comment(s)

1. Dr. Robert Higgs,
   Your analysis here is not flawed,but absolutely and unequivocally right!However,there is no longer any need to hope for the survival of liberty, vit is now in memoriam – a part of history.
   May I, respectfully submit that people of faith and atheists will and do fight side by side for the same cause. Therefore, if atheists are able to convince enough people of faith to fight for their “common interest”, they reduce resistance. Faith also serves the tyrants to conquer their perceived enemies.
   Keep up the good work -
   Thanking you for this opportunity to comment.

   James de Laurier | Mar 29, 2012 | Reply

2. I think it is misleading to seek an explanation for the success or steadfastness of ideological opponents of statism in terms of atheism vs. theism. Unlike for other dichotomies–e.g., individualism vs. collectivism, or reason vs. faith–one of the components here, atheism, is not actually an ideology. Atheism is merely the lack of or disbelief in one very particular category of ideologies, namely those that believe in a supernatural realm accessed through non-sensory means.

   While I tend to agree with the correlation being pointed out here, namely that many of staunchest self-avowed defenders of liberty have been theists, I don’t think there is causation here.

   I have an alternative explanation. The intellectual landscape of the modern world can be largely divided into two camps: the religious, who seek ultimate truth through faith, and the skeptics/pragmatists who doubt our ability to find any ultimate truth. Pragmatists are not constitutionally disposed to stay true to fixed principles, like that of individual freedom. Thus, by default, if you weren’t a pragmatist, and did stick to that principle, you were religious.

   But what if the religion vs. pragmatism dichotomy is itself a false one, an artifact of modern culture? I think that is in fact the case, and that a third category, embodied in the Enlightenment, defies this dichotomy. Indeed Enlightenment thinkers, and the American Founders, were relatively *less* religious in historical terms, while simultaneously being advocates (and discoverers) of fixed principles, including individual freedom.

   The real question is who have been better advocates of freedom: Enlightenment thinkers or religious conservatives? And I don’t think there’s any competition here.

   Eric Dennis | Mar 30, 2012 | Reply

3. Amen, Bob!

   However, I am more optimistic than you. As you know, it is not a question of how many people of faith, but the strength and courage of those there are. After all, Christianity started as a small cult, and grew exponentially—especially in the first 4 centuries before Constantine made it the official “state” religion—eventually sweeping universal European slavery away in its path, and going on to develop fully God’s laws of liberty. I happen to hold firm in the faith that those of us whose work is rooted in God’s natural law “will out.” Finally, in the areas of the globe that are rising economically—South America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and China—Christianity is spreading like wildfire.

   So here’s to liberty, and to you!

   Best wishes,
   Mary

   Mary L. G. Theroux | Mar 30, 2012 | Reply

4. And you said atheism is not an ideology...

   Todd Williamson | Mar 30, 2012 | Reply

5. I am not sure that your analysis is flawed but I do believe there are other reasons for America’s current change away from the freedoms it was founded on. Those people of faith during the founders time were less religious in nature and were more scholarly towards their faith. There was not as much organization of religion at that time. Since that time religion itself infiltrated and organized itself into different sects of protestant belief. The protestants moved away from theology being taught to the degree of the founders choosing, to become more of a social religious organization exuding moral self-righteous judgment which moved into the political arena. The politcal arena was the perfect platform for them to try and legislate their morals onto society. As a result, they have been instumental in the decline of our liberties and freedoms. There are still those today who recognize the trends you speak of and are willing to fight to the death, however, it is not necessarily because of either of the platforms you spoke of.

   Faith has not always been connected with morality as suggested by the Religious Right. Morality extends to all facets of life and is horably motivated by adherence to the laws of divine establishment and is required of the entire human race, believers and unbelievers. What an unbeliever can produce cannot be the Christian way of life, but his morality can contribute to the stability of his nation. Christianity includes morality but exceeds morality through the combined operation of all the Christian values.

   The maturity in knowledge of doctinal truths and application thereof requires a level of study and understanding that is not taught in modern Christianity. Doctrine has been replaced with just enough teaching to encourage morality but leaving out the true application of all Christian Values. Many of todays Christians approach their faith with emotionalism instead of intellect. Intellectial understanding and application of doctines with the resultant faith, enabled the forefathers the strength to endure.

   Alida Lott | Mar 30, 2012 | Reply

6. Eric, I am inclined to agree with your take. To me, it is striking that today’s greatest promoter of freedom to the masses, Ron Paul, is a devout man. On the other hand, we have Ayn Rand, an atheist, who inspired a generation of freedom activists. Though Rand certainly had fixed principles. Religious or not, such folks are “evangelical”. Though it is clear that many of America’s religious today are major supporters of the warfare state.

   D. Saul Weiner | Mar 30, 2012 | Reply

7. The big question is: how long does ideological change take? The genius of Ron Paul is his recognition that freedom brings people together and so what before was disjointed, disconnected, and separated can now – through the tolerance and forebearance of the belief in liberty – become as one; side by side and hand in hand the atheists and the Jews and the Muslims and the Catholics and the Protestants and the skeptics and the Mormons and the Adventists and anf the agnostics and the Hindus and the Buddhists and the Baha’is and the New Agers all see that liberty is what sustains their subjective choices and justice protects those choices. The ideological change that is building – and with Godspeed may reach critical mass soon enough for an orderly transition – is the wild card!

   One thing that I discovered in my research is that the classical liberalism basis of human civilization is alwys present and so there is no need to fear a void when the State is destroyed!

   Bruce Koerber | Mar 30, 2012 | Reply

8. I believe Bob is right for this reason: atheists are more likely to be utilitarian and theistic libertarians more likely to emphasize the “natural rights” from which liberty springs. What is the utility of seemingly futile resistance with not even hope of justice in the next world?

   In researching the figures in my book _Race and Liberty_ I found them to be taking extremely unpopular causes but driven to do so by faith. Not always but mostly. They had a sense that “nothing that is wrong is settled” in history.

   Among the agnostics and atheists, I sense far deeper pessimism. So I’ll side (hopefully) with Mary Theroux that liberty and justice will out in the long run–even if our pitiful contributions to that long run pay off long after we pass from this world.

   Jonathan Bean | Mar 30, 2012 | Reply

9. This reminds me: _Liberty_ magazine used to do a poll of its readers every 10 years. I have an older one (Feb. 1999) that compared libertarian views in 1999 with 1988. “There is a god.” In 1988, 26% agreed but that number rose to 38% by 1999. I wonder where that stands today?

   Jonathan Bean | Mar 30, 2012 | Reply

10. @Eric– there is a key flaw in your argument. Enlightenment thinkers and religious conservatives were not mutually exclusive groups. And as to the answer to your question, tyrants quite often consider themselves enlightened. The answer is not nearly as simple as it might appear.

    Elizabeth Bernard Higgs | Mar 30, 2012 | Reply

11. I cannot agree with the assumptions made in this article.

    Theists outnumber Atheists by orders of magnitude – so of course more Theists will be involved in opposing totalitarianism – the major distinction being, the Atheist is more likely oppose it for all, whereas the Theist is more likely to oppose it only for others of their sect – anyone not of their sect is of the “wrong” sect (i.e., Catholics v Protestants, Catholics v Pagans, Catholics v Moslems, etc.).

    The same numbers will also prove that those most in favor of totalitarianism, the Warfare/Welfare State and the Police State are Theists rather than Atheists. . .

    As Eric posited above, “The real question is who have been better advocates of freedom: Enlightenment thinkers or religious conservatives?”
    I have to agree with his conclusion.

    James | Mar 31, 2012 | Reply

12. Rather glib. There tend to be more people “of faith” in a given society than there are athiests, therefore there will appear to be, among the resisters of tyranny, more people “of faith.” Such a grade school observation in no way implies that a successful campaign of resisting tyranny requires more people to find Jeebus.

    Besides, since when do “groups” ever act? Are buddhist communities acting as a singular group when their individual members choose to follow, by and large, a get-along-to-get-along approach to oppression? Or are the individual buddhist monks who self-immolate as a reaction to perceived tyranny doing something shockingly blasphemous by acting outside the so-called consensus?

    I imagine a follow-up opinion piece will be all about proselytizing — er, I mean, raising class consciousness through polylogist rhetoric...

    Vanmind | Mar 31, 2012 | Reply

13. Uh, that’s go-along-to-get-along, of course.

    Vanmind | Mar 31, 2012 | Reply

14. Centers of Power, whether secular or religious, do not appear to me to ever favor the liberty of the individual.

    Only when multiple such Centers vie for the allegiance of individuals do such Centers’ agents tolerate individual liberty.

    At all times and places Men commonly look to those in such Centers for answers to Life’s unanswerable questions. The resulting narratives animate both support of and resistance to the natural tyranny of the Powerful.

    For this reason it seems oversimplified to suggest religion plays a necessary role in opposition to tyranny. Narratives that oppose Power’s tyranny just usually spring from a nexux that wishes to form its own Center of Power.

    The exception that proves the rule is a philosophy that recognizes the life-affirming value of extending the cooperative norms governing human interaction at the level of acquaintanceship to those operating in anonymous or pseudo-anonymous relationships. This Voluntaryist or “market-anarchist” ethic is aligned neither with nor against theism, it opposes the injustice and substandard outcomes of all systems that concentrate Power.

    David C. | Apr 1, 2012 | Reply

15. Addendum: I see liberty as following a sine wave, cycling on the continuum between Total Tyranny and Total Liberty (never reaching either pole, of course).

    Sallust said it best: Most men do not desire liberty; most only wish for a just master. This desire for simple answers to complex questions forms a perpetual clamor for Masters with Answers, and Masters must have slaves.

    Today few people have the will to reject the Statists’ answers (dressed as they now are in the costume of objective science) so tyranny is ascendant. Theism may oppose this tyanny, but it will do so with a different set of answers no less illusory.

    At the risk of embracing just another dogma, it appears to ME that only philosophical commitment to the notion that the limits of human wisdom negate the value of ALL such pseudo-answers offers a coherent and timeless commitment to increasing the liberty of the individual.

    David C. | Apr 1, 2012 | Reply

16. I thank everyone who has commented, even the person who calls himself “Vanmind,” who chose to comment in an insulting and condescending manner. It’s always refreshing to be called, in effect, a fool—good for my humility.

    I must say, however, that most of the commenters have missed my little point and gone off in directions that amount to attacks on straw men. My comment refers to my observation that in totalitarian states such as Nazi Germany and the USSR, those who have resisted the state—necessarily running the risk of imprisonment, torture, and death—have consisted disproportionately of people of faith. I have no systematic data on this matter, only my impression gained from fifty years of studying the state at various times and places.

    I do believe, however, that some of the commenters greatly overestimate the willingness of atheist lovers of liberty to risk everything in resisting the state. Such people have their lives to lose, and for them, their lives are everything. People of faith understand that this life is but a short journey before an everlasting life. They may also believe the words of Jesus: “For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.” We have good evidence that some of them, such as Pastor Bomhoeffer, have believed precisely so.

    Robert Higgs | Apr 1, 2012 | Reply

17. “The worst will get on top, as F. A. Hayek warned, and I do not expect these top dogs to be anything but devout atheists.”

    I see. And of course your extensive studies of the state have good reasons to exclude France (secular revolt against the Catholic monarch) and any examples where religion has provided an infrastructure for successful revolt against oppressive secular regimes and resulted in even more oppressive religious regimes which exploit both the infrastructures of the state and of religion.

    What is your evidence that George W. Bush was a “devout atheist” feigning religious faith?

    Also, there is no such thing as a “devout atheist.”

    Alison Cummins | Apr 2, 2012 | Reply

18. Robert,

    You’re confusing me. I don’t see why the following types of arguments are off point.

    In surveys about 2% of people report being atheists. So, if atheists are as likely as theists to resist, then we should expect about 2% of totalitarian resisters to be atheists. If the percentage is less, you are right; if it is the same or more, then you are wrong.

    When you claim that atheists are less likely than theists to resist, I take you to be essentially claiming that less than 2% of the resisters are atheists. Is your claim this strong? I realize that you were not being this precise, but does the 2% figure ring true to you, roughly speaking?

    One could study resistance to authoritarianism for centuries and, unless they were expecting the percentage to be about 2, they would probably come to the misleading conclusion that atheists aren’t as likely as theists to resist authoritarianism.

    I think that your claim entails the following: if we randomly sampled enough atheists and theists under authoritarian regimes, then we will find that the percentage of resisters in the theist subset is greater than the percentage in the atheist subset (and that this difference is statistically significant). Does this capture the logic of your claim? If we did have systematic data on this, is this the hypothesis that we would test?

    I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m missing something here. I just can’t shake my initial intuition, which is that these intro-to-stats lines of reasoning cut to the heart of your claim, and do not, as you say, address straw man.

    Thank you for this and many other stimulating blog posts! I hope my tone doesn’t come off as snarky, because it is written with genuine interest and respect. Thanks again.

    Eric S | Apr 2, 2012 | Reply

19. Hardly. Some of the greatest blows to liberty in the last decade have come straight out of the mega-churches.

    Thom | Apr 2, 2012 | Reply

20. 1) Correlation! = causation
    2) For most of history atheists have been a very small number
    3) For most of history public atheists have been an even smaller number
    4) Atheists have very rarely been organized in any form (outside Buddhism, but then you’d call them men of faith) under the atheist banner
    5) Considering the high level of distrust most people have had for atheists, is it surprising that atheists could not really lead public movements?

    Addicted | Apr 2, 2012 | Reply

21. Well, this is a refreshing change from the usual line of people such as Stefan Molyneux, who think the state depends on religion for its sustenance. Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle?

    It’s strange to suggest that non-theists have no care for the future, just because they don’t believe in the afterlife; do our children not matter? Also, what kinds of resistance are we talking about – only direct resistance? Why ignore people who “vote with their feet” and leave, or those who engage in seditious activities like withdrawing from the mainstream and living simply? And what does it mean, that religious people resist disproportionately? That with 80% of the population religious, 90% of the resisters are religious? Is your data really that accurate? Might some of this be merely related to the fact that the churches can become centers of resistance because people get together there once a week, and the non-theists have no such corresponding place to gather?

    I think this is not a fruitful line for investigation. The state always hopes to keep us at each other’s throats: “Divide and Rule”. It suits their ends to have us arguing over who is better at resisting them. Let’s split society where it should be split, parasites vs productive, or coercive vs “live and let live”.

    Paul Bonneau | Apr 2, 2012 | Reply

22. Interesting proposition although I can find a few flaws that need explaining:

    1. Two huge leaps forward in the American state was the Civil war and Reconstruction; and the Civil Rights movement in the 60′s. Should people of faith have fought both these movements?

    2. In addition to atheistic atrocities perpetrated by the State (Stalin and Hitler) what about the Inquisition, Geneva under Calvin or various conservative Muslim states? Power in the hands of ideologues, seems to be the problem, whatever the source of the ideology.

    The willingness to challenge such ideologies is probably nurtured by strong spirituality, but this true regardless of the specific content of the belief. But I reject the premise that state expansion is categorically, always accompanied by loss of liberty or atrocity.

    Tim | Apr 2, 2012 | Reply

23. This is ridiculous. There’s a simple reason why you don’t see mass resistance by atheist groups: there aren’t any significant atheist groups. Religions are both belief systems and organizations, atheism is only a belief system.

    Soho | Apr 2, 2012 | Reply

24. In your analysis, does the term “totalitarianism” include both secular and religious tyranny?

    If by totalitarianism, you mean only or mostly secular tyranny, then it’s not surprising if the main resisters are people of faith.

    When there is a rise of a theocracy, I would expect secular people to be prominent among the opposition.

    However, there may still be a difference in the means chosen by the religious and the secular in their opposition. Perhaps the religious are more willing to die for their beliefs, but history has proven both the good and bad sides of that trait.

    Jonas | Apr 2, 2012 | Reply

25. I’m no altruist — thankfully — but isn’t valuing one’s own life the best reason for resisting tyranny?

    Yes, yes, I know. Whom, exactly, am I thanking?

    Vanmind | Apr 2, 2012 | Reply

26. If you admit that you lack the data to reach a conclusion on it, then why jump to the conclusion? There can be so many confounding variables:

    1. Maybe atheists are less ostentatious, so they report standing up to power less, or have fewer co-adherents to report their “martyrdom.”
    2. Maybe atheists have always been a small proportion of any population and thus you’re not comparing apples to applies; you’d have to compare proportions of societies that fought back relative to that society.
    3. Maybe the religious examples you have were people that only happened to be nominally religious. Just like many pro-slavery people before the 19th century who did valiant things while only nominally being pro slavery.
    4. Maybe the types of people that fought back had a dependent personality trait that gravitated towards religion (i.e. religion was the result, not the cause).

    A Country Farmer | Apr 2, 2012 | Reply

27. Dr. Higgs,

    I’am a Roman Catholic and you’re damn right!

    Diogo Siqueira | Apr 2, 2012 | Reply

28. I must live on a different planet than Bob and most of you do.

    Was it not the Condordat that the Catholic Church signed with the Third Reich in the 30s that eviscerated organized Catholic opposition to Hitler, and so smoothed his ascendancy?

    Was not the Catholic Church aligned with Spain’s hideous Franco? Chile’s hideous (U.S.-backed) Pinochet? And did not the Argentine Catholic Church ultimately apologize for it’s collaboration with Argentina’s (U.S.-backed) murderous, fascist regime in the 1980s?

    Was not Guatemala’s Rios Montt, an uber-Christian if there ever was one, the most murderous tyrant to ever disgrace the presidency of Guatemala (a distinction with many ardent ‘competitors’ vying for the brass ring)?

    Was it not the hyper-Christian Bush who started at least one disastrous war based on glaring falsehoods? Was it not he, “God’s obedient servant,” who shredded habeas corpus, established a torture regime, secret gulags, extraordinary renditions, due process-free, targeted assassinations, indefinite detentions, domestic, warrantless spying and myriad other violations of civil liberties and human rights?

    And has not the Christian President Obama continued and extended the very violations of his oh, so devout predecessor?

    Maybe y’all are living in a world where Christians are the resistance, and not heavily numbered among the perps. If so, would you please tell me how to find it?

    Gary Aguilar, MD
    San Francisco

    GaryA | Apr 2, 2012 | Reply

29. Amen, Soho!

    GaryA | Apr 2, 2012 | Reply

30. Bush was “hyper-Christian”? Really? How so? You mean after hearing him say that Muslims and Christians and Jews are all going to heaven and that the Bible isn’t historically accurate? Regardless of my view or yours on these, he definitely didn’t qualify as a “hyper-Christian”.

    Adam | Apr 3, 2012 | Reply

31. I’m a big Higgs fan, but am not on the same page with him this time. First, the assertion that “Modern culture in most parts of the world is now overwhelmingly secular and even anti-religious” is controversial, at best. True atheists are a small fraction of the world’s population. Surveys put the number in the 2%-4% range. Given this, simple math says that if willingness to resist totalitarianism is randomly distributed, 2%-4% of the resisters will be atheists and 96%-98% will be superstitious types (religionists). Higgs needs to control for the base rate and obviously hasn’t.

    Second, why focus on emergencies (a category that includes, e.g., Pearl Harbor and 9/11) rather than the erosion of freedoms that occurs every day as governments seek to expand their powers and intrude more into our personal lives? A good example occurred this week when the US Supreme Court ruled that jailers can strip search anyone they want without probable cause, including people arrested for minor offenses. The ACLU, that bastion of secularism, is already protesting the decision. What about the Catholic Church? A quick Google search turned up nothing–except derisive comments that 4 of the 5 Catholic Justices (Sotomayor being the exception) voted with the majority. God-fearing Scalia, Alito et al. think its just fine for the US Gov’t to stick its mighty hand up everyone’s -ss. Nor, to my knowledge, have Catholic Justices distinguished themselves by railing against the War on Drugs or other efforts to aggrandize the government’s power, or by using their judicial powers to strike down questionable laws. They may lash out against the health care reform act, but that is Republicans vs. Democrats, not religious people vs. the state.

    Charlie | Apr 3, 2012 | Reply

32. It occurred to me that readers of this website may not yet have heard of the US Supreme Court’s decision in the Florence case, which I refer to in the preceding comment. Brief summary: Man mistakenly arrested sued after being strip searched twice; holding–no violation of his civil rights because jailers can strip search anyone introduced into the general prison population as many times as they want and need not have probable cause.

    Justice Ginsburg’s dissent lists the following examples of objectionable strip searches that actually occurred:

    A nun, a Sister of Divine Providence for 50 years, who was arrested for trespassing during an antiwar demonstration. Brief for Sister Bernie Galvin et al. as Amici Curiae 6.

    Women who were strip-searched during periods of lactation or menstruation. Id., at 11–12 (describing humiliating experience of female student who was strip searched while menstruating); Archuleta v. Wagner, 523 F. 3d 1278, 1282 (CA10 2008) (same for woman lactating).

    Victims of sexual violence. Brief for Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project et al. as Amici Curiae.

    Individuals detained for such infractions as driving with a noisy muffler, driving with an inoperable headlight, failing to use aturn signal, or riding a bicycle without an audible bell.Brief for Petitioner 11, 25; see also Mary Beth G., supra, at 1267, n. 2 (considering strip search of a person arrested for having outstanding parking tickets and a person arrestedfor making an improper left turn); Jones v. Edwards, 770
    F. 2d 739, 741 (CA8 1985) (same for violation of dog leashlaw).

    If you think the TSA is out of line when it searches you before letting you board a flight, prepare yourself for much worse if you’re arrested while protesting the gov’t's invasion of your privacy.

    Charlie | Apr 3, 2012 | Reply

33. Another day, another set of comments attacking positions I did not take. It’s almost as if my little post touched a nerve.

    A few additional points—

    First, two paragraphs do not make a treatise or even an article. Of course I did not take X, Y, and Z into account. What would you expect from two paragraphs that clearly do little more than raise a question (see the title).

    Second, my question is narrowly framed in relation to “a certain fact about episodes of sudden or extraordinary expansion of the state: when push came to shove, those who resisted—often to the death—tended to be people of faith.” Whether this seeming fact is correct is one question. Clearly, however, the question does not pertain to who tends to resist the growth of the state in “normal” times or in nontotalitarian conditions. Totalitarian states are generally understood to have come into existence in the twentieth century. They are not the same as tyrannies, which have existed here and there from time immemorial and which have attracted resisters and rebels galore of all sorts.

    Third, I am not denying that religiously inspired or connected tyrannies have existed and been resisted at various times and places. I am not saying that all or most religious people have resisted totalitarian regimes or will in the future. I am not saying that atheists have no reason to resist totalitarianism or have never done so historically. I am not making assumptions about statistical distributions in the population.

    Several comments lead me to suspect, however, that people underestimate the prevalence of atheism (whether nominal or simply de facto) in the U.S. population. Poll data about whether people believe in God are almost irrelevant; if people never act as if they believe in God, their statement to a pollster that they believe in God is worthless evidence of their theism. Atheism is as atheism does. However, my statement in the initial post has nothing to do with the extent of theism or religious affiliation in the population. I said, “Modern culture in most parts of the world is now overwhelmingly secular and even anti-religious.” If you do not believe this observation, I am inclined to doubt that you have been paying attention to the culture in which you are immersed.

    You could spend entire days in the faculty clubs of the leading U.S. universities and never find a single person who admitted to a belief in God. Ditto for the offices where the mainstream media churn out their product; the people in Hollywood and elsewhere who make the movies, songs, and other cultural effluvia; and the people at work “teaching” in public school classrooms where tens of millions of children are confined. In Europe, the extent of cultural atheism is even greater. If religion is seen in the popular culture as a sign of mental disease or feeble-mindedness, it is pointless to suppose that atheism is an attribute of only a tiny minority of the population.

    Recall, again, however, that my question relates to situations when push comes to shove. In the United States, such situations have arisen primarily in association with the state’s wars. In World War II, for example, when the state forced more than 10 million men into military slavery, who resisted? Is it simply a bizarre and meaningless coincidence that of all the men imprisoned for refusing to comply with the draft laws, about 3/4 of them were Jehovah’s Witnesses?

    Robert Higgs | Apr 3, 2012 | Reply

34. Perfectly said, Charlie.

    And of what religious persuasion were the men who pulled the levers in Germany’s gas chambers during WWII, if not Christian (Catholic and Protestant)? They sure weren’t Jewish!

    GaryA | Apr 3, 2012 | Reply

35. Robert,

    You write, inter alia, “Poll data about whether people believe in God are almost irrelevant; if people never act as if they believe in God, their statement to a pollster that they believe in God is worthless evidence of their theism. Atheism is as atheism does.”

    What is it that “atheism” does, Robert? Bad things, I presume?

    Should we therefore conclude that, since they acted as if they didn’t believe in god – by orchestrating acts of torture and cold-blooded murder, launching aggressive, unprovoked wars, suppressing civil liberties, civil and human rights, etc. that proud, boastful Christians such as Bush, Obama, Pinochet, Rios Montt, Franco, et al are not really theists after all, but atheists instead?

    It seems to me that the biggest supporters of Bush/Obama’s pro-war, pro-torture, pro-Guantanamo, pro-shredding of civil liberties and human rights policies tend to be conservatives, with no small number of Christian conservatives among them.

    For just one example, a Pew poll showed that Support for torture was highest among most devoutly religious. And support for Bush’s fraudulent war was also highest among Christian evangelicals. http://www.patrolmag.com/2009/04/30/david-sessions/christians-more-likely-to-support-torture/

    A quick web search will confirm the pro-totalitarian tendencies of significant percentages (often majorities) of Christian conservatives. Those most stoutly opposed to Police State/totalitarian policies tend to be leftists, particularly hard leftists such as Chomsky, Michael Parenti, Glenn Greenwald, etc. And that’s that lot that’s the one group most likely to be atheist.

    But your comments offer comfort to conservative Christians who turn a blind eye to the Christians who pulled the levers in Treblinka, the Christians who ran U.S.-supported death squads in Latin America’s dirty wars, and the Christians who’ve pushed us into the latest batch of dirty wars – in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, etc., etc.

    GaryA | Apr 3, 2012 | Reply

36. Gary, you make some very good points in relation to atheism and those which were leading some (i.e., none of the communist examples, and some of the socialist ones) of the despotic regimes we’ve seen this century.

    However, I can’t seem to get over that no one has attempted to answer the question in the title? Who can we expect to resist totalitarian regimes based on recent history? Since this is the purpose of the post, rather than who’s an atheist and who isn’t, and you seem to be a rather sharp guy (I say that not sarcastically), are you able to answer the question. Honestly, I’d love to see you take a crack at it.

    Adam | Apr 3, 2012 | Reply

37. Adam,

    I’m a big fan of Higgs, generally. But he proposed the question and he gave an answer. I think his answer, this time, is quite wrong.

    One need look only to the latest Supreme Court decision in which the conservative, and mostly Catholic, contingent decided that the police may strip-search anyone arrested for anything, if they chose.

    Get picked up for an unpaid parking ticket? Drop your drawers and bend over pal, the conservatives who hate intrusive government want to take a peek in your anus and it’s just tough if you don’t like it.

    You can’t make this stuff up!

    The conservative Christians who want to “get the government off our backs” have been the biggest supporters of Big Brother, Police State practices, from domestic spying, outrageous, counterproductive anti-drug laws, break-ins of the homes of political dissidents, the stifling of the rights of protesters and free speech advocates. You name it.

    There’s much less irony than one might like to believe in all that. For conservatives believe that the govt should be in the business of enforcing conservative beliefs, be they religious or political, by force of law and at the point of a gun, if need be. Only the left, and mostly the hard left, consistently opposes abominations like the Orwellian “Patriot Act.”

    Higgs is a beacon of light, except when he’s throwing sops to the right; then he sometimes sounds ridiculous, as he does here.

    More when I have time.

    Gary

    GaryA | Apr 4, 2012 | Reply

38. I don’t think there is any reason to defend your original post, as it was your musings on a possible correlation, not a definitive declaration.

    I do think there might be something to your observation. As a former pastor, now non-believer, I have seen in myself and others like me (i.e., former devout believers) a contraction of things for which we would be willing to give our lives (there being no eternal reward for giving up this one life.) However, for myself and others like myself, there seems to be a greater willingness to oppose injustice by other means. There are many ways to resist tyranny. Resistance is not necessarily to the point of death. It’s not stretch for those who do not believe in God to have no faith in political solutions also, and so opposition to tyranny does not occur publicly.

    ZosimaUSA | Apr 4, 2012 | Reply

39. I agree with GaryA, who puts the position extremely well. Support for intrusive governmental acts and regulations runs extremely strong among Christian Conservatives and other “values” conservatives, who are decidedly not Libertarians.

    I also wish to respond to Bob, who first claims merely to have posed a question and posed a possible answer based on his experience. It is legitimate to do what he has done, but by posing the question as he did he invited readers to ask whether the question might be improved, so as to better shed light on the connection between religiosity and commitment to liberty. He posed one question–Who can be relied on to oppose totalitarianism in extreme situations?–and I posed another–Who is likely to oppose expansions of government power day to day? Both questions are proper and they may have different answers. As I sit here, it is not obvious to me whether Bob’s question or mine is more important or interesting. But I agree with GaryA that many ardent left-wingers speak up for liberty more reliably than many people who self-identify as political conservatives.

    Without meaning to deny that academics are less religious than the general population, I want to reassure Bob that many faculty members are religious. I work at a major university and have many colleagues who are devout, some of whom have played major roles in the creation and defense of federal laws protecting religious liberty. When I spent a recent semester at Harvard, the subject of prayer came up over lunch and I learned that I was the only atheist and prayer skeptic at the table. One professor stated that he had prayed at the Wailing Wall more than 1,000 times!

    I believe that Bob is certainly right about one thing. The number of intensely religious persons has declined, although the population still numbers in the tens of millions. A PEW study found that “If change in affiliation from one type of Protestantism to another is included, 44% of adults have either switched religious affiliation, moved from being unaffiliated with any religion to being affiliated with a particular faith, or dropped any connection to a specific religious tradition altogether.” http://religions.pewforum.org/reports. The seems to be the result of the free market in ideas at work. Surely that is a good thing overall, even if it may have a downside in some extreme situations.

    Charlie | Apr 4, 2012 | Reply

40. Charlie,

    You certainly did ask a relevant question, and one that completely changes the dynamic of the discussion. It seems you want to change the focus from major events and movements that, usually within a fairly short time frame, that were used as an excuse to greatly expand the scope of government intrusion, to the “day to day” (your words) “do something” (my words) activities, which is clearly a problem.

    For me, Dr. Higgs makes a valid point, although I have no idea if he’d agree with the reason I say this (although reading his book “Crisis and Leviathan” was the grand event which opened my eyes to this topic). It seems to me from both my studies on this topic and observation that the larger events and movements had a greater effect on the values that were held regarding liberty before the event. This is true whether it’s the Great Depression, any of the major wars, ’60′s counter-culture movement, the S&L “scandal”, etc... One only needs to look at the assumption that government entitlement programs, such as Social Security, is better than a private alternative. Government was the “wise provider”, but not as a result of day to day issues, but a crisis.

    Without exception the government will posit itself as the savior, even if the crisis was a direct or indirect result of government action. I realize I’m preaching to the choir, but the mass’s desire to have someone save them from the mess, even if it means erosion of liberty (often someone else’, e.g. Japanese Americans during WWII) seems to always get whipped in to a flurry when “push comes to shove” as Higgs said.

    So, while you’re point is a valid one, I personally find your posts less powerful in their criticism of the post and its title.

    Adam | Apr 4, 2012 | Reply

41. And I’d like to add that the reason I believe many religious folks support oppressive measures by the government has nothing, or very little at least, to do with their personal religious faith.

    I think the reasons vary greatly, but simply put, they don’t value individual liberty over other values, such as morality, safety or security. Just like communists, which of course are/were atheists, who placed no value on personal liberty.

    Adam | Apr 4, 2012 | Reply

42. Just to make one thing perfectly clear: I do not throw sops to the right, or to the left, for that matter. If I raise a question, I do it as I do everything in my writing: because it seems to me an interesting and potentially important matter. I do not carry water for any partisan political position, movement, or organization. It comes closer to the truth to say that I despise them all and wish a pox on all their houses at once. I am NOT a political person in the usual sense. I surely make mistakes, but when I do, it is NEVER because I’ve allowed partisan loyalty to distort my vision; I have no such loyalty. If you find my views ridiculous, please give me as an independent person full credit for my sins of omission and commission.

    Robert Higgs | Apr 4, 2012 | Reply

43. I may have an answer to the question that explains both Mr. Higgs viewpoint and that of the above dissenting commenters. The answer is not that religious individuals are most likely to oppose totalitarian systems but that those most likely to oppose totalitarian government are other systems of authority within that society. At least, they are the most likely to be successful in their opposition. This is precisely because they are organized (which, as commenter Soho points out, is not the case with atheists), and their leadership enjoys legitimacy with an established following (which is categorically impossible among the anti-religious). As you point out, the Catholic Church was instrumental in resisting Communist rule. There was good reason for this–Communist atheism was a direct attack on the authority and legitimacy of the Catholic Church. As Gary A points out, some regimes more cleverly allied themselves with the Catholic Church, effectively recruiting the legitimacy and authority of the Church to the service of the state.

    The Jim Crow south was the closest thing the U.S. has ever had to a totalitarian society. It is not accidental that black churches led the opposition that brought down this system: churches were the only organizational system available to black southerners.

    This explanation might not be obvious from the libertarian perspective, which seems to imagine the state only as an instrument of oppression and as the only instrument of oppression. But as commenter David C. points out in a new-age-y kind of way, there are other “Centers of Power” in society besides government. Unlike(?) David C., I think it is fruitless–and perhaps, dangerous–to root for their demise. As James Madison posited, organized interests are critical to the preservation of a society’s liberties, provided their policy preferences are negotiated through a system of government that fairly balances their needs against those of the whole society.

    Dana | Apr 4, 2012 | Reply

44. Adam refutes me that Bush is a “hyper-Christian” by writing, “Bush was “hyper-Christian”? Really? How so? You mean after hearing him say that Muslims and Christians and Jews are all going to heaven and that the Bible isn’t historically accurate? Regardless of my view or yours on these, he definitely didn’t qualify as a ‘hyper-Christian’.”

    Oh, phlueeze, Adam. Who, but a “hyper-Christian” would say “Jesus” as an answer to the question, “Who’s your favorite philosopher?”

    And who, buy a hyper-Christian would be delusional-vain-idiotic enough to believe God wanted him as president?

    Here’s a bit on that:

    “Bush said to James Robinson: ‘I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can’t explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won’t be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.’” http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/02/usa.religion

    How many citations do you require to accept that is Bush wears his Christianity on his sleeve like few do?

    GaryA | Apr 4, 2012 | Reply

45. Robert,

    I’m the one who said you throw sops to the right. You rejoined that you don’t throw them in any/either direction.

    But you argued that the religious (aligned with the right) were more likely to resist totalitarianism, whereas “atheists” (often, and rightly, seen as on the left) were likely to bow, or do worse.

    Or, as you put it, “The worst will get on top, as F. A. Hayek warned, and I do not expect these top dogs to be anything but devout atheists (although in a few societies, such as the USA, the tyrants may feign religious faith).”

    Should we not number among what you’ve called the worst ‘top dogs’ uber-Christians such as Franco, Pinochet, Rios Montt, George W. Bush, Obama, et al?

    And do people of faith really resist? Though Hitler may have been an atheist, he only rose to power with the consent of an overwhelming Christian majority. D. Goldhagen’s “Hitler’s Willing Executioners” shows that Hitler’s most ghastly excesses were dutifully executed by practicing Protestants and Catholics.

    You also wrote, “Modern culture in most parts of the world is now overwhelmingly secular and even anti-religious. Without a foundation of belief strong enough to sustain resisters unto death, effective resistance is not likely to be mounted.”

    Was it the secular countries that shredded habeas corpus, publicly condoned/practiced torture, engaged in targeted, due-process-free murdering, waged aggressive, unprovoked wars, etc., or was it Christian America? [Wasn't it those "secular countries" who most vocally objected to our unprovoked attack on Iraq?]

    And do recent events represent a departure from Christian America’s typically morally superior ways?

    Was it not Reagan’s uber-Catholic CIA head, William Casey, who ran The Agency when it/he ran/oversaw our proxy death squads – in the name of freedom and human rights, of course – in country after country in Latin America?

    Where would you have been better off – being born poor in atheist/communist controlled Cuba in 1960, or poor in Christian-controlled Guatemala in the same year? Both the Catholic Church and the UN put the death toll from Christian America-backed death squads in Guatemala after we toppled its democracy at about 200,000. ~96% of whom, they said, were massacred by the U.S.-allied tyrants. The death toll in Cuba, by contrast, was in the vicinity of 10,000 during the same stretch. Without defending the vile Castro, can Christian Americans look down their moral noses?

    NY Times reporter/Harvard Divinity School-Ph.D, practicing Christian, writer Chris Hedges has written persuasively and well about the increasing dangers to America of Christian Fascism.

    In his latest blog, Hedges writes about how America has been co-opted by fear-mongerers on the right: “The security and surveillance state does not deal in nuance or ambiguity. Its millions of agents, intelligence gatherers, spies, clandestine operatives, analysts and armed paramilitary units live in a binary world of opposites, of good and evil, black and white, opponent and ally. There is nothing between. You are for us or against us. You are a patriot or an enemy of freedom. You either embrace the crusade to physically eradicate evildoers from the face of the Earth or you are an Islamic terrorist, a collaborator or an unwitting tool of terrorists. And now that we have created this monster it will be difficult, perhaps impossible, to free ourselves from it. Our 16 national intelligence agencies and army of private contractors feed on paranoia, rumor, rampant careerism, demonization of critical free speech and often invented narratives. They justify their existence, and their consuming of vast governmental resources, by turning even the banal and the mundane into a potential threat. And by the time they finish, the nation will be a gulag.” http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/coming_to_a_gulag_near_you_20120402/

    Pray tell, Robert, which Christian group is out there today challenging America’s new Police State? I don’t see them. But then I’m just an atheist. Rather, it seems to me that, with few exceptions, Christian conservatives are saluting, “Sieg Heil!”

    Despite our disagreement here, Robert, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve agreed with you and recommended you to my friends.

    GaryA | Apr 4, 2012 | Reply

46. Charlie writes, “If you think the TSA is out of line when it searches you before letting you board a flight, prepare yourself for much worse if you’re arrested while protesting the gov’t’s invasion of your privacy.”

    Right!

    I wonder if this newly-anointed rule (anointed by conservative Catholic jurists) isn’t in fact intended as a deterrent to lawful dissent.

    GaryA | Apr 4, 2012 | Reply

47. Dear Dr. Higgs!

    I am your truly fan and agree with you almost always but, alas, this is a case of “almost”. I’m not a great scholar but I am quite competent in some fields and I can’t accept your conclusions. You are saying “My comment refers to my observation that in totalitarian states such as Nazi Germany and the USSR, those who have resisted the state—necessarily running the risk of imprisonment, torture, and death—have consisted disproportionately of people of faith.” I don’t know much about Nazi Germany but in the USSR for exception of some small sects (like Starover’s, a Russian version of Amish) “people of faith” were generally more statist than atheists were. I think the illusion of disproportionality of “people of faith” in the resistance movement is rooted in two mistakes.

    First, Western observers highly exaggerated the level of atheism in the USSR. Because they didn’t understand Soviet double-speak in which Russians were quite fluent. As a popular rock band Nautilus Pompilius song “there are words for streets and words for kitchens”. The gap between “words for streets” and “words for kitchens” (i.e., formal and informal life) was so huge that almost unimaginable for Western people. Many members of Communist Party and Komsomol (the union of communist youth) and even Party functionaries were Orthodox Christians in their private life but ardent atheists in their public life. Not speaking about rural population, working class, and humanitarian intelligentsia ( for this caste Christianity was like a badge of honour (again, in their private life). Were they a part of the resistance? Ha-ha. They were the most servile and spineless group.) Beneath the surface of official atheism always lay a solid Christian tradition.

    Second, the resistance never was a monolithic movement. There were at least three very different (and very loose) coalitions. Nationals, who fought for independence (or a cultural autonomy) of their provinces and against coercive russification. I omit them here (as well as non-political movements like alternative subcultures and black markets (the mightiest and the most successful kind of resistance.)) Two other coalitions are more interesting for our discussion. In spite of looseness, vagueness, and amorphousness of those coalitions there was a distinct demarcation line between two camps. One camp (we can name them “democrats”) was for civil liberties, elements of market economy, and (quite naively) democracy. A.Sakharov was a typical representative of this camp. Most of them ( not all of course!) were atheists. The other camp (so called “patriots”. A politically active group of a broader movement that a historian A. Yanov names “Orthodox Christian (Pravoslav) Renaissance.” Using American terms we can name them “intellectual rednecks”.) consisted almost exclusively of “people of faith”. But they weren’t for civil liberties or democracy ( except a relatively small group of moderate nationalists like A. Solzhenitsyn.) They were not against totalitarianism of the Soviet state; they rather thought it was not totalitarian enough. Too mild and indifferent. Especially against nationals and so called bourgeois culture. They were ultra-nationalists, cultural conservatives, and a good chunk of them were devoted Stalinists. (How the hell can Christianity and Stalinism coexist in on head? Got no idea. But the fact is they are integral parts of modern Russian nationalism.)

    Which camp was bigger and more influential? I don’t know. But I think the latter camp was at least not less numerous than the former one.

    And being good Soviet citizens they were professionals in the fine art of double-speak. They knew perfectly what they should or should not tell to foreigners. Which words are for streets and which for kitchens. In this way they have managed to dupe a lot of Western observers, researchers, and journalists.

    So, the illusion of religious resistance.

    Yours sincerely

    Alexandra K. | Apr 5, 2012 | Reply

48. Gary,

    I’d say a politician appealing to a specific audience isn’t nearly the same thing as wearing “his Christianity on his sleeve like few do?”. You can quibble with me about whether or not he was “hyper” religious. However, I’d say the truth came out, in numerous quotes as well, where his quips were challenged by Christians wanted to know where he actually stands. Whenever that happened, none of the conservative Christians left impressed.

    If I’m a politician and say I’m a God-fearing Muslim, yet when pushed I admit that I don’t believe someone needs to believe Mohammed is a prophet and the Qur’an is full of historical inaccuracies, would I be considered a “hyper-Muslim”? All of the Muslims I know, and I know dozens of them quite well, would very quickly say “of course not”. Same goes for Bush.

    As far as I’m concerned Bush is/was a “hyper-Christian” like Obama is a civil libertarian. When even a small amount of pressure was applied, he back tracked on so many of his pro civil libertarian promises that it’s not even worth listing them.

    Adam | Apr 5, 2012 | Reply

49. This is a fascinating discussion, and I’ve learned from the posts that follow mine. Because I have to leave town soon, I won’t be able to participate anymore, but I want to say thanks, to remind Bob that I think he’s great, and to offer one last point.

    Bob points out that most of the men who resisted the draft in WWII were Jehovah’s Witnesses and asks whether this was merely a coincidence. It would be interesting to know what standards governed conscientious objection (CO) back then. Reading a paper about CO during the Vietnam era, when the number of COs went through the roof, I saw that “To be a conscientious objector, a young man must: (1) be “religious,” (2) object to all wars; and (3) be sincere in his or her application.” Obviously, atheists couldn’t have met the first requirement and therefore faced a different set of possibilities than religious folk. If this was true during WWII, then it might be unfair to compare religious objectors to atheists because they faced different penalties for refusing to serve in the military. Religious objectors could become CO’s; atheists could not.

    The author of the paper also reports that a sea change occurred between WWII and Vietnam. “While the reasons for being “anti-war” were mostly religious during the First and Second World Wars, in the 1960′s, the reasons given by young men who were resisting the draft included not only religious beliefs but ethical considerations as well.... In previous wars, most of the resistance was made up of men who were opposed to war for religious reasons. However, in the Vietnam war, the number of men who resisted on moral grounds exceeded the number of men with religious objections.” http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~pws/60s/resist.txt.
    Obviously, this is not conclusive evidence that atheists are as likely to protest induction as religious people. The number of Vietnam War objectors who were atheists is not specified. But the shift from religious to moral reasons for objecting suggests that people are learning and that behavior is changing. That most Vietnam era objectors were left-wing types, and therefore more likely than others to be atheists, also provides additional evidence for GaryA’s point that hard-lefties have an independent streak.

    Charlie | Apr 5, 2012 | Reply

50. Is it the presumed case that, when push comes to shove, a future society of athiests would be unable to resist totalitarianism much as an-caps might be clueless about educating children without government?

    Vanmind | Apr 5, 2012 | Reply

51. Adam,

    You wrote:

    “I’d say a politician appealing to a specific audience isn’t nearly the same thing as wearing “his Christianity on his sleeve like few do?”. You can quibble with me about whether or not he was “hyper” religious. However, I’d say the truth came out, in numerous quotes as well, where his quips were challenged by Christians wanted to know where he actually stands. Whenever that happened, none of the conservative Christians left impressed ....”

    The sense I get, Adam, is that this may be personal to you – that you’re Christian and you’re offended by my remarks about Bush’s hyper-Christianity. I’m a lapsed conservative and lapsed Catholic, and I hear the same hurt feelings from my many sibs who still cling to “The Faith” – political and religious.

    Nevertheless, Conservative Christians won’t be placated until their bizarre interpretation of Biblical Law is shoved down everyone’s throat, the will of the people (including agnostics, atheists, muslims, Buddhists, etc.) be damned. And you know it. To argue that since Bush hasn’t appeased Christian zombies and knuckle-draggers that he’s not a “hyper-Christian” is silly.

    Earlier, Robert said atheists are as atheists do. Whatever he may have meant by that, it’s likely he thinks atheists should be judged (badly) by what they do (which he implies is bad.) So let’s apply that sensible criterion to whether Bush is a hyper-Christian. Does he ‘walk the walk?’

    Here’s a website that documents Bush’s “doings” that mark him indelibly as what I think can fairly be called a “hyper Christian”:
    http://www.theocracywatch.org/bush2.htm

    And here are some juicy quotes found on that site:

    * In the new book by journalist Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack, based on taped conversations with the President, Bush describes himself as a “messenger” of God who is doing “the Lord’s will.”

    * Since 2001 dozens of far-right Christian fundamentalists have been quietly installed in key positions within the Department of Health and Human Services, the Federal Drug Administration and on commissions and advisory committees where they have made serious progress. Three years later this administration has established one of the most rigid sexual health agendas in the Western world.

    * Ralph Reed notes that the religious conservative movement “no longer plays the institutional role it once did,” in part because it succeeded in electing Bush and other friendly leaders. “You’re no longer throwing rocks at the building; you’re in the building.” The Washington Post Religious Right Finds Its Center in Oval Office , December 24, 2001

    * From school-prayer guidelines issued by the Department of Education to faith-based initiatives to directives from virtually every federal agency, there’s hardly a place where Bush hasn’t increased both the presence and the potency of religion in American government. In the process, the Bush administration lavishly caters to the very religious-right groups that gave us the dubious Christian-nation concept ...

    * David Frum, a speech writer for Bush until last year, wrote in his recent book, The Right Man, that he heard a staff member say to Bush’s chief speech writer, Michael Gerson, “Missed you at Bible study ... The news that this was a White House where attendance at Bible study was, if not compulsory, not quite uncompulsory either, was disconcerting to a non-Christian like me.”
    .....
    This site is chockablock with facts and credible sources that prove how hyper Christian Bush is/was. That you may know people even more fanatical than Bush doesn’t prove that Bush isn’t a member of the club in good standing. You know you’re in zombieland when Ralph Reed smiles upon you.

    Finally, let’s not ignore Bush’s war on science, which can best be explained by his loony fundamentalism. Though you can find myriad credible examples on the web to cite, Howard Dean, MD has perhaps most succinctly laid it out: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0705-04.htm

    And please don’t imagine that I believe anything that Obama says. Blogger/pundit Glenn Greenwald has eviscerated Obama for his stunning hypocrisy, his Big Brotherism and his crony capitalism so thoroughly that nothing further need be said.

    GaryA | Apr 5, 2012 | Reply

52. Vanmind, I would suggest that “egoism” is no basis for objective morality because any such view is entirely subjective and situational, exactly as Dr. Higgs is noting. Morality and the ethics of liberty can only be rooted in the dualism of theism in which we submit to a higher truth and standard of goodness. Incidentally, “altruism” is simply love and everyone needs to love and be loved.

    David Theroux | Apr 5, 2012 | Reply

53. Gary, The issue that Dr. Higgs has properly raised is a profound one. Atheism provides no ground for morality because if only the natural world exists and all is determined by the laws of physics, then all thought, reason and ideas are simply illusory and utilitarian, and all inferences have no basis for being true or false, good or evil. However, if there exists an immaterial, natural-law reality of mindedness, ideas, and objective good and evil, then discovering this and upholding it is wise and noble. And clearly, we know that objective good and evil do exist, as is the case in the many examples you have listed. i would also suggest that your doing so is an admission that natural law is true.

    In addition, the issue is not that people of faith act as hypocrites or not. (A key point of theism is that all people act in this way and that they are answerable for their acts to the Creator of them and the moral code that they are so conscious of. Indeed, they in fact do know that certain choices are wrong even when they chose to do them.) The deeper point here is that atheism denies any such objective standard.

    The further great irony here is that the “modern” rise of the nation state and invasive war on a gigantic scale has occurred at the behest of secularists in the “Enlightenment project” who have sought to stamp out “religio” in society, and as this crusade has proceeded, Christians have largely retreated into sub-cultures. In the process, they have deferred to secularists to set the standards for science, law, art, education, etc., and have embraced many of the tenets of what became “Progressivism,” even though their doing so runs directly contrary to the teachings of Jesus. Dr. Higgs’s question is to note empirically the fact that the major forces that have fought against statism in the modern world have not been secularists, despite your attempt to paper over this truth. Indeed secularists are the modern theocrats.

    Perhaps the following article by me will be of interest:

    “Secular Theocracy: The Foundations and Folly of Modern Tyranny”

    David Theroux | Apr 5, 2012 | Reply

54. David, it does not follow that in the absence of an immaterial deity there is no “true or false, good or evil”. However, your statement, “And clearly, we know that objective good and evil do exist” seems to support the idea of secular ethics. I refer you to the book “Universally Preferable Behaviour; a Rational Proof of Secular Ethics” by Stefan Molyneux.

    Paul Gibbons | Apr 5, 2012 | Reply

55. Gary,

    To start off, I’m a Libertarian, pure and simple. Do I have Fundamentalist friends? Absolutely, as well as ones that are militantly secular and/or agnostic/atheist. The idea I posited about Bush’s phony fundamentalism was not written because I was offended. On the contrary, I simply disagree, and in a big way, with your assertion that Bush has ever been a true “hyper-Christian”.

    And I believe all of the quotes you provided, as well as the ones on the site you linked to, bear this out. Look at the dates of the articles, or the discussions that were mentioned. 80% of them were before the 2004 election, and I firmly believe this isn’t a coincidence.

    Once he was directly confronted with questions (after re-election of course) about what he actually believes, he stepped back and admitted, that he believes many people who don’t believe in Jesus will be allowed in to heaven (which he had stated dozens of times in his sales pitch for the “war on terror”) and that the Bible has historical inaccuracies.

    You can call him a “Christian” or a “Believer” if you like, but calling him a “hyper-Christian” or “Fundamentalist” is simply hyperbole that doesn’t fit. When you do that you’re trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

    “fundamentalism (ˌfʌndəˈmɛntəˌlɪzəm)

    — n
    1. Christianity (esp among certain Protestant sects) the belief that every word of the Bible is divinely inspired and therefore true
    2. Islam a movement favouring strict observance of the teachings of the Koran and Islamic law
    3. strict adherence to the fundamental principles of any set of beliefs ”

    I’m seeing a mis-match here. And, to be honest, it’s pretty clear you’re sharper than many, if not most of us. Yet when you use terms like “Christian zombies and knuckle-draggers” you, maybe unwittingly, inhibit rather than promote honest discussion. You seem to have a lot in common with Charles, and I’d suggest using him as an example in this regard.

    Adam | Apr 6, 2012 | Reply

56. Paul, The attempt by various materialists/naturalists (including such Randians as Molyneux) to construct a case for objective ethics has been refuted repeatedly because all such efforts implode into either subjectivist “egoist” arguments or some sort of reciprocal rights theory. This view is now in utter shambles and here is just one reasons why:

    Any such theory must depend on a material worldview that claims that all is determined by the laws of physics. As a result, all mindedness is simply a material unfolding of events and all consciousness, rational inference, moral sense, individual agency and free will are “illusions” that only “exist” for survival purposes. However, before any such claim is made, one must assume an immaterial reality of properly basic knowledge that one has a mind and free will, that other minds exist, that the world is orderly, etc. As a result, all inferences assume dualism of mind and matter, which refutes any consequent claim that materialism is true. This insight is tautologically true. And I would refer you to the following books that have revolutionized the field of philosophy to show that theism is correct:

    The Nature of Necessity, by Alvin Plantinga

    God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God, by Alvin Plantinga

    Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism, by Alvin Plantinga

    Warrant and Proper Function, by Alvin Plantinga

    Other sample books worth noting include:

    C.S. Lewis’s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason, by Victor Reppert (IVP Academic Press)

    Naturalism, by Stewart Goetz and Charles Taliaferro (Eerdmans)

    Naturalism: A Critical Analysis, edited by William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland (Routledge)

    In other words and as C.S. Lewis noted, no science is possible unless a scientist’s own views are not determined by the same world he/she is examining. Also, please see the following articles:

    “The Argument from Reason,” by Victor Reppert

    “Economic Science and the Poverty of Naturalism: C. S. Lewis’s ‘Argument from Reason’,” by David Theroux (Journal of Private Enterprise)

    “Naturalism and Libertarian Agency,” by Stewart Goetz

    “Naturalism Defeated,” by Alvin Plantinga

    “Naturalism and Moral Realism,” by Michael Rea

    David Theroux | Apr 6, 2012 | Reply

57. David, nice site, great organization, but IMO a weak argument. Both the concept of Yaweh and the concept of government are extinct — but like the proverbial phoenix each will be resurrected in some form by some future charlatans. Don’t feel too bad in the present, though — Zeus and Athenian democracy went through the same thing, as did Jupiter and the Roman republic. I wonder which make-believe religion/politic will retell the Homer/Ovid story next time around. Will it be a return to the ancient and open crime syndicate — complete with a “rising from the sea” or “descending from the stars” kind of theatre — of the occult Akhenaton worshippers known in the vernacular as the NWO?

    I’m no more an athiest than I am an altruist, but to suggest that athiests have no moral compass because they consider only the “natural world” is IMO inane. I do not need to have faith to comprehend the gravity that will lead to my death after I step off a cliff (physics). In the same manner, I do not need to have faith to comprehend the immutable laws of Political Economy (about which people remained ignorant as recently as a few centuries ago during the primitive epoch when even geniuses grasped for metaphysical explanations to prexeological phenomena) that will lead to general immorality and eventual genocide after I attempt to usurp society by way of “New Man” central planning sophistry. Scientism is as bunk as theism. Peace and lasting liberty are about following the path of wu-wei and approaching each obstacle along that path pro se.

    Oh, and about dualism: I have no problem conceiving of a good-evil type of struggle within oneself which can lead to external struggles among each other (indeed the NWO relies on little else as its agitprop weapon of cultural marxism). To suggest that religious collectives are more qualified to help a man or woman vanquish the so-called evil within is IMO risible, and to suggest that such proselytising is rooted in altruism is IMO doubly so (no guild seeks new members other than for increased dues and increased political power). Heck, didn’t the Nazi-Pope just visit Cuba? Was it one-love altruism? Doubtful (those who love and are loved are called typical humans — not altruists). Was it, then, one-world luciferianism? Probably (that seems to be the overarching agenda of those who try currently to keep their “light” hidden within the occult).

    Me, I counter the fairy tale of luciferianism through ridicule, not through a self-professed superior faith in Harry Potter (or in the United Federation Of Planets).

    Vanmind | Apr 6, 2012 | Reply

58. “Therefore, if atheists are able to convince enough people of faith to fight for their “common interest”, they reduce resistance.”

    I think that it is the other way around. I would argue that religious people are far more likely to support the concept of natural rights than atheists who take a relativist approach and argue that our rights come from the state. As such religious people are far more likely to oppose totalitarian actions than atheists who have no principle on which to base their opposition.

    (Let me note here that the concept of natural rights can be supported by logic and does not require the existence of a deity. The problem is that given the state of the public education system, few atheists would ever be exposed to the natural rights argument.)

    VangelV | Apr 6, 2012 | Reply

59. Vanmind,

    “I’m no more an athiest than I am an altruist, but to suggest that athiests have no moral compass because they consider only the “natural world” is IMO inane. I do not need to have faith to comprehend the gravity that will lead to my death after I step off a cliff (physics). In the same manner, I do not need to have faith to comprehend the immutable laws of Political Economy (about which people remained ignorant as recently as a few centuries ago during the primitive epoch when even geniuses grasped for metaphysical explanations to prexeological phenomena) that will lead to general immorality and eventual genocide after I attempt to usurp society by way of “New Man” central planning sophistry. Scientism is as bunk as theism. Peace and lasting liberty are about following the path of wu-wei and approaching each obstacle along that path pro se.”

    I think that you are missing the point. Some religions teach about natural rights. Anyone exposed to that teaching would be far more likely to oppose tyrannical actions by governments because they believe that there is a higher law than that of the ruler that needs to be followed by all moral men and women. (See Antigone or the Nuremberg Trials if you want more exposure to this argument.) While it is true that you do not need to have faith to accept the natural rights argument few atheists ever get the proper instruction in the public education system to partake meaningfully in the argument.

    “Oh, and about dualism: I have no problem conceiving of a good-evil type of struggle within oneself which can lead to external struggles among each other (indeed the NWO relies on little else as its agitprop weapon of cultural marxism). To suggest that religious collectives are more qualified to help a man or woman vanquish the so-called evil within is IMO risible, and to suggest that such proselytising is rooted in altruism is IMO doubly so (no guild seeks new members other than for increased dues and increased political power). Heck, didn’t the Nazi-Pope just visit Cuba? Was it one-love altruism? Doubtful (those who love and are loved are called typical humans — not altruists). Was it, then, one-world luciferianism? Probably (that seems to be the overarching agenda of those who try currently to keep their “light” hidden within the occult).”

    I am sorry but your posting sounds like a lot of thoughtless babble. Nazi? The man is the smartest Catholic since Aquinas and you call him a Nazi? If I were you I would check my premises and reexamine how much of what I think I knew was actually true.

    VangelV | Apr 6, 2012 | Reply

60. Vanmind, Simply stating that “Both the concept of Yaweh and the concept of government are extinct” is not an argument. You have failed to address what I have presented, references and all.

    Incidentally, “altruism” is simply love for others, and all people need to love and be moved. By definition and contrary to Rand’s Nietzschean views, love is giving and not based on self interest or reciprocity.

    David Theroux | Apr 7, 2012 | Reply

61. Dana,

    You write, “The Jim Crow south was the closest thing the U.S. has ever had to a totalitarian society. It is not accidental that black churches led the opposition that brought down this system: churches were the only organizational system available to black southerners.”

    I agree, but, but, but: Wasn’t it the white Christians, including white Christian churches, who most resisted changes to the “Jim Crow south?” Wasn’t it the Christians in the south who most resisted the abolition of slavery, the passage of civil rights laws, voting rights, civil liberties, women’s suffrage, etc., etc., etc.?

    In other words, “organized Christianity” may have helped southern blacks, but it did so not because of anything to do with Christ, but because it organized them. Just as “organized Christianity” helped whites – by delaying, through organizing, conferring rights on blacks.

    My point is that, in contrast to Bob Higgs’ suggestion, “faith” in no way insures respect for human rights, human dignity or even obeisance to things like the Ten Commandments. The greatest threats to peace and human rights and liberty in our era have been successive American presidents, all of them Christian and all of them favoring “aggressive wars,” torture, domestic Police State practices, suspension of habeas corpus and so on.

    GaryA | Apr 7, 2012 | Reply

62. David,

    Thanks for writing. I admire so much of what you do. Busy professional obligations have prevented me responding before now.

    You assert, “Atheism provides no ground for morality because if only the natural world exists and all is determined by the laws of physics, then all thought, reason and ideas are simply illusory and utilitarian, and all inferences have no basis for being true or false, good or evil. However, if there exists an immaterial, natural-law reality of mindedness, ideas, and objective good and evil, then discovering this and upholding it is wise and noble.”

    As a simple matter of our mankind’s survival, had we not developed (evolved) collegial manners and mores, we’d not have flourished as a species. Cooperation in baring acts of murder, theft, rape and pillaging were/are necessary conditions to any society’s survival. Groups that abided those subjective, man-made “laws,” prospered, those that didn’t, didn’t. No god is required to grasp that if one does not respect the rights of others, one’s own rights are likely to be less secure.

    Chris Hitchens asks deists to name an ethical statement made, or an action performed, by a believer in the name of faith that could not have been made by an infidel. What’s your answer, David?

    Appalling barbarities have been done in the name of The Lord, particularly in the Old Testament: acts of genocide, including the “god-ordered” murder of women and children, slavery, rape, genital mutilation, etc. (What secularist could/would justify mutilating the genitalia of her babies? It takes “god” to do that.)

    Quote: “And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.... And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? .... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” (Numbers 31)

    If, as Robert Higgs does, it’s proper to ascribe vile acts of atheists to their atheism, why shouldn’t we ascribe to Christianity the vile acts of Christians – Rios Montt, Pinochet, various Argentine, El Salvadorian, Honduran, Columbian generals, Franco, CIA head William Casey, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Barak Obama, etc.?

    Further, you write: “The further great irony here is that the “modern” rise of the nation state and invasive war on a gigantic scale has occurred at the behest of secularists in the “Enlightenment project” who have sought to stamp out “religio” in society, and as this crusade has proceeded, Christians have largely retreated into sub-cultures.”

    It was scarcely “Christians” who were in retreat during the Crusades, during the Inquisition, or when President McKinley sent in the marines who killed 200,000 Philipinos whilst “Christianizing” them in 1898, a country that, by then, had been Catholic for over 200 years.

    Modern America’s military, which is overwhelmingly Christian, is fully supportive of what many in uniform see as a “holy war” against the muslim infidels, a view encouraged when Bush actually said we were on a “Crusade.”

    As I and others have pointed out, our unjustified, wars of aggression are strongly supported by conservative Christians, much less so by secularists.

    Finally, you write, “In the process, they have deferred to secularists to set the standards for science, law, art, education, etc., and have embraced many of the tenets of what became “Progressivism,” even though their doing so runs directly contrary to the teachings of Jesus.”

    “Secularists” did so to free science, law, art and education from the retrograde shackles of Christianity. And we’re lucky they did! Apparently “Christ,” at one time or another, believed it proper to jail, torture or murder people who believed the earth was not the center of god’s creation, who doubted the divinity of Christ, who dared to teach evolution.

    Were Christians ever to escape their “sub-cultures” to have their sway, it’d retard science, law and art immesurably. As it is, ~50% of Americans (who are by far the most religious of all First World countries) think the universe is 6,000 yrs old. Giving the boys with the Bibles authority in science and law and the USA might become even more of a scientific laughing stock than we already are; we might get up to 80% or 90%. Ditto for evolution and the literal truth of the Bible.

    God-ordered genocide, indeed!

    GaryA | Apr 8, 2012 | Reply

63. It is true that I may very well see personal benefit if someone else is willing to intentionally end his life in the pursuit of something (e.g. liberty) that I value. But that does not mean that I also judge his action as wise for himself. Clearly he does what he judges best, but if his judgement is critically dependent upon a falsehood (e.g. mysticism), then I can only conclude that I have gained, but he has unwittingly lost. His actions are not something I would recommend to my loved ones, and having more and more people losing in that way, is not something I would advocate for society. I very much want people to rationally oppose totalitarianism. But I do not want the tragedy of totalitarianism compounded by the mass suicide of those who might resist it.

    I agree with the correlation between declining religiosity and increasing totalitarianism in the 20th century. But this is a result of the ideology of statism successfully conquering most areas of intellectual endeavor through a process of brute force (government institutional support, governmental employment/contracts/standards, government scholarship, loan, and grant programs, etc.). When the state is the dominant force in society, anything opposed to the state is marginalized.

    It is typically those who pursue a career of asking questions–the intellectuals–who tend at any time in history to count among the atheists, which is a natural consequence of skeptical inquiry into religious beliefs. Since the state creates incentives both against intellectual opposition to statism AND against ideologies that challenge the primacy of the state, it is not surprising that the 20th century saw as a consequence of the rise of the nation state, also the simultaneous rise of statism and atheism in academe. I have no doubt that if 20th century totalitarian states had based their authority upon divine right, statism and theism would instead be the norm in academe.

    vikingvista | Apr 9, 2012 | Reply

64. Thanks, David, for the information about Rand. I never thought I agreed with many of her ideas (other than the ones she parroted from Classical Liberals), but at least she got that “altruism is disguised self-interest” stuff correct. Love is love, there need not be a separate make-believe term for it.

    Oh, and I’m pretty sure that my argument was valid, if terse. Check the ever-emptying pews, and while you’re at it check your premises about Akhenaton-Moses & Horus-Jesus. Same thing goes for the concept of government, hopefully that intergenerational fraud will stay gone as has so much shaman-fed belief in a terra-centric universe — because secular worship is just about the most dangerous thing there is (I don’t care much about the existence of non-secular worshippers except as reliable sources of ha).

    The universe appears to be electric in nature, which means each of us is as a current, alternating between free will and obsequiousness (get it? alternating current?). There’s your dualism, but it’s not saying much more than any other yin/yang thing (I myself postulated the theory that zero and infinity are the same number).

    Vanmind | Apr 9, 2012 | Reply

65. Gary, Since Jesus taught us to love all others and that the end never justifies the means, it would logically follow that anyone who does the opposite is doing so contrary to Christian teachings.

    I would also suggest that your secular-religious meta-narrative does not hold up to the historical record. Contrary to the propaganda of such 18th and 19th century writers as Edmund Gibbon, William Draper, and Andrew Dickson White, the doctrines of reason, science, free-market capitalism, natural individual rights, the movements against slavery and infanticide, and the rule of law originated with Christianity, especially in the Middle Ages, as Stark and other scholars have shown:

    The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success, by Rodney Stark (Random House)

    “How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and the Success of the West,” by Rodney Stark (Chronicle of Higher Education)

    Moreover, the modern nation state and invasive wars were created by the secularist, authoritarian project of the “Enlightenment” in a crusade to push the natural law of religio out of the public square, a crusade that you apparently support. “Progressivism” is the dominant American utilitarian, collectivist and statist doctrine that forms the basis for this Zeitgeist.

    “Does Religion Cause Violence: Behind the common question lies a morass of unclear thinking,” William T. Cavanaugh (Harvard Divinity Bulletin)

    The Myth of Religious Violence: Secular Ideology and the Roots of Modern Conflict, by William T. Cavanaugh (Oxford University Press)

    “Secular Theocracy: The Foundations and Folly of Modern Tyranny,” by David J. Theroux

    “Richard T. Ely’s Social Gospel of ‘Progressivism’: Socialism, Fascism, Racism, Eugenics and Militarism,” by David J. Theroux

    Perhaps the following video presentation by Cavanaugh at Butler University will be helpful:

    “Religious Violence: Myth or Global Reality?”, presentation by William T. Cavanaugh

    David Theroux | Apr 9, 2012 | Reply

66. vikingvista, I would also suggest you examine the work of William Cavanaugh, that I have referenced in my comment above, who charts the rise of statism and global war from the moral ambiguity, authoritarianism and imperialism of the secular crusade of “modernism,” A.K.A. the “Enlightenment project.”

    David Theroux | Apr 9, 2012 | Reply

67. Vanmind, I would suggest you consult the following:

    Discovering God: The Origins of the Great Religions and the Evolution of Belief, by Rodney Stark

    Also and while “liberal” denominations in the West continue to decline as they have long ago become secular, “orthodox” Christian groups continue to spread as Christianity is now the largest faith in the world, with movements in Latin America, Africa and Asia expanding at an enormous rate. Not surprisingly, these same areas of the world are advancing while the secular, mercantilist, western nations are in decline and increasingly economically insolvent.

    The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity, by Philip Jenkins (Oxford University Press)

    The New Faces of Christianity: Believing the Bible in the Global South, by Philip Jenkins (Oxford University Press)

    David Theroux | Apr 9, 2012 | Reply

68. I like how a non-believer like Hayek was cited for the proposition that the dangerous atheists are going to end up at the top of future totalitarianism. Well done Bob.

    Nick | Apr 9, 2012 | Reply

69. David,

    With all due respect, and you’re due a lot, arguing by proffering copious, unambiguously non-neutral sources as an answer to contrary evidence that is everywhere before us is a dodger’s game. I know. I’ve played the “snow ‘em-with-myriad-biased-citations game myself.

    Look, I’m certainly NOT arguing that ends do justify means. That’s what the Christians who are running this country do, much to the shock and awe of many of the “secularists” who are running other, First World countries.

    Nor am I arguing that what are regarded as Christian morals (which aren’t remotely unique to Christianity) are without merit. I’m arguing that Judeo-Christianity has frequently posed a major obstacle to advances in morality, law and science – think geocentrism, evolution, women’s rights, free speech, civil rights, etc.

    The “god” of the Old Testament ordered or suborned all manner of barbarity, including genocide, infanticide, rape, slaver, theft, etc. Yet Christians and Jews bow to “His” wisdom and mercy.

    American Christians orchestrated barbarous acts on native Americans, on Africans they kidnapped, Mexicans whose lands they stole, Philippinos and Vietnamese and Laotians and Cambodians whose lands they attacked/invaded, etc.

    But you distance yourself by arguing that those were acts in violation of Christian precepts. Perhaps, but they were also the acts of proudly proclaiming Christians.

    It’s no accident that the most Christian First World country in the world, the USA, is also the only First World country to boast that it’s suspended habeas corpus, erected a Police State, that it commits extrajudicial assassinations, that it forgoes due process, many civil liberties and civil rights, that it arrogates to itself the right to attack any country it chooses, with or without cause; that it’s the country with the highest incarceration rate in the entire world, etc.

    One need look only at the fact that uber-Christian America only finally eliminated slavery in 1865, fully 60 years after less-blessed England did so, principally due to the recalcitrance of Christian slavery supporters in our south. To credit Christianity with abolition of slavery when the vile practice is supported/encouraged by God Almighty in the Old Testament is real chutzpah. Would that were all.

    U.S.-supported, murderous fascists in Latin America were universally Christian, and most were Catholic. And for the same reason, I submit: Christians are authoritarian sympathizers. By far, Christian conservatives are more likely to support torture than virtually any other group, particularly secularists: obeisance to “authority.”

    Just as Catholics bowed to the will of various Papal “authorities” during the Crusades and the Inquisition, the deeply devout, Christians and moslems especially, are way too willing to murder and steal, dutifully obeying the depraved dictates of “respected authorities” – be they Bush, Pinochet, Rios Montt, the Catholic generals who ran Argentina, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Columbia, etc. during “dirty wars” blessed by, you guessed it, “Christian America” – Ronald Reagan and CIA director William Casey, etc.

    You’re quick, David, to ascribe Hitler’s and Mao’s savagery to their atheism, though it played no provable role. But you’re loath to ascribe to Christianity the savagery of the Christians responsible for the decimation of native Americans, Philippinos, the Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians, the peasants in Latin America, Iranians under the U.S.-imposed Shah, and so on.

    Yours is an all too familiar double standard, David: when atheists do something vile, blame it on atheism. When Christians do, blame it on anything but Christianity.

    I’m not doubting the purity of your beliefs; only the validity of your seemingly faith-influenced judgements.

    GaryA | Apr 9, 2012 | Reply

70. Very interesting post, Dr. Higgs. Most commenters decided to use it as an excuse to climb on their hobby horse instead of address you main points. In addition to your list, I would like to add the Christians of China, where Christianity is growing very rapidly, especially among intellectuals, in spite of severe persecution in the past. And Christianity is growing rapidly in Iran where they execute converts from Islam.

    So yes, religious people are more willing to die for their beliefs. A Church father wrote that the blood of martyrs is seed.

    And yes, it makes me pessimistic, too. The growth of socialism in the US seems to correlate well with the decline of traditional Christianity.

    Roger McKinney | Apr 10, 2012 | Reply

71. Thanks, David, for the links. Here’s a better one:

    http://thunderbolts.info

    Thunderbolts Of The Gods. Good title, explains much about the fictional representations of such phenomena among ancient & current primitive humanity. Orthodox indeed, ha.

    Vanmind | Apr 12, 2012 | Reply

72. Sadly, don’t expect much resistance from Quakers where, say, Quakers struggled against slavery. These days a large majority of Quakers are statists through and through.

    Russ Nelson | Apr 14, 2012 | Reply

73. Dr. Higgs:

    In support of your statement, one of the most fascinating lectures I’ve ever seen on the internet was that of Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov (who had also been interviewed by G. Edward Griffin). I think it highly likely you have also viewed it, but if not, it is well worth the time. His simple (yet extremely difficult to achieve) solution to the spread of Communism: individuals must regain morality through their traditional faith and moral culture. He specifically warned the American people to stop subsidizing socialism/statism all over the world. He said to strike the enemy with the power of the mind and spirit, to reject garbage ideas and culture that are alien to them, and by this the degradation of civilization could be stopped. He’s right, but easier said than done. I try to keep the faith as a Roman Catholic, and although I am weak, I am trying to prepare myself for martyrdom, if need be. I pray I am strong enough.

    P.S. There is a great deal of overlap(ironically) in Carroll Quigley’s 1967 Hoya article, “Is Georgetown University Committing Suicide?” Strange how an “inside” supporter of world government could be so strongly influenced by ancient Christian culture that he perceived its acute decline.

    bill | May 21, 2012 | Reply

74. Mr. Theroux:
    For those interested in traditional Roman Catholicism I would highly recommend the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest.

    bill | May 21, 2012 | Reply

75. Do you really think Bush is a Christian? Do you really think he studies Christianity, internalizes it and then lives out what Christians truly believe? Christianity has never taught that murder is something human beings should do to each other. Thomas Aquinas did not oppose self-defense, but that is not murder. Oppressive regimes murder for the sake of implementing ideas that are usually offensive to religion, by means that are offensive to religion, especially Christianity. When did an atheist ever say that human beings have a divine soul, which made them invaluable as a creation of God, thereby prohibiting their enslavement or murder? Atheists are generally moral people, but by their standards, we’re just animals who can build bridges and cars.

    bill | May 21, 2012 | Reply

76. Half-jokingly...Ron Paul delegates might resist tyranny more than anyone else.

    bill | May 21, 2012 | Reply

77. http://www.wallbuilders.com The perfect site to find out anything you wish to know about the Democratic Party and the Republican Parties views on slavery. In their own words.

    Bob Marshall | Jan 3, 2013 | Reply

78. “America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold; Its patriotism,its morality and its spiritual life.If we can undermine these three areas,America will collapse from within.” Joseph Stalin.

    Bob Marshall | Jan 3, 2013 | Reply

10 Trackback(s)

1. Mar 29, 2012: from Extreme Atheism | Preposterous Preponderance
2. Mar 29, 2012: from Who Is Most Likely to Oppose Totalitarianism? | The Beacon « Daniel J. Smith
3. Mar 31, 2012: from Saturday, End of March Articles » Scott Lazarowitz's Blog
4. Mar 31, 2012: from Recommended Reading – Saturday, March 31st | The Seen and the Unseen
5. Apr 1, 2012: from People of faith most likely to oppose totalitarianism? | William Wallace is Dead
6. Apr 2, 2012: from Monday Grab Bag of Links … | The Pretense of Knowledge
7. Apr 2, 2012: from Assorted links — Marginal Revolution
8. Apr 8, 2012: from Some Links
9. Apr 9, 2012: from The Daily Eudemon
10. Apr 10, 2012: from NetRight Daily » Must Reads for April 10

Post a Comment