Social Statism

[bhsup]

If a country begins abandoning God and loses its self-restraint collectively in its population as a result, is social statism where the State has to take over and start legislating and enforcing more and more social mores via law a necessary step to avoid anarchy and the collapse of society?

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

In short, was Adams right?

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Wouldn't you first have to prove that at least in the majority of situations, "abandoning God" leads to "losing self-restraint"? I know plenty of restrained atheists, but almost none who say "Well, god doesn't exist. Guess that means I don't need to follow rules!"

 

[useless]

Why does a lack of religious belief equate to a lack of morals? That's pretty offensive

 

[bhsup]

Okay, I don't think Adams was right. I was simply wanting to start a thread to discuss it. If you're offended, go talk to Adams about what he said. Also, read this...

Spoiler :

 

[useless]

you'd actually have a point if people didn't sincerely believe that atheists are immoral but whatever dude

 

[kramerfan86]

Adams was definitely wrong, it is a myth that some how you need religion to have basic human decency and morality. There are plenty of extremely religious people who decency wise are closer to animals than good people and plenty of atheists that are amazingly good people.

 

[Leoreth]

Yeah, I agree that decline of religion or religiousness doesn't mean a decline in morals. I even disagree with your assumption that there is an objective decline in morals or individual self-restraint.

What is different is the social, economical and technological environment that people operate in, and I think that our laws and if necessary, constitutions, need to keep up with that.

 

[Lord of Elves]

The real moral outrage here is the proliferation of the term "statism".

 

[bhsup]

The real moral outrage here is the proliferation of the term "statism".

I tried to make sure I used the right term. Looked into what to use and based my use of Statism on this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism

Statism (French; étatisme) is a term used by political scientists to describe the belief that, for whatever reason, a government should control either economic or social policy or both to some degree.

Sorry if it is the wrong term. If you have a better one to use, I will happily change the thread title.

 

[Lord of Elves]

I tried to make sure I used the right term. Looked into what to use and based my use of Statism on this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism



Sorry if it is the wrong term. If you have a better one to use, I will happily change the thread title.

I object less to the use of the term than to the fact that it is a very clumsy way of viewing the role of governments. Where does the small government train get off? If we don't want the government having anything to do with our personal lives (at all), why should we let the government run public schools? If we feel it's bad for the government to run public schools, why should we allow them to run public facilities at all? After all, isn't it just another tool of oppression for the government to be ubiquitous in the life of its citizens?

If we remove government from all aspects of our lives, we haven't succeeded in somehow liberating ourselves or regaining freedoms that we have "lost", we've succeeded in dismantling the ordering apparatus of a modern nation.

EDIT: Meaning that the use of the word statism implies the view of politics as small vs large government is valid, which I contest, as if government was in any way radically reduced it would fail to be much of a government at all.

 

[Cutlass]

Adams was wrong. First of all, there is neither a need to enforce morality, nor is it an appropriate thing to have enforced. What government should be enforcing is the harm people do to one another, not the actions that they take which do not result in harm, but rather are about how people choose to live.

So, like that thread about the Jews calling little girls whores because of how they dressed, you have a right to live as you please, so long as you are not hurting others. You do not have a right to not be offended by how others choose to live.

 

[stormerne]

Adams was doubtless speaking from his standpoint in the culture that surrounded him. Perhaps he had no exposure to humanism or other positive personal social moralities than have no dependence on religion.

Even if you generalize from "abandoning God" (which god, and what does abandoning mean?), I've seen no evidence of a causal link between increasing secularism and a reduction in collective self-restraint. By contrast, one might observe a greater collective responsibility and a desire to think seriously about what society people wanted (instead of blindly accepting what was decreed) and thus I'd expect greater social participation.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, the gist of the idea is that we might need new legislation as social mores change. Under the old mores, there was no need for new legislation, because the thing was 'just not done'. For example, debates regarding the use of brain-dead people for organ-donation didn't happen until the last century ... it wouldn't have occurred to people before then.

And then there's conservative legislation, too. In a time when something "just isn't done", there's no need to legislated against it. People didn't inter-racially marry, and so it didn't need to be forbidden. But then, once it started becoming possible (socially), legislators tried to prevent it. It was a losing battle, but people felt like the state needed to be involved.

More modernly, various states try to legislate to teachers regarding (say) science education. Previously, there would have been no need to force the teachers to 'teach the controversy'. But as the naturalistic viewpoint of history increasingly dominates, some people try to pass legislation to make it easier to keep children ignorant.

So, yeah, I think it's natural. Sometimes it's good. Sometimes it's bad.

 

[LucyDuke]

Oh boy.

This part almost feels like cheating, it's tired, but since it keeps coming up... The suggestion that religious people behave morally as a consequence of their religiousness suggests that those people would not behave morally without their religion. "Morality derives from religion" slanders the religious more than the irreligious. The irreligious continuously demonstrate that they don't need religion to give them morality, while the religious have yet to prove they would behave themselves without imagining God looking over their shoulder. Either way it's a stupid idea.

That applies, anyway, to the morality that's anybody else's business. Civilized people will restrain themselves from killing and thieving. Without religion, they probably won't maintain the kinds of antiquated social mores that apply in the bedroom. If Adams is concerned with governing peoples' private affairs, well, yes, he's probably right. But I don't buy that premarital lesbian sex is going to lead to the collapse of society, so it's probably okay that there's nothing about it in the Constitution.

 

[emzie]

I think V wouldn't disagree with you, Lucy. If it weren't for the real, true, existence of eternal damnation in Hell, V would be killing his neighbours.

 

[CaptainF]

Some of the most immoral, selfish and really just pathetic people I've ever met in my life have been very religious.

So, Adams is (was) full of it.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

He was correct to some extent. People are generally able to put up with more if they have faith that there is a higher meaning behind things happening and believe there's some sort of justice even when society fails.

 

[LucyDuke]

To another extent, people that don't hold faith never have crises of faith. They don't need to find meaning or justice when bad things happen.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it.

The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?

When philosophic reason is clear and certain by intuition or necessary induction, no subsequent revelation supported by prophecies or miracles can supersede it.

- John Adams

He also signed the Treaty of Tripoli. It doesn't look like Adams was that worried about 'Merica becoming a nation of godless heathens. Of course, double-talk has existed for at least as long as politicians have existed.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

To another extent, people that don't hold faith never have crises of faith. They don't need to find meaning or justice when bad things happen.

The need for justice is pretty universal. I haven't noticed atheists being of a more forgiving nature. ..and finding meaning in things is comforting to most people. It can also, of course, make people extremists.