• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What political/economic system promotes religious freedom?

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
....or promotes freedom in general?

Given that the options are some brand of socialism, capitalism, or anarchy, it seems obvious that anarchy would allow (as opposed to promoting) the greatest degree of freedom. But a power vacuum will always be filled--first at the local level, then proceed to an upper national form. Such chaos and lack of structure to engender good order will rarely if ever take a benign form.

Power corrupts, and the greater the concentration of power in government, it will evolve into an inevitably corrupt system which is socialist by any definition. "But wait", you say, "dictatorships and monarchies aren't socialist". Really? What are they if not government control, and the bigger the government, the worse the control. Fascism and National Socialism (Nazism) are merely where government controls business rather than owning it--a distinction without a meaningful difference.

How many capitalist dictators/monarchs are there? While theoretically possible, the answer is zero, keeping in mind that fascism is effectively socialism. Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all dictators. George Washington, amazingly, declined to be crowned.

"But wait, but wait", you say, "under capitalism, the corporations are just another form of corrupt government." That's, true, if left to their own devices, but then that isn't capitalism in the first place. Capitalism is where the Rule of Law is administered by the government equally and fairly on both individuals and corporations. A legal double-standard is the root of all evil. If government sells special status, the capitalist system fails. It's not a perfect system either, but it's the easiest to keep watch over. And the tell that it's failing is when economic and religious freedom are increasingly limited, and the aforementioned double-standard increases.

"But wait, but wait, but wait", you say. "What does that have to do with religious freedom?" I only split them up to show that they are two sides of the same coin. One side is labeled socialism, and the other, theocracy. The only difference is the language and the politically correct rationalizations. It doesn't matter what you call it, or the demagoguery you use to sell it, the goal is the same, government control. So you have the elite, the useful idiots (who idiotically believe they're part of the elite), and the rest of us. Who are you?
 

allfoak

Alchemist
It is when these questions and discussions come up that @Laika is greatly missed.
His perspective was unique to all others on this message board.
And it was always presented with intelligence, insight and care.
 

allfoak

Alchemist
I would tend to lean in the direction of the American Constitution as a guide to freedom.
It has been a model to the world for more than 200 years.
We are currently throwing it all out as if it is outdated.
It has been added to, taken away from manipulated and just plain ignored and yet we still are able to maintain a good amount of freedom.
It is quickly fading due to the common people being ignorant of it's contents and of it's importance to our freedom.
We shall see how long we can hang on.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
A constitutional democracy with capitalism is best.
And if you want, I'll consider adding a little welfare state to the mix.
 

Baladas

An Págánach
keeping in mind that fascism is effectively socialism
I can definitely see what you're saying here, but this comment here just isn't true.
Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all violent and cruel men and dictators - very true.
And all of them enforced their ideologies with violence.

Socialism though, is an umbrella term.
There are many different socialist systems and ideologies.
Leninism/Stalinism/ Maoism are the forms of socialism that tends to come to mind, and it's understandable because of their infamy.

Socialism though, traditionally refers to granting ownership of the means of production to the workers (not the State).
As you likely know, State Socialism (Lenin, Stalin, Mao) had the working class form a new central government which caused them to become the new elite and they imposed tyranny on the former elite.

Fascism involves none of this.

Then, you have the social democrats and democratic socialists. The latter want to see Socialism eventually supplant Capitalism.
The former are not interested in ending Capitalism, but in seeing it regulated.
For instance, Bernie Sanders has not actually suggested anything that is truly a socialist policy.
He may be a socialist at heart, but he is advocating for social democracy - a regulated, not supplanted capitalism.

At any rate, to answer you, I would have to say that it varies on the execution of said forms of government.
I am inclined to say one of the forms of Libertarianism (Right or Left) would likely provide the most freedom religiously.
Definitely NOT State Socialism or Fascism though.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I have come to suspect that the inclinations and expectations of the community must be considered at least as much as the policies themselves.

The OP presents a scenario where too much government control and too much arbitrary application of law are more damaging than what he calls Capitalism - to the best of my understanding, free competition supervised by some form of fair law. Feels a bit vague and too optimistic to me, but it is fair as models go.

However, totalitarism (which it indeed something to avoid fiercely) is not really avoided by laws or constitutions. Life is just not nearly that simple.

Perhaps it is distance from the decision making, as opposed to greater principles trends and policy principles, that make the difference between a free society and a totalitarian one?
 
Power corrupts, and the greater the concentration of power in government, it will evolve into an inevitably corrupt system which is socialist by any definition. "But wait", you say, "dictatorships and monarchies aren't socialist". Really? What are they if not government control, and the bigger the government, the worse the control

A monarchy does not necessarily entail socialist-style strong central government, capitalism grew out of the European monarchies after all.

As to what best guarantees religious freedom, there is no one best answer, it depends on the situation, demographics and experiences of the country in general.

As we've seen in places as diverse as Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Indonesia (Ambon) and, more historically, the break up of the Habsburg Empire, the move towards democracy and self-determination often creates social tensions that are not present in autocratic systems. Ethnic/religious populism is often experienced and different communities get played off against each other of scapegoated as being the cause of problems.

Democracy, especially when there are changing demographics, changes power dynamics and can cause a struggle for power. Decentralisation can create problems that were kept at bay by centralisation.

There is no one size fits all approach to government.
 

GoodbyeDave

Well-Known Member
I would tend to lean in the direction of the American Constitution as a guide to freedom. It has been a model to the world for more than 200 years.
Only some-one from the USA could have written that! The only countries that have copied it are in Latin America, and look how they've ended up. The creators of the US constitution were definitely in favour of toleration, since several of them, as Deists, would have been at risk of discrimination in many states, but the current disregard of the First Amendment by the so-called religious freedom legislation is hardly new. In fact it didn't apply to the states, as opposed to the federal government, until 1947.

I suspect that no system of government, nor any economic system, can guarantee religious freedom if the majority of the people don't want it guaranteed.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
It is when these questions and discussions come up that @Laika is greatly missed.
His perspective was unique to all others on this message board.
And it was always presented with intelligence, insight and care.

You'd need to have him here to be cross-examined. Otherwise it's identical with biblical hearsay.

I would tend to lean in the direction of the American Constitution as a guide to freedom.
It has been a model to the world for more than 200 years.
We are currently throwing it all out as if it is outdated.

Amen. And it's being thrown out because it does support capitalism. Of course that was an unknown concept back then, which makes it even more amazing that they came in through the back door.

It has been added to, taken away from manipulated and just plain ignored and yet we still are able to maintain a good amount of freedom.
It is quickly fading due to the common people being ignorant of it's contents and of it's importance to our freedom.
We shall see how long we can hang on.

Not so much ignorance of the Constitution, but ignorance of the most basic principles of economics and morality, and thus wanting the government to steal from the rich to give them bread and circuses. Robin Hood was merely taking back from the government what it had stolen from them in the first place--with the wealthy church's blessings.

A constitutional democracy with capitalism is best.
And if you want, I'll consider adding a little welfare state to the mix.

Even Jefferson advocated earned welfare, as do I.

I can definitely see what you're saying here, but this comment here just isn't true.
Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all violent and cruel men and dictators - very true.
And all of them enforced their ideologies with violence.

Yes, their socialist ideologies. But the history books, and professors, focus only on the dictators, and call them right wingers. WTF?

Socialism though, is an umbrella term.
There are many different socialist systems and ideologies.
Leninism/Stalinism/ Maoism are the forms of socialism that tends to come to mind, and it's understandable because of their infamy.

Yes. Technically any government is socialism, and the only true capitalist system is anarchy. But good order is desired by almost all of us. So how do we achieve in without government getting too big and powerful? We put the basic rights of individuals (life, liberty, property and self-defense) first. When the government violates those, either outright or via a legal/moral double standard, that government has gone too far. Those basic individual rights trump everything else--always.

Socialism though, traditionally refers to granting ownership of the means of production to the workers (not the State).
Communist socialism does. National socialism/fascism/Nazism assumes control of the means of production without ownership.
As you likely know, State Socialism (Lenin, Stalin, Mao) had the working class form a new central government which caused them to become the new elite and they imposed tyranny on the former elite.

And elite is almost always just another word for beneficiaries of the double-standard, of which there are usually layers--with one or a few supreme beneficiaries at the top. Castro was originally pro-democracy. But I think when he figured out that probably meant he wouldn't be at the top for long, he switched to communism where maintaining a life-long dictatorship is not only possible, but probable.

Fascism involves none of this.

See above.
Then, you have the social democrats and democratic socialists. The latter want to see Socialism eventually supplant Capitalism.
The former are not interested in ending Capitalism, but in seeing it regulated.

You're playing with words. Capitalism is capitalism no matter how hard you try to work he word socialism into it.

For instance, Bernie Sanders has not actually suggested anything that is truly a socialist policy.
He may be a socialist at heart, but he is advocating for social democracy - a regulated, not supplanted capitalism.

That's what we had until government officials started selling influence to the corporations (crony capitalism).

[/quote]At any rate, to answer you, I would have to say that it varies on the execution of said forms of government.
I am inclined to say one of the forms of Libertarianism (Right or Left) would likely provide the most freedom religiously.
Definitely NOT State Socialism or Fascism though.[/QUOTE]

I agree, and I'm a libertarian, but I've never heard of (Right or Left) libertarianism.

I have come to suspect that the inclinations and expectations of the community must be considered at least as much as the policies themselves.

Fine. Just don't abandon the first principle, protecting the basic rights of individuals (see above)

The OP presents a scenario where too much government control and too much arbitrary application of law are more damaging than what he calls Capitalism - to the best of my understanding, free competition supervised by some form of fair law. Feels a bit vague and too optimistic to me, but it is fair as models go.

Basically, honor the rights of individuals as being those for corporations.

However, totalitarism (which it indeed something to avoid fiercely) is not really avoided by laws or constitutions. Life is just not nearly that simple.

Yes and no. It's not that hard to codify, but the catch is it requires eternal vigilance. Generations pass and you begin to hear what we're hearing now, "What's the big deal with freedom anyway?" Move to N. Korea or Tehran and you'll find out. And it's hard as hell to get back once you've lost it.

Perhaps it is distance from the decision making, as opposed to greater principles trends and policy principles, that make the difference between a free society and a totalitarian one?

Again the need for vigilance. When you feel the real brunt of government policies, it's probably too late, at least without major physical turmoil.

A monarchy does not necessarily entail socialist-style strong central government, capitalism grew out of the European monarchies after all.

A monarch owns or controls the means of production. Such a government, whatever the bells and whistles, is socialism--my college political "science" professor notwithstanding. And genuine, non-anarchist capitalism grew out of the US's separation from Gr. Britain--while anarchy and Napoleon were was the legacies of the French Revolution.

As to what best guarantees religious freedom, there is no one best answer, it depends on the situation, demographics and experiences of the country in general.

So religious freedom in Iran is....?

As we've seen in places as diverse as Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Indonesia (Ambon) and, more historically, the break up of the Habsburg Empire, the move towards democracy and self-determination often creates social tensions that are not present in autocratic systems. Ethnic/religious populism is often experienced and different communities get played off against each other of scapegoated as being the cause of problems.

Yes, well summed up. But what do we do? #1, stop giving the franchise to everyone with a pulse. Anyone should be able to vote who demonstrates at least a bare minimum knowledge of the Constitution and economics.

[/quote]Democracy, especially when there are changing demographics, changes power dynamics and can cause a struggle for power. Decentralisation can create problems that were kept at bay by centralisation.
.[/QUOTE]

Yet centralization brought about the end of slavery and then of Jim Crow. But then that centralization brought about The War on Poverty and the Great Society, etc. etc.--which kept them down on the Plantation as LBJ predicted, in much cruder words than I've used here. Adherence to the Prime Directive of honoring individual rights first without legal double standards, will sustain almost any form of government, and the freedom of the people.

Only some-one from the USA could have written that! The only countries that have copied it are in Latin America, and look how they've ended up. The creators of the US constitution were definitely in favour of toleration, since several of them, as Deists, would have been at risk of discrimination in many states, but the current disregard of the First Amendment by the so-called religious freedom legislation is hardly new. In fact it didn't apply to the states, as opposed to the federal government, until 1947.

I suspect that no system of government, nor any economic system, can guarantee religious freedom if the majority of the people don't want it guaranteed.

The test of any government is how well it protects the BASIC RIGHTS (see above) of it's individual citizens. As for the first paragraph, I don't know what you're getting at. What "religious freedom legislation"?

Secularism.

Secularism and socialism have take on most of the trappings of religion. Look at compassion. It's not immoral not to be compassionate, but the Left continues to glom onto Christian values like compassion and charity, with their adherents never realizing that those voluntary values under religion are made mandatory under socialistic governments. It turns armed theft into "charity".
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
For me the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides the ideal social paradigm to build a world society that provides freedom of belief and social equity..

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html

Except for the gotcha:
"Article 29.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."


:D Yep!

This one is getting a workout lately though -

Article 14.

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

*

Yeah, but the UN just doesn't seem that interested in doing anything about the countries that drove them to seek asylum in the first place.
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN

Ingledsva said:
:D Yep!

This one is getting a workout lately though -

Article 14.

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

Yeah, but the UN just doesn't seem that interested in doing anything about the countries that drove them to seek asylum in the first place.

Yep! Plus this is one where I understand both sides' problems.

On one side, the need of refugees to get out of these countries, and on the other, the need of host countries not to be overrun by refugees, they can't house, feed, or properly vet.

Especially lately, as terrorists are coming in with the refugees.

*
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
Yep! Plus this is one where I understand both sides' problems.

On one side, the need of refugees to get out of these countries, and on the other, the need of host countries not to be overrun by refugees, they can't house, feed, or properly vet.

Especially lately, as terrorists are coming in with the refugees.

*

I wasn't talking about refugees passing through, but those fleeing the countries of their birth, and beyond.
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
I wasn't talking about refugees passing through, but those fleeing the countries of their birth, and beyond.

I should have used - their - to be more specific, - as that is also what I meant.

Yep! Plus this is one where I understand both sides' problems.

On one side, the need of refugees to get out of THEIR countries, and on the other, the need of host countries not to be overrun by refugees, they can't house, feed, or properly vet.

Especially lately, as terrorists are coming in with the refugees.

*
 
Top