The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Jan 11, 2014 3:13:42 GMT -5
Well, the country is coming apart. Like I mentioned in my coming apart thread. The people on the upper middle class and higher are still american as ever. They're religious, industrious, etc. While the lower class is full blown marxist. Many times the religion is used to spread the collectivist ideals. "Take care of your neighbor." "Be your brother's keeper." etc. I'm actually curious about the rate of religion in terms of wealth, I'm actually in the belief that the correlation is the opposite. My family are from Michigan and Mississippi and they are very poor, and very religious. "It's your duty to give back." "God's going to take care of me." etc. You have Obama and others saying it's God's duty to "Help and use Obamacare." Check out this new pope. He's pretty much communist. news.yahoo.com/pope-attacks-tyranny-markets-urges-renewal-key-document-110227704.htmlI think there's a difference between spiritual and religion though.
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Jan 11, 2014 3:32:32 GMT -5
Many times the religion is used to spread the collectivist ideals. "Take care of your neighbor." "Be your brother's keeper." etc. I'm actually curious about the rate of religion in terms of wealth, I'm actually in the belief that the correlation is the opposite. My family are from Michigan and Mississippi and they are very poor, and very religious. "It's your duty to give back." "God's going to take care of me." etc. You have Obama and others saying it's God's duty to "Help and use Obamacare." Check out this new pope. He's pretty much communist. news.yahoo.com/pope-attacks-tyranny-markets-urges-renewal-key-document-110227704.htmlI think there's a difference between spiritual and religion though. Religions have been used for both socialism and individualism [City on the hill Protestantism]. It can go both ways really. "To illustrate just how wide the gap has grown between the new upper class and the new lower class, let me start with the broader upper-middle and working classes from which they are drawn, using two fictional neighborhoods that I hereby label Belmont (after an archetypal upper-middle-class suburb near Boston) and Fishtown (after a neighborhood in Philadelphia that has been home to the white working class since the Revolution).""Religiosity: Whatever your personal religious views, you need to realize that about half of American philanthropy, volunteering and associational memberships is directly church-related, and that religious Americans also account for much more nonreligious social capital than their secular neighbors. In that context, it is worrisome for the culture that the U.S. as a whole has become markedly more secular since 1960, and especially worrisome that Fishtown has become much more secular than Belmont. It runs against the prevailing narrative of secular elites versus a working class still clinging to religion, but the evidence from the General Social Survey, the most widely used database on American attitudes and values, does not leave much room for argument.
For example, suppose we define "de facto secular" as someone who either professes no religion at all or who attends a worship service no more than once a year. For the early GSS surveys conducted from 1972 to 1976, 29% of Belmont and 38% of Fishtown fell into that category. Over the next three decades, secularization did indeed grow in Belmont, from 29% in the 1970s to 40% in the GSS surveys taken from 2006 to 2010. But it grew even more in Fishtown, from 38% to 59%."online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204301404577170733817181646
|
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Jan 11, 2014 4:13:01 GMT -5
Many times the religion is used to spread the collectivist ideals. "Take care of your neighbor." "Be your brother's keeper." etc. I'm actually curious about the rate of religion in terms of wealth, I'm actually in the belief that the correlation is the opposite. My family are from Michigan and Mississippi and they are very poor, and very religious. "It's your duty to give back." "God's going to take care of me." etc. You have Obama and others saying it's God's duty to "Help and use Obamacare." Check out this new pope. He's pretty much communist. news.yahoo.com/pope-attacks-tyranny-markets-urges-renewal-key-document-110227704.htmlI think there's a difference between spiritual and religion though. Religions have been used for both socialism and individualism [City on the hill Protestantism]. It can go both ways really. "To illustrate just how wide the gap has grown between the new upper class and the new lower class, let me start with the broader upper-middle and working classes from which they are drawn, using two fictional neighborhoods that I hereby label Belmont (after an archetypal upper-middle-class suburb near Boston) and Fishtown (after a neighborhood in Philadelphia that has been home to the white working class since the Revolution).""Religiosity: Whatever your personal religious views, you need to realize that about half of American philanthropy, volunteering and associational memberships is directly church-related, and that religious Americans also account for much more nonreligious social capital than their secular neighbors. In that context, it is worrisome for the culture that the U.S. as a whole has become markedly more secular since 1960, and especially worrisome that Fishtown has become much more secular than Belmont. It runs against the prevailing narrative of secular elites versus a working class still clinging to religion, but the evidence from the General Social Survey, the most widely used database on American attitudes and values, does not leave much room for argument.
For example, suppose we define "de facto secular" as someone who either professes no religion at all or who attends a worship service no more than once a year. For the early GSS surveys conducted from 1972 to 1976, 29% of Belmont and 38% of Fishtown fell into that category. Over the next three decades, secularization did indeed grow in Belmont, from 29% in the 1970s to 40% in the GSS surveys taken from 2006 to 2010. But it grew even more in Fishtown, from 38% to 59%."online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204301404577170733817181646Well there are many religious groups who have wealth from generations of savings within their church. I wouldn't qualify that as individualistic. What I'm saying is that religion by definition is a collectivist entity, I don't think religion can ever be completely individualistic by it's inherent design. There's a difference between collectivism and outright socialism by force. I do recognize past Americans were more religious (hell everyone was more religious in the past) and were more individualistic, but that's a small percentage of religious followers. I think religion is basically a tool like anything else, meaning a means to an end. You can technically be religious and have several beliefs. With modern technology and the power of church not being what it used to be and with modern science and the stigma of not being religious going away I'd say you're going to see a lot less religious people period no matter their leanings. Many successful people I've encountered may be spiritual even if they aren't a member of an actual church.
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Jan 11, 2014 4:39:18 GMT -5
Well there are many religious groups who have wealth from generations of savings within their church. I wouldn't qualify that as individualistic. What I'm saying is that religion by definition is a collectivist entity, I don't think religion can ever be completely individualistic by it's inherent design. Not really. Protestants for instance were more individualistic than say Catholics. Because unlike Catholics they did not need the papacy to interpretate Christianity. They simply picked up a bible and decided for themselves what any given passage means all thanks sola scripture. There's a difference between collectivism and outright socialism by force. I do recognize past Americans were more religious (hell everyone was more religious in the past) and were more individualistic, but that's a small percentage of religious followers. I think religion is basically a tool like anything else, meaning a means to an end. You can technically be religious and have several beliefs. With modern technology and the power of church not being what it used to be and with modern science and the stigma of not being religious going away I'd say you're going to see a lot less religious people period no matter their leanings. Many successful people I've encountered may be spiritual even if they aren't a member of an actual church. Well, Religion is just a community of spiritual people. I think by definition all communities skew towards collectivism. I just mean they're individualistic in comparison. Like If you and your friend believed in the same God. Then you would be a religious community. But, like all communities they lead to collectivism. The founding fathers were a mixed bag. Some like Patrick Henry were very religious others were lapsed or Deist: Thomas Jefferson or George Washington. Others were Atheist: Thomas Paine. What brought them together was that they all believed in European values of: Rule of law and Liberty. I don't think belief in God is what binds libertarians together. That's a private thing. I think it's our belief in freedom.
|
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Jan 11, 2014 5:41:10 GMT -5
Well there are many religious groups who have wealth from generations of savings within their church. I wouldn't qualify that as individualistic. What I'm saying is that religion by definition is a collectivist entity, I don't think religion can ever be completely individualistic by it's inherent design. Not really. Protestants for instance were more individualistic than say Catholics. Because unlike Catholics they did not need the papacy to interpretate Christianity. They simply picked up a bible and decided for themselves what any given passage means all thanks sola scripture. There's a difference between collectivism and outright socialism by force. I do recognize past Americans were more religious (hell everyone was more religious in the past) and were more individualistic, but that's a small percentage of religious followers. I think religion is basically a tool like anything else, meaning a means to an end. You can technically be religious and have several beliefs. With modern technology and the power of church not being what it used to be and with modern science and the stigma of not being religious going away I'd say you're going to see a lot less religious people period no matter their leanings. Many successful people I've encountered may be spiritual even if they aren't a member of an actual church. Well, Religion is just a community of spiritual people. I think by definition all communities skew towards collectivism. I just mean they're individualistic in comparison. Like If you and your friend believed in the same God. Then you would be a religious community. But, like all communities they lead to collectivism. The founding fathers were a mixed bag. Some like Patrick Henry were very religious others were lapsed or Deist: Thomas Jefferson or George Washington. Others were Atheist: Thomas Paine. What brought them together was that they all believed in European values of: Rule of law and Liberty. I don't think belief in God is what binds libertarians together. That's a private thing. I think it's our belief in freedom. Well you still have far more groups who did have more of a socialist approach than those that did not. Even if America was somewhat of an exception, and even then not completely since they still had "freedom for white men". Ideals. Meaning they though only freedom should exist for white men. Even taking away from that part, they still believed things like a man has an moral obligation to marry and tithe, and to serve his community. Which is collectivist even if it isn't done by gunpoint. It will always be the double standard that is inherent with religion and a free society. It's really just about serving a higher power and giving your life to that higher power and not to yourself, which has a very striking resemblance to government. Religions have never been fully self serving even if they don't advocate theft. People who advocate religion can still put it in socialist terms in ways that can't be denied. A person who argues that Obamacare is god's will since it takes care of the poor can't really be argued with without some hypocrisy. If you say "Well it's wrong because it takes away the FREEDOM to practice religion. Then what about the laws when it comes to any other theft or force. Should be we be free to exercise them." Mixing religious values with government or freedom is a bad idea IMO and should be kept separate. I also feel you can be spiritual in groups without having an actual religion that you follow. You an I can discuss spirituality without dipping into religion.
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Jan 11, 2014 5:47:44 GMT -5
I think that's something that's inherit in all communities. Even if we suppose all Religions started off with goods ideas. Because of the nature of communities they will devolve into a clusterfuck [pardon my french.]. Look at MGTOW for example, the concept behind it is sound and makes sense. Especially, in the Anti-Male political climate. But, that's just in theory really. In practice it's a whole different beast as you know from experience. So, that's one thing.
I dunno, I believe in God, Rule of Law, City on the Hill and so forth. I also like reading writings of Religious people, but I can't deny that Religion has been on the wrong side often. I think that's how groups tend to be. People seem at their worst when they're with other people.
|
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Jan 11, 2014 6:17:24 GMT -5
I think that's something that's inherit in all communities. Even if we suppose all Religions started off with goods ideas. Because of the nature of communities they will devolve into a clusterfuck [pardon my french.]. Look at MGTOW for example, the concept behind it is sound and makes sense. Especially, in the Anti-Male political climate. But, that's just in theory really. In practice it's a whole different beast as you know from experience. So, that's one thing. I dunno, I believe in God, Rule of Law, City on the Hill and so forth. I also like reading writings of Religious people, but I can't deny that Religion has been on the wrong side often. I think that's how groups tend to be. People seem at their worst when they're with other people. I think there is a society where you live independently and by following that lifestyle it enhances the society. If I trade apples with the orange farmer we both can coexist in the community and serve our own ends without giving it up to a "higher power" or "the people" before myself. That's what I mean.
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Jan 11, 2014 6:47:48 GMT -5
I think there is a society where you live independently and by following that lifestyle it enhances the society. If I trade apples with the orange farmer we both can coexist in the community and serve our own ends without giving it up to a "higher power" or "the people" before myself. That's what I mean. Yeah, but what tends to happen in real life is people get lazy and they want to steal. I think Collectivism is always going to be around, it's human nature. As long as it's curbed in more productive ways and doesn't manifest as socialism. We should be okay.
|
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Jan 11, 2014 6:53:48 GMT -5
I think there is a society where you live independently and by following that lifestyle it enhances the society. If I trade apples with the orange farmer we both can coexist in the community and serve our own ends without giving it up to a "higher power" or "the people" before myself. That's what I mean. Yeah, but what tends to happen in real life is people get lazy and they want to steal. I think Collectivism is always going to be around, it's human nature. As long as it's curbed in more productive ways and doesn't manifest as socialism. We should be okay. Well like we've discussed before. Nobody is equal and the losers will want to steal from the winners. Speaking of theory and practice, look at MGTOW. Sounds good in theory but in reality they are mostly just a bunch of resentful betas who want to steal from their better counterparts. Yet they hide it under key words like "Men going their own way." Then you have feminism, on paper it was equality for women, but really it's just a vehicle for government wealth redistribution. Religion has done this too very often. People say it's about the "greater good", but many times it's people not wanting to take responsibility for their own actions and wanting a "higher power" to take care of them, etc. That's why I say it has a high correlation with government as marxists see government as their God. They want the government to take over charity and they want that to "take care of people" who don't want to take care of themselves. Look at that list that marxist moron made that Peter Schiff was talking about, look at Aper. Same with unions, etc. That's why I think the best government protects individual rights for all without infringing on others because it always leads to this. Unfortunately even our founding fathers have failed.
|
|