Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6994|67.222.138.85
"How can you have order in a state without religion? For, when one man is dying of hunger near another who is ill of surfeit, he cannot resign himself to this difference unless there is an authority which declares "God wills it thus." Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." -Napoleon Bonaparte

“Only man is not content to leave things as they are but must always be changing them, and when he has done so, is seldom satisfied with the result.” - Elspeth Huxley

A couple solutions to the first question are simple - you don't let anyone starve or you maintain a state religion. How can you reconcile the first quote with the second?

Obviously having a state religion is one option, but there are too many atheists here for this not to be a lot of fun.

I realize there can be religion without a theocracy, it is just a title.
13/f/taiwan
Member
+940|5986
Wow, just wow.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6440|what

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

How can you reconcile the first quote with the second?
You shouldn't have to.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6994|67.222.138.85

AussieReaper wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

How can you reconcile the first quote with the second?
You shouldn't have to.
You sure do if you want a stable society.
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6969|Disaster Free Zone
"How can you have order in a state without religion?"
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."

The guy was a fucking tyrant emperor. Religion is great for keeping people quiet and in order, but its terrible for social expansion and development. Religious state without doubt leads to oppression and must be changed.

The second quote is just saying that humans don't like the status quo, that we like things explained and we search and explore better ways of doing things. Totally against what religion is.

So how do I reconcile the 2 quotes, simple I don't. Napoleon was dictator who wanted control. Huxley acknowledges that as a race we want freedom to grow.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6888|132 and Bush

It would seem that the US had no problem expanding/developing.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6994|67.222.138.85
The point of the first is religion is a way of explaining away social inequalities.

The point of the second is it rejects the easiest solution to the first; if you just feed everyone, they will yearn for more, and the inequalities that result will put you right back where you started. As you said, it points out that humans don't like the status quo, but how do you maintain order without one? (assuming no state religion)
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6969|Disaster Free Zone

Kmarion wrote:

It would seem that the US had no problem expanding/developing.
Socially not so much. Way too many are stuck in your heyday of the 50s.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The point of the first is religion is a way of explaining away social inequalities.
Yes, its also a way of keeping social inequalities.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The point of the second is it rejects the easiest solution to the first; if you just feed everyone, they will yearn for more, and the inequalities that result will put you right back where you started. As you said, it points out that humans don't like the status quo, but how do you maintain order without one? (assuming no state religion)
I didn't get that from the quote. Just that you are unable to create a utopia and there will always be people wanting different things.

Also you are able to have 'order' without needing to control people.

Last edited by DrunkFace (2009-08-29 00:00:27)

Hakei
Banned
+295|6283
21st Century.
Science is beautiful, religion is a fairy tale.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6888|132 and Bush

DrunkFace wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

It would seem that the US had no problem expanding/developing.
Socially not so much. Way too many are stuck in your heyday of the 50s.
Yes we did grow socially. Civil rights, Women's rights, equal opportunity. They all came around relatively quick in our brief history. You think there are too many that are stuck in the 50's. I do not get that impression at all. You severely underestimate our diversity.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Burwhale
Save the BlobFish!
+136|6510|Brisneyland
Firstly : Good thread.
Secondly: I disagree with your interpretation of the second quote. The interpretation of the first quote is quite clear, while I think the second quote means that "people are always trying to change things, then they whinge after they have made the changes".
I personally dont think this has much to do with the first quote.
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6969|Disaster Free Zone

Kmarion wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

It would seem that the US had no problem expanding/developing.
Socially not so much. Way too many are stuck in your heyday of the 50s.
Yes we did grow socially. Civil rights, Women's rights, equal opportunity. They all came around relatively quick in our brief history. You think there are too many that are stuck in the 50's. I do not get that impression at all. You severely underestimate our diversity.
All of which were achieved by the 50's (except black rights), and all which were achieved in many other countries years before.

But lets look at some current issues.
Abortion - people are murdered over this issue, clinics are bombed, daily protests... and thats just the mega passionate ones.
Stem cell research - Banned (or was it just made legal?) but still huge number of people against it.
Death penalty - Still legal in many states, still lots of support for it.
Wealth inequalities - Highest of any developed country.
Gay rights - Non existent.
Sex education - Poor or nearly non existent from what I've heard. Abstinence still taught as primary sex ed program. Consequently highest teenage pregnancy of developed world.
Age of consent - 18, Highest of any developed nation, completely going against social trends.
Legal Drinking age - 21, same as above.
Health care - Only developed nation without some kind of universal health care system.
Education - University is unattainable to some without money, financial aid is highly regulated.

I'm not saying every other nation is perfect (far from it), or that there is a definite right and wrong for the above issues. But almost all developed nation except the US are moving in one direction.
13/f/taiwan
Member
+940|5986

Hakei wrote:

21st Century.
Science is being abused for profit instead of religion.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6888|132 and Bush

DrunkFace wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Socially not so much. Way too many are stuck in your heyday of the 50s.
Yes we did grow socially. Civil rights, Women's rights, equal opportunity. They all came around relatively quick in our brief history. You think there are too many that are stuck in the 50's. I do not get that impression at all. You severely underestimate our diversity.
All of which were achieved by the 50's (except black rights), and all which were achieved in many other countries years before.

But lets look at some current issues.
Abortion - people are murdered over this issue, clinics are bombed, daily protests... and thats just the mega passionate ones.
Stem cell research - Banned (or was it just made legal?) but still huge number of people against it.
Death penalty - Still legal in many states, still lots of support for it.
Wealth inequalities - Highest of any developed country.
Gay rights - Non existent.
Sex education - Poor or nearly non existent from what I've heard. Abstinence still taught as primary sex ed program. Consequently highest teenage pregnancy of developed world.
Age of consent - 18, Highest of any developed nation, completely going against social trends.
Legal Drinking age - 21, same as above.
Health care - Only developed nation without some kind of universal health care system.
Education - University is unattainable to some without money, financial aid is highly regulated.

I'm not saying every other nation is perfect (far from it), or that there is a definite right and wrong for the above issues. But almost all developed nation except the US are moving in one direction.
Electing a minority to our highest office is the wrong direction? Of course it is not the end of racism, but it a big step towards dismantling human prejudice.

This country has had a lot on it's plate since day one. There were talks of equal rights from the very beginning. (It's in the Declaration of Independence). Yes it took some time and even a war to get everyone on board. But some of the most hardcore abolitionist were very religious. 150 years is very brief when put into historical context.

Abortion, Psychopaths come in many flavors. People are killed over stupid things.These mega passionate ones are not a true representation of either side of the debate. You'll note that when these rare events happen both sides are generally quick to condemn it.
Teen pregnancy, how would religion encourage this?
Age of consent, is impairing development?
Legal drinking, again this has little to do with expanding/developing.
Death Penalty, that is a choice given to the state. Allowing people to decide and govern themselves is not a developmental problem. It's freedom.
Gays have every right except the word marriage in most states. There isn't too many countries that allow homosexual marriage. Here they are afforded Domestic partnerships and Civil unions.
Sex ed? You've heard wrong. Everyone gets it. How it is taught depends on the county.
Health care, cost are out of control. However I would not change the quality for anywhere else in the world. Most Americans do not want a single payer system. This isn't to say we don't think everyone should have the opportunity for healthcare. We have safety nets in place, but we need reform in a variety of different ways.
Continuing Education is expensive. However, more than half of my friends have gotten financial aid in some way. I would like my government to regulate itself when writing checks.

No other country receives more immigrants than the US. We get along just fine considering our population diversity and size. I suggest you ask someone who has visited the US to give you their take. The media is not the best representation for true social interaction. Most comparable countries aren't even first world. You are making a mistake by thinking what is right for country (A) is right for country (B). It happens all the time in this forum. The ultimate goal of a society is for it to govern itself the way it happily desires. The knee slapping irony here is that our ancestors of European descent left the old world with the hopes of escaping religious persecution.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6282|Truthistan
"How can you have order in a state without religion? For, when one man is dying of hunger near another who is ill of surfeit, he cannot resign himself to this difference unless there is an authority which declares "God wills it thus." Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." -Napoleon Bonaparte

“Only man is not content to leave things as they are but must always be changing them, and when he has done so, is seldom satisfied with the result.” - Elspeth Huxley

If you take the two quotes together IMO it reads 1. tyrants love stability but 2. people chaff and want change even if that change is not in their best interests. It looks like tyranny versus freedom. The second quote seems to be supporting the first one in that people might not be satisfied with change even though they want it.

Personally, I disagree with the entire notion. change is what life is all about and change for the sake of change is called innovation and experimentation. No wonder the church hated science at one time, it taught people how to question and analyse. Anyway, its the same old story if you're on top or you're comfortable then the last thing you want is change because upturning the apple cart might cost you your position.

On the evils of stability. If you have developed a pattern to your life then you aren't learning anything because it is only when you fail that you learn anything new. Failure is the spark that drives your growth in knowledge. eg you have a pattern to you life where A+B+C=success and if you live by that forever then you haven't learned anything knew, you've stagnated. If you take a chance to change it and do A+B+C+D it might fail but it might be better. the failure or the success are both opportunities to learn but you would never know unless you tried.

Likewise, if you are living a successful life and something external changes and suddenly you pattern of success fails, then you have to adjust and and change and that in itself is a learning process. This is what Native Americans call the Trickster or Vikings would call Loki. You think you know it all then the unknown happens and it forces you to admit that you need to learn something new. Its interesting that Native Americans who lived closely with nature and viking who lived on the sea would have an ethos to deal with changing circumstance and adaption.

You see if you don't risk failure or invite failure then you are not learning anything. If you are not adaptable, then you are susceptible to a very painful learning experience if Loki or the Trickster finds you.

So, I would say people are inherently curious and prone to invite change even if people are "seldom satisfied with the result" and that places human nature in a juxtaposition to a hierarchical society where the elite/tyrants want stability and use religion as a call to higher authority to maintain their status.


IMO there is something really insidious about the Napoleon quote where mind control is being used to get someone to accept their own starvation.
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6807|Πάϊ
There need not be social inequalities.
ƒ³
Lai
Member
+186|6438

DrunkFace wrote:

The guy was a fucking tyrant emperor.
History is always written by those who achieved the final victory.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

How can you reconcile the first quote with the second?
You shouldn't have to.
You sure do if you want a stable society.
Let's throw in some chaos theory
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6994|67.222.138.85
Okay, going to break down the second quote.

"Only man is not content to leave things as they are but must always be changing them"
Man is never happy with where he is. He is always looking to better his environment. In context of the first quote, this means that the first quote applies to a lot more than just one man eating while another is starving. It means that even if not a soul is hungry, there will always be a sense of deep-rooted jealousy in society aimed squarely at standard of living discrepancies, no matter how small they might be.

"and when he has done so, is seldom satisfied with the result.”
So even when the change does take place to make things more even, nobody ends up satisfied. The poor look for more to have, the rich look for more to keep. The solution undoubtedly ends with bad blood all around.

As I tried to nudge people towards in the OP, the second quote is a rebuttal to the most simple solution to the first quote apart from a state religion. Just feeding everyone is not enough. There will still always be too much social strife to really consider a nation orderly.

What follows is not a bashing. I am not saying the way things are is for better or for worse - it is just the way things are.

Look at the primarily atheist party in the U.S. Could you really call the constituents of this party orderly? Considering mass protests, a younger base, and a general "stick it to the man" attitude I do not think that they alone could make something that is truly orderly. I am positive they could make something workable, but not orderly.

Compare that to the conservative christians, a generally (minus abortion protests lol) very orderly group. I believe this is largely due to their religion.

So what is appropriate? Is a state religion or a generally religious nation the answer? Do we not need true order? Does that not present a national security issue? Do we need national security if we have pacifist population?

I hope this clarifies things, and in doing so generally replies to a lot of what was left for me pretty directly.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6843
Christianity preaches giving away all your possessions and living a 'do unto others as you would have done unto you' life.

"I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

There is nothing Christian about the right wing of America and Napoleon's comment is ridiculous when taken in the context of the above excerpt from the bible.

At the end of the day religion is an impractical sack of shit.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-08-29 10:38:27)

Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6994|67.222.138.85
It is ridiculous to assume that Christians act like Christians, and has nothing to do with the point of the thread. The thread is about religion as a social tool.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6843

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It is ridiculous to assume that Christians act like Christians, and has nothing to do with the point of the thread. The thread is about religion as a social tool.
Religion is a social tool destined to be phased out with a culture and a logical code of civil conduct that takes its lead from the sensible parts of religion (such as the 'do unto others...etc'). Religion is not necessary - delusionality cannot persist forever.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6692|North Carolina
Here's how I see it.  Until a society mostly follows secular humanism, religion is necessary.

Many First World nations have made this transition (like the Czech Republic and Sweden), but until it occurs, people need some sort of moral guidance.  The government should not be an arbiter of this morality except in very basic terms (like having social programs, laws against libel, and various other laws against violent and property crime).  Beyond that, morality should be a personal thing.

The best way to maintain some sense of personal morality among most countries is to let people believe in whatever faiths they choose.  For those who do not follow a faith, we have reason and secular humanism to use as guides.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6994|67.222.138.85

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It is ridiculous to assume that Christians act like Christians, and has nothing to do with the point of the thread. The thread is about religion as a social tool.
Religion is a social tool destined to be phased out with a culture and a logical code of civil conduct that takes its lead from the sensible parts of religion (such as the 'do unto others...etc'). Religion is not necessary - delusionality cannot persist forever.
So how exactly do you foresee a society without a supreme being or eternal judgment operating effectively in context of the quotes?

edit: exactly how Turquoise did it <3
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6843

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

So how exactly do you foresee a society without a supreme being or eternal judgment operating effectively in context of the quotes?
You presume Napoleon's quote is some cast iron fact of life, some law written in stone. I don't. Japan has a majority population of atheists and it is one of the most advanced, structured, orderly nations on earth. QED. The only side effect is an elevated rate of suicide.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-08-29 10:52:03)

Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6994|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

Here's how I see it.  Until a society mostly follows secular humanism, religion is necessary.

Many First World nations have made this transition (like the Czech Republic and Sweden), but until it occurs, people need some sort of moral guidance.  The government should not be an arbiter of this morality except in very basic terms (like having social programs, laws against libel, and various other laws against violent and property crime).  Beyond that, morality should be a personal thing.

The best way to maintain some sense of personal morality among most countries is to let people believe in whatever faiths they choose.  For those who do not follow a faith, we have reason and secular humanism to use as guides.
Doesn't humanism demand relative social equality though?

How would strict humanism fair under national crisis, be it militaristic, political, or natural?

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

So how exactly do you foresee a society without a supreme being or eternal judgment operating effectively in context of the quotes?
You presume Napoleon's quote is some cast iron fact of life, some law written in stone. I don't. Japan has a majority population of atheists and it is one of the most advanced, structured, orderly nations on earth. QED
I do, until you provide proof of a poor and orderly atheist nation.

Maintaining order while everyone is doing well is one thing. Stagnate and decline for 50 years, that is the test of social mettle.

CameronPoe wrote:

The only side effect is an elevated rate of suicide.
and a clearly disturbed sexual culture, and one that can't maintain its population. I think there is definitely an argument for Japan not being "orderly", so long as you take the word to define more than not rioting on the streets, but I don't feel the need to go into that.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard