Tuesday, April 14, 2015

The lessons of history

Secular societies are happier are they? Like the USSR and the People's Republic of China? 

Or in Denmark, the child pornography capital of the world? 

Although many atheists maintain their moral sense, the moral pit of "everything is permitted" thinking should not be underestimated. 

Communism began, I believe, with Marx's secularism combined with a genuine concern about economic injustice and the intent to do something about it. And the results are now in the history books. If you really think that secularism can make life better, the first thing I want to see is that you have figured out what the lessons were from this massive failure and have learned those lessons.

6 comments:

B. Prokop said...

Victor,

After the destruction of the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, the Navy's air power enthusiasts figured that the decades-long argument over which was the superior weapon, the airplane or the surface warship, was finally settled - and decisively so. Airplanes had most definitely defeated ships.

But "No-o-o-o-o", countered the sea power enthusiasts. Pearl Harbor was "unfair" (because it was a surprise attack) and not a true measure of the relative utility of ship vs. plane. In a "fair fight", the surface vessel (or so they said) would still come out on top. It took nearly 3 years of combat in the Pacific to finally hammer the point home to the Navy's "Big Gunnery" diehards that the airplane was the big winner in this debate.

This is exactly how atheists respond when confronted with what their beliefs and aspirations for society look like in the Real World. "No-o-o-o-o," they protest. "The Communists weren't True Scotsmen, er, I mean, atheists. They don't count, and therefore we have no need to learn anything from history." And so I guarantee you that they won't.

Saint Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, Pray for us!

Ilíon said...

"Communism began, I believe, with Marx's secularism combined with a genuine concern about economic injustice and the intent to do something about it."

Why would you think such a thing? What *rational* basis is there to imagine that someone who "earns" his living by mooching off others has "a genuine concern about economic injustice and the intent to do something about it".

And, what the Hell does "economic injustice" even mean?

oozzielionel said...

"And, what the Hell does "economic injustice" even mean?"
I know you asked Victor, but I am interested in that question. It appears to me that Victor used "economic injustice" as a synonym or placer for "poverty." I think there are two justice issues in competition here: 1) Is there an "institutional" poverty that gives people no chance to escape the slavery of their poverty? and 2) Can wealth be redistributed without violating the justice behind earned wealth?

Option 1: "no" and "no" - Cons Right
Option 2: "no" and "yes" - Cons Left
Option 3: "yes and "no" - Lib right
Option 4: "Yes and "yes - lib left

B. Prokop said...

"It appears to me that Victor used "economic injustice" as a synonym or placer for "poverty.""

Perhaps we should let Victor speak for himself, but I personally use "economic injustice" to mean poverty (or any other deprivation of either economic assets or instruments) ascribable to objectively sinful actions or inactions of individuals and groups.

Two examples of economic injustice:

1. The "company store" system, whereby employees were consciously and deliberately kept in a state of permanent indebtedness to the owners of the company (usually the sole employer in a particular town).

2. The forced collectivization of farms in the Soviet Union (and later, in Eastern Europe) by the state.

Dla Jego bolesnej męki

im-skeptical said...

3. The feudal system.

Papalinton said...

4. Failure to provide comprehensive healthcare cover on the basis of religious intransigence [Hobby Lobby]