Political/Religious Space Colonies?

[Tasha]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

Also in all of those cases a totalitarian government tried to kill the influence of religion by outlawing it. We are talking about a space colony that would be democratic and be only attractive to Atheists. I guess there could be religious zealots that would go and try to proselytize the godless.

 

Also People's republic of China, like the USSR isn't Atheistic. They have an Official set of religions that are allowed to exist there. In the case of the USSR the government's crackdown on the Russian Orthodox church was a quixotic push to break the influence the priesthood had over the people. It was another power grab like much of went on in the USSR. If it challenged the ruling party, it was outlawed, supressed, and had it's members killed and jailed.

 

IMHO most of the nations that call themselves Communist are just totalitarian dictatorships and don't deserve the Communist name. In true Communism the people own the means of production and govern themselves in a more or less democratic way more akin to the hippie communes of the 60's.

 

I am not saying that it is better or worse than what we have going in the US, but real Communism sure isn't what Cuba, the USSR, or China is governed by

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

IMHO most of the nations that call themselves Communist are just totalitarian dictatorships and don't deserve the Communist name. In true Communism the people own the means of production and govern themselves in a more or less democratic way more akin to the hippie communes of the 60's.

 

Which sounds really really nice in theory, and might work OK for a small well-established group comprised entirely of volunteers. Not, I personally believe, for anything larger or more complex.

 

Pretty good line from James P Hogan's book 'Giant's Star' - by a Soviet character: ".... Except for a brief period in 1917, the Soviet Union has been no more Communist than the Church of the Middle Ages was Christian ...".

[The Weapon]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

Tasha[/b] ] That is a danger, but treating others like you would like to be treated is a quite logical way to live. One doesn't need a god to know that.

There are differences in that assumption. A look at the history of atheist states like Vietnam' date=' the People's Republic of China, and the Soviet Union should tell you that.[/quote']

None of these were even close to being based on treating others like you would like to be treated.

[The Weapon]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

I call BS on that statement. The Weaver family didn't have a particularly coherent plan when they moved, other than that they were fundamentalists of the LDS variety who believed that the "end was near." (Which, when you think about it, wasn't far from the truth.) Weaver was believed to be a white supremacist by the FBI, but he's always denied it. Oh, he got along with Aryan Nations on a personal level, but disagreed with them philosophically on various things. According to his daughter he kind of had to: they were his closest neighbors, and they'd built a "really nice" picnic ground on their compound that he liked to take his children to.

 

As a rural American let me say this: no matter how strange they are, when you live in the countryside you have to get along with your neighbors. My closest neighbors are Burning Man. I get along with them, even though I'm not personally a bisexual druggie pyromaniac. But, hey, they're my closest neighbors... and they've built a really nice picnic ground at Black Rock Station.

 

But I digress. The charge against Randy Weaver "was transfer of a short-barreled shotgun without a license." Not bomb making. I've read a lot of things about Ruby Ridge and never read anything about bombs. Furthermore, it was entrapment: the ATF wanted him to join Aryan Nations so that he could be an informant. Weaver refused... and refused... and made a big public stink about refusing. Which was stupid and convinced the Powers That Be that he needed to be made an example of. Which led to something horrible for everyone involved.

 

Anyhow, the Weaver family really weren't the sharpest knives in the drawer, and are thus not a great example of anything. Trust me: I'm a "survivalist." Many of my friends are "survivalists." I live "separately" from mainstream society on an isolated ranch. Why? Because I don't like the direction that modern urban civilization is headed in. And you know what? I would a) never saw off a shotgun for anyone, and hire a lawyer if I were stupid enough to get caught doing it by the ATF!

 

(My source: Jon Rohnson's excellent Them: Adventures With Extremists)

 

In any case, there are several excellent science fiction novels about exactly what you gentlemen are talking about. I think Kirenyaga by Mike Resnick is the best one of the lot, but the whole backstory of the Multicolored Land series is based on the same premise.

 

-Jason Walters, resident survivalist (not that I commonly use the term)

 

The Weavers were fairly openly racial seperatists, and I got that from reading sources that were universally sympathetic to them. I never claimed they were racial supremicists. The bomb story again I got from reading sources openly sympathetic to the Weavers said sources plainly stating that the FBI supplied them with the neccessary knowledge and parts. There are quite a lot of people who wish to live seperately from other races, there must be a reason why it isn't happening. The only credible one I can think of is they don't have the scale to make their economy work.

[Tasha]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

Which sounds really really nice in theory, and might work OK for a small well-established group comprised entirely of volunteers. Not, I personally believe, for anything larger or more complex.

 

Pretty good line from James P Hogan's book 'Giant's Star' - by a Soviet character: ".... Except for a brief period in 1917, the Soviet Union has been no more Communist than the Church of the Middle Ages was Christian ...".

 

That's what the conventional wisdom is. Though we really haven't had a good opportunity to see it tried without some tyrant instantly rising to power. If the US could pull back from becoming a corporate state, perhaps we can move closer to people really owning in partnership the businesses they work at. Right now greed has a hold our national consciousness. I have come to believe that any power structure can be corrupted eventually if the corruptors are allowed to work unchecked.

[The Weapon]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

Which sounds really really nice in theory, and might work OK for a small well-established group comprised entirely of volunteers. Not, I personally believe, for anything larger or more complex.

 

Pretty good line from James P Hogan's book 'Giant's Star' - by a Soviet character: ".... Except for a brief period in 1917, the Soviet Union has been no more Communist than the Church of the Middle Ages was Christian ...".

 

Actually the the theory doesn't sound that nice when you examine it. What does "the people will own the means of production" mean? It does not mean that individual people will own the means of production, we have that now. It means that "the people" i.e. the populace in general will own the means of production. In other words we'll all have a 20,000,000th of the corner shop. Since nobody in their right mind will put an amount of effort in to the assessment, let alone management of such a small stake this effective means we have the right to a 20,000,000th part of what we're told the shops profits are. Since it's not worth the bother finding out if the accounts are accurate because even if you're being ripped of the trivial amount you're "owed" you can neither sell your share nor call the management to account (your vote has a 1 in 6M chance of changing the result) you're effectively a pensioner not an owner. This is all less true of big enterprises but even with a $200M factory it is hardly worth the bother of acting like an "owner" of your $10 stake.

 

 

The alternative is to make people own their means of production that they personally are using. This is great if you how much you need to efficiently produce is exactly the same as how much you would have efficiently accumulated. That is if you the best thing from your point of view is to have saved $X and you happen to need $X in capital and land to pursue your craft. Obvously this isn't true of most people. The fact that your particular interest and talent requires enormous investment to make it worthwhile doesn't imply that you're old enough to have saved that much or that the care of your sick mother didn't consume what savings you had. If the workers do own the capital and land in small enough groups for it to be effective ownership what happens is that some of them do quite well, and some of them go bankrupt and don't own the means of production any more. Those who don't own the means of production can't work for those that do and can't borrow because that's capitalism again, and so presumably they starve or take low-paying jobs they hate in labour intensive industries.

The myth that the theory sounds good really lets the communists unnecessarily off the hook.

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

There are differences in that assumption. A look at the history of atheist states like Vietnam' date=' the People's Republic of China, and the Soviet Union should tell you that.[/quote']

 

OTOH, the explicitly secular United States of America seems to have done ok.

[AirborneRob]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

I think groups like the Mormans would have a desire and the funding to start their own colony. Also Hippies/Back to nature types would want to go but someone else would have to foot the bill(unless they steal a Starfleet shuttle:))

 

Lol, i tried to rep you for the reference to that particular ToS episode but its not letting me. Maybe i already repped you for it, lol, cant remember.

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

The myth that the theory sounds good really lets the communists unnecessarily off the hook.

 

Yup, noting too that I didn't even say the theory sounds "good", just "very very nice". As in wishful thinking.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

That is a danger' date=' but treating others like you would like to be treated is a quite logical way to live. One doesn't need a god to know that.[/quote']

 

Really, then why was it a revoultionary thought two thousand years ago?

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

OTOH' date=' the explicitly secular United States of America seems to have done ok.[/quote']

 

U.S. has only been going secular for the past forty years. And how is that working out?

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

Sort of like Androgenic Climate Change during the Bush administration.

 

I got a question how comes the climate changers acted so non-scientific? Why is there evidence that they altered evidence to prove climate change. How comes they don't what any discussion on the facts. If you don't accept what we say then your ignorant, bleep, bleep, bleeps. That is not the way I was taught science growing up. I thought you are supposed to back up your theroiess with fact, not name calling.

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

I got a question how comes the climate changers acted so non-scientific? Why is there evidence that they altered evidence to prove climate change. How comes they don't what any discussion on the facts. If you don't accept what we say then your ignorant' date=' bleep, bleep, bleeps. That is not the way I was taught science growing up. I thought you are supposed to back up your theroiess with fact, not name calling.[/quote']

 

 

Hmm. Ever play that game where you contradict everything your brother says until he gets upset and punches you, and then you go to Mom and say, "Billy hit me," and he gets sent to his room, and you totally do the triumph dance on the back lawn where he can see it from his room?

Wait. Why am I even asking? Of course you have.

[Markdoc]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

U.S. has only been going secular for the past forty years. And how is that working out?

 

Actually the US has been secular from its very founding, and intentionally so: I point out the law debated by both houses and signed into law in 1796, starts ""As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion .." That law was drafted by the administration of one founding father (George Washington), signed by another (John Adams) and voted on - and passed - by the house and senate, which contained many others of the founders. The wording raised not the slightest controversy. There are plenty of other examples of course - for example, Jefferson explaining the the laws of the US were not based on christian writ in his letter to Thomas Cooper writing ". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

 

There, as noted, are plenty of other examples. Anyone who thinks the US started as a specifically Christian state is deluding themselves and is certainly not familiar with the writings of the founding fathers. It's probably more accurate to say that it is only in the last 40 years has the secular nature of the United States government (as opposed to the US people) come under direct attack.

 

cheers, Mark

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

Hmm. Ever play that game where you contradict everything your brother says until he gets upset and punches you, and then you go to Mom and say, "Billy hit me," and he gets sent to his room, and you totally do the triumph dance on the back lawn where he can see it from his room?

Wait. Why am I even asking? Of course you have.

 

Totally OT, but I love that game. When my brother got married I warned my new sister-in-law not to worry if we argued, cause he always contradicts everything I say.

 

His inevitable response: "I DO NOT!"

 

Game over.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

Really' date=' then why was it a revoultionary thought two thousand years ago?[/quote']

 

It wasn't, really. But then almost every religion makes the absurd claim that they came up with that idea first.

[L. Marcus]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

It seems all codified religions have a version of the Golder Rule.

[McCoy]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

Really' date=' then why was it a revoultionary thought two thousand years ago?[/quote']

it wasn't, it was taught by Confucius 500 years earlier, the Buddah even earlier, and was part of Hinduism a thousand years before that.

 

U.S. has only been going secular for the past forty years. And how is that working out?

Um, no. The central government was secular from its founding, the states since 1868.

 

I got a question how comes the climate changers acted so non-scientific? Why is there evidence that they altered evidence to prove climate change. How comes they don't what any discussion on the facts. If you don't accept what we say then your ignorant' date=' bleep, bleep, bleeps. That is not the way I was taught science growing up. I thought you are supposed to back up your theroiess with fact, not name calling.[/quote']

Better question: why when thousands of STOLEN e-mails were examined by independent experts, they showed no evidence of altered data, yet most listeners of Faux News still think the STOLEN e-mails "proved" data was altered?

 

No, just explain where the ice is going. Read up on Milankovitch cycles before you claim it's a purely natural trend.

[Markdoc]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

It seems all codified religions have a version of the Golder Rule.

 

They sure do.

From Egypt, in a book called The Eloquent Peasant which is dated to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BCE): "You are commanded: Do to the doer in response to that he does."

Good ol' Confucius in his Analects has "Here certainly is the golden maxim: Do not do to others that which we do not want them to do to us." (From around 500 BC: he's the person credited with coining the "golden rule" name)

The greeks have multiple versions of this preserved, but probably the earliest is "Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." by Psitticus from around 600 BC.

The Christians' predecessors had it down too: the statement "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn." dates from slightly before the christian era

And of course the Hindu's had it to: the Maharabata states "One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Other behavior is due to selfish desires." - that's from about 400 BC.

 

I don't think anyone can identify the origin of the thought, and whether it arose independently in different places or has always been a part of human thought. We can guarantee however that it didn't originate with christianity.

 

cheers, Mark

[Alverant]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

Pretty good line from James P Hogan's book 'Giant's Star' - by a Soviet character: ".... Except for a brief period in 1917' date=' the Soviet Union has been no more Communist than the Church of the Middle Ages was Christian ...[/i']".

 

A good and true quote. If you think about it, the christian god is pretty communistic. Both don't tolerate anyone worshiping anyone but them. Both claim absolute power and ownership over everything, including your life. Both have a secret police spying on their citizens. Both claim to do horrendous acts "for your own good". Both send anyone who disagrees with official dogma off to a horrible place never to be seen again. Both claim to treat all their people equality when both have shown favoritism to those loyal. And so on and on

[Alverant]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

I'd worry that it might also trump 'irrational' morality

 

Except behavioral studies in animals shows that morality is completely natural and largely inherent. An experiment where a rat was shown that pushing a bar for a food pellet caused actual harm to another rat, nearly starved itself rather than cause pain to another. Watching monkeys and apes in the wild has shown that they understand concepts of fairness, trade, and the difference between sharing and stealing.

 

The reason why revenge feels good is that once it was a method of self-regulation before humans were populous enough form tribes and codify rules. It was a way to enforce what was and was not acceptable behavior.

 

You don't need faith to know what's wrong and right. But it's faith that often trumps what we know what's wrong and right.

[BobGreenwade]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

I think we've gotten pretty far afield of the original question.

 

The only point I was making was that, just as "it's easy to commit acts of genocide when you can say God told you to" (a quote from someone on a different discussion board entirely), it's also easy to commit acts of genocide when you think there's no God to answer to, that you (as a personal dictator, as "The State," or whatever) are the ultimate authority. A lot of you are making the point that being "good" doesn't require God; being evil doesn't certainly require God.

 

So a state based on atheism won't necessarily be free from corruption and cruelty just because its proponents say it is. "Logic" and "science" can say some pretty outrageous things -- it already has, in the past -- and these can lead to things that, by our standards, would be atrocious.

[BobGreenwade]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

Actually the US has been secular from its very founding' date=' and intentionally so: I point out the law debated by both houses and signed into law in 1796, starts ""[i']As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion ..[/i]" That law was drafted by the administration of one founding father (George Washington), signed by another (John Adams) and voted on - and passed - by the house and senate, which contained many others of the founders.

At the risk of violating the call to return to the original topic: Could you please cite this law specifically, please?

[Escafarc]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

At the risk of violating the call to return to the original topic: Could you please cite this law specifically' date=' please?[/quote']

 

It's Article 11 of The US Treaty with Tripoli 1796-1797

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Political/Religious Space Colonies?

 

At the risk of violating the call to return to the original topic: Could you please cite this law specifically' date=' please?[/quote']

 

IIRC, that would be the Treaty of Tripoli.

 

Edit: Cross-posted with Escafarc. Which is, of course, just fine.