The Fall of the West (It's Happening Now)

[partinobodycular]

Or any one of nearly limitless examples of what happens when corporations are basically exempted from regulation.

Why don't you go ahead and tell me how they messed everything up, because I seem to have missed it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Of course it does. Corporatism either gobbles up everything or destroys it, stating small this time around a hundred and fifty years ago until today where it eats up nations. Perfect anti-Christ system for an anti-Christ. Same system used to form what ultimately became the state church 1700 years ago.

They had corporatism 1700 years ago? (And what state? Neither the state I live in nor the one you do existed 1700 years ago.)

 

[timothyu]

They had corporatism 1700 years ago? (And what state? Neither the state I live in nor the one you do existed 1700 years ago.)

Sure, they incorporated all sorts of churches and pushed others out including pagan to create a state religion for the Roman Empire.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sure, they incorporated all sorts of churches and pushed others out including pagan to create a state religion for the Roman Empire.

If that's how you want to define it, but I don't think that is the "corporatism" people rail about today. Either way, neither you nor I have ever lived in the Roman Empire, so the argument loses relevance.

 

[partinobodycular]

Sure, they incorporated all sorts of churches and pushed others out including pagan to create a state religion for the Roman Empire.

And this is bad?

 

[Hans Blaster]

And this is bad?

Incorporating churches -- Not bad.

State church -- Bad.

 

[timothyu]

but I don't think that is the "corporatism" people rail about today.

Same agenda, different purpose.

 

[partinobodycular]

State church -- Bad.

How are you delineating bad? What, by necessity, makes a state church bad?

 

[timothyu]

And this is bad?

Only if you were a follower of the Gospel of the Kingdom, Jesus' only gospel, and saw what was to be a movement loyal to the Kingdom and governance of the Father, broadsided and returned to the world and governance of man. Man has always made a world consistent with putting our will ahead of the will of God.

 

[partinobodycular]

Only if you were a follower of the Gospel of the Kingdom, Jesus' only gospel, and saw what was to be a movement loyal to the Kingdom and governance of the Father, broadsided and returned to the world and governance of man.

And this is bad only from the perspective of certain individuals. Can you name any type of formal or informal institution for which this isn't the case? Therefore you're going to have to find a definition of 'bad' that's objective in nature and not subjective, and isn't true of all institutions. Have you got one?

 

[Hans Blaster]

How are you delineating bad? What, by necessity, makes a state church bad?

I am delineating by putting state churches in the bad category. Governments shouldn't be in the religion business. It tends to limit the religious rights of the citizens.

 

[timothyu]

Have you got one?

My perspective was only from the viewpoint of followers of Jesus, and this was the ultimate smack in the face of those loyal to the Kingdom and not the self serving world man has made in its own image.

 

[partinobodycular]

I am delineating by putting state churches in the bad category.

Okay, that's allowed, rather arbitrary, and tough to build a consensus around... but allowed.

 

[partinobodycular]

My perspective was only from the viewpoint of followers of Jesus, and this was the ultimate smack in the face of those loyal to the Kingdom and not the self serving world man has made in its own image.

I can buy this. We're each entitled to our own point of view. But your definition of 'bad' may not be the same as my definition of bad. Hence calling 'Corporatism' bad really isn't telling me why 'I' should consider it to be bad.

From my perspective it may be perfectly fine.

 

[timothyu]

From my perspective it may be perfectly fine.

Yes that is understood. As a self proclaimed agnostic are you making a choice and deciding on one that allows you to have things both ways? Under the circumstances I would think that would seem natural. Is a monopolizing world government of Corporatism over national governments and all mankind preferable to what has been. No problem with all that power in the hand of so few who assume their leadership qualities are based on their monetary success and that makes them the right to dominate our lives??

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes that is understood. As a self proclaimed agnostic are you making a choice and deciding on one that allows you to have things both ways? Is a monopolizing world government of Corporatism over national governments and all mankind preferable to what has been. No problem with all that power in the hand of so few who assume their leadership qualities are based on their monetary success and that makes them the right to dominate our lives??

Corporatism (what ever you think it is and you are the one bringing it up here so that's the defnition that is relevant) and ones support or opposition to it isn't about someone's religious position. Sticking to a position I just made:

I was against the state church and for separation of church and government when I was a Catholic schoolboy, a Catholic HSer, a Catholic college student, a Catholic grad student, a lapsed Catholic post-doc, and an atheist. It is a position I have held far longer than any position on the truth or usefulness of religion and gods.

 

[Bradskii]

What, by necessity, makes a state church bad?

The state proclaims that a particular religion is the right one. That has me scratching my head immediately. But anyway, that proclamation therefore implies that all other religions (not denominations, but religions) are wrong. So it becomes exclusive. By definition. There is a tendency to teach the 'correct' one and discriminate, even subconsciously, against the others. The state makes laws, and religions dictate what is allowed and what is not. There is therefore a propensity to base laws on the tenets of the religion.

Now none of this has to happen. The UK has a state religion but it's hardly headed towards a theocracy. But...why you would you want to take the chance that it could? And in any case, who chooses the religion? And what version?

 

[partinobodycular]

Is a monopolizing world government of Corporatism over national governments and all mankind preferable to what has been. No problem with all that power in the hand of so few who assume their leadership qualities are based on their monetary success and that makes them the right to dominate our lives??

I don't care who's wielding the 'power'. They may be dominating your life, but they're definitely not dominating mine, nor could they. I don't care what their supposed leadership qualities are... I couldn't care less. If somebody's dominating you, and you don't like it, then stop letting them, the choice is yours.

 

[partinobodycular]

The state proclaims that a particular religion is the right one. That has me scratching my head immediately. But anyway, that proclamation therefore implies that all other religions (not denominations, but religions) are wrong. So it becomes exclusive. By definition. There is a tendency to teach the 'correct' one and discriminate, even subconsciously, against the others. The state makes laws, and religions dictate what is allowed and what is not. There is therefore a propensity to base laws on the tenets of the religion.

But isn't society always gonna have rules? And isn't it always gonna have people who disagree with them? Let me know when somebody comes up with a set of rules that everybody agrees with, until then somebody's always gonna be unhappy. Me, I'm just gonna worry about getting through today, and let everybody else worry about the fiddly bits.

So you may consider this set of rules to be bad, or that set of rules to be unjust, but as you know, I'm apathetic, so I'm fine with whatever the rules are. It doesn't make any difference to me. I already think that people are idiots, so it's not like they're gonna disappoint me.

For the most part just tell me what you want me to do and I'll do it, unless it goes against my personal sense of morality, in which case I won't... pretty simple. I'm either gonna go around it, over it, under it, or through it... what everybody else does is up to them.

 

[Bradskii]

But isn't society always gonna have rules?

Yeah. And on what do we want them based? Well, I'll vote for sound logical reasons based on evidence. 'Because it is written' doesn't make the cut.