HOME | DD

lisa-im-laerm — Militant

#atheism #atheist #atheistic #civil #contract #french #jaques #jean #philosopher #politics #quote #quotes #roseau #rousseau #social #writer #rouseau #roussou #1762 #genevan #saying #atrheists #philosophy
Published: 2017-02-28 17:27:36 +0000 UTC; Views: 4847; Favourites: 62; Downloads: 8
Redirect to original
Description

 You may ask: ‘Why were there no wars of religion in the

pagan world, where each state had its own form of worship

[culte] and its own gods?’ My reply is that just because

each state had its own form of worship as well as its own

government, no state distinguished its gods from its laws.

Political war was also theological war; the gods had, so to

speak, provinces that were fixed by the boundaries of nations.

The god of one people had no right over other peoples. The

gods of the pagans were not jealous gods

[= ‘didn’t demand that their followers have nothing to do with any other gods’]

; they sharedthe world among themselves. Even Moses and the Hebrews

sometimes adopted that point of view by speaking of ‘the

God of Israel’. It’s true that they regarded as powerless the

gods of the Canaanites, a proscribed people condemned to

destruction, whose place they were to take; but look at how

they spoke of the divinities of the neighbouring peoples they

were forbidden to attack! ‘Isn’t the territory belonging to

your god Chemosh lawfully yours?’ said Jephthah to the

Ammonites. ‘We have the same title to the lands that our

conquering God has made his own’ (Judges

11:24). . . . Here,I think, there is a recognition that the rights of Chemosh are

on a par with those of the God of Israel.  

     

 Those who distinguish civil from theological intolerance

are, to my mind, mistaken. The two intolerances are insepa-

rable. You can’t possibly live at peace with people you regard

as damned; loving them would be hating God who punishes

them: we absolutely must either reform them or torment

them. Wherever theological intolerance is admitted, it must

inevitably have some civil effect; and as soon as it does the

sovereign is no longer sovereign even in the temporal sphere;

from then on, priests are the real masters, and kings only

their ministers. Now that there no longer are, and no longer can be, any

exclusive national religions, tolerance should be given to all

religions that tolerate others, so long as their dogmas

contain nothing contrary to the duties of citizenship. Anyone

who ventures to say: ‘Outside the Church is no salvation’

should be driven from the state, unless the state is the

Church and the prince the pope. Such a dogma is good

only in a theocratic government; in any other it is fatal. The

reason Henry IV is said to have had for embracing the Roman

religion— namely that the Roman Catholics did, while the

Protestants didn’t, say ‘Our faith is the only possible route to

heaven’.—ought to make every honest man leave it, especially

any prince who knows how to reason.  
     

 But I’m wrong to speak of a Christian republic—those

two terms are mutually exclusive. Christianity preaches

only servitude and dependence. Its spirit is so favourable

to tyranny that it always profits by such a régime. Genuine

Christians are made to be slaves, and they know it and don’t

much mind: this short life counts for too little in their eyes.

Christian troops are excellent, we are told. I deny it. Show

me an example! For my part, I don’t know of any Christian

troops. The Crusades? Without disputing the courage of the

Crusaders, I answer that far from being Christians they were

the priests’ troops, they were citizens of the Church: they

fought for their spiritual country, which the Church had

somehow made temporal. Properly understood, this goes

back to paganism: because the Gospel doesn’t establish any

national religion, there can’t possibly be a holy war among

Christians.
     

 They tell us that a populace of true Christians would

form the most perfect society imaginable. I see in only one

great difficulty about this idea, namely that a society of true

Christians wouldn’t be a society of men. I go further: such a society, with all its perfection,

wouldn’t be the strongest or the most durable; its very

perfection would deprive it of its bond of union; the flaw

that would destroy it would lie in its perfection.

Everyone would do his duty; the people would be law-

abiding; the rulers would be just and temperate, and the

magistrates upright and incorruptible; the soldiers would

regard death as a minor thing; there would be no vanity or

extravagant luxury. So far, so good; but let’s look further.

Christianity is an entirely spiritual religion, occupied

solely with heavenly things; the Christian’s country is not

of this world. He does his duty, certainly, but does it with

a deep lack of interest in whether the work he has put in

has produced good or bad results. Provided he has nothing

to reproach himself with, it doesn’t matters much to him

whether things go well or ill here below. If the state prospers,

he hardly dares to share in the public happiness, for fear he

may become puffed up with pride in his country’s glory; if

the state goes downhill, he blesses the hand of God that is

hard upon His people.  For the society to be peaceable and for harmony to be

maintained, all the citizens would have to be equally good

Christians. If there happened to be a single self-seeker or

hypocrite—a Catiline or a Cromwell, for instance—he would

certainly get the better of his pious compatriots. Christian

charity doesn’t make it easy for a man to think ill of another

man. As soon as our bad man has worked out a way of

deceiving everyone else and getting hold of a share in the

public authority, you have a man established in dignity; God wants us to respect

him. Then before long, you have a power; God wants us to obey it.

If the person who has the power abuses it, that is the

whip God uses to punish his children. There would be

scruples about driving out the usurper: it would involve

disturbing public peace, using violence, spilling blood; none

of this squares with Christian gentleness; and anyway what

does it matter in this vale of sorrows whether we are free

men or serfs? The essential thing is to get to heaven, and

resignation— i.e. putting up with hardship patiently and

without complaining —is just one more way of getting there.

If a foreign war breaks out, the citizens march readily out

to battle; not one of them thinks of flight; they do their duty,

but they have no passion for victory; they know how to die

better than they know how to conquer. What does it matter

whether they win or lose? Doesn’t Providence know better

than they do what should happen to them?  



               
   Rousseau                              
           
 www.earlymoderntexts.com/asset…            
           

Related content
Comments: 61

LotusRubin [2023-02-26 16:01:59 +0000 UTC]

👍: 1 ⏩: 0

Ovid2345 [2020-07-20 14:21:02 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

lisa-im-laerm In reply to Ovid2345 [2020-07-22 15:43:41 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

RavenHeart1984 [2018-08-28 18:27:58 +0000 UTC]

what the hell is wrong with people,can't we all just get along.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

lisa-im-laerm In reply to RavenHeart1984 [2018-08-30 14:40:33 +0000 UTC]

good question, I simply dunno!

                        Thanks for commenting

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

suparmarkeogai996 [2018-02-10 16:38:41 +0000 UTC]

whywontgodhealamputees.com/no-…

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Born-Of-Destruction [2017-10-28 18:35:39 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

lisa-im-laerm In reply to Born-Of-Destruction [2017-11-09 15:39:39 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Pariahnecron In reply to lisa-im-laerm [2018-03-19 21:23:18 +0000 UTC]

How its told again in germany?:,,Wenn zwei sich streiten,freud sich der dritte".
The atheist has already the beer out.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

lisa-im-laerm In reply to Pariahnecron [2018-03-21 17:06:56 +0000 UTC]



👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Born-Of-Destruction In reply to lisa-im-laerm [2017-11-09 22:44:52 +0000 UTC]

alright then

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Green-Tea-Flower [2017-03-29 01:09:58 +0000 UTC]

Until Atheists blow up U.S Embassies or shoot up Abortion Clinics, I don't want to hear any bullshit about how Atheists are SUPPOSEDLY "No better" than any other Religious Denominations!

👍: 1 ⏩: 2

PeteSeeger In reply to Green-Tea-Flower [2017-07-09 23:05:35 +0000 UTC]

Well in Russia, China and Cambodia they killed a a hundred million plus, so I feel quite safe in saying they're no better than the rest of us.

👍: 2 ⏩: 3

nayasnake In reply to PeteSeeger [2024-05-07 15:21:35 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

NightmarishWarlord In reply to PeteSeeger [2018-04-08 14:29:00 +0000 UTC]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQeXly…

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Green-Tea-Flower In reply to PeteSeeger [2017-07-10 00:46:07 +0000 UTC]

And how many have the Muslims killed again....?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PeteSeeger In reply to Green-Tea-Flower [2017-07-10 02:41:31 +0000 UTC]

I fail to see what that matters.

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

Alecman In reply to PeteSeeger [2020-07-21 20:37:20 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

lisa-im-laerm In reply to Green-Tea-Flower [2017-03-29 15:45:38 +0000 UTC]

Yep

                                                       
                                                       
                                                       
   
   

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Ryuuseinow [2017-03-18 02:10:41 +0000 UTC]

All three of them are all annoying to me.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

lisa-im-laerm In reply to Ryuuseinow [2017-03-18 19:10:51 +0000 UTC]

Me not. I would prefer the third one as a neighbour much much much more f.e. instead the other two

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ryuuseinow In reply to lisa-im-laerm [2017-03-18 19:14:31 +0000 UTC]

I'm picking the fourth option: hang out with sane and non bigoted Christians, Muslims, and Atheist.

👍: 1 ⏩: 0

LiquidSquidz [2017-03-06 17:37:19 +0000 UTC]

1. Pretty sure this isn't your art.
2. A militant atheist would be Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il, Kim Jong-un, Pol Pot, and probably Benito Mussolini.

👍: 1 ⏩: 3

nayasnake In reply to LiquidSquidz [2024-05-07 15:31:04 +0000 UTC]

👍: 1 ⏩: 0

DOTB18 In reply to LiquidSquidz [2017-03-17 00:01:27 +0000 UTC]

Communism is not a synonym for atheism.

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

Ren-Okara In reply to DOTB18 [2017-03-26 23:34:48 +0000 UTC]

Yes it is

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

DOTB18 In reply to Ren-Okara [2017-03-26 23:57:00 +0000 UTC]

communism: a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

One may be both communist and atheist, but the terms are not mutually exclusive and they're certainly not the same thing.

👍: 2 ⏩: 1

Ren-Okara In reply to DOTB18 [2017-03-27 00:02:26 +0000 UTC]

Communism relies upon atheism in order to exist, so, in a way, Communism can be directly linked to Atheism, especially because of Marx


And in Communism, you're not paid according to your ability or needs, you're paid depending on what job the government gives you

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

DOTB18 In reply to Ren-Okara [2017-03-27 00:36:05 +0000 UTC]

Communism doesn't necessarily make any reference to any god, but that doesn't mean it "relies" on atheism. Nor does atheism lead to communism as you seem to be implying.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ren-Okara In reply to DOTB18 [2017-03-27 00:39:17 +0000 UTC]

Communism requires an absence of a God to work, otherwise, the oppression just gets to people, and yes, Atheism does led to Communism, as with Atheism, you believe there is no true reason to exist, and therefore, no need to exist, that is Atheism

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

DOTB18 In reply to Ren-Okara [2017-03-27 00:58:15 +0000 UTC]

And now you just went full retard.

Good night.

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

frodo1996 In reply to DOTB18 [2017-03-28 23:15:18 +0000 UTC]

I think what Ren-Okara is trying to get at is that all faiths (or lack there of) can produce ass holes. I think that is unfair to criticize a system of belief because of a few jerks. I am not very religious but I know people who are and they find that it provides them meaning in their lives. As for the idea that communism and atheism are the same, both are right. Marxism states that religion is the opiate of the masses and is one of the tools used by the capitalists to keep the proletariate in their place. As a result, numerous communist governments have sought to crackdown on religious institutions. Communism and atheism are two different things but communist doctrine thinks of religion as an outdate concept and often encourages atheism. 
Regardless, when people think that the world would be better off without religion, I would disagree. It, like everything has the capacity for both good and evil and and if it makes people happy then I will not criticize those who have found a source of meaning in their lives.

👍: 1 ⏩: 0

lisa-im-laerm In reply to LiquidSquidz [2017-03-08 17:38:30 +0000 UTC]

Very "clever" person you seem to be. Yep, I wrote that it isn't mine in the gallery folder, even in big letters! Even the homepage is seen in this case!

How can you say something against Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il, Kim Jong-un, Pol Pot? Jesus loves them!!! Cause he loves everyone, you know? So how can you be against someone, who is loved by Jesus???

  “Kill them all. God will recognize his own.”  POPE "Innocent" III , well Stalin said the same with using "atheism" , right?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DDragon501 In reply to lisa-im-laerm [2018-10-15 22:08:48 +0000 UTC]

In that case how can someone who loves you say anything bad about you? Wouldn’t that mean they actually hate you?
How can your parents say something you’re doing is bad? They love you don’t they? But they’re saying your committing evil, so obviously they hate you, right?
And aren’t you saying that religions like Christianity and Islam are intolerant, that they disagree with how other people live their lives? Aren’t you therefore being intolerant of them?
And if we took this idea of tolerance to its logical conclusion, wouldn’t we have to be tolerant of those who rape and murder and seek to exterminate anyone who disagrees with them?
In my experience, atheists don’t really care about whether people who follow religion have reasons for doing so, regardless of their actions. They just want to say, “I’m right and your wrong.” That’s intolerant by almost anyone’s definition.
In my experience, people simply can’t be completely trusted. They are imperfect and prone to evil. That’s why, again based on my experience, I trust in God, who I find CAN be trusted completely. And yes, that means I trust Him more than I trust myself. #introspection

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

lisa-im-laerm In reply to DDragon501 [2018-10-16 16:31:40 +0000 UTC]

So with that logic pope innocent III loved them all Really don't need this kind of love, take it for yourself and don't molest others with that

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

gdpr-19335497 [2017-03-01 22:46:43 +0000 UTC]

Militant atheist.

You forgot Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Kim Il Sung...

👍: 1 ⏩: 2

DOTB18 In reply to gdpr-19335497 [2017-03-04 13:54:07 +0000 UTC]

I love it when Christians bring up communist dictators as if it were damning to atheists, not realizing that atheism and communism are not the same thing.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

totocapt In reply to DOTB18 [2017-03-05 17:40:40 +0000 UTC]

But even if they're not the same, do you dare to say that they don't share the same basic point of view about God?

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

DOTB18 In reply to totocapt [2017-03-05 22:13:41 +0000 UTC]

And that's were the similarities end. You can't pin the ills of communism onto atheism without resorting to falsehoods.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

totocapt In reply to DOTB18 [2017-03-06 05:28:35 +0000 UTC]

That's why a militant Atheist could be a Stalinist killer or a peaceful drinker, like a militant Islamist could be an ISIS killer or a peaceful Salafist, or a militant Christian could belong to an American milice, or being a peaculful social helper in ghettos. And so it's exactly why this drawing is not for me pertinent in any truth, but is just an ideological orientation for pinning ills of some people, without considering those which could be for Atheism... It's just not fair, that's just i wanted to put ahead...

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

DOTB18 In reply to totocapt [2017-03-06 08:19:01 +0000 UTC]

The difference though is that Islam and Christianity have doctrines condoning violence and extremism while atheism has no doctrines whatsoever.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

totocapt In reply to DOTB18 [2017-03-06 08:41:16 +0000 UTC]

You have different Atheisms by the way, and so different point of view about violence can be always possible... Doctrine condoning violence in Christianity? What do you mean?

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

DOTB18 In reply to totocapt [2017-03-06 12:43:27 +0000 UTC]

No we don't. Unlike religions like Christianity, there are no denominations of atheism because it's not a belief system with required beliefs and prohibited beliefs subject to interpretation. All that's required to be an atheist is to lack a belief in the existence of any deities. Everything else beyond that is up to the individual.

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com…

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

totocapt In reply to DOTB18 [2017-03-06 13:18:04 +0000 UTC]

Of course Atheism is diversified and can be, even if you don't like that, a belief system, with many "denominations" (i'd say more schools of thought), simply because it can be philosophically structured! You have more than 20 centuries to check: practical Atheism of Lucrece, mecanist materialism of Toland, antimonarchical Atheism of Meslier, Atheism of the Enlightenment of Holbach, positive Atheism with Auguste Comte, sensualist materialism of Feuerbach, scientific materialism of Karl Marx, nihilism of Nietzsche, psychological Atheism of Freud, existentialism of Sartre, structural Atheism of Levi-Strauss...

For your link, i paste here something i wrote about violence in Bible in the forum: "... And one thing is sure with Bible: you have different styles in writtings, different periods of time, different sensitivities with authors.... But you have always God's inspiration. That means that all mustn't be read litterally, but all has an inspiration. So, if you find horrors in Bible, it doesn't mean you have to accept those things litterally, or to accept their horrors as reference of any divine inspiration: but it simply meant that humanity is horrible, killer, full of hatred, sinful... And so, inspiration is not great stuff sometimes: it just mean that God let humanity free to write horrors of what made them happy at their time, and even to think what they would like to think about God. Because always, human being is not a robot: he's loved by God as he is, even in his deep sins... At the end, Jesus Christ put the final word about the logic of sins. So consequently, such or such writtings could be understandable with the help of Holy Spirit, as a sinful way to avoid, and so be a tool for Christian for finding the real help in Scriptures for keeping reasons to stay humble in front of the logic of sins, condition for having God really in heart ..."

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DOTB18 In reply to totocapt [2017-03-06 13:28:23 +0000 UTC]

First: materialism, Marxism, nihilism and existentialism are not synonymous with nor exclusive to atheism. Second: the rest are philosophical approaches to an opinion on one issue. That does not qualify as denominations of a belief system.

That's quite a flowery way of justifying cherry-picking.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

totocapt In reply to DOTB18 [2017-03-06 13:50:28 +0000 UTC]

I you read me carefully, i didn't speak about synonymous of Atheism, but of schools of thought. Of course the upper notions are not exclusive to Atheism, but they can define it: i guess it's easy to understand why... Philosophical approaches are not just agglomeration of personal opinions at the end: i think school of thought is an explicite expression for understanding how can an Atheism be elaborated in human mind, and next build a common understanding for new academic proposals... And so, finally, for getting a real belief system, as any school of thought indubitably leads in.

Where do you think i wrote something letting believe that cherry-picking is the goal in my mind? So strange really...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DOTB18 In reply to totocapt [2017-03-06 14:04:42 +0000 UTC]

My apologies, my eyes immediately zeroed in on the list and I jumped to the wrong conclusion.

So you don't pick and choose which passages to interpret as literal and which as just metaphorical?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

totocapt In reply to DOTB18 [2017-03-06 14:41:40 +0000 UTC]

It is good question. In fact in the Bible, all can be read litterally, with historical critics or metaphorically... if we want. So it's not my choice to read what i want in the way i want, because my choice would be better than another one. I know it's a temptation especially within Protestantism. AND it's not my choice to read what must be read under the eyes and the direction of someone who has authority in the Church, because he has it and not me. I know it's a temptation especially within Catholicism. So if i read, and if i want to know what God kept for me in the text, especially if that's a difficult one, i have to:
1) pray, and trying to be in good spiritual conditions 2) read the text, next try to understand in a thoughtful way 3) if necessary, try to know what Fathers, Mothers, historical critics could give as help for understanding 4) share with friends, knowledges of any kind, if something special is needed at the end.

So finally, even if it's personal step first, it's not alone if a work is needed, it's not a surrender to someone who has a clerical power on me and it's not an egocentric point of view that i try to get for individualist pleasure. In such view, picking and choosing are not the best way for finding final answer(s)...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

lisa-im-laerm In reply to gdpr-19335497 [2017-03-02 13:22:21 +0000 UTC]

Sure, they did it in the name of atheism, the 'atheist god' ...

“Christians are hard to tolerate; I don’t know how Jesus does it”
Bono

“Of all bad men religious bad men are the worst.”
C.S. Lewis



       

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

menapia [2017-03-01 21:55:17 +0000 UTC]

ha, the last picture reminds me of this 1960's hippy atheist I once read, he said "we're here to make love and drink beer"....as far as commandments go it's a hell of a lot less harmful than some religions

👍: 0 ⏩: 1


| Next =>