Image not found. Sorry, bud ^^;

try now

Yup, can see it now if I click full view ^^ Thanks.

Cursive sucks...

I could read it, but it was difficult.

Power-hungry churchmongers are one of life's great evils.

Behold: the greatest Evil that bescourges any civilization - organized, fundamentalist religion. The Church of Amuresca is a sickness that must be purged! They claim to act in the best interest of mankind, all the while forgetting that the road to hell is paved with good intention.

The Church will reap what it has sown - nothing but sorrow and despair.

While organized religion and fundamentalist adherents have committed no shortage of evil, it isn't the greatest by any measure. If there is one entity, organization, or collective unit that has continuously allowed men to visit suffering amongst themselves more than any other it is the State. Indeed it is the State that has used religion and all other ways humans define and differentiate to divide people and dominate them. The very definition of the State is an organization that claims a legal monopoly on the use of force (aka violence) over given geographic area.

I understand your view, but as someone with a great interest in political and military history, most religious conflicts and persecutions were smokescreens for the advancement of the interests of powerful groups, individuals (kings, princes, popes, etc.), and the various states themselves that were involved (much like today). It's actually quite fascinating to look at, but to me there is one inescapable conclusion: without the existence of the State(s) wars on such a colossal scale would have been and would continue to be impossible.

Well in some cases, the "State" may be a form of religion as well. Blind Faith is the real detriment to civilization - whereby people simply submit to authority without question. The most obvious examples are totalitarian regimes such as North Korea and China, whereby the communist party is essentially deified and all who oppose its rule are imprisoned, executed, or otherwise suppressed. The same can apply to democracies, however, whereby individual citizens do not truly think about the individuals for whom they cast a vote - they simply follow political party lines or whatever the media tells them without actually making an effort to stay informed.

I personally choose to be a HERETIC, and I wear that label with great pride! The word "heresy" comes from the Old Greek word for "choice" - so a heretic is "one who chooses" rather than follows dogma. "The State" is only so evil as the people whom it governs - an informed, educated populace which chooses likewise-minded leaders can exist in such a way that individual liberty and community safety and security go together. A "religious" populace, however, is easily governed by any tin-pot dictator capable of spoon-feeding them doctrine and keeping them in a state of ignorance and fear.

I couldn't agree with you more. But as you implied it isn't religion that is the problem, it is unthinking respect for authority and irrationality. In the political realm I too am a heretic because I'm an anarchist. In regards to religion, I've had the opportunity and also curse of running into every sort of religious type, even among atheists/antitheists (to the point that I've had to start using the phrase "evangelical atheist" to describe some).

Indeed you're correct in your analysis. I think it's more of a semantics issue on what truly defines "religion" - is it a spiritual and/or metaphysical dogma or is it a catch-all for groupthink and blind obedience?

Anarchy is also an interesting concept, mostly because it isn't as clearly defined as it's Greek morphemes would have it ("ana-" = "without"; "archos" = "ruler"). It is more of a transient state than anything else, since without the collective might of an entire people to defend the cohesive unit it will ultimately be consumed by another state. The beautiful (and sometimes terrible) thing about humanity is the synergy of teamwork - we can accomplish so much more together than we ever could alone. As one who plays team sports (esp. ice hockey) and as a firefighter-paramedic, I know first-hand how much more we can accomplish as a team versus alone. Yes, this means that in some situations I must submit to an authority other than my own for the good of the mission - however I submit willingly to authority figures whom I trust (usually because they are more experienced than I) and with all parties understanding the bi-directional nature of authority - authority exists only with the consent of the governed (and consent can be revoked at anytime).

My father (a long-time G-Man) used to tell me that anarchy is only a waiting room - sooner or later some authority will come and subjugate it since [the] authority invariably wields more might than individuals. The important thing is to establish a free State for mutual protection which values individual liberty, justice, and the rule of law - equally for all citizens - and with a well-educated public who understands that Government can (and must) work for them to allow for peace and prosperity to take hold and flourish.

Our democratic states in the Western world (as well as non-geographic West like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc.) are far from perfect - but they are excellent works-in-progress which still ultimately strive towards the ideal state of being for all of its citizens. Our collective nations may face problems, but we've made tremendous progress over the past century or two and, ultimately, the best humanity currently has to offer. Together, we shall stand against the darkness!

Historically I would agree with you assertion regarding anarchism, however with modern technology the playing field has been leveled significantly. Something that I think may be part of our disagreement may be how we are defining the State and society. I regard the two as completely separate entities though they are found together throughout most of recorded history. My conception of anarchy is probably also different from yours. While I do loathe the State and it's impositions I do not seek to overthrow it in it's entirety, only to cast it's yoke off of myself, and to allow those who do desire it to live under it's rule to continue to do so peacefully. In this arrangement I would still be a part of my society but not under the rule of the governing State and my only interactions with it would be if I did something to harm one of the citizens that seek it's protection or if I utilized one of the few services I find useful services like roads (something I would also pay for on an as used basis). Even in this condition my life would still have authority figures, first and foremost being those holding legitimate property rights, and others to whom I voluntarily submit myself, such my employer or teacher. As you said, authority depends on the consent of the governed and can be revoked (albeit not easily in most cases), something I as an anarchist have done on a personal level. All I want is to be left alone to live my life as I see fit so long as I do not cause harm to others, something to my knowledge I have never done an don't plan to.

In regards to your ideal State, I agree that is what every attempt at state-building should seek to accomplish, however, in practice this often fails from the start and always fails in the long run usually with horrific consequences. In order to produce anything successful long term would require measures to inhibit power centralization (like what the Constitution tried but ultimately failed at). To have anything truly capable of lasting I believe you would need a truly and completely voluntary State, an idea that completely undermines the definition of the State as it is currently understood.

As to your final statement about Western democracies, I would say the actual representativeness and excellence varies depending on structure and size. For the most part I would say most of them today are failures in some and only appear better from their counterparts due to the accumulated generations of wealth and the blessings that brings. I would further argue that the wealth generation was what made the modern Western democracies possible versus the reverse being true (there is plenty of literature arguing both cases). Really being an anarchist it hardly matters to me the type of government is directing the State, as the State still imposes it's will on the unwilling via the use of force or threats thereof, which I personally consider to be the worst of all evils.

If you're interested in exploring a really interesting point of view on some of this stuff I might recommend you look at some of the writings of Hans Herman-Hoppe. I doubt you'll agree with his conclusions but you might find some of his points interesting.

Regarding your comment below, I too appreciate being able to get into a discussion with another thoughtful individual.

(BTW if you're wondering why my response took so long and may seem a bit disjointed it's because I had to keep running about today and didn't have so much as 20 straight minutes with which write a coherent easily read response today... moving sucks!)

Sorry, I didn't mean to hijack this thread - but it's such a rare treat to engage in thoughtful philosophical debate with other furries that I simply couldn't pass it up!