Right Wing Discussion Thread XV: A New Hoppe

[Hanafuridake]

Of course. Anti-theists perceive faith as arbitrary, but fail to perceive the limitations of rationalism and so the arbitrariness of their own beliefs. As de Maistre argued, religious faith is the best possible basis for the legitimacy of the state precisely because it is fundamentally irrational and unfalsifiable. Basing the legitimacy of the state on rational grounds is like building your house on sand.

In practice, effective government generally consists of mixed government, as in the ancient constitution of Sovereign, Lords and Commons in the UK. The legitimacy of the state, however, is too important a matter to leave to anything but faith, as the font of legitimate authority should be beyond question; a monarch who rules by divine right.

Yes look how that worked out for Japan, or any totalitarian government for that matter.
When you don't question authority than you make that authority becoming corrupt inevitable.

What are you even trying to say here?

There shouldn't be any British Muslims. Muslims resident in the UK are guests, and ought to respect the customs and laws of their hosts just as an Englishman would be expected to respect the customs and laws of a Muslim society should he travel to one. They certainly shouldn't be permitted to vote or hold public office.

While I can see where you're coming from, I can't agree. Belonging to a religion doesn't necessarily hamper one's respect for the law and institutions of one's country. The British Empire (which isn't around anymore, I'm aware) had millions of non-Christian subjects, and turning religion into a national identity instead of universal faith seems like it would hamper Christianity's ability to spread abroad, because other people could claim their own countries are inherently Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. and that Christians shouldn't have full rights.

I don't want to strip people of their citizenship, but I do believe that certain rights should be reserved for those who are communicants in the national church. Democracy functions poorly when the electorate do not share a common identity and fundamental beliefs about what is right and wrong and the legitimacy of the institutions they are participating in. Without that consensus, it becomes little more than a struggle between mutually hostile groups to control the levers of power.

You sound like Anglo-Maurras.

[Novus America]

Before I continue, I'd really like an explanation for why you think that equal protection under the law is a bad thing.

If you have a society that is founded upon a particular set of beliefs, traditions and cultural ideals, it makes no sense for that society to treat contradictory beliefs, traditions and cultural ideals as if they were equal to those that constitute the basis of your society. I believe strongly that the English nation is, to a great degree, an extension of the English church; there is no England without the church.

So if someone converts to Islam, their citizenship should be revoked?
And here I was thinking that my biggest disagreement with your ideological views would be the lack of separation between church and state. Guess I've just been proven wrong.

I don't want to strip people of their citizenship, but I do believe that certain rights should be reserved for those who are communicants in the national church. Democracy functions poorly when the electorate do not share a common identity and fundamental beliefs about what is right and wrong and the legitimacy of the institutions they are participating in. Without that consensus, it becomes little more than a struggle between mutually hostile groups to control the levers of power.

But the Church of England today is a very modern, liberal church dramatically different than what it was when it was created by the clearly degenerate (if you use that term) Henry VIII so he could get more power, money and women.

Besides it is a declining church no longer followed by the majority.
And what of Scotland?

It has a separate, very different Church. Scotland’s Church is based on a different form of Christianity.

One problem is that you claim to support tradition but put your faith in institutions that change based on the politics of the day.

At least Japan has been far more consistent. The fact that the Church and institutions of the Monarchy and Parliament are so radically different than they were 1000 years ago begs the question, traditional relative to what?

They are only traditional relative to what they were a few years ago at best.

[Genivaria]

Yes look how that worked out for Japan, or any totalitarian government for that matter.
When you don't question authority than you make that authority becoming corrupt inevitable.

What are you even trying to say here?

There shouldn't be any British Muslims. Muslims resident in the UK are guests, and ought to respect the customs and laws of their hosts just as an Englishman would be expected to respect the customs and laws of a Muslim society should he travel to one. They certainly shouldn't be permitted to vote or hold public office.

While I can see where you're coming from, I can't agree. Belonging to a religion doesn't necessarily hamper one's respect for the law and institutions of one's country. The British Empire (which isn't around anymore, I'm aware) had millions of non-Christian subjects, and turning religion into a national identity instead of universal faith seems like it would hamper Christianity's ability to spread abroad, because other people could claim their own countries are inherently Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. and that Christians shouldn't have full rights.

I don't want to strip people of their citizenship, but I do believe that certain rights should be reserved for those who are communicants in the national church. Democracy functions poorly when the electorate do not share a common identity and fundamental beliefs about what is right and wrong and the legitimacy of the institutions they are participating in. Without that consensus, it becomes little more than a struggle between mutually hostile groups to control the levers of power.

You sound like Anglo-Maurras.

Specifically I'm referring to Imperial Japan and the mentality of death before retreat/surrender/dishonor that was formed under what was essentially a cult formed under the Emperor by the government.
My words were not mean't as an attack on the person of the emperor but on the cultist institution built by the government during the Meiji period.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

There shouldn't be any British Muslims. Muslims resident in the UK are guests, and ought to respect the customs and laws of their hosts just as an Englishman would be expected to respect the customs and laws of a Muslim society should he travel to one. They certainly shouldn't be permitted to vote or hold public office.

How much do you value freedom of religion? If the answer is "not at all" fair enough, but otherwise, yeesh.

[Conserative Morality]

Not immediately, but our national identity has degraded significantly since the Catholic emancipation. In the long run, the loss of confidence in our purpose and identity as a nation, which was once provided by the established church, could well be the end of England- at least the England I know and love.

Strong words from a lowly Scotchman. =^^^)

[Hanafuridake]

There shouldn't be any British Muslims. Muslims resident in the UK are guests, and ought to respect the customs and laws of their hosts just as an Englishman would be expected to respect the customs and laws of a Muslim society should he travel to one. They certainly shouldn't be permitted to vote or hold public office.

Europe seems to regress more every day.

Could be worse.

[Old Tyrannia]

No, the English church predated and inspired the creation of England as a unified kingdom. At the time, of course, "Anglicanism" as a term was uncoined, and Canterbury, Rome and Constanrunople were all part of the same communion; but church and nation have evolved together through the centuries.

That's usually how things went; you're dealing with a bunch of historical illiterates. You know, you could almost say, that prior to the Norman Conquest, the Anglo-Saxons were "Orthodox", in the Pre-Schism sense of the term. as far as I know, the Anglo-Saxon Archbishop of Canterbury didn't acknowledge Papal Primacy prior to 1066, did he?

I think that may be a bit of romanticism on the part of Orthodox historians, though of course the Catholic Church that split with Constantinople was quite a different beast to the one that Henry VIII split with 480 years later.

[Conserative Morality]

Europe seems to regress more every day.

Could be worse.

As horrid and bigoted as Trump is, Ive yet to hear him call for a ban on Muslim citizens from voting or holding office.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

And did England stop existing when freedom of religion was enacted?

Not immediately, but our national identity has degraded significantly since the Catholic emancipation. In the long run, the loss of confidence in our purpose and identity as a nation, which was once provided by the established church, could well be the end of England- at least the England I know and love.

The England you know and love is not the England that actually exists, nor would it be a system that works well for the majority of its citizens. Anglican theocracy benefits no one except for maybe Anglican priests.

The entire point of democracy is that groups are allowed to disagree without having to threaten a civil war to change policy. If you want no dissent, get yourself a police state, because that's the only way it's going to happen.

I do not wish to repress all dissent. I do believe that there should be certain views that are excluded in a parliamentary system, and that certainly includes any view that would undermine the legitimacy of the system itself.

"Certain views" being "any and all contrary religions"?
Besides, can you make a convincing argument that the stability gained from repressing most of the population* would be greater than the stability lost by doing so? Because all I've seen from you so far is the assertion that those who would "undermine the legitimacy of the system" should be marginalized and treated as non-citizens, and I haven't seen much of anything backing that up.

*: According to this, Christians make up 59.5% of the population, and 62% of Christians are Anglicans, which means that less than 40% of the population is actually Anglican.

[Genivaria]

Could be worse.

As horrid and bigoted as Trump is, Ive yet to hear him call for a ban on Muslim citizens from voting or holding office.

Please don't give him ideas, we both know he'd do it.

[Conserative Morality]

As horrid and bigoted as Trump is, Ive yet to hear him call for a ban on Muslim citizens from voting or holding office.

Please don't give him ideas, we both know he'd do it.

[drinking intensifies]

[Northern Davincia]

Just jumping in here, but what if you don't follow the religion that grants the monarch legitimacy? If divine fiat is the source of legitimacy for the government, and a substantial percentage of the population doesn't believe that that god exists, then would there not be circumstances where this would cause social tensions greater than the stability divine right provides in the first place?

Or how bout simply a different religion.
What reason does a British Muslim have to show any loyalty to the British monarchy by this logic?

The same reason he'd show loyalty to any law of the nation he's living in, I presume. Civic courtesy.

[Shanhwa]

Europe seems to regress more every day.

Could be worse.

>implying trump is bad

[Conserative Morality]

The same reason he'd show loyalty to any law of the nation he's living in, I presume. Civic courtesy.

Courtesy is not loyalty.

[Hanafuridake]

Could be worse.

>implying trump is bad

Would you prefer me to state it outright?

[Northern Davincia]

The same reason he'd show loyalty to any law of the nation he's living in, I presume. Civic courtesy.

Courtesy is not loyalty.

Indeed. However, it is courteous to be loyal to the nation you're living in, especially if you weren't born there.

[Old Tyrannia]

Not immediately, but our national identity has degraded significantly since the Catholic emancipation. In the long run, the loss of confidence in our purpose and identity as a nation, which was once provided by the established church, could well be the end of England- at least the England I know and love.

The England you know and love is not the England that actually exists, nor would it be a system that works well for the majority of its citizens. Anglican theocracy benefits no one except for maybe Anglican priests.

I have never heard anyone ever advocate for an Anglican theocracy, least of all myself.

I do not wish to repress all dissent. I do believe that there should be certain views that are excluded in a parliamentary system, and that certainly includes any view that would undermine the legitimacy of the system itself.

"Certain views" being "any and all contrary religions"?
Besides, can you make a convincing argument that the stability gained from repressing most of the population* would be greater than the stability lost by doing so? Because all I've seen from you so far is the assertion that those who would "undermine the legitimacy of the system" should be marginalized and treated as non-citizens, and I haven't seen much of anything backing that up.

*: According to this, Christians make up 59.5% of the population, and 62% of Christians are Anglicans, which means that less than 40% of the population is actually Anglican.

Clearly my ideals are not implementable in present-day Britain. There's no doubt about that. It doesn't change my opinion about what would be best for my country.

There shouldn't be any British Muslims. Muslims resident in the UK are guests, and ought to respect the customs and laws of their hosts just as an Englishman would be expected to respect the customs and laws of a Muslim society should he travel to one. They certainly shouldn't be permitted to vote or hold public office.

How much do you value freedom of religion? If the answer is "not at all" fair enough, but otherwise, yeesh.

I don't consider my views to compromise freedom of religion. Not being permitted to vote or hold office doesn't prevent you from practicing your religion.

To be honest, I go back and forth on whether those with dissenting religious opinions should be permitted to vote. In the past I've always said that taking Holy Communion in the Church of England should only be a requirement to actually hold public office, and that it's only fair that anyone who lives permanently in the UK should have some representation in Parliament since they are subject to the legislation it passes; recent arguments with certain Muslim and Catholic posters here have pushed me towards the more intolerant position, which was maybe an unfair and knee-jerk reaction.

EDIT: This post from another recent thread outlines my views on the relationship between church and state more clearly:

I can only speak for my country, but our identity, culture and values have always been intimately connected to the national church, so it is totally logical in my view that said church should be elevated above other religions as an integral part of our identity. There should be freedom of religion, within reason (religions whose tenets require their followers to go against the law obviously should not be tolerated), and the state should not make it its business to impose Christian morality on its subjects' private lives; but to protect the established nature of the church public office should be conditional on receiving communion in the Anglican Church or the Church of Scotland. The church should ultimately be subordinate to the Crown in all temporal matters, however. In this sense I am more a Caesaropapist than a theocrat, which I believe to be more in line with Scriptural commandments regarding temporal authorities and the nature of the early Christian church. The church should be under the protection of the state, not exercise authority over it; when the church exercises temporal authority and rules by itself it has taken the Devil's bargain.

At present, the state of Christianity in the United Kingdom has deteriorated to the point that this is only a fantastical ideal. Regardless, had the relationship between church and state continued along these lines after the 18th century, I believe our present society would be far healthier for it.

[Conserative Morality]

Indeed. However, it is courteous to be loyal to the nation you're living in, especially if you weren't born there.

If I ever live in a nation other than the US, you can bet your ass that I'm not going to be loyal to it out of courtesy. That's such a watered-down pissweak version of loyalty that it diminishes the meaning of real loyalty by its use.

[Genivaria]

Courtesy is not loyalty.

Indeed. However, it is courteous to be loyal to the nation you're living in, especially if you weren't born there.

Yes but not according to OT.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I don't consider my views to compromise freedom of religion. Not being permitted to vote or hold office doesn't prevent you from practicing your religion.

To be honest, I go back and forth on whether those with dissenting religious opinions should be permitted to vote. In the past I've always said that taking Holy Communion in the Church of England should only be a requirement to actually hold public office, and that it's only fair that anyone who lives permanently in the UK should have some representation in Parliament since they are subject to the legislation it passes; recent arguments with certain Muslim and Catholic posters here have pushed me towards the more intolerant position, which was maybe an unfair and knee-jerk reaction.

It does if everyone else can vote.

[Northern Davincia]

Indeed. However, it is courteous to be loyal to the nation you're living in, especially if you weren't born there.

Yes but not according to OT.

Obviously courtesy has its limits.

[Totally Not OEP]

As many of you know, I'm an Appalachian and this semester I decided to take a class on Appalachian history. In the process of that, I've learned of the Appalachian Land Ownership Survey and that's made me in favor of land nationalizations; corporations/absentee owners and the Federal Government own 50% of the land in the region, strangling development and using said ownership to control taxation policies that prevent local communities from developing the fiscal capacity needed for development in the first place.

[Hanafuridake]

As many of you know, I'm an Appalachian and this semester I decided to take a class on Appalachian history. In the process of that, I've learned of the Appalachian Land Ownership Survey and that's made me in favor of land nationalizations; corporations/absentee owners and the Federal Government own 50% of the land in the region, strangling development and using said ownership to control taxation policies that prevent local communities from developing the fiscal capacity needed for development in the first place.

That's good. It's always a smart idea to immerse oneself in their region's history, even better when it leads to praxis.

[Totally Not OEP]

As many of you know, I'm an Appalachian and this semester I decided to take a class on Appalachian history. In the process of that, I've learned of the Appalachian Land Ownership Survey and that's made me in favor of land nationalizations; corporations/absentee owners and the Federal Government own 50% of the land in the region, strangling development and using said ownership to control taxation policies that prevent local communities from developing the fiscal capacity needed for development in the first place.

That's good. It's always a smart idea to immerse oneself in their region's history, even better when it leads to praxis.

What is this Praxis?

[Hanafuridake]

That's good. It's always a smart idea to immerse oneself in their region's history, even better when it leads to praxis.

What is this Praxis?

Supporting land nationalization.