Thanks once again to my friend Spirula for finding this. Margaret Atwood is one of my very favorite authors who wrote The Handmaid's Tale which is a very disturbing book set in the future about what would probably happen under theocratic rule. It would not only affect atheists and secularists, but also all religious denominations because the theocratic rule would discriminate against any other belief system that is not the official doctrine of the state government.
Here is a three-part program of Bill Moyer's interviewing Margaret Atwood. Though they are long, grab yourself a cup of coffee and take the time to watch them.
I don't agree with Margaret about atheism being a religion. She says that she is a "strict agnostic" because god cannot be proven or disproven. She says the atheist has a set belief that god does not exist. However, Margaret misunderstands that atheism says that there is no evidence for the existence of a god. Until someone proves to us otherwise, we have no reason to believe a god exists. Agnostics are just fence sitters, and I think Margaret though she won't commit one way or the other seems to like the idea of a god and the "soul".
Part one
Part two
Part three
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Although the movie (The Handmaid's Tale) was good, the book is far better, though darker (IMO). I would recommend the book over the movie to get a real sense of what kind of world she envisioned.
Disturbing.
I read the book years ago when it first came out. Yes, the book is far better than the film. More detailed. Yes, very much darker...and yes disturbing. But the whole kind of world she envisioned can happen, has happened. Look at Hitler for example. I saw a special on television yesterday about the history of crucifixions and how gruesome! I never knew the Nazi's would "crucify" Jews on posts, but there would be no place for their feet to rest and they would just hang there and die of extreme pain and asphyxiation. Humans can be so insanely cruel to each other, cruel beyond words.
The word "agnosticism," since it was baptized by T.H. Huxley, has been used to refer to the set of people that think knowledge of God is unobtainable.
When contrasting agnosticism with atheism, we need to remember that atheism requires belief that God does not exist. Atheism is active disbelief-- since we don't call babies and rocks atheists, it is an abuse of language to state that atheism is a lack of belief.
Furthermore, to be philosophically precise, believing there is no reason to believe in God is not the same thing as active disbelief in God. For example, since Ockham and the subsequent rise of Protestantism, many Christians have believed in God on faith without the aid of Reason-- Luther even went as far as to call Reason a harlot.
In other words, it is not the rationality individuals attribute to the belief in the proposition "God exists" that determines if a person is atheist or theist. It is their attitude toward the truth of the proposition. Atheists by definition think the proposition is false, theists think the proposition is true, and agnostics make no commitment.
Credo quia absurdum. "I believe, because it is absurd." This has been the doctrine of many Christians from Tertullian to Kierkegaard. If we take the standard definition of agnosticism as Gospel, we end up with a definition inclusive of many Christians. Not everyone is Anselm of Canterbury.
In other words, the concept "agnostic" does not isolate a unique class of people. Both atheists and theists call under its definition. As a result, I wish people would stop using that loathsome and contemptible word to describe themselves.
The Meaning of Theocracy
By Dr. R.J. Rushdoony
Few things are more commonly misunderstood than the nature and meaning of theocracy. It is commonly assumed to be a dictatorial rule by self-appointed men who claim to rule for God. In reality, theocracy in Biblical law is the closest thing to a radical libertarianism that can be had.
In Biblical law, the only civil tax was the head or poll tax, the same for all males twenty years of age and older (Ex. 30:11-16). This tax provided an atonement or covering for people, i.e. the covering of civil protection by the State as a ministry of justice (Rom. 13:1-4). This very limited tax was continued by the Jews after the fall of Jerusalem, and from 768-900 AD helped make the Jewish princedom of Narbonne (in France) and other areas a very important and powerful realm (see Arthur J. Zuckerman: ” A Jewish Princedom in Feudal France 768-900” (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1965, 1972). This tax was limited to half a sheckel of silver per man.
All other functions of government were financed by the tithe. Health, education, welfare, worship, etc., were all provided for by tithes and offerings. Of this tithe, one tenth (i.e. one percent of one’s income) went to the priests for worship. Perhaps an equal amount went for music, and for the care of the sanctuary. The tithe was God’s tax, to provide for basic government in God’s way. The second and the third tithes provided for welfare, and for the family’s rest and rejoicing before the Lord (see E.A. Powell and R.J. Rushdoony: “Tithing and Dominion” (Ross House Books, P.O. Box 67 Vallecito, CA 95251).
What we today fail to see, and must recapture, is the fact that the basic governmentis the self-governing of covenant man; then the family is the central governing institutionof Scripture. The school is a governmental agency, and so too is the church. Our vocation also governs us, and our society. Civil government must be one form of government among many, and a minor one. Paganism (and Baal worship in all its forms) made the State and its rulers into a god or gods walking on earth, and gave them total over-rule in all spheres. The prophets denounced all such idolatry, and the apostles held, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
From the days of the Caesars to the heads of the democratic states and Marxist empires, the ungodly have seen what Christians too often fail to see, namely, that Biblical faith requires and creates a rival government to the humanistic State. Defective faith seeks to reduce Biblical faith to a man-centered minimum, salvation. Now salvation, our re-generation, is the absolutely essential starting point of the Christian life, but, if it is made the sum total thereof, it is in effect denied. Salvation is then made into a man-centered and egotistical thing, when it is in fact God-centered and requires the death, not the enthronement, of our sinful and self-centered ego. We are saved for God’s purposes, saved to serve, not in time only, but eternally (Rev. 22:3). To be saved is to be working members of that realm.
In a theocracy, therefore, God and His law rule. The State ceases to be the over-lord and ruler of man. God’s tax, the tithe, is used by Godly men to create schools, hospitals, welfare agencies, counselors and more. It provides, as it did in Scripture, for music and more. All the basic social financing, other than the head tax of Ex. 30:11-16 was provided for by tithes and offerings or gifts. An offering or gift was that which was given above and over a tithe.
Since none of the tithe agencies have any coercive power to collect funds, none can exist beyond their useful service to God and man. For the modern State, uselessness and corruption are no problem; they do not limit its power to collect more taxes. Indeed, the State increases its taxing power because it is more corrupt and more useless, because its growing bureaucracy demands it.
California State Senator H.L. “Bill” Richardson has repeatedly called attention to the fact that, once elected, public officials respond only under pressure to their voters but more to their peer group and their superiors. Lacking faith, they are governed by power.
People may complain about the unresponsiveness of their elected officials, and their subservience to their peers and superiors, but nothing will alter this fact other than a change in the faith of the electorate and the elected. Men will respond to and obey the dominant power in their lives, faith, and perspective. If that dominant power or god in their lives is the State, they will react to it. If, however, it is the triune God of Scripture who rules them, then men will respond to and obey His law-word. Men will obey their gods.
One of the more important books of this country was Albert Jay Nock’s “Our Enemy, The State”(Caxton Printers, Caldwell, Idaho, 1935). Without agreeing with Nock in all things, it is necessary to agree with him that the modern State is man’s new church and saving institution. The state, however, is an antisocial institution, determined to suppress and destroy all the historic and religiously grounded powers of society. With F.D. Roosevelt and “The New Deal,” the goal of the Statists became openly “the complete extinction of social power through absorption by the State” (p.21). This will continue in its suicidal course, until there is not enough social power left to finance the State’s plans (as became the case in Rome). The State’s intervention into every realm is financed by the productivity of the non-Statist and economic sector: “Intervention retards production; then the resulting stringency and inconvenience enable further intervention, which in turn still further retards production; and this process goes on until, as in Rome, in the third century, production ceases entirely, and the source of payment dries up” (p.151f). It is true that crime needs suppression, but, instead of suppressing crime, the State safeguards its own monopoly of crime.”
We can add that the solution to crime and injustice is not more power to the state, but God’s law and a regenerate man. The best safeguard against crime is godly men and a godly society. Furthermore, God’s law, in dealing with crime, requires restitution and with habitual criminals, the death penalty. (See R.J. Rushdoony: “Institutes of Biblical Law”).
One more important point from Nock: he called attention to the fact that “social power” once took care of all emergencies, relieves, and disasters. When the Johnstown flood occurred all relief and aid was the result of a great outpouring of “private” giving. “Its abundance, measured by money alone, was so great that when everything was finally put in order, something like a million dollars remained. (p.6)
This was once the only way such crises were met. Can it happen again? The fact is that it is happening again. Today, between 20-30% of all school children K-12 are in non-state-ist schools, and the percentage is likely to pass 50% by 1990 if Christians defend their schools from state-ist interventionism. More and more Christians are recognizing their duties for the care of their parents; churches are again assuming, in many cases, the care of elderly members. Homes for the elderly people, and also for delinquent children are being established. (One of the more famous of these, under the leadership of Lester Roloff, was under attack by the State, which refused to recognize sin as the basic problem with delinquents, and regeneration and sanctification as the answer.) Christians are moving into the areas of radio and television, not only to preach salvation but to apply Scripture to political, economic and other issues.
Moreover, everywhere Christians are asking themselves the question, “What must I do, now that I am saved?” Answers take a variety of forms: textbook publishing for Christian Schools; periodicals and more. The need to revive and extend Christian hospitals is being recognized and much, much more.
Isaiah 9:6-7 tells us that when Christ was born, the government was to be on His shoulders, and that “Of the increase of His government and peace, there shall be no end.” By means of their tithing and actions, believers are in increasing numbers submitting to Christ’s government and re-ordering life and society in terms of it.
The essence of humanism, from Francis stateto the present, has been this creed: to be human, man must be in control (Jeremy Rifkin with Ted Howard: “The Emerging Order”, p. 27.). This is an indirect way of saying that man is not man unless the government of all things is upon his shoulders, unless he is himself God. It is the expression of the tempter’s program of revolt against God (Gen. 3:5). John Locke developed this faith by insisting that Christianity thus could not be the basis of public activity, but only a private faith. The foundation of the State and of public life was for Locke, in reason.
But, reason, separated from Christian faith and presupposition, became man’s will, or better, man’s will in radical independence from God. The State then began to claim one area of life after another as public domain and hence under the State as reason incarnate. One of the first things claimed by Locke’s philosophy and “reason” was man himself! Man, instead of being a sinner, was, at least in the human and public realm, morally neutral; he was a blank piece of paper, and what he became was a product of education and experience. It thus was held necessary for the state, the incarnate voice of “reason,” to control education in order to product the desired kind of man.
The State claimed the public realm. The public realm had belonged, in terms of Christian faith, to God, like all things else, and to a free society under God. The church was scarcely dislodged from its claims over the public realm when the state came in to claim it with even more total powers.
But this was not all. The state enlarged the public realm by new definitions, so that steadily, one sphere after another fell into the hands of the state. Education was claimed, and control over economics, a control which is now destroying money and decreasing social and economic productivity. The arts and sciences are subsidized and controlled, and are begging for more. Marriage and the family are controlled; a White House Conference on the Family viewed the family as a public and hence, Statist realm, one the state must invade and control.
Ancient Rome regarded religion itself as a public domain and hence licensed and controlled it. (The very word “liturgy,” Greek in origin, means public service. Religion is indeed a public concern, more so than the state, but not thereby a matter for state-ist control.) Rome, like all ancient pagan states, equated the public domain with the state’s domain, and it saw all things as aspects of the state’s domain.
For any one institution to see itself as the public domain is totalitarianism. All things public and private are in the religious domain and under God. No institution, neither church nor state, can equate itself with God, and claim control of the public (or private) domain. Every sphere of life is interdependent with other spheres and alike under God. No more than mathematics has the “right” to control biology do church or state have the “right” to control one another, or anything beyond their severely limited sphere of government.
There are thus a variety of spheres of government under God. There spheres are limited, interdependent and under God’s sovereign government and law-word. They cannot legitimately exceed their sphere. The legitimate financial powers of all are limited. The state has a small head tax. The tithe finances all other spheres.
The tithe, it must be emphasized, is to the Lord, not to the church, a difference some churchmen choose to miss or overlook. This robs the individual believer of all right to complain about things; by the godly use of his tithe, he can create new agencies, churches, schools, and institutions to further God’s Kingdom in every area of life and thought. Holiness comes not by our abilities to whine and bewail the things that are, but by our faithful use of the tithe and the power God gives us to remake all things according to His Word.
Tithing and godly action, these are the keys to dominion. We are called to dominion (Gen. 1:26-28; 9:1-17; Joshua 1:1-9; Matt. 28:18020; etc.). The creation mandate is our covenant mandate; restoration into the covenant through Christ’s atonement restores us into the mandate to exercise dominion and gives us the power to effect it.
Aspects of that mandate can be exercised through institutions, and sometimes must be, but the mandate can never be surrendered to them. The mandate precedes all instructions, and it is to man personally as man (Gen. 1:28). This is the heart of theocracy as the Bible sets it forth. Dictionaries to the contrary, theocracy is not a government by the state, but a government over every institution by God and His Law, and through the activities of the free man in Christ to bring ever area of life and thought under Christ’s Kingship.
Jason B said: When contrasting agnosticism with atheism, we need to remember that atheism requires belief that God does not exist. Atheism is active disbelief-- since we don't call babies and rocks atheists, it is an abuse of language to state that atheism is a lack of belief.
Not so. As an atheist I do not believe in the existence of God - simply because there is no evidence to support that conclusion. This does not mean that I *believe* that God does not exist and definitely does not mean that I know (or even assert) that God does not exist. A *lack* of belief is *not* a belief.
Jason B said: Atheists by definition think the proposition is false, theists think the proposition is true, and agnostics make no commitment.
I think that the proposition is false (or at least cannot honestly be made) because theists do not have any evidence to make that proposition. They say 'God Exists' I say 'I don't believe you' followed by 'How do you know?' followed by a dissection of their evidence (which from experience doesn't add up to much).
Personally, I am proud to call myself an Atheist.
Good series of interviews BTW Stardust. [grin]
kitten--
We must not confuse belief with the belief's truth. Nor should we confuse belief with the belief's justification.
A lack of belief is entirely different than disbelieving a proposition lacking in evidence.
With atheists and theists, it is not how well reasoned their belief is that makes them atheists and theists. It is the content of their belief -- a theist thinks there is a God, while an atheist thinks that this state of affairs does not obtain.
Post a Comment