A step-by-step demonstration why atheists should be denied participation in politics

In this small article, I will explain in a short way why modern atheists should be denied to participate in politics. Here are the two major points:

  1. A reductionist/materialist cannot be a true humanist.
  2. Only a true humanist can take a good care of humanity, including in preserving its natural rights and governing it.

First, I shall define what a reductionist materialist and a traditionalist humanist are. The reductionist materialist is someone who wants to reduce everything to matter, to explain away everything through a materialistic explanation. The humanist is (in the traditional sense, adapted from the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English) someone who studies the ancient Greek and Roman ideas. In those traditions, man is seen as being at the centre of the universe; acknowledging the objective value is an imperative with an authority over all generations.

Before I go further, I shall acknowledge that modern humanism is (adapted to the same dictionary) basically the belief that man should solve his problems through science rather than religion. In a sense, their love for reason follows from the original humanists’ love for reason. But acknowledging that has some fundamental flows:

It gets scientific knowledge, whose value comes from within the “code” of traditional values, as the only way that we shall use to determine values. Thus, because science is epistemologically materialistic (i.e. it studies matter in isolation from non-matter), sooner or later we should end up in submitting ethics to scientific research. And from this reductionism, we should get our values – namely, that we are animals with more complex brains. But are we really just that? No other animal has shown interest in studying its brains or consciousness. In fact, no other animal has shown any interest of being conscious of its existence. Yet we explain and think we have explained way. So, we betray traditional values in order that we get no objective values. From this we can only end up in utilitarianism, a contradiction to the belief in the inherent value of human beings and of scientific research. The only inherent value is relative usefulness, and science is also reduced to that. We are under no authority anymore. In short, solving problems through science outside the limits of religious ethics (I often call the opposite moral obscurantism – necessary moral limits to scientific research) leads to the abolition of ontology, and of ethics as we know them, and thus to the redefinition of science.

By traditional values society has worked, should work, and by them alone it can work!

Note: I am not affirming that Christianity is a “useful lie”. While I think that the impossibility of man to really live a human life without faith in God may be an existential reason for a leap of faith, I affirm with Edmund Burke that “We know, and it is our pride to know, that man is by his constitution a religious animal; that atheism is against, not only our reason, but our instincts; and that it cannot prevail long.” The Progressive Sigmund Freud said that from a psychological view, monotheism is a neurosis. Blessed Seraphim Rose said that atheism is “a spiritual state” in which the human heart wrestles with the God it longs for and yet cannot cope with.

Second, I shall explain why a reductionist atheist must be denied the right to participate in politics.

The most (and the ideal) liberal governments have no repository (or traditional) branch. But in old times government always had a repository branch or function. One of the important roles of government was to affirm the values that the community affirmed, and to punish those who committed crimes in violating the laws (who were formed on traditional values). Thus, in order for the State to exist, it had to rule with an authority, given to it from Providence and thus objective. There was no such thing as consent – for social contract doesn’t recognize the objective authority of the government, given to it from Providence. But social contract also doesn’t in itself recognize objective values – including the value of honouring the social contract.
In short, the State exists to affirm traditional affirmations, including traditionally affirmed values, and without giving them objective value (which tradition does, and liberalism doesn’t) it is an empty shell; it is useless, since it no longer conforms to the conscience collective, and its existence contradicts the existence of the community.

Another contradiction in liberalism is that its State gets its power and authority not from God, but from the people. And even if we limit government to that, it still doesn’t show a sign of recognition to the affirmations of the people, other than those who the pseudo-representatives of the people and their parties affirm.

(Scandalous, isn’t it? In the 21st century there are still men who believe that government must not be limited to the metaphysical recognition of matter alone, i.e. metaphysical materialism! While it took us, the Western intelligentsia, centuries to use the State to get the Populace out of this superstition, some people still think that the State should affirm that which the people have always affirmed – divine Providence!)

Following my conclusion from the first a reductionist atheist affirms no objective values and does not submit to the authority of Providence (which tradition affirms). In a sense, he is not a humanist who affirms the objective value of man and science (but only their subjective, utilitarian value). But only the one who affirms those values deserves to participate in the political life of society, since otherwise one contradicts the very population one has to take care of and whose conscience (collective) it represents.
Therefore, no reductionists atheist (agnostic and deist as well) should have control over the government. Yes, that’s right – down with the liberals!


One thought on “A step-by-step demonstration why atheists should be denied participation in politics

  1. This is a great article! You used all your words intelligently, in the right context, and you didn’t sound conceited at all! This is probably one of the most democratic arguments I have come across in a very long time. Personally, I think that gays and blacks should also be denied the right to participate in politics, but in the meantime I will just pray for a Utopia in which only people exactly like us can make decisions in our country. That would be the humanist way to live. Anyway, thanks for sharing!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s