Democracy and Christianity

[filecore]

If you say that morals are relative, then how can you judge God from a moral high ground? After all, if morals are relative, then your morals aren't any better or worse than anybody else's. They certainly have no authority over God.

The thing about all this is that while morals can indeed be seen to be relative, they also have to be put within a relative context.  In the relative context of humanity, God's morals are seen to be greater than ours (I have actually argued the opposite but here I am again playing Devil's advocate, no pun intended).  Also, if all morals are relative, then your morals will of course be seen as better or worse than another person's - because your morals are seen RELATIVE to somebody else's.  It is a comparative system, and to compare, you must make a distinction on what is comparatively better or worse.  Therefore you disprove your own argument.

Incidentally, I have a few issues with morality too.  I believe in ethics, and in morality, and I believe that ethics is the more correct of the two.  Morality is an imposed set of values whereas an ethical choice is one which you make on your own, within the context of whatever society you are in.  Although sometimes it's tempting to judge things by our own set of values, and I happen to concur with those, it must be remembered that in different societies (especially when talking about the past), it is just not realistic to judge them based on our standards today.

[Caid Ivik]

Let's see... me and Caid have some unfinished business...

You might want to clarify that statement. What exactly are "these things" which have God's endorsement? Freedom of choice certainly does have God's endorsement. But no system of government has any kind of divine nature or divine support. Governments are human inventions, established by the people and for the people (or at least that's the way they should be).

Talk about a stupid way of trying to twist a metaphor... ::)

I was comparing society (ANY kind of society, not just a communist one) to a brick wall in which the bricks symbolize the individuals, in order to make you see the way in which society and the individual are dependent on each other (actually, the important part is the way in which society is dependent on its individual members). My point was that any claim about "putting society before the individual" is nonsense, because society is merely a sum of individuals. How can you have "the good of society" without the good of the individual? How can you have a strong wall when every brick is shattered? Without the individual, you can't have society.

Communism strives for the "good of society" in the sense that it strives for the maximum good for the maximum number of individuals.

Excuse me, but last time I checked there was a difference between "central control" by a ruthless dictator and "central control" in a democratic system...

The question is Who has the power. Democracy means that the people themselves have the power. The majority rules, and the minority has rights that protect it from abuse. Under these conditions, the socialization of the means of production is fair and just.

I wasn't talking about the act of labour itself, I was talking about the PRODUCT of that labour.

Let's say you make a shoe. Are you saying that you don't have any rights to that shoe, because your labour doesn't matter?

Working means putting time and effort into something. If you're saying that all that time and effort means nothing, then you are plain delusional - and you are advocating slave labour.

"The company" doesn't produce anything. The workers of the company produce everything. And an impersonal institute can't own anything. When you say "property of the company", what you actually mean is "property of the people who own the company". So, in conclusion, everything that the workers produce becomes the property of the small group of people who own the company. This is the inherent injustice of capitalism.

Oh, and capitalist wages have nothing to do with the success of the product. A worker is paid the bare minimum that his boss can get away with (in practice, this means the minimum sum of money necessary to keep him from leaving and getting a job somewhere else).

Communism does not give "wages". A wage is a capitalist concept, and it involves the existence of an authoritarian institution such as a company - something that doesn't exist in communism.

Also, there is no buying or selling in communism. It's a system of communal property, remember?

Actually, it was your lack of arguments that prompted me to say that in the first place. When you make a statement, back it up with some arguments if you expect me to take it seriously.

Well, my first reply on this vanished, so I try to make it again...

As God gave us rights of freedom and responsibility, we can say, that democracy is fully endorsed by divine rights. Aren't freedom and responsibility main pillars of it? Of course, we can say that both are limited to God Himself, so we aren't fully self-sustained and free, but then we could say that with God's being is possible only theocracy.

Communism by your words functions as same as capitalistic company. They produce things by what majority wants. Maybe a good sign. Finally you are curving out from Marx' hegelianic view of things. Keep up the truly right course  ;D

We have a term of "law person", abstract oppositum of "physical person". Law person may be a firm, institute or any other form of organization. It has its property, as well as it pays taxes for it. Trough your thoughts we may say, that bishops own churches...

[Acriku]

Maybe filecore explained it better, TMA, and no Edric's question was not on target. But it was a good question.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, you said that absolute moral law should exist physically. Natural laws don't exist like that, they just "are", as an idea. We only uncover them and translate them to thoughts. Same is with absolute moralty, altough we christians believe it was uncovered to us divinely.

[Acriku]

Caid, absolute morality is nothing but a concept. Laws of nature describe phenomenae that occur, and are not necessarily absolute, but absolute moralities do not. So, I don't think that you can make that analogy.

[Caid Ivik]

That's because of our free will. We simply can curve out from laws. Look at geometry, there were made systems, which aren't usable in normal euklidic space. Or counting with n-dimensions. These are too against absolute natural laws. But only because our soul itself is a creative thing. Art of life is to follow the rule which was given to us by own will. Speculating, that we don't have to, is senseless.

[filecore]

Art of life is to follow the rule which was given to us by own will. Speculating, that we don't have to, is senseless.

Why?  If you say that geometry, for example, doesn't necessarily follow set 'rules', and you can't deny that life is by its very nature flexible and creative, then why should life have to follow a set path or pattern of rules or moralities?  Nothing is absolute, and we are influenced by many contradictory factors.  Therefore it is illogical to tell us that speculating about choosing or following a different morality is senseless - the thing that is senseless is convincing yourself that it is not possible to do!

[filecore]

I myself don't believe that Christianity played an essential part in establishing democracy. Many great thinkers abandoned christianity or rejected the form in wich most people believed in.

A little off-topic now, but I found this and thought it would be interesting just to show you what some of America's presidents thought of religion:

The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.

- John Adams, U.S. President

The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.

- John Adams, U.S. President

This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.

- John Adams, U.S. President

Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it.

- John Adams, U.S. President

But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed.

- John Adams, U.S. President

Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1500 years.

- John Adams, U.S. President

The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles.

- John Adams, U.S. President

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.

- Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President

Religions are all alike; founded upon fables and mythologies.

- Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President

I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.

- Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President

Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man.

- Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President

The Christian God can be easily pictured as virtually the same as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, evil and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed, beast - like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of the people who say they serve him. The are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites.

- Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President

On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind.

- Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President

We discover in the gospels a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication.

- Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President

It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

- Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President

The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being of His Father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.

- Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President

The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.

- Abraham Lincoln, U.S. President

During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.

- James Madison, U.S. President

In no instance have... the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people.

- James Madison, U.S. President

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.

- James Madison, U.S. President

I do not believe in the divinity of Christ, and there are many other of the postulates of the orthodox creed to which I cannot subscribe.

- William Howard Taft, U.S. President

The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy.

- George Washington, U.S. President

Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.

- George Washington, U.S. President

[Caid Ivik]

Why?  If you say that geometry, for example, doesn't necessarily follow set 'rules', and you can't deny that life is by its very nature flexible and creative, then why should life have to follow a set path or pattern of rules or moralities?  Nothing is absolute, and we are influenced by many contradictory factors.  Therefore it is illogical to tell us that speculating about choosing or following a different morality is senseless - the thing that is senseless is convincing yourself that it is not possible to do!

You've missed my point. In normal view of things, geometry can't follow another rules. However, when we put our own fantasy into it, our will, it might have fully new rules. Same is for morale. However, the classical form of geometry (or morale as well), will be further the core, without which we couldn't make our modifications of reality. If you could understand I would write it in german, it would be better descriptive.

[TMA_1]

lol, and anybody who actually thought that most of those "founding fahters" were actually good moral people are full of it. If you actually know that many of these men owned slaves, and agreed to make black men a portion of humanity, thereby not including them as full humans that should benefit from things that whites do. many also were extreme social darwinists who did not fully think of the common people were of much importance. Most were highly educated and very into the new philosophies of the time. Almost all of them were either agnostics, deists, or athiests, there were only a few christians.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

most christians nations are democratic. dunno if that has anything to do with the subject. :-

[Acriku]

Can you give an example of a Christian Nation?

[TMA_1]

there are no christian nations... where did you get that emperor?

[filecore]

most christians nations are democratic.

Perhaps he meant "most christians' nations are democratic", in that those nations whose dominant religion (state or otherwise) is christian tend to be more democratic than those nations under other religions.  I dunno though, I would have to see some sort of comparative statistic.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

first of all a christian nation is where the majority of the population is christian.

second Norway is a christian nation, not only because most people are christians, but because it has not separated state and church. Not many christian nations have this now, but Iceland and Norway are two of them. Think it is only a few more.

[Caid Ivik]

Christianity is a part of our culture. It's same when we say we are a consuming society, altough it would be nonsense if all were only consuming...

[TMA_1]

most "christian" nations are christian in culture and background, not spiritually. You ask a "christian" while walking to the store or something about spiritual matters, they know nothing.

the true christian nations are those like china, or certain nations in africa, where the few who are christian are devout, and are so much better then us western christians because they cant take things for granted like americans and europeans do. China has getting better and better in treating christians, but it is still bad.

[Caid Ivik]

If you want to talk about spirituality, you can't use a scale of nation. Everyone, every individual person has its own view of things.

[TMA_1]

hmm you are right, agree with you there caid.

[Edric O]

Well, I hope you don't mind if I pick up where we left off in my discussion with Caid...

As God gave us rights of freedom and responsibility, we can say, that democracy is fully endorsed by divine rights. Aren't freedom and responsibility main pillars of it?

Of course. And since God (and Jesus Christ in particular) always spoke in favour of equality, social justice and the sharing of wealth, we can go further and say that communism is fully endorsed by the divine.

However, as I said in my first post on this topic, it is dangerous and potentially disastrous to mix religion with politics. Sure, the God of the Bible seems to give His endorsement for democracy and communism, but that doesn't mean that religious arguments are valid in a political discussion. They're not.

God's message may have some political overtones, but we shouldn't forget that it is first and foremost a spiritual one.

Communism by your words functions as same as capitalistic company. They produce things by what majority wants.

A capitalist company produces what brings the most profit, not what the majority wants. If the majority is starving, but doesn't have any money to pay for food, while one rich person has lots of money and wants to eat caviar, then a capitalist company will produce caviar for that rich person and let the majority starve.

And I've always said that communism decides what should be produced based on what the people need. Is this the first time you've noticed it?

We have a term of "law person", abstract oppositum of "physical person". Law person may be a firm, institute or any other form of organization. It has its property, as well as it pays taxes for it. Trough your thoughts we may say, that bishops own churches...

"Law persons" are a laughable piece of capitalist fiction. An organization isn't a single sentient entity. It's owned and run by human beings. "Law persons" are nothing more than a bureaucratic invention. They're a useful concept for paperwork, but shouldn't be confused with reality.

The "property of the company" is actually the property of the people who own the company. The company itself doesn't have a mind of its own...

When you say "the company produces X", you mean that the workers of the company produce X. When you say "the company owns X", you mean that the owners of the company own X. Everything the workers produce becomes the property of the owners.

[Caid Ivik]

When you gave your wealth to someone else, may be a political system as well, I would say it is running away from responsibility. Jesus told us only not to see the main sense of life in it. Yes, we were given a specified amount of talents, now we are to handle with them (ad maiorem Deus gloriam) and return them to God with twice as much. Dig it under earth (that means into social system of your state), you won't lose anything. But you won't even gain anything. Why do you fear such applications? Politics without morale doesn't end good.

That's a widerspruch, go to nearest Carrefour and you'll find out. Larger companies produce (or sell) mostly cheaper products, as they want to sell to masses. Compare market bilance of ie Lamborghini and Volkswagen. While Lambo nearly fell to bancrot, only Volkswagen's capital saved them.

I have an example of law person: http://www.slobodnavolba.sk/. Who is owner of this page?

[Edric O]

When you gave your wealth to someone else, may be a political system as well, I would say it is running away from responsibility.

First of all, that is one giant non-sequitur. It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. How the hell is an act of mercy and kindness equal to "running away from responsibility"? A rich man who doesn't share anything and lets other people starve is somehow more "responsible" than a rich man who helps the poor?

Second of all, are we reading the same Bible? Do I have to count the times Jesus advises you to share your wealth, to care for your fellow man, and to give money to the poor? Do I have to count the times He speaks in favour of social justice and equality? I'll just remind you of one of the classic Bible passages concerning this subject:

"And someone came to Him and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?"

And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."

Then he said to Him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER; YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY; YOU SHALL NOT STEAL; YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS;

HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER; and YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."

The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?"

Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.

And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." "

- Matthew 19:16-24

Why do you fear such applications? Politics without morale doesn't end good.

That is true - but there is a big difference between using certain moral values as the basis of your social system and claiming to have a divine endorsement for it. History shows that "divine endorsements" are often used by evil men to justify their actions.

In other words, you can say "this system is good because it helps people", but you can't say "this system is good because God says so".

When politics and religion ride in the same cart...

That's a widerspruch, go to nearest Carrefour and you'll find out. Larger companies produce (or sell) mostly cheaper products, as they want to sell to masses.

That's only because our "masses" are quite rich and can afford those products. But look at the real poor - the population of 3rd world countries, for example, or the poorest workers in our own countries. Who produces anything for them?

Capitalist production is guided by profit. When profit and the needs of the people coincide, capitalism will produce what is needed. But when they no longer coincide, capitalism will produce luxury items while millions of people don't have enough to eat. You can see this happening on a global scale today.

I have an example of law person: http://www.slobodnavolba.sk/. Who is owner of this page?

How should I know? I can't read slovak! ::)

[Caid Ivik]

EdricO, you are misinterpreting the Bible. True following of Jesus means to stop work, to leave everything, even your sacred production, sacrifice it to Him and pointing all efforts to spread and maintain believe of the others. However, someone must do other work for him too. Here comes a system of production theft... I won't jump into Bible and search for other economical thoughts like Mt 18,23-35, Mt 25,14-30 or Lk 10,38-42. Dominican order spread a good motto "ora et labora", work and pray. At this scale, you have no divine endorsement of communism.

People often abuse divine endorsment. Even Robespierre, when he was doing what masses wanted from him to do. Tyranny of majority is the worst of all, because you can throw a bomb on dictator's car, while you can't change mind of nation.

3rd world countries have own economics. They are mostly of socialist style or military governments. And also, there is certain cultural difference. Ie India has, we can say, a highly advanced form of state, comparable to european. However, when society has moral stratification, you can't change tradition and an untouchable won't be able to live better. Not saying about enviromental limits, like on desert you won't have water, so you can't buy here melons etc. Well, we have a fertile land, so I don't think that a nice fat bread for just 20 crowns is a luxury.

[Edric O]

How amusing... just a short while ago you were talking about how the Bible supposedly supported your system. Then after I presented you with my arguments and the Bible quotes to back them up, you quickly changed your discourse and claimed that the Bible doesn't support any social system after all, that "divine endorsement" really shouldn't be abused, etc.

In other words, as soon as you start losing the argument, you magically change your opinion in order to reach a compromise. That's oh so very honest and honourable of you... ::)

EdricO, you are misinterpreting the Bible. True following of Jesus means to stop work, to leave everything, even your sacred production, sacrifice it to Him and pointing all efforts to spread and maintain believe of the others. However, someone must do other work for him too. Here comes a system of production theft...

A caste-based system? I don't remember Jesus ever supporting anything even remotely resembling such an insanity. What you describe here sounds more like an oppressive, inhumane theocracy (the priests who "follow Jesus" don't do any work at all, because they have an underclass of servants doing all their work for them) than the kind of society based on compassion and brotherhood that Jesus talked about.

The most devout followers of Jesus were supposed to leave behind all earthly belongings and everything that tied them to this world, but they were never supposed to "abstain from working"! On the contrary - working and praying are often the two most important activities in a monk's life.

"Ora et labora" supports communist principles...

People often abuse divine endorsment.

You mean like you did, earlier in this topic?

Even Robespierre, when he was doing what masses wanted from him to do.

Robespierre was a Deist, not a Christian. He never claimed to have any divine endorsement.

Tyranny of majority is the worst of all, because you can throw a bomb on dictator's car, while you can't change mind of nation.

Ha ha ha - dictators and anti-democrats have often used arguments like those to try to take away the people's freedom. The fact is that "tyranny" means the oppressive rule of one man or a tiny minority; a so-called "tyranny of the majority" means the rule of the many - it is actually the kind of democracy that you get if you eliminate minority rights. And it's infinitely better than the tyranny of one man or of a ruling elite, because the majority usually contains such a wide variety of people with different interests that they will tend to adopt sensible and overall beneficial measures (whereas a dictator will govern according to his personal whims; he can persecute a minority just like the majority could, but with the added bonus that he can also persecute the majority itself).

Furthermore, dictators are a lot harder to kill than you seem to believe (especially paranoid ones).

But anyway, this is off-topic.

3rd world countries have own economics. They are mostly of socialist style or military governments.

You're a little behind the times, my friend. That statement could have been true in the 60's, and perhaps even the early 70's - but since then, all those "socialist" governments have been overthrown by military dictatorships, which prepared the way for capitalism and corporate domination. The 3rd world has been firmly in the grasp of capitalism for over 20 years.

And also, there is certain cultural difference. Ie India has, we can say, a highly advanced form of state, comparable to european. However, when society has moral stratification, you can't change tradition and an untouchable won't be able to live better. Not saying about enviromental limits, like on desert you won't have water, so you can't buy here melons etc. Well, we have a fertile land, so I don't think that a nice fat bread for just 20 crowns is a luxury.

What does any of that have to do with profit as the driving force behind capitalism? I explained that capitalism will only produce what is profitable, which may not be the same as what is needed.

[Wolf]

Often, I have seen religion attacked as the root cause of all evil. However, very few of these critics make the distinction between certain individuals within the religion itself and the religion. The problem is that the corruption that came from religion is the same corruption that exists in every single other sector of human society. To argue that religion should be abolished because of this corruption is to argue that all things social should be abolished.

Even then, the critics of religion, of Christianity in particular, do not even bother to consider the core tenets of the religion, and instead focus on details which they interpret as contradictory.

The core tenets of Christianity? To love all? To forgive all? To harm none? How is this wrong? If every individual practiced these beliefs, I think we would live in a much better world! Oh, I forgot, this can never happen, that would be communism.

One argument against religion, that science can, and should replace it, is somewhat flawed. Science is not all-inclusive of universal knowledge, and much of what we learn in science is either disproven or changed over time. I hear England has begun using maggots to heal festering wounds once again because the maggots are, indeed, more effective than what was scientifically proclaimed as a cure-all. But, I digress.

To critisize religion on the grounds that it harms others, I hope, is flawed. Since the core tenets of religion, or, at least, the tenets I choose to follow, are created to prevent the harm of others. Furthermore, the other argument against religion -- that it holds back society by creating a dogmatic belief -- is flawed for a reason that I shall soon demonstrate, but, before I do so, I would like to point out that the only person who fears an existing dogma is the man who has his own dogma that he would like to imprint upon others.

Why religion, then? I submit to you that, beyond your own, personal, individual consciousness, you have no total assurance of the existence of anything around you. Are you truly reading this? Or, are you in some elaborate dream? Is your world really what you think it is? To beleive in science, you must assume that there is such a thing as absolute physical fact -- in a universe of constant change. Let me explain further; everything you sense (see, hear, etc.) passes (we believe) through physical means, then, through biological means, and then, through neurological means to be interpreted by our brain as some such thing which is recognized by our consciousness. Is there not grounds for error? How can you be truly sure that anything around you is the way you think it is? David Hume (an atheist, if that removes any prejudice for atheists) said that one cannot be sure of the existence of anything, of even the self. I disagree with the latter, that one cannot be sure of self-existence, because self-existence is self-evident to the self. However, the rest of his point is valid. Since we only view the world through this narrow, and yet not narrow, consciousness, we distort the world, in some way, large or small. We cannot tell, even, how much we distort the world, because we have no original frame of reference to compare our view of the world with some "real" world. No. Our mere existence, to go the route of Heisenberg, prevents us from knowing the true world without our conscious viewing of that world. To observe, is to change. Therefore, scientific objectivity is just as baseless scientifically as the atheists claim religion to be.

Does not religion ask one to do the same? Not at all -- religion never asks one to accept God as fact, or to prove his existence, but to have unwavering faith in God. Faith and fact are different. If God was proven to exist, then belief in him would not be perfect, in fact, it could not be called faith. Soren Kierkegaard, an existentialist, said that one must beleive in God against all fact -- because in this instance, your faith is pure. Kierkegaard, in fact, said that trying to rationalize belief was wrong -- it only leads to further unhappiness. The trick to life, then, is to not worry, be happy.

Why does this matter? Coming back to what I said earlier, about there being no complete assurance of the existence of anything around you, it is clear, then, that the only thing you are really sure about is your own consciousness. Therefore, whatever you incarnate in your consciousness becomes true, if for you only. Your faith is all that matters, because it is what you believe that becomes reality for you. I would say that, instead of holding one back, religion forces one to question their faith philosophically, and through that faith, their own being. To be an atheist to the core is to, somewhat, ignore the entire idea of faith while submitting to faith anyway; does not one have to have faith in the notion that there is no God?

This still does not answer why religion is better. It comes down, in the end, to a personal choice. Does a world without a God, with nothing beyond the phsyical existence (which, as I pointed out earlier, is distorted and ultimatally changing simply by our presence) apppeal to one? Or is it belief in a world with a God of omnipotent benevolence? A world where human beings love and forgive all? It is truly a matter of personal choice. However, I submit that this choice is the chief determinant in whether or not human beings can live a life that is fulfilling in human terms.

*A quick addendum. To abuse religion is one of the worst crimes a human being can commit, because it robs one of their faith. Simply put, religion may require a great deal of responsibility, responsiblity that some people may not have. I would then argue that the only reason religion should be, in any way, limited in its organizatin is for the same argument against communism; that we, as a species, are not ready for it. However, it also seems to be something that we, as a species, desperately need.