So this is the question for libertarians: do you endorse the liberalization of organized atheism?
My answer, as a libertarian atheist is: yes. I wholeheartedly support this. Charity is a good thing. Supporting the needy is a good thing. I don't think that either (a) government; (b) religion should have a monopoly on this. I'm not so much of a libertarian that I would totally eliminate the social safety net or wealth transfers, but I would like to see government play a smaller (and different) role and private, community organizations a larger one.
Other atheists or libertarian comments?
You seem to be going at easy targets as of late AM.
ReplyDeleteWell who wouldn't endorse the liberalization of organized atheism? People should be free to give to whatever cause they want, atheist or not.
To the first question, "Should" atheists be more involved? Is not something that can really be answered. It's a matter of personal choice, and a libertarian is not concerned with what other people "should" do when it comes to these matters.
I just meant as a matter of ethics, charity is good, being a miser is probably bad. It`s still personal choice though, I don`t think the state should be enforcing this to the same degree that it does now.
ReplyDeleteBesides, it`s good strategy for atheism to get involved in charity and serve as an alterative to the religious community in these matters.
Humanitarianism is a better word than atheism in this context. Take for example the International Red Cross - it is neither explicitly religious, nor atheist, it is just humanitarian. Calling charities "atheist" is misleading, confusing, and not even accurate.
ReplyDeleteYour point could be better made by encouraging "non-religious" organizations. A much safer and accurate definition. Just saying.
Can nicely write on similar topics! Welcome to here you'll find out how it should look. network for good donate now
ReplyDelete