Neil Degrass Tyson is just as religious as the Muslim Fundamentalist (which all Muslims should be). He makes claims to freedom and freedom of choice when it comes to changing one’s gender, saying things like “why do we have to get involved” (Ben Shekelpiros Interview), disregarding the data on the diseases that spread because of their actions, along with the children that are abused growing up in single-sex households for example. Even with abortion, what happens to the child’s right?
But no, when it comes to the vaccine, the social contract is why we must obey (i.e., we give up our rights to allow the state to impose upon us certain things so that we can maintain each other’s safety), but this is all based on a technocratic system which the libertarian hates, rightfully so. There is an alternative to this over-arching, all-viewing state we live under. And that alternative is religion-based authority, in that it promotes/forms natural ties of kin to do the bidding of rooting out evils from a community.
Public shaming, or systems that protect the environment at a local level, would be in place. This bottom-up system, where the ability of the community to shame, for example, was a righteous act, thus preventing its spread, allowed the government to function in the things it needed to do, like build roads, and protect the people from outside threats. However, today, the government is entangled in so much of our lives, more than any system of government has in the past.
Partly due to the rise in the technocratic state and the rise of the surveillance system (but this was required because of the libertarian’s unfettered individualism in response to the authoritarian state), in which you are parking on the side of the road, blocking your neighbors, would now have to be punished by the government, rather than your kin coming together and shaming you for it, or your father warning you about it and solving it at a local level, thus preventing the need of state intervention and these other institutions that are formed as a direct result of it (i.e., our neglecting of private duties that was once enforced upon a nation, not by the government, but by the one who created them).
This goes into so many other issues like the tax system, in which now you have to pay 20-40 percent of your taxes because you have to pay for these institutions of single motherhood, drug prevention centers, mental asylums, nursing homes, and daycare centers. If only people understood they have duties, and it’s up to them to decide whether they want to be forced by a government system to pay or go to jail if they don’t abide by the laws of “the social contract.” or be shunned by their family, or community, for not following an ethic engrained in our psyche, like, the love for yourself what you love for others. This is all enforced by the teachings of religion, particularly Islam, where God talks to man directly, telling him to be just, for example. This type of slavery creates the most conducive societies, not just for the reasons mentioned above, but now, I don’t have an issue paying 2.5 percent of my wealth, for example, to feed people experiencing poverty. I think people are distraught by how selfish people are today, and reflections over the 9/11 period of how people came together for a common cause were so telling on how much the West is in need of a higher belief system, an existential purpose, in which they can come together on.
So, this unfettered individualism is self-defeating, as it will inevitably require the authoritarian state to impose upon the people to maintain any order it could.
Essentially, what he is saying is that we are no different than any authoritarian religious state, but while the spiritual state has guidelines that the public will have access to now and a thousand years from now, with us, we can interpret the date however we’d like, to suit our narratives. (and for those who think scientists are void of biases, which impact the results of the findings they give to the public, thus impacting how it affects the public. How the scientific data is interpreted is just as malleable as the Christians who used the bible to justify the insurrections of the Muslims and Jews. Unfortunately, he is using the guise of science and “an objective viewpoint” to justify his biases, which are his leanings towards the left wing.
I’m in full support of a religious authority; I think Neil just laid out the reality of the Western world that people like David weren’t aware of in the guise of “America being the country of free speech.” It’s not; it is when it aligns with its objectives. This is the case with any government. This shows anyone the superiority of an Islamic government, as we have access to the oral tradition and can easily differentiate what is truth and falsehood when assessing the actions of our government, as their actions are to be guided by the book we all have access to.
Furthermore, religious institutions are in favor of natural human intuitions, like kinship ties and traditional gender roles, that are being destroyed today, therefore leading to dependence on the government, which the libertarian is against but is promoting its no allegiance to any burden. Thus, the most natural kind of burden would be from one’s creator, and a shared basis, whether it be race, language, ethnicity, family, or blood, all create bonds of kinship. The highest of them all is religion. It has no bounds because those in the run-down alleys of Brooklyn to Manhattan’s Upper East Side have access to it. It imposes specific duties on us that otherwise the government would, because of our dependence on the state, be required to replace the “burdens” placed on us by our religion (i.e., being grateful to one’s parents, maintaining a division between the sexes, maintaining blood ties).