Religion, yes. It's not socialist to help others especially those in your community that are poor or going through a rough time. It is your responsibility to do so, in fact. Personally. Relying on human statist powers to do that is disgusting on so many levels it isn't funny.
Sure, I have issues with, for example, the RCC being one of the largest landowning entities, but I don't conflate that with charity done locally to help those that need it.
Replies (2)
But religion requires it. I’ll help when I want to not because I’m forced to. Your cope sounds just like libtard socialists.
Saying religion requires it is like saying decency requires it. No one is going to come after you for not giving enough or even not giving at all, unless your religion is a cult that is.
Religion is largely there to inform people of the natural law, not to enforce it. The nice thing about the natural law is that it is self-enforcing. If you don't want to run a foul of it, it is nice to have some guides.
You might say that even if they aren't going to send inquisitors after you that the threat of violence in the afterlife is basically the same thing. Using psychological harm to enforce compliance.
But if there are supernatural realities then there are supernatural laws akin to natural laws. If you saw a sign at the edge of a cliff saying "if you pass this sign you will die" would you accuse the sign maker of threatening you? Death is simply a natural consequence of sudden deceleration.
Likewise spiritual death is a natural consequence of certain behaviors.
Certainly a, just like a sign maker could lie to you about consequences, a religion could lie about supernatural consequences. But the reason the lie works is because it is adjacent to the truth.
