 |
Comments |
|
 | Monday, February 9, 2009 at 2:34:30 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Jeremy
E-mail: jws45(at)comcast.net
Dr. Dobson: “…it comes from the Constitution, you know, it says that we’re endowed by the creator with certain inalienable rights.” This is a man who should know that the Constitution does not contain any such statement. |
|
| Monday, February 9, 2009 at 7:05:24 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
True, the Constitution makes no mention of any deity. In any case, I remember when this law was passed. It was widely ridiculed and expected not to survive court challenges. It passed mostly because no one wanted to stir up too much controversy in an election year by voting against it. |
|
| Monday, February 9, 2009 at 7:54:24 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: John Drake
E-mail: tryreason(at)gmail.com
URL: http://trhome.blogspot.com
Great post Greg. It did not take long for me to become annoyed with Glenn Beck when I first saw him a month ago. He's been spouting off the same religious gibberish then and now.
Unfortunately, Beck's comments confuse many moderate Christians into thinking the atheists are out to get them. |
|
| Monday, February 9, 2009 at 8:14:03 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Optimizer
E-mail: francis.stanley(at)ngc.com
Beck is one of two news/commentary shows I can stomach - except when he starts talking religion, when I get angry and just have to turn the channel. But I can't catch him any more 'cause he's on too early.
I'm not sure anybody would call me an "Objectivist", but I think I need to memorize that Rand quote.
Religionists are always playing the victim. Whenever they're not allowed to put their stamp of religion on the government they cry that their "freedom of religion" is being denied. It's hilarious how many churches on the proverbial "public square" don't bother with a public Nativity scene, but there will be people who are DETERMINED to put one up in front of City Hall - in order to be free to "practice their religion". Right, sure...
I could stand to do a little better on the arguments for "morality without religion", too. I think I did decently in an online discussion the other day, but would like to be sharper. People are taught that "morality comes from God" at such a young age that when they are grown up they don't even realize ho wthey have been programmed.
I don't think Beck is being intentionally deceitful. There are powerful psychological processes at play that make people believe even the most insane of things - if it will protect their psyche from things they are afraid of. For a start, religion is used in the systematic denial of death. Reasonably, people are pretty afraid of death, and so they want to cling to something that will help them deny that death is the permanent, brutal, ugly thing that we all know it to be. They desperately repeat the denial over and over and then demand that others concur in an attempt to validate their own denial. |
|
| Monday, February 9, 2009 at 9:31:12 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Daniel
URL: http://thenearbypen.blogspot.com
This was actually a good strategy by the mystics. After all, the religionists on the right are well aware of the hell that liberals have made of the public school system. As long as they could get a "moment of silence" to be mandated, it was a good guess that students would use it to ask a god to save them from the boredom!
***
More seriously, although I think the belief in a supernatural being is completely arbitrary, I completely understand the anger Beck expresses here. It comes from experiencing injustice--on a huge scale.
Beck works hard, has strongly held convictions, and he is forced to pay taxes. Those taxes are then used to support and advance ideas which he personally finds abonimable. Leaving aside the rationality or irrationality of any specific conclusions he may have, he has every right to not want to support different ideas than his own and to be flabbergasted that any and every idea except for even remotely religious ones are supported with his money.
This is the true evil of government-run schools. They necessarily have to teach some ideas, and since all minds do not think alike, people are compelled to support with their hard-earned dollars the perpetuation of ideas with they disagree (and perhaps strongly so). Unsurprisingly, this causes society to splinter up into groups--each pushing their own agenda--and it leads to increasing hatred against those outside.
Note: this is exactly what the "separation of church and state" was meant to avoid. Going to the root of the issue, I think any rational activist should not waste time arguing whether this subject or that one should be taught. Rather, acknowledge the anger expressed by any one group, point out that they should be outraged that their hard-earned money is funding ideas they abhor, and state the solution: get the government out of the realm of ideas completely.
This means a widening of the famous abstraction to include all ideas--whether religious or secular. It means that we should not narrowly focus on the attempts by the religious to use the force of government to support their ideas but actively support the view that such an activity is wrong no matter the group, no matter the idea, and no matter the purpose.
What we need is a new concept and a new goal--the complete separation of the state from the realm of ideas--and we need to build this up at every possible chance, using every instance of injustice to point out just how immoral and impractical the current system is. In time, a good many people will agree with us. Because people of intelligence still exist. And we are right.
|
|
| Monday, February 9, 2009 at 10:17:03 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Daniel said: "What we need is a new concept and a new goal--the complete separation of the state from the realm of ideas--and we need to build this up at every possible chance, using every instance of injustice to point out just how immoral and impractical the current system is."
I know what you mean, but the formulation of "the complete separation of the state from the realm of ideas" is seriously misleading. It implies a libertarian conception of the relation of government to ideas, i.e. subjectivism. (I got corrected on this point not too long ago by none other than Onkar Ghate.) Undoubtedly, the government has no business promoting certain ideas over others -- as it does in government schools. However, a proper government is not ideologically neutral: it enforces certain ideas about justice and rights. In so doing, it is enforcing a certain kind of moral code. |
|
| Monday, February 9, 2009 at 10:31:05 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Andrew Dalton
E-mail: andrew.s.dalton(at)gmail.com
URL: http://witchdoctorrepellent.blogspot.com
"Going to the root of the issue, I think any rational activist should not waste time arguing whether this subject or that one should be taught. Rather, acknowledge the anger expressed by any one group, point out that they should be outraged that their hard-earned money is funding ideas they abhor, and state the solution: get the government out of the realm of ideas completely."
I don't consider such an effort "wasted" if it has the practical effect of keeping the public schools, bad as they are, from becoming an even more active enemy of reason.
Even if our culture improves, the public school system is going to be with us for quite a while. Changing the school system will require a change in the culture, but changing the culture for the better may be a lost cause if we cede the battle for children's minds to the Discovery Institute and other pushers of irrationalism. To fight for reason in the long term, there are some short-term battles that we cannot avoid. |
|
| Monday, February 9, 2009 at 11:37:32 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Daniel
URL: http://thenearbypen.blogspot.com
"I know what you mean, but the formulation of 'the complete separation of the state from the realm of ideas' is seriously misleading. It implies a libertarian conception of the relation of government to ideas, i.e. subjectivism ... Undoubtedly, the government has no business promoting certain ideas over others -- as it does in government schools. However, a proper government is not ideologically neutral: it enforces certain ideas about justice and rights. In so doing, it is enforcing a certain kind of moral code."
Diane:
I agree with the latter point you make, that a proper government is not ideologically neutral and that it enforces certain ideas about justice and rights. But within the context that the formulation was plucked from, isn't that clear? In the same sentence, I pointed out the same thing about justice and rights, only in reverse (that the current system is both unjust and immoral).
I will have to come back to the subject tomorrow (it's very late where I am now), but I think anything can appear wrong and libertarian if taken out of context. For example, "We should have a complete separation of state and economics" is part of an Ayn Rand quote. Taken by itself, though, the implication could be that the government is not involved in enforcing economic contracts, solving disputes that may arise from them, and so on.
I am not too familiar with libertarian thought, but this actually sounds like some stuff they might agree with. In any case, the problem in this latter example is not with the formulation but with taking it out of context and trying to apply it like a commandment. Again, I'll have to come back to my own formulation tomorrow--perhaps it's the "from" (ah, but I won't speculate out loud before going to sleep). |
|
| Monday, February 9, 2009 at 12:14:48 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Richard
Beck is normally a decent host with some good points. This is where my respect for him abruptly ends, whenever he deals with religion or panders to southern conservatives. One moment he'll be making a valid economic or political point, the next he'll be contradicting himself talking religion or yapping with some schmuck country musician. The latter is fairly insufferable. He'll often feature the downright horrible Ben Stein as well. In any case I see he's found an appropriate home at Fox "news" now. |
|
| Monday, February 9, 2009 at 12:42:11 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
Optimizer writes:
"Religionists are always playing the victim."
Yes they are. They got that straight out of the Left's playbook of elevating "victimhood" into a kind of class privilege.
Optimizer once more:
"I could stand to do a little better on the arguments for "morality without religion", too. I think I did decently in an online discussion the other day, but would like to be sharper. People are taught that "morality comes from God" at such a young age that when they are grown up they don't even realize ho wthey have been programmed."
The counter-weapon I use, is to point out that when a religionist declares that without God, there is no morality, he is confessing that *he himself* sees no reason to be moral -- that without orders from an imaginary friend in the sky, he would act like an animal.
If they attempt to argue from the underlying "Original Sin" premise (that all humans are animals without God), I just tell them "speak for yourself, buster".
The most sophisticated ones will directly invoke the "is-ought" dichotomy underlying all that. My answer to that is that I derive "ought" from "is" every day, in the course of living -- so that barrier is their problem, an artifact of bad ideas on their part.
Notice that all of these are a package of two false premises: "innate ideas" and the is-ought dichotomy. Genetic determinism, Original Sin, the "moral defectiveness" of (animal) human nature -- all of these are ultimately that same nasty package of willfull error.
I also believe that the Founding Fathers actually did implicitly derive the *ought* (of how a government ought to be constituted) from the *is* (of "natural rights"); that means that the founding of this country stands as a direct refutation of a key premise sustaining religion (and conservatism) today. I'm a little less certain of that one, however; I'd like someday to try grounding that idea further with those who are more expert in such matters than I.
Diana: Regarding government establishment in the realm of ideas: I'd be interested in seeing what Dr. Ghate said. My take on that idea is that in the same manner that the government should be constrained to a narrow field of *action* -- that of securing individual rights -- it should be similarly confined to a narrow field of *thought*: it stands for and enforces the principle of individual rights. Outside of that narrowly defined field, complete separation of State from ideas *and* action should be absolute; from religion to economics to philosophy, those things should be entirely private.
I came to that position when considering such things as communes and other attempts by private individuals to implement their own ideas about social organization. The government would forbid compulsion in such communities; every individual retains his right to set terms of participation, or to walk away. Beyond that, such communes are otherwise free to organize and function as they please. |
|
| Monday, February 9, 2009 at 12:56:22 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
Whoops, those last two paragraphs are addressing Greg, not Diana. |
|
| Monday, February 9, 2009 at 14:00:29 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: Mel McGuire
I agree with Andrew Dalton (#7).
The Christian Nation bunch are working 24/7 to make government at all levels the mouthpiece of religion. Evidence: auto license plates, Ten Commandments resolutions and rocks, Bible literacy in the public schools, creationism in the public schools. If the wall-of-separation is seriously breached, the ideas found in the public schools won't be so abhorrent to the religious and altruism would dominate the discussion. The nutters will be more than happy to be "outraged that their hard-earned money is funding ideas they abhor" so long as it serves their purpose (it takes a non-altruist philosophy to make such an idea really stick across the culture.). And BTW, the idea has already been discovered; it was used in Florida last year to argue for an "academic freedom" addition to Florida's new science standard--well regarded by scientists). (As I recall, there is already a religious group that wants the government out of education although I've forgotten the details.) We have an important legal tool in the separation of church and state and it must be used everywhere. While I support the advocacy (now, and with the right reasons) of getting the government out of education, I really don't support whispering things in religious ears which will only be picked up as hacks to further their anti-reason movement. So, I support efforts to keep religion out of the public schools and out of regulations; I see no way to use the Christion Nation movement as a Trojan Horse for an Objectivist society.
(On Superbowl weekend, I joined an effort to get the president of the University of Vermont to not give an Honorary Degree and a commencement address invitation to that loathsome Ben Stein. I feel some pride in the fact that it was a successful effort; Ben Stein won't be able to crow about an Honorary Degree from UVM.)
Separation of ideas and the state.
While ideas have to be used to build the government and to defend or oppose legislation, that's quite different from teaching those ideas via government power. An official can say "1 + 1 = 2" while supporting a new law but he shouldn't be able to teach that "1 + 1 = 2". I'd support the Constitution of a free society but I would oppose--for example--attempts by government to publish books defending that same Constitution. Let the people create the ideas and let government protect that right.
The future?
This country is 90-95% religious and almost entirely altruist. The only significant challenge to religion now is the New Atheism which is philosophically bankrupt and quite altruist. The best I hope for is that the New Atheists will make religion way more controversial and slow down the building of God's Kingdom. As for a new Enlightenment from the New Atheists, forget it. |
|
| Tuesday, February 10, 2009 at 1:12:16 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: Daniel
URL: http://thenearbypen.blogspot.com
Andrew:
You made a good point about it not being a "waste of time" to argue the specifics with regards to content here--and I clarified this issue in a comment on my blog which I'll paste below:
"It's not necessarily a 'waste of time' to argue about what is being taught in schools. However, within this context, these are non-fundamental issues. As there are plenty of people to argue specfics, and time is limited, I think those who understand the fundamentals should focus on them first--and then move on (to more specific issues) if time permits and the motivation exists."
Diana:
I still think the formulation is by itself harmless--but the point you make is crucially important, and I added the following clarification at my blog as well:
"The formulation I used of a 'separation of state and ideas' does not mean that I think the government should be idea-neutral. Instead, a proper government is based on and enforces certain ideas--chief among them that man is a being with certain inalienable rights that no person or group of people may justly abrogate. Precisely because of this, the government can not make one step in supporting any one idea--within educational, health, or scientific establishments. To do that, is to deny another person's rights--and thus to become an instrument of injustice (for whoever controls the government, at whatever time)."
I think both this issue and the formulation of the "separation of state and economics" actually show the importance of understanding the foundation of freedom. Both are correct in terms of what they state, but without understanding the issue of rights one cannot hope to apply them correctly (or advocate the type of government that will).
Jim/Optimizer:
The religious are playing the victims no doubt--as is everybody today--and for good reasons. I think it is appropriate to acknowledge the truth, that they indeed are victims of an unjust system that forces them to support ideas they abhor. That done, a rational activist can then go on to state the deeper truth: that it's just as wrong for them to try to impose their ideas on others and that the only way for the injustice to end is to get the government out of the field of ideas completely.
|
|
| Tuesday, February 10, 2009 at 2:15:25 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: i2aymond
E-mail: n2vada(at)hotmail.com
This problem could be cleared up if all of the schools were privatized. Then if the Christian parents wanted to send their children to a school that teaches the Earth is 6000 years old and praying every hour on the hour is mandatory no atheist would have to pay for it.
Furthermore if atheist parents wanted to send their children to schools that claim evolution is a sound theory and there is no flying spaghetti monster causing gravity no Christian could have a reason to complain.
This would create a true market place of ideas outside the realm of government control.
As it is this country is a madhouse.
I'm really surprised no one brought this free market approach up. Most of you seem content to wrestle over public school curriculum with Christians and to force evolution and other scientific ideas down their throats.
You may as well start advocating taxing churches because you already advocate taxing Christians. There can be no separation of church and state because there can be no separation of morality and politics. It is a failed dream. |
|
| Tuesday, February 10, 2009 at 5:37:23 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: Greg Perkins
E-mail: greg(at)eCosmos.com
URL: http://dianahsieh.com/blog
i2aymond writes, "This problem could be cleared up if all of the schools were privatized. ... I'm really surprised no one brought this free market approach up. Most of you seem content to wrestle over public school curriculum with Christians and to force evolution and other scientific ideas down their throats."
i2aymond, you seem to have chimed in without reading my article or the others' comments.
In fact, I highlighted the inherent rights-violating thuggery of "taking money from taxpayers by force to fund schools students are compelled to attend" and went on to make that point: "if we didn't have government schools that people are forced to fund and required to attend, then this would be a non-issue. Don't like your school's policy regarding religious indoctrination? No rights violation there, and you're free to find or form another school." And others' comments above reflect general understanding of and sympathy with this.
Beck and Dobson likewise seemed eager to rush in, speaking from ignorance and posing as victims. What, is it something in the wine? |
|
| Tuesday, February 10, 2009 at 8:01:12 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Daniel said, "I still think the formulation is by itself harmless--but the point you make is crucially important."
Upon reflection -- particularly thinking about the meaning of the "separation of economics and state," I think you're right about that. |
|
| Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at 19:26:35 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: wayne smith
Greg, those statements Ayn Rand made regarding the rights of men are all subjective statements, not statements of objective fact. If you disagree please say why. |
|
| Thursday, February 12, 2009 at 2:39:09 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: i2aymond
E-mail: n2vada(at)hotmail.com
Excuse me Mr. Perkins, in my previous post I commented without fully reading your article and assumed your means and ends would be consistent. I was wrong on both accounts in many ways.
Your article is a mess. You start out claiming Beck is posing as a victim and behold in the rest of it you make the case for him being a victim. Not just him but everyone who is “forced to fund and required to attend” the state schools. He is not just a victim of “the government” he is a victim of atheists who are ramming atheistic ideas down the throats of children. Like you?
Where you and I differ is you think the state is doing well in one area, keeping the curriculum atheistic, maintaining that separation, this suits you and because it does you blank out that they are achieving this through force. If America were 100% Christian you would still be advocating state sponsored atheistic education, force feeding evolution to the children of parents who disagree with it or even think it is a lie. Which is an obvious violation of their rights as you define them. Again I have to say it, separation of church and state is a dream.
I guess I shouldn’t complain that you assume I’m a Christian because then we would both fall into a well of hypocrisy but anyway I don't drink wine with Beck or Dobson. |
|
| Thursday, February 12, 2009 at 10:21:50 mst
Comment ID: #19
Name: Andrew Dalton
E-mail: andrew.s.dalton(at)gmail.com
URL: http://witchdoctorrepellent.blogspot.com
Wayne -
If you have a disagreement with the Objectivist theory of rights, then please be more specific. It's not enough to assert that rights are subjective; the Objectivist theory denies this and has a reason for doing so.
i2aymond -
"If America were 100% Christian you would still be advocating state sponsored atheistic education, force feeding evolution to the children of parents who disagree with it or even think it is a lie."
You ought to understand your opponent's position rather than inventing it. I'm 100% certain that Greg does not advocate "state sponsored" anything besides those few legitimate functions directed towards protecting individual rights (police, courts, and military).
The Objectivist view toward creationism in public schools is that even though we have the injustice of government-run education today, we must not compound that injustice by using this government institution to promote the sky-wizard mythology of a nomadic Bronze Age tribe. |
|
| Thursday, February 12, 2009 at 10:35:54 mst
Comment ID: #20
Name: Greg Perkins
E-mail: greg(at)eCosmos.com
URL: http://dianahsieh.com/blog
Hi, i2aymond.
Sorry for the confusion. I'll try to clarify a bit:
1. As an Objectivist -- someone who understands and defends individual rights -- I absolutely reject government schools. Government schools should not exist because they are inherently rights-violating and destructive to human life. Education is not among the proper functions of government at any level, period.
2. As an Objectivist -- someone who understands and defends individual rights -- I absolutely uphold the separation of church and state. The state should leave people free to explore ideas and lead their lives as they wish, including leaving them free to adhere to goofy mystical ideas that lead to immoral and self-destructive behavior -- but only so long as such behavior doesn't violate the individual rights of others. So, people should be left free to worship their sky-god and follow his dietary and sexual regulations or whatever; but they shouldn't be left free to follow his instructions to smite the heretic next door.
3. I'm for minimizing damage wherever possible. So given the choice between (a) the rights violation of government schools, and (b) the rights violation of government schools COMPOUNDED WITH the mixing of church and state, I will urge the former to limit the badness. That is the alternative being addressed in the court decision and response.
4. Certainly, given the choice between (a) the rights violation of government schools *with or without* the mixing of church and state, and (b) no government schools at all, I will fight for the latter -- and that is what my parenthetical note was signaling. Perhaps I should have given that angle more weight, but then this was only a quick rant focused on Beck and Dobson's response to the decision, and I don't mind clarifying things in these comments.
Regarding my "mess": you are equivocating regarding victimhood: Beck was posing as a victim *regarding anti-prayer behavior being forced down believers' throats* while claiming believers don't do that to nonbelievers. Well, he has it exactly backwards. Aside from observing that, I noted the more fundamental fact that we are all (including Beck) victims *regarding the rights violation inherent in establishing government schools*. Beck was not posing as a victim in the latter regard and I never indicated otherwise (heck, I would be mildly surprised if he even understood that he and we all are victims in such fundamental terms).
Finally, I am curious: Why do you characterize evolution as atheistic? Is the heliocentric theory of the solar system likewise atheistic in your eyes? Is the atomic theory of matter? Each of these is of course secular in origin, arising from scientists' use of worldly reason -- so is this what makes their being taught in government schools examples of shoving atheist ideas down peoples' throats? I have to note that the majority of scientists who accept and uphold evolution, heliocentrism, and the atomic theory of matter would evidently not agree, because the majority of them are theistic. Heliocentrism used to draw the ire of religious folks, but that seems to have passed and it isn't being decried by churchgoers today. Might believers' view of evolution similarly evolve? |
|
| Thursday, February 12, 2009 at 13:47:43 mst
Comment ID: #21
Name: wayne smith
Andrew (or Greg), what is the reason that Objectivism denies that rights are subjective? For example, if I say that each and every individual has a right to pursue their own happiness, how is that anything more than my subjective value judgement? That's what I'm asking. |
|
| Thursday, February 12, 2009 at 17:16:16 mst
Comment ID: #22
Name: Greg Perkins
E-mail: greg(at)eCosmos.com
URL: http://dianahsieh.com/blog
Hi, Wayne. Objectivism denies that rights are subjective because rights have an objective basis in maintaining the fundamental conditions for men to live on earth among other men. Respect for rights means leaving men free to pursue the values necessary to support their lives. There's no room for subjectivism in this: The distinction between living and dying is not subjective; the difference between those things which support a man's life and those things that destroy his life is not subjective; the contrast between being his being free to identify and pursue those things which support his life and his being prevented from doing so is not subjective.
That's just a quick gloss, though, and I don't want to try to lay out the entire Objectivist ethics and politics here in the comments -- if you would like pointers to the full presentations that would suit your needs best, please let us know!
Well, here's one link that might be entertaining, where I address the objectivity of values and morality: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/06/why-new-atheists-cant-even-b ... (It has some nice references to follow up with at the bottom, too.)
|
|
| Thursday, February 12, 2009 at 18:35:37 mst
Comment ID: #23
Name: wayne smith
Thank you, Greg. I'll chew on that for awhile. |
|
| Friday, February 13, 2009 at 19:12:56 mst
Comment ID: #24
Name: Kevin Clark
Greg asks:
"Finally, I am curious: Why do you characterize evolution as atheistic?"
I can't answer for i2aymond but I have read a number of Christian/Theist apologists respond to this question. The answer that seems to arise the most is that the consistent Christian believes that science has its place and is useful, say for studying electro-magnatism. But, they will add, science is useless for *origins*; ie for describing the origin of life, the origin of consciousness, or the origin of the universe. For that a theistic explanation is mandatory, so the argument goes. So, evolutionary biology, which they contemptuously call "Darwinianism," must be essentially atheistic because it denies a theistic explanation for the origins of life. This all nonsense of course, but its a popular position amongst theists.
The origin of the universe of course can't be described by science as there is no origin. Existence is an axiom. But theists don't accept the Objectivist axioms. For them, God is their only axiom. This is how Presuppositionalist apologetics proceed at least.
Science can describe the origins of species and the origins of consciousness but the theist lumps those two with the origin of the universe itself in order to confuse the issue. Its always smoke and mirrors with theists. |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Greg Perkins
Comments
