When Berkman's team asked about the teachers' personal beliefs, about the same number, 16% of the total, said they believed human beings had been created by God within the last 10,000 years.
And what do science teachers actually teach in the classroom?
Despite a court-ordered ban on the teaching of creationism in US schools, about one in eight high-school biology teachers still teach it as valid science, a survey reveals. And, although almost all teachers also taught evolution, those with less training in science – and especially evolutionary biology – tend to devote less class time to Darwinian principles.
...[A] quarter of the teachers also reported spending at least some time teaching about creationism or intelligent design. Of these, 48% – about 12.5% of the total survey – said they taught it as a "valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species".
I find it deeply disturbing that an American child's only formal exposure to one of the fundamental principle of modern biological science may come from a government school teacher who is willing to let his own personal religious beliefs bias his portrayal of the facts.
Rocky Twyman has a radical solution for surging gasoline prices: prayer.
Twyman -- a community organizer, church choir director and public relations consultant from the Washington, D.C., suburbs -- staged a pray-in at a San Francisco Chevron station on Friday, asking God for cheaper gas. He did the same thing in the nation's Capitol on Wednesday, with volunteers from a soup kitchen joining in. Today he will lead members of an Oakland church in prayer.
Yes, it's come to that.
"God is the only one we can turn to at this point," said Twyman, 59. "Our leaders don't seem to be able to do anything about it. The prices keep soaring and soaring."
Gas prices have been driven relentlessly higher this year by the bull market for crude oil, gasoline's main ingredient. A gallon of regular now costs $3.89, on average, in California, while the national average has hit $3.58.
To solve the problem, Twyman isn't begging the Lord for any specific act of intervention. He is not asking God to make OPEC pump more oil. Nor is he praying for all the speculative investors to be purged from the New York Mercantile Exchange, where crude oil is traded. Instead, he says anyone who wants to follow his example should keep it simple. "God, deliver us from these high gas prices," Twyman said. "That's all they have to say."
Ah yes, giving recommendations to God would be the sin of pride, I suppose.
However, as an omniscient being, God must be already perfectly aware of the high price of gas. As an omnipotent being, he must be capable of lowering gas prices. Since he's all-benevolent, he wouldn't allow gas prices to remain as they are if that was an evil. Ergo, high gas prices must be all for the best.
Why the New Atheists Can't Even Beat D'Souza: The Best and Worst in Human History By Greg Perkins @ 12:10 AM
In the firefight between Christian apologist Dinesh D'Souza and "New Atheists" such as Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris, the New Atheists are suffering serious damage. The tragedy is that D'Souza wouldn't stand a snowball's chance if they had a strong philosophical grounding.
For example, several of the New Atheists point to the Inquisition and Crusades and Witch Trials of early Christianity, the deadly Jihad waged in the name of Islam today, and so on—and D'Souza agrees this is a terrible toll that religion is responsible for. But he goes on to argue that when you actually look at the numbers, this responsibility is minuscule in comparison to the slaughter of over 100 million by the atheistic regimes of the 20th century. So he contends it is obvious that "Atheism, not religion, is responsible for the mass murders of history."
This point has devastated the New Atheists. They try to defuse it by arguing for some causal association between religion and those bloody regimes: if not explicitly by talking about the Catholicism in Hitler and Nazi Germany, then implicitly by gesturing to a "religious mindset" or some other vague influence of religion. But discussion of the Catholic connection to Hitler and Nazi Germany quickly turns into a back-and-forth of citations from competing historical experts. And while the dust is swirling over whether religion might be connected to that one part of 20th Century totalitarianism, D'Souza points to the explicitly godless Communist regimes. The New Atheists have been reduced to weakly objecting that the Crusades and Inquisition were done "in the name of" Christianity, while Communism and Nazism weren't done in the name of atheism—but given all the references that can be made to those regimes' explicit work to eradicate God, this approach is not convincing. The New Atheists are struggling because they aren't able to frame the issue properly.
What Atheism Isn't
First, consider that atheism is not itself an ideology; there is no such thing as an "atheist mindset" or an "atheist movement." Atheism per se hasn't inspired and doesn't lead to anything in particular because it is an effect—not a cause—and there are countless reasons for a person to not believe in God, ranging from vicious to innocent to noble. The newborn baby lacks a belief in God, as does the Postmodern Nihilist, the Communist, and the Objectivist—but each for entirely different reasons having dramatically different implications. So lumping all of these together under the "atheist" label as if that were a meaningful connection is profoundly confused. Yet this is exactly what the New Atheists do and encourage: they talk about how there are so many atheists out there, and advocate their banding together into an atheist community to seek fellowship, foster cultural change, build a political voice, and so on.[1] But what would a committed Communist and an Objectivist have in common—regarding what they do believe, why they believe it, how that leads them to live personally, the sort of social system they would strive for in government? Nothing. They are polar opposites in principle and practice, across the philosophical board.
The New Atheists can't rebuff D'Souza because he is actually following their own lead to associate them with brutal totalitarian regimes. And worse, that confusion makes it difficult to see the fundamental cause of the misery and bloodshed found across all of those failures of humanity—from the early Christian Crusades and Inquisition, through the 20th Century totalitarian regimes, up to the Islamic theocracies in the Middle East today. The important contrast is not atheism vs. religion, but rather rationality vs. irrationality.
The Wages of Irrationality
All of that bloodshed is a result of people rejecting reason as the way to do business in reality—which means rejecting our only means of peaceful and productive coexistence. Operating in the realm of reason, people are oriented to the facts, their means of dealing with one another is persuasion, and reality is the court of final appeal when there is disagreement. Take scientists, for example: necessarily focused on reason and reality, they resolve their scientific disputes with logic and by reference to facts. We don't find them fragmenting into sects and breaking out into violence over their disagreements. Indeed, just the opposite happens: the body of scientific knowledge converges over time as disagreements are sorted out and facts are acknowledged. Their successes and this convergence don't come from the use of guns and clubs, but from a commitment to reason and reality, facts and logic.
While it is easy to see brutes in totalitarian regimes reaching for a gun rather than peacefully persuading free minds, the connection to force may not be so obvious in the case of people of faith. Yet just as reason and freedom go together, so do their antagonists, faith and force. As Ayn Rand observed, "every period of history dominated by mysticism, was a period of statism, of dictatorship, of tyranny"—and she underscored this shared rejection of reason in identifying the two as species of the same basic animal: the brutes as "mystics of muscle," and the faithful as "mystics of spirit." To see how religious faith plays into the use of force, consider theologians in contrast to the scientists discussed above. Here we find ever-expanding divergence and fragmentation in their body of thought—just notice how religions and the denominations within them have multiplied through history. And we don't see believers resolving disagreements over their articles of faith by persuasion and reference to the facts of reality—whether it is Muslims vs. Christians, Catholics vs. Protestants, Baptists vs. Mormons, or one part of a congregation breaking away from another. This is because articles of faith aren't based on a grasp of the facts of reality, and so they can't be explained or defended by references to the facts of reality. Since people of faith can't resolve such differences using facts and rational persuasion, they are left with only one alternative: force.
Having it Both Ways
Besides trying to tar his opponents with the worst atrocities in history, D'Souza regularly tries to give Christianity credit for mankind's positive strides. For instance, he argues in an op-ed that "Christianity has illuminated the greatest achievements of the culture" such as the rise of science, human rights, equality for women and minorities, ending slavery, and so forth. That "when you examine history you find that all of these values came into the world because of Christianity." He contrasts Christianity and atheism, saying that these advances arrived in Christendom and by the hands of Christians—not atheists. And he uses this to score extra points in debate by asking his opponents what atheism has to offer humanity, other than the chance to undermine all that progress.
Once again, such a comparison is fundamentally confused. Recall that atheism is not itself an ideology and therefore doesn't lead people to do anything in particular—good or bad. So again we need to approach the issue in terms that will actually shed some light. The illuminating question to consider is: What does reason offer humanity over faith?
Here we see a striking contrast. Every discovery, every invention, every new idea that guided every step we have taken up from the poor, nasty, brutish, and short lives of those who came before has been made possible by one thing: thinking. Revelation never delivered a vaccine or explained the rainbow. Faith never designed a building or fed a baby. Submission to authority never discovered a better social organization or put a man on the moon. The power of this-worldly reason did.
Even the broadest strokes of history make this clear: Mankind stagnated for a thousand years through the Dark Ages while the Christian faith reigned supreme. Then what changed? Mankind started to believe that this world matters and that we are worthy and capable of living in it. The suffocating grip of faith and otherworldliness began to loosen as more people turned to reason and reality, and the West clawed its way from darkness into the Renaissance and Enlightenment. It took this-worldly thinking to discover the methods of science—not scripture and revelation, which had been present for millennia. It took free minds aimed at the task of living on earth to ignite the Industrial Revolution and the Information Revolution, and to deliver every bounty in the explosion of progress that followed—not prayer and intercession, which have been with us for all time.
Correlation isn't causation. Obviously, long-standing Christianity only accommodated the relatively recent changes that unleashed minds brought while its overwhelming authority eroded. We were delivered from the Christian Dark Ages despite Christianity, not because of it. Countless lives were made shorter and more miserable by its cruel stranglehold—and how much higher would we be flying now without its dead weight?
The New Atheists haven't been able to slam-dunk D'Souza because they lack the objective philosophical perspective necessary to penetrate to the core of these issues. In this case, their struggles reveal a failure to genuinely appreciate how religion is not itself the fundamental problem—irrationality is. Religion constitutes just one form of unreason, and the only thing that makes it particularly noteworthy and dangerous is that it has at its heart an explicit, committed, philosophical attack on reason: extolling faith as a virtue.
Sam Harris stands out as an exception to advocating atheists banding together under the atheist banner, though his rejection of the label appears to be more of a pragmatic move to avoid troublesome connotations than a principled avoidance of the basic mistake it represents.
With Friends Like These . . . By Paula @ 12:59 AM
I frequent a blog called The Panda's Thumb, which keeps track of the dastardly intelligent design movement. Reading some recent entries on that blog led me to look up what some recognized cultural standard-bearers of atheism, such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, are actually saying.
So, if you're at all interested, read "The Atheism FAQ with Richard Dawkins" -- and weep. His answers to challenges to atheism are often clever, but they focus on non-essentials. And sometimes, they are downright pernicious. The most egregious, in my opinion (poor grammar and typos in original):
Q. Religious people claim they derive their morality from religion. Where from an atheist derive his morality?
A. . . . We derive our morality from the environment we live in, Talk shows, Novels, Newspaper editorials and of course by the guidance of parents. . . . An atheist derives his morality from the same source as a religious people do.
Q. In your book, you've said that God 'almost certainly' does not exist. Why are you leaving open the possibility?
A. Any scientific people will leave open that possibility, that they cannot disprove whatever unlikely the event might be. I would be the first person to accept God once evidence comes in favour of it.
Dawkins' answer to the first question unmasks him as a "mystic of muscle." His answer to the second unmasks him as a thoroughgoing skeptic. Which I guess is saying the same thing. I don't suppose it occurred to Dawkins to answer to the first question: "The choice to live in reality"; or to the second: "The law of identity and the validity of induction."
Now I remember why I couldn't get through more than the beginning of Dawkins' The God Delusion -- it's because anyone who argues against religion from the premises of social mysticism and skepticism is himself deluded.
Albert Einstein described belief in God as "childish superstition" and said Jews were not the chosen people, in a letter to be sold in London this week, an auctioneer said Tuesday. The father of relativity, whose previously known views on religion have been more ambivalent and fuelled much discussion, made the comments in response to a philosopher in 1954.
As a Jew himself, Einstein said he had a great affinity with Jewish people but said they "have no different quality for me than all other people". "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this," he wrote in the letter written on January 3, 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, cited by The Guardian newspaper.
The German-language letter is being sold Thursday by Bloomsbury Auctions in Mayfair after being in a private collection for more than 50 years, said the auction house's managing director Rupert Powell. In it, the renowned scientist, who declined an invitation to become Israel's second president, rejected the idea that the Jews are God's chosen people. "For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions," he said. "And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people." And he added: "As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."
Previously the great scientist's comments on religion -- such as "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" -- have been the subject of much debate, used notably to back up arguments in favour of faith. Powell said the letter being sold this week gave a clear reflection of Einstein's real thoughts on the subject. "He's fairly unequivocal as to what he's saying. There's no beating about the bush," he told AFP.
That's definitely a refreshing blast of anti-religious air. Yet it doesn't go far enough. The Hebrew Bible not a collection of "collection of honourable, but still primitive legends." It is a collection of bloody, barbaric, and primitive legends. As a body of primitive literature, the Hebrew Bible is fascinating and often compelling -- but it's wholly unsuitable for moral instruction. The moral lesson of The Binding of Isaac, for example, is the absolute obligation of blind obedience to God's commands, even when those commands require morally abhorrent sacrifices of priceless treasures. Abraham must sacrifice his only beloved son Isaac to God simply because God demands it -- and he's rewarded by God because he's willing to do so without so much as a peep of protest. Such stories ought to be studied and enjoyed as historical curiosities, not as a foundation for modern life and morals.
Faith Versus Reason #8 By Diana Hsieh @ 6:58 AM
The Ayn Rand Institute recently posted eight short Q&As on faith versus reason to its YouTube account. They're an excellent series, and I hope that ARI will post more such videos. Here's the eighth and final video:
If you like it, please give it a good rating! You can find links to all eight videos on the first one.
Faith Versus Reason #7 By Diana Hsieh @ 8:57 AM
The Ayn Rand Institute recently posted eight short Q&As on faith versus reason to its YouTube account. They're an excellent series, and I hope that ARI will post more such videos. Here's the seventh:
If you like it, please give it a good rating! You can find links to all eight videos on the first one.
Great stuff, except for the line about prosecuting criticism of his culture as a "hate crime". That's not a rights violation. (And thinking something viciously stupid while actually violating someone's rights wouldn't make it a worse crime; that only makes the criminal a worse person.)
Faith Versus Reason #6 By Diana Hsieh @ 7:26 PM
The Ayn Rand Institute recently posted eight short Q&As on faith versus reason to its YouTube account. They're an excellent series, and I hope that ARI will post more such videos. Here's the sixth, featuring Leonard Peikoff speaking on the morality of the Old Testament:
If you like it, please give it a good rating! You can find links to all eight videos on the first one.
The e-mails mostly consisted of bizarre texts and links on Jewish conspiracy, the Israel lobby, the evils of Judaism, and so on. Some were directed at me, e.g. "STOP HARASSING ISLAM AND THE MUSLIMS YOU FACIST ZIONIST SOW!!"
Although some of the e-mails were seriously disturbing, I wasn't too concerned about my safety, as the e-mail address and sending IP were out of the UK. However, I didn't want to receive more, so I stopped them by blocking the e-mail address on my server. In retrospect, I probably should have reported them to the authorities.
I've decided to post two of those e-mails now -- in the wake of the fatwa against Wafa Sultan -- to make crystal clear the thoroughly disgusting nature of threats against critics of Islam. It is quite frightful to have such sentiments personally directed against you -- and I can only admire the bravery people like Wafa Sultan, Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, Yaron Brook, and John Lewis who've been subject to serious harassment, threats, and worse for daring to criticize Islam. My brief encounter with "Shamyl" was nothing in comparison.
So, without further comment: Vicious E-mail #1 and Vicious E-mail #2. Beware of the second, as it contains some particularly revolting anti-Semitic cartoons.
Ten Commandments Weekend By Diana Hsieh @ 7:56 AM
In the comments, Mel McGuire recently posted a link to Senate Resolution 483 for a "Ten Commandments Weekend" in the first weekend of May 2008. Here's the relevant bits of text:
Recognizing the first weekend of May 2008 as 'Ten Commandments Weekend'.
March 13, 2008
Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself and Mr. LIEBERMAN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
RESOLUTION
Recognizing the first weekend of May 2008 as 'Ten Commandments Weekend'.
Whereas the Ten Commandments are precepts foundational to the faith of millions of Americans;
Whereas the Ten Commandments are a declaration of fundamental principles for a fair and just society;
Whereas, from the founding of the United States, the Ten Commandments have been part of America's basic cultural fabric;
[Quotes from past presents omitted]
Whereas, in addition to being understood as an elemental source for American law, the Ten Commandments have become a recognized symbol of law in our Nation's culture;
Whereas a marble relief portrait of Moses, the Hebrew prophet and bearer of the Ten Commandments, is located prominently in the United States Capitol over the gallery doors of the chamber of the House of Representatives in honor of his work in establishing the principles that underlie American law;
Whereas images of the Ten Commandments are prominently displayed in many Federal buildings, including the United States Supreme Court, the National Archives, and the Library of Congress; and
Whereas the first weekends of May in 2006 and 2007 were celebrated by many Americans as 'Ten Commandments Weekend' in recognition of the importance of the Ten Commandments in their faith and the history and culture of the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) recognizes the first weekend of May 2008 as 'Ten Commandments Weekend';
(2) celebrates the Ten Commandments as a significant aspect of the national life of the United States; and
(3) encourages citizens of the United States to reflect on the integral role that the Ten Commandments have played in the life of the Nation.
UGH.
If you want to know why the basic moral view endorsed in this resolution -- Divine Command Theory -- is so totally, awfully, and completely wrong, regardless of the contents of the actual commands, I'd recommend Onkar Ghate's lecture: Religion and Morality. It's available for free to registered users of the Ayn Rand Institute web site.
(IsraelNN.com) Dr. Wafa Sultan has been forced to go into hiding with her family following a fatwa (religious edict) from an Islamic scholar, according to Omedia. Sultan faces the fatwa following a recent debate on Al-Jazeera in which she challenged Egyptian Islamist Talat Rheim over Dutch cartoons of Mohammed, who Muslims revere as a prophet. Sultan argued that Denmark had the right to print the cartoons.
Sultan joins a growing list of public critics of radical Islam facing death threats. Her supporters have asked the American public to join them in writing to the embassy of Qatar, the country which sponsors Al-Jazeera, as well as to United States President George Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, asking them to defend Sultan's right to free speech and personal safety.
I'm not sure that's the most effective response, so more suggestions for action would be much appreciated. (Via Brian Smith)
Feb 13, 2008: Since his last combat deployment in Iraq, Jeremy Hall has had a rough time, getting shoved and threatened by his fellow soldiers.
The trouble started there when he would not pray in the mess hall. "A senior ranking staff sergeant told me to leave and sit somewhere else because I refused to pray," Hall, a 23-year-old US army specialist, told AFP. Later, Hall was confronted by a major for holding an authorized meeting of "atheists and freethinkers" on his base. The officer threatened to discipline him and block his re-enlistment. "He said: 'You guys are being a problem and problems can be removed,'" Hall said. "He was yelling at us and stuff and at the very end he says, 'I really love you guys, I want you to see the light.'"
Now Hall is suing the major and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, accusing them of breaching his constitutional rights. A campaign group, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, is waiting for the Pentagon to respond to a lawsuit filed in a Kansas federal court on Hall's behalf. It alleges a "pernicious pattern and practice" of infringement of religious liberties in the military.
The group's founder, former Air Force lawyer Mikey Weinstein, said he has documented 6,800 testimonies by military personnel -- nearly all of them Christians -- of sometimes punitive or humiliating attempts to make them accept a fundamentalist evangelical interpretation of Christianity.
"I am at war with those people who would create a fundamentalist Christian theocracy in the technologically most lethal organization ever created by our species, which is the United States armed forces," he said.
He plans to add extra charges and possibly other lawsuits this month.
"It violates title seven of the US code for an employer to push their Biblical world view on an employee," he said. "But it's a trillion times worse when that is not just your shift manager at Starbucks but that is your military superior."
He singles out one of the major Christian groups in the military, the Officers Christian Fellowship (OCF). The group represents 15,000 US military personnel around the world, according to its director, retired Air Force general Bruce Fister. "It is not the position of OCF to try and coerce people to believe what we believe," Fister told AFP. OCF's aim, as stated on its website, is to achieve "a spiritually transformed military, with ambassadors for Christ in uniform, empowered by the Holy Spirit." It professes belief in "the eternal blessedness of the saved; and the everlasting, conscious punishment of the lost."
Faith Versus Reason #5 By Diana Hsieh @ 7:55 AM
The Ayn Rand Institute recently posted eight short Q&As on faith versus reason to its YouTube account. They're an excellent series, and I hope that ARI will post more such videos. Here's the fifth:
If you like it, please give it a good rating! You can find links to all eight videos on the first one.
FITNA By Diana Hsieh @ 5:05 PM
Probably for only a brief time, you can watch the short movie Fitna on YouTube, via this page on Little Green Footballs. (I'm linking to that page rather than the YouTube video directly, in the hopes that if that version is taken down, LGF will post a new link if available.) You can also save a copy of the video for yourself.
Paul and I just watched it; I strongly recommend that you do so while you have the chance. What I find so astonishing is that the video does absolutely nothing but accurately report the violent words and deeds of Muslims -- yet Muslims are threatening violence at this supposedly unjust accusation of their faith. By those very threats, the Islamic totalitarians prove their harshest critics right -- yet again.
Update from Greg: Looks like LiveLeak.com beefed up their security against the death threats for hosting the film, and now the full 15-or-so-minute version is available at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103.
Flemming Rose, the courageous newspaper editor made world-famous for publishing the "Danish Cartoons" depicting Mohammed, has just written another good column on free speech: "Bin Laden Wants My Blood"
(Those of you who attended the special ARI conference on the "Jihad Against the West" may recall his fantastic talk entitled, "Islam and Europe after the Cartoon-Crisis.")
As Rose asks, "What kind of civilization are we, after all, if we refrain from mocking and ridiculing bin Laden and his followers?"
If only we had more news editors like him in the United States...
Faith Versus Reason #4 By Diana Hsieh @ 8:46 PM
The Ayn Rand Institute recently posted eight short Q&As on faith versus reason to its YouTube account. They're an excellent series, and I hope that ARI will post more such videos. Here's the fourth:
If you like it, please give it a good rating! You can find links to all eight videos on the first one.
I spoke at Georgia Tech last week on "No Substitute for Victory: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism." A pro-Islamic group in the audience (some at least were students) tried to filibuster the Q&A. Their attacks openly called for Islamic law (a "good thing"), praised jihad as a "wonderful" concept, and proclaimed that subjugated peoples forced to pay the Islamic tax should be "grateful" for the "protection" they receive. They whitewashed history as well as the present situation, demanded that we stop "offending" them, said that the Iranians had no reason to trust the United States, and called me a "criminal mind." This was all-out support for a category of thoughtcrimes in American universities.
You can find the full report on Principles in Practice. It's pretty stunning -- and I can only admire John for keeping his cool in the face of such dishonest yet explicit Islamic totalitarians. Also, here's an update on a conference of Muslims reported by an audience member to have condemned terrorism.
Faith Versus Reason #3 By Diana Hsieh @ 12:28 AM
The Ayn Rand Institute recently posted eight short Q&As on faith versus reason to its YouTube account. They're an excellent series, and I hope that ARI will post more such videos. Here's the third:
If you like it, please give it a good rating! You can find links to all eight videos on the first one.
Easter warning: crucifixion is bad for you By Thomas Bell, South East Asia Correspondent Last Updated: 2:54am GMT 20/03/2008
Many people in the Philippines consider crucifixion and self flagellation good for the soul, but it is bad for your health according to new government advice for penitents.
This Holy Week, the thousands of guilt stricken or pious worshippers who will flay the skin off their backs, and the handful who will crucify themselves, are encouraged to get a tetanus shot first and be sure to use a clean whip or nails. "We are not trying to go against the Lenten tradition here because whipping has somewhat already become some form of 'atonement for sins' for some of us," Health Secretary Francisco Duque the 3rd said. "Getting deep cut wounds during whippings or lashings is inevitable and being so exposed during the course of the penitence, with all the heat and dust blowing in the wind, welcomes all sorts of infections and bacteria like tetanus," he explained.
Re-enactments of the Passion of Christ are common in many parts of the mostly Roman Catholic Philippines but frowned upon by the church authorities. In San Fernando City 23 people, including two women, have signed up to re-enact the crucifixion at three "improvised Golgothas" around town. Four of them will use real nails. The city government's website trumpets the preparations.
"The City Health Office (CHO) autoclaved all the nails to be used and will administer anti-tetanus vaccine to all the "Cristos" to ensure their protection from possible infection," it points out. City officials will conduct an inspection of the Golgothas on Thursday.
The festival is sponsored by Coca-cola and a company called Smart Telecommunications.
In a break from the original tradition, penitents are encouraged to "bring enough drinking water for the whole course of the pilgrimage to avoid dehydration, rather than buy bottled drinking water from unfamiliar sources."
There is also government advice for the many tourists and spectators who attend the events. "It is also better to bring self-prepared foods such as sandwiches, not only to save money, but also to avoid getting diseases such as diarrhea, hepatitis A, and typhoid after eating food bought from street vendors," the health secretary suggested.
Wow. Why can't they just do a nice quiet egg hunt?!? (Oh wait, that's the pagan tradition. Silly me!)
Faith Versus Reason #2 By Diana Hsieh @ 12:27 AM
The Ayn Rand Institute recently posted eight short Q&As on faith versus reason to its YouTube account. They're an excellent series, and I hope that ARI will post more such videos. Here's the second:
If you like it, please give it a good rating! You can find links to all eight videos on the first one.
Faith Versus Reason #1 By Diana Hsieh @ 8:22 AM
The Ayn Rand Institute recently posted eight short Q&As on faith versus reason to its YouTube account. They're an excellent series, and I hope that ARI will post more such videos. I'm breaking them into separate posts, and here's the first:
If you like it, please give it a good rating! Also, if you know people who like Ayn Rand yet cling to their faith, you might e-mail them the whole series. Or if a blogger professes the same, you can post links to the series in their comments. Here are the links to copy and paste:
Second Virginity By Diana Hsieh @ 12:06 AM
Here's a good article on an insane topic: women who've had sex claiming a "second virginity." Notably, many of these women are not teenagers who regret an early sexual experience. They include women in their twenties with long-term sexual partners and multiple children (!!) and married women spending $5000 to reconstruct their hymens as a present to their husbands (!!!).
This notion of a "second virginity" is obviously repugnant for its dishonesty: the simple fact is that a woman with years of sexual experience cannot honestly claim to be a virgin. However, that's not the worst of it. The worst is that virginity -- i.e. mere ignorance of sex -- is upheld as a major value.
Women (and men) should be discriminating in their choice of lovers. A young person ought to think hard about whether and when and with whom to have sex for the first time, just as any person ought to do with any new love interest. However, that need for discrimination does not imply that virginity is any kind of major value, as its champions assume. In modern society, virginity not a value at all -- except to jealous fiends and religious dogmatists. Virginity is not even a real quality of a person: it's just an ignorance of and inexperience with sex. Ignorance of sex means incompetence at sex. So for a rational, value-seeking lover, virginity can only be an obstacle to be overcome in the pursuit of the pleasures of sex, not a positive value. For a person to seek virginity requires a mangled set of sexual values.
Our culture worships virginity. Even those who reject the dogma of abstinence until marriage often claim to respect the supposed value of virginity. So next time a person speaks of virginity as a prize to be cherished, speak up!
I didn't really know what it was about, other than that it was a documentary having to do with religion that Tammy had put in our Netflix queue. It started simply enough, circling around the mid-70's activities of one Oliver O'Grady, a Catholic priest in California. "I want to promise myself this is going to be the most honest confession of my life." Confession? The interwoven interview snippets began turning south as the potential for some "inappropriate contact" with a child was turning up in the discussions. With every chapter of the film, it only got worse.
Not one, or even a few, but dozens and dozens and perhaps hundreds of children. Both females and males. Sex with parents to get to kids. And he didn't have sex with just young teens, but adolescents, and children... down to five years old, two years old, nine months old! Chapter after chapter showing his eluding prosecution by way of upper-management promises to victims and government officials to get this dirtbag out of the priesthood and away from kids -- only to be quietly moved to another priesthood with more victims another city or two over. Decades of honing and using his predatory skills with the knowledge of the Church. More chapters with the focus shifting out to the patterns of buck-passing, indifference and coverup in the Church leadership as it struggles to deal with similar "issues" across the US, with culpability all the way up to the current Pope who (just prior to becoming Pope) was accused of conspiracy to cover up rampant sexual abuse in the US. He was granted immunity against prosecution for that by President Bush.
The film closes with where-are-they-now summary screens and various factoids: "Since 1950, sexual abuse has cost the Church over one billion dollars in legal settlements & expenses." "Over 100,000 victims of clergy sexual abuse have come forward in the United States alone." "Experts say more than 80% of sexual abuse victims never report their abuse."
I was struck by how O'Grady's "most honest confession" was nonetheless incredibly evasive; how his ongoing efforts at (ostensively) trying to make himself and his victims better were manipulative and oriented toward excusing and limiting the mind-bending scale of his atrocities. It was particularly chilling to watch him deploy some of the same disgusting manipulations he used on his young victims right before our eyes -- and sadly, we get to watch some of them continue to let him manipulate them.
Many of these victims still see the Church in a good light. Just one fellow, the father of a girl of five who was being raped by this monster, was shown feeling such outrage and betrayal that he wouldn't step foot in another church and had dropped his faith. Meanwhile, his daughter is shown smiling toward the Vatican buildings on a present-day trip by victims to address the Church (rebuffed). Near the end of the film we see her kneeling in prayer in some cathedral.
This is what faith and submission to authority wreak.
Protestant Monks By Diana Hsieh @ 7:58 AM
Strange but true: The unexpected monks: "Some evangelicals turn to monasticism, suggesting unease with megachurch religion -- and the stirrings of rapprochement with the Roman Catholic Church." (The shorter article In the beginning... says a bit about the historical roots of this new movement.)
While these new evangelical monks don't embrace the asceticism and isolation of the Catholic tradition, the mere fact that some modern-day Protestants find the deeply religious ideals of the Dark and Middle Ages appealing should be cause for concern to secularists. Christianity was tamed by the Enlightenment, but not permanently. It can and will return to its dark and wild roots, if unchecked by reason.
In essence, the Democrats stand for socialism, or at least some ambling steps in its direction; the Republicans stand for religion, particularly evangelical Christianity, and are taking ambitious strides to give it political power.
Socialism--a fad of the last few centuries--has had its day; it has been almost universally rejected for decades. Leftists are no longer the passionate collectivists of the 30s, but usually avowed anti-ideologists, who bewail the futility of all systems. Religion, by contrast--the destroyer of man since time immemorial--is not fading; on the contrary, it is now the only philosophic movement rapidly and righteously rising to take over the government. Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer, and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer, it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because "both are bad."
He concluded his statement by saying that, "If you hate the Left so much that you feel more comfortable with the Right, you are unwittingly helping to push the U.S. toward disaster, i.e., theocracy, not in 50 years, but, frighteningly, much sooner."
In response, many people denied -- even scoffed at -- the possibility of theocracy in America.
I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the Living God. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family."
Here's the video:
Even if Mike Huckabee doesn't win the Republican nomination, more explicit calls to entwine government with Christianity should be expected in 2012.
My point? In less than two years, the natural course of politics in America has proven Dr. Peikoff right about the prospects of theocracy in America, "not in 50 years, but, frighteningly, much sooner." Frankly, I wish the definitive proof offered by Huckabee's candidacy had trickled in rather more slowly.
(As for the much-asked question, "But shouldn't we vote for the better Republicans?", you can find Dr. Peikoff's reply to that and more in his fifth podcast, starting at 2:50.)
Tom Cruise, Scientologist Nut By Diana Hsieh @ 7:46 AM
"We are the authorities on getting people off drugs, we are the authorities on the mind, we are the authorities on improving conditions. We can rehabilitate criminals, we can bring peace and unite cultures."
Oh, and only a Scientologist can really help at the scene of an auto accident.
Yup, that's what Tom Cruise says in this leaked Scientology video interview. It might not be available for long, so I'd recommend watching it sooner rather than later. It's definitely ... um ... interesting.
Some terminology: An "SP" is a "suppressive persons" or critic of Scientology. KSW refers to L. Ron Hubbard's letter "Keeping Scientology Working" that demands accepting Scientology beliefs and practices wholesale, as dogma.
In particular, most of the older leadership of the evangelical Christians have chosen not to endorse Huckabee, instead dividing their support amongst the other Republican candidates:
While Dr. Dobson and Mr. Perkins remain on the sidelines, many in the old guard are actively backing Mr. Huckabee's rivals: Pat Robertson is for Mr. Giuliani, Gary Bauer for Fred D. Thompson, and Paul Weyrich, a founder of the movement, for Mr. Romney. The few national conservative Christian political advocates who have rallied to Mr. Huckabee say they are dismayed by the reluctance of their best-known leaders to do the same.
These are the ones that have some fading attachment to capitalism, even though it conflicts with their explicit Christian philosophy.
In contrast, many of the younger evangelicals are fervently drawn to Huckabee precisely because of his support for the environment and his "populist" economic views. At some level, they recognize that these positions are more consistent with their altruist Christian philosophy:
...Rick Scarborough, an aspiring successor to the previous generation of conservative Christian leaders... recently argued that his allies were wrong to balk at Mr. Huckabee’s turn toward environmentalism and "social justice."
"Can you imagine Jesus ignoring the plight of the disenfranchised and downtrodden while going after the abortionist?" Mr. Scarborough wrote on the conservative Web site WorldNetDaily.com.
Brett and Alex Harris, the young evangelicals who created the online network of Huckabee supporters "Huck's Army" explained:
...[H]e believed in a Christian obligation to care for prenatal "life" and also education, health care, jobs and other aspects of "life." "It is a new kind of evangelical conservative position," Brett Harris said.
Huckabee's appeal has crossed over to many Catholics, for similar reasons:
Although mainstream conservative publications like the Wall Street Journal have correctly categorized Huckabee's views as "religious left", that's entirely all right with these young evangelicals. The NY Times quotes one of them as saying, "Huckabee is a change for the conservative Christian movement, and a welcome one."
This is yet another instance of the playing out of the principles identified by Ayn Rand in her classic essay, "Anatomy of Compromise" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal:
In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.
...When two men (or groups) hold the same basic principles, yet oppose each other on a given issue, it means that at least one of them is inconsistent. Since basic principles determine the ultimate goal of any long-range process of action, the person who holds a clearer, more consistent view of the end to be achieved, will be more consistently right in his choice of means; and the contradictions of his opponent will work to his advantage, psychologically and existentially.
Psychologically, the inconsistent person will endorse and propagate the same ideas as his adversary, but in a weaker, diluted form and thus will sanction, assist, and hasten his adversary's victory, creating in the minds of their disputed following the impression of his adversary's greater honesty and courage, while discrediting himself by an aura of evasion and cowardice.
Existentially, every step or measure taken to achieve their common goal will necessitate further and more crucial steps or measures in the same direction (unless the goal is rejected and the basic principles reversed) thus strengthening the leadership of the consistent person and reducing the inconsistent one to impotence.
The conflict will follow that course regardless of whether the basic principles shared by the two adversaries are right or wrong, true or false, rational or irrational.
In other words, the less-consistent older evangelicals who still support some diluted form of capitalism, because they (erroneously) believe that their economics follows from their Christian philosophy will eventually lose to the more-consistent evangelicals who (correctly) recognize that their Christian altruist ethics will require government redistribution of wealth, "universal health care", environmentalism in the name of "Christian stewardship", etc.
Even if Huckabee does not win the Presidency in 2008 (and I do not believe he has quite enough support to do so), his candidacy will have seeded the ground for a future Christian president much like Huckabee, but who is even more explicit and consistent in his opposition to capitalism and individual rights due to his Christian philosophy. And that is the real danger that Huck's Army poses today.
As for Scientology, the major question for me is whether the Church of Scientology is a fundamentally or substantially criminal organization or not. I can't pretend to answer that question definitively. My understanding is that the protection from scrutiny given by the designation of the Church of Scientology as a church, combined with its own secrecy, makes certain knowledge of any criminal wrongs rather difficult. The stories commonly heard about it are deeply worrisome, however.
In any case, my own years-long nightmare of being sued by a Scientologist for making unfavorable public comments about the religion he wouldn't even admit as his own made perfectly clear that the organization and its members ought to be prevented from abusing the legal system as they so often do. A person doesn't deserve "a day in court" just because he managed to file a lawsuit, particularly not when that costs others acting within their rights years of peace of mind and many thousands of dollars.
Of course, that problem isn't limited to Scientologists; tort reform is needed to protect all people from unjust lawsuits from all corners. Scientologists merely seem particularly apt to abuse the system whenever someone displeases them.
Outlawing the Traditional Incandescent Light Bulb By Paul Hsieh @ 8:30 PM
The new energy bill (passed by Congress and just signed into law by President Bush) will outlaw the traditional incandescent light bulb over the next several years, requiring instead more expensive "energy efficient" bulbs as part of the fight against global warming. Of course, if these new bulbs are more cost-effective in the long run, then there's no need to mandate their use. And if they aren't, then this is just another burden on consumers. Either way, it's a violation of the individual rights of producers and consumers of the incandescent bulbs.
This is on top of the recent shameful capitulation by the US on global warming policy at the recent international Bali conference, in which the US gave into the demands of the rest of the world.
Those who think that the Republicans and/or the religious conservatives will provide any kind of principled defense against the anti-reason and anti-human views of the environmentalists are in for a rude awakening.
Turn out the lights on traditional incandescent bulbs.
A little-noticed provision of the energy bill, which is expected to become law, phases out the 125-year-old bulb in the next four to 12 years in favor of a new generation of energy-efficient lights that will cost consumers more but return their investment in a few months.
The new devices include current products such as compact fluorescents and halogens, as well as emerging products such as light-emitting diodes and energy-saving incandescent bulbs.
...Under the measure, all light bulbs must use 25% to 30% less energy than today's products by 2012 to 2014. The phase-in will start with 100-watt bulbs in January 2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in January 2014. By 2020, bulbs must be 70% more efficient.
(Disclaimer: I have no idea how the still-legal "energy-saving incandescent bulbs" differ from the forbidden "traditional incandescent bulbs".)
President Bush signed into law Wednesday legislation that will bring more fuel-efficient vehicles into auto showrooms and require wider use of ethanol, calling it "a major step" toward energy independence and easing global warming.
...The bill also calls for improved energy efficiency of appliances such as refrigerators, freezers and dishwashers, and a 70 percent increase in the efficiency of light bulbs. It also calls for energy efficiency improvements in federal buildings and construction of commercial buildings.
...South Africa said that the US position "was most unwelcome and without any basis." Then Kevin Conrad, who headed Papua-New Guinea's delegation, rose and turned Mr. Connaughton's comment on its head.
...Confronted with the prospect of overwhelming isolation, [chief US negotiator] Dobriansky relented, saying, "We will join the consensus."
...Many longtime observers say it was the most stunning reversal they had ever seen at one of these meetings.
Religious groups in the United States and around the world have steadily adopted pro-environment positions. At Christmastime this shift has been particularly evident regarding global climate change.
...More than 100 influential evangelical leaders have signed the Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI) to fight global warming, the [Christian] Post article says. They're asking governments and individuals to reduce CO2 emissions.
The ECI concludes that global warming is real. The Post article quotes from the initiative's statement:
"Christians, noting the fact that most of the climate change problem is human induced, are reminded that when God made humanity he commissioned us to exercise stewardship over the earth and its creatures.... Climate change is the latest evidence of our failure to exercise proper stewardship, and constitutes a critical opportunity for us to do better."
"The new mood reflects a generational change among evangelicals, says Andrew Walsh, a religion-watcher at Trinity College, Hartford [Conn.]. The younger lot wants to focus more on issues such as AIDS and the crisis in Darfur – a cluster of concerns that have more in common with climate change than with crusading against homosexuality."
Although I'm sure it's unintentional, I find it ironic that the environmentalists and the evangelicals are teaming up to extinguish Thomas Edison's traditional incandescent light bulb, the long-time symbol of reason and thought.
You Said It! By Diana Hsieh @ 8:00 AM
I'm having a wee bit of trouble believing that an article like this one -- Rational Questions -- could ever be written or published. Yet unless I'm a brain in a vat, it was written by Jason Lee Steorts and published in National Review Online!
The article is a defense of Mitt Romney against the charge made by Christians that his Mormonism is too crazy to be believed. The author argues that the more standard versions of Christianity are just as illogical, just as unproven, just as bizarre as Mormonism.
That's certainly true, but it's grounds for rejecting Christianity and all other forms of religion, not for embracing the followers of a new set of absurdities as a fellow brothers-in-irrationality!
(Via Thomas Shoebotham, who very appropriately said "This one goes under the heading 'They said it, not us', or something like that.")
AUSTIN, Tex., Nov. 29 (AP) -- The state's director of science curriculum said she resigned this month under pressure from officials who said she had given the appearance of criticizing the teaching of intelligent design. The Texas Education Agency put the director, Chris Comer, on 30 days' paid administrative leave in late October, resulting in what Ms. Comer called a forced resignation.
The move came shortly after she forwarded an e-mail message announcing a presentation by Barbara Forrest, an author of "Creationism's Trojan Horse." The book argues that creationist politics are behind the movement to get intelligent design theory taught in public schools. Ms. Comer sent the message to several people and a few online communities.
Ms. Comer, who held her position for nine years, said she believed evolution politics were behind her ousting. "None of the other reasons they gave are, in and of themselves, firing offenses," she said. Education agency officials declined to comment Wednesday on the matter. But they explained their recommendation to fire Ms. Comer in documents obtained by The Austin American-Statesman through the Texas Public Information Act. "Ms. Comer's e-mail implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that T.E.A. endorses the speaker's position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral," the officials said. The agency documents say that officials recommended firing Ms. Comer for repeated acts of misconduct and insubordination.
The officials said forwarding the e-mail message conflicted with her job responsibilities and violated a directive that she not communicate with anyone outside the agency regarding a pending science curriculum review. The documents criticize Ms. Comer for giving a presentation and attending an off-site meeting without approval. It also said she had complained that "there was no real leadership at the agency."
This incident speaks volumes about the commitment to teaching religiously-motivated pseudo-science in the state government of Texas. Creationism has become dogma. To dissent -- to even suggest some exposure to criticisms of creationism -- is unacceptable. That's not good news.
A Fool and Her Money Are Soon Parted By Diana Hsieh @ 9:04 AM
As much as I know about the rise of religion in America, the idea that tithing is a subject of public discussion in a well-respected national newspaper still floors me:
God Is So Reasonable, Only Asking For 10% November 28, 2007; Page A21
We encourage tithing at our church, not as a legalism, but as a means of grace. Indeed, not just tithing, but what our pastor terms "hilarious generosity," to the church, to the poor, to worthy God-centered causes ("The Backlash Against Tithing," Weekend Journal, Nov. 23). Why? First, God is worthy of our best. Giving is an act of worship that, at its best, reflects a genuine response to God's many gifts to us, including the gift of his Son. Perhaps the proper question to ask isn't "how much of my income do I need to give to God?" but "of all God has entrusted to me, how much can I justify spending on myself?" Second, the needs are great. It doesn't take much analysis to notice that small shifts in our own consumption can make a huge difference in the lives of many who are in need. Finally, giving, with tithing as a discipline, helps us unhook from the grasp of our materialistic culture. Give until it hurts? No, give until it helps! God's grace, our gratitude, generous giving: a recipe for a life of great freedom and joy.
Margaret L. McKinley Elder Narberth Presbyterian Church
Despite those stellar arguments, I must wonder: Why does an omnipotent God need my money? Is he somehow lacking in resources?
Stewardship By Diana Hsieh @ 8:30 AM
Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is probably the most prominent political advocate of Christian environmentalism today. He'll be joined by more people in short order, however -- particularly as younger Christian fundamentalists raised on the environmentalist propaganda taught in schools rise to power and influence.
"The first thing I will do as president is send Congress my comprehensive plan for energy independence," [Huckabee] proclaims on his Web site. "We will achieve energy independence by the end of my second term." The goal may sound admirable, but even if it's achievable -- and many experts doubt that it is -- Huckabee's plan for getting there is light on specifics. Rather than spell out what steps he would take, he talks of creating a market environment that encourages innovation, and he praises just about every energy source you can think of -- nuclear, "clean coal," wind, solar, hydrogen, biomass, biodiesel, corn-based ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other untapped domestic areas, and, yes, conservation too.
A conservative Republican and devout Christian, Huckabee believes he has a biblical responsibility to protect God's planet from climate change, even though he's not convinced that climate change is largely human-caused. But mandatory limits on greenhouse-gas emissions make him squeamish.
Here's the only philosophic exchange in the ensuing interview:
What makes you the strongest Republican candidate on the issues of energy and the environment?
For one thing, I'm one of the few people who's actually talked about the fact that as Republicans we have done a lousy job of presenting the case for conservation. We ought to be the leaders, but unfortunately we've been the last people speaking out on conservation.
Not only as a Republican, but as a Christian it's important to me to say to my fellow believers, "Look, if anybody ought to be leading on this issue, it ought to be us." We can't justify destroying a planet that doesn't belong to us, and if we believe that God did create this world for our pleasure and wants us to enjoy it, then all the more reason that we should take care of it.
Christian "stewardship" environmentalism seems particularly dangerous to me. The reason isn't just that Republicans are adopting bad Democratic policies. They've done that so often, including on environmentalism, that another instance hardly newsworthy.
My major concern lies in the philosophic differences between Christian environmentalism and leftist environmentalism. Leftist environmentalism is nihilistic in its essence: it's hatred and destruction of humanity for its own sake. While its intellectual leaders are often genuine nihilists, its mass appeal largely depends on the wish of preserving nature for ultimately human ends. That's misguided in various ways, but it's not wholly philosophically corrupt.
In contrast, Christan environmentalism is not based on nihilistic hatred of humanity. Instead, it envisions humans as the exalted steward of God's creation. That difference could give it tremendous staying power and mass appeal, even in its most pure form. That's because it appeals to positive values, however mangled by supernaturalism. In the classification scheme of Leonard Peikoff's DIM Hypothesis, Christian environmentalism seems to be a form of "Misintegration" rather than "Disintegration." That's a significant shift.
Of course, that difference won't make this new form environmentalism kindler or gentler in practice. Whether of a supernatural or nihilistic variety, environmentalism will require the sacrifice of actual human values and human lives.
That doesn't bode well for those of us who value human life.
More Christian Scandals By Diana Hsieh @ 8:35 PM
Heh: Sex scandal hits Atlanta-area megachurch: "The 80-year-old leader of a suburban Atlanta megachurch is at the center of a sex scandal of biblical dimensions: He slept with his brother's wife and fathered a child by her." Oh, and then he lied about it under oath.
Death by Godly Politics By Diana Hsieh @ 7:50 AM
Paul sent me this horrifying story of a woman allowed to die of a totally non-viable ectopic pregnancy due to Nigaragua's strict anti-abortion law. Presumably, the doctors didn't dare to save her life for fear of prosecution.
Two weeks after Olga Reyes danced at her wedding, her bloated and disfigured body was laid to rest in an open coffin -- the victim, her husband and some experts say, of Nicaragua's new no-exceptions ban on abortion.
Reyes, a 22-year-old law student, suffered an ectopic pregnancy. The fetus develops outside the uterus, cannot survive and causes bleeding that endangers the mother. But doctors seemed afraid to treat her because of the anti-abortion law, said husband Agustin Perez. By the time they took action, it was too late.
Nicaragua last year became one of 35 countries that ban all abortions, even to save the life of the mother, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights in New York. The ban has been strictly followed, leaving the country torn between a strong tradition of women's rights and a growing religious conservatism. Abortion rights groups have stormed Congress in recent weeks demanding change, but President Daniel Ortega, a former leftist revolutionary and a Roman Catholic, has refused to oppose the church-supported ban.
Evangelical groups and the church say abortion is never needed now because medical advances solve the complications that might otherwise put a pregnant mother's life at risk.
But at least three women have died because of the ban, and another 12 reported cases will be examined, said gynecologist and university researcher Eliette Valladares, who is working with the Pan American Health Organization to analyze deaths of pregnant women recorded by Nicaragua's Health Ministry.
When I researched this issue about a year ago, polls showed that about 10 to 12 percent of Americans support a similar ban on abortion regardless of threat to the life of the mother. That's frightening.
Also, at the bottom of the article, you'll find a map of the world highlighting the countries with a total ban on abortion.
(1) I'm not surprised to hear more about the recent leanings of evangelicals toward the socialism and environmentalism of the Democrats. Socialism is, after all, better supported by Christian scripture than opposition to abortion. So evangelicals will likely be actively courted by both political parties for the foreseeable future. All that can be hoped for is some kind of secular candidate in the 2008 presidential election, since voting for a left-wing theocrat (e.g. Obama) over a right-wing theocrat (e.g. Huckabee) would be futile.
(2) The source of the disillusionment with Bush's Iraq War among evangelicals is instructive: the problem is that the war is not altruistic enough. That new-found Christian pacifism will not only preclude any fight against our enemies abroad but also invigorate entitlements for the needy at home. That's bad all around.
Much more could be said about the article, but I'm still too sick for much heavy thinking.
Spiritual neuroscience studies also face the profound challenge of language. No two mystics describe their experiences in the same way, and it is difficult to distinguish among the various types of mystical experiences, be they spiritual or traditionally religious. To add to the ambiguity, such feelings could also encompass awe of the universe or of nature. “If you are an atheist and you live a certain kind of experience, you will relate it to the magnificence of the universe. If you are a Christian, you will associate it with God. Who knows?
...Moreover, no matter what neural correlates scientists may find, the results cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Although atheists might argue that finding spirituality in the brain implies that religion is nothing more than divine delusion, the nuns were thrilled by their brain scans for precisely the opposite reason: they seemed to provide confirmation of God’s interactions with them. After all, finding a cerebral source for spiritual experiences could serve equally well to identify the medium through which God reaches out to humanity. Thus, the nuns’ forays into the tubular brain scanner did not undermine their faith. On the contrary, the science gave them an even greater reason to believe.
Objectivism Versus Christianity By Diana Hsieh @ 7:54 AM
The already-lengthy comment thread on this article on the rejection of Christian values by Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism might be worth a post or two. The article itself accurately states the principles of the Objectivist ethics, then leaps off the cliff with the following:
Rand's inversion of biblical norms had predictable results: Scott Ryan, who wrote a book on Rand's philosophy, called objectivism a "psychologically totalitarian personality cult that allowed Rand . . . to exercise personal power over [her] unwitting victims." He cites, for example, the way she manipulated "her own unemployed and dependent husband" to get him to agree for her to have "an adulterous sexual affair."
We're not talking here about personal flaws or merely human weaknesses. As Ryan puts it, these abuses are "demonstrably connected to Rand's own 'philosophical' premises"--that is, her worldview.
Rand and her followers, you see, lived in a way consistent with her worldview. But you can hardly regard a philosophy that exalts selfishness and condemns altruism as the basis for a good society.
Obviously, that characterization of Ayn Rand's actions is completely wrong. (Thank you, Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, yet again!) Yet the critical point is that the author merely quotes Ryan's assertion of a strong connection between her philosophy and that supposed behavior -- without even hinting at the nature of that actual connection. One can only suppose that the author regards respecting other people as a form of self-sacrifice.
I'm happy to see articles like this one published. It doesn't misrepresent Objectivism, except by implication. It rightly claims that the ideas of Objectivism are wholly opposed to those of Christianity. Those two points might well inspire some curious people to pick up Atlas Shrugged. Heck, it might even lead some ordinary conservatives to question whether they can admire both Jesus and John Galt, as many claim to do.
You can find the comments -- over 210 so far -- here.
1. I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did. (Sharm el-Sheikh August 2003)
2. I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job. (Statement made during campaign visit to Amish community, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Jul. 9, 2004)
3. I'm also mindful that man should never try to put words in God's mouth. I mean, we should never ascribe natural disasters or anything else to God. We are in no way, shape, or form should a human being, play God. (Washington, D.C., Jan. 14, 2005)
4. God loves you, and I love you. And you can count on both of us as a powerful message that people who wonder about their future can hear. (Los Angeles, California, Mar. 3, 2004)
5. I tell people all the time, you're equally American if you're a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. You're equally American if you believe in an Almighty or don't believe in an Almighty. That's a sacred freedom. (Washington, D.C., Mar. 10, 2006)
6. Well, first of all, you got to understand some of my view on freedom, it's not American's gift to the world. See, freedom is God -- is God given. (Interview with TVR, Romania, Nov. 23, 2002)
7. I'm sure there is some kind of heavy doctrinal difference, which I'm not sophisticated enough to explain to you. (Explaining the issues involved in his switching from attending an Episcopal church to attending a Methodist one, around Jul. 1, 1994)
8. I don't think you order suiciders to kill innocent men, women, and children if you're a religious person. (Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin, Jul. 14, 2004)
9. And there's nothing more powerful in helping change the country than the faith -- faith in Dios. (National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast, Washington, D.C., May 16, 2002)
10. We believe in an Almighty, we believe in the freedom for people to worship that Almighty. They don't. (Martinsburg, West Virginia, Jul. 4, 2007)
11. The spirit of our people is the source of America's strength. And we go forward with trust in that spirit, confidence in our purpose, and faith in a loving God who made us to be free. (5th anniversary of the Sep. 11 attacks, White House, Sep. 11, 2006)
12. Churches all across the country are reaching out -- synagogues, people from different faiths understand that it makes sense to help their parishioners realize the benefits of this plan. (Sun City Center, Florida, May 9, 2006)
13.We can never replace lives, and we can't heal hearts, except through prayer. (Enterprise, Alabama, Mar. 3, 2007)
14. God bless the people of this part of the world. (Minneapolis, Minnesota, Aug. 4, 2007)
15. I believe there's an Almighty, and I believe the Almighty's great gift to each man and woman in this world is the desire to be free. This isn't America's gift to the world, it is a universal gift to the world, and people want to be free. (Manhattan, Kansas, Jan. 23, 2006)
16. I couldn't imagine somebody like Osama bin Laden understanding the joy of Hanukkah. (White House, Dec. 10, 200117.)
17. I see an opportunity at home when I hear the stories of Christian and Jewish women alike, helping women of cover, Arab American women go shop because they're afraid to leave their home. (Washington, D.C., Oct. 4, 2001)
18. It's a sign from above. Comment made when television light caught fire above crowd. (Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Mar. 9, 2001)
19. I did denounce it. I de- I denounced it. I denounced interracial dating. I denounced anti-Catholic bigacy... bigotry. (Responding to attacks on his visit to ultra-conservative Bob Jones University, Greenville, South Carolina, Feb. 25, 2000)
20. We are grateful for the freedoms we enjoy, grateful for the loved ones who give meaning to our lives, and grateful for the many gifts of this prosperous land. On Thanksgiving we acknowledge that all of these things, and life itself, come not from the hand of man, but from Almighty God. (Washington, D.C., Nov. 30, 2002)
21. We say in our country, everybody matters, everybody is precious in the sight of an Almighty. (Northern State University, Aberdeen, South Dakota, Oct. 31, 2002)
22. We love the fact that people can worship an almighty God any way they see fit here in America. (Phoenix, Arizona, Sep. 28, 2002)
23. And I just -- I cannot speak strongly enough about how we must collectively get after those who kill in the name of -- in the name of some kind of false religion. (Press appearance with King Abdullah of Jordan, Aug. 1, 2002)
24. We are commanded by God and called by our conscience to love others as we want to be loved ourselves. (Ohio State University, Jun. 14, 2002)
25. By being active citizens in your church or your synagogue, or for those Muslims, in your mosque, and adhering to the admission to love a neighbor just like you'd like to be loved yourself, that's how we can stand up. (Remarks to the cattle industry annual convention and trade show, Denver, Colorado, Feb. 8, 2002)
26. And we base it, our history, and our decision making, our future, on solid values. The first value is, we're all God's children. (Washington, D.C., Jul. 16, 2003)
27. One of the great things about this country is a lot of people pray. (Washington, D.C., Apr. 13, 2003)
28. And there's no doubt in my mind, when the United States acts abroad and home, we do so based upon values -- particularly the value that we hold dear to our hearts, and that is, everybody ought to be free. I want to repeat what I said during my State of the Union to you. Liberty is not America's gift to the world. What we believe strongly, and what we hold dear, is liberty is God's gift to mankind. And we hold that value precious. And we believe it is true. (White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, Feb. 9, 2003)
29. This great, powerful nation is motivated not by power for power's sake, but because of our values. If everybody matters, if every life counts, then we should hope everybody has the great God's gift of freedom. (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Jan. 29, 2003)
30. The short-term objective of this country is to find an enemy and bring them to justice before they strike us. The long-term objective is to make this world a more free and hopeful and peaceful place. I believe we'll succeed because freedom is the Almighty God's gift to every man and woman in this world. (Portsmouth, Ohio, Sep. 10, 2004)
31. And if you choose to -- if you believe in the Almighty, you can -- you're equally an American. If you're a Jew, Christian or Muslim or Hindi or whatever. It is one of the great traits and traditions of our country, where people can worship the way you see fit. (Interview on Larry King Live, CNN, Aug. 15, 2004)
32. By the way, to whom much has been given, much is owed. Not only are we leading the world in terms of encouraging freedom and peace, we're feeding the hungry. We're taking care of, as best as we possibly can, the victims of HIV/AIDS. (Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Jul. 20, 2004)
33. Faith-based is an important part of my life, individually, but I don't -- I don't ascribe a person's opposing my nominations to an issue of faith. (Prime time press conference, White House, Apr. 28, 2005)
34. I believe liberty is universal. I don't believe it is just for the United States of America alone. I believe there is an Almighty, and I believe the Almighty's gift to people worldwide is the desire to be free. (Fort Irwin, California, Apr. 4, 2007)
35. What a powerful statement to the world about the compassion of the American people that you're free to choose the religion you want in our country. (Washington, D.C., Sep. 29, 2006)
36. The United States of America must understand that freedom is universal, that there is an Almighty, and the great gift of that Almighty to each man and woman in this world is the desire to be free. (Nashville, Tennessee, Aug. 30, 2006)
37. Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research. ...Human life is a gift from our Creator -- and that gift should never be discarded, devalued or put up for sale. (2006 State of the Union Address, Jan. 31, 2006)
38. One of the most -- I think one of the most important and interesting domestic initiatives, which I agree has created an interesting philosophical debate, is to allow faith-based programs and community-based programs to access federal money in order to achieve the results we all want. I mean, for example, if you're trying to encourage people to quit drinking, doesn't it make sense to give people somebody an alternative -- he can maybe go to a government counselor? Or how about somebody who calls upon a higher being to help you quit drinking? All I care about is the results. (Sterling, Virginia, Jan. 19, 2006)
39. Every new citizen of the United States has an obligation to learn our customs and values, including liberty and civic responsibility, equality under God and tolerance for others, and the English language. (Tucson, Arizona, Nov. 28, 2005)
40. We have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom, and America will always be faithful to that cause. (Washington, D.C., Jan. 19, 2005)
41.Secondly, it's really important, Pete, that people not think government is a loving entity. Government is law and justice. Love comes from the hearts of people that are able to impart love. And therefore, what Craig is doing is -- he doesn't realize it -- he's a social entrepreneur. He is inspiring others to continue to reach out to say to somebody who is lonely, I love you. And I'm afraid this requires a higher power than the federal government to cause somebody to love somebody. (Summit on School Violence, Washington DC, October 10, 2006)
42. We don't believe that freedom is America's gift to the world. We believe freedom is the God Almighty's gift to each and every person in the world. (California, Oct. 15, 2003)
43. I believe that, as I told the Crown Prince, the Almighty God has endowed each individual on the face of the earth with -- that expects each person to be treated with dignity. This is a universal call. (Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, Jun. 3, 2003)
44. All of you -- all in this generation of our military -- have taken up the highest calling of history. You're defending your country, and protecting the innocent from harm. And wherever you go, you carry a message of hope -- a message that is ancient and ever new. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, "To the captives, 'come out,' -- and to those in darkness, 'be free.' (Aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, a couple of miles away from San Diego May 1, 2003)
45. It's so inspirational to see your courage, as well as to see the great works of our Lord in your heart. (Nashville, Tennessee, Feb. 10, 2003)
46. As Dick mentioned, we mourn the loss of seven brave souls. We learned a lot about them over the last couple of days, and Laura and I learned a lot about their families in Houston, because we met with them. My impressions of the meeting was that there was -- that Almighty God was present in their hearts. (Washington, D.C., Feb. 6, 2003)
47. It's also important for people to know we never seek to impose our culture or our form of government. We just want to live under those universal values, God-given values. (Washington, D.C., Oct. 11, 2002)
48. Yet we do know that God has placed us together in this moment, to grieve together, to stand together, to serve each other and our country. (Ellis Island, New York, Sep. 11, 2002)
49. The reason I'm -- asked [these AmeriCorps workers] to join us here is because I want you to know, America can be saved one person at a time. (Green Tree, Pennsylvania, Aug. 5, 2002)
50. Government can hand out money, but it cannot put hope into people's hearts. It cannot put faith into people's lives. (West Ashley High School, Charleston, South Carolina, Jul. 29, 2002)
Some of those quotes are more interesting and relevant than others, of course. Two points:
(1) Bush often acknowledges that people have the right not to believe in or worship any God. That's better than his father, who thought that atheists weren't really citizens. Yet he doesn't believe in the separation of church and state: he gladly uses government to promote religion with faith-based programs and openly governs according to his religious faith.
(2) One particular instance of that governance by religion is Bush's view that God wants freedom for all the people of the world, not just America. That's a basic motivation for his foreign policy, not only his wars of "liberation" in Afghanistan and Iraq but also his push for democratic elections even when that puts Islamic totalitarians in power. Given the religious foundations of those policies, it's no wonder that the resulting disasters didn't dissuade him. (The 2006 election of the Democrats did result in a shift in policy, presumably because that election reflected God's will.
Creationist Medicine By Diana Hsieh @ 7:29 AM
Monica recently posted a fantastic Doonesbury cartoon on medicine for the creationist. (Click on the image to get to a more readable version.) It's the only Doonesbury that I've liked -- ever.
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
The treaty was "authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, [then] sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation." Today, claims that the US is a Christian nation, founded on Christian principles are common. In contrast, that statement was accepted without protest in 1797 according to this article. Since the US was actually not founded on any Christian principles whatsoever, that's just what I'd expect. Still, it's lovely to see it said explicitly by the Founders themselves.
Loving Christians? By Diana Hsieh @ 8:51 AM
Today's fundamentalist Christianity definitely has a militant streak, well-supported by scripture and history. So I'm not surprised by this news:
Until this month, "imprecatory prayer" was not in many people's vocabularies. But then the Rev. Wiley Drake, pastor of First Baptist Church of Buena Park, Calif., urged his supporters to use Psalm 109 to focus prayers directed at the "enemies of God" -- including the leaders of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Drake was urging the use of imprecatory prayer -- prayers for another's misfortune or for vengeance against God's enemies. Now such prayer is the talk of blogs and letters to the editor.
The controversy flared Aug. 14, the day the Washington, D.C.-based church-state group asked the Internal Revenue Service to probe the tax- exempt status of Drake's congregation. Churches, as tax-exempt, are prohibited from campaigning for candidates. Drake earlier had issued a statement on church letterhead endorsing former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Republican presidential candidate. Drake told his supporters that he attempted to talk to Americans United for the Separation of Church and State about the issue. He cited a verse from the Gospel of Matthew that says, "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you." Drake said his efforts were rebuffed.
"Now that all efforts have been exhausted, we must begin our Imprecatory Prayer, at the key points of the parliamentary role in the earth where we live," Drake wrote. Under the heading, "HOW TO PRAY," he listed all 31 verses of Psalm 109, in which King David appeals to divine justice. Drake provided his congregation the King James Version of the psalm, including Verse 9, which says: "Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow." On the advice of his attorneys, Drake has declined to be interviewed.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) said Tuesday it will test sales in some stores of biblical action figures whose makers say they are aimed at Christian parents who prefer their children play with Samson, David or Noah rather than with a comic book character or Bratz doll. Wal-Mart spokeswoman Melissa O'Brien said the toys made by One2believe, a Valencia, Calif., company, will be offered in 425 of Wal-Mart's 3,376 discount stores and Supercenters.
One2believe Chief Executive David Socha said his products were part of a "battle for the toy box" with dolls and figures that he said carry negative messages. "If you're very religious, it's a battle for your children's minds and what they're playing with and pretending. There are remakes out there of Satan and evil things," Socha said.
Wal-Mart's O'Brien said the Bentonville, Ark.-based retailer believes there is demand for faith-based toys. The toy line will be on some Wal-Mart shelves starting in August, mainly in the Midwest and South but also in California and as far northeast as Pennsylvania, O'Brien said. "It is a test. It's not a national rollout," O'Brien said. The toys, based on biblical stories, include a 3-inch figure of Daniel in the lion's den, a 12-inch talking Jesus doll and 13-inch Samson action figure.
Wal-Mart has always carried some faith products, mainly stationery, books and music, but this is the first line of toys with a faith theme, O'Brien said. "I think there is an interest in faith-based toys and we are testing it in our stores," O'Brien said. It is a leap in scale for One2believe, which so far has mainly sold its figures directly to churches and ministries and through its Web site, Socha said.
In my youth, I played with many toys at other children's homes, but I never played with a "biblical action figures." I was an explicit atheist from an extremely young age -- around 4 or 5, when I first heard about God -- so I would have been aghast at any religious toys. The simple fact is that none of the kids I grew up with were religious in that serious kind of way. Obviously, that's no longer true.
Similarly, none of my high school classmates would have dreamed of putting off college to do missionary work in the third world in a million years. Yet, this morning in Starbucks, Paul and I overheard some high school girls talking about a classmate doing just that. They were surprised that the boy in particular would choose that, but they obviously regarded the activity as a relatively normal break between high school and college.
The anecdotes are piling up almost as fast as the Christian stores are opening their doors.
On Ashland University By Diana Hsieh @ 8:22 AM
Ashland University's insanely unjust treatment of John Lewis was recently detailed in an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education: Tenure Shrugged. FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) has posted some further details (correcting some small inaccuracies in the CHE article, as far as I understand) here: Ashland University: No Objectivists Need Apply.
Notice that the source of Dr. Lewis's troubles were (1) neocons and (2) evangelical Christians. From what I understand, the run-of-the-mill liberal faculty were rightly shocked and outraged by his treatment by Ashland.
Also, I might as well mention that I was quoted in the Chronicle's introduction to its three articles on Objectivism in academia:
The articles in this special Chronicle report are about a different group of scholars: those who believe that Rand created a true and complete philosophical model, which must be widely spread or else civilization will perish. These scholars believe that the road to cultural renewal runs through the philosophy department: If the public adopts the correct metaphysical and epistemological beliefs, then peace, justice, and prosperity will naturally follow. (In this respect, the famously anti-religious Randians are oddly similar to Catholic philosophers in the Thomist tradition.)
"The serious study of Ayn Rand's work -- in and out of academia -- is only in its nascent stages," wrote Diana Mertz Hsieh, a doctoral candidate in philosophy at the University of Colorado at Boulder, on her blog in 2005. "If stillborn, our culture is doomed. ... It's not just some academic game: It's literally life and death."
In case you're wondering, I've not blogged because I've been at OCON in lovely Telluride. I've enjoyed myself well enough, although I'm eager to return to real work on my dissertation and to preparation for my fall "Intro Phil" class. I probably won't return to regular blogging for another week.
Taking Prayer Seriously By Diana Hsieh @ 8:12 AM
If you're not of strong mind and body, you might wish to skip these May 3rd remarks by President Bush on our "National Day of Prayer":
As Shirley mentioned, since the days of our founding, our nation has been called to prayer. That's exactly what our first President did, George Washington. "It's the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and to humbly implore his protection and favor." It's interesting that the first President said those words.
For two centuries, Americans have answered this call to prayer. We're a prayerful nation. I believe that makes us a strong nation. Each day, millions of our citizens approach our Maker. We pray as congregations in churches and in synagogues, and mosques, and in temples. We welcome people of all faiths into the United States of America.
We pray as families, around the dinner table, and before we go to sleep. We pray alone in silence and solitude, withdrawing from the world to focus on the eternal, spending time in personal recollection with our Creator.
We pray for many reasons. First, we pray to give thanks for the blessings the Almighty has bestowed upon us. We pray to give thanks. We give thanks for our freedom. We give thanks for the brave men and women who risk their lives to defend it. We give thanks for our families who love and support us. We give thanks for our plenty. We give thanks for our nation.
Second, we pray for the strength to follow God's will in our lives, and for forgiveness when we fail to do so. Through prayer, each of us is reminded that we are fallen creatures in need of mercy, and in seeking the mercy and compassion of a loving God, we grow in mercy and compassion ourselves.
We feel the tug at our souls to reach out to the poor, the elderly, the stranger in distress. And by answering this call to care for our brothers and sisters in need, our hearts grow larger and we enter into a deeper relationship with God.
Third, we pray to acknowledge God's sovereignty in our lives and our complete dependence on Him. This is probably the toughest prayer of all, particularly for those of us in politics. In the humility of prayer we recognize the limits of human strength and human wisdom. We seek the strength and wisdom that comes from above. We ask for the grace to align our hearts with His, echoing the words of Scripture, "Not my will, but thine be done." We ask the Almighty to remain near to us and guide us in all we do, and when He is near we are ready for all that may come to us.
Finally, we pray to offer petitions, because our Father in heaven knows our cares and our needs. We trust in the promise of a loving God: Ask and it shall be given to you; seek and ye shall find. Inspired by this confidence we pray that the Almighty will pour out His blessings on those we love. We ask His healing for those who suffer from illness, for those who struggle in life. We ask His comfort for the victims of tragedy, and that the injured may be healed and the fallen may find comfort in the arms of their Creator. We implore His protection for those who protect us here at home and in far away lands. We pray for the day when His peace will reign in every nation and in every land until the ends of the earth.
The greatest gift we can offer anyone is the gift of our prayers, because our prayers have power beyond our imagining. The English poet Tennyson wrote, "More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of." Prayer has the power to change lives and to change the course of history. So on this National Day of Prayer, let us seek the Almighty with confidence and trust, because our Eternal Father inclines his ear to the voice of his children, and answers our needs with love.
May God bless America. (Applause.)
Isn't it comforting to know that the leader of our nation and of the free world is guided by thought-beams to and from his imaginary god? Seriously, I'm flabbergasted that modern people who drive cars, listen to iPods, and send e-mail actually take prayer seriously as a real means of changing the world. Yet it's undeniable that they do.
Perhaps because my childhood was 99.9% devoid of religion, that was a fairly recent discovery for me. It wasn't even a serious possibility to me until I read the booklet "30 Days Muslim Prayer Focus" last fall. (I acquired that when I attended Sunday services at the evangelical "Faith Bible Chapel" megachurch.) Each page of the book gives a few paragraphs of information on the religion of some country, with specific recommendations for prayers at the bottom. For example, the page on Syria recommends:
Pray for the publishing and distribution of relevant evangelistic materials, and for the provision of finances to fund these materials.
Pray for minority groups, such as the Alawites, Druze, Shiites, and Yazidis, to be reached with the Gospel.
Syria has been in an economic slump for about six years. Pray for the poor, that God would provide for their needs, and also open doors for them to hear the Good News.
There have been many reforms under the new President, Dr Bashar al-Assad. Pray that there would be further modernization and true religious freedom. (Currently, those who are born into Muslim families may not legally change their religion.)
Many churches are afraid of Muslim-background believers and do not want them to come into their churches, fearing that they are spies or that they want to marry a Christian girl. This is a difficult problem which does not have simple answers. The Apostle Paul had a somewhat similar experience (Acts 9:10-16). Pray for Muslims who trust Christ to be able to find fellowship with others of similar background within their cultural context.
There are few Muslim-background believers in Christ. Pray that each one could remain firmly in their cultural context, and would be used to win their friends and family.
Each January a large Pastors conference takes place in Kinshasa, the capital. Pray that the pastors will continue in the unity of Christ for the good of the country and outreach to the Muslims.
A constant prayer request from the Pastors conference is for Bibles! Pray that bible organizations would hear and that large shipments of French bibles would come to the Congo. Pray too that corrupt customs officials would allow the bibles into DRC without exacting any tolls or bribes.
The theft of resources continues, while Congo still lacks the infrastructure to provide its people with food, clean water, health care and education. Pastors desperately want to help practically as well.
In the Congo, rape is a cheaper weapon of war than bullets, also among Muslims. Pray that young women will not associate this horror with "Christian" Rebels.
Church radio networks are growing, but the state-controlled broadcasting network has the greatest reach. Pray that church radio would increase without denominational competition and that state broadcasting would use Christian content.
These prayers are thoroughly religious. The sole overarching goal is to win more converts for Christ, not to solve any real-life, this-worldly problems, not even serious ones like repression, rape, and corruption. In other words, these prayers are not like those of a desperate kid who wants to do well on an upcoming exam or a distraught wife of a soldier who wants her husband to come home safely. These prayers are serious devotions to Christ, performed with full belief in their power to physically change the world, with the sole aim of winning more devoted converts to Christianity. In the modern age, that's damn scary.
God Versus Satan By Diana Hsieh @ 11:54 PM
How many people is God recorded to have killed in the Scriptures? Definite numbers aren't always given, e.g. for the Flood or for the killing of the firstborn sons in Egypt. However, some thoughtful blogger counted up the available numbers of dead. The result? God killed 2,270,365 people. By way of comparison, Satan apparently only killed 10 people.
You will rightfully burn in the realm of nothingess forever when you die you silly fool; unless you get out of that shallow paradox you think you're so smart in and start believing in the One and Only God that created you and gave you a choice to acceot It or deny It in the fist place. And if you deny It, you will be destroyed by your own making. All Satan did was feed you many lies and prove you are an obvious sucker that has bought into this shallow thinking. Lies and people kill people, not God, not guns. Suckers like you do deserve death. But you can also save yourself by believing in Who Jesus said He was. I feel sorry for your shallow, tainted brain.
Theocracy in America By Diana Hsieh @ 7:32 AM
I could not agree more with this post on theocracy in America from Mike of Primacy of Awesome. According to the Slate article on Monica Goodling (a DOJ attorney) to which he links, 150 graduates of Pat Robertson's evangelical Regent University currently work in the Bush Administration. Not one, not five, but one hundred and fifty -- from that one young college alone. Mike writes:
If you are an Objectivist and you don't think religion is a serious and rising threat to the country, consider this. What if one hundred and fifty graduates of the OAC worked in the President's administration? Objectivists would be dancing in the street. Victory would be at hand!
Indeed, yet some Objectivists dismiss the threat of theocracy out-of-hand, claiming that America's sense of life is a impenetrable barrier against possibility. That's sheer fantasy, as Ayn Rand would have known:
A nation's political trends are the equivalent of a man's course of action and are determined by its culture. A nation's culture is the equivalent of a man's conscious convictions. Just as an individual's sense of life can clash with his conscious convictions, hampering or defeating his actions, so a nation's sense of life can clash with its culture, hampering or defeating its political course. Just as an individual's sense of life can be better or worse than his conscious convictions, so can a nation's. And just as an individual who has never translated his sense of life into conscious convictions is in terrible danger--no matter how good his subconscious values--so is a nation.
This is the position of America today.
... If America drags on in her present state for a few more generations (which is unlikely), dictatorship will become possible. A sense of life is not a permanent endowment. The characteristically American one is being eroded daily all around us. Large numbers of Americans have lost it (or have never developed it) and are collapsing to the psychological level of Europe's worst rabble. (Ayn Rand, "Don't Let It Go")
And yes, although the rise of the Religious Right was little more than a gleam in Ronald Regan's eye at the time of her death, Ayn Rand clearly expressed concern about the trend in her final lectures at the Ford Hall Forum.
Also, via the article mentioned by Mike, I found this 2001 Time article about John Ashcroft. The man brought his fundamentalist Christianity to work, literally:
Ashcroft's devout Pentecostal faith, as expressed at the office, has disturbed some employees as well. New guidelines for documents bearing Ashcroft's signature bar the use of the word pride and the phrase "no higher calling than public service," both of which contradict the former Senator's religious views. Each morning at 8 he plays host to what he calls RAMP sessions--for Read, Argue, Memorize and Pray--in his office or conference room. From three to 30 participants chew over Bible passages, commit some to memory and finish with a prayer. Non-Christians are welcome, but many staff members consider the sessions inappropriate, given Ashcroft's position as guardian of the Constitution--including separation of church and state.
Ashcroft bristles at the suggestion that he's doing anything improper. "I don't think the fact that I might want to invite the wisdom of the Almighty into my decision making is a threat to anybody," he told TIME, leading his questioners into his conference room to point out a wall relief that long predates him, depicting King Solomon's deciding the parentage of an infant. "Wisdom in making good decisions can be inspired as well as acquired," he said. If others choose to practice different faiths in their offices, "that's not my business. I'm not part of any sort of prayer police."
Just remember folks, theocratic government is nothing to worry about... so long as you've got your blinders on.
Mormonism and Christianity By Diana Hsieh @ 2:42 PM
Paul and I had a short discussion a few weeks ago about Mormonism. After I posted my entry on Mark Skousen's essay on Ayn Rand, Paul discovered that Skousen is Mormon. He suggested that I change the entry to reflect that, but I replied that Mormonism is a form of Christianity, so my description of him as Christian was fine. Paul mentioned the new covenant of Mormonism. I suggested that Mormons accepted the Apostles' Creed, so that made them Christian, whatever silly stuff they added to it. Neither of us cared too much, nor knew too much, so that was pretty much the end of the discussion.
Three questions:
Do Mormons consider themselves Christians? (I'm pretty sure the answer to that is yes.)
Do other Christians consider Mormons Christians? (I suspect that varies greatly. Some Protestants probably don't consider Catholics Christian and vice versa. That's the fallacy of the frozen abstraction, I think.)
Most importantly: Are Mormons properly classified as Christians? In other words, do their core doctrines vary fundamentally from those of Baptists, Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Quakers, etc, such that their religion should be considered an alternative to Christianity rather than just a form of it? (I don't know enough about Mormonism to say.)
I don't care much about the particular case of Mormonism, but I am interested in the conceptual classification of systems of belief, as well as the core principles and boundaries of Christianity.
God's Energy Field By Diana Hsieh @ 5:51 AM
Paul and I recently listened to Dave Harriman's course The Philosophic Corruption of Physics. We found the course enormously interestingly. Although I'm pretty well familiar with Kant's metaphysics and epistemology, I wasn't aware of the myriad ways in which those ideas, in various modified forms, have played themselves out in fundamental physics. It was yet another important lesson in the power of philosophy. (I should note that Harriman posted an update to that course regarding his positive comments about Lewis Little's "Theory of Elementary Waves" therein.)
After listening to that course, I found a good example of bad physics providing cover for mysticism. Here it is:
In my experience, most Christians haven't the faintest clue what the Holy Spirit is. That's hardly surprising: it really makes no sense. It's not a semi-comprehensible divine "person" like the Father and the Son, yet it's somehow on par with them in the Trinity. It's an active force in the world in the Christian scriptures, so it can't just be ignored. But what the heck is it?
In the Teaching Company course Jesus and the Gospels, the lecturer Luke Timothy Johnson routinely describes the Holy Spirit as "God's Energy Field" to make that mysterious whatever-it-is comprehensible. That's a great explanation. It might not make full sense of the Holy Spirit's place in the Trinity, but it does fit well with the Holy Spirit doings in the scriptures. In fact, I'd say that it makes the Holy Spirit seem perfectly ordinary and reasonable!
There's a catch though: that's only true if you think of fields as modern physicists and most people now do, i.e. as abstract, non-physical, and mysterious sum of forces. If you think of them as having some definite physical basis, then it makes no sense to describe the Holy Spirit as "God's Energy Field." In other words, bad physics provides a veneer of rationality to particularly stupidly irrational theology.
Of course, Johnson's description is still helpful to me: I now think of the Holy Spirit as "God's Energy Field, as Fields Are Wrongly Understood Today, Also Somehow a Distinct Person" That works well enough.
A few days ago, I watched an HBO documentary by Alexandra Pelosi entitled "Friends of God." (The video showing an evangelical anti-evolution seminar that I blogged a few weeks ago was from this documentary.) Ted Haggard is featured prominently in the documentary. His downfall from high influence due to his meth-and-gay-sex scandal broke just as the documentary was wrapping up filming, if I recall correctly. In one interview, he speaks passionately of the need for religious leaders to be moral exemplars, not just for the sake of their own flock, but for everyone. Notably, he said that -- with earnest sincerity and perfect ease -- while actually indulging in his own dark vices.
Ted Haggard could not have said what he said in the way he said it -- not if he valued moral honesty. I don't think that mere repression would allow a person to become so very comfortable with that gross contradiction between his own preached ideals and his own behavior. More would be required to seem so sincere, particularly a positive pleasure in the capacity to deceive anyone and everyone. Any guilt he felt was thoroughly suppressed in public; he assumed a persona of his own creation, based on the expectations of others. And that's why he was so very charismatic.
When exposed as a moral fraud, the enormous evil of Haggard's actions probably crashed down on him -- at least for a time. I don't think he just regretting getting caught, as so many criminals do: Haggard wasn't that kind of deliberate con artist. He was a sincere believer in Christian ideals, at least at one time. However, I'm sure that three weeks of therapy can't even begin to scratch the surface of his twisted character, meaning that Haggard's self-excusing and/or self-righteous facade will soon return. A person cannot live in the face of utter moral failure; unless he conceals himself with self-deception, he would be driven to suicide.
I mention the case of Ted Haggard in this post for one simple reason: I suspect that his psychology is fundamentally like that of Nathaniel Branden. Despite the radical differences in the ideals in question, the basic pattern is strikingly similar. If that doesn't seem plausible to you, then you might wish to read Jim Valliant's The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics. It's very revealing, to say the least.
John Stark just forwarded me this scary clip from it. In it, I learned that PowerPoint problems are the work of the Devil. (Seriously. These nutters prayed over their electronic equipment, including in tongues.) I was more seriously disturbed to see a young child -- probably about seven years old -- speaking shamefully of his occasional lack of belief in the Bible.
I wasn't at all surprised to see all the pro-Bush political activism from the pulpit, particularly from Ted Haggard. I suspect that his gay-sex-and-drugs scandal has put something of a damper on Christian evangelical designs for political change in America. They need to clean their own house before they can continue to self-righteously clean ours.
The second clip was from the documentary Friends of God. It begins with a traveling minister preaching against evolution and for creation. "The Bible is the History Book of the Universe." He is teaching about "the authority of Scripture." We should trust God, not the scientist, he warns. Yet the rank-and-file were quite determined to cloak themselves in the veneer of "creation science." (I guess they don't trust God and His Scripture that much!)
They are right about one thing: The Bible demands that we shut down all questions, all doubts, all thought. We lowly humans ought do nothing more than believe and obey.
Christian Hysteria By Diana Hsieh @ 9:09 PM
This comic strip on Christianity is absolutely priceless. When I have an office, it'll be the very first thing I post on the door. (Via Glenn Friedman.)
First and foremost, Noumenal Self has two blog posts on Robert Tracinksi's "What Went Right" series -- so far. Both essays (essay #1 and essay #2) are very good. If you are interested in this ongoing debate about the role of philosophy in the culture, they are a must-read.
This commentary on Ayn Rand's philosophy is absurd empiricism, then egalitarian Rawlsianism:
I'm no socialist, and [Atlas Shrugged] was written in a time when socialism was being tested empirically. There was evidence that it might even be working. Now we know differently. But we didn't then, which may explain why Rand felt the need to write it: to justify her own belief that socialism was a mistake. She was right about that.
Other aspects of her ideology, though, are much more offensive to me, such as the idea that some people are better than others--whether by virtue of culture (a "strong work ethic") or innate differences (IQ). Even if there are such differences, and they matter, they aren't under individual control. It's called luck: if you're born smart or with the ability to focus on long term goals, you prosper. If not, you don't.
But why does this idea persist, that some people are "better" than others?
Yup, Ayn Rand's rejection of socialism was just a lucky guess. Her knowledge of human nature, economics, and even her experience in Soviet Russia couldn't have been relevant. And sheesh, even her capacity to write Atlas Shrugged was also a matter of luck, since she was born with the "ability to focus on long term goals." How could it be otherwise, since we're all just equal bundles of good and bad luck?
Mike M. of Primacy of Awesome has some interesting thoughts on Christian Reconstructionism. (Like him, I've read a bit about that lately.) He accurately summarizes it as follows:
The basic thrust of Reconstructionism is that the United States should be remade according to biblical law in preparation for the second coming of Christ. So, Reconstructionists are famous (infamous) for advocating the death penalty for homosexuality, adultery, and witch craft, among other "crimes." Now, lest you think this is some fringe movement of the fringes of the Christian fringe, I'll simply state that Reconstructionism is a driving force in the religious right, ask you to do your own research, and leave it at that...
He then comments a bit about the embrace of Christian Reconstructionist Gary North by some libertarians. It's good stuff.
An atheist was taking a walk through the woods "What majestic trees! What powerful rivers! What beautiful animals!" he said to himself. As he continued walking alongside the river he heard a rustling in the bushes. Turning to look, he saw a 7 foot grizzly charging towards him.
He ran as fast as he could up the path. Looking over his shoulder he saw that the bear was closing in on him. His heart was pumping frantically and he tried to run even faster.
He tripped and fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but saw the bear raising his paw to take a swipe at him. At that instant the atheist cried out: "Oh my God..."
Time stopped.
The bear froze.
The forest was silent.
It was then that a bright light shone down upon the man and a voice came out of the sky saying: "You deny my existence for all of these years, teach others I don't exist, and even credit creation to a cosmic accident. Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?"
The atheist looked directly into the light, "It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps, could you make the bear a Christian?"
"Very well," said the voice.
The light went out.
And the sounds of the forest resumed.
Then the bear lowered his paw, bowed his head and spoke: "Lord, bless this food which I am about to receive and for which I am truly thankful. Amen."
Religion in College By Diana Hsieh @ 11:36 PM
While I haven't been teaching long enough to notice any difference in the religiosity of my students over the years, this professor's observations are consistent with my general knowledge on the topic. He writes:
More American college students seem to be practicing traditional forms of religion today than at any time in my 30 years of teaching.
At first glance, the flourishing of religion on campuses seems to reverse trends long criticized by conservatives under the rubric of "political correctness." But, in truth, something else is occurring. Once again, right and left have become mirror images of each other; religious correctness is simply the latest version of political correctness. Indeed, it seems the more religious students become, the less willing they are to engage in critical reflection about faith.
The chilling effect of these attitudes was brought home to me two years ago when an administrator at a university where I was then teaching called me into his office. A student had claimed that I had attacked his faith because I had urged him to consider whether Nietzsche's analysis of religion undermines belief in absolutes. The administrator insisted that I apologize to the student. (I refused.)
My experience was not unique. Today, professors invite harassment or worse by including "unacceptable" books on their syllabuses or by studying religious ideas and practices in ways deemed improper by religiously correct students.
Distinguished scholars at several major U.S. universities have been condemned, even subjected to death threats, for proposing psychological, sociological or anthropological interpretations of religious texts. In the most egregious cases, defenders of the faith insist that only true believers are qualified to teach their religious tradition.
At a time when universities are obsessed with public relations, faculty members can no longer be confident they will remain free to pose the questions that urgently need to be asked.
For years, I have begun my classes by telling students that if they are not more confused and uncertain at the end of the course than they were at the beginning, I will have failed. A growing number of religiously correct students consider this challenge a direct assault on their faith. Yet the task of thinking and teaching, especially in an age of emergent fundamentalisms, is to cultivate a faith in doubt that calls into question every certainty.
Any responsible curriculum for the study of religion must be guided by two basic principles: first, a clear distinction between the study and the practice of religion, and second, an expansive understanding of what religion is and of the manifold roles it plays in life. The aim of critical analysis is not to pass judgment on religious beliefs and practices -- though some secular dogmatists wrongly cross that line -- but to consider the many functions they serve.
It is also important to explore the similarities and differences between and among various religions. Religious traditions are not fixed and monolithic; they are networks of symbols, myths and rituals, which evolve over time by adapting to changing circumstances. If we fail to appreciate the complexity and diversity within, and among, religious traditions, we will overlook the fact that people from different traditions often share more with one another than they do with many members of their own tradition.
If chauvinistic believers develop deeper analyses of religion, they might begin to see in themselves what they criticize in others. In an era that thrives on both religious and political polarization, this is an important lesson to learn -- one that extends well beyond the academy.
Since religion is often most influential where it is least obvious, it is imperative to examine both its manifest and latent dimensions. As defenders of a faith become more reflective about their own beliefs, they begin to understand that religion can serve not only to provide answers that render life more secure but also to prepare them for life's unavoidable complexities and uncertainties.
Until recently, many influential analysts argued that religion, a vestige of an earlier stage of human development, would wither away as people became more sophisticated and rational. Obviously, things have not turned out that way. Indeed, the 21st century will be dominated by religion in ways that were inconceivable just a few years ago. Religious conflict will be less a matter of struggles between belief and unbelief than of clashes between believers who make room for doubt and those who do not.
The warning signs are clear: Unless we establish a genuine dialogue within and among all kinds of belief, ranging from religious fundamentalism to secular dogmatism, the conflicts of the future will probably be even more deadly.
Mark C. Taylor, a religion and humanities professor at Williams College, is the author of "Mystic Bones."
(This op-ed was also printed in the NY Times a few weeks ago.)
Many serious Christians are genuinely committed to replacing the political correctness of today's academia with their own Christian dogma. They are determined, they are numerous, and they are extremely well-funded. That's not good news: rule of academia by religious correctness would be no better -- and surely much worse -- than rule by political correctness. Sadly, my general impression is that the conservative criticisms of academia's closed doors will enshrine religious correctness, not merely overthrow political correctness. Too many in that movement aim to do just that.
Personally, I do worry that I'll face serious student complaints someday, probably sooner rather than later, for my teaching of Christian ethics. I'm not similarly concerned about the leftists.
I would like to thank all those who posted comments on my previous essay on Christian fundamentalism. I was a bit surprised at the number of people who recognized similarities to my own background. Several people also raised some interesting questions. Rather than answering individually, I decided to respond with this brief essay.
The Two Christianities
The Christian religion is not a monolithic structure; two major strains stand out in its history. From a philosophical perspective these two might appear to be separate religions only loosely associated, since they have very different answers to what is the nature of the world, the relationship between faith and reason, and how one should live one's life. These two perspectives have formed a polar opposition and much of the history of Christianity can be seen as a struggle between them.
The first of these two derives from Saint Paul of the New Testament and Augustine (354 - 430). This world is to be avoided; emphasis is clearly on the kingdom of God. In fact, this world is regarded as corrupt, a source of temptation, and the province of Satan. Equally emphatic is the denunciation of reason. The only justifiable exercise of reason is as a handmaiden of faith. Without faith, the exercise of reason not only leads to error, it is also corrupt, evil, and the province of Satan. Without faith, mankind is hopelessly mired in mountains of sin, to the extent that no amount of good works could form even a molehill in comparison. Salvation, then, is a free gift of God's grace, completely undeserved. Complete obedience to God is demanded in return.
Now, of course, it is not easy to remain alive in this world with such guiding principles. So, there has been a counter trend within Christianity throughout its history. The most articulate spokesman for this trend is Thomas Aquinas (1224 - 1274). The natural world is good; after all, God created it and pronounced it to be good. Consequently, interest in the natural world is appropriate and can even lead to God. This attitude is the source of such views of an awareness of the laws of physics as "thinking God's thoughts after Him". Reason is viewed as a natural capacity of human beings and can lead to truth about the world. Aquinas was very careful to distinguish philosophy from religion, and the "God of Philosophy" from the "God of faith". His famous five proofs of the existence of God can be criticized philosophically; this is a proper subject of rational debate. However, the "God of faith" is not subject to rational deliberation. But, Aquinas insists, there can be no conflict between faith and reason. Ethically, to live successfully in this world according to one's nature is a good thing for all living creatures, including human beings.
Most modern Christian denominations are complex mixtures of these two perspectives falling, on average, somewhere at an intermediate point on this continuum. This is also true of the Catholic Church. Various monastic orders tend to emphasize one side or the other of this divergence. For example, the Augustinian and Jesuit orders tend to fall on the Augustine side; the Benedictine order tends to fall on the Aquinas side. I attended a small Catholic college run by Benedictine monks my first two years. It was there that I was introduced to Aristotle, logic, and Thomas Aquinas, as well as getting a superb grounding in the fundamentals of mathematics.
Another example is also illustrative here. Martin Luther (1483 - 1546) was a theologian and a member of the Augustinian order within the Catholic Church. His "reformation" actually began as a friendly dispute over some rather arcane theological points related to the relevance of good works to salvation. His point of view was a conservative reaction to the "liberalism" of his day, harking back to the older teachings of Paul and Augustine. Later in his life, as the reformation took on political dimensions and resulted in an overt split from the church, he moved even closer to the positions of Paul and Augustine. His position on reason is unambiguous. He described it as "the Devil's Whore" and urged the faithful to slay it.
Ideas matter; they influence and shape our lives. Therefore, these two oppositions are more than theoretical; they very much affect the daily lives of people caught in the grips of the Christian religion. One of the best portrayals of these affects is in the movie Chocolat. At the beginning of the story, a small French village is caught in the grips of the Augustinian side of this opposition. The mayor and priest keep the people in a dour state of misery, suffering, and general malaise. Along comes the heroine of our story who brazenly opens a chocolate shop, during Lent no less. The movie can be seen as an allegory, using chocolate as symbolic of the enjoyment of life, as it portrays the gradual transformation of the lives of the people in the village moving toward the Aquinas side of this opposition.
Now let us turn to Christian fundamentalism and ask how it fits into this picture. Traditionally, three pillars grounded Christian faith: the authority of the church, tradition, and Holy Scripture. The church provided an interpretation of the Bible; it wasn't necessarily taken as literal truth. Fundamentalism in Christianity tends to reject the authority of the church and tradition, grounding its faith solely in a literal interpretation of the Bible as the revealed word of God. Fundamentalism may be found across all dimensions of Christianity. Many fundamentalists choose to remain in mainstream Christian denominations, including the Catholic Church. However, many do not; they may attend independent or non-denominational churches, or even gather informally in small groups. This is one reason why one must be very careful in interpreting polls about attitudes toward religion. Unless questions are carefully phrased, some fundamentalists fall through the cracks, since they do not regard themselves as part of traditional Christian denominations.
While I doubt that a blanket statement can be made that covers all fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists overwhelmingly tend to fall on the Paul/Augustine side of the ledger. The Bible is the source of all truth: What is the nature of reality? Whatever the Bible says it is. How do you know? It is in the Bible. How should one live? Do whatever the Bible says. There is no room for rational debate; it has been completely cut off. This is why fundamentalists have so little regard for historical scholarship as it applies to the origins of the church and the Bible. The acceptance of the Bible is itself a matter of faith and is not subject to rational deliberation.
How does one judge the content of fundamentalism? By looking at what is philosophically significant about it. By asking: How do they view the nature of the world? How do they regard the use of reason and the relationship between reason and faith? How do they answer the question of how should one live one's life? The answers to these questions are fairly easy to discover. Moreover, it is important to accurately identify their contents and treat fundamentalism accordingly. It is especially important to judge how they regard the exercise of reason.
Judging the cultural significance of contemporary Christian fundamentalism is more difficult. In this respect Peikoff's DIM Hypothesis is very helpful. So is his The Ominous Parallels, which is an underrated work. I am aware that it is denigrated in certain quarters that call themselves Objectivist, but this is a huge mistake. Not only is The Ominous Parallels the most coherent account of the rise of Nazism in Germany that exists, it is a remarkably detailed account of how ideas are spread throughout a culture. This process is by no means obvious; it takes a lot of work to trace the interconnections. Furthermore, Peikoff shows that the essential preconditions that made the rise of totalitarianism possible are operative here in the United States.
Let me make one observation about contemporary society. If you look at the recognizable intellectual movements of the last fifty years or so: pragmatism, positivism, socialism, Marxism, post-modernism, multi-culturalism, etc. the adjectives one would use to describe these movements today would not include "rejuvenated", "enthusiastic", and "energetic." Indeed, many of these movements are regarded today as a dead-end. Do they still have influence? Yes, but it is more from inertia than anything else. They are not going anywhere. Even linguistic analysis and existentialism, long dominant in many quarters in philosophy, can't be described as "vital." Their adherents continue to engage them because that is what they know how to do and they can't see any alternative. At best, contemporary society is characterized by a kind of intellectual vacuum. Just as in science, nature abhors a vacuum, so does society. Something will emerge to fill that vacuum. Today, one movement that can be described as rejuvenated, enthusiastic, and energetic is Christian fundamentalism.
The kind of split within Christianity that I have characterized here is probably applicable to other religions as well. I do not know as much about the history of Islam, but my impression is that this kind of split is present there as well. Indeed, it seems that Islamic fundamentalism runs parallel to fundamentalism within Christianity and the Augustinian side of this split. This is one reason why the United States has been so ineffective in fighting the war on terrorism. To do so requires a vigorous denunciation of religious fundamentalism and an emphatic insistence on the separation of religion and state. But, of course, to take such steps requires a philosophical understanding of why these positions are necessary.
The antidote to Christian fundamentalism is a philosophy based on reason and reality. Our hope for the future lies in the fact that there is another movement that can be described as rejuvenated, enthusiastic, and energetic: Objectivism.
Allen Farris November 22, 2006
For those of you wishing to explore these issues further, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy has reasonably competent overview articles on Augustine, Aquinas, and Luther. Also, if you haven't read The Ominous Parallels I recommend it highly.
I would add just one small point based upon my own preliminary readings of the New Testament, Augustine, and Aquinas. It's not just Paul that is allied with Augustine: Jesus himself is too. The Gospels -- particularly Jesus' "Sermon on the Mount" -- are thoroughly anti-worldly and anti-reason. All of the values of this world are totally opposite to those commanded by God. Although I've just started reading Augustine, his fundamental philosophy is clearly that of the New Testament. In contrast, Aquinas is often shockingly Aristotelian in his fundamental method and principles, so much so that Christian doctrine often seems like an afterthought. While Aquinas often exploits Aristotle's Platonic remnants (e.g. the contemplation of eternal as the best form of life), he's fundamentally grounded in a philosophy contrary to that of the New Testament.
...Janet Wolfson is a 44-year-old mother of eight in Canton, Georgia. Tracie Moore, a 39-year-old midwife who lives in southern Kentucky, is mother to fourteen. Wendy Dufkin in Coxsackie has her thirteen. And while Jamie Stoltzfus, a 27-year-old Illinois mom, has only four children so far, she plans on bearing enough to populate "two teams." All four mothers are devoted to a way of life New York Times columnist David Brooks has praised as a new spiritual movement taking hold among exurban and Sunbelt families. Brooks called these parents "natalists" and described their progeny as a new wave of "Red-Diaper Babies"--as in "red state."
But Wolfson, Moore and thousands of mothers like them call themselves and their belief system "Quiverfull." They borrow their name from Psalm 127: "Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one's youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their enemies in the gate." Quiverfull mothers think of their children as no mere movement but as an army they're building for God.
Quiverfull parents try to have upwards of six children. They home-school their families, attend fundamentalist churches and follow biblical guidelines of male headship--"Father knows best"--and female submissiveness. They refuse any attempt to regulate pregnancy. Quiverfull began with the publication of Rick and Jan Hess's 1989 book, A Full Quiver: Family Planning and the Lordship of Christ, which argues that God, as the "Great Physician" and sole "Birth Controller," opens and closes the womb on a case-by-case basis. Women's attempts to control their own bodies--the Lord's temple--are a seizure of divine power.
In the meantime, I'm reading the highly informative book With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America by sociologist William Martin. The book confirms -- in fabulous detail -- the major change wrought in the late 1970s and early 1980s by the politicization of evangelical Christianity. For those of you interested in the facts about religion in America, I think you'll find it fascinating, albeit in a scary kind of way.
Evangelical Environmentalists By Paul Hsieh @ 10:50 PM
This interesting article in the Christian Science Monitor describes the growing strength of environmentalist ideas within the evangelical movement. Notice how the fight against "global warming" is being cast in moral terms, yet leads to very similar policy prescriptions as the leftist environmentalists. Here are some excerpts:
...[T]he Rev. Gerald Durley had long thought of himself as enlightened and involved when it came to issues that hurt people's lives. He felt he was fulfilling his responsibilities to others. Until, he says, he saw the film "The Great Warming" last May.
"My total perspective on environmental issues and life in general was drastically altered," says the pastor of Providence Missionary Baptist Church. "This went beyond any political, racial, or gender issues -- it is a moral crisis."
...Richard Cizik, Washington spokesman of the National Association of Evangelicals, urges action based on the biblical demand for "creation care." Rev. Cizik had his own change of heart after listening to an Evangelical scientist from Oxford University lay out the scientific consensus.
..."It's not just individuals turning off the lights, but whether industries continue to pump pollution into the atmosphere," says Tony Campolo, cofounder of a nonpartisan group, Red Letter Christians. "Unless government starts controlling industry better than it has, we are not going to have a solution to this problem."
With global warming affecting poor countries more than the developed world, Dr. Campolo says, there is a biblical imperative for a wealthy America, responsible for at least 25 percent of global carbon emissions, to act.
Allen Farris on Christian Fundamentalism By Diana Hsieh @ 3:18 AM
Last week, Allen Farris sent me this essay on Christian fundamentalism. I didn't have time to post it before the election, but I knew that I would post it afterwards, as I wish to continue my investigations into and writings on Christianity in America. Since I grew up entirely without God, I'm particularly intrigued by and appreciative of the personal perspective of this essay.
As a result of the recent statement by Dr. Peikoff on the upcoming elections, there is considerable disagreement on the significance of the rise of religious fundamentalism in the United States. I completely agree with Dr. Peikoff's position and I regard the rise of religious fundamentalism and its desire to seek political power as the most serious problem this country faces today.
I wish to contribute to this discussion by giving you some indication of what it is like to live in a fundamentalist world.
I grew up in a small cotton mill town in the South. My parents were fundamentalists. People spoke in tongues at their church and, occasionally, at tent revivals, handled poisonous snakes. The time period is the 1940s and 1950s. Everyday life was completely dominated by a religious perspective. Children's books mostly had religious themes; no Winnie the Poo here. Discipline was harsh and beatings were common. Yes, the idea was to beat the Hell out of children. Since I was a naturally intelligent and curious child, and strong willed, I got the worst of them.
One of the things that saved me was that I took religion seriously. Everyone around me was telling me that this is what was really true. So, it seemed to me that I should try and understand it. So, I began to ask a lot of questions, to anyone who would listen. Even as a child, I could tell the responses I got did not answer my questions. Thus began a long search for answers. For me, school became a precious resource, even as poor as schools were in a small Southern town. I learned to use the library and extend my search beyond my immediate surroundings. School was the only contact I had with a world outside of religion. I discovered science and mathematics and I continued my quest to understand religion.
The admonition that I heard over and over again as a child was "Don't get above your raising." On such occasions I would think: Isn't that what children are supposed to do? To rise above their parents. Isn't that how we make progress? But, by then I had learned to keep such opinions to myself; beatings were dished out for much less provocation. I am quite certain if it were not for compulsory education laws, I would not have been allowed to attend school.
I graduated at the top of my class and paid for my college tuition by working in the cotton mills. Even though I had taken every math course my high school had to offer, I lacked sufficient courses to qualify for the sequence of courses required for science and engineering students. The college arranged for me to take a remedial course for non-credit. I wound up taking four math courses my freshman year and winning the Freshmen Mathematics Achievement award. When I was a graduate student in physics, I read Atlas Shrugged and it was like finding the Holy Grail. At last I had discovered a world that was intelligible.
It is difficult to convey to someone who has had little contact with fundamentalism the stifling atmosphere, both intellectually and emotionally, that pervades a fundamentalist environment. I will give you one concrete example. When I was about ten, I was encouraged to read a book called "The Rapture." It was an account of the second coming of Christ and in vivid detail described how the chosen were taken away and the damned left behind to horrific suffering. It was absolutely frightening. No child should ever read such a book. In my judgment, making a child read such a book is a form of child abuse. I never forgot that book, and in subsequent years, it came to be a symbol of everything I struggled to overcome as a child.
Later in my life my mother came to visit me in Green Bank, West Virginia. I took her to see the giant radio telescopes on which I worked. She did not really understand them and saw no point to scientific research. But, she added, "Just think, you might be the first to see Jesus return." The point here is that everything, every detail of the world, is interpreted from a religious perspective. If you listen to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, you will see that they have precisely the same attitude. In the language of the DIM Hypothesis, they are thorough-going M2s.
On some occasions, my mother, who is still living, has attempted to talk to me about religion and my lack of faith. I usually try to be patient; long ago I realized the achievement of any understanding between us was not possible. On more than one occasion she has said directly to me: I hope God does not strike you down for your beliefs and your stubborn arrogance. It does not take very much psychological insight to recognize that there is a straightforward logical progression from "I hope God does not strike you down" to "God should strike you down" to "As an agent of God, I will strike you down."
Make no mistake. If the religious fundamentalists ever gain control of political power they will destroy anything and anyone who rises to stand against them.
I would like to recommend a book that I recently read. It is an historical novel called Remembering Hypatia by Brian Trent, published in 2005. Hypatia was one of the foremost scholars of her day, a mathematician, astronomer and philosopher, and head of the great library at Alexandria. In 414 A.D., having been condemned as a pagan sorceress, she was brutally murdered by a mob of Christians. This event is taken by some as marking the beginning of that period known as the Dark Ages. The head of the Christian community at the time was Archbishop Cyril, who probably orchestrated the attack on Hypatia. Today, he is canonized by the Catholic Church as a saint.
Trent's novel is a compelling story woven around the few known facts of Hypatia's life and death. He does an excellent job of painting the contrast between those who believe we are capable of understanding the world and those who wish to destroy that capacity. I will quote one passage. Thasos is a young man of 19, who two years before at the time of Hypatia's death, had been one of her students. He is giving a lecture to a group of Alexandrians.
"Tonight," Thasos told his listeners, "The sky will glimmer with stars. Watch them. Realize they are something we can understand. You must be an observer of this world! Gather facts and formulate opinions, then test those opinions. Build on the work of others, and expand our understanding of the universe. Because that's our purpose." His voice quivered, a tear spilled. "That's our future."
Shortly after this lecture Thasos is arrested and burned alive.
After listening to Dr. Peikoff's lectures on the DIM Hypothesis, I decided to do a bit of investigation. To my utter shock, I discovered that not only does the book, "The Rapture" still exist; it has now expanded to a whole family of similar books. One of them is The Rapture: In the twinkling of an eye, countdown to the earth's last days by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins. As of this writing, its sales rank on Amazon.com is 1,953. By contrast Atlas Shrugged's rank is 1,769 and OPAR's is 27,035.
Based on my experiences as a child, I see the growth of religious fundamentalism as a monster lurking in the darkness. It is powerful. It is growing. It is real.
The Road To Theocracy By Paul Hsieh @ 11:55 PM
One of the central topics of the pre-election discussion has been whether the US is at genuine risk of turning into a Christian theocracy. The purpose of this essay is to argue that the risk is real and significant, and to show how this relates to Dr. Leonard Peikoff's DIM hypothesis. Even though the 2006 mid-term elections will be over tomorrow, the underlying issue will remain important. And my hope is that even if a reader is not immediately convinced by my arguments, he or she will keep them in the back of their mind and remain on the lookout for additional evidence of the trends I will be describing.
First, for the purpose of this essay, I'm defining a "theocracy" as a system of government in which the laws are justified based on their fidelity to religious principles -- as opposed to, say, the Objectivist understanding of individual rights.
Hence, a central feature of a theocracy is that there should be no separation of church and state. Quite the contrary -- if a government is enforcing laws based on religious grounds, then the state by its very nature must be using religious doctrine as a guiding principle. Conversely, a government which generally adheres to a policy of separation of church and state cannot be a theocracy. (Of course, such a government may be good or bad in other ways; e.g., a Communist dictatorship is not a theocracy, but is still based on bad principles of secular collectivism.)
So one indicator of whether a country is at risk of becoming a theocracy is whether the concept of "separation of church and state" is under serious attack in the culture or whether it is a solid wall.
It is therefore with great interest that I read this recent article in the October 2006 issue of Imprimis (the journal of Hillsdale College, a well known conservative college), entitled "Origins and Dangers of the 'Wall of Separation' Between Church and State" by Daniel Dreisbach, professor of Justice, Law and Society at American University. His article is quite detailed and worth reading in its entirety, but here are his main claims:
1. Thomas Jefferson was the originator of the phrase "wall of separation between Church and State".
2. The US Supreme Court has misinterpreted that metaphor in its constitutional rulings to the detriment of American society. As a result (according to Dr. Dreisbach),
...The "high and impregnable" wall constructed by the modern Court has been used to inhibit religion's ability to inform the public ethic, to deprive religious citizens of the civil liberty to participate in politics armed with ideas informed by their faith, and to infringe the right of religious communities and institutions to extend their prophetic ministries into the public square. Today, the "wall of separation" is the sacred icon of a strict separationist dogma intolerant of religious influences in the public arena. It has been used to silence religious voices in the public marketplace of ideas and to segregate faith communities behind a restrictive barrier.
Federal and state courts have used the "wall of separation" concept to justify censoring private religious expression (such as Christmas creches) in public, to deny public benefits (such as education vouchers) for religious entities, and to exclude religious citizens and organizations (such as faith-based social welfare agencies) from full participation in civic life on the same terms as their secular counterparts. The systematic and coercive removal of religion from public life not only is at war with our cultural traditions insofar as it evinces a callous indifference toward religion but also offends basic notions of freedom of religious exercise, expression, and association in a pluralistic society.
3. The founding fathers recognized that a self-governing society such as America (as opposed to a tyranny or dictatorship) required a culture of morality and religion amongst the citizenry:
Tyrants and dictators can use the whip and rod to force people to behave as they desire, but clearly this is incompatible with a self-governing people. In response to this challenge the founders looked to religion (and morality informed by religious faith) to provide the internal moral compass that would prompt citizens to behave in a disciplined manner and thereby promote social order and political stability.
4. The founding fathers believed, "that religion and morality were indispensable to social order and political prosperity" and "that the very survival of the civil state and a civil society was dependent on a vibrant religious culture, and religious liberty nurtured such a religious culture. In other words, the civil state's respect for religious liberty is an act of self-preservation."
Dreisbach also argues that First Amendment was meant to protect the churches from being infringed upon by the government, but should not be interpreted as meaning that the government should be immune from influences by religion. He makes a clever analogy with the "freedom of the press" provision of the First Amendment:
The free press guarantee, for example, was not written to protect the civil state from the press, but to protect a free and independent press from control by the national government. Similarly, the religion provisions were added to the Constitution to protect religion and religious institutions from corrupting interference by the national government, not to protect the civil state from the influence of, or overreaching by, religion. As a bilateral barrier, however, the wall unavoidably restricts religion's ability to influence public life, thereby exceeding the limitations imposed by the First Amendment.
In other words, according to Dreisbach, the constitution only requires separation in one direction -- i.e., that churches should not be subject to infringement or interference from the state. However, it does not bar attempts by the church to influence the government. Quite the contrary -- because morality and religion are essential to a functioning civil society, then any attempt to erect a "bilateral barrier" (rather than the one-way protections) would jeopardize the very core of the American system.
Dreisbach correctly recognizes that a political philosophy must be (at least implicitly) based on an underlying system of ethics and a theory of human nature. But since he (mistakenly) believes that the only source of morality is religion, then he naturally concludes that the American system of government must therefore allow itself to be informed by religious values.
In contrast, Objectivists also recognize that a correct political philosophy follows from the application of ethics to a social context. But Objectivists identify individual rights as the proper link between ethics and politics. Rights, not religion, should be the guiding principle behind a proper moral government.
Although Dreisbach is one of the more eloquent defenders of the idea that there should be no "wall of separation" between church and state, this idea has gained common currency amongst many Republican politicians.
One common formulation of this idea is that the Constitution guarantees "freedom FOR religion", rather than "freedom FROM religion". In fact Janet Rowland, the Republican candidate for Lieutenant Governor for Colorado recently stated as much when asked, "How do you feel about the issue of "separation of church and state'?". Her response was, "It's not in the Constitution. We should have the freedom OF religion, not the freedom FROM religion."
In his lecture, "Religion vs. America", Dr. Leonard Peikoff quotes former Republican Vice Presidential candidate Jack Kemp as saying virtually the same thing:
"The Constitution establishes freedom for religion," says Mr. Kemp, "not from it" -- a sentiment which is shared by President Reagan and by the whole New Right.
A closely-related idea is that America needs religion. In fact, this is the precise theme of a 9/26/2000 lecture at the highly influential Heritage Foundation given by Board member William Simon entitled, "Why America Needs Religion".
A few excerpts:
Does America really need religion? I believe this question is of supreme importance for our country as we begin the 21st century, and the answer goes far beyond the number of times presidential candidates sprinkle their speeches with references to God. And yet the United States is increasingly characterized by confusion, controversy, and contradiction over the answer.
He then cites, "'the eternal triangle of first principles' -- a set of three interlocking and interdependent ideas that were viewed as absolutely foundational for sustaining freedom."
...The three legs of this triangle are liberty, virtue, and religion. The premise is that each leg requires the other so that simply stated: liberty requires virtue, virtue requires faith, and faith requires liberty.
...The first leg of the triangle is the principle that liberty requires virtue. For the Framers, liberty was not just a form of negative freedom -- a freedom "from"; rather, it was positive freedom -- a freedom "for," or freedom "to be."
In Lord Acton's famous formulation, freedom is not the permission to do what we like but the power to do what we ought. In a similar vein, Benjamin Franklin once said, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom."
...The second leg of the triangle is the principle that virtue requires religion. For the Framers, virtue was more all-encompassing than many view virtue in today's society. For one thing, it included strong features such as excellence and courage. For another, it had to be grounded and rooted. It was not a cliche that floated in thin air. Religion provided virtue with its content, its inspiration, and its sanction.
...The third leg of the triangle is the principle that religion requires liberty. Here, and not in the separation of powers, is where our Framers were perhaps most original and most daring.
Simon then repeats the familiar argument the we have strayed from the Founding Fathers and have enshrined a mistaken modern view about the separation of church and state:
Religious freedom then becomes freedom from religion instead of freedom for religion. Public life becomes a "religion-free zone" so that religion is considered inviolably private and public life inviolably secular.
...This view of a "religion-free zone" is a radical departure because for the greater part of our history, America adhered closely to the Framers' understanding of the First Amendment. Great leaders such as Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan, following in the footsteps of the Framers, continually reminded us that faith and religion are not just important to the character of our people and nation, but also, to repeat Washington's words, "indispensable" to the preservation of our democratic institutions.
And finally,
When Michael Novak addressed the Library of Congress in 1998, he was asked, "Can an atheist be a good American?" His answer was yes, "that has been done, many times." But, he continued, "Can American liberties survive if most of our nation is atheist? The most common, almost universal judgment of the Founders was that it could not."
In other words, according to Simon, religion is essential for the survival of America. And if an atheistic philosophy such as Objectivism were ever to become dominant in this country, it would mean the end of our liberties.
==========
Now how does this relate to Leonard Peikoff's DIM hypothesis?
Given that Objectivism is not (yet) a major cultural/political force in America, the Religious Right and the Nihilistic Left are the two main ideological groups dominating political discourse in this country. The Nihilistic Left has an essentially disintegrated view of politics and philosophy (the D in DIM), with its emphasis on moral relativism, egalitarianism, multiculturalism, etc. In their view, right and wrong are relative, America has no reason to think of itself as the "good guys", and if we are attacked by terrorists it must somehow be our fault not theirs.
In contrast, the Religious Right offers a misintegrated view of philosophy (the M in DIM). In their view, right and wrong do exist (and are given to us by God), America is good, the basis of America's goodness is its religious values, and if America is attacked by evildoers then our enemies must be opposed.
The American sense of life, which is a holdover from the Enlightenment influence of our Founding Fathers, includes a belief that happiness and prosperity are possible to those who are willing to work hard, virtue should be rewarded, and America is a good place, a proverbial "land of opportunity". This was certainly the view of folks like my parents, who immigrated to the US in search of a better life, as was the case of many immigrants. As Ayn Rand noted, this sense of life is not an explicit philosophy but an implicit "pre-conceptual equivalent of metaphysics, an emotional, subconsciously integrated appraisal of man and of existence" ("Art and Sense of Life", Romantic Manifesto).
So during a time of crisis when there is an external threat from violent Islamists, how will Americans respond? My prediction is that if Americans perceive the choice to be between a Nihilistic Left that proclaims there is no objective morality and that America deserved to be attacked vs. a Religious Right that proclaims that America is right and that the attackers need to be opposed, most Americans will side with the Right. Indeed, we saw this exact visceral reaction in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. And although support for this particular Republican administration has faded in the intervening 5 years, the basic American sense of life hasn't changed significantly.
So allow me to propose a hypothetical scenario which could lead to a theocracy within a few decades. This hypothetical is not original to me, nor is it the only path that could lead to a theocracy, but I hope it will illustrate my point. Suppose that sometime in the next few years, Islamic terrorists managed to acquire half a dozen nuclear weapons (perhaps from North Korea, Iran, or from a Pakistan that has succumbed to Islamic rule.) The terrorists smuggled them into the US and simultaneously detonated them in the six largest American cities. Such an attack would cause immense loss of life and immense physical and economic devastation, making the casualties from 9/11 look like small change in comparison, but it wouldn't destroy the US per se. Much of our military capacity would still remain intact.
In the aftermath of these new attacks, the atmosphere would be right for a political leader to proclaim, "Enough is enough -- we need to really fight back now. No more half-measures! We are being attacked because we are a Christian nation, and we now have to take the battle to them!"
A charismatic Christian political leader who (correctly) identified that this was indeed a war with Islam, who asserted (correctly) America needed to fight back with overwhelming military force, and who (incorrectly) claimed that America was a Christian nation and that the essential nature of the struggle was Christianity vs. Islam, could gain an enormous popular following in a country overwhelmed by grief, shock, and fury following the deaths of millions at the hands of such Islamists. At such a time, Americans hunger for moral certainty from their leaders, and his views would provided them with precisely that.
Although this may seem improbable now, those ideas may seem much more plausible to a country that has been softened up by a barrage of conservative Christian academics and intellectuals who have been teaching that America is a Christian country, that American virtue depends on its religiosity, that the very survival of America depends on the inclusion of religious values in the government, that the "wall of separation" between church and state imposed by the secular Left has been a major source of our problems, and that the attacks we have suffered are the price we are paying for ignoring these "truths". This misintegrated worldview could gain significant traction amongst a large segment of Americans who aren't otherwise armed with a opposing strong rational explicit philosophy.
Furthermore (and this is an element of the DIM hypothesis which has also been emphasized in Mike Williams' recent essay), the more "moderate" conservatives who are also personally religous but who have some emotional sympathy for the separation of church and state would be philosophically disarmed and unable to make a principled defense for the separation of church and state in the face of the more consistent arguments made by the dedicated Christian extremists. This is merely an application of the principles identified by Ayn Rand in her essay, "Anatomy of Compromise":
In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.
...When two men (or groups) hold the same basic principles, yet oppose each other on a given issue, it means that at least one of them is inconsistent. Since basic principles determine the ultimate goal of any long-range process of action, the person who holds a clearer, more consistent view of the end to be achieved, will be more consistently right in his choice of means; and the contradictions of his opponent will work to his advantage, psychologically and existentially.
Psychologically, the inconsistent person will endorse and propagate the same ideas as his adversary, but in a weaker, diluted form and thus will sanction, assist, and hasten his adversary's victory, creating in the minds of their disputed following the impression of his adversary's greater honesty and courage, while discrediting himself by an aura of evasion and cowardice.
Existentially, every step or measure taken to achieve their common goal will necessitate further and more crucial steps or measures in the same direction (unless the goal is rejected and the basic principles reversed) thus strengthening the leadership of the consistent person and reducing the inconsistent one to impotence.
The conflict will follow that course regardless of whether the basic principles shared by the two adversaries are right or wrong, true or false, rational or irrational.
In other words, the moderate Christians who believe in some sort of separation of church and state, but who also believe that religion is the only source of morality and functioning civic society will lose to the more consistent extremist Christians who believe that there should be no separation of church and state. And this is how America could slowly (or quickly) devolve into a theocracy.
Once people explicitly accept the idea that separation of church and state is wrong, then neither the American sense of life, nor the Bill of Rights will pose much of an obstacle to theocracy. I can't predict how long it will take, but I don't think a generation (i.e., ~ 30 years) is all that implausible. If one sees how long it took bad ideas of the Left to percolate from academia to practical politics in the mid-20th century, or radical Islamist ideas to percolate from the religious schools of the Middle East in the 1980's to popular culture on the "Arab street", then a 20-40 year time span seems about right.
For those who think this is overly speculative, as just one concrete example I'd like to point to the website of the John Jay Institute, a think tank based in Colorado Springs less than an hour away from my house, whose mission is "to prepare Christians for principled leadership in public life".
Their mission statement includes the following very explicit position:
Within two decades of America's birth John Jay and other founding fathers were alarmed that contemporary currents of unbelief and secularism would become a "political engine" to the ruin of American society and constitutional order. In retrospect Jay has been proven prescient. Today American civilization manifests a loss of ethics, mores, manners, civility, and common decency. This cultural crisis is religious and spiritual at its root and stems from the triumph of radical ideologies to sever faith from society, politics, and law. As a consequence Americans are reaping a whirlwind of confusion about the meaning of our civilization, our country, and our selves.
The late Russell Kirk observed how this crisis portends on government and law, "When the religious understanding, from which the concept of law arose in culture, has been discarded or denied, the laws may endure for some time... but in the long run, the laws will be discarded or denied.... I venture to suggest that the corpus of English and American laws ...cannot endure forever unless it is animated by the spirit that moved it in the beginning: that is, by religion, and specifically by the Christian people."
Among their many activities, they are sponsoring a 2006 calendar year lecture series entitled "Christian Perspectives on Engaging Political Islam", which features a number of talks by prominent thinkers on the conflict between America and the Islamists. One lecture is entited "The Ghosts of Appeasement: Christian Realism and the Rise of Islamo-Facism", and the central argument is that the only viable alternative to the current leftist/secular appeasement and surrender to Islam is "a recovery of Christian realism about the problem of evil in a post-9/11 world", i.e., the willingness to make moral judgments and take a stand against Islamism based on Christian values.
Another of their lectures entited "Just War in an Age of Terrorism", argues that only the Christian "Just War Theory" provides America with the moral clarity to fight Islam.
(Of course, Dr. Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein have provided a devastating Objectivist critique of Just War Theory in their own recent article in the Objective Standard, "'Just War Theory' vs. American Self-Defense".
And the John Jay Institute is not even the largest nor most well-known of many such think tanks, merely the one geographically closest to my house!
And what will be the practical consequences of the widespread adoption of this religion-centered political philosophy? Dr. Peikoff has spelled this out in great detail in his 1986 Ford Hall Forum speech, "Religion Vs. America", including the dangers to freedom of speech, property rights, and personal liberties. (The entire text can be found online here.)
In the Summer 2006 issue of The Objective Standard (Vol. 1 No. 2), Craig Biddle has published an article entitled "Religion vs. Free Speech" which shows how religious values are at the root fundamentally incompatible with free speech. (The full article is only available to subscribers, but the opening paragraphs are available to all.)
As Dr. Peikoff points out, the choice is not between the Left and the Religious Right. Both alternatives will lead to statism; the Right's version would merely be a statist system based on religious values. And it would be especially pernicious because its advocates will attempt to claim that that they aren't adopting any revolutionary new ideas, merely returning us to "real" American values that we have lost. And if history is any guide, under their rule the outward forms of government will remain the same -- there will still be President in the White House, a Congress in Capitol Hill, and a Supreme Court in session as before. But the fundamental principles guiding these institutions will be gone. And this religious form of statism will be far more dangerous than the leftist form precisely because of its seemingly pro-American veneer and consequent appeal to the American sense of life.
Just as the Islamists rose rapidly to prominence in the Middle East from seemingly nowhere over the past 20 years, taking many casual observers by surprise even though the intellectual seeds had been sown for the prior generation, I believe that the groundwork is being set for a similar rise in Christian ideology in this country that will take many casual secular observers by surprise over the next 20 years. I understand why a rational secular person could easily underestimate this danger, especially if they believe that the underlying religious ideology is too irrational for anyone to take seriously. But the same would have applied to those who in the 1980's would have discounted the potential threat posed to American foreign policy interests by a bunch of rag-tag Middle Eastern Islamists 20 years in the future. A Christian theocracy won't spring up overnight here, and it's not an inevitable development. But the ideological seeds are being planted as we speak, and we may be reaping the bitter fruits within a generation.
In conclusion, given the strength of our country and the (still fairly good) sense of life of most Americans, I don't think we are at serious risk of being physically taken over by Islamic fundamentalists who will impose sharia law on the US. The Islamists could cause a lot of death and destruction to this country, but they won't conquer us. Nor do I think that a socialist dictatorship is a realistic long-term danger (even though the leftists will continue to remain a serious political force for the near to medium future and their bad ideas will still have to be firmly opposed). But I think that if America were to ever fall into a dictatorship, it will be as a form of fascism which is cloaked as a "return to founding American principles", but which in reality is a theocracy. And given the energy of the religious conservative intellectuals who are mounting an explicit and determined attack against the idea of the separation of church and state, I contend that the risk is a significant one.
In other words, the biggest long-term ideological danger to the US will comes from those who argue, "Why America Needs Religion", and the only principled opposition will have to come from Objectivists who recognize that the real issue is "Religion vs. America".
Like many others, Mike was in strongly favor of voting for Bush in 2004. He's changed his mind after thinking through the issues. When I asked him whether I could say that in introducing his post, Mike replied:
Absolutely. Most importantly, my progression came about after I reviewed Peikoff's DIM course as well as reviewed the factual evidence about the rise of religion, both in the culture at large and within the leadership structure of the Republican Party. In retrospect, I think the evidence has been there (about the culture but particularly about the Republicans) at least since 1980 and certainly by the close of Reagan's first term. However, it really took reviewing the fundamental significance of philosophy ("Duel Between Plato and Aristotle" and "For the New Intellectual", in particular) combined with the insights of The DIM Hypothesis to see religion as the real threat that could preclude the advocacy of a rational alternative. (The most easily accessible factual info about the influence of religion within the Republican Party has been theocracywatch.org. Yes, its run by ACLU-types, but the best thing either side of the aisle ever does is expose the flaws of their opponents!)
So here's Mike's post on DIM:
In order to fully grasp what is at stake in the 2006 (and future) elections, it is important to bear in mind one of the central tenets of Peikoff's DIM Hypothesis: that societal change [for the better] will not come from electing a given political candidate or slate of candidates from a particular party.
Fundamentally, electing neither Democratic nor Republican politicians will advance freedom or in any way secure our rights. Politicians from both parties will continue to erode the Constitution, hamstring our national defense and move us closer to a totalitarian regime. Both pose significant threats to our rights of free speech, self defense and free choice in medicine. Neither party's members have any clear conception of how to fight and win the war with the Islamic bloc, nor the requisite moral certainty to do so. The party platforms of both the Democrats and the Republicans (as well as the Libertarians) are recipes for disaster in the short term and for tyranny in the long term. There is, however, a key fundamental philosophical difference between the two major political parties, and that difference has real consequences for us as advocates of a rational philosophy.
One of Peikoff's identifications in his DIM hypothesis work is that the current schools of thought and future trends in a given field are shaped by the underlying approach toward integration of the intellectual leaders within that field. In spite of the successes that ARI and other intellectually active rational individuals have recently enjoyed, a reality-oriented, reason-based conceptually integrative orientation is not widespread in any culturally influential field today. The 'I' approach is not even a factor in the political arena (where it has no significant adherents), while it is just barely represented in the educational and cultural fields to which politics is derivative. Further, Peikoff notes that an other-worldly, faith-based misintegrative (or 'M') approach will be more internally consistent, more attractive, more influential and ultimately more sustainable in practice than the third possible alternative: concrete bound, conceptually blind disintegration.
Some in the Democratic Party, particularly the ideological hardcore of the far Left, are representatives of the disintegrative approach in politics (to the extent that they represent anything). They seek to destroy America and the West (for the sake of the third world, or the environment, or in the name of equality, or however they care to excuse and dress up their hatred of the good). While the majority of Democrats are surely less consistent mixed cases, and even with some consistent religionists obviously included, the most consistent 'D' types set the trend and the agenda within the Democratic party. The DNC is far more in thrall to Greenpeace, MoveOn or the ACLU than it is to Focus on the Family. If elected, the long term political influence of today's Democrats will be to continue America's slide toward self-destruction through increasingly statist policies.
However, Peikoff argues that the disintegrative approach is impotent in the long term. Politically, the far Left does not appeal to the majority of the American population and will not be able to hold political power or remain culturally dominant for any lasting period of time. These mixed cases or even pure nihilists do not offer any type of integrated worldview, no deeper motivating internally consistent system with which to justify or sustain their political ambitions. Whatever ideological remnants of their Marxist past might remain are in decline in the broader culture and pose no lasting threat to the advocacy of a rational philosophy. The Democrats in power will not be successful in implementing the full gamut of their political agenda, even if they were to gain control of both houses in Congress. And, though tenuous and vestigial, the Left retains some nominal commitment to hearing all viewpoints and to the equality of all opinions in their multicultural relativism.
Yet continuing political control by the Republicans could and would lead to political domination of the US by religionists. Make no mistake: the RNC is as deeply committed to as it is indebted to the Family Research Council, the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family and their ilk. Unlike the disintegrative, nihilistic agenda of the far left, the misintegrative policies of the religious right are supported by an ardent, confident and growing base of US fundamentalists, who cannot be opposed by their less consistent, but equally faithful, fellow travelers. Republican success would fuel the ascendancy of an other-worldy misintegrative theology in both academia and the wider culture. Further, and most alarmingly, the continued control of the US federal government by the Republicans could lead to the political imposition of totalitarian Christianity, supported by a comprehensive though false worldview that has proven to be as sustainable as it is destructive (see medieval Europe).
And a primary target of the Republican religionistas is and will continue to be freedom of speech. Keep in mind Rand's observation that each political party in the US seeks to control the realm that it considers important, either the mind or the body. The breakdown of the 1st Amendment injunction against state-sponsored religion under Bush, combined with the stacking of the judiciary to prevent legal challenges to this breakdown, continues unabated and will only accelerate if Republicans remain in power. The substitution of Christianity for cultural relativism in the schools, direct government funding for religious organizations, censorship of the media and the internet in the name of decency and family values: all these are only precursors to the political actions the religionists will take in their all out attack on the remnants of our rational, secular Enlightenment heritage (which they correctly identify as their only real enemy, rightly dismissing the hardcore of the nihilistic Left). Clearly, the Christian Republicans are seeking to control the minds of US citizens, or at least enough of us to ensure their dominance of the country.
Prior to the landslide election of Reagan in 1980, individual candidates from either party could be evaluated independently for their political philosophies, as they were often almost identical pragmatists, each grabbing for power and not serving to advance any real intellectual trend one way or the other. Exceptions like McGovern, who were holdovers from an already fading secular Marxist past, were soundly defeated. Today, individual dissenters within the Republican Party are ineffective and do not serve to stem the current dominant misintegrative trend as long as the Christian-Neocon cabal sets the agenda for the Republican leadership. Any truly pro-freedom Republicans cannot come to the fore until the religiously motivated political agenda of today's Republicans has been stopped. Also, widespread failure of current Democratic candidates to get elected may prompt a philosophical shift within that party, giving a further boost to true leftist religionists, such as Barack Obama, while lessening the prospects of a pragmatic power luster such as Hillary. Failure to support a political stopgap today might destroy the possibility for such an alternative, and could lead to the further rise of an 'M' element within the Democratic party as well.
Try not to think of this election in terms of which candidate has the better understanding of the fact that we are at war, or who might lessen the chance of socializing medicine. (If you are concerned with the war, recall the assessment of Peikoff, Lewis, Brook and others that there is no foreign enemy that can defeat the United States militarily if we have the will to defend ourselves.) The real threat is not the Islamic theocracies abroad. Rather, it is the possibility that our political system will continue to be co-opted by Christian theocrats as they serve to reinforce and further institutionalize their growing influence, thereby shutting out the possibility of a true rational alternative ever having the chance to matter. Voting for a truly pro-freedom candidate in the future will be the eventual consequence of widespread adoption of a rational philosophy not its cause. Such a possibility will never even come to pass if the majority of individuals in this country succumb to Christian fundamentalist delusions and their mandates are enforced by law.
The Democrats and Religion By Paul Hsieh @ 8:03 AM
One effect of the Republican Party's aggressive efforts to pursue a religion-friendly agenda is that it encourages the Democrats to do the same. Although this is still a minor part of the Democratic strategy, it's disturbing trend, and I expect to see more of this in 2008. This is yet another reason to ensure that the Republicans are defeated in 2006, so as to slow down or halt this trend.
The 10/25/2006 edition of the Christian Science Monitor had an detailed article on the Democratic Party's attempts to appeal to religious (Christian) voters. Here are some excerpts:
Ever since George W. Bush named Jesus as his favorite philosopher and positioned himself as a strong man of faith, Republicans have increasingly been viewed as the party sympathetic to religion -- with the Democrats found seriously wanting.
That may be changing...
...Democratic candidates' efforts to articulate their faith and values -- and tie them to a broader range of issues -- are also resonating with voters.
The party has initiated a serious effort to reach out to people of faith. For example, after a series of meetings with religious and lay leaders across the state, the Michigan Democratic Party has written language on the role of faith into its party platform.
...[Following the advice to "play up their faith"], in the current campaign, a number of Democratic candidates are seeking to do just that. Prominent party leaders have led the way: Sen. Barack Obama's speech on faith and politics last June won wide play in the press and accolades from the public; Senator Kerry followed with a speech about his own religious convictions that many say he should have given in 2004.
Others in the political fray are opening up. In Ohio, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Ted Strickland has talked regularly about faith and values and is way out in front of his religious conservative opponent, Ken Blackwell. Ohio went for President Bush in 2004, but Republican scandals and a deteriorating economy have put the social issues promoted by conservatives on the back burner for many voters. Instead, raising the state minimum wage is garnering support from more than three-quarters of Ohioans, according to a recent poll.
In Tennessee, Democratic Rep. Harold Ford Jr., who is running for the US Senate, filmed a TV ad from his home church explaining his values and has a faith statement on his website. Pennsylvania state treasurer Bob Casey Jr., an anti-abortion Democrat running against conservative Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, has given the Democrats a different face on the abortion issue.
Such efforts "may help particular Democratic candidates get Evangelical votes, but it might be even more effective with Roman Catholic and mainline Protestants, groups that have been voting Republican but aren't as strongly wedded to the GOP," suggests Dr. Green, a longtime political analyst from Ohio.
Two other innovations may also benefit Democrats as they try to bring religious voters into the fold. A number of Democratic candidates are advertising for the first time on Christian radio. And national and state Democratic parties are working hard on outreach to religious groups. The chief of staff of the Democratic National Committee, in fact, is a Pentecostal pastor.
[Note from Diana: Colorado is already suffering from this trend: it has two pro-life religious candidates for governor. However, unlike the Republican Beauprez, the Democrat Ritter has not made his religion a central feature of his campaign. Unless the Republicans are punished for injecting religion into politics, all elections will soon be a "choice" between faith-driven Democrats and faith-driven Republicans.]
Q: In view of the constant parade of jackassery which is Washington, is there any point in voting for candidates of either entrenched party? Throwing out the incumbents "for a change" is to me an idea based on the philosophy that my head will stop hurting if I bang it on the opposite wall.
A: How you cast your vote in the coming election is important, even if the two parties are both rotten. In essence, the Democrats stand for socialism, or at least some ambling steps in its direction; the Republicans stand for religion, particularly evangelical Christianity, and are taking ambitious strides to give it political power.
Socialism--a fad of the last few centuries--has had its day; it has been almost universally rejected for decades. Leftists are no longer the passionate collectivists of the 30s, but usually avowed anti-ideologists, who bewail the futility of all systems. Religion, by contrast--the destroyer of man since time immemorial--is not fading; on the contrary, it is now the only philosophic movement rapidly and righteously rising to take over the government.
The survival of this country will not be determined by the degree to which the government, simply by inertia, imposes taxes, entitlements, controls, etc., although such impositions will be harmful (and all of them and worse will be embraced or pioneered by conservatives, as Bush has shown). What does determine the survival of this country is not political concretes, but fundamental philosophy. And in this area the only real threat to the country now, the only political evil comparable to or even greater than the threat once posed by Soviet Communism, is religion and the Party which is its home and sponsor.
The most urgent political task now is to topple the Republicans from power, if possible in the House and the Senate. This entails voting consistently Democratic, even if the opponent is a "good" Republican.
In my judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man's actual life--which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world.
If you hate the Left so much that you feel more comfortable with the Right, you are unwittingly helping to push the U.S. toward disaster, i.e., theocracy, not in 50 years, but, frighteningly, much sooner.
I fully support Dr. Peikoff's statement.
I am acutely aware of the concrete evils of voting for the Democrats: high taxes, environmentalism, welfare programs, socialized medicine, and gun control. Nonetheless, I will vote for Democrats as long as necessary, even for Hillary Clinton in 2008.
That is a substantial change for me, as some of you might recall. In the 2004 election, I was hopelessly torn by the choice between Bush and Kerry. While I knew that both were evil, I could not say Bush was apocalyptically evil while Kerry was merely ordinary evil. (Frankly, that middle ground was progress for me, as I'd been pro-Republican in the general vein of TIA Daily for many years beforehand.) I continued to pursue the matter after the election: I knew I needed to understand the relevant principles much better than I did. Listening to Dr. Peikoff's excellent DIM Hypothesis course made the most difference to me: upon hearing the whole course, I finally understood the real meaning of the posted excerpt on the 2004 election. Of course, I still had much more thinking to do. Dr. Peikoff's Religion Versus America and America Versus Americans lectures were illuminating, as was Dr. Yaron Brook's lecture The Morality of War and Dr. John Lewis' Ideas and the Fall of Rome. Dr. Brad Thompson's recent article The Decline and Fall of American Conservatism is also a must-read.
I mention those sources for a very specific reason: It's hard to understand the depth and power of Dr. Peikoff's position unless you are familiar with them, particularly his DIM Hypothesis course. Dr. Peikoff's position is not based on any casual survey of recent events; it is well-grounded in fundamental principles, particularly the essential factors governing philosophic change in cultures over the course of centuries. The Objectivist view of the role of philosophy in shaping individual lives, politics, culture, and history is a massive integration. While most professed Objectivists could summarize it, they do not genuinely understand it for themselves, i.e. based upon their own induction from the concretes. Dr. Peikoff's DIM Hypothesis course makes that induction so much more clear. It helps a person cut through the confusing sea of today's concretes, so as to see the essential trends. (Note: The Ayn Rand Institute has made Dr. Peikoff's DIM Hypothesis course available for free to registered users!)
As regards the election, the past two years of the Bush Administration and its Republican Congress have displayed the true philosophic commitments of today's conservatives more starkly than ever. In their domestic policies, the Republicans fully support socialism and statism. They simply do so in craftier ways than the Democrats. Most obviously, the Bush Administration successfully pushed its prescription drug plan -- a massive new entitlement -- through a Republican-dominated House and Senate. Even with his Democratic Congress, Clinton was unable to match that feat of welfare statism. As a general matter, the Bush Administration is not even slightly concerned with controlling spending or the growth of government. Consider these "hard facts" from Dr. Thompson's The Decline and Fall of American Conservatism:
Government spending has increased faster under George Bush and his Republican Congress than it did under Bill Clinton, and more people work for the federal government today than at any time since the end of the Cold War. During Bush's first term, total government spending skyrocketed from $1.86 trillion to $2.48 trillion, an increase of 33 percent (almost $23,000 per household, the highest level since World War II). The federal budget grew by $616.4 billion during Bush's first term in office. If post 9/11 defense spending is taken off the table, domestic spending has ballooned by 23 percent since Bush took office. When Bill Clinton left office in 2000, federal spending equaled 18.5 percent of the gross domestic product, but by the end of the first Bush administration, government outlays had increased to 20.3 percent of the GDP. The annualized growth rate of non-defense and non-homeland-security outlays has more than doubled from 2.1 percent under Clinton to 4.8 percent under Bush.
Increased spending inevitably means increased taxes. Thus, despite President Bush's much vaunted tax cuts, Americans actually pay more in taxes today than they did during Bill Clinton's last year in office. The 2006 annual report from Americans for Tax Reform, titled "Cost of Government Day," sums up rather nicely the intrusive role played by Republican government in the lives of ordinary Americans. The report says that Americans had to work 86.5 days just to pay their federal taxes, as compared to 78.5 days in 2000 under Bill Clinton. In other words, the average American has worked 10.2 percent more for the federal government under George Bush than under Bill Clinton. When state and local taxes (controlled in the majority of places by Republicans) are added to federal taxes, Americans worked for the government eight hours a day, five days a week, from January 1 until July 12, meaning they worked full-time for the government for more than half the year. As Tom Feeney, a congressional Republican put it: "I remember growing up and reading in some school textbooks that if more than half your paycheck went to the government, then you were living in a socialist society." Just so, Mr. Feeney.
The profligate spending of President Bush and the Republican Congress is thoroughly consistent with current Republican principles. In fact, Bush's massively expensive prescription drug plan was based upon the very same model of a "conservative welfare state" as his failed attempt to reform Social Security, his support for school vouchers, and his tax cuts. As Dr. Thompson explains:
How does a conservative welfare state work? And how does it differ from a liberal welfare state? The neocons advocate a strong central government that provides welfare services to all people who need them while, at the same time, giving people choice about how they want those services delivered. That is what makes it "conservative," they argue. That is how the neocons reconcile Adam Smith and Karl Marx, Hayek and Trotsky.
In practice, this means that the coercive force of the state is used to provide for all of the people's needs--from universal social security to health and child care to education--but the people choose their own "private" social security accounts; they choose their own "private" health and child-care providers; and parents receive vouchers and choose which schools their children will attend. The choices, of course, are not the wide-open choices of a free market; rather, the people are permitted to choose from among a handful of pre-authorized providers. The neocons call this scheme a free-market reform of the welfare state.
As economic "supply-siders," the neocons occasionally support tax cuts--but not because they want to return to taxpayers money that is rightfully theirs. Instead, they advocate lowering the marginal tax rate because it will provide an incentive for people to work harder, earn more money, spur economic growth--and, thereby, generate more tax revenue that will be used to fund the conservative welfare state.
In other words, President Bush's occasional vaguely free-market rhetoric means nothing. The guiding ideal of his administration is that of total government control over our lives, albeit with some nominal choices sanctioned and regulated by that government. That's the kind of "freedom" that today's Republicans support -- and that TIA Daily routinely praises. It's worse than a farce: it's a dangerous illusion. Due to the apparent choices still available to them, Americans might not recognize the ever-tightening vise of government control until it's too powerful to effectively resist. To put the point somewhat crudely, the Republicans want Americans to indulge their power-lusting fantasy that their kinder, gentler form of rape is actually consensual sex, i.e. that their form of statism is actually freedom. It's not. If Objectivists can't see that, then America's prospects are very bleak.
Even more alarming, Republicans at the local, state, and federal levels are actively intertwining religion and politics. Republican candidates clearly display their Christian credentials in their campaign literature and declare their intention to govern by Christian principles. They claim that America was founded upon Christian principles -- and advocate a return thereto. They actively promote religion with state power and taxpayer dollars via faith-based initiatives. Many now openly reject the very idea of secular government, i.e. of separation of church and state. For example, Janet Rowland, the woman Colorado's Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez selected as his running mate, openly advocates teaching creationism in public schools, wholeheartedly supports faith-based initiatives, and denies any Constitutional support for separation of church and state. She claims that "we should have the freedom OF religion, not the freedom FROM religion."
Based upon recent threads on Objectivist discussion boards, many Objectivists seem to think that the meaning of Christian government in America is limited to marginal issues like abortion, stem-cell research, evolution, euthanasia, and the like. That's completely false. Christianity is an all-embracing worldview: otherwordly, mystical, altruistic, and authoritarian. Its holy scriptures are explicitly and unequivocally opposed to all the values of this world: success, wealth, pleasure, science, justice, love, reason, pride, independence, and even long-range planning. It demands poverty, incompetence, misery, suffering, mercy, humility, submission, miracles, faith, and death. In recent decades, ever-growing millions of American Christians, both Catholics and Protestants, have embraced an ever-truer faith. They are committed to living in obedience to God. They are rediscovering the actual meaning of the teachings of the New Testament. They are rejecting the common sense worldliness that has long tempered American Christianity; they are embracing the blind emotionalism of faith. Ominously, they are raising an even more radical generation of Christians, teaching them to be "sons of God" rather than "children of the world," just as Augustine demanded. This new Christianity is a whole new animal.
Unsurprisingly, these millions of serious Christians want to live in a society that reflects and supports their Christian values. Also unsurprisingly, they are perfectly willing to use the coercive power of the state to achieve that end. They fight to implement and/or retain laws criminalizing homosexual sex, forbidding the co-habitation of unmarried couples, and requiring modest clothing. They support the Bush Administration's vigorous prosecution of obscenity and heavy fines for indecency in the name of "family values." They demand that religious nonsense (i.e. "intelligent design") be taught as science in public schools. They demand the removal of un-Christian books from public and school libraries. Significantly, serious Christians will not be satisfied with success on those limited issues. They will demand strict divorce laws, limit access to birth control, prosecute adultery, and demand religious instruction in schools. To set a proper moral example for the children, they will force everyone to live a Christian life. They will silence critics of religion, whether by actively denying the right to offend religious believers or by passively permitting the intimidation of speakers. (Sadly, that's not much of a stretch in light of Bush the Father's response to the fatwa Salman Rushdie and Bush the Son's response to the Muslim jihad against the Danish cartoons.) Meanwhile, these Christians will continue to support socialism for the simple reason that the New Testament commands it. It demands total collectivization of property and distribution according to need. In passage after passage, it inculcates vicious hostility to wealth, in part on the grounds that the wealthy exploit the poor. Marxism collapsed as an ideological force with the Soviet Union, but Christianity can and will give socialism a new lease on life. The utter misery created by Christian socialism will not be a reason to abandon it; Christianity is explicitly opposed to worldy values like happiness and prosperity. It lauds the silent endurance of suffering and misery as a virtue -- and Christians will force you to be virtuous.
The size and power of the evangelical Christian subculture in America should not be underestimated. It is millions strong, generously funded, and growing quickly, often below the radar of the mainstream media. (See the excerpt from the DIM Hypothesis course for details.) Moreover, consider the slew of large Christian organizations seeking to influence American politics, such as American Family Association, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, Christian Coalition of America, Pro-Family Law Center, and Family Research Council. All were created in the last 30 years. In addition, Christian conservatives are successfully infiltrating academia, filling the vacuum created by the ideological death of the left. (To head off a likely objection: Yes, Democrats are increasingly appealing to religion. However, they're doing so because they've seen the great success of the religious Republicans. For now, it's just opportunistic me-too-ism. If religious Republicans are rejected by the American people sooner rather than later, it will disappear. If not, Christian Democrats will gain power over their party and thereby eliminate the possibility of secular government.)
For those who understand the awesome power of philosophy in human life, the grave threat posed by this virulent new strain of Christianity is obvious. If America embraces the Christian government of the Republicans, the anti-reason and anti-life ideals Christianity will soon permeate every aspect of American life: politics, business, foreign policy, art, science, criminal and civil law, medicine, education, child-rearing, and more. Of all people, Objectivists ought to see that, precisely because Objectivism recognizes that philosophy is the fundamental driving force of human life and society. Yet many of Dr. Peikoff's critics dismiss the reinvigorated Christianity spreading throughout the Republican Party as irrelevant or marginal, focusing only upon superficial issues of policy. They are utterly missing the point.
As if the prospect of Christian government in America isn't bad enough, the foreign policy of the Republicans is even more dangerous. The Bush Administration is not fighting a half-war against Islamic totalitarianism, as its Objectivist apologists claim. It is fighting an altruistic pseudo-war in which the lives of thousands of American soldiers and billions of taxpayer dollars are openly sacrificed for the good of the enemy.
To take the most telling example, President Bush has embroiled the American military in years of fruitless war in Iraq -- with no end in sight. On the present course, America can only leave Iraq in defeat, i.e. by withdrawing troops as the country sinks further into chaos. When that happens, Iraqis will be free to do as they please, namely to slaughter each other in religious and civil war culminating in the establishment of a repressive Islamic theocracy. That new Iraq will be far more dangerous to America than Saddam's regime ever was; it will be another Iran. Notably, Bush's lofty plan for Iraq diverges only slightly from that grim reality: he wants Iraqis to democratically vote themselves some new government, any new government. Since his basic goal is to promote democracy rather than secure America, he's willing to accept an Islamic theocracy hostile to America, so long as Iraqis vote for it. That's what our soldiers in Iraq are fighting and dying to protect in President Bush's "war on terror." The fact that they have killed some jihadists is wholly irrelevant: militant Islamists are not in short supply in the Middle East.
America's bloody self-sacrifice in Iraq is the concrete reality of President Bush's "Forward Strategy of Freedom." According to that doctrine, the root cause of the "stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export" common to almost all countries in the Middle East is the absence of democracy. So the solution to Islamist terrorism is to allow Islamists the power of the vote. By implication, Islam is fundamentally unrelated to terrorism. As a "religion of peace," Islam cannot inspire or motivate terrorism, whatever the terrorists might say. Notably, Bush explicitly connected his Forward Strategy of Freedom to his own religious faith. He declared the spread of democracy to be America's "calling," a task to be accomplished with God's assistance and American sacrifice. Iraq was supposed to be the first major step: "the establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution." In fact, the only significant outcome has been an explosion of Islamism in Iraq.
President Bush's much-lauded Forward Strategy of Freedom has worked equally well elsewhere. The Bush Administration has vigorously promoted government by democratic vote in Muslim countries, even when that elevates violent Islamic totalitarians to power. Democracy brought Hamas to power over the Palestinian Authority, injected Hezbollah into the Lebanese government, and enshrined Islam as the law of the land in Afghanistan. Yet Bush continues to push for full-blown elections in Egypt and Jordan, even though that would undermine the efforts of those semi-friendly countries to suppress militant Islam. By promoting democracy, President Bush is aiding our enemies, openly helping them gain political power that otherwise would have been out of reach. Yet he has not been deterred from his God-given mission by the ever-growing political power of the Islamists around the Middle East. Like any good Christian, he is impervious to the facts of this world.
The Bush Administration's foreign policy is influenced by Christianity in more than just this "love your enemies" plan for Islamists. In his recent talk, "Nothing Less Than Victory," Dr. John Lewis rightly argued that America ought to demand that the Muslim world wholly separate mosque and state. As in Shinto Japan after World War II, Muslims would be free to pray to Allah in their private lives, but Islam would be barred from public life and politics, including education. Muslims could rationalize that public secularism however they pleased -- or abandon Islam entirely. Such secular government in Muslim countries is required to eliminate their threat to the West. Yet President Bush is completely incapable of demanding anything of the sort. He does not believe in the separation of church and state; he's actively intermingling religion and politics in America. So he has no principled objection to states governed by Islamic law. He regards religion as a positive force in human life and in the state. He merely prefers Christianity to Islam.
In essence, by the very nature of his guiding philosophy of life, President Bush is incapable of defeating Islamic totalitarianism. He lacks the capacity to identify the enemy as Islam and to demand the separation of mosque and state. The result is not some half-good measures against Islamic totalitarianism. He's actively sacrificing American lives, dollars, and security in order to promote Islamists to political power.
Even worse, by so doing while posing as a tough defender of America, the Bush Administration has substantially destroyed the critical ingredient in the battle for Western civilization against the Muslim barbarians, namely our will to fight. America's military might is awe-inspiring. If victory was the goal, America's military could probably crush Islamic totalitarianism in mere months, if not sooner. The only question is whether America has the moral confidence to use that awesome military power in the service of its own defense. In the weeks and months after 9/11, most Americans were eager to terminate the deadly ambitions of the Islamists. The Bush Administration bled dry that fighting spirit with years of war in Iraq, not to mention the ongoing appeasement of terrorists and the states that sponsor them. The cultural and political power of the Islamists in the Middle East has only grown since 9/11, so much so that many Americans now regard victory against the Islamists as impossible and self-defense as slow suicide. They do not think we can win; they aren't certain we deserve to win; they don't even know what "winning" would mean. That's obscene. In concrete terms, the loss of moral confidence means that America will not confront Iran or Saudi Arabia, even though they are the two ideological and financial fountainheads of terrorism against the West. Our government will continue to appease Iran with diplomacy while it openly pursues nuclear weapons. It will continue to pretend that Saudi Arabia is an ally.
Of course, I cannot imagine that the Democrats will wage anything like proper war against the Islamic totalitarians determined to destroy America. However, I can reasonably hope that their fearful cowardice will protect us from self-sacrificial wars. They will not sap America's will to fight, but perhaps even reinvigorate it by their inaction. For example, by pulling out of Somalia in disgrace, the Clinton Administration saved us from the self-sacrifice of Bush the Elder's humanitarian "war" to protect and serve a hostile population. Americans were not sapped of their will to fight thereby: most understood that we could and should have retaliated -- even though we shouldn't have embroiled ourselves in that mess of a country in the first place. In contrast, if Bush the Younger were in charge, American soldiers would probably still be dying senselessly in Somalia, just as in Iraq today, on the premise that Somalis really want freedom too.
The world would be a safer place today if President Bush refused to take any action in response to the 9/11 attacks. Fewer Islamists would be in positions of political power in the Middle East. Americans might be frustrated by the inaction rather than cowed by improvised roadside bombs.
Objectivists ought to recognize the total failure of Bush's foreign policy in the Middle East, particularly in light of the slew of articles and lectures on the topic in recent years by Dr. Lewis and Dr. Brook. Yet many seem utterly blind to the disaster, focusing only upon insignificant concretes. The fact is that the Bush Administration is not fighting a war against Islamic totalitarianism: as a matter of deliberate policy, it is promoting their political and cultural domination of the Middle East. Yet that's the Administration that TIA Daily praises, supports, and urges you to vote for -- precisely on the grounds of its "war on terror." It's appalling.
Those are my basic reasons for regarding today's Republicans as far, far more dangerous than today's Democrats. The problem is not some few individual Republicans but the whole Republican Party, including its leadership. It must be told in no uncertain terms to reverse course. It will only do so if punished by voters for injecting religion into politics and promoting Islamism in the Middle East. Yes, the Democrats are awful. Yes, it will be painful to vote for them. However, the alternative of Christian government is so much more dangerous to our liberties.
The fundamental philosophic principles required to clearly understand the nature of our choice in this election are not self-evident. They can be difficult to understand, even for someone long familiar with Objectivism. An honest Objectivist could be confused by the flood of irrelevant concretes and misleading analyses, particularly if attentive to the seemingly Objectivist defenses of the Bush Administration published in almost every TIA Daily and commonly posted on HBL (based on what I saw during my trial membership this spring). However, I think such confusion is possible only to a person without anything like a firm grasp of the relevant philosophic principles. That's why I agree with Dr. Peikoff's claim that "anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man's actual life--which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world." Sadly, that assessment has been confirmed by the flurry of concrete-bound objections to Dr. Peikoff's statement posted on various Objectivist forums. More particularly, most critics of Dr. Peikoff dismiss as insignificant (or even deny) the rise of a new form of Christianity among millions of Americans over the last three decades. They treat Christianity as relevant to little more than birth and death, i.e. to abortion and euthanasia, even though millions of Christians are determined to live by the actual teachings of the New Testament. They claim that America's sense of life makes theocracy impossible, as if the sense of life of a nation is independent of and impervious to massive changes in explicit philosophy. In essence, they do not recognize that Christianity is an all-encompassing philosophy with the power to drag America into a second Dark Ages if unchecked. In other words, they fail to grasp "the practical role of philosophy in man's actual life."
In response to Dr. Peikoff's claim, some argue that a person's vote reveals nothing about his understanding of Objectivism. In fact, a person's concrete actions often do reveal failures of understanding--particularly when the choices are stark. An Objectivist who occasionally shoplifts doesn't understand property rights (and more); an Objectivist who stumps for the Libertarian Party doesn't understand the role of fundamental philosophy in politics (and more); an Objectivist who admires Kant's philosophy doesn't understand much of anything. Similarly, an Objectivist who thinks that today's Republicans are less evil or as evil as today's Democrats fails to grasp the fundamental ideological commitments of the Republicans and the real life meaning thereof, particularly the totalistic crushing oppression of life in a Christian culture and under Christian government.
Moreover, I'm glad that Dr. Peikoff was so blunt, even though some were insulted. Many Objectivists needed to hear those shocking words. They needed to be told in no uncertain terms by the foremost expert on Objectivism that their understanding of the philosophy is seriously deficient. If Dr. Peikoff had stated his views in less stark terms, most pro-Republican Objectivists would have dismissed them without much consideration. Others would have remained oblivious to the enormous differences underlying the positions advocated by Yaron Brook, John Lewis, Craig Biddle, and Leonard Peikoff on one hand and Robert Tracinksi, Jack Wakeland, and Harry Binswanger (at least in 2004) on the other. A wake-up call was needed. Yes, it's blaring -- probably because the softer alarms weren't often heeded.
Obviously, a person who fails to properly understand Objectivism is not thereby dishonest or immoral. However, some of Dr. Peikoff's most vehement critics have interpreted him as saying just that -- wrongly, I think. Dr. Peikoff wrote:
Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer, and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer, it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because "both are bad."
In my judgment, that claim of immorality presumes that a person understands the choice in question basically as stated, i.e. between an ever-weaker killer and an ever-stronger killer. If a person fails to understand that despite serious and honest effort, then his failure to vote for the Democrats would not be a moral failing, although still a serious mistake. More generally, the identification of a certain act as immoral doesn't imply that everyone performing it is immoral. For example, it's immoral for a husband to lie to his wife to spare her feelings, but if he's accepted the standard view of honesty, he might reasonably think that some "white lies" are proper. Such a husband has done something wrong by lying, even though he's not acted immorally in the sense of evading his knowledge. Hopefully, someone will tell him that he's doing wrong, that lying to his wife is immoral, and that he doesn't understand honesty. That's what Dr. Peikoff has done for Objectivists. (Of course, some pro-Republicans Objectivists are probably dishonest in their views. However, my point is simply that Dr. Peikoff didn't say that all were.)
Finally, I must comment upon some of the vicious attacks on Dr. Peikoff posted to the ObjectivismOnline and The Forum threads on his statement. To be blunt, I'm appalled by them, particularly by the many accusations of intimidation, bullying, dogmatism, and the like. (For example, Jack Wakeland began this post with "Thank you, [name omitted], for so quickly standing up to Dr. Peikoff's attempt to bully.") Such charges are absurd: a person does not dogmatically impose himself upon anyone else by expressing strong epistemological and moral judgments. (That's David Kelley's "tolerationist" view; it's not Objectivism.) Dr. Peikoff is certainly not obliged to sugarcoat his negative judgments for the sake of spineless cowards fearful of his disapproval, particularly not on such weighty issues like the fate of America.
More generally, Dr. Peikoff deserves far better treatment from Objectivists than he's received of late. Apart from Ayn Rand, he's undoubtedly the most knowledgeable and accomplished Objectivist philosopher -- by far. No one else could have so skillfully and clearly systematized Objectivism as he did in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. For that feat alone, he deserves the deep respect and admiration of Objectivists. In action, such respect means that Objectivists ought to give his arguments careful attention and scrutiny, even if ultimately disagreeing with them. That's hardly too much to ask. However, that's not happened in this debate. Dr. Peikoff has been attacked in the very same terms as I often heard in TOC circles, i.e. with the same casual disregard for facts and the same specious arguments about intimidation. Also like at TOC, many people have dismissed his arguments as absurd without any substantial effort to understand them. That's inexcusable.
To be perfectly clear, I will not tolerate any such attacks upon Dr. Peikoff in the comments on this post. Disagreement is fine, but I want nothing to do with anyone who treats him with the dismissive contempt I've seen elsewhere. My admiration for Dr. Peikoff and his accomplishments means something to me, something serious and important. So those supposed Objectivists who cannot treat Dr. Peikoff with some minimal respect are kindly invited in advance to remain silent.
Christianity By Diana Hsieh @ 7:29 AM
I recently received the following e-mail. I don't have time to answer it in any kind of detail. However, I thought some NoodleFoodleDoodlers (i.e. commenters) might be interested in doing so. As for my sketchy reply, suffice it to say that I certainly don't reject Christianity on the basis of anything so specific as Calvinism. I find the ideas in the New Testament utterly repugnant all by themselves. More generally, the demand for faith in the supernatural found in all religions is not just unnecessary to understand the world, but outright antithetical to reason.
Here's the letter. I've told its author to check the comments.
Dear Diana,
You have my apologies in advance if any part of this letter offends you in any way as such would never be my intention. You must forgive me if I have overstepped any boundaries in this, but I recently came across a web page about original sin, specifically referring to John Calvin, and it seemed that this particular doctrine solidified your resolve in that you do not think that Christianity is a religion that loves humanity.
Strangely enough, I have been doing much research on the concept of election and this is the reason I came across that particular page. If you are not familiar with the doctrine of election, it is a doctrine referring to the manner by which one is saved, or chosen, and so forth, and this definition is by no means conclusively definitive.
The first I feel it is imperative to alert you of is this. John Calvin's view of election does not represent Christianity as a whole. While it is true that there are some staunch reformed theologians that hold to this no matter what, not very many people take this view of election. I am one of them and I am particularly saddened to see that it seems to have to done to you what most of its opponents are afraid it would do.
This concept of election, by which you have judged all of Christendom, I find to be biblically inaccurate, as do many theologians across the globe. I won't bore you with the details and alternative viewpoints on this, but I do have a request of you. This same page mentioned that you were raised an atheist. I wasn't raised much of anything and only became a Christian later in life, of my own accord, and always find it strange to see Christians that seem to forget who they are. My point is, if you were raised an atheist, I would like to know why you held to this belief, why you rejected any of the major religions, and so forth. In other words, why do you believe you are right? I should inform you that I would expect an answer far more elaborate that just John Calvin's veritable infanticide. I ask completely unbiased, so please, if you see fit to answer, please respond in like manner.
The reason I ask is because I have never found an atheist that has been able to defend such a position logically, and I would venture to say that I have done a great deal of looking. Ninety percent of all of them eventually just storm off and get mad when philosophically cornered and eventually just fall back on an 'I just can't believe' attitude. The rest fail to understand the flaws in their own argument. If one can't believe, then it logically follows that there is a reason; a quantitative as well as qualitative reason. I am merely looking for these, what have been to me, very elusive antecedents. If you can, please heed my request or feel free to forward this request to a friend or colleague, or anyone at all, that wishes to voice their opinion on this matter and can defend this position logically.
Furthermore, I did notice that this page was made quite a number of years ago. If such a late response proves inconvenient, you have my apologies for this as well.
Religious Wit By Paul Hsieh @ 7:33 AM
This is a true story as communicated to me by one of my coworkers.
A local physician was quite well known for being an (apparently) devout Christian. However, he was also having an illicit extramarital affair with one of his female office staff. The rest of his employees found this distasteful, not only because of the gross hypocrisy but also because the doctor was giving his lover unfair preferential treatment at work.
Finally, some of the other employees made up a large sign and snuck it into the doctor's office overnight. It read, "Thou shalt not share thy rod with thy staff".
The female employee who was having the affair with the doctor quickly found another job.
A Prediction By Diana Hsieh @ 6:38 AM
Within five to ten years, I predict that substantial numbers of seriously Christian women will opt to veil themselves in church (if not elsewhere) as a symbol of modesty and submission. Why? The question of veils is a much-discussed topic in relation to Islam at present. Not all of it is negative: I remember reading reports of fashion designers influenced by Muslim dress in their designs for women a year or so ago. Serious Christians are also increasingly concerned with modesty in dress for women -- and where better to look than Islam? Moreover, Paul (of the Bible, not of GeekPress) clearly requires women to cover their heads in church in First Corinthians 11:2-16:
Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
I must admit, I find the logic of all that a bit baffling. That's not important for Christian though, since the instructions are clear enough.
In the course of searching for commentaries on this passage, I quickly found this lengthy defense of women veiling themselves in church. (See the "In Modern Times" section.) If I'm right, expect to see more debate on this topic from Christians in coming years.
Four Movies and a Cold By Diana Hsieh @ 12:07 PM
I got really sick yesterday. I'm still damn sick today. It's just a cold, but it hit me so hard toward the mid-morning yesterday that I couldn't do much other than lay about and watch movies. So I watched:
Bride and Prejudice: An Indian musical version of Pride and Prejudice. It was a very fun production, but I'm sure the story would have been terribly confusing to someone unfamiliar with some version of the original. Lalita Bakshi (i.e. Lizzie Bennett) was far too political. Her relationship with Mr. Darcy wasn't adequately developed. The dialogue suffered at times from being written by someone obviously less brilliant than Jane Austen. However, Mr. Kohli (i.e. Mr. Collins) was super-fantastic. Also, watching the uber-intense Sayid from Lost sing and dance as happy-go-lucky Balraj Bingley (i.e. Mr. Bingley) was priceless.
Oddly, and I'm not sure if this is a general feature of Bollywood movies, the movie was highly sexualized in its dances and dress, but the main characters did not so much as kiss. (They leaned and hugged instead.) Can anyone explain that?
Sense and Sensibility: This three-hour BBC miniseries had terrible production values, particularly in contrast to the lush Ang Lee movie (with Emma Thompson). Marrianne was well-played, but Elinor was stony rather than restrained. Plus, Elinor was terribly ugly. Mostly though, this version was boring beyond belief: it lacked the gripping drama of the novel and the movie.
War of the Worlds: This movie was not as bad as I thought it would be. The incompetent divorced father alienated from his children was sooooo cliche -- and sooooo annoying. The daughter (well-played by the delightful Dakota Fanning) was disturbingly neurotic for a girl under ten. The appearance of the son at the end was bizarrely out-out-place, since he seemed to have been wholly engulfed in a large fireball earlier due to his altruistic determination to bravely sacrifice himself in a futile battle with the aliens. I particularly disliked the way in which the aliens perished: deux ex machina -- or rather bacterium ex machina. (Paul tells me that's the fault of H.G. Wells, not the movie-makers.) Really, shouldn't the aliens have considered the possibility of germs?!? To my great frustration, that sudden ending foreclosed the much-hinted-at possibility of the humans discovering some ingenious method of destroying the aliens. That would have been lovely: existing human weapons might be too primitive to defeat the invaders, but clever humans can find some weakness to exploit if they choose to think rather than run screaming in fear.
In general, this movie confirmed by general view of Stephen Spielberg's action movies: he masterfully places his audience in a thoroughly alien world, but doesn't do anything significant in the course of returning them to normality other than place a bunch of random obstacles in the way.
Kingdom of Heaven: I'm ready to adopt Orlando Bloom. (He's real man in this movie, not some blonde gay elf with a bow!) The plot isn't terribly original: it's too much like Ridley Scott's other recent ancient epic, Gladiator. And it's not even remotely historically accurate, not even to the customs of the time. (In other words, it whitewashes left and right.) Still, I greatly enjoyed the integrity of Balian, as well as the portrayal of the inhumanity and power-lust of the most outwardly devout Christians.
Interestingly, one strong theme of the movie is the independence of morality from God's commands. In other words, it's opposed to Divine Command Theory. (BEWARE: SPOILERS AHEAD!) The hero Balian is motivated to go to Jerusalem to redeem the soul of his wife, unjustly consigned to hell by Christian doctrine for suicide while in the depths of grief over a dead child. Once Balian arrives in Jerusalem, he laments that he hears no call from God: he fears that he has been forsaken.
Thanks to some sound advice from his father and the leprous King of Jerusalem, Balian does not languish in despair or pursue the divine further. Instead, he lives a secular life guided by his own moral principles. Most notably, he digs wells and irrigates his bone-dry land--thereby allowing for the creation of substantial wealth by the Muslims, Christians, and Jews working it. Similarly, when he fights to protect Jerusalem, he does not do so because God commands him or even because the city is holy, but because he knows the inhabitants will be slaughtered by the invading Muslims if it falls. (Of course, I wouldn't endorse all that Balian does as moral, but the point is that the movie portrays his path as consistently moral--and moral in an basically secular way.) More generally, the uneasy peace in Jerusalem is made possible by the firm denials by the leprous King of any and all calls to do God's will by slaughtering the infidel Muslims. Like Balian, he pursues a basically secular path, even punishing the Christian fanatics for killing Muslims as far as he is able.
In contrast, all the trouble in the movie is caused by Muslims and Christians claiming to be executing the will of God by executing Christians and Muslims, respectively. The Christian fanatics create unnecessary conflicts with the Muslims by attacking their caravans. Since the King lacks the power to restrain these fanatics, the Muslims are forced to respond. The Muslim political leader clearly prefers the old peace made with the now-dead King: he's shown sharply resisting pressure from his religious cleric to retake Jerusalem. Still, Saladin is forced into war. Even after the slaughter of the fanatical Christians, the two sides are committed to fighting--and the result is mass death and destruction for both sides.
So the basic message from all that is that morality based upon adherence to God's divine commands results in conflict, suffering, and death, whereas moralities based upon some kind of conscience or reasoning yield peace, prosperity, and life. Notably, the movie clearly portrays the necessity of all sides renouncing the authority of God's commands, in that even a minority of one side pursuing divine commands will result in bloody conflict.
The most clear statement of the relationship between God and morality comes toward the end of the movie. During the siege of Jerusalem, Balian declares that they must burn the bodies of the dead, lest the living be infected with disease. While he knows that such is contrary to Christian burial practices, he openly declares that God will understand--and that if He doesn't, then He's not God. In other words, God's moral demands can and ought to be ignored when they fail to conform to the facts.
Although I've read bits and pieces of the Bible before, I'm in the process of reading the whole Bible straight through for the first time. Or rather, I'm listening to it: I found a pretty good reading of the King James Version available for free. (I didn't want any of those new-fangled translations.) So far, I'm finding it absolutely fascinating. For example, I never knew that God demands salt upon his meaty sacrifices, but that's quite emphatically stated in Leviticus 2:13. I'm taking notes on my digital recorder of points of more substantial interest, so I'll surely blog those once I transcribe them.
So I've not yet read the whole of the New Testament, but I'll definitely be on the lookout for the points Jim highlights when I do. That should be interesting!
In general, I expect the New Testament to be far more philosophically painful than the Old Testament. However, I must endure that pain to teach a bit of Christian ethics this upcoming semester!
Opponents of Embryonic Stem Cell Research Are Opponents of Human Life July 20, 2006
IRVINE, CA--"President Bush's claim that embryonic stem cell research violates 'the dignity of human life' is morally obscene," said Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.
"This research has the potential to rescue millions of individuals from painful and life-threatening diseases. Anyone who places the welfare of a few undifferentiated cells above that of actual human beings cannot claim to value human life.
"There are no rational grounds for ascribing rights to an unconscious cluster of cells smaller than a grain of sand. But the opposition to embryonic stem cell research is not based on reason--it's based purely on religious dogma. From the development of anesthesia to the introduction of birth control, religion has consistently opposed scientific and medical progress. Today, with their assaults on evolution, cloning, and stem cell research, the religious right is attempting to drag us back to the Dark Ages.
"Anyone who values human life must stand up for science and against President Bush's attempt to impose his religious agenda on America."
I'm slightly familiar with the Catholic Church's opposition to the use of anesthesia in childbirth and inoculation against smallpox in centuries past, as well as the Christian Science rejection of medical treatment and the Jehovah's Witness ban upon blood transfusion. I'm more familiar with the Catholic Church's ongoing war against birth control, abortion, and stem cell research -- as partially or wholly joined by evangelical Protestants.
I'd like to learn more. Can anyone recommend a good history of religious opposition to medical technology? (I'd prefer not to limit myself to just Catholicism or even Christianity, although recommendations along those lines would be welcome too.)
Christian Government By Diana Hsieh @ 8:44 AM
For years, Christian conservatives have been pushing their "pro-family" agenda. After all, who could possibly object to "family values"? No decent person could possibly fail to support to anything so wonderful as Mom and apple pie, right?
Well, now we're seeing the fruits of their labors. Nick Provenzo reports on a case in which an unmarried couple and their three children face eviction from a St. Louis suburb based upon a zoning regulation forbidding the co-habitation of more than three people unrelated by "blood, marriage or adoption." An attempt was made to also allow unmarried couples with two or more children to live together, but that was defeated.
As Olivia Shelltrack, the unmarried woman now facing eviction, said, "I'm just shocked. I really thought this would all be over, and we could go on with our lives."
What chance will any of us have of living our own lives as the Christians assume ever-greater political power?
Assistance with Evasion By Diana Hsieh @ 7:16 AM
Do you wish to learn how to evade more effectively? Do you need assistance blanking out unpleasant knowledge? Are pesky facts impairing your capacity to believe what you please? Then you might study the evangelical Christian answer to the question "Does the Bible contain errors, contradictions, or discrepancies?" I'm sure it will be of great help.
Update: When I posted this story this morning, I completely forgot that it was Easter... but how perfect!
"In a seemingly mundane decision, New York University has sacrificed the principle underlying its flourishing and the survival of civilization--free speech," said Dr. Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute. NYU is refusing to protect a student group's right to display the Danish cartoons of Mohammad at a panel discussion on free speech on March 29.
The group's event was to be open to the public, but at the last minute NYU retreated. Under the pretense of maintaining campus security, the administration contradicted its own stated policy on free speech by requiring that, if the cartoons are displayed, the event be limited only to "members of the NYU community." The student group now must turn away more than 150 members of the public who had planned to attend the panel.
"The university's shameful appeasement of Muslim and anti- free-speech groups--which have vowed to protest the event--underscores the urgent need to display the cartoons in defense of freedom of speech," said Dr. Brook.
"Free speech protects the rational mind: it is the freedom to think, to reach conclusions and express one's views without fear of coercion of any kind. And it must include the right to express unpopular and offensive views, including outright criticism of religion. NYU--which like other universities grants tenure to protect intellectual freedom--ought to recognize the crucial importance of this principle and defend it.
"If intimidation and threats are allowed to compel writers, cartoonists, thinkers and institutions of learning into self- censorship, the right to free speech is lost. If Muslims are allowed to pressure critics of Islam into silence, critics of religion will be next. And then everyone else."
FIRE has also issued a condemnatory press release about the last-minute change in policy. It included this line:
"This is a classic case of the heckler's veto," noted FIRE's Lukianoff. "NYU is shamelessly clamping down on an event purely out of fear that people who disagree with the viewpoints expressed may disrupt it. These immoral, last-minute restrictions must be lifted."
Betsy Speicher sent me the link to the ARI press release, as well as this announcement from the apparent Heckler-in-Chief, namely Maheen Farooqi, President of the Islamic Center at NYU.
From: Maheen H Farooqi Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 22:43:35-0800 To: maheen@nyu.edu Subject: Action Alert - Racist Cartoons at NYU
Dear Community Leader,
This Wednesday, March 29th, an event is being sponsored by the Objectivist Club, an OSA club, and its purpose is to analyze the issue of free speech with an emphasis on a series of cartoons recently published in a Danish newspaper that depicted the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and Islam in a highly offensive manner. These cartoons have lead to riots, protests, beatings, and even deaths on an international level and now they are being displayed at NYU at the aforementioned event. We at the Islamic Center are all for discourse and dialogue and we would encourage the Objectivist Club to partake in whatever discussion they would like.
We, however, would not encourage racism is any shape or form, and to us and many others, these cartoons are racist and we adamantly oppose their display. As such, we are asking you and your club to help us speak out against and protest the display of these cartoons in any shape or form. The event itself and the topic that the students would like to discuss is not problematic in any way, but the pictures themselves are just hatred and there is no justification in preaching something that breeds that kind of hate. We will be organizing a protest for this Wednesday at around 5:30pm and will be having an organizational meeting for it tomorrow on the 7th floor of Kimmel at 7pm. If you are interested in helping us with this, please contact me at maheen@nyu.edu as soon as possible. Even if you cannot attend the meeting and would be interested in helping, please send me an email to let me know.
If you can ask your membership to make the following announcement in their classes it would be greatly appreciated:
Tomorrow the Objectivist Club is sponsoring an event that will display a series of cartoons recently published in a Danish newspaper. These cartoons depict the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and Islam in a highly offensive manner. These same cartoons unfortunately have lead to riots, protests, beatings, and deaths all around the world. We are asking all students to stand in solidarity with us as we seek to protest hatred and discrimination on OUR CAMPUS. On Wednesday we will be meeting at Kimmel at 5:30 PM in protest of the University's decision to allow the cartoons to be displayed. Remember that this same type of manifestation of hatred has lead to the murder of many innocent people. We can look as far back as the 1930's in the years prior to the Holocaust when Nazi Germany circulated hate-filled images of our Jewish brothers and sisters throughout society. Contemporary situations such as Rwanda have also caused bloody genocides. It is necessary for all of us to stand together and speak out against this, as hatred does not discriminate against any color, race, creed, or religion; all it does is hate.
"First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out; Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out; Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."
Martin Niemoller, 1892-1984
Thank you for your cooperation,
With Peace, Maheen Farooqi ________________________ Maheen H Farooqi President Islamic Center at NYU maheen@nyu.edu
The equation of criticism of Islam with racism is a standard sophistry from those who wish to insulate their religious beliefs from criticism. Racism is evil because a person's race is neither chosen, nor of any moral significance. In contrast, people do choose their religious beliefs: even a child raised in a religion can choose to reject it, once he reaches adulthood. And religions are of moral significance: as fundamental beliefs, they strongly influence the whole course of a person's life, including the actions regarded as moral or immoral.
Moreover, the invocation of the Holocaust in this context is beyond disgusting. The cartoons critical of Islam were drawn in part due to the widespread Muslim hatred of and violence toward Jews. (Even worse, many Muslims explicitly call upon their brothers to finish the job that Hitler started!) Moreover, to suggest that criticism of Islam might lead to slaughter of Muslims is nothing more than an intimidation tactic. Critics of Islam do not deny that Muslims are fully human, with all the same rights to peacefully practice their religion as everyone else. They are saying that Islam is a barbaric religion destructive to human life. And they are right to say that: just consider 9/11, the brutal murder of Theo van Gogh, the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the waves of Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel, and the Abdul Rahman's narrow escape from beheading for blasphemy in Afghanistan.
At this late moment, I wonder what -- if anything -- can be done. (I've sent news tips to Denver's local papers and tv news. You might take a few moments to do the same.)
Update 1: You can also send a polite but firm e-mail to John Sexton (the President of NYU) at john.sexton@nyu.edu and Bob Butler (Director of Student Activities) at bob.butler@nyu.edu. (Here's a link for both addresses at once.) Here's my letter:
Dear Mr. Sexton and Mr. Butler,
I learned this morning that NYU has decided, at the very last minute, to bar the public from tonight's Panel Discussion on the Danish Cartoons if the cartoons themselves are shown. I am gravely disturbed by this decision.
Free speech includes the freedom to offend the sensibilities of the faithful. In face of unjustified intimidation from Muslims, NYU ought to have stood up for free speech by protecting the panel from any disturbance, not by attempting to diminish its impact (by forbidding the display of the cartoons) or its reach (by forbidding the entry of the general public).
Consider the consequences of your decision. By capitulating this time, you've forsaken the principle necessary to withstand pressure from other groups to withdraw some speaker deemed offensive. What ground can you stand upon when the Campus Republicans attempt to bar Michael Moore from speaking? Or when the Christian groups band together to bar an atheist? If those groups threaten trouble, will you demand concessions from those speakers too, like that Michael Moore can't say anything mean about President Bush or that the atheist must refrain from arguing his full case against God? Soon, no speech would be permitted, lest even innocuous comments about the sunny weather offend the depressed or mentions of a good grade on an exam offend those who chose not to study. Once speech is limited on the grounds that it might offend some people, the principle of free speech is destroyed.
I urge you to reverse this last-minute change in policy.
Respectfully, Diana Hsieh
-------------------------- Diana Mertz Hsieh Graduate Student Department of Philosophy University of Colorado at Boulder
Please feel free to post your letters in the comments!
Update 2: ARI just sent the following letter to its NY-area donors:
As you know, the Objectivist club at NYU is planning to hold an event in support of free speech on March 29. At the event they plan to display the Danish cartoons while engaging in a panel discussion on free speech. This event was planned as a public event--some of you might have RSVP'd for it.
Unfortunately, this morning we found out that the University, under the pretense of security, is limiting the event to "members of the NYU community" only. This is in contradiction to their own policy regarding free speech. The only way they claim they would allow non-NYU attendees, is if the cartoons are not shown. The student group has refused this condition--they have refused to be silenced. Thus, we cannot guarantee that non-NYU attendees will be able to get into the event. We continue to try to challenge the NYU administration regarding this decision.
However, in spite of the uncertainty, we would like to encourage all those who RSVP'd and anyone else who would like to show their support for free speech to show up at NYU. We have learned that Muslim groups are planning to demonstrate outside Kimmel Center at 5.30PM. We cannot allow them to be the only ones showing their true colors! We urge you to go to the NYU campus to support your right to free speech--the same support you have shown through generous donations to ARI.
If intimidation and threats are allowed to compel writers, cartoonists, thinkers and institutions of learning into self-censorship, the right to free speech is lost. If Muslims are allowed to pressure critics of Islam into silence, critics of religion will be next. And then everyone else.
Update 3: Amit Ghate pointed out the underhanded tactics by Muslims, as reported in this FIRE blog post:
[FIRE panelist] Greg [Lukianoff] is leaving for New York shortly; he, the other panelists, and the student organizers are forging ahead. In the meantime, since NYU's president failed to respond to a phone call from Greg yesterday, we're calling on NYU publicly to repudiate mob rule and restore freedom of speech on its campus. And in case you don't believe that things are really so bad up there, check out the e-mail that has come into FIRE's possession:
I want to thank those of you who have sent e-mails. NYU has decided to let the event continue so the Islamic Center has decided to step things up. The event is tomorrow at 7 at E&L in Kimmel. Tickets are being distributed for free via Ticket Central. The Islamic Center would like everyone to get tickets to this event so we can kill their attendance figures.
Let's remember, we have no problem with dialogue but the cartoons go against Muslims for two reasons. First, the depiction of the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) is strictly forbidden. Secondly, it makes a horrible generalization that all Muslims are terrorists.
Therefore I ask you to go to ticket central, get two tickets for this event, and rip them up.
Update 4: Betsy Speicher also alerted me the source of the trouble, namely a letter from Muslim activist Yvonne Ridley urging protests against this event by Muslims. I'd actually already seen it posted on this blog (via some now-forgotten source). Here it is:
The NYU intends to display the cartoons, please send emails asking for civility.
We have just recieved this letter from Stop Political Terror one of our supporting organisations, by our sister Yvonne Ridley.
as'salaamu alaykum,
Our brothers and sisters in New York desperately need our help and support.
On March 29th, this Wednesday, an event is being held by a student organization at New York University called the Objectivist Club. The event's purpose is to analyze the issue of free speech with an emphasis put on the vile cartoons published in Denmark that depicted the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and Islam in a highly offensive manner.
The student group is also planning on displaying the cartoons at the event. I joined Muslim students in an emergency meeting with the university and its administration on Friday to ensure the display will not go ahead. The event itself poses no problems but the pictures, as you know, are racist, offensive and there is really no justification in preaching something that breeds that kind of hate against Muslims. The students at NYU need our help. Can we all send a simple, polite email to John Sexton john.sexton@nyu.edu, the president of NYU, as well as Bob Butler bob.butler@nyu.edu , the director of student activities as NYU, letting them know of your concerns.
I did tell the students that I would try and rally support overseas - so let's show the NYU administration that if they mess with our brothers and sisters in New York they mess with all of us.
The following is a letter that has already been sent to President Sexton earlier by the imam of the Islamic centre.
Your sister in Islam
Yvonne Ridley
Betsy's e-mail made me realize that I'd received an e-mail from that very same woman, shortly after posting this blog entry! I even wrote her back, not realizing who she was. Here's her e-mail:
From: Hermosh@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 12:28 PM To: diana@dianahsieh.com Subject: re cartoon saga
dear Diana,
May I first compliment you on your 'noodle' page, very lively and great fun. but I am a wee bit alarmed re-your 'hysteria' over the Danish cartoons and the very thought that they could be compared to the cartoons used by the Nazis to demonise the Jewish community during the 30s. This information has come from aminenet Jewish cartoonist Leon Kuhn whose grandparents were murdered by Nazis, victims of the Holocaust. In his own research he discovered the cartoons which demonised the Jewish people showed them as subversives with bombs hidden in their clothing. One such image showed a Jewish man with grenades hidden in his ringlets. Ofcourse these are obvious parallels, and I am amazed with your background you seem to be so insensitive to this whole issue. Yvonne Ridley London, UK
I just love the obvious lie about her liking NoodleFood! Here's my reply. (Remember, I just thought she was some random commenter.)
From: Diana Hsieh Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 12:45 PM To: 'Hermosh@aol.com' Subject: RE: re cartoon saga
Yvonne,
Perhaps instead of focusing upon a concrete similarity -- that of cartoons critical of a group -- you might ask whether the cartoons in each case have any merit. In the case of the Jews in the 1930s, they did not. They were motivated by the fantasies of anti-Semitism, the same variety that motivates the actual bombings by Muslims of innocent Jews and others today. In contrast, the Danish cartoons were inspired by those actual bombings (and other forms of violence) -- widely supported by Muslims today.
Muslims are in no danger whatsoever of being herded into concentration camps by non-Muslims. They have all the freedoms afforded by the civilized West. Instead, it is Muslims advocating the extermination of non-Muslims -- and practicing that ideology with their bombs.
Diana.
After I realized who she was, she wrote me back, just saying, "will reply tomorrow Diana, am busy - have a good day." And I just replied, "Don't bother replying. I know who you are now -- and what you're trying to do at NYU."
Wow.
Update 5: Canonist reports that the press is effectively barred from the event:
A notice just went out over the AP that the event tonight is closed to the press. I called FIRE to ask what happened, and they said that NYU was closing the event to anyone who didn't register before noon yesterday. That is essentially shutting out the press, as in all likelihood few even heard of the event until yesterday afternoon. As anyone covering the City knows, even an appearance by Bill Clinton requires a pre-registration of at most a few hours.
From: Hermosh@aol.com Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 6:06 AM To: "Diana Hsieh" Subject: RE: re cartoon saga
Dear Diana,
I'm sorry you feel like that. I am, indeed, very transparent in all my dealings which is why I sent you my full name. And I was genuine about the layout and design of your site. But, OK, I respect your wishes and your right to hold the views you do. Yvonne Ridley
Oh yes! I'm so very sure that if her Muslim brothers and sisters were in power, Yvonne Ridley, dedicatedapologist for Muslim terrorism, would defend "[my] right to hold the views [I] do." Not.
Update 9: I got an e-mail from one of the organizers of the NYU event indicating that it might be covered on Fox News at 7:00 (EST) tonight, i.e. Shepherd Smith's Fox Report.
Update 10: Eugene Volokh observed that NYU's actions violated its own stated policies. He also talked to an NYU official about the reasons for its response, and pointed out the inadequacies thereof.
Update 11: FIRE has blogged an interesting report on the NYU panel, most notably that university officials forced a student to remove his t-shirt because it featured the bomb-in-the-turban cartoon, that only about half the duly registered public was admitted, and that at least some members of the press were turned away.
Inside Scientology By Diana Hsieh @ 6:30 PM
Jim Lindgren has posted two nice summaries of the brouhaha over the damn funny South Park episode on Scientology. For those of you who might have missed it, it's available online, apparently with the blessing of Parker and Stone.
In February, Rolling Stone published a lengthy article on Scientology, based in part upon substantial cooperation by the Church. The author, Janet Reitman, had "unprecedented access to its officials, social programs and key religious headquarters," but she did not write a fluff article in exchange. She presents the facts and then allows her readers to draw their own conclusions. Overall, I think the article is a very good survey of Scientology.
Perhaps the most moving -- and most telling portion of the article was the last section:
During the time I was researching this piece, I received a number of e-mails from several of the Scientologists I had interviewed. Most were still technically members of the church in good standing; privately they had grown disillusioned and have spoken about their feelings for the first time in this article. All of the young people mentioned in this story, save Natalie, are considered by the church hierarchy to be Potential Trouble Sources. But many have begun to worry they will be declared Suppressive Persons.
Their e-mails expressed their second thoughts and their fears.
"PLEASE, let me know what you will be writing in the story," wrote one young woman. "I just want to make sure that people won't be able to read it and figure out who I am. I know my mom will be reading."
"The church is a big, scary deal," wrote another. "My [initial] attitude was if this information could save just one person the money, heartache and mind-bending control, then all would be worth it. [But] I'm frightened of what could happen."
"I'm about two seconds away from losing my whole family, and if that story comes out with my stuff in it, I will," wrote a third. "I'm terrified. Please, please, please . . . if it's not too late . . . help me keep my family."
One particularly frantic e-mail arrived shortly before this story was published. It came from a young Scientologist with whom I had corresponded several times in the course of three or four months. When we first met, she spoke passionately and angrily about the impact of the church on herself and those close to her.
"Please forgive me," she wrote. "The huge majority of things I told you were lies. Perhaps I don't like Scientology. True. But what I do know is that I was born with the family I was born with, and I love them. Don't ask me to tear down the foundation of their lives." Like almost every young person mentioned in this piece, this woman was given a pseudonym to protect her identity, and her family's. But it wasn't enough, she decided. "This is my life . . . Accept what I tell you now for fact: I will not corroborate or back up a single thing I said.
"I'm so sorry," she concluded. "I hope you understand that everyone I love is terribly important to me, and I am willing to look beyond their beliefs in order to keep them around. I will explain in further detail, perhaps, some other day."
From The Front Lines By Don @ 12:51 PM
Well, I made it to California, and after settling into my new place, spending too much money on furnishings, and trying to get used to living in a place where all the clocks run three hours too slow, I decided to jump into the California Objectivist world head first.
I began by spending my morning at the VanDamme Academy, which of course is run by the delightful Lisa VanDamme. I sat in on the elementary school history lesson and the middle school grammar class. All I can say is that I was absolutely amazed by what Lisa and her staff have accomplished. Her students demonstrated more mastery of their subjects than most college students I've met, and just as important, they showed more enthusiasm for learning than any students I have EVER met. There is no question about it: my kids (once they exist) will attend the VanDamme Academy.
After that, whilst still on my cloud, I drove up to UCLA for the free speech event sponsered by the UCLA Objectivist club and the Ayn Rand Institute. It was a round table discussion of the Danish cartoons depicting the "prophet" Mohammed. The round table featured Yaron Brook and three other individuals (Avi Davis and Kevin James, who supported the publishing of the cartoons, and Khaleel Mohammed who...can you guess???...opposed it). Ed Locke moderated.
There was a pretty good turnout (at least 100, maybe 200 people), the majority of whom I suspect were Objectivists (based on the applause). There were no disruptions, and thanks to the VERY heavy security presence, no Muslims blew themselves up, which was nice.
Yaron did a wonderful job, although I wish he had been able to develop some of the points he made as I think some of them could have come across wrong or unclear.
What was most interesting to me was trying to decipher the psycho-epistemologies of the other presenters.
Avi Davis sounded like most modern op-ed writers (which makes sense since he is one): no principles, a thorough empiricist, and therefore difficult to follow, and guilty of the evening's worst statement when he suggested that 'perhaps liberal democracies have progressed enough that it's time to start placing limits on some of our freedoms.' (That's a paraphrase, but pretty accurate...he was advocating throwing Holocaust deniers in prison.)
Khaleel Mohammed was defending the Muslims. His basic argument was that the West is hypocritical in claiming the cartoons fall under free speech, because we allegedly only allow free speech when it offends Muslims, not Christians or Jews. He said some very awful things and some less awful things, and I would classify him as a rationalist (or, if you've listened to DIM, I'd say he was an M1 coming very very close to an M2).
Kevin James was your average conservative radio talk show host. Completely non-intellectual, and more interested in getting laughs than changing minds.
In sum, I had a great time at the event. The UCLA Objectivist club (L.O.G.I.C.) was handing out lots of Objectivist literature (including FREE copies of Atlas Shrugged), and I saw at least a few members of the media there, so I'm hopeful this helped Objectivism reach some people. Events like this are always a mixed -- you can't develop your own position as fully but you reach more people. My hope is that at least a few of them at least found the ideas interesting enough to read Atlas Shrugged. If even a few of them are convinced that Objectivism has something important to say, perhaps they will become ARI contributers...and thereby help pay my bills.
