Pastor Terry Jones of The Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida has announced that his congregation will observe the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks by burning a stack of Korans, a statement for which he has taken considerable heat from all over the world.
I think there's some irony in the pastor's plan and some hypocrisy in the reaction to it. Here's why:
The pastor certainly has the right to burn the Koran if he wants, just as Muslims have the right to build the Ground Zero mosque if they want. What I don't understand is why he (or they) wants to. I know he's tired of the politically correct bowing and scraping that the media and our government engage in whenever there's an encounter with Muslims, and I sympathize with his refusal to be dhimmified.
Even so, the pastor is ostensibly a Christian leader, and as such he's familiar with Jesus' injunction to love our enemies. Surely this includes showing respect to those who are members of a different religion. He must, too, be aware of Paul's admonition not to give needless offense to others. Although the context of Paul's words is concerned with offending other Christians, the principle may doubtless be extended to embrace members of other religions. This was, after all, the lesson of the parable of the Good Samaritan in which Jesus taught that our moral obligations extend far beyond just our own particular ethnic or religious group.
Treating with contempt the book revered by the world's Muslims is also in conflict with Jesus' teaching on the Golden Rule. I'm confident that Pastor Jones would not like to hear that Muslims have taken to burning Bibles in their mosques. He should therefore refrain from doing to their Book what he would not want them to do to his.
In sum, Pastor Jones may insult a billion Muslims around the world by burning their sacred book if he so chooses, but it certainly would not be a Christian act if he did so, and it would ironic if it were a Christian pastor who committed such an unChristian deed.
As for hypocrisy we might reflect upon the scolding Pastor Jones is receiving from liberals, which, I'm afraid, is very hard to take seriously. These are people, some of them, who have no problem with burning the American flag, hailing photographs of a crucifix in a jar of urine as great art, using the words "Jesus Christ" as a profane exclamation, and mocking on television, film and books everything about Christianity. Now they are suddenly deeply concerned about offending the religious sensibilities of Muslims? Now they are deeply committed to being respectful of the Islamic faith? Come on.
The final irony (and hypocrisy) is the outrage being expressed by Muslims around the world. In the Islamic world Christians are being killed every day, churches are being burned, Bibles are illegal, and conversion from Islam is a capital offense, and few Muslims seem to care. Where do these people get off screaming about the sacrilege of burning the Koran? How can people who persecute and tyrannize members of other religions, and jail those caught bringing Bibles into their country, expect to be taken seriously when they express anger over someone in this country feeling about their Scripture the way they feel about his.
Many of the liberals and Muslims who are complaining about Pastor Jones' "blasphemy" simply have no grounds for being paid any attention. If liberals think Christians should treat Islam with more respect then those liberals should themselves treat Christians and Christianity with more respect. If Muslims want their holy book to be treated with greater dignity by Christians then they need to treat with greater tolerance and dignity not only the Christian Bible but Christians themselves as well as their churches.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Monday, September 6, 2010
Thinking About Islamophobia
One of the things about the debate over the Ground Zero mosque that disturbs me is the ease with which opponents of the mosque are being labeled "Islamophobes." Time magazine asks on a recent cover whether Americans are Islamophobic, but I'm not sure I understand what this term even means. If Islamophobia is defined as hatred for Muslims as people then it is indeed a reprehensible thing to be an Islamophobe, and we should reject it root and branch, but if the word is defined to mean a dislike or suspicion of the Islamic religion then I don't know why being an Islamophobe is so bad.
Surely there are many people who strongly dislike Christianity without hating individual Christians, and no one, except maybe Christians, seems to think that's such a terrible thing. Indeed, the authors of antiChristian books, like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, are feted on television and elsewhere and we rarely hear anyone say that their claims to despise Christianity are contemptible. No one in the media sputters the word "Christophobe" at these people as though they were pedophiles or something. They just see it as part of the intellectual/cultural give and take in our society.
Moreover, Jews and Muslims are understandably leery of the Catholic church due to atrocities perpetrated against Jews and Muslims almost a thousand years ago, and we're repeatedly admonished to be sensitive to these suspicions given that history. So why is it somehow despicable - Islamophobic - to be suspicious of Islam given the history of the crimes that have been committed in the name of Allah? Why is disdain for Christianity quite fashionable in our enlightened secular society, but disdain for Islam is seen as some sort of hate crime?
Chris Matthews on his Hardball show a couple of weeks ago badgered former New York governor George Pataki to explain why 54% of Republicans, according to a recent poll, apparently dislike Islam. Here's the video of the segment:
As I watched the show I wished Pataki would have asked Matthews what it is, precisely, that's unAmerican about disliking a religion or a set of religious beliefs. Where does the Constitution demand that we "like" the beliefs of others, and why is it that liberals only apply this demand to non-Muslims? The books that attack Christianity have soared to the top of the best-seller lists, but Time magazine seems blithely indifferent to the possibility that we're becoming a Christophobic nation. Matthews, who claims to be a Catholic, has never, as far as I know, reproached any of the authors of these books for their hatred of his religion. Yet let someone oppose building a mosque at a particular site, and Matthews acts as if the Spanish Inquisition was about to start all over again.
I suspect that much of the liberals' "concern" for the Ground Zero mosque is motivated not so much by a fondness for the freedom of religion clause in the First Amendment, on whose behalf they've never before been particularly zealous unless it's employed in the cause of secularism, but rather by a hostility to Christianity, especially conservative Christianity. Christian conservatives comprise a hefty segment of the people who are reluctant to see the mosque constructed so close to the site of the WTC infamy, therefore an attack on opponents of the mosque is a subtle way to tacitly smear Christian conservatives as "intolerant, insensitive and bigoted."
Be that as it may, we might ask what it is about Islam that makes many Americans squeamish? Perhaps the following doctrines and practices are not typical of Islam, but they're certainly believed and practiced by many Muslims in much of the world. If they aren't intrinsic or fundamental to Islam then Muslims might consider being more emphatic and outspoken in explaining to non-Muslims why so many of their co-religionists are just plain wrong to practice them and explicate more effectively what the Koran really teaches about these things.
Many non-Muslim Americans believe, for example, that Islam, at least the version of it that is practiced by millions of Muslims around the world, is a religion that:
Until these beliefs are dispelled and a compelling Islamic apologetic makes its way into the national mainstream it's going to be very hard to convince many Americans that they should like and admire, much less embrace, the religion, as distinct from the people, of Islam.
Surely there are many people who strongly dislike Christianity without hating individual Christians, and no one, except maybe Christians, seems to think that's such a terrible thing. Indeed, the authors of antiChristian books, like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, are feted on television and elsewhere and we rarely hear anyone say that their claims to despise Christianity are contemptible. No one in the media sputters the word "Christophobe" at these people as though they were pedophiles or something. They just see it as part of the intellectual/cultural give and take in our society.
Moreover, Jews and Muslims are understandably leery of the Catholic church due to atrocities perpetrated against Jews and Muslims almost a thousand years ago, and we're repeatedly admonished to be sensitive to these suspicions given that history. So why is it somehow despicable - Islamophobic - to be suspicious of Islam given the history of the crimes that have been committed in the name of Allah? Why is disdain for Christianity quite fashionable in our enlightened secular society, but disdain for Islam is seen as some sort of hate crime?
Chris Matthews on his Hardball show a couple of weeks ago badgered former New York governor George Pataki to explain why 54% of Republicans, according to a recent poll, apparently dislike Islam. Here's the video of the segment:
Matthews made it sound as if it were almost unAmerican to be less than enthusiastic about Islam, and Pataki seemed unable, or unwilling, to give him a straightforward answer to his question, a question which was really more of an accusation.
As I watched the show I wished Pataki would have asked Matthews what it is, precisely, that's unAmerican about disliking a religion or a set of religious beliefs. Where does the Constitution demand that we "like" the beliefs of others, and why is it that liberals only apply this demand to non-Muslims? The books that attack Christianity have soared to the top of the best-seller lists, but Time magazine seems blithely indifferent to the possibility that we're becoming a Christophobic nation. Matthews, who claims to be a Catholic, has never, as far as I know, reproached any of the authors of these books for their hatred of his religion. Yet let someone oppose building a mosque at a particular site, and Matthews acts as if the Spanish Inquisition was about to start all over again.
I suspect that much of the liberals' "concern" for the Ground Zero mosque is motivated not so much by a fondness for the freedom of religion clause in the First Amendment, on whose behalf they've never before been particularly zealous unless it's employed in the cause of secularism, but rather by a hostility to Christianity, especially conservative Christianity. Christian conservatives comprise a hefty segment of the people who are reluctant to see the mosque constructed so close to the site of the WTC infamy, therefore an attack on opponents of the mosque is a subtle way to tacitly smear Christian conservatives as "intolerant, insensitive and bigoted."
Be that as it may, we might ask what it is about Islam that makes many Americans squeamish? Perhaps the following doctrines and practices are not typical of Islam, but they're certainly believed and practiced by many Muslims in much of the world. If they aren't intrinsic or fundamental to Islam then Muslims might consider being more emphatic and outspoken in explaining to non-Muslims why so many of their co-religionists are just plain wrong to practice them and explicate more effectively what the Koran really teaches about these things.
Many non-Muslim Americans believe, for example, that Islam, at least the version of it that is practiced by millions of Muslims around the world, is a religion that:
- celebrates, or at least tolerates, violent conquest. Killing non-Muslims in order to spread Islam is not a violation of Koranic teaching insofar as many Muslims are concerned.
- considers women to be the property of men and that it often condones honor killing, wife beatings, genital mutilation, and polygamy. Women are not only required to wear clothing such as the burqa, which many non-Muslims consider dehumanizing, but in much of the Islamic world they're not allowed to be seen in public with a non-relative male, nor are they allowed to drive a car, testify in court, or get an education.
- condones the execution of gays as well as those Muslims who leave the faith or who even merely criticize it.
- condones the oppression of non-Muslims, relegating them to second class status called dhimmi.
- has no sympathy for freedom of speech, religion, or church-state separation, and that if Muslims had the power they would abrogate much of the Bill of Rights and impose Sharia law.
- teaches in madrassas all over the world that Jews are despicable and deserve to be killed.
- places severe ritualistic burdens on its adherents.
Until these beliefs are dispelled and a compelling Islamic apologetic makes its way into the national mainstream it's going to be very hard to convince many Americans that they should like and admire, much less embrace, the religion, as distinct from the people, of Islam.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Black Liberation Theology
President Obama acknowledges that while living in Chicago he went to church almost every Sunday for twenty years to listen to Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sermons. Rev. Wright has told us that he is an ardent admirer of James Cone, the man who claims to have founded Black Liberation Theology. We can assume, then, that President Obama was hearing, not infrequently, Black Liberation Theology preached from the pulpit at Trinity U.C.C. and that he found it congenial enough to continue to attend for two decades.
So what is Black Liberation Theology? Kyle-Anne Shiver at American Thinker breaks it down for us, but first she lays a little groundwork. Here's part of it:
Whatever the case, one thing this article helps us understand, although Shiver never mentions it - is why so many Americans question whether Mr. Obama really is a Christian. Black Liberation Theology is certainly unlike any form of Christianity with which most people are familiar. There's much, much more in her article. Give it a read.
So what is Black Liberation Theology? Kyle-Anne Shiver at American Thinker breaks it down for us, but first she lays a little groundwork. Here's part of it:
Writing on "Faith," in The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama went to great lengths to explain that his own "conversion" was enabled not by an orthodox Christian awakening, but by the explicitly political nature of the Black Liberation Theology preached by Jeremiah Wright, Jr. And the thrust of Obama's entire chapter on faith in his own book was to show how his own liberation theology should not frighten secular progressives because it bore little to no resemblance to the religion of those Bible Belt "bitter clingers." As observant Americans know well, Barack Obama was so ardent a follower of Jeremiah Wright's brand of Christianity that he named his book after a Wright sermon, The Audacity of Hope.What are these beliefs that have shaped Mr. Obama's worldview? Shiver quotes from Cone's writings:
While it is true that Barack Obama never (that I know of) used the explicit words "Black Liberation Theology" in his speeches or his books, everything about his claims to faith in his writing, his speeches, and his current actions as president is filled with the tenets of this fringe system of beliefs.
[From] Black Theology and Black Power: Whiteness, as revealed in the history of America, is the expression of what is wrong with man. It is a symbol of man's depravity. God cannot be white, even though white churches have portrayed him as white (p. 150). The coming of Christ means a denial of what we thought we were. It means destroying the white devil in us (p. 150). Negro hatred of white people is not pathological -- far from it. It is a healthy human reaction to oppression, insult, and terror. White people are often surprised at the Negro's hatred of them, but it should not be surprising (p. 14).
[From] God of the Oppressed: Black people must be aware of the extreme dangers of speaking too lightly of reconciliation with whites. Just because we work with them and sometimes worship alongside them should be no reason to claim that they are truly Christian and thus part of our struggle (p. 222).
[From] Speaking the Truth: Liberation is not simply a consequence of the experience of sanctification. Rather, sanctification is liberation. To be sanctified is to be liberated -- that is politically engaged in the struggle of freedom. When sanctification is defined as a commitment to the historical struggle for political liberation, then it is possible to connect it with socialism and Marxism, the reconstruction of society on the basis of freedom and justice for all (p. 33).
[From] A Black Theology of Liberation: What need have we for a white Jesus when we are not white but black? If Jesus Christ is white and not black, he is an oppressor, and we must kill him. The appearance of black theology means that the black community is now ready to do something about the white Jesus, so that he cannot get in the way of our revolution (p. 111).One certainly shouldn't jump to the conclusion that the President of the United States shares all these odious views, but it certainly should give us pause that he would subject himself and his family to such vitriolic racism for twenty years. Why did he? What does he really believe? Would not the media be all over a Republican president who spent two decades of his life listening to a pastor who was a proponent of the KKK? Why are they so indifferent in this case? Perhaps they simply believe Mr. Obama's church attendance was insincere, a cynical ploy to enable him to network with community power-brokers.
Whatever the case, one thing this article helps us understand, although Shiver never mentions it - is why so many Americans question whether Mr. Obama really is a Christian. Black Liberation Theology is certainly unlike any form of Christianity with which most people are familiar. There's much, much more in her article. Give it a read.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Proof?
I know it's not wise to talk about a book one hasn't read, but after seeing this article about Stephen Hawking's new book I'm afraid I can't help it. I hope Hawking answers a few questions in his book that the article elides. Here's what the AOL News piece said:
The article goes on:
Not only might one wonder where, in Hawking's theory, gravity comes from, one might also wonder how gravity actually creates matter and how matter comes to possess just the right properties, and organize itself in just the right way, to allow for the emergence of creatures capable of wondering about these things. If it can do all of these marvelous things it would seem that gravity is God.
I'm sure, or at least I hope, that Hawking addresses these questions in his book which is due to be released next week.
Entering the ongoing debate between faith and science, renowned British scientist Stephen Hawking claims that modern physics has now proved that God played no role in the creation of the universe."Proved?" How can anyone, no matter how brilliant, prove that God was not involved in the birth of the cosmos? Moreover, there's no ongoing debate between "faith and science." There's only a debate about which interpretation of the empirical evidence best explains the data. Is it best explained by intelligent agency or is it best explained in terms of blind, impersonal forces?
The article goes on:
In a new book -- "The Grand Design," co-written with American physicist Leonard Mlodinow -- the theoretical physicist sets out to demolish Sir Isaac Newton's claim that an "intelligent and powerful Being" must have shaped the universe, which he believed could not have emerged from chaos. Hawking and Mlodinow rule out the possibility of divine intervention, saying that new theories have made the idea of a supernatural creator redundant.Upon reading this my friend Mike wrote to ask me my thoughts. He said:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," the pair write, in an extract published in today's London Times. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going."
I feel as if I must be missing something, because it doesn't seem right that a mind as astute as Hawking's could make such an obvious and elementary mistake, but am I wrong in perceiving a gaping hole in his point: He argues "Because there is a law such as gravity" the universe can create itself from nothing, and yet if a pre-existing law of gravity is necessary for the universe to create itself out of nothing, then the universe can not create itself out of nothing because it requires a law of gravity, the existence of which would constitute more than nothing.This is a very insightful observation on Mike's part. If there was indeed a force like gravity prior to the creation of the universe then surely the universe didn't create itself from nothing. In addition, there seems to be a chicken and egg problem. Gravity is a property of matter, so how did gravity exist before matter did?
The Hawking quote strikes me as remarkably stupid, but given that my brain and body of scientific knowledge is so much smaller than his, I feel as if I must be missing something. Maybe the article just gave a snippet that's better clarified in the book?
Not only might one wonder where, in Hawking's theory, gravity comes from, one might also wonder how gravity actually creates matter and how matter comes to possess just the right properties, and organize itself in just the right way, to allow for the emergence of creatures capable of wondering about these things. If it can do all of these marvelous things it would seem that gravity is God.
I'm sure, or at least I hope, that Hawking addresses these questions in his book which is due to be released next week.
Heartbreak
The other day I mentioned Jesse Bering's article in Scientific American in the post "Morality and Atheism". Today I'd like to look at another piece of that essay. Bering discusses the work of anthropologist Helen Fisher who studies the biology of broken relationships. I thought this was pretty interesting, having seen people I know go through almost exactly this progression on several occasions over the years.
Bering writes:
Bering writes:
Drawing largely from work by psychiatrists, Fisher surmises that there are two main stages associated with a dead and dying romantic relationship, which is of course often preceded by a partner’s infidelities. During the “protest” stage that occurs in the immediate aftermath of rejection:
"Abandoned lovers are generally dedicated to winning their sweetheart back. They obsessively dissect the relationship, trying to establish what went wrong; and they doggedly strategize about how to rekindle the romance. Disappointed lovers often make dramatic, humiliating, or even dangerous entrances into a beloved’s home or place of work, then storm out, only to return and plead anew. They visit mutual haunts and shared friends. And they phone, e-mail and write letters, pleading, accusing and/or trying to seduce their abandoner.
"At the neurobiological level, the protest stage is characterized by unusually heightened, even frantic activity of dopamine and norepinephrine receptors in the brain, which has the effect of pronounced alertness similar to what is found in young animals abandoned by their mothers. This impassioned protest stage—if it proves unsuccessful in re-establishing the romantic relationship—slowly disintegrates into the second stage of heartbreak, what Fisher refers to as “resignation/despair”:
"With time the spurned individual gives up pursuit of the abandoning partner. Then he or she must deal with intensified feelings of helplessness, resignation and despair. Drugged by sorrow, most cry, lie in bed, stare into space, drink too much, or hole up and watch TV. Feelings of protest and anger resurface intermittently, but rejected lovers mostly just feel profound melancholy … Some people in the despair phase of rejection kill themselves. Some die of a broken heart. Broken-hearted lovers expire from heart attacks or strokes caused by their depression … As the abandoned partner realizes that [reunion] will never come, dopamine-making cells in the midbrain decrease their activity [causing] lethargy, despondency and depression."Eventually, most people get over their heartbreak, the dopamine cells regain their vigor, and the person gets on with his or her life. In the meantime, however, some people experiencing this rejection act as if they've gone insane, which, in a way, I suppose they have. It's very sad.
A Gore Disciple?
How long will it be before the media blames Al Gore for the violence that could have cost lives in the Maryland Discovery hostage crisis? The man, one James Lee, apparently was motivated to take serious action to save the planet after having read Gore's book An Inconvenient Truth.
It would of course be silly to blame Gore for this deranged man's behavior, but what do you suppose would have been the media reaction had the unstable, intoxicated individual who recently stabbed a Muslim cab driver in New York acknowledged that he was angry with Muslims after reading a book by some conservative talk show host? I'm pretty sure that admission would be exhibit A in an indictment of how awful conservative talk radio is and how the FCC needs to rein it in.
If we were to blame Gore for inspiring this man's actions it would mean that any writer of any book on almost any topic could be held at least morally responsible for almost anything. Yet that's the logic of blaming the attack on the Muslim cabbie on opponents of the Ground Zero mosque as many have already done. It's also the logic that lay behind blaming Timothy McVeigh's Oklahoma City bombing on Rush Limbaugh's conservative opinions.
The absurdity notwithstanding, the left continues to attempt to refute its opposition, not by addressing their arguments, but by trying to convince the public that there's a nexus between those arguments and the actions of sundry lunatics and morons. It's a tactic the left only employs, however, when the people "at fault" are on the right. We can be assured that there'll be no such connections made in the case of a disciple of Al Gore.
In fact, we'll probably hear that any attempts to blame Gore are nonsensical ideological partisanship, which they are, but nonsensical ideological partisanship is a two-way street. It's funny how differently things look when people have to confront the logic of their own tactics.
It would of course be silly to blame Gore for this deranged man's behavior, but what do you suppose would have been the media reaction had the unstable, intoxicated individual who recently stabbed a Muslim cab driver in New York acknowledged that he was angry with Muslims after reading a book by some conservative talk show host? I'm pretty sure that admission would be exhibit A in an indictment of how awful conservative talk radio is and how the FCC needs to rein it in.
If we were to blame Gore for inspiring this man's actions it would mean that any writer of any book on almost any topic could be held at least morally responsible for almost anything. Yet that's the logic of blaming the attack on the Muslim cabbie on opponents of the Ground Zero mosque as many have already done. It's also the logic that lay behind blaming Timothy McVeigh's Oklahoma City bombing on Rush Limbaugh's conservative opinions.
The absurdity notwithstanding, the left continues to attempt to refute its opposition, not by addressing their arguments, but by trying to convince the public that there's a nexus between those arguments and the actions of sundry lunatics and morons. It's a tactic the left only employs, however, when the people "at fault" are on the right. We can be assured that there'll be no such connections made in the case of a disciple of Al Gore.
In fact, we'll probably hear that any attempts to blame Gore are nonsensical ideological partisanship, which they are, but nonsensical ideological partisanship is a two-way street. It's funny how differently things look when people have to confront the logic of their own tactics.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Insignificance
How big are you compared to the earth? Not very, of course. How big is the earth compared to the sun? Pretty small. How big is the sun compared to other stars in our galaxy? Take a look.
This would be a good video to return to whenever you start getting infatuated with your own importance. In fact, one of the lessons this video illustrates is how utterly insignificant we are, or would be, were we not loved by the God who made both us and those other stars.
If you'd like to watch some more there's a bunch of National Geographic videos at the link that are all pretty good. This animation of how scientists think the moon formed I found especially interesting.
Thanks to Jason for passing along the links.
This would be a good video to return to whenever you start getting infatuated with your own importance. In fact, one of the lessons this video illustrates is how utterly insignificant we are, or would be, were we not loved by the God who made both us and those other stars.
If you'd like to watch some more there's a bunch of National Geographic videos at the link that are all pretty good. This animation of how scientists think the moon formed I found especially interesting.
Thanks to Jason for passing along the links.
Morality and Atheism
Research Psychologist and gay atheist Jesse Bering has an article in Scientific American in which he opines that our behavior, particularly our sexual behavior, is the product of natural selection and chance and therefore carries with it no particular obligation to be faithful or monogamous. At one point he says:
So here's the bind the atheist finds himself in: If there is no God then there are, as Bering acknowledges, no moral duties or obligations. On the other hand, if one believes there are duties and obligations then he has to accept that there is a God. If he wishes to remain an atheist he has two options: He can accept a moral subjectivism (as Bering does) that leads logically to egoism and an ethic of might-makes-right, or he can simply embrace moral nihilism.
What he can't do is insist that his moral judgments mean anything significant to anyone but himself. When he declares that it's immoral to overpopulate the planet, or to be cruel or selfish, all he's doing is telling us that he doesn't like these things. When we ask him why we should care what he likes and doesn't like he can give us no answer.
This is an awkward state of affairs to find oneself in, but for the atheist there's no way out. He's trapped in an unsustainable tension between what he believes about God and what he believes about moral duties. It's amusing that despite willingly embracing this logical incoherency the atheist is fond of calling theists irrational.
HT: Telic Thoughts
Much of this discussion is being fueled by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá’s scintillating new book Sex at Dawn, which explores how our modern, God-ridden, puritanical society conflicts with our species’ evolutionary design, a tension making us pathologically ashamed of sex.
There are of course many important caveats, but the basic logic is that, because human beings are not naturally monogamous but rather have been explicitly designed by natural selection to seek out ‘extra-pair copulatory partners’—having sex with someone other than your partner or spouse for the replicating sake of one’s mindless genes—then suppressing these deep mammalian instincts is futile and, worse, is an inevitable death knell for an otherwise honest and healthy relationship.
Intellectually, I can get on board with this. If you believe, as I do, that we live in a natural rather than a supernatural world, then there is no inherent, divinely inspired reason to be sexually exclusive to one’s partner. If you and your partner want to [engage in various unorthodox behaviors with others] then by all means do so (and take pictures).This is refreshing, in its way. It's good to hear an atheist acknowledge that in a world where there is no God moral right and wrong simply don't exist. They're "irrelevant," to use Bering's word. This is true, though Bering doesn't mention it, not only of our sexual behavior but the rest of our behavior as well. In other words, Bering is admitting that any time an atheist makes a moral judgment all he's doing is describing his feelings. It's as if he's discussing his preference in ice cream flavors.
But the amoralistic beauty of Darwinian thinking is that it does not—or at least, should not and cannot—prescribe any social behavior, sexual or otherwise, as being the “right” thing to do. Right is irrelevant. There is only what works and what doesn’t work, within context, in biologically adaptive terms.
So here's the bind the atheist finds himself in: If there is no God then there are, as Bering acknowledges, no moral duties or obligations. On the other hand, if one believes there are duties and obligations then he has to accept that there is a God. If he wishes to remain an atheist he has two options: He can accept a moral subjectivism (as Bering does) that leads logically to egoism and an ethic of might-makes-right, or he can simply embrace moral nihilism.
What he can't do is insist that his moral judgments mean anything significant to anyone but himself. When he declares that it's immoral to overpopulate the planet, or to be cruel or selfish, all he's doing is telling us that he doesn't like these things. When we ask him why we should care what he likes and doesn't like he can give us no answer.
This is an awkward state of affairs to find oneself in, but for the atheist there's no way out. He's trapped in an unsustainable tension between what he believes about God and what he believes about moral duties. It's amusing that despite willingly embracing this logical incoherency the atheist is fond of calling theists irrational.
HT: Telic Thoughts
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Conservative Renewal
Peter Berkowitz is a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution and he has a very good essay in the Wall Street Journal in which he discusses the premature obituaries written on the death of political conservatism. He reminds us that:
Mr. Berkowitz goes on to discuss what, exactly, conservatism is:
In late October 2008, New Yorker staff writer George Packer reported "the complete collapse of the four-decade project that brought conservatism to power in America." Two weeks later, the day after Mr. Obama's election, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne proclaimed "the end of a conservative era" that had begun with the rise of Ronald Reagan. And in February 2009, New York Times Book Review and Week in Review editor Sam Tanenhaus, writing in The New Republic, declared that "movement conservatism is exhausted and quite possibly dead."These gloating assessments have proven to be wildly mistaken as Saturday's turnout of an estimated 300,000 or more people in Washington D.C. illustrates. The Restoring Honor rally was superficially apolitical, to be sure, but it would be foolish to think that those who made the trip to the Lincoln Memorial were people enthusiastic about the policies of Reid, Pelosi, and Obama.
Mr. Tanenhaus even purported to discern in the new president "the emergence of a president who seems more thoroughly steeped in the principles of Burkean conservatism than any significant thinker or political figure on the right."
Mr. Berkowitz goes on to discuss what, exactly, conservatism is:
Progressives like to believe that conservatism's task is exclusively negative—resisting the centralizing and expansionist tendency of democratic government. And that is a large part of the conservative mission. Progressives see nothing in this but hard-hearted indifference to inequality and misfortune, but that is a misreading.
What conservatism does is ask the question avoided by progressive promises: at what expense? In the aftermath of the global economic crisis of 2008, Western liberal democracies have been increasingly forced to come to grips with their propensity to live beyond their means.
It is always the task for conservatives to insist that money does not grow on trees, that government programs must be paid for, and that promising unaffordable benefits is reckless, unjust and a long-term threat to maintaining free institutions.
But conservatives also combat government expansion and centralization because it can undermine the virtues upon which a free society depends. Big government tends to crowd out self-government—producing sluggish, selfish and small-minded citizens, depriving individuals of opportunities to manage their private lives and discouraging them from cooperating with fellow citizens to govern their neighborhoods, towns, cities and states.Berkowitz offers us much more at the link, including a good discussion of the challenges facing those who wish to sustain the conservative renewal. He packs a lot of good thinking into a relatively short column.
Unforced Errors
Fred Barnes talks about President Obama's "four disasters" at the Weekly Standard:
Recovery summer, opposition to Arizona’s immigration law, negative campaigning, and intervention in the Ground Zero mosque dispute—call them Obama’s Four Disasters. As policy, they’re questionable. As political exercises, they’re losers. As clues about Obama, they’re evidence he’s lost his political knack.That's Barnes' opening. His elaboration on these four calamities, what politicians refer to as "unforced errors" - i.e. they were totally unnecessary - occupies the remainder of the column.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Out of Ammo
The Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer, as if having read the last couple weeks of Viewpoint posts, makes the same point we've been making here, albeit with far less skill and eloquence than Krauthammer commands. When liberals find themselves on the short end of an argument, which is almost always, they resort to name-calling. Specifically, they attempt to discredit their foes, and thereby "win" the argument, by smearing them as bigots. A bigot's beliefs, after all, are ipso facto absurd and disreputable. Here's Krauthammer on this quaint habit of the liberal mind:
Be that as it may, I don't think it changes much. All it does to mitigate the name-caller's sleaziness is to remove the stigma of having deliberately lied in order to disgrace his opponent and replace it with the stigma of being the sort of person who will say the worst things about others without taking the trouble to discover whether his claims are true. The technical name for this thoughtless, small-minded, irresponsible character assassination is slander.
Krauthammer's columns are almost always excellent, but this one is especially so. Give it a read, and in the meantime remember that whenever you hear a liberal brandishing the charge of bigotry, racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, etc. it's almost always a tacit admission that they're out of intellectual ammunition and are fighting a losing battle with the sticks and stones of personal insult.
Krauthammer finishes up his column with this:
Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight indeed. Just yesterday it was all hope and change and returning power to the people. But the people have proved so disappointing. Their recalcitrance has, in only 19 months, turned the predicted 40-year liberal ascendancy (James Carville) into a full retreat. Ah, the people, the little people, the small-town people, the "bitter" people, as Barack Obama in an unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging "to guns or religion or" -- this part is less remembered -- "antipathy toward people who aren't like them."
That's a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry. And promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.
- Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.
- Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.
- Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.
- Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.
Now we know why the country has become "ungovernable," last year's excuse for the Democrats' failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?A friend of mine maintains that it's a little unfair of Krauthammer to imply that it's a conscious strategy on the part of liberals to lie about their opponents. He argues that many of them, at least, actually believe that their opponents really are the nefarious devils they make them out to be.
Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. Majorities -- often lopsided majorities -- oppose President Obama's social-democratic agenda (e.g., the stimulus, Obamacare), support the Arizona law, oppose gay marriage and reject a mosque near Ground Zero. What's a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that preempts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument.
Be that as it may, I don't think it changes much. All it does to mitigate the name-caller's sleaziness is to remove the stigma of having deliberately lied in order to disgrace his opponent and replace it with the stigma of being the sort of person who will say the worst things about others without taking the trouble to discover whether his claims are true. The technical name for this thoughtless, small-minded, irresponsible character assassination is slander.
Krauthammer's columns are almost always excellent, but this one is especially so. Give it a read, and in the meantime remember that whenever you hear a liberal brandishing the charge of bigotry, racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, etc. it's almost always a tacit admission that they're out of intellectual ammunition and are fighting a losing battle with the sticks and stones of personal insult.
Krauthammer finishes up his column with this:
It is a measure of the corruption of liberal thought and the collapse of its self-confidence that, finding itself so widely repudiated, it resorts reflexively to the cheapest race-baiting (in a colorful variety of forms). Indeed, how can one reason with a nation of pitchfork-wielding mobs brimming with "antipathy toward people who aren't like them" -- blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims -- a nation that is, as Michelle Obama once put it succinctly, "just downright mean"?Yes. Don't try to reason with the yahoos, just throw lots of mud and hope that some of it sticks.
Football Follies
Hot Air's Allahpundit sees this disastrous play as a metaphor for the Obama administration:
The electorate takes the snap, flips the ball to Obama, and watches in horror as he fumbles the stimulus and races in the wrong direction with ObamaCare. Then, near his own goal line, with the GOP closing in, he gets the brilliant idea to weigh in on the Ground Zero mosque…I invite readers to submit their own interpetation of the metaphor this poor young man's series of errors offers us. I imagine he got an earful from his coaches when he came off the field.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Drastic Education Reform
National Review's John Derbyshire has a plan for reforming education. Fed up with the fleecing the educational establishment and their political enablers have administered to the public, Derbyshire delivers himself of the following proposal:
Here is my prescription for a reform of the nation’s education system. First, destroy all the schools. Cart away the rubble for landfill and sow the ground with salt. Abolish the federal Department of Education and all state equivalents. End all education funding from public sources. If the inhabitants of any district then wish their kids to be educated in schools, let them raise the necessary funds themselves. Then let them build the schools themselves, like zeks. There should be just one federally approved model: an unheated wood-and-tar-paper structure with plastic sheeting for windows.
Any person above the age of twelve who wishes to attend school should have to stand outside the school gate for a month, in all weathers, pleading to be admitted. There should be a constitutional amendment banning any community from employing non-teaching staff in its schools at any ratio to teaching staff higher than one percent. And let’s have a federal penalty of 25-to-life for anyone attempting to form a teachers’ union.
Crazy, you say? No: Spending half a billion dollars you don’t have on a school to educate 4,200 students, some high proportion of whom are in the country illegally, is crazy. Shoveling seven hundred million dollars into the public sector of a state whose private sector is withering on the vine is crazy. Pretending that by spending enough money you can turn every child into a bookish child is crazy.The proposal is satire, of course, but like all good satire it conveys a lot of truth. There is much waste in public education. The taxpayers are being squeezed to throw a lot of money on needless programs and hopeless causes. If Tea Party folks want to do something really constructive in their local communities they might publicize a line item breakdown of their school district's budget. It'd be an eye-opener.
Tolerating Terror
Andy McCarthy offers a test for distinguishing between moderate adherents of Islam and extremists: Simply ask them whether they agree with the Obama State Department that Hamas is a terrorist organization. If they refuse even to acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist group, much less condemn them for it, they are implicitly condoning terrorism and can hardly be considered "moderates." It's not unlike someone refusing to condemn the KKK lynchings during the Jim Crow era. One would have to wonder why someone couldn't bring himself to renounce such atrocities.
It turns out, by the way, that when Feisal Rauf, the promoter of the Ground Zero mosque, was given this test he failed:
It turns out, by the way, that when Feisal Rauf, the promoter of the Ground Zero mosque, was given this test he failed:
During a WABC radio interview, Aaron Klein three times pressed Rauf to admit that Hamas is a terrorist organization. Rauf bobbed and weaved in classic Islamist style. “I’m not a politician,” he replied, as if only politicians trouble themselves over whether terrorists are terrorists. “I try to avoid the issues. The issue of terrorism is a very complex question.” Avoid the issues? You don’t say!I'm reminded of the young college student who, at a David Horowitz lecture, stood up and, sounding very reasonable, asked for a clarification about something Horowitz had written. In the course of his response Horowitz asked her if she would condemn Hamas. She refused. He then cited the statement by a leader of Hezbollah who said that he hopes all Jews return to Israel because it'll save Muslims the trouble of hunting them down and killing them. They can just kill them all in Israel. Horowitz asked the young lady whether she agreed with that statement, and her immediate, straightforward reply was that she did. Pretty chilling: Surely there are pious, peaceful Muslims who are aghast at this young student's reply to Horowitz and who will not hesitate to speak out against terrorism and violence and those among their co-religionists who employ it, but unless they rise up and seize their faith back from the extremists and those who abet them, non-Muslim Americans will more and more come to think that the concept of the "moderate Muslim" is really just a myth. When all one hears are the radical voices it's inevitable that one begin to think that radicals are the mainstream.
Whites Need Not Apply
It wasn't long ago that the lament was frequently heard that minorities and women had to be twice as good as white men just to have the same opportunities as white men enjoyed. The complaint might still be heard today, but it certainly doesn't have the resonance it once did. Indeed, it could with justification be turned on its head.
According to a column by Pat Buchanan, being a white applicant to Harvard is a real liability to a prospective student. Minority students have an enormous competitive advantage just because they're not white:
According to a column by Pat Buchanan, being a white applicant to Harvard is a real liability to a prospective student. Minority students have an enormous competitive advantage just because they're not white:
Being Hispanic conferred an admissions boost over being white ... equivalent to 130 SAT points (out of 1,600), while being black rather than white conferred a 310-point SAT advantage. Asians, however, suffered an admissions penalty compared to whites equivalent to 140 SAT points. To have the same chance of gaining admission as a black student with a SAT score of 1100, a Hispanic student otherwise equally matched in background characteristics would have to have a 1230, a white student a 1410, and an Asian student a 1550.Buchanan goes on to ask:
Was this what the civil rights revolution was all about -- requiring kids whose parents came from Korea, Japan or Vietnam to get a perfect SAT score of 1600 to be given equal consideration with a Jamaican or Kenyan kid who got an 1150? Is this what it means to be an Ivy League progressive? What are the historic and moral arguments for discriminating in favor of kids from Angola and Argentina over kids whose parents came from Poland and Vietnam?Of course there are no historic or moral justifications for this. When liberals decide they're going to promote diversity, morality and fairness become expendable. Buchanan concludes with this:
Lower-class whites prove to be all-around losers at the elite schools. They are rarely accepted. Lower-class Hispanics and blacks are eight to 10 times more likely to get in with the same scores. Many of these elite public and private colleges and universities benefit from U.S. tax dollars through student loans and direct grants. The future flow of those tax dollars should be made contingent on Harvard and Yale ending racial practices that went out at Little Rock Central High in 1957.There's much more in the column to make you wonder what ever happened to the idea that a just society is one which does not discriminate on the basis of the color of one's skin.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
What's the Difference?
One of the criticisms leveled at the Glenn Beck Restoring Honor rally held today was that it was at best insensitive of Beck to hold the rally on the day and at the place where Martin Luther King gave his famous I Have a Dream speech 47 years ago. That place and that date are sacred in the minds of African-Americans, the complaint goes, and for a white conservative talk show host to hold his rally at that venue on August 28th was an affront to the memory of Dr. King.
Set aside the silliness of this objection and consider instead its similarity to what we heard in the Ground Zero mosque debate. Liberals think Beck is sullying the site of one of the greatest moments in civil rights history and are overwhelmingly sympathetic with those who oppose his rally. Yet those Americans who believe that placing a mosque in proximity to the sacred ground of the most heinous crime ever committed on American soil, a crime committed in the name of Allah, is an affront to the memory of the almost 3000 who died there, these people are called intolerant bigots.
If opponents of the mosque are bigots why are not opponents of the Glenn Beck rally also bigots? What's the relevant difference between the two cases? Or is this not about reason and rationality at all, but rather about political and ideological demagoguery on the part of the left? Unfortunately, this is not a tough question.
Set aside the silliness of this objection and consider instead its similarity to what we heard in the Ground Zero mosque debate. Liberals think Beck is sullying the site of one of the greatest moments in civil rights history and are overwhelmingly sympathetic with those who oppose his rally. Yet those Americans who believe that placing a mosque in proximity to the sacred ground of the most heinous crime ever committed on American soil, a crime committed in the name of Allah, is an affront to the memory of the almost 3000 who died there, these people are called intolerant bigots.
If opponents of the mosque are bigots why are not opponents of the Glenn Beck rally also bigots? What's the relevant difference between the two cases? Or is this not about reason and rationality at all, but rather about political and ideological demagoguery on the part of the left? Unfortunately, this is not a tough question.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Beat Whitey Night
Have you heard anything about this in the mainstream news? Me neither, but had it been "beat blacky night" you can bet that it'd be all over the MSM. You can also be sure that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would be everywhere they could find a microphone and a camera to remind us how sick and racist white America still is. There would be interviews all across the cable tv broadcast day with sociologists and psychologists scrutinizing the deep-seated flaws in the white soul. But, since the perps were, as they almost always are in these kinds of attacks, black youth, neither the media nor our professional race hustlers seem interested:
In the media subconscious, apparently, white savagery is news, but black savagery is not. This is another example of what's been called the bigotry of low expectations. It's an insidious form of racism. We need not publicize black crime against whites, the thinking goes, because, well, it's not really surprising, and besides we can't expect blacks to behave otherwise. After all, a hundred and fifty years ago their ancestors were slaves.
If ever we're going to achieve the racial comity dreamt of by those who struggled and sacrificed in the civil rights movement of the fifties and sixties, all of us are going to have to realize that blacks, whites and browns must be held to exactly the same standards of behavior and merit. We can expect no less of one group in our society than we do of another and we must treat the actions of each group the same way we'd treat them were they being done by another group. To do otherwise, to give one group preferential treatment, only fosters bitterness and resentment and just keeps picking at the scabs of the old wounds, keeping them from healing.
If ever we're going to achieve the racial comity dreamt of by those who struggled and sacrificed in the civil rights movement of the fifties and sixties, all of us are going to have to realize that blacks, whites and browns must be held to exactly the same standards of behavior and merit. We can expect no less of one group in our society than we do of another and we must treat the actions of each group the same way we'd treat them were they being done by another group. To do otherwise, to give one group preferential treatment, only fosters bitterness and resentment and just keeps picking at the scabs of the old wounds, keeping them from healing.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Missing the Point
Here's a question for those who think that everybody who opposes the Ground Zero mosque is a right-wing hate-monger and bigot:
Frank Rich of the New York Times does. Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post does. So do some of the prime time hosts on MSNBC. They don't say exactly this, of course, but it's the logic of their position.
These pundits have made it clear that they consider everyone who opposes the GZ mosque to be disreputable people, either hate-filled demagogues themselves or useful idiots easily manipulated by the right-wing extremist media. It doesn't matter to them that opponents of this mosque do not deny that its backers have a legal right to build their cultural center near the site of the 9/11 attack - one of the most horrific crimes ever committed in the name of Allah. It doesn't matter that their opposition, in the main, stems from their belief that it's just insensitive and offensive for them to do so.
Members of Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist church flaunt signs at the funerals of fallen servicemen and women saying things like "God Hates Fags" because they believe that the deaths of these soldiers and Marines are God's judgment on a military and country that tolerates homosexuality. Should they have the right to express these views? Yes. Do the families of the dead have the right to be offended and to demand that they be kept at a distance from the place where they grieve for their loved ones?
The logic of the position held by Robinson, Rich and the MSNBC hosts, leads to the conclusion that to object to Mr. Phelps' presence, as the families of the deceased loved ones invariably do, is a symptom of an underlying ugliness in the character of those family members and their sympathizers. It is an expression of appalling ignorance, intolerance and prejudice. It manifests a disdain for the first amendment.
But of course this is all nonsense. What opposition to Mr. Phelp's protests manifests is a contempt for his boorish insensitivity. It may also manifest a contempt for his beliefs, but it doesn't signify anything at all about the attitude toward the first amendment held by those who want Mr. Phelps nowhere near the site of their grieving.
This is, however, a distinction apparently too complex for columnists like Robinson and Rich, and commentators like Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann to grasp. Or maybe they grasp it but ignore it because they think there's some political advantage to be gained by smearing as "right-wing Republicans" the almost 70% of Americans who oppose the mosque.
Do you believe opponents of the war in Afghanistan have a constitutionally guaranteed freedom to exercise their opposition by demonstrating against the war at funerals of fallen soldiers?If you answer yes, then do you also think that they should conduct their demonstrations at those sites? No matter how you answered, do you think that those who believe they should not, who think it's insensitive and insulting, who believe they should take their demonstrations to other venues, do you think those people are cowardly right-wingers filled with hatred and bigotry and animated by the basest of political motives?
Frank Rich of the New York Times does. Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post does. So do some of the prime time hosts on MSNBC. They don't say exactly this, of course, but it's the logic of their position.
These pundits have made it clear that they consider everyone who opposes the GZ mosque to be disreputable people, either hate-filled demagogues themselves or useful idiots easily manipulated by the right-wing extremist media. It doesn't matter to them that opponents of this mosque do not deny that its backers have a legal right to build their cultural center near the site of the 9/11 attack - one of the most horrific crimes ever committed in the name of Allah. It doesn't matter that their opposition, in the main, stems from their belief that it's just insensitive and offensive for them to do so.
Members of Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist church flaunt signs at the funerals of fallen servicemen and women saying things like "God Hates Fags" because they believe that the deaths of these soldiers and Marines are God's judgment on a military and country that tolerates homosexuality. Should they have the right to express these views? Yes. Do the families of the dead have the right to be offended and to demand that they be kept at a distance from the place where they grieve for their loved ones?
The logic of the position held by Robinson, Rich and the MSNBC hosts, leads to the conclusion that to object to Mr. Phelps' presence, as the families of the deceased loved ones invariably do, is a symptom of an underlying ugliness in the character of those family members and their sympathizers. It is an expression of appalling ignorance, intolerance and prejudice. It manifests a disdain for the first amendment.
But of course this is all nonsense. What opposition to Mr. Phelp's protests manifests is a contempt for his boorish insensitivity. It may also manifest a contempt for his beliefs, but it doesn't signify anything at all about the attitude toward the first amendment held by those who want Mr. Phelps nowhere near the site of their grieving.
This is, however, a distinction apparently too complex for columnists like Robinson and Rich, and commentators like Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann to grasp. Or maybe they grasp it but ignore it because they think there's some political advantage to be gained by smearing as "right-wing Republicans" the almost 70% of Americans who oppose the mosque.
Liberal Hate Speech
Quick quiz: When you think of nasty, cruel, hate-filled political rhetoric who do you think of, liberals or conservatives?
If you answered "conservatives" I challenge you to come up with an example of anything said by any conservative that's even remotely as contemptible as some of what Media Research Center has documented from the Left:
Since late 2007, the Media Research Center has collected numerous examples of the outrageousness of left-wing radio hosts. And, unlike the Left — which attempted to smear Rush Limbaugh with phony quotes — readers can find an audio or video of every one of these quotes posted at our Web site: www.MRC.org.From a somewhat different corner of the same putrid cesspool, there's a story out today about threats to tea party activists:
This report includes examples of over-the-top rhetoric from left-wing hosts Mike Malloy, Stephanie Miller, Randi Rhodes, Ron Reagan, Jr., Ed Schultz and Montel Williams, all of whom currently or at one time broadcast to a national audience on either the Air America network or via XM and/or Sirius satellite radio. Among the lowlights:
Conservatives Want to Kill Barack Obama: “I really think there are conservative broadcasters in this country who would love to see Obama taken out.” (Ed Schultz)
Conservatives Are Terrorists: “Do you not understand that the people you hold up as heroes bombed your goddamn country? Do you not understand that Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly are as complicit of the September 11, 2001 terror attack as any one of the dumbass 15 who came from Saudi Arabia?” (Mike Malloy)
Conservatives Want You to Die: “If, in fact, the GOP doesn’t like any form of health care reform, what do we do with those 40 to 60 million uninsured?...When they show up in the emergency room, just shoot ’em! Kill them!...Do we have enough body bags? I don’t know.” (Montel Williams)
Conservative Congresswoman Would Have Liked the Holocaust: “[Representative Michele Bachmann is] a hatemonger. She’s the type of person that would have gladly rounded up the Jews in Germany and shipped them off to death camps....This is an evil bitch from Hell.” (Mike Malloy)
Dick Cheney Eats Babies: “Cheney, by the way, looks very ruddy. I couldn’t get over that. Like, he must have feasted on a Jewish baby, or a Muslim baby. He must have sent his people out to get one and bring it back so he could drink its blood.”(Mike Malloy)
Dick Cheney Should Die: “He is an enemy of the country, in my opinion. Dick Cheney is an enemy of the country....Lord, take him to the Promised Land, will you? See, I don’t even wish the guy goes to Hell, I just want to get him the hell out of here.” (Ed Schultz)
Rush Limbaugh Should Die: “I’m waiting for the day when I pick up the newspaper or click on the Internet and find that he’s choked to death on his own throat fat, or a great big wad of saliva or something, whatever. Go away, Limbaugh, you make me sick.” (Mike Malloy)
Michele Bachmann Should Die: “So, Michele, slit your wrist! Go ahead! I mean, you know, why not? I mean, if you want to — or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about two feet. I mean, start right at the collarbone.” (Montel Williams)
One of Washington's principal supporters of the Tea Party movement, former GOP Majority Leader Dick Armey's FreedomWorks, has been receiving death threats and profanity-laced phone calls as it gets involved in the fall elections. The number and intensity have reached such heights that the organization is leaving its downtown location near the FBI and moving to a high-security building near the U.S. Capitol.This sort of thing might be considered just an unpleasant aberration were it not so common on the Left. Vicious, violent, hateful rhetoric has been a hallmark of those who call themselves progressives ever since the early Marxists (including Marx himself). It reflects not only upon their character, but upon the reliability of their opinions, discrediting both. If civil discourse and disagreement dies out in this country it will be largely because the progressive Left decided long ago that their arguments cannot stand on their merits and that they can prevail only by destroying not their opponents' arguments but their opponents themselves.
FreedomWorks provided some of the recordings of the threatening calls to Whispers and they include physical threats and profanity aimed at the group, Tea Party spokesmen and even conservative talkers. "You guys better watch it," says one caller. "Now, we are going to destroy and obliterate Rush [Limbaugh] and Sean Hannity," said another. "Those two guys are dead."
Thursday, August 26, 2010
The Mystery of Consciousness
David B. Hart begins a fine meditation on the mystery of consciousness by recounting the story of a personal tragedy:
There are at least five facts about human beings that militate against this view. Philosophers refer to them as intentionality, qualia, incorrigibility, exclusive access, and freedom of the will. A brief paper by Michael Egnor will be helpful to those who wish to explore exactly what philosophers mean by these terms.
I was fairly close to both Angela and Jacob throughout our teens; at least, we were all part of the same circle. I briefly entertained the hope of something closer between Angela and myself, and for a few weeks she was more or less my girlfriend; but Jacob “swept her off her feet,” and they were at one school and I at another, so I had no chance. It made no difference to our friendship, though.Be sure to read the rest of his essay at First Things. His review of Marilynne Robinson's new book, Absence of Mind, is also worth checking out if one is interested in the question of consciousness and the implications it holds for the materialist's belief that all we are is a lump of atoms arranged in a particular pattern.
Unfortunately, I largely lost touch with Angela when I started attending university. Over the course of the next six months, we crossed one another’s paths only three times or so. On the last occasion, she had just returned from a visit to Paris, from which she had brought home, among other things, the Pléiade edition of Montaigne she proudly showed me.
And that was that. Two and a half years later she was killed when a drunk driver struck her car in an intersection; she was alive for several hours after the collision, but never regained consciousness. That was twenty-five years ago tomorrow.
There are at least five facts about human beings that militate against this view. Philosophers refer to them as intentionality, qualia, incorrigibility, exclusive access, and freedom of the will. A brief paper by Michael Egnor will be helpful to those who wish to explore exactly what philosophers mean by these terms.
The Chimera of Mideast Peace
Every president thinks it incumbent upon him to at least try to bring peace to the Middle East. This is a noble aspiration but a fool's errand. There never will be peace in the Middle East until either the Israelis or the Palestinians cease to exist. Every concession forced upon Israel is simply seen by the Palestinians as a sign that victory is in the offing. The Palestinians don't want peace as the West understands the word. They want the complete destruction of Israel as a state and the Jews as a people.
This is the point of a recent article in Strategy Page:
As long as there are Jews living in the midst of Palestinian Muslims any peace between them will be ephemeral and chimerical. The sooner our politicians recognize what everyone in the region already knows, the better it will be for everyone involved.
This is the point of a recent article in Strategy Page:
The goal of the peace talks is to work out how to establish an independent Palestinian state. Israel agrees with that goal, but the Palestinians don't, at least among themselves. That's why these peace talks tend to go nowhere. The latest talks are doomed by the fact that many Palestinians in the West Bank openly oppose them, and the Islamic radical group Hamas that runs the Gaza Strip (which contains 40 percent of Palestinians) refuse to cooperate in the talks. Hamas and Fatah-controlled media both talk of destroying Israel, not making permanent peace. Any peace deals are strictly tactical moves to further the ultimate goal of wiping Israel off the map. All Palestinian maps of the area already do that.It's also tough to sell your fellow Palestinians on a genuine peace settlement that allows Israel to continue to exist when so many of their loved ones have willingly sacrificed their lives in the cause of eradicating Israel.
For the last two generations, it has been Palestinian policy to preach the destruction of Israel, not coexistence. Increasingly, over the last few decades, Palestinians have been indoctrinated with anti-Semitic propaganda, which encourages the young to become suicide bombers and terrorists. This is a very public campaign, and the terrorist killers are showered with praise in the media. In the Palestinian territories, there are hundreds of places (streets, squares, buildings) and events named after terrorists.
Anyone who has killed an Israeli is a hero, and anyone who died trying is worthy of admiration. This goes beyond honoring "war heroes." The propaganda campaign portrays Palestinians as in a life-or-death struggle with "the Zionist entity" (what Palestinians like to call Israel). Since God is on their side, the Palestinian propaganda pushes the idea that it's only a matter of time before Israel is destroyed. It's tough to negotiate a peace deal when one side has this attitude.
As long as there are Jews living in the midst of Palestinian Muslims any peace between them will be ephemeral and chimerical. The sooner our politicians recognize what everyone in the region already knows, the better it will be for everyone involved.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Creating Jobs
The worst environmental disaster in U.S. history, the Gulf oil leak, appears to itself be history, and its impact on the environment looks to be relatively minor compared to what was feared. For this we can thank mother nature which evidently gobbled up the oil via rapidly reproducing carbon-consuming microbes.
On the other hand the economic damage wrought by the Obama administration's reaction to the leak may haunt the Gulf for a long time. The moratorium he declared on American oil drilling in the Gulf, according to the Wall Street Journal, is believed to eventually cost as many as 23,000 jobs, many of which will never return.
Deliberately putting thousands of people out of work seems an odd way to create jobs during a recession, (so, by the way, does this), but that's what the wise men in the White House chose to do. One wonders which will turn out to have been the bigger disaster, BP's leak or Mr. Obama's handling of it.
On the other hand the economic damage wrought by the Obama administration's reaction to the leak may haunt the Gulf for a long time. The moratorium he declared on American oil drilling in the Gulf, according to the Wall Street Journal, is believed to eventually cost as many as 23,000 jobs, many of which will never return.
Deliberately putting thousands of people out of work seems an odd way to create jobs during a recession, (so, by the way, does this), but that's what the wise men in the White House chose to do. One wonders which will turn out to have been the bigger disaster, BP's leak or Mr. Obama's handling of it.
Twilight of al Qaeda
According to Strategy Page the news from the front in the war on terrorists and Islamic radicalism is mostly encouraging:
Intelligence agencies are at odds over how many al Qaeda are in Afghanistan. The estimates vary between a "hundred or so" and "less than a thousand." There is also some dispute as to who exactly qualifies as a "member" of the terrorist organization. For example, do local Afghans, hired for security or support jobs qualify? Or only non-Afghan terrorists who were chased out of places like Iraq, Yemen or Chechnya? The CIA tends to go with the experienced terrorists being the only true members, while other intel outfits are inclined to include local hires and trainees. All agree that the al Qaeda footprint in Afghanistan is small, and isn't much larger in Pakistan. Al Qaeda has become more of an idea (and not a very good one) than an organization.There's more on this story at the link. All I can say is it's a darn good thing we elected Barack Obama to lead us in fighting this war. Who knows how bad off we'd be had Bush's generals been implementing his policies of surging troops and winning the hearts and minds of the indigenous people for the last two years.
Meanwhile the "Taliban comeback" keeps getting headlines in the media. But it's the Taliban who are increasingly under attack. There hasn't been a "Taliban Spring Offensive" for the last two years, and the key Taliban financial resource, heroin in Helmand province, has been under attack as well. The opium crop declined over 25 percent this year. The Taliban hoped that drug gang profits, al Qaeda assistance and Pakistani reinforcements would turn the tide. But al Qaeda is a very junior, unpopular, and shrinking partner, and the Pakistani Taliban are sending refugees, not reinforcements. With all that, violence nationwide was up, mainly because there are more foreign troops in the country, being more aggressive against the Taliban and drug gangs.
99ers
Glenn Beck raised an interesting question the other day. How long should Americans continue to pay unemployment compensation to those who are not working? As it stands the unemployed can get compensation for 99 weeks. Senator Debbie Stabenow has introduced a bill that would extend benefits for another 20 weeks, but to what purpose? Many people simply choose to live off unemployment until a few weeks before it runs out before they bestir themselves to look for work. Giving them another 20 weeks of leisure seems rather counterproductive and unfair to taxpayers:
After explaining the plight of the 99ers [a group of people whose 99 weeks of unemployment compensation are soon up] and showing footage of a recent 99er demonstration on Wall Street, Beck offered the unemployed workers his two cents.Here's the video footage from the segment:
"Don't spend your remaining money on travel to get to a protest," he said. "Go out and get a job. You may not want the job. Work at McDonald's. Work two jobs. There has been plenty of times in my life I've done jobs I hated, but I had no choice. Two years is plenty of time to have lived off your neighbor's wallet."
"How many weeks of unemployment are enough? Really," Beck asked. "If 99 weeks is not enough, how much is? 100, 200? A lifetime? Or is a job a right?"
No doubt there are people who struggle assiduously to find work but can't and who deserve some help. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the responsible thing to do is to provide assistance only to those who are really trying to help themselves. To simply dole out cash without monitoring the effort made by the recipients isn't charitable, it's foolish. Beck is right. Two years is more than long enough for those who refuse the jobs available to them or who decline to even look for work.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
The Palestinian Refugees
City Journal's Sol Stern has written a marvelous piece on the genesis of the Palestinian refugee problem. The history he recounts has been obscured and forgotten in the current debates over who bears what responsibility to whom in the Middle East, but it's crucially important that we understand how the Palestinian refugees came to be, and why the camps still exist 62 years after the refugees' grandparents fled Israel.
These paragraphs are just two of the many which help us to understand what happened in those turbulent days following WWII:
These paragraphs are just two of the many which help us to understand what happened in those turbulent days following WWII:
During the 1948 war and for many years afterward, the Western world—including the international Left—expressed hardly any moral outrage about the Palestinian refugees. This had nothing to do with Western racism or colonialism and much to do with recent history. The fighting in Palestine had broken out only two years after the end of the costliest military conflict ever, in which the victors exacted a terrible price on the losers. By that, I don’t mean the Nazi officials and their “willing executioners,” who received less punishment than they deserved, but the 11 million ethnic Germans living in Central and Eastern Europe—civilians all—who were expelled from their homes and force-marched to Germany by the Red Army, with help from the Czech and Polish governments and with the approval of Roosevelt and Churchill.For anyone who cares about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict this article is a "must" read.
Historians estimate that 2 million died on the way. Around the same time, the Indian subcontinent was divided into two new countries, India and Pakistan; millions of Hindus and Muslims moved from one to the other, and hundreds of thousands died in related violence. Against this background, the West was not likely to be troubled by the exodus of a little more than half a million Palestinians after a war launched by their own leaders.
A New Twist on Birthright Citizenship
One element of the illegal immigration debate that raises hackles is birthright citizenship, i.e. the idea that the 14th amendment to the constitution declares that children born on U.S. soil to parents of illegal aliens are ipso facto United States citizens.
Some legal experts, however, are claiming that the assumption that such children have what is called "birthright citizenship" is actually based on an erroneous reading of the 14th amendment.
Section 1 of that amendment states that:
Eastman makes the case that the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" actually deny birthright citizenship, not just to children of illegals, but also to anyone in the country legally but temporarily:
It's an interesting, and surprising, development in the controversy over illegal immigration.
Some legal experts, however, are claiming that the assumption that such children have what is called "birthright citizenship" is actually based on an erroneous reading of the 14th amendment.
Section 1 of that amendment states that:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.To the layman the intent of this passage certainly seems to be pretty straightforwardly declaring any children born on our soil to be citizens, but Law School Dr. John C. Eastman, Donald P. Kennedy Chair in Law and former Dean at Chapman University School of Law in Orange, California thinks not.
Eastman makes the case that the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" actually deny birthright citizenship, not just to children of illegals, but also to anyone in the country legally but temporarily:
That text has two requirements: 1) Birth on U.S. soil; and 2) Being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when born. In recent decades, the opinion has taken root, quite erroneously, that anyone born in the United States (except the children of ambassadors) is necessarily subject to its jurisdiction because everyone has to comply with our laws while physically present within our borders. Those who drafted and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment had a different understanding of jurisdiction.In the balance of his essay Eastman looks at the jurisprudential history of the relevant phrase and concludes that granting citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are themselves not citizens is not warranted by that history.
For them, a person could be subject to the jurisdiction of a sovereign nation in two very different ways: the one, partial and territorial; the other full and complete. Think of it this way. When a tourist from Great Britain visits the United States, he subjects himself to our “territorial jurisdiction.” He has to follow our laws while he is here, including our traffic laws that require him to drive on the right rather than the wrong (I mean left!) side of the road.
He is no longer subject to those laws when he returns home, of course, and he was never subject to the broader jurisdiction that requires from him allegiance to the United States. He can’t be drafted into our army, for example, or prosecuted for treason for taking up arms against us.
It's an interesting, and surprising, development in the controversy over illegal immigration.
Atheism's Good News
Media talkers at MSNBC and elsewhere are incredulous that so many people (24%, apparently) persist in believing that President Obama is a Muslim. How can these rubes be so benighted, the media mavens ask each other.
Something similar is happening in terms of the number of people who refuse to accept the Darwinian version of evolution. Despite all the efforts of Darwinians in the academy and the media to inculcate Darwinian materialism in the last three generations of students the American people stubbornly refuse to believe it. Marvin Olasky comments on this in a brief essay at Patheos.
Olasky writes:
It's hard to get excited about a view of life that offers no hope, no meaning, no basis for distinguishing between right and wrong, and no reason to think that there's anything unique about human beings. Most ordinary people, when offered such an unappetizing dish, are just going to say "no thanks."
But, the New Atheists insist, Darwinian materialism is true and we should accept it not for its consequences but for its truth. Well, we might agree with that were it clear that materialism is true, or if there were any compelling evidence that it's true, but as Olasky notes, that's far from being the case. The materialist is in the awkward position of trying to persuade us to accept on faith the idea that we're just worms. That's a pretty hard sell.
Something similar is happening in terms of the number of people who refuse to accept the Darwinian version of evolution. Despite all the efforts of Darwinians in the academy and the media to inculcate Darwinian materialism in the last three generations of students the American people stubbornly refuse to believe it. Marvin Olasky comments on this in a brief essay at Patheos.
Olasky writes:
The results of Gallup polls over the past three decades are consistently extraordinary. Picture a Gallup pollster reading this statement: "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Would you think that year after year since 1982 some 44-47 percent of Americans have agreed? If you remove the number of years, which some "old earth" Christians do, the number of anti-evolutionists jumps to 53 percent.If this is the Darwinians' notion of glad tidings, is it surprising that Darwinism and the materialist worldview which it presupposes haven't gained more traction among the American people? Any view of life which entails that we are deluded if we think that there's anything special, meaningful, or significant about being human better have overwhelming evidence in its favor.
And that's not all. Another 35-38 percent of Americans say that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided the process." Only 9-14 percent support Darwinist materialism: "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in the process." All the atheist best sellers of recent years -- Sam Harris's The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion, Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell, and Christopher Hitchens's God Is Not Great -- have not greatly enlarged the beachhead.
It's ironic that soon after Alister McGrath wrote a fine history, The Twilight of Atheism, the "new atheists" came out in force. But don't be fooled. They bring not a new dawn but a night of the living dead. Their honest advocates are biologists like Bruce Alberts, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, who announced, "We have come to realize humans are more like worms than we ever imagined." If that's an insufficiently winning statement for you, hear Charles Zuker, biology professor at the University of California at San Diego: "In essence, we are nothing but a big fly."
It's hard to get excited about a view of life that offers no hope, no meaning, no basis for distinguishing between right and wrong, and no reason to think that there's anything unique about human beings. Most ordinary people, when offered such an unappetizing dish, are just going to say "no thanks."
But, the New Atheists insist, Darwinian materialism is true and we should accept it not for its consequences but for its truth. Well, we might agree with that were it clear that materialism is true, or if there were any compelling evidence that it's true, but as Olasky notes, that's far from being the case. The materialist is in the awkward position of trying to persuade us to accept on faith the idea that we're just worms. That's a pretty hard sell.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Just Call 'em Bigots
Charles Krauthammer skewers the intellectual sloth of those who criticize the opponents of what has come to be known as the GZ Mosque (Ground Zero Mosque) in an essay for the Washington Post. The critics are quick to impute the worst motives to the mosque's opponents - bigotry, political opportunism - but, as Krauthammer writes, they rarely come to grips with the opponents' arguments. Perhaps that's because they have no actual argument of their own.
Anyway, here's his intro:
Anyway, here's his intro:
It's hard to be an Obama sycophant these days. Your hero delivers a Ramadan speech roundly supporting the building of a mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero in New York. Your heart swells and you're moved to declare this President Obama's finest hour, his act of greatest courage. Alas, the next day, at a remove of 800 miles, Obama explains that he was only talking about the legality of the thing and not the wisdom -- upon which he does not make, and will not make, any judgment.In the balance of the piece Krauthammer does a fine job of exposing the superficiality of efforts such as those by Richard Cohen and Michael Kinsley to demean and discredit those who prefer that the mosque be built elsewhere than at the site of perhaps the greatest crime in U.S. history, a crime perpetrated in the name of Allah and Islam. Give it a read.
You're left looking like a fool because now Obama has said exactly nothing: No one disputes the right to build; the whole debate is about the propriety, the decency of doing so.
It takes no courage whatsoever to bask in the applause of a Muslim audience as you promise to stand stoutly for their right to build a mosque, giving the unmistakable impression that you endorse the idea. What takes courage is to then respectfully ask that audience to reflect upon the wisdom of the project and to consider whether the imam's alleged goal of interfaith understanding might not be better achieved by accepting the New York governor's offer to help find another site.
Where the president flagged, however, the liberal intelligentsia stepped in with gusto, penning dozens of pro-mosque articles characterized by a frenzied unanimity, little resort to argument and a singular difficulty dealing with analogies.
Lying for a Living
Isn't this interesting. Jim Wallis recently responded to a blog post by Marvin Olasky by stating that Olasky, like Glenn Beck, lies for a living. The immediate provocation that led to Wallis' intemperate remark was Olasky's claim that Wallis' magazine, Sojourners, has accepted money from left-wing financier George Soros' organization Open Society Institute. Wallis, perhaps forgetting for the moment that he's supposed to be a Christian, reacted with a twofer, calling both Olasky and Beck (who, as far as I know, had nothing to do with this) liars. Turns out, though, that Olasky was correct and Wallis was ..... mistaken.
Details of Mr. Wallis' faux pas can be found at No Left Turns which concludes their post with this:
Details of Mr. Wallis' faux pas can be found at No Left Turns which concludes their post with this:
The Open Society Institute's tax returns show that it made three grants to Sojourners between 2004 and 2007, for a total of $325,000. Either Sojourners is drowning in money or Wallis is succumbing to dementia, because he says, fessing up, that the "OSI made up the tiniest fraction of Sojourners' funding during that decade--so small that I hadn't remembered them." The other possibility, that Wallis lies - not for a living, exactly - but when it appears convenient for the greater good of articulating the biblical call to social justice, is too far-fetched and cruel to entertain for as long as it takes to pose the thought.Wallis owes Olasky an apology, but, if one has been tendered, I haven't heard anything about it. He also needs to go to confession, even if he's not Catholic.
Solving Problems
This is making the rounds on the internet:
Everyone concentrates on the problems we're having in Our Country lately: Illegal immigration, hurricane recovery, alligators attacking people in Florida . . . . Not me -- I concentrate on solutions for the problems -- it's a win-win situation: Dig a moat the length of the Mexican border. Send the dirt to New Orleans to raise the level of the levees. Put the Florida alligators in the moat along the Mexican border.Pretty good.
Any other problems you would like for me to solve today? Think about this: 1. Cows 2. The Constitution 3. The Ten Commandments
COWS
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that during the mad cow epidemic our government could track a single cow, born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she slept in the state of Washington? And, they tracked her calves to their stalls. But they are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our country. Maybe we should give each of them a cow.
THE CONSTITUTION
They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq ...why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it has worked for over 200 years, and we're not using it anymore.
THE 10 COMMANDMENTS
The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments posted in a courthouse is this -- you cannot post 'Thou Shalt Not Steal' 'Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery' and 'Thou Shall Not Lie' in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians, it creates a hostile work environment.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
The President's Religion
The recent media kerfuffle over Barack Obama's religious inclinations presents us with a couple of ironies:
For example, why are the White House and its media mouthpieces so anxious to deny that Mr. Obama is a Muslim? Do they think there's some taint that attaches to that religion that they don't want the president tarnished by? Do liberals think there's something wrong with being a Muslim? If not, then why is the perception among so many Americans that Mr. Obama is a Muslim any more alarming to his supporters than the perception that he's Catholic, or Jewish?
For another example, why are Mr. Obama's supporters so eager to affirm that the President is, in fact, a devout Christian? Wasn't it just a few years ago that the media scoffed disdainfully at George Bush for his Christian piety? Wasn't it just yesterday that alarums were being raised about imminent theocracy now that a serious "Christianist," i.e. George W. Bush, was in the Oval Office? Weren't we admonished almost daily of the dangers of having someone in the presidency who took his Christian religion seriously? It seems amusingly odd that these same folks are now at pains to assure us that Mr. Obama is as committed a Christian as anyone since St. Paul.
We might also wonder why it is that the president's defenders are so surprised that so many people (24% according to Time) say that they think he's Muslim. It's probably the case that many of the 24% who were read the question actually "heard" a different question. When asked whether they thought Mr. Obama was a Muslim I suspect they interpreted the query as asking whether they thought the President has a fondness and sympathy for Islam. One can certainly have a place in one's heart for the religion of one's youth even though one no longer practices that religion. I think that's obviously the case with Mr. Obama, and I think it's why almost one fourth of the poll respondents said that they believe he's a Muslim. In their minds they conflated affection for with practice of.
I for one doubt very much that Mr. Obama is a practicing Muslim, but I have no doubt that he's much more sympathetic to Islam than are most Americans, and that his sympathy translates in many minds into a commitment to.
The Social Network
Here's a question to ponder with your "friends": What's the future of Facebook? Is it going to last or will large numbers of people finally decide, like my friend Jason, that closing it out provides a sense of relief, a feeling of liberation? Will there be money to be made in operating recovery groups for Facebook addicts? Will people find that they have so many "friends" that they really don't have any friends? Will they finally decide they don't want any friends? Or will the social network continue to expand until everyone is everyone else's friend, and everyone knows everything there is to know about everyone else?
I have no idea, of course, but in the meantime there's a movie due to be released in about six weeks that recounts the origin of Facebook. I can't vouch for its accuracy, but I'm sure enthusiasts and skeptics alike will want to see it, or maybe not. Anyway, thanks to Jason we have the trailer here to whet your appetite:
Buy your tickets in advance.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Greatest Americans
Right Wing News, a blog run by John Hawkins, surveyed several dozen conservative-leaning bloggers for the purpose of compiling a list of the twenty greatest people in American history. I didn't have much time to think about my nominees, and I'm sure I missed some who deserve to be included. I'm also quite sure that there are many great people whose work is unknown to most of us, especially to me, and whom, if we knew what they accomplished, we'd certainly want added to the roll.
I also resisted the temptation to list some currently living greats (David Petraeus, Bill Gates, Billy Graham) and limited myself only to those who've passed on. Here are my selections in approximate chronological order:
Jonathan Edwards
George Washington
James Madison
Alexander Hamilton
Thomas Jefferson
Lewis and Clark
Harriet Beecher Stowe
Abraham Lincoln
Thomas Edison
Alexander Graham Bell
Willis Carrier
The Wright Brothers
Teddy Roosevelt
Dwight Eisenhower
Jonas Salk
Martin Luther King
Ronald Reagan
William F. Buckley
Who did I miss?
To see the combined results of the survey go here.
RLC
Flim-Flammery
I was in Paris last week and while my wife and daughter visited shops along the cobblestoned streets in Montmartre, I amused myself by watching a guy running a variation of a shell game on the top of a cardboard box. He had three black disks, each about the size of a CD, one of which had a large white spot on the bottom. He laid the disks out on the box and quickly and deftly moved them around, challenging onlookers to pick out the disk with the white spot. Of course it cost twenty Euros to play, and most players lost. They were certain they knew where the marked disk had wound up but they were wrong. Even so, they kept on trying, certain that they could pick out the devilishly elusive white disk.
Running the shell game was illegal. Whenever the police got near an accomplice would yell out and he would grab his disks and run. Even so, I couldn't help admire the skill and dexterity with which he fleeced his patrons.
I was reminded of this "flim-flam" man as I read Pete Spiliakos at No Left Turns who suggests that Mr. Obama is himself just that sort of a trickster. Like my admiration for the Parisian, Spiliakos can't help but marvel at President Obama's genial mendacity and the ease with which he delivers himself of the most outrageous falsehoods. His power to persuade (and mislead), Mr. Spiliakos avers, is not to be underestimated:
I got to watch some of Obama's town hall thing today (you could probably find it on YouTube or something) and it reminded me why he is such a canny opponent. Watching and listening to him is a strange and frustrating experience. I get frustrated by his persistent intellectual dishonesty, but can't help but be impressed at his skill.
Obama was utterly deceptive about how the introduction of private accounts into Social Security would work. He seemed to indicate that private accounts would involve older workers shifting all the money that would otherwise have gone to their Social Security benefits to the market. He had some vague easy answers ("tweaks") about how Social Security could be saved and threw in a reference to a commission to give himself some third party validation.
He was even better...er worse on Medicare. He repeated the amazing stupendous lie about how Obamacare extended the life of Medicare when Obamacare actually took hundreds of billions of dollars out of Medicare to pay for a new entitlement. He was smart to use expert third party validation (from the Medicare actuaries who are required to credit the cuts as extending the life of Medicare because of arcane budget rules) so as to show how post partisan and nonideological he is. If you didn't know about the CBO's commentary on this practice (and most people don't), Obama sounded like the most reasonable guy in the world and not a refugee from Enron's accounting department.
The difference, of course, between Mr. Obama and the Parisian sleight-of-hand artist is that although the shell game was an inevitable loser for those suckered into playing, the man running it was doing nothing dishonest. He didn't lie or surreptitiously remove the white disk from the board. He simply moved the disks around so fast that the eye couldn't follow them. The deception was visual. With Mr. Obama, though, things seem to be, at least to Mr. Spiliakos, regrettably otherwise.
Read the rest of Spiliakos' piece here.
RLC
Thursday, August 19, 2010
The God Delusion
Notre Dame philosopher Gary Gutting pens for The New York Times' Opinionator blog an examination of Richard Dawkins' atheistic arguments in his book The God Delusion. Like almost every serious thinker who has written on TGD, theist and atheist alike, Gutting finds it long on eloquence and short on compelling, rational argumentation.
Gutting states:
Religious believers often accuse argumentative atheists such as Dawkins of being excessively rationalistic, demanding standards of logical and evidential rigor that aren't appropriate in matters of faith. My criticism is just the opposite. Dawkins does not meet the standards of rationality that a topic as important as religion requires.
The basic problem is that meeting such standards requires coming to terms with the best available analyses and arguments. This need not mean being capable of contributing to the cutting-edge discussions of contemporary philosophers, but it does require following these discussions and applying them to one's own intellectual problems. Dawkins simply does not do this. He rightly criticizes religious critics of evolution for not being adequately informed about the science they are calling into question. But the same criticism applies to his own treatment of philosophical issues.
There are sensible people who report having had some kind of direct awareness of a divine being, and there are competent philosophers who endorse arguments for God's existence.
Friends of Dawkins might object: "Why pay attention to what philosophers have to say when, notoriously, they continue to disagree regarding the 'big questions', particularly, the existence of God?" Because, successful or not, philosophers offer the best rational thinking about such questions. Believers who think religion begins where reason falters may be able to make a case for the irrelevance of high-level philosophical treatments of religion - although, as I argued in "Philosophy and Faith," this move itself raises unavoidable philosophical questions that challenge religious faith. But those, like Dawkins, committed to believing only what they can rationally justify, have no alternative to engaging with the most rigorous rational discussions available. Dawkins' distinctly amateur philosophizing simply isn't enough.
If you're interested in a philosophical critique of Dawkins' argument you might profit from Gutting's offering. Or you could check out our own more extended review of TGD in the Viewpoint Hall of Fame.
RLC
An Inclination Toward Tyranny
The progressives in the Democrat party continue to exhibit their utter disregard for the spirit of the First Amendment and their inclination toward totalitarian exercises of power.
Most recently Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has called for investigations into those who oppose the building of the New York mosque. One of our most powerful political leaders wants to set government thought police to snooping into the backgrounds of those who have opinions which differ from her own. This smells of abuse of power, intimidation and an attempt to suppress freedom of thought and speech.
According to a report in Politico.com:
The California Democrat, in a statement provided to POLITICO, adopted the split position of the Interfaith Alliance, a nonpartisan group dedicated to religious tolerance and separation of church and state. Although it blasted the Anti-Defamation League for strongly opposing the Park51 project, the Interfaith Alliance also agreed with the ADL's argument that the public should know where the money for the center is coming from.
"I support the statement made by the Interfaith Alliance, that 'We agree with the ADL that there is a need for transparency about who is funding the effort to build this Islamic center,'" according to Pelosi's statement, quoting the Alliance's position. "'At the same time, we should also ask who is funding the attacks against the construction of the center.'"
"I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded," she said. "How is this being ginned up?"
This is either stupid or malevolent. What right do politicians have to investigate people for expressing an opinion? What does it matter who's spending money to oppose the mosque? Ms Pelosi wants us to believe that there's a symmetry in this matter where none exists. There's no equivalence between a pro-Hamas Muslim who has expressed anti-American sentiments in the past building a mosque in proximity to the site of 9/11 and the protestations of those who are offended by this project. [For the record, I don't think it's the government's business who is funding either side in this controversy. The mosque shouldn't be built whether it's being funded by Saudi Wahhabis or the estate of Mother Teresa.]
No one in the United States should ever be required to explain to any authority why they hold the opinions they do. No one should ever have their financial records sifted through just because they hold views that the ruling class doesn't like. Ms Pelosi is confusing the U.S. with the U.S.S.R.
We might also, while we're at it, ask her exactly who among the 70% of Americans who oppose the mosque is she going to have scrutinized? Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid has come out against the mosque. Will he be investigated? The families of 9/11 victims are average Americans who oppose the mosque. Will she have government gumshoes looking into their funding?
It's disconcerting to ponder that this woman is third in line to the presidency, but it's good for us to see the predilections of the progressive mindset. In the Orwellian world they inhabit intimidation and coercion of citizens who have committed no crime is a perfectly acceptable tactic. Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms are mere inconveniences, speed bumps on the road to more government control of Americans' lives. The inevitable endpoint of Ms Pelosi's kind of thinking is the tyranny of Big Brother.
She sounds like had she watched the movie The Lives of Others she would've been sympathetic to the East German Stazi.
RLC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)