Offering commentary on current developments and controversies in politics, religion, philosophy, science, education and anything else which attracts our interest.
A number of students replied to the recent post titled "Whites Need Not Apply" which addressed the racial discrimination being experienced by whites and Asians from admissions offices at major universities. Many of the responses were interesting and thoughtful and some were sad. Here are excerpts from five of the many that were received:
Buchanan wishes to express the huge injustice going on at these universities, but is it injustice or are the roles simply being reversed. He states that minorities have a huge competitive advantage because of not being white. Yet, I wonder if he has even taken the time to see why these particular minorities score so low on their SATs. Did he take into account the preparation (to be more specific; the rigorous curriculums) needed to even score high on the SATs? Maybe here is where they (colleges) make up the difference.
Buchanan also states that whites are a minority and are being discriminated against at these Ivy Leagues. If this were the case, then perhaps he should go to an HBCU where he could in fact receive admittance and a scholarship for truly being a minority. Make the system work for you. I must ask the question is he angry because he was denied admittance into an Ivy League school (where upon graduating, you will leave with a prestigious reputation and degree) or was he truly aggrieved at the injustice he received. I can agree with him till a certain extent.
Yes more and more schools are admitting more minorities than whites. With that said I do not believe that colleges (Ivy Leagues included) will admit any “run of the mill” minority student just because they want money. Their SAT score may not be the highest but they may offer something more than just a score or sport. Perhaps they have potential unseen by others.
-----------------
What happened to equality? These application “boosts” don’t promote equality at all. A girl in my high school was born in Africa but she is white. She was in the same academic classes with me and several other white males and females. However, she was lucky enough to have the ability to put down African American on all her applications for scholarships, colleges, and any other applications. Because of that distinction, she received the majority of the scholarships available and made it into the honors programs at all her college choices.
I do not doubt the fact that she was smart. However she wasn’t at the top of our class, yet she managed to beat out more qualified students based solely on where she was born. Since when does judging one’s mental capabilities and intelligence depend on their race? If the point of applications is to sift through students to find the best on that class, shouldn’t they be compared to each other on even ground? The students aren’t being compared to each other at all; they are merely being exposed to the discrimination of race. So despite all the actions to stop inequality, the problem remains, only this time the targets have been changed.
--------------
I am a Sergeant in the United States Army Reserve and the effect of this racism has even entered our military. Over my six years in the Reserve’s I have often seen African American and Hispanic soldiers promoted over a white soldier just because of the soldier’s race. I have witnessed this happen on occasions when the white soldier was much more qualified for the promotion, had more experience, more time in service, and had better leadership skills. This not only kills white soldiers’ morale but weakens our military.
---------------------
My mother is white and my father is black, creating a beautiful mix of culture and history in my life. I have always loved American history and I have always enjoyed hearing my dad talk about stories from growing up in Louisiana, discussing how his life changed as America became more integrated and accepting of color.
I know that affirmative action was created to allow underrepresented races a chance to be more accepted in the educational setting, as well as when dealing with employment, and at the time it was brought about it was necessary and many benefited. I feel, though, that this article has proven that it has now gone too far and that those in the minority position are being given almost too much of an advantage and I might even go on to say that it is insulting.
I thoroughly understand that there are a lot of differences when it comes to those of different races, social economic levels, and gender. No two lives are the same and because of the differences listed above, individuals will live very different lives and be given different opportunities. I feel though that Harvard has gone too far to make such a blatant difference between SAT scores based on race.
I understand there may be honest intentions behind it, but it could also be seen as though those who are minorities do not have the ability to get the kind of results as those who are white or Asian. I also think that it is very stereotypical to think that whites and Asians are the "smarter" races and that there scores must be that high in comparison to "lower" races.
We are in a new time, a new decade, and the playing field has been leveled so to speak. Yes, there is still discrimination and bigotry but I believe that that will always exist. It would be wonderful to know that when someone looks at me, my intelligence level is not automatically assumed because of the color of my skin.
--------------------
I completely and utterly agree with this viewpoint post! I can personally relate to this testimony. This past fall, I applied for guaranteed acceptance to Hershey Medical School. I was born for this program; it was suited to absolutely every aspect of my future career goals. This program started with 200 invited applicants and I was one of the lucky ten selected for an interview. When I walked into the room full of other interviewees, I noticed that [there were few] Caucasian people there. All of the applicants represented all of the possible races and genders. It was obvious to me right away that I had no chance of getting into this program.
Every other applicant in that room had an advantage over me because they were minorities. Each of the students I met that had been previously elected into this program were all minorities: one was Jewish, one was Indian, one was Muslim, one was African American, and so on. I had one reassurance because I was the only student there that seemed 100% dedicated to the intention of the program… to become a rural primary care doctor. All of the others expressed interest in other fields of medicine, and clearly were not meant for the program.
Six weeks after my interview, I made a phone call and found out I was not selected. Hershey neglected to even call me and tell me I did not make it. So much of my time, energy, and money were wasted on this failed attempt to fulfill my dreams. They told me I was an excellent candidate and they would love to have me, but in the end they could only pick two people… two very non-Caucasian people.
I am a humanitarian. I wholly believe in equality. I believe that minorities (African Americans, Asians, Hispanics) are equivalent in every way to the Caucasian majority. In addition, I do not believe that sex differentiates anything other than reproduction. I believe everyone should be treated with fairness and equality; everyone should be given the same opportunities as the next. Everyone in this world should be placed on an even playing field, despite race, gender, or religious beliefs.
People like myself have worked for so many years to bring equality to minorities. I find it disturbing that people like myself are now being punished for the selfless work they have done for minority rights. The flaws in our society regarding inequality have been excessively overcome--the majority is now the minority. The system has reversed itself. Today the majority can not succeed because the minority is being given special preference and special treatment.
Someone, somewhere is no doubt saying that all this is somehow fair and just, but it's a strange notion of fairness and justice that one has to hold in order to think so.
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.
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:
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.
Now some, or all, of these beliefs may be mistaken, but until American Muslims do a better job of explaining their religion those beliefs will continue to thrive among people who read books such as those by Khaled Hosseini (Kite Runner, Thousand Splendid Suns) or who watch movies like The Stoning of Soraya M., or read the accounts of the experiences of Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Salman Rushdi, or who listen to the sermons of the imams in the Middle East on MEMRI or who simply read the daily reports in the newspapers of Muslim violence and terrorism all around the globe.
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.
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:
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.
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.
What are these beliefs that have shaped Mr. Obama's worldview? Shiver quotes from Cone's writings:
[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.
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:
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.
"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."
Upon reading this my friend Mike wrote to ask me my thoughts. He said:
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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).
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.
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.
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.
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:
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."
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."
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. 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.
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.
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:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
Here's a question for those who think that everybody who opposes the Ground Zero mosque is a right-wing hate-monger and bigot:
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.
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.
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)
From a somewhat different corner of the same putrid cesspool, there's a story out today about threats to tea party activists:
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.
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."
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.
