I got into a stupid flame was the other day on Facebook with a friend (and her commenters)
She [A] posted the following to her wall:
If you think that putting up a mosque 600 ft. from ground zero and have
the opening of the mosque on the anniversary of 9/11/11, is immoral,
inhuman and a complete lack of respect for the memories of all that
perished on that day and their survivors & that politicians are
doing a grave injustice to the fallen heroes, their families and the
people of New York City, THEN PLEASE COPY AND PASTE THIS TO YOUR WALL
The first commenter followed with
[B] its digusting its even a thought in someones head…..
I saw this and saw yet another vile, right-wing sponsored attack on civil liberties. I am not religious, and abhor religion. I think it perpetuates an evil upon the world that does incalculable damage to current and future generations. However, I do support the rule of law, and the Cordoba House people have the right to build there.
So I posted, what I thought was a reasonable and factual statement to counter the right-wing memetics that have been strewn across the TV & Blogosphere in recent days:
[me] Sorry to have to say this, but the mosque (prayer room) already exists at the site. The proposed building is to be a Community Center (like a YMCA, but Muslim not Christian).
There is nothing disgusting in allowing people the right to self determination. Conflating the acts of terrorists with the wider community of people who share the faith professed by those terrorists is simply wrong!
Do you berate every Catholic because of the acts of the IRA, or because some priests are guilty of paedophilia? Every protestant because of the acts of the UDF, Timothy McVeigh, or Abortion clinic bombers?
The Constitution of the US is a wonderful thing, and it enshrines rights for EVERY American - not just the ones YOU agree with!
The US is the embodiment of the values and ethics espoused by the Enlightenment, and by philosophers like Voltaire:
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (Evelyn Beatrice Hall, paraphrasing Voltaire in her biography of him)
I thought this was fine – given the 700 character limits on facebook comments – but then the flaming began. I’ll just post the thread without edit and let it stand on it’s own. All I will say is that if this is the response of reasonable people, then this country is in worse shape than I thought.
[C] I have to disagree with Tony in that the basic idea of a memorial means different things to different cultures. In the Christian culture, putting a building or memorial near the site of the fallen is a way to honor the dead. In Islam, it is a way of honoring heroes and their actions. Big difference! While I don’t think it should be built there, I don’t think there is a legal way to prevent it. I would feel better if it were even just a few blocks away.
[B] Thank you (C)! Exactly!
[me] (C), I have to disagree. The community center is not, except in the minds of right-wing pundits a 'tribute' to anyone. This is NOT a memorial! It's a community center, and unless one has an agenda against people who happen to be Muslim, it is disingenuous (at least) to suggest otherwise. Care to cite the primary source of this being a 'Muslim Memorial'? Everything I've read to date states it's a community center. Not a memorial. Not a tribute to fallen heroes ( although such would be perfectly valid - many American Muslims worked and died at the Twin Towers on 9/11). It's a YMCAYMMA!
You may *disagree* with the appropriateness of their decision. But you can't *demand* that they not build their center.
And when you say “I think it should be further away”… how far away is acceptable? 5 blocks? 10 blocks? How about in Jersey City? Or perhaps in Madison, WI? As soon as you start to draw arbitrary lines on ‘appropriate’ that have no foundation in law, you start on the path of societal control that even Stalin could only dream. Our ideas of appropriate all differ. Our constitution allows us the ability to ‘meet in the middle’ recognizing that while we may disagree, we agree on the fundamental – that I may not impose my narrow perspective upon you, not vice versa.
I find it strange that the same people who shout about ‘activist judges’ and ‘the coming of Sharia law in the US’ are the same ones demanding the kind of control over the body politic that they so denigrate in others and that they see around every corner the scary ‘other – ‘ so much so they are more than willing to excise our freedoms for the imposition of more constraints and controls (but that’s OK, ‘cos it’s Christian, right?)
Lastly – I am happy that you recognize the legal right of the Cordoba House to build their community center. I’m less happy that you continue to conflate, and use denigratory terms to reference that ‘other’. They are Americans. Please accord them the same respect and rights that you would anyone else .
[D] I think we, as Americans, should do the right thing…..get even! I say we build a pork BBQ place on one side, and a strip club on the other.
Image by Erich Vieth (using Creative Commons WTC image and mosque image by Achilles (Dreamstime.com) with permission)
[A] OK Tony..stop it with the right wing bullshit. You are ASSuming this opposition is being fueled by those on the right. For most citizens, it’s not about right, left, or in the middle. It’s about the surviving family members. Where were you on 9-11? Switzerland, Canada, Spain? We were watching in horror the events of 9-11. (M) was traveling that day. I didn’t know if he was on a plane or on the ground. I remember the silence afterward. No planes in the sky. I thought the world was ending. I’m not an idiot. I know these were acts of extremism. Where’s the line? The only “agenda” I have currently is to decide whether or not I should drop your ass as a friend on facebook.
[A] EXACTLY what I was thinking, (D)! Bravo!
[me] (A) - I'm sorry you feel that way. On 9-11 I was in a building opposite the US mint in downtown Philly - watching the events unfold with two of my team members who lived minutes from the towers, - and realizing that we all had colleagues and friends at a client site in Tower one. My focus in the immediate aftermath was making certain that I could get everyone in my team to safety as all federal buildings and their vicinities were being interdicted. I lost a colleague from my office, and others from offices across the country in the attack. I have friends who were directly impacted, and many who still live in the vicinity. Despite being thus affected I can recognize appropriate versus inappropriate, and still stand by my earlier statement, and will even expand upon it: I disapprove of ALL religion, and think it exacts untold evil upon the world, but while this particular group act legally I will defend their right to do so - just as I would defend the rights of any others acting within the law. Whether you agree or not with the appropriateness of the Cordoba Group's decision to build their community center, there are NO valid objections available in law.
[me] (D) - there already is a strip club less than half a block away - and at least three BBQ (and fast food) joints within a few hundred feet.
OK – I admit this was an asinine response. 🙁 But then it’s followed by this…
[E] Where did this guy come from? I’m appauled at the justification. And for the record ….. there also is “no valid objections in the law” to the other 98% of americans having an issue w/ it and speaking that freely.
(A) – I’m w/ you on this one
I am dismayed, but unsurprised. There is no nuanced response. I find the knee-jerk reactions to be no different to those that fueled Catholic/Protestant ‘troubles’ in Ireland and the West of Scotland when I was growing up in the 60’s and 70’s. They are no different to the commentary made about ‘uppity’ blacks or white ‘apologists’ prior to integration. They are no different to the comments made about Japanese Americans interned following the attack on Pearl Harbor.
They are no different to the commentary of any bigot.
I wholly disagree with the stance of those behind Cordoba House, just as I am against those who build mega-churches, or fight to close down abortion clinics, or deny basic rights to LBGT couples. However, I will defend the expression of those viewpoints against similar bigotry.
UPDATE: One of Scalzi’s guest bloggers apparently feels the same way. Great post on this same issue at Whatever
UPDATE 2: Daryll Lang posted a Photo Essay and a blog post on this issue. Both deserve to be seen.
UPDATE 3: Some final posts over the past 24 hours…
[C] The issue has absolutely nothing to do with religious tolerance and everything to do with compassion, kindness and sensitivity to the families of the 9/11 victims who were murdered there. Period.
[me](C): Does that compassion extend to the many Muslim Americans families who lost loved ones? I know of one such family, personally (mentioned in passing above).
All I see is an 'astroturf issue "think of the families", which appears from a dispassionate perspective to be more about "Oh Noes, Teh Muslim" than it is about "values" or "compassion". I have not seen ANY outcry from anyone other than the right-wing blogosphere and pundits, such as Gingrich, Beck, Limbaugh, and their ilk. This is a manufactured issue, that has become a stain on American Democracy. Are the constitutional rights of Americans so small a thing that being a "Muslim American" makes you somehow less deserving of those rights? The outcry against this is manufactured and directed by nothing less than bigotry. I don;t mean to imply that people who are uncomfortable with the decision are bigots. Simply that the issue has been manufactured and amplified by bigots.
[A] ok. we can agree to disagree. Tony—lucky thing I’m so crazy about your wife and kids—ok, and you too—MOST of the time. I can’t believe you called me a flippin bigot! NO RESPONSE NEEDED 😉 My page, I get the last word.
You’ll notice that reading comprehension is not a strong suit here – since I specifically stated that those people who felt uncomfortable are not necessarily bigots – but the people instigating the outrage most certainly are.
I declined to comment further.
UPDATE 4: The NYT has an article that reports how the rampant and vocal opposition to the moslem center (mosque)
is playing into the hands of extremists by bolstering their claims that the United States is hostile to Islam
I'm a technophile with an enduring interest in almost anything real or imagined. I suffer fools badly, and love trashy science fiction, plot-free action movies, playing guitar, and baking (especially scones. You haven't lived 'til you've eaten my scones. I've recently undertaken bread, and am now in danger of gaining in a matter of weeks the 60 pounds I've lost in the past 2 years). My wife & I are Scottish, living north of Atlanta, GA, with two children, one dog, and a growing collection of gadgets. I work for a living.
Who the hell are you to say? You call yourself something and be damned to anyone who would gainsay that. You have that right. But you are going to pass judgment on the quality of someone's self-identification? Up to now your pidgin has been mostly limited to what people can know. How can you know?
Part of what we have here discussed is how one's beliefs simply fail to do much to conform them to others' expectations of their behaviors. If a belief in god does not enforce changes of a benevolent sort, then either they do not believe in god or such belief is not inherently constructive.
Hitler was not a Darwinist. He drew his misunderstandings of evolution from Haeckel, who also misunderstood Darwin. This is nothing unusual. Many people misunderstand Darwin. YOU misunderstand Darwin. That misunderstanding, even were you inclined to accept his arguments, would not lead you to genocide. Would it? I doubt it.
The fact is that religion has, among other things, an unfortunate proclivity for setting up Us and Them paradigms, which have often led to extremes in what might be called culling. ("Kill them all, let god sort out his own.") Because religion provides a basis for unchallenged "specialness" for the less stable to claim ascendency over those with whom they disagree or of whom they disapprove.
Hitler's programs were religious in nature. He burned Darwin, by the way, and today we're seeing this nonsense of cultural purging rise again, going so far as to claim Darwinism as Jewish, along with Einstein's work and many others—as if the ethnicity or cultural heritage has a damn thing to do with truth in science.
You may not wish to claim Hitler, and that's understandable—he was a monster—but it's a bad faith argument to try to give him to some other group when the record, even in his own hand, is clear. Hitler was not an atheist. The Third Reich was not an atheist machine. Perverse, yes, but very christian.
And what if he was indeed a Believer? By your own credo, would he not be forgiven if he asked for it? Is that not a basic tenet, that all sins are forgivable for the true believer?
Atheism as an excuse for the abuses of tyrants is as odious and ridiculous a charge as you suggest fidelity to christianity would be. Monsters are monsters, but you cannot claim to know their hearts. Monsters in the name of Christ but no less monsters pepper history and it is not possible to say how sincere they were unless they wrote it down.
We can guess.
But all the great dictators of the 20th Century share one thing in common with religion—they have all recognized that unquestioning fidelity to articles of essence are necessary for control. Stalin may not have believed in god, but he established a religious state in its unyielding demand of unquestioned obedience to statements of faith. Faith in the state maybe, but how is that functionally different than what religion requires? Christopher Hitchens has characterized North Korea as an absolute Theocracy—only the Leader is placed on the throne of the godhead.
Stop blaming Darwin for the ills that humans create without any concept of science. Science—actual free inquiry and investigation, essential to the scientific method—was anathema to Nazism. Too much risk that people might think for themselves.
And stop tossing those who you despise into the abyss by saying that they weren't this or that because someone who was this or that wouldn't behave like that. The argument is simplistic and too often a lie. Like it or not, Hitler was a Catholic—and much of his attitude came straight out of millennia of christian disrespect for Jews.
I know I misunderstood Darwin because I don't claim to be able to see clear evidence when it’s only there by inference or implication.
However, I don't believe I have mis-misunderstood those who pose as the proponents of evolution in some of its more repugnant varieties. Haeckel and others have used "survival of the fittest" terms in broader applications that have led to racism, eugenics and genocide as the natural physical consequences of believing such a concept is true.
If you think people with a bent toward evil will not agree that Darwinian ideology would support their use of force to accomplish their own ends you are sorely naive about human nature.
Hitler saying his preferred Arian "race" were the "son's of god" was both a misuse of Religion and false science as well. You are probably correct to say that many diabolical things have been done throughout history by those who wed false science with religion or even in today’s terms a non-religious state controlled worldview could be just as dangerous
Dictators of most varieties probably all agree that might makes right and that would seem to be a fundamental application of survival of the ________________. (You can fill in the term that would apply) from strongest, most cleaver, best orator, most messiah like, smartest, most scientific, best tool user, a-bomb maker, etc.
Hitler was one of those repugnant varieties of dictator that was able through the use of oratory to misuse both religion and science to accomplish his purposes. I agree Martin Luther was wrong in his mistaken ideals that have been linked to anti-Semitism. Both can be forgiven, I can not judge such matters from my perspective. What the realities for either actually are I cannot wager an answer. Nor will I wager an answer about Judas Iscariot either.
BTW, neither are all people who claim to "understand" evolution atheists, unless you have pushed all others them from the discussion as well.
I have not misunderstood Christianity, nor have I misunderstood those who pose as one of its proponents.
There are all manner of proponents, but in the end Jesus will turn many aside if they can only claim to have been Christian by their words or in name only. Many will hear the phrase "depart from me, I never knew you."
The honest Christian understands that they need both an internal witness of his or her spirit and external evidence from the real world of both other Christians and non-Christians as well, to prove that they were in an ongoing right relationship to Jesus and their fellow men and women.
I am not a perfect example of a Christian, nor do I claim to be noble just because I have chosen various relative values as the ones I try to live up to.
The Christian or non-Christian that actually believes they are more holy, more just or more noble than the worst of sinners makes a blunder that reveals their misplaced trust in themselves.
Noah, Abraham, Issac, Joseph, Jacob and myriads of others knew they were not worthy of special treatment. It’s those who came after them that have seen themselves in the wrong light, and have tried to claim special treatment as a birth right.
This is what has brought antagonism after antagonism full circle back upon such people generation after generation.
Unchecked misunderstanding of ideology has caused genocide. Statements like "my God is bigger than your God" or "your worldview is simply wrong and that's all there is to it" or "see it my way or its the highway" can lead to insults and the selection of easy scapegoats when looking for someone to blame for matters of rerality that are hard to deal with.
Darwinian science cannot be detached from the people or culture that it is a part of, no matter how noble the people or the culture claims to be.
As for absolutes, there are only two from which all others stem. Love the Lord your God with all your body, mind, soul, and strength and the second is like unto it. Love your neighbor as yourself.
If you do not love your fellow man that you have seen, you will never be able to say you love God whom you have not seen.
Thanks for your comment. I appreciate when you say you misunderstand Darwin, but presume that you mean you misunderstand evolution. Darwin was simply a person – the theory he propounded is not him. Science does not put people on a pedestal, regardless of their achievements. Science is not a religion of authority and veneration. Science is a methodology of observation, hypothesis, test, and evaluation. There is no cult of personality in science. there is no cult of authority in science. Everything is open to questioning, to change, to modification and refinement. This is entirely unlike religion, where personality and authority is everything.
The current theory of evolution is greatly amplified, more nuanced, and significantly changed (but not in its broad strokes) from Darwin's original stunning observational synthesis. There has also been over two centuries of additional science done since he proposed the theory. Not once has it been shown to be false. As a result of these two centuries of work, the science is not Darwinian any more than geometry is Platonic – unless you wish to stay in grade school.
Regarding Haeckel: Do you honestly think that Haeckel and his recapitulation theory is a direct outcome of Darwin's theory? If so, you really don't understand. Haeckel's theory is closer to Lamarckism than evolution. That Haeckel's discredited embryological drawings were used by creationists to attempt to dispute evolution does not make Haeckel a poster-child for evolution.
Regarding your comment that neither are all people who claim to “understand” evolution atheists: this is not something I would say, since it implies a fundamental category error. I would say that people who claim to understand evolution, yet retain a belief in God and miracles, are being dishonest – either about their belief in miracles (which implies an interventionist god), or their acceptance/understanding of evolution (which demands that there is no godly intervention in the process of descent). The cognitive dissonance implied by holding both viewpoints is where I have a problem with theistic scientists. They are compartmentalizing their understanding and their knowledge, which detracts from both. They are neither honest scientists, nor honest theists. Of course, a weak deist can easily believe that god 'kicked off' everything, then stepped back (which seems to be Francis Collins current explanation, despite his membership of an evangelical church).
But we're not talking about weak deists, are we? We are talking about people in general, whom we know can hold multiple overlapping and dissonant ideas simultaneously. Why should religion and evolution be special? So I would never say that such is impossible – because I know that such people exist. I just find them to be less than credible, either as examples of religionists or as examples of scientists, due to the intellectual and emotional dishonesty exhibited by them holding such dissonant positions.
Lastly – I'm glad you recognize that unchecked misunderstanding of ideology has caused genocide. You should also recognize that we merely have had access to much bigger sticks in the last century or so (which makes Pol Pot and Stalin seem worse than earlier monsters, for monsters they were). The genocide of previous centuries was simply much harder to prosecute on a massive scale, although that did not stop anyone trying. Religion, honestly or simply as a convenience, was omni-present in such actions, since religion was present in any action of the ruling classes – and it was the rulers who prosecuted war, and pursued genocide as policy.
I find little in that last comment with which I disagree. A couple of points.
Darwin never used the term "Survival of the fittest". Herbert Spencer coined the phrase, and used it to link what he understood from Darwin to economic theories. It was a handy metaphor in the golden age of capitalism.
Secondly, while you can (correctly) argue that it is not fair to blame the misuse of religious principles on the religion itself, likewise it is not right to blame the misuse of science on the science itself. A thorough and honest reading of Darwin does not justify what people like Spencer, Haeckel, and Hitler did with it. Quite the opposite, an honest reading should prompt a profound humility.
I suppose my argument is completely invalidated now, since we only have 150 years of additional evidence and work on evolution rather than 200. Oh well!
Tony writes:—"I suppose my argument is completely invalidated now, since we only have 150 years of additional evidence and work on evolution rather than 200. Oh well!"
151 years does round up to two centuries if one is considering whole numbers.
There is no need for exact precision when talking in terms of centuries.
However, I try to stay clear of using a larger amount of interpreted evidence as meaning more reliable or obviously overwhelming proof of anything that is based upon inferences.
If there was only one way that the data could be interpreted then we would all have the same worldview now wouldn't we?
Your statement If there was only one way that the data could be interpreted then we would all have the same worldview now wouldn’t we? is only true if we assume rational agents.
Rational seems to be the operant word needing defintion here.
Here is my take on rationality.
A worldview is based upon the value or importance of inductive premises which should result in logical lines of non-contradictory and non-conflicted deductive reasoning.
Many people do not consider other worldviews because they do not want to consider contradictory or conflicted outcomes to deductive reasoning as being a possible indicator of the incompleteness or even the possibility of errors in their own fundamental inductive premises.
It should however also be obvious as you seem to indicate that there ar many people who throw rationality to the wind when it come to considering the possibility of anything that conflicts with their own worldview and its fundamental premises.
Replacing one set of inductive premises with another set of inductive premises has the potential to lead to the surrender of ones entire ability to reason deductively and can destabilizes entire societies as I'm sure you are aware.
This is how dictators get the control and power over others, by causing such changes to the fundamental inductive premises that people no longer realize for themselves what really is proper deductive logic or not.
We are in agreement on what 'rational' means – however you mentioned but failed to highlight the most important different between us – our choice of presumptive assumptions.
You choose to believe in an active and intercessionary god – therefore all evidence has been 'touched by god' and your rationaility is bent to discovering where god has intersected your reality in every frame.
I believe in no such thing. I have no such presumptive assumption. My rationality is bent on examining the evidence as it appears to be (to my senses and to the instruments I can devise).
This is our (if I may say) fundamental difference. I do not expect to sway you. Only the evidence can change you. That and the pressure of cognitive dissonance as your god gets smaller and smaller and less impactful with every discovery.
And you are wrong about dictators: dictators gain control over people for many reasons, but mostly because they make it more reasonable for people to relinquish the control at the outset, by providing them with an outlet for their anger, by channeling their hatred towards some 'other' and satisfying their basic needs. People follow dictators because people are fundamentally lazy and generally refuse to think, and the dictator is happy to do the thinking for them. Authoritarians (like you) love incipient dictators – their 'strength' appeals to you.
It has nothing to do with your weird insistence on a mutated inductive or deductive logic. There is no logic involved for the most part.
Perhaps you need to pay more attention to reality.
Mea culpa, Karl, you are correct. My mistake. But it was not his phrase and his use of it was not the same as that intended by Spencer. Still, my statement was incomplete.
Tony, I pretty much stated that people follow dictators for the same reason you gave. If it gets too hard to think logically, people do get angry, they do look for others to blame, and then they do surrender their faith in their worldview and presuppositions and look to replace them with something else.
When the presuppositions of a worldview no longer seem to make sense, many people will respond to first having their basic needs met which then quickly escalates during revolutions into also providing more in terms of selfish desires that go far beyond their basic needs.
I am not drawn to any authoritarian dictator that would draw their strength or appeal because they know how to initially deceive people to get into power.
I am drawn to leaders who sacrificially offer service that promotes the well being and clear thinking of individuals.
Karl wrote – I am drawn to leaders who sacrificially offer service that promotes the well being and clear thinking of individuals.
I take it, then, that you are not enamored of the current GOP, nor of the candidates being offered up by the Tea Party, in the current election cycle? None demonstrate service that promotes the well being and clear thinking of individuals.
Regarding the following of Dictators, we are not in agreement. If it gets too hard to think logically, is not the same as people are fundamentally lazy. In the former, we presume an intent or desire on the part of our dear populace to actually be logical, and to learn to think. In the latter we recognize that, given an easy way, people will take it. We are selfish, lazy creatures. No one is forcing America to watch Jersey Shore, or American Idol. No one forces Americans to sit and watch rather than participate in sports.
This same passivity is becoming prevalent in Europe, and in Asia. It seems that whenever people have enough leisure time and personal wealth to choose how they spend a majority of their time – they predominantly choose lazy pursuits. This same lazy approach is also prevalent in education, where kids (even at the college level) simply want to learn to pass the test rather than to understand the subject.
Karl writes:—"…they do surrender their faith in their worldview…"
Sometimes, though, it is their faith in their worldview that drives them into the arms of a tyrant, who plays on the dark side of such worldviews. The ideal stance in such a world is to be prepared to drop any ideology that threatens to overturn our humanity and the commonweal.
The Germans who gave to Hitler what he asked were not betraying themselves—Hitler knew his audience well. That's what makes it all the more frightening.
This was not a political discussion as far as I could tell.
I do not favor either party when they put candidates into office and then use pac money to ensure that the incumbent gets an easy win in the primaries.
The policy of both major parties of backing incumbents because they give people what they have desired in the past is a sure fire explanation for why we are in the mess we are in today.
I actually see less danger in fresh candidates than I do in more of the big money antics of both parties.
Karl writes: I actually see less danger in fresh candidates than I do in more of the big money antics of both parties.
Such naiveté would be sweet in a child, but you are a grown man.
Where are the tea Party candidates getting their funding, Karl? Why are a significant proportion of GOP/Non-Democrat campaign funds coming from anonymous sources? Why are so many astroturf groups targeting democrats in attack ads?
If this were really grass roots, I'd expect to see funding roughly in line with populist surveys (that shows the left/right split in the country pretty much even, overall). Instead all these new, activist, astroturf-funded candidates are rabidly right-wing, and are often extreme in their non-political viewpoints.
"Rationalization" in the current American vernacular usually refers to the twisted logic based on errant presumptions, that is used (often after the fact) to justify an unconscionable action.
The 9/11 attacks on our industrial-military complex, carried out by a relatively small group of Saudi Arabian Islamists has been used to rationalize the Bush regime's unprovoked war in Iraq, the passage of the Homeland Security Act, and is the excuse to deprive American citizens of their constitutional rights.
The basic question is this:
Do the rights of the US Constitution apply equally to every American citizen, whether born on American soil, born abroad to an American parent or to legally naturalized, or do those rights only apply to people of certain religious, racial, or social heritages? Why?
Karl this is an essay question, and given your demonstrated tendency to provide us with long comments, I expect you be able to elaborate an answer.
A goodly number of tea party candidates are being underwritten by the Koch Brothers, who are slightly left of Attila the Hun. They have made it clear that they wish to buy a country in their own image and this is the way they're going about it. Now, what they're doing is perfectly legal (especially since People United), but that doesn't make the candidates they're sponsoring pure as the driven snow. The question stands—what difference is there between them and the establishment candidates?
The only things voters can be somewhat sure of when they put forward a new candidate is that the current direction of governments stands a slightly better than usual chance of change.
If one likes the current direction or at least wish for no change, big money will get you a known player with some kind of a known track record. These candidate are somewhat obliged to give some kind of payback to those who helped put them there initially or who helped to keep them in their office.
If one dislikes the current direction or at least wishes to upset the status quo to some degree, new players are really the only way to have a chance at accomplishing this. It's the unknown variables that increase the number of possible outcomes.
Some have said for an individual doing the same thing over and over again with the same undesired result is an indication of insanity.
Do the rights of the US Constitution apply equally to every American citizen, whether born on American soil, born abroad to an American parent or to legally naturalized, or do those rights only apply to people of certain religious, racial, or social heritages? Why?
The question is phrased as if to ask "When did you stop beating your wife?"
"American citizens" have certain rights which each specific branch of government should not have the ability to infringe upon.
The question more aptly put should be stated – "If and when an American Citizen ceases to be able to support the constitution does the government have the right to consider any of their words and behaviors as suspect and capable of causing unbridled destruction of either innocent lives or the very constitution itself?
The framers of the Constitution were careful to indicate that they wanted a democratic republic, with such checks and balances that it would take a prolonged journey in an undesired direction for the people to lose their ability to influence the very structures and ideals contained in the government.
It does not matter one iota what any specific individual persons may or may not consider to be an equitable or a fair representation of their viewpoint in the functioning of the government.
The government's role is to leave the individuals to their own accountability until such time as they have sufficiently indicated that their interests do not lie in accord with the principles of a democratic republic.
So "When did you stop believing in a democratic republic?"
Karl
the question is not poorly phrased. It was in two parts (either/or).
1) do rights apply to every citizen equally (regardless of the source of that citizenship)?
2) do rights apply only to citizens who satisfy some additional criteria (race, religion, social, other)?
Rights are not contingent on the citizen's behavior. However, our LAWS do constrain rights for societal purposes – i.e. laws that proscribe behaviors (theft, murder, etc), and laws that demand compliance (taxes, driving rules, etc). Strict reading of the constitution, and all the amendments, make it clear that (1) is the intended reading.
So, do you think (1) is the correct answer?
I ask, because your comment appears to suggest that you favor (2). It appears that you think the constitutional rights of citizens are contingent upon the societal behaviors of that individual and their compliance and agreement with the constitution. So if a citizen disagrees with some of the terms of the constitution, and seeks redress to change the constitution – that citizen would be acting unconstitutionally?
Your comments about "belief in a democratic republic" are close, but no banana. Our form of government is not set in stone, but defined by the extant terms of the complete constitution – including amendments to the constitution. If future federal governments, and indeed future states, decided to renounce democracy in favor of another form of government – that would not be unconstitutional!
BTW – I don't believe in a democratic republic. I think it is a reasonable form of government, but I don't think it the best. I think (as we see in the current election cycle) that it favors a hegemony of the rich over the vast majority of the populace. There is no place in US politics for the poor (or even the middle class). There are many more representative forms of government – but the founders did the best they could with the limitations of time and space under which this nation was formed.
I'll post that question right back at you. When did you start believing that a Democratic Republic was the only or best form of government?
Your comment was well worded and to the point. I wish to build on it.
There is no perfect form of government. The ideal democratic republic needs the participation of all its citizens in the legislative process. It is also of the utmost importance to the functioning of our government that the citizenry be well informed in a fair and balanced way.
The success of a democratic republic is closely bound to the integrity of its mass media. Over the past few decades, our media has lost its integrity, its courage to provide fair and balanced coverage of the issues and has become the lapdog of the corporations, has transformed its role from that of educating and informing, to one of propaganda and incitement, favoring the corporate interests, while fraudulently portraying opinion and editorials as news.
Glenn Beck is no Edward Murrow, Bill O'Reilly is no Will Shirer, and Chris Wallace is no Mike Wallace.
The result has been that the democracy of our democratic republic has been wrested from our people and replaced corporatism.
Please follow the logic, there is an "or" in the original wording.
If the unqualified answer to number one is yes than there is no need for question two. However, even alleged criminals have rights. Convicted lawbreakers lose various rights during the time they are under arrest or actually serving time in prison.
If the answer to number one is no, then there is no need to ask question two. One clearly has biases as to who is better able to rule over others. This would include examples where some people are given preference over others for arbitrary reasons. What one considers arbitrary then could become a matter of biased consensus.
The only way that the question can be answered as phrased together is to qualify what is being asked by stating that the two should not be linked together as either/or conditional clauses.
If the two are truly isolated both must be answered with qualifications because even a prisoner in jail or in a psychiatric center has a different set of rights as an "American Citizen."
Leave the statements separate and one can answer them each with qualifications.
The answer to number two is no, unless the beliefs of such individuals/groups would violently advocate the forcible deconstruction of the American Democratic Republic.
I would answer number one if isolated from number two as yes, as long as the claimed "American Citizen" is not actively working in a subversive or criminal way to push their worldview through law breaking actions upon others.
An "American Citizen" at home or abroad that enlists or somehow joins a cause to force through violence a new interpretation of the "American Democratic Republic" should expect to be kept under some kind of special interest or consideration because they have earned a label as an anti-American or as against a Democratic Republic.
These so called "citizens" have ceased to be accountable to the founding documents and body of law that make up the current functioning of the "American Democratic Republic." Should they be treated with kid gloves and be allowed to engage in criminal codes of conduct because the government is suppose to treat them equally?
I do not believe you can answer either of the questions you asked as simple yes and no answers whenever violent or criminal activity has been linked to either individuals or collective American Citizens despite whatever they claim contrary.
The forms and working of the American Democratic Republic as specified in the Constitution and the Amendments appear to be under constant barrage from people who desire to use violent and illegal means to shape not only the forms of the Republic but also the manner by which the laws are applied.
This is what you really should be asking and considering. Do we want separate application of laws to differing individuals and groups of people, be they in the majority or the minority?
I have known since I was old enough to read the Bible that a Democratic Republic was not the only form of government.
I have come to believe from many readings of the Bible and from a study of world history that a Democratic Republic which realizes the fallen and potentially depraved condition of human beings as the best form of Government because it has the potential to keep opposing worldviews from forcibly creating long generational hostilities that would lead to anarchy or worldview dominance by power hungry corrupt human beings.
What form of governance would you advocate if not a democratic republic?
My intuition tells me it would probably be an oligarchy.
In response to What form of governance would you advocate if not a democratic republic? Karl wrote My intuition tells me it would probably be an oligarchy.
Karl demonstrates that his intuition is not reality-based. No oligarchic society has ever existed. Every society is, sooner or later, run by those with power, and that has always, and is likely always to be a synonym for those with money.
And as long as money, and property, are allowed to remain with families in perpetuity (through inheritance) such monetary hegemony is intrinsic to our forms of governance. Even inherently oligarchic institutions such as universities and colleges are not governed by knowledge or insight, but are instead governed by monied interests — the bursar is more important than the most senior professor in setting values, direction, and philosophy.
Democracy, as a concept, is always battling this tendency towards a hegemony of the rich. As we can see from the latest election cycle spending, the wealthy are very interested in buying pet politicians — and the vast majority of those seem to be very right wing, and fluent in echoing the views of their paymasters (to the detriment of the broader electorate).
I'd like to think that we could have an oligarchy. I do not think that such will ever be possible – people are just too damn lazy, and real oligarchies take work. It's much, much easier just to follow the leader. Any sufficiently authoritative leader. Right, Karl?
Karl, I am not impressed by your weak attempts to dodge the issue by attempting to dissect the question, by attempting to imbue the questions as loaded, leading and self-indicting. I am somewhat amused by the lengths you go to in avoidance of providing a clearly stated and pointed answer.
You aptly point out the mutual exclusivity of the two choices in the first question, but you have yet to state which of the two choices best represents your beliefs on the topic.
As for the "Why" question, you seem (to me at least )to argue that rights can be denied to criminals, and that you deem people if the Islamic faith to be criminals, and therefore undeserving or the full protection of our constitution.
I could be simply misunderstanding your argument since it's wording is elaborately convoluted, which is why being clear and concise is generally a better way to state your case.
Rights can be suspended or revoked by due process of law, but not by popular opinion.
In an ideal world with no criminal citizens running around the answer to question number one is yes.
If the question wasn't connected in two part this was obvious.
I would think that would be as plain as what's written in the Constitution and Bill of Rights and the rest of the Amendments.
I do not believe "Moslems" are criminals. American Moslems that are citizens and that are not involved in attempts to violently change the workings of the laws of the land, nor seeking to establish enclaves for their own law, should have as many rights as any other American Citizen.
Radical anything that tries to create fear and subjugation in others by breaking American Law, or requiring themselves to be exempt from American Law, runs against the principles set forth in our Constitution, Bill of Rights and other Amendments.
Does any collective group of people have an obligation to give voice to people that are violently in opposition to the very fundamental documents and laws that permitted the group to form in the first place? In the proper place and time they should have a voice, but once they have demonstrated violent opposition it is potentially criminal activity.
You have an obligation to hear the clear message from a non-violent messenger. You may still want to smack them up the side of the head, because you don't agree with the message, but that would show them that you were not a very rational, but rather a violent person.
Any radicals or terrorists whose stated manner of accomplishing their purposes includes violence and acknowledging disagreement with the laws of the land they eventually want to dominate should not be allowed to be citizens, nor their children if they hold to the same views on violence and disagreement with the laws of America. This is where America is at risk of losing its language, culture and borders.
I can almost envision one day where extremists of any persuasion that claim American Citizenship might need to have their American Citizenship stripped because they habitually break the law and desire to do away with the Constitution and the rule of American Law.
This is essentially what does happen when certain clear crimes have been committed, but we are consistently finding that violent disagreement with the law is becoming something to be admired.
Karl said Any radicals or terrorists whose stated manner of accomplishing their purposes includes violence and acknowledging disagreement with the laws of the land they eventually want to dominate should not be allowed to be citizens, nor their children if they hold to the same views on violence and disagreement with the laws of America.
So…
you would strip citizenship from Anti-abortion protesters who praised the killing of Dr Tiller as "right"?
you would strip citizenship from members of white militias (who claim the violent overthrow of 'illegitimate government' as their goal)?
you would strip citizenship from members of black panthers (and similar organizations) whose protests are founded on a desire for civic equality (but are willing to use violent means to that end)?
you would strip citizenship from the G8 protestors who engaged in 'riots' when provoked by police actions?
I take it you disagree with Jefferson that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants?
Oligarchies have existed at levels lower than the national level for a long time.
That the jump can not be made to the national level in America is due to the fact that Oligarchies do tend to corrupt easier, especially when one thinks their chosen leaders would never resort to running the organization in an illegal manner.
BTW, most financial corporations are oligarchies because this is the easiest way to allow both honest and corrupt leaders to make legal and illegal, moral and immoral profits for themselves and the people who have invested in their company.
Saying you'd like to think (in ideals) that an oligarchy could exist is the same as saying that a minority worldview could win out over a majority worldview. Oligarchies can only exist if the worldview of the majority of the citizenry matches the worldview of the leaders.
The board rooms of corporations do need to be better self-regulation, which does not mean that "corporations" are themselves the corrupting plaque upon society.
People can be selfish, corporations can be selfish, for profit and even not for profit groups can even be selfishly designed political monstrosities.
Isn't it just great to know we all share the same company?
If people will not see their own depravity, what makes you think they will not see their collective depravity?
I noticed I missed 'non' in my previous comment (at least twice) which makes it laughingly stupid. that's what happens when you rewrite your conclusion but forget to rewrite the premise! (it was a lot clearer from a non-oligarchic perspective)
To respond to your parting comment – It's not people who fail to see their own depravity, it is that some powerful people simply do not see their behavior as depraved. Might makes right, and so on.
As Jefferson said All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
I would not strip citizenship from anyone on the basis of what they said, or even what they personally threatened to do verbally. That's only one step removed from the thought police of 1984. I would strip citzenship as a last resort from people who insist upon physical violence and intimidation as their preferred method of expressing their disregard for the law and disregard for other people as well.
People can say what ever they want in terms of "right and wrong." When they however push for a crusade that instills in others a sense of disregard for the law, people must be prepared for the consequences of their own violent behavior and even for their responsibility for stirring others to violent actions as well.
If I had my druthers I would create some penalty or deterrent for people who display gross disregard for the value of human beings, based upon the law, as revealed through their public behavior. I would look for a deterrent for a demonstrator that publically suggested that it was just fine to murder another human being. That deterrent could simply be an IRS audit. Freedom of speech does not mean there are no consequences for the things spoken. Those that participate in violence against people based upon disregard for the rule of laws should be charged with misdemeaners, then any repeated activity should become the basis of felonies.
If their message is a valid one and it hasn't gotten through to the leaders of the democratic republic by that time perhaps it is time for another tea party as they say.
The founding fathers of the American Revolution knew what they were doing was capable of seeing them hung or shot, but they saw the ordeal from the vantage point of an intolerable oppression from which they had no hope of having their grievances addressed by due process.
If people develop known followers that act violently upon their specific verbal direction this is criminal activity at the very least which when organized becomes the basis of most wars from time immemorial.
I would hope however that anyone guilty of direct acts of violence would be charged with crimes fitting the physical harm inflicted upon others.
Tossing tea into Boston Harbor was not an offense worthy of bullets.
Organizing people in any non-violent political fashion that accepts the nature of our democratic republic is likewise not a crime in America.
The Black Panthers who were using intimidation at voting places is an illegal activity in the legislation of most if not all of the states as I understand it. These people should be removed from the activity and charged a fine. If they resist being removed from their position of intimidation they should be arrested and held in custody until after the election. If it happens again they should be given fines and time in prison.
Any militia of any kind, not brought into existence by the existing government which also makes an open public display of arms with an intention to use forceful intimidation to block the rights of other citizens is on the border of committing violence or of inciting others to violence and this should be classified as activity of a felony nature because of the level of organization and peer involvement with intention to carry out aggravated assault. The instant any physical violence starts to escalate the level of the crime needs to fit the harm or destruction caused.
Talking and even shouting is not physical violence.
By definition rioting is an illegal activity of violence and should be treated as such if the authorities deem the provocation to have come from an individual or from a collection of people without a permit for their open public meeting or assembly.
Karl writes The Black Panthers who were using intimidation at voting places
Can you provide an AP or other non-partisan citation for that, Karl? far as I know that is pure right wing mind-gaming.
also If I had my druthers I would create some penalty or deterrent for people who display gross disregard for the value of human beings, based upon the law, as revealed through their public behavior
Oh – so you do find Anti-abortionists abhorrent, then? What penalty would you consider appropriate for people who so hate women that they ordain and enact violence and intimidation towards them and to the healthcare professionals who support them? What about the people who incite violence against gays? Same standard? Same criteria?
and Any militia of any kind, not brought into existence by the existing government which also makes an open public display of arms with an intention to use forceful intimidation to block the rights of other citizens […] should be classified as activity of a felony nature
So almost every white militia is a felonious organization, by this standard. What have YOU done to stand against these people, Karl?
Karl, still no straight and concise answer.Lots of stone walling, but no simple answer. not from you.
The are many powerful groups in this country right now who have publicly stated their intentions to weaken if not destroy the government, and have pushed their agenda to rewrite the constitution give them complete and total authority. They are called corporations.
Niklaus: That hits the nail on the head, at least with regard to large corporations that are pouring money and lobbyists into Washington DC.
I should make clear that I'm not anti-corporation, as a general rule. There are many large and small corporations that don't offend me in the least. I do fear, however, that there is a political arms race going on, and that any organization that wants to do major business in the U.S. is feeling pressure to get its hooks into Washington DC because its competitors seem to be doing it to, in order to secure a competitive (often meaning anti-consumer and anti-citizen) advantage.
Hello, I invite you to subscribe to Dangerous Intersection by entering your email below. You will have the option to receive emails notifying you of new posts once per week or more often.
Karl,
"You do not call him any kind of Christian?"
Who the hell are you to say? You call yourself something and be damned to anyone who would gainsay that. You have that right. But you are going to pass judgment on the quality of someone's self-identification? Up to now your pidgin has been mostly limited to what people can know. How can you know?
Part of what we have here discussed is how one's beliefs simply fail to do much to conform them to others' expectations of their behaviors. If a belief in god does not enforce changes of a benevolent sort, then either they do not believe in god or such belief is not inherently constructive.
Hitler was not a Darwinist. He drew his misunderstandings of evolution from Haeckel, who also misunderstood Darwin. This is nothing unusual. Many people misunderstand Darwin. YOU misunderstand Darwin. That misunderstanding, even were you inclined to accept his arguments, would not lead you to genocide. Would it? I doubt it.
The fact is that religion has, among other things, an unfortunate proclivity for setting up Us and Them paradigms, which have often led to extremes in what might be called culling. ("Kill them all, let god sort out his own.") Because religion provides a basis for unchallenged "specialness" for the less stable to claim ascendency over those with whom they disagree or of whom they disapprove.
Hitler's programs were religious in nature. He burned Darwin, by the way, and today we're seeing this nonsense of cultural purging rise again, going so far as to claim Darwinism as Jewish, along with Einstein's work and many others—as if the ethnicity or cultural heritage has a damn thing to do with truth in science.
You may not wish to claim Hitler, and that's understandable—he was a monster—but it's a bad faith argument to try to give him to some other group when the record, even in his own hand, is clear. Hitler was not an atheist. The Third Reich was not an atheist machine. Perverse, yes, but very christian.
And what if he was indeed a Believer? By your own credo, would he not be forgiven if he asked for it? Is that not a basic tenet, that all sins are forgivable for the true believer?
Atheism as an excuse for the abuses of tyrants is as odious and ridiculous a charge as you suggest fidelity to christianity would be. Monsters are monsters, but you cannot claim to know their hearts. Monsters in the name of Christ but no less monsters pepper history and it is not possible to say how sincere they were unless they wrote it down.
We can guess.
But all the great dictators of the 20th Century share one thing in common with religion—they have all recognized that unquestioning fidelity to articles of essence are necessary for control. Stalin may not have believed in god, but he established a religious state in its unyielding demand of unquestioned obedience to statements of faith. Faith in the state maybe, but how is that functionally different than what religion requires? Christopher Hitchens has characterized North Korea as an absolute Theocracy—only the Leader is placed on the throne of the godhead.
Stop blaming Darwin for the ills that humans create without any concept of science. Science—actual free inquiry and investigation, essential to the scientific method—was anathema to Nazism. Too much risk that people might think for themselves.
And stop tossing those who you despise into the abyss by saying that they weren't this or that because someone who was this or that wouldn't behave like that. The argument is simplistic and too often a lie. Like it or not, Hitler was a Catholic—and much of his attitude came straight out of millennia of christian disrespect for Jews.
Tony et. al.,
I agree that I misunderstand Darwin.
I know I misunderstood Darwin because I don't claim to be able to see clear evidence when it’s only there by inference or implication.
However, I don't believe I have mis-misunderstood those who pose as the proponents of evolution in some of its more repugnant varieties. Haeckel and others have used "survival of the fittest" terms in broader applications that have led to racism, eugenics and genocide as the natural physical consequences of believing such a concept is true.
If you think people with a bent toward evil will not agree that Darwinian ideology would support their use of force to accomplish their own ends you are sorely naive about human nature.
Hitler saying his preferred Arian "race" were the "son's of god" was both a misuse of Religion and false science as well. You are probably correct to say that many diabolical things have been done throughout history by those who wed false science with religion or even in today’s terms a non-religious state controlled worldview could be just as dangerous
Dictators of most varieties probably all agree that might makes right and that would seem to be a fundamental application of survival of the ________________. (You can fill in the term that would apply) from strongest, most cleaver, best orator, most messiah like, smartest, most scientific, best tool user, a-bomb maker, etc.
Hitler was one of those repugnant varieties of dictator that was able through the use of oratory to misuse both religion and science to accomplish his purposes. I agree Martin Luther was wrong in his mistaken ideals that have been linked to anti-Semitism. Both can be forgiven, I can not judge such matters from my perspective. What the realities for either actually are I cannot wager an answer. Nor will I wager an answer about Judas Iscariot either.
BTW, neither are all people who claim to "understand" evolution atheists, unless you have pushed all others them from the discussion as well.
I have not misunderstood Christianity, nor have I misunderstood those who pose as one of its proponents.
There are all manner of proponents, but in the end Jesus will turn many aside if they can only claim to have been Christian by their words or in name only. Many will hear the phrase "depart from me, I never knew you."
The honest Christian understands that they need both an internal witness of his or her spirit and external evidence from the real world of both other Christians and non-Christians as well, to prove that they were in an ongoing right relationship to Jesus and their fellow men and women.
I am not a perfect example of a Christian, nor do I claim to be noble just because I have chosen various relative values as the ones I try to live up to.
The Christian or non-Christian that actually believes they are more holy, more just or more noble than the worst of sinners makes a blunder that reveals their misplaced trust in themselves.
Noah, Abraham, Issac, Joseph, Jacob and myriads of others knew they were not worthy of special treatment. It’s those who came after them that have seen themselves in the wrong light, and have tried to claim special treatment as a birth right.
This is what has brought antagonism after antagonism full circle back upon such people generation after generation.
Unchecked misunderstanding of ideology has caused genocide. Statements like "my God is bigger than your God" or "your worldview is simply wrong and that's all there is to it" or "see it my way or its the highway" can lead to insults and the selection of easy scapegoats when looking for someone to blame for matters of rerality that are hard to deal with.
Darwinian science cannot be detached from the people or culture that it is a part of, no matter how noble the people or the culture claims to be.
As for absolutes, there are only two from which all others stem. Love the Lord your God with all your body, mind, soul, and strength and the second is like unto it. Love your neighbor as yourself.
If you do not love your fellow man that you have seen, you will never be able to say you love God whom you have not seen.
Karl
Thanks for your comment. I appreciate when you say you misunderstand Darwin, but presume that you mean you misunderstand evolution. Darwin was simply a person – the theory he propounded is not him. Science does not put people on a pedestal, regardless of their achievements. Science is not a religion of authority and veneration. Science is a methodology of observation, hypothesis, test, and evaluation. There is no cult of personality in science. there is no cult of authority in science. Everything is open to questioning, to change, to modification and refinement. This is entirely unlike religion, where personality and authority is everything.
The current theory of evolution is greatly amplified, more nuanced, and significantly changed (but not in its broad strokes) from Darwin's original stunning observational synthesis. There has also been over two centuries of additional science done since he proposed the theory. Not once has it been shown to be false. As a result of these two centuries of work, the science is not Darwinian any more than geometry is Platonic – unless you wish to stay in grade school.
Regarding Haeckel: Do you honestly think that Haeckel and his recapitulation theory is a direct outcome of Darwin's theory? If so, you really don't understand. Haeckel's theory is closer to Lamarckism than evolution. That Haeckel's discredited embryological drawings were used by creationists to attempt to dispute evolution does not make Haeckel a poster-child for evolution.
Regarding your comment that neither are all people who claim to “understand” evolution atheists: this is not something I would say, since it implies a fundamental category error. I would say that people who claim to understand evolution, yet retain a belief in God and miracles, are being dishonest – either about their belief in miracles (which implies an interventionist god), or their acceptance/understanding of evolution (which demands that there is no godly intervention in the process of descent). The cognitive dissonance implied by holding both viewpoints is where I have a problem with theistic scientists. They are compartmentalizing their understanding and their knowledge, which detracts from both. They are neither honest scientists, nor honest theists. Of course, a weak deist can easily believe that god 'kicked off' everything, then stepped back (which seems to be Francis Collins current explanation, despite his membership of an evangelical church).
But we're not talking about weak deists, are we? We are talking about people in general, whom we know can hold multiple overlapping and dissonant ideas simultaneously. Why should religion and evolution be special? So I would never say that such is impossible – because I know that such people exist. I just find them to be less than credible, either as examples of religionists or as examples of scientists, due to the intellectual and emotional dishonesty exhibited by them holding such dissonant positions.
Lastly – I'm glad you recognize that unchecked misunderstanding of ideology has caused genocide. You should also recognize that we merely have had access to much bigger sticks in the last century or so (which makes Pol Pot and Stalin seem worse than earlier monsters, for monsters they were). The genocide of previous centuries was simply much harder to prosecute on a massive scale, although that did not stop anyone trying. Religion, honestly or simply as a convenience, was omni-present in such actions, since religion was present in any action of the ruling classes – and it was the rulers who prosecuted war, and pursued genocide as policy.
Karl,
I find little in that last comment with which I disagree. A couple of points.
Darwin never used the term "Survival of the fittest". Herbert Spencer coined the phrase, and used it to link what he understood from Darwin to economic theories. It was a handy metaphor in the golden age of capitalism.
Secondly, while you can (correctly) argue that it is not fair to blame the misuse of religious principles on the religion itself, likewise it is not right to blame the misuse of science on the science itself. A thorough and honest reading of Darwin does not justify what people like Spencer, Haeckel, and Hitler did with it. Quite the opposite, an honest reading should prompt a profound humility.
Ah, but as you say, human nature always intrudes.
Uh, Tony…On The Origin Of Species was published in 1859. That's a bit over a century and a half ago, not two centuries.
Mark – you're right. Math error (mea culpa).
I suppose my argument is completely invalidated now, since we only have 150 years of additional evidence and work on evolution rather than 200. Oh well!
sigh.
Tony writes:—"I suppose my argument is completely invalidated now, since we only have 150 years of additional evidence and work on evolution rather than 200. Oh well!"
I'm sure some folks will see it that way. 🙂
151 years does round up to two centuries if one is considering whole numbers.
There is no need for exact precision when talking in terms of centuries.
However, I try to stay clear of using a larger amount of interpreted evidence as meaning more reliable or obviously overwhelming proof of anything that is based upon inferences.
If there was only one way that the data could be interpreted then we would all have the same worldview now wouldn't we?
Karl
Your statement If there was only one way that the data could be interpreted then we would all have the same worldview now wouldn’t we? is only true if we assume rational agents.
'nuf said.
Rational seems to be the operant word needing defintion here.
Here is my take on rationality.
A worldview is based upon the value or importance of inductive premises which should result in logical lines of non-contradictory and non-conflicted deductive reasoning.
Many people do not consider other worldviews because they do not want to consider contradictory or conflicted outcomes to deductive reasoning as being a possible indicator of the incompleteness or even the possibility of errors in their own fundamental inductive premises.
It should however also be obvious as you seem to indicate that there ar many people who throw rationality to the wind when it come to considering the possibility of anything that conflicts with their own worldview and its fundamental premises.
Replacing one set of inductive premises with another set of inductive premises has the potential to lead to the surrender of ones entire ability to reason deductively and can destabilizes entire societies as I'm sure you are aware.
This is how dictators get the control and power over others, by causing such changes to the fundamental inductive premises that people no longer realize for themselves what really is proper deductive logic or not.
Karl
We are in agreement on what 'rational' means – however you mentioned but failed to highlight the most important different between us – our choice of presumptive assumptions.
You choose to believe in an active and intercessionary god – therefore all evidence has been 'touched by god' and your rationaility is bent to discovering where god has intersected your reality in every frame.
I believe in no such thing. I have no such presumptive assumption. My rationality is bent on examining the evidence as it appears to be (to my senses and to the instruments I can devise).
This is our (if I may say) fundamental difference. I do not expect to sway you. Only the evidence can change you. That and the pressure of cognitive dissonance as your god gets smaller and smaller and less impactful with every discovery.
And you are wrong about dictators: dictators gain control over people for many reasons, but mostly because they make it more reasonable for people to relinquish the control at the outset, by providing them with an outlet for their anger, by channeling their hatred towards some 'other' and satisfying their basic needs. People follow dictators because people are fundamentally lazy and generally refuse to think, and the dictator is happy to do the thinking for them. Authoritarians (like you) love incipient dictators – their 'strength' appeals to you.
It has nothing to do with your weird insistence on a mutated inductive or deductive logic. There is no logic involved for the most part.
Perhaps you need to pay more attention to reality.
I need to point out that Darwin did use the phrase
"survival of the fittest."
Dispite misgivings by Alfred Wallace and other naturalists, Charles Darwin began to use the term "survival of the fittest" coined by Spencer.
The fifth edition of "On the Origins of Species" published in 1869 uses the phrase "survival of the fittest" as a synonym for "natural selection."
Mea culpa, Karl, you are correct. My mistake. But it was not his phrase and his use of it was not the same as that intended by Spencer. Still, my statement was incomplete.
Tony, I pretty much stated that people follow dictators for the same reason you gave. If it gets too hard to think logically, people do get angry, they do look for others to blame, and then they do surrender their faith in their worldview and presuppositions and look to replace them with something else.
When the presuppositions of a worldview no longer seem to make sense, many people will respond to first having their basic needs met which then quickly escalates during revolutions into also providing more in terms of selfish desires that go far beyond their basic needs.
I am not drawn to any authoritarian dictator that would draw their strength or appeal because they know how to initially deceive people to get into power.
I am drawn to leaders who sacrificially offer service that promotes the well being and clear thinking of individuals.
Karl wrote – I am drawn to leaders who sacrificially offer service that promotes the well being and clear thinking of individuals.
I take it, then, that you are not enamored of the current GOP, nor of the candidates being offered up by the Tea Party, in the current election cycle? None demonstrate service that promotes the well being and clear thinking of individuals.
Regarding the following of Dictators, we are not in agreement. If it gets too hard to think logically, is not the same as people are fundamentally lazy. In the former, we presume an intent or desire on the part of our dear populace to actually be logical, and to learn to think. In the latter we recognize that, given an easy way, people will take it. We are selfish, lazy creatures. No one is forcing America to watch Jersey Shore, or American Idol. No one forces Americans to sit and watch rather than participate in sports.
This same passivity is becoming prevalent in Europe, and in Asia. It seems that whenever people have enough leisure time and personal wealth to choose how they spend a majority of their time – they predominantly choose lazy pursuits. This same lazy approach is also prevalent in education, where kids (even at the college level) simply want to learn to pass the test rather than to understand the subject.
Karl writes:—"…they do surrender their faith in their worldview…"
Sometimes, though, it is their faith in their worldview that drives them into the arms of a tyrant, who plays on the dark side of such worldviews. The ideal stance in such a world is to be prepared to drop any ideology that threatens to overturn our humanity and the commonweal.
The Germans who gave to Hitler what he asked were not betraying themselves—Hitler knew his audience well. That's what makes it all the more frightening.
Tony,
This was not a political discussion as far as I could tell.
I do not favor either party when they put candidates into office and then use pac money to ensure that the incumbent gets an easy win in the primaries.
The policy of both major parties of backing incumbents because they give people what they have desired in the past is a sure fire explanation for why we are in the mess we are in today.
I actually see less danger in fresh candidates than I do in more of the big money antics of both parties.
Karl writes: I actually see less danger in fresh candidates than I do in more of the big money antics of both parties.
Such naiveté would be sweet in a child, but you are a grown man.
Where are the tea Party candidates getting their funding, Karl? Why are a significant proportion of GOP/Non-Democrat campaign funds coming from anonymous sources? Why are so many astroturf groups targeting democrats in attack ads?
If this were really grass roots, I'd expect to see funding roughly in line with populist surveys (that shows the left/right split in the country pretty much even, overall). Instead all these new, activist, astroturf-funded candidates are rabidly right-wing, and are often extreme in their non-political viewpoints.
Karl
"Rationalization" in the current American vernacular usually refers to the twisted logic based on errant presumptions, that is used (often after the fact) to justify an unconscionable action.
The 9/11 attacks on our industrial-military complex, carried out by a relatively small group of Saudi Arabian Islamists has been used to rationalize the Bush regime's unprovoked war in Iraq, the passage of the Homeland Security Act, and is the excuse to deprive American citizens of their constitutional rights.
The basic question is this:
Do the rights of the US Constitution apply equally to every American citizen, whether born on American soil, born abroad to an American parent or to legally naturalized, or do those rights only apply to people of certain religious, racial, or social heritages? Why?
Karl this is an essay question, and given your demonstrated tendency to provide us with long comments, I expect you be able to elaborate an answer.
You read what you wanted into what I wrote.
Any candidate that can resonate with the voters should stand a chance of getting funding from groups other than the existing PACs.
Is it that some groups don't like anything but PAC's money for either incumbents or new candidates alike?
Karl,
A goodly number of tea party candidates are being underwritten by the Koch Brothers, who are slightly left of Attila the Hun. They have made it clear that they wish to buy a country in their own image and this is the way they're going about it. Now, what they're doing is perfectly legal (especially since People United), but that doesn't make the candidates they're sponsoring pure as the driven snow. The question stands—what difference is there between them and the establishment candidates?
p.s. I meant Citizens United. Talk about oxymorons…
The only things voters can be somewhat sure of when they put forward a new candidate is that the current direction of governments stands a slightly better than usual chance of change.
If one likes the current direction or at least wish for no change, big money will get you a known player with some kind of a known track record. These candidate are somewhat obliged to give some kind of payback to those who helped put them there initially or who helped to keep them in their office.
If one dislikes the current direction or at least wishes to upset the status quo to some degree, new players are really the only way to have a chance at accomplishing this. It's the unknown variables that increase the number of possible outcomes.
Some have said for an individual doing the same thing over and over again with the same undesired result is an indication of insanity.
For a democracy its time to reshuffle the cards.
Essay Question:
Do the rights of the US Constitution apply equally to every American citizen, whether born on American soil, born abroad to an American parent or to legally naturalized, or do those rights only apply to people of certain religious, racial, or social heritages? Why?
The question is phrased as if to ask "When did you stop beating your wife?"
"American citizens" have certain rights which each specific branch of government should not have the ability to infringe upon.
The question more aptly put should be stated – "If and when an American Citizen ceases to be able to support the constitution does the government have the right to consider any of their words and behaviors as suspect and capable of causing unbridled destruction of either innocent lives or the very constitution itself?
The framers of the Constitution were careful to indicate that they wanted a democratic republic, with such checks and balances that it would take a prolonged journey in an undesired direction for the people to lose their ability to influence the very structures and ideals contained in the government.
It does not matter one iota what any specific individual persons may or may not consider to be an equitable or a fair representation of their viewpoint in the functioning of the government.
The government's role is to leave the individuals to their own accountability until such time as they have sufficiently indicated that their interests do not lie in accord with the principles of a democratic republic.
So "When did you stop believing in a democratic republic?"
Karl
the question is not poorly phrased. It was in two parts (either/or).
1) do rights apply to every citizen equally (regardless of the source of that citizenship)?
2) do rights apply only to citizens who satisfy some additional criteria (race, religion, social, other)?
Rights are not contingent on the citizen's behavior. However, our LAWS do constrain rights for societal purposes – i.e. laws that proscribe behaviors (theft, murder, etc), and laws that demand compliance (taxes, driving rules, etc). Strict reading of the constitution, and all the amendments, make it clear that (1) is the intended reading.
So, do you think (1) is the correct answer?
I ask, because your comment appears to suggest that you favor (2). It appears that you think the constitutional rights of citizens are contingent upon the societal behaviors of that individual and their compliance and agreement with the constitution. So if a citizen disagrees with some of the terms of the constitution, and seeks redress to change the constitution – that citizen would be acting unconstitutionally?
Your comments about "belief in a democratic republic" are close, but no banana. Our form of government is not set in stone, but defined by the extant terms of the complete constitution – including amendments to the constitution. If future federal governments, and indeed future states, decided to renounce democracy in favor of another form of government – that would not be unconstitutional!
BTW – I don't believe in a democratic republic. I think it is a reasonable form of government, but I don't think it the best. I think (as we see in the current election cycle) that it favors a hegemony of the rich over the vast majority of the populace. There is no place in US politics for the poor (or even the middle class). There are many more representative forms of government – but the founders did the best they could with the limitations of time and space under which this nation was formed.
I'll post that question right back at you. When did you start believing that a Democratic Republic was the only or best form of government?
Tony,
Your comment was well worded and to the point. I wish to build on it.
There is no perfect form of government. The ideal democratic republic needs the participation of all its citizens in the legislative process. It is also of the utmost importance to the functioning of our government that the citizenry be well informed in a fair and balanced way.
The success of a democratic republic is closely bound to the integrity of its mass media. Over the past few decades, our media has lost its integrity, its courage to provide fair and balanced coverage of the issues and has become the lapdog of the corporations, has transformed its role from that of educating and informing, to one of propaganda and incitement, favoring the corporate interests, while fraudulently portraying opinion and editorials as news.
Glenn Beck is no Edward Murrow, Bill O'Reilly is no Will Shirer, and Chris Wallace is no Mike Wallace.
The result has been that the democracy of our democratic republic has been wrested from our people and replaced corporatism.
Please follow the logic, there is an "or" in the original wording.
If the unqualified answer to number one is yes than there is no need for question two. However, even alleged criminals have rights. Convicted lawbreakers lose various rights during the time they are under arrest or actually serving time in prison.
If the answer to number one is no, then there is no need to ask question two. One clearly has biases as to who is better able to rule over others. This would include examples where some people are given preference over others for arbitrary reasons. What one considers arbitrary then could become a matter of biased consensus.
The only way that the question can be answered as phrased together is to qualify what is being asked by stating that the two should not be linked together as either/or conditional clauses.
If the two are truly isolated both must be answered with qualifications because even a prisoner in jail or in a psychiatric center has a different set of rights as an "American Citizen."
Leave the statements separate and one can answer them each with qualifications.
The answer to number two is no, unless the beliefs of such individuals/groups would violently advocate the forcible deconstruction of the American Democratic Republic.
I would answer number one if isolated from number two as yes, as long as the claimed "American Citizen" is not actively working in a subversive or criminal way to push their worldview through law breaking actions upon others.
An "American Citizen" at home or abroad that enlists or somehow joins a cause to force through violence a new interpretation of the "American Democratic Republic" should expect to be kept under some kind of special interest or consideration because they have earned a label as an anti-American or as against a Democratic Republic.
These so called "citizens" have ceased to be accountable to the founding documents and body of law that make up the current functioning of the "American Democratic Republic." Should they be treated with kid gloves and be allowed to engage in criminal codes of conduct because the government is suppose to treat them equally?
I do not believe you can answer either of the questions you asked as simple yes and no answers whenever violent or criminal activity has been linked to either individuals or collective American Citizens despite whatever they claim contrary.
The forms and working of the American Democratic Republic as specified in the Constitution and the Amendments appear to be under constant barrage from people who desire to use violent and illegal means to shape not only the forms of the Republic but also the manner by which the laws are applied.
This is what you really should be asking and considering. Do we want separate application of laws to differing individuals and groups of people, be they in the majority or the minority?
I have known since I was old enough to read the Bible that a Democratic Republic was not the only form of government.
I have come to believe from many readings of the Bible and from a study of world history that a Democratic Republic which realizes the fallen and potentially depraved condition of human beings as the best form of Government because it has the potential to keep opposing worldviews from forcibly creating long generational hostilities that would lead to anarchy or worldview dominance by power hungry corrupt human beings.
What form of governance would you advocate if not a democratic republic?
My intuition tells me it would probably be an oligarchy.
In response to What form of governance would you advocate if not a democratic republic? Karl wrote My intuition tells me it would probably be an oligarchy.
Karl demonstrates that his intuition is not reality-based. No oligarchic society has ever existed. Every society is, sooner or later, run by those with power, and that has always, and is likely always to be a synonym for those with money.
And as long as money, and property, are allowed to remain with families in perpetuity (through inheritance) such monetary hegemony is intrinsic to our forms of governance. Even inherently oligarchic institutions such as universities and colleges are not governed by knowledge or insight, but are instead governed by monied interests — the bursar is more important than the most senior professor in setting values, direction, and philosophy.
Democracy, as a concept, is always battling this tendency towards a hegemony of the rich. As we can see from the latest election cycle spending, the wealthy are very interested in buying pet politicians — and the vast majority of those seem to be very right wing, and fluent in echoing the views of their paymasters (to the detriment of the broader electorate).
I'd like to think that we could have an oligarchy. I do not think that such will ever be possible – people are just too damn lazy, and real oligarchies take work. It's much, much easier just to follow the leader. Any sufficiently authoritative leader. Right, Karl?
Karl, I am not impressed by your weak attempts to dodge the issue by attempting to dissect the question, by attempting to imbue the questions as loaded, leading and self-indicting. I am somewhat amused by the lengths you go to in avoidance of providing a clearly stated and pointed answer.
You aptly point out the mutual exclusivity of the two choices in the first question, but you have yet to state which of the two choices best represents your beliefs on the topic.
As for the "Why" question, you seem (to me at least )to argue that rights can be denied to criminals, and that you deem people if the Islamic faith to be criminals, and therefore undeserving or the full protection of our constitution.
I could be simply misunderstanding your argument since it's wording is elaborately convoluted, which is why being clear and concise is generally a better way to state your case.
Rights can be suspended or revoked by due process of law, but not by popular opinion.
Niklaus,
In an ideal world with no criminal citizens running around the answer to question number one is yes.
If the question wasn't connected in two part this was obvious.
I would think that would be as plain as what's written in the Constitution and Bill of Rights and the rest of the Amendments.
I do not believe "Moslems" are criminals. American Moslems that are citizens and that are not involved in attempts to violently change the workings of the laws of the land, nor seeking to establish enclaves for their own law, should have as many rights as any other American Citizen.
Radical anything that tries to create fear and subjugation in others by breaking American Law, or requiring themselves to be exempt from American Law, runs against the principles set forth in our Constitution, Bill of Rights and other Amendments.
Does any collective group of people have an obligation to give voice to people that are violently in opposition to the very fundamental documents and laws that permitted the group to form in the first place? In the proper place and time they should have a voice, but once they have demonstrated violent opposition it is potentially criminal activity.
You have an obligation to hear the clear message from a non-violent messenger. You may still want to smack them up the side of the head, because you don't agree with the message, but that would show them that you were not a very rational, but rather a violent person.
Any radicals or terrorists whose stated manner of accomplishing their purposes includes violence and acknowledging disagreement with the laws of the land they eventually want to dominate should not be allowed to be citizens, nor their children if they hold to the same views on violence and disagreement with the laws of America. This is where America is at risk of losing its language, culture and borders.
I can almost envision one day where extremists of any persuasion that claim American Citizenship might need to have their American Citizenship stripped because they habitually break the law and desire to do away with the Constitution and the rule of American Law.
This is essentially what does happen when certain clear crimes have been committed, but we are consistently finding that violent disagreement with the law is becoming something to be admired.
http://dangerousintersection.org/2010/09/30/welco…
Karl said Any radicals or terrorists whose stated manner of accomplishing their purposes includes violence and acknowledging disagreement with the laws of the land they eventually want to dominate should not be allowed to be citizens, nor their children if they hold to the same views on violence and disagreement with the laws of America.
So…
you would strip citizenship from Anti-abortion protesters who praised the killing of Dr Tiller as "right"?
you would strip citizenship from members of white militias (who claim the violent overthrow of 'illegitimate government' as their goal)?
you would strip citizenship from members of black panthers (and similar organizations) whose protests are founded on a desire for civic equality (but are willing to use violent means to that end)?
you would strip citizenship from the G8 protestors who engaged in 'riots' when provoked by police actions?
I take it you disagree with Jefferson that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants?
Oligarchies have existed at levels lower than the national level for a long time.
That the jump can not be made to the national level in America is due to the fact that Oligarchies do tend to corrupt easier, especially when one thinks their chosen leaders would never resort to running the organization in an illegal manner.
BTW, most financial corporations are oligarchies because this is the easiest way to allow both honest and corrupt leaders to make legal and illegal, moral and immoral profits for themselves and the people who have invested in their company.
Saying you'd like to think (in ideals) that an oligarchy could exist is the same as saying that a minority worldview could win out over a majority worldview. Oligarchies can only exist if the worldview of the majority of the citizenry matches the worldview of the leaders.
The board rooms of corporations do need to be better self-regulation, which does not mean that "corporations" are themselves the corrupting plaque upon society.
People can be selfish, corporations can be selfish, for profit and even not for profit groups can even be selfishly designed political monstrosities.
Isn't it just great to know we all share the same company?
If people will not see their own depravity, what makes you think they will not see their collective depravity?
Karl
I noticed I missed 'non' in my previous comment (at least twice) which makes it laughingly stupid. that's what happens when you rewrite your conclusion but forget to rewrite the premise! (it was a lot clearer from a non-oligarchic perspective)
To respond to your parting comment – It's not people who fail to see their own depravity, it is that some powerful people simply do not see their behavior as depraved. Might makes right, and so on.
As Jefferson said All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
I would not strip citizenship from anyone on the basis of what they said, or even what they personally threatened to do verbally. That's only one step removed from the thought police of 1984. I would strip citzenship as a last resort from people who insist upon physical violence and intimidation as their preferred method of expressing their disregard for the law and disregard for other people as well.
People can say what ever they want in terms of "right and wrong." When they however push for a crusade that instills in others a sense of disregard for the law, people must be prepared for the consequences of their own violent behavior and even for their responsibility for stirring others to violent actions as well.
If I had my druthers I would create some penalty or deterrent for people who display gross disregard for the value of human beings, based upon the law, as revealed through their public behavior. I would look for a deterrent for a demonstrator that publically suggested that it was just fine to murder another human being. That deterrent could simply be an IRS audit. Freedom of speech does not mean there are no consequences for the things spoken. Those that participate in violence against people based upon disregard for the rule of laws should be charged with misdemeaners, then any repeated activity should become the basis of felonies.
If their message is a valid one and it hasn't gotten through to the leaders of the democratic republic by that time perhaps it is time for another tea party as they say.
The founding fathers of the American Revolution knew what they were doing was capable of seeing them hung or shot, but they saw the ordeal from the vantage point of an intolerable oppression from which they had no hope of having their grievances addressed by due process.
If people develop known followers that act violently upon their specific verbal direction this is criminal activity at the very least which when organized becomes the basis of most wars from time immemorial.
I would hope however that anyone guilty of direct acts of violence would be charged with crimes fitting the physical harm inflicted upon others.
Tossing tea into Boston Harbor was not an offense worthy of bullets.
Organizing people in any non-violent political fashion that accepts the nature of our democratic republic is likewise not a crime in America.
The Black Panthers who were using intimidation at voting places is an illegal activity in the legislation of most if not all of the states as I understand it. These people should be removed from the activity and charged a fine. If they resist being removed from their position of intimidation they should be arrested and held in custody until after the election. If it happens again they should be given fines and time in prison.
Any militia of any kind, not brought into existence by the existing government which also makes an open public display of arms with an intention to use forceful intimidation to block the rights of other citizens is on the border of committing violence or of inciting others to violence and this should be classified as activity of a felony nature because of the level of organization and peer involvement with intention to carry out aggravated assault. The instant any physical violence starts to escalate the level of the crime needs to fit the harm or destruction caused.
Talking and even shouting is not physical violence.
By definition rioting is an illegal activity of violence and should be treated as such if the authorities deem the provocation to have come from an individual or from a collection of people without a permit for their open public meeting or assembly.
Karl writes The Black Panthers who were using intimidation at voting places
Can you provide an AP or other non-partisan citation for that, Karl? far as I know that is pure right wing mind-gaming.
also If I had my druthers I would create some penalty or deterrent for people who display gross disregard for the value of human beings, based upon the law, as revealed through their public behavior
Oh – so you do find Anti-abortionists abhorrent, then? What penalty would you consider appropriate for people who so hate women that they ordain and enact violence and intimidation towards them and to the healthcare professionals who support them? What about the people who incite violence against gays? Same standard? Same criteria?
and Any militia of any kind, not brought into existence by the existing government which also makes an open public display of arms with an intention to use forceful intimidation to block the rights of other citizens […] should be classified as activity of a felony nature
So almost every white militia is a felonious organization, by this standard. What have YOU done to stand against these people, Karl?
Karl, still no straight and concise answer.Lots of stone walling, but no simple answer. not from you.
The are many powerful groups in this country right now who have publicly stated their intentions to weaken if not destroy the government, and have pushed their agenda to rewrite the constitution give them complete and total authority. They are called corporations.
Niklaus: That hits the nail on the head, at least with regard to large corporations that are pouring money and lobbyists into Washington DC.
I should make clear that I'm not anti-corporation, as a general rule. There are many large and small corporations that don't offend me in the least. I do fear, however, that there is a political arms race going on, and that any organization that wants to do major business in the U.S. is feeling pressure to get its hooks into Washington DC because its competitors seem to be doing it to, in order to secure a competitive (often meaning anti-consumer and anti-citizen) advantage.