Penguin UK is promoting their modern classics editions of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged by describing Ayn Rand as "The Queen of Feistiness."
I like that, even though I don't regard it as an accurate description.
What: Lecture by Flemming Rose on "Why Publish the Danish Cartoons?"
When: Monday, December 4, 2006 at 7:30 pm
Where: Wittemyer Courtroom, Wolf Law School Building, University of Colorado at Boulder.
Flemming Rose is the Cultural Editor for the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, the person who commissioned and then published the cartoons of Mohammed that became known as the Danish Cartoons. First published September 30, 2005, they created a furor around the world last spring. These dramatic events were caused by one man and one newspaper, with the able assistance of 12 political cartoonists.
Flemming Rose tells his story: why he commissioned the cartoons, the reasons for their publication, and puts the cartoons in a larger context of the battle of ideas in today's Europe. This battle is about freedom of speech, respect for and by religion, the integration of Muslims into European culture and wider immigration issues.
While this talk may leave you wondering about the future of America, Europe and the entire world, Mr. Rose will inspire you and show you how ideas influence the world. There will be a Q & A after the talk.
There is no charge to attend this event, and it is open and intended for the public. Members of the media are welcome to attend.
Don't miss this rare opportunity -- Flemming Rose is only in this country for a short time.
For further information, please contact Ideas.Matter@yahoo.com, or jim.manley@objectivistclubs.org or Lin Zinser at 303.431.2525.
Co-sponsored by Ideas Matter! and the Boulder Objectivist Club.
A friend pointed me to the Doonesbury comic strip, where Trudeau has been exploring the phenomenon of those advocating war while not being willing to serve in the military:
What struck me is that Trudeau actually has a point, as long as people conceive of and prosecute war in a sacrificial way. It is indeed hypocritical to advocate that someone else go to war and be sacrificed for your own interests, and it's positively evil to advocate something like the draft to make them do so. On the other, "moral" hand, there are those who volunteer to be sacrificed for the sake of their countrymen, and there are pacifists who urge that we not fight at all. The premise of war-as-sacrifice seems unfortunately widespread, so back and forth people argue with charges of impracticality against charges of immorality (the "warmongers" on one side and the pacifists on the other, with the martyrs enjoying a status as tragic but respected cannon-fodder).
Of course, Objectivists don't accept any necessary conflict between morality and practicality, and I wince at the idea that we must prosecute war by either sacrificing ourselves or our countrymen, or resigning our country to an enemy's aggressive ambitions. We can and should develop a foreign policy of self-interest with a non-sacrificial military.
Americans would then be able to relate to the military and its services just as they do with any other higher-risk profession like coal mining, high-rise construction, test piloting, or whatever. Americans are not hypocrites for advocating and enjoying reading at night, living in condos, and flying to visit Grandma. And even when there is a significant chance of serious injury or death, the companies who bring us these things do not do it by calling for martyrs or seeking to sacrifice their employees. The same should be true of our military: tremendously risky work, yes, but only undertaken in defense of our rights, and never dependent on calls for sacrifice at any level.
This story is simply amazing: A fourteen-year-old totally blind kid uses echolocation to navigate the world with almost as much precision as a sighted person.
(Via Howard Roerig.)
Allen Farris recently sent me this second essay on Christianity. (His first concerned Christian Fundamentalism.) I'm happy to post it.
PrefaceI would add just one small point based upon my own preliminary readings of the New Testament, Augustine, and Aquinas. It's not just Paul that is allied with Augustine: Jesus himself is too. The Gospels -- particularly Jesus' "Sermon on the Mount" -- are thoroughly anti-worldly and anti-reason. All of the values of this world are totally opposite to those commanded by God. Although I've just started reading Augustine, his fundamental philosophy is clearly that of the New Testament. In contrast, Aquinas is often shockingly Aristotelian in his fundamental method and principles, so much so that Christian doctrine often seems like an afterthought. While Aquinas often exploits Aristotle's Platonic remnants (e.g. the contemplation of eternal as the best form of life), he's fundamentally grounded in a philosophy contrary to that of the New Testament. Read more...
I would like to thank all those who posted comments on my previous essay on Christian fundamentalism. I was a bit surprised at the number of people who recognized similarities to my own background. Several people also raised some interesting questions. Rather than answering individually, I decided to respond with this brief essay.
The Two Christianities
The Christian religion is not a monolithic structure; two major strains stand out in its history. From a philosophical perspective these two might appear to be separate religions only loosely associated, since they have very different answers to what is the nature of the world, the relationship between faith and reason, and how one should live one's life. These two perspectives have formed a polar opposition and much of the history of Christianity can be seen as a struggle between them.
The first of these two derives from Saint Paul of the New Testament and Augustine (354 - 430). This world is to be avoided; emphasis is clearly on the kingdom of God. In fact, this world is regarded as corrupt, a source of temptation, and the province of Satan. Equally emphatic is the denunciation of reason. The only justifiable exercise of reason is as a handmaiden of faith. Without faith, the exercise of reason not only leads to error, it is also corrupt, evil, and the province of Satan. Without faith, mankind is hopelessly mired in mountains of sin, to the extent that no amount of good works could form even a molehill in comparison. Salvation, then, is a free gift of God's grace, completely undeserved. Complete obedience to God is demanded in return.
Now, of course, it is not easy to remain alive in this world with such guiding principles. So, there has been a counter trend within Christianity throughout its history. The most articulate spokesman for this trend is Thomas Aquinas (1224 - 1274). The natural world is good; after all, God created it and pronounced it to be good. Consequently, interest in the natural world is appropriate and can even lead to God. This attitude is the source of such views of an awareness of the laws of physics as "thinking God's thoughts after Him". Reason is viewed as a natural capacity of human beings and can lead to truth about the world. Aquinas was very careful to distinguish philosophy from religion, and the "God of Philosophy" from the "God of faith". His famous five proofs of the existence of God can be criticized philosophically; this is a proper subject of rational debate. However, the "God of faith" is not subject to rational deliberation. But, Aquinas insists, there can be no conflict between faith and reason. Ethically, to live successfully in this world according to one's nature is a good thing for all living creatures, including human beings.
Most modern Christian denominations are complex mixtures of these two perspectives falling, on average, somewhere at an intermediate point on this continuum. This is also true of the Catholic Church. Various monastic orders tend to emphasize one side or the other of this divergence. For example, the Augustinian and Jesuit orders tend to fall on the Augustine side; the Benedictine order tends to fall on the Aquinas side. I attended a small Catholic college run by Benedictine monks my first two years. It was there that I was introduced to Aristotle, logic, and Thomas Aquinas, as well as getting a superb grounding in the fundamentals of mathematics.
Another example is also illustrative here. Martin Luther (1483 - 1546) was a theologian and a member of the Augustinian order within the Catholic Church. His "reformation" actually began as a friendly dispute over some rather arcane theological points related to the relevance of good works to salvation. His point of view was a conservative reaction to the "liberalism" of his day, harking back to the older teachings of Paul and Augustine. Later in his life, as the reformation took on political dimensions and resulted in an overt split from the church, he moved even closer to the positions of Paul and Augustine. His position on reason is unambiguous. He described it as "the Devil's Whore" and urged the faithful to slay it.
Ideas matter; they influence and shape our lives. Therefore, these two oppositions are more than theoretical; they very much affect the daily lives of people caught in the grips of the Christian religion. One of the best portrayals of these affects is in the movie Chocolat. At the beginning of the story, a small French village is caught in the grips of the Augustinian side of this opposition. The mayor and priest keep the people in a dour state of misery, suffering, and general malaise. Along comes the heroine of our story who brazenly opens a chocolate shop, during Lent no less. The movie can be seen as an allegory, using chocolate as symbolic of the enjoyment of life, as it portrays the gradual transformation of the lives of the people in the village moving toward the Aquinas side of this opposition.
Now let us turn to Christian fundamentalism and ask how it fits into this picture. Traditionally, three pillars grounded Christian faith: the authority of the church, tradition, and Holy Scripture. The church provided an interpretation of the Bible; it wasn't necessarily taken as literal truth. Fundamentalism in Christianity tends to reject the authority of the church and tradition, grounding its faith solely in a literal interpretation of the Bible as the revealed word of God. Fundamentalism may be found across all dimensions of Christianity. Many fundamentalists choose to remain in mainstream Christian denominations, including the Catholic Church. However, many do not; they may attend independent or non-denominational churches, or even gather informally in small groups. This is one reason why one must be very careful in interpreting polls about attitudes toward religion. Unless questions are carefully phrased, some fundamentalists fall through the cracks, since they do not regard themselves as part of traditional Christian denominations.
While I doubt that a blanket statement can be made that covers all fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists overwhelmingly tend to fall on the Paul/Augustine side of the ledger. The Bible is the source of all truth: What is the nature of reality? Whatever the Bible says it is. How do you know? It is in the Bible. How should one live? Do whatever the Bible says. There is no room for rational debate; it has been completely cut off. This is why fundamentalists have so little regard for historical scholarship as it applies to the origins of the church and the Bible. The acceptance of the Bible is itself a matter of faith and is not subject to rational deliberation.
How does one judge the content of fundamentalism? By looking at what is philosophically significant about it. By asking: How do they view the nature of the world? How do they regard the use of reason and the relationship between reason and faith? How do they answer the question of how should one live one's life? The answers to these questions are fairly easy to discover. Moreover, it is important to accurately identify their contents and treat fundamentalism accordingly. It is especially important to judge how they regard the exercise of reason.
Judging the cultural significance of contemporary Christian fundamentalism is more difficult. In this respect Peikoff's DIM Hypothesis is very helpful. So is his The Ominous Parallels, which is an underrated work. I am aware that it is denigrated in certain quarters that call themselves Objectivist, but this is a huge mistake. Not only is The Ominous Parallels the most coherent account of the rise of Nazism in Germany that exists, it is a remarkably detailed account of how ideas are spread throughout a culture. This process is by no means obvious; it takes a lot of work to trace the interconnections. Furthermore, Peikoff shows that the essential preconditions that made the rise of totalitarianism possible are operative here in the United States.
Let me make one observation about contemporary society. If you look at the recognizable intellectual movements of the last fifty years or so: pragmatism, positivism, socialism, Marxism, post-modernism, multi-culturalism, etc. the adjectives one would use to describe these movements today would not include "rejuvenated", "enthusiastic", and "energetic." Indeed, many of these movements are regarded today as a dead-end. Do they still have influence? Yes, but it is more from inertia than anything else. They are not going anywhere. Even linguistic analysis and existentialism, long dominant in many quarters in philosophy, can't be described as "vital." Their adherents continue to engage them because that is what they know how to do and they can't see any alternative. At best, contemporary society is characterized by a kind of intellectual vacuum. Just as in science, nature abhors a vacuum, so does society. Something will emerge to fill that vacuum. Today, one movement that can be described as rejuvenated, enthusiastic, and energetic is Christian fundamentalism.
The kind of split within Christianity that I have characterized here is probably applicable to other religions as well. I do not know as much about the history of Islam, but my impression is that this kind of split is present there as well. Indeed, it seems that Islamic fundamentalism runs parallel to fundamentalism within Christianity and the Augustinian side of this split. This is one reason why the United States has been so ineffective in fighting the war on terrorism. To do so requires a vigorous denunciation of religious fundamentalism and an emphatic insistence on the separation of religion and state. But, of course, to take such steps requires a philosophical understanding of why these positions are necessary.
The antidote to Christian fundamentalism is a philosophy based on reason and reality. Our hope for the future lies in the fact that there is another movement that can be described as rejuvenated, enthusiastic, and energetic: Objectivism.
Allen Farris
November 22, 2006
For those of you wishing to explore these issues further, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy has reasonably competent overview articles on Augustine, Aquinas, and Luther. Also, if you haven't read The Ominous Parallels I recommend it highly.
A trailer for the forthcoming movie Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is now available. I'm not sure when the movie is due out -- hopefully soon! (Via Ari Armstrong.)
Read more...Yes, I do think this guy is in the running for the worst burglar ever:
An Objectivist who shall remain nameless sent me this recipe for "Popcorn Stuffing." It sounds like fun!
Mix 1 pound of unpopped popcorn with 1/2 pound of buttter.Happy Thanksgiving! Read more...
Stuff into the turkey.
Cook at 325 degrees--until it blows the ass off the bird.
Scrape bird parts off the ceiling, and enjoy.
Historian Eric Daniels' full set of courses on American history is now available from the Ayn Rand Bookstore. Although I own the set, I've not yet listened to them. Given all the rave reviews I've heard, I'm eager to do so. In the meantime, I'm enjoying Dr. Daniels' "History of Capitalism" course immensely; it's been a real historical eye-opener. It's taught through the graduate program of the Objectivist Academic Center. (It is available for auditing!)
Read more...The comic strip Frazz was exploring costumes and superheroes for Halloween, and managed to touch on something really fundamental. As long as we're getting magical, what power would make someone the greatest of all superheroes from an Objectivist perspective?
Not that they would frame it quite this way, but I thought it was pretty cool because they've hit upon disabling the source of evil by preventing the self-deception inherent in bad guys evading what they are really up to.
A friend who is working through OPAR bounced these comics to me, probably because he recently saw Peikoff's discussion of focus, evasion vs. drift, etc. The section, "The Primary Choice as the Choice to Focus or Not" closes by naming the stakes regarding evasion:
The process of evasion, as we will see, is profoundly destructive. Epistemologically, it invalidates a mental process. Morally, it is the essence of evil. According to Objectivism, evasion is the vice that underlies all other vices. In the present era, it is leading to the collapse of the world.Superman and Batman would be wusses in comparison to Introspection Man, a superhero able to wipe out the world's evil at its very root! Read more...
For those interested in Christianity in America, I cannot recommend this article Arrows for the War highly enough. Here's a small taste:
...Janet Wolfson is a 44-year-old mother of eight in Canton, Georgia. Tracie Moore, a 39-year-old midwife who lives in southern Kentucky, is mother to fourteen. Wendy Dufkin in Coxsackie has her thirteen. And while Jamie Stoltzfus, a 27-year-old Illinois mom, has only four children so far, she plans on bearing enough to populate "two teams." All four mothers are devoted to a way of life New York Times columnist David Brooks has praised as a new spiritual movement taking hold among exurban and Sunbelt families. Brooks called these parents "natalists" and described their progeny as a new wave of "Red-Diaper Babies"--as in "red state."I'd like to read more about this movement, as I suspect these Christians are drawing upon Augustine's views of sex, marriage, and procreation. (That Augustine essay is very revealing.)
But Wolfson, Moore and thousands of mothers like them call themselves and their belief system "Quiverfull." They borrow their name from Psalm 127: "Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one's youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their enemies in the gate." Quiverfull mothers think of their children as no mere movement but as an army they're building for God.
Quiverfull parents try to have upwards of six children. They home-school their families, attend fundamentalist churches and follow biblical guidelines of male headship--"Father knows best"--and female submissiveness. They refuse any attempt to regulate pregnancy. Quiverfull began with the publication of Rick and Jan Hess's 1989 book, A Full Quiver: Family Planning and the Lordship of Christ, which argues that God, as the "Great Physician" and sole "Birth Controller," opens and closes the womb on a case-by-case basis. Women's attempts to control their own bodies--the Lord's temple--are a seizure of divine power.
In response to some of the discussion about rights on this comment thread, Tony Donadio posted the following mini-essay in the comments. I agree with Tony's view. Since I appreciated his manner of approaching the issue, I thought his comment worth reposting on NoodleFood itself. Here it is, with some HTML-ish formatting changes:
Fred Weiss recently wrote the following:Read more...Tony said: "if someone mistakenly thinks you're about to kill his wife, and shoots you to prevent it, he is NOT wrong, and has NOT violated your rights, if the circumstances are such that his mistaken belief is objective and rationally justified."I briefly stated that I think this analysis implicitly rests on a mistaken understanding of the nature and justification of rights, and one that is inconsistent with the Objectivist view. I'll defend that position in the following post. (Warning in advance: to treat this issue properly, this post will have to be long.)
Brian's reply to this was correct. It is a violation of rights, but the motivation and intention based on the error can constitute mitigation... In any event, whatever led to your action, you have violated the victim's rights. Your context of knowledge or motivation doesn't change that fact.
Let me preface my remarks by saying that of course I do not intend that statement as an attack on or a disparagement of anyone -- neither Fred, nor anyone else who may agree with him. I would have thought that would go without saying, but if it doesn't, then by all means let me say it. I certainly wouldn't take it as a disparaging reflection on myself if someone turns out to be able to argue that it is my understanding of this issue is in error. That is entirely possible, and it wouldn't exactly be the first time that it has happened. :)
Let me start by positing two nearly identical scenarios. You are armed, and you witness a man you do not know behaving erratically, brandishing a toy gun, and shouting about how he is about to kill your spouse -- who is well within firing range, and with no cover. You have your weapon aimed at him, when he begins to raise his gun toward your spouse's head. You fire, and kill him.
The two scenarios are identical, except for the following, single difference:
Scenario 1. You know that the man's gun is a toy.
Scenario 2. You do NOT know that the man's gun is a toy.
I would argue that in Scenario 1, you have at the very least committed manslaughter, if not murder -- since there was in fact no real threat to your spouse's life, and you knew it. In that case, I would agree that you have violated the man's right to life. In the second scenario, by contrast, you were acting entirely and legitimately in self-defense. You were entirely justified in believing that your spouse's life was in danger. In an emergency situation, if the police are not present, you have a right to act in self-defense, and there is no legitimate argument to be made that you ought not to have shot him. Had the gun in fact been real and loaded, no rational jury in the world could (or should) convict you.
Fred states explicitly that: "...whatever led to your action, you have violated the victim's rights. Your context of knowledge or motivation doesn't change that fact." On that premise, I see only three possible positions to take with regard to these two examples -- since the only difference between them lies in your context of knowledge.
1. In both scenarios, you have violated the victim's rights, and are morally culpable in the victim's death.
2. In both scenarios, you have not violated the victim's rights -- irrespective of your knowledge or lack thereof about the gun.
3. In both scenarios, you have violated the victim's rights, but in scenario 2 that violation of rights is somehow "OK" or "justified" by the mitigating circumstances.
From my reading of your objection, Fred, I'm assuming that it is position 3 that you would defend. I state the others just for the record.
(To anticipate one objection relevant to argument 2: I do not think it is legitimate to posit that by his actions, the man has forfeited his right to life in both scenarios. The fact that you have the right to use force in self-defense, and in an emergency situation, does not entitle you to use force when you know that your self-defense does not require it, and when you know that you are not in an emergency situation. Doing so would make you an objective threat to the lives and safety of others, who would be justified in treating you accordingly.)
Why do I think that position 3 is wrong? This is where I think the Objectivist definition and defense of the nature of rights comes in. According to Objectivism, "A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context." There are two aspects of this definition that I want to focus on in making my point. The first is that a right is a moral principle. As such, like every other principle, it is contextual -- that is, it has a context in which it applies, and there are also contexts in which it does not apply. The second is that it is a "sanction to independent action." What this means is that a right is a moral claim upon the actions of others -- specifically, a claim that they not interfere with your exercise of independent action. I think it follows from this that because rights are moral claims upon the actions of others, that a violation of someone's rights is necessarily an immoral act.
Thus, it doesn't make sense to me to talk of a rights violation that is nevertheless "OK" because of mitigating circumstances. If you violated someone's rights, then the victim had a moral claim on you not to have acted as you did, and what you did was wrong; that's what I understand a right to mean. But if what you did was "OK" because of mitigating circumstances, then he didn't have a moral claim against your actions, under those circumstances. That's why I think that position 3 entails a contradiction. It's one thing to argue (as an earlier poster did, and I would agree) that mitigating circumstances mitigate the severity of the moral breach involved in a rights violation, and thus the appropriate punishment. It's another to say that mitigating circumstances somehow make the rights violation "OK." In order for that to be the case, you would have to have stepped outside the context in which the moral principle in question (the right) applies, and thus you would not be talking about a rights violation at all -- in that context.
I think it is helpful in trying to identify whether something is or is not a rights violation to always ask the question: "What did the victim have a moral claim against the perpetrator not to have done?" -- in other words, "What ought the perpetrator to have done differently?" When I apply that question to the second scenario above, I can't see a legitimate answer. The man can't have a moral claim on you to hold your fire, given that you have legitimate cause to believe that someone's life was in immediate danger. To say that he does is to ask the impossible -- namely, that you divine causelessly (by "noumenal insight," so to speak) that the gun was fake. A rational and objective view of rights cannot be based on moral claims that demand the impossible.
I think that most of us (myself included) were probably raised (thanks to the influence of religion) with a view of rights that is colored by an intrinsicist perspective. Certainly I think that is the predominant mindset within which most people understand the meaning of rights. In that mindset, rights are a kind of "inalienable possession" that all of us "have" as part of our natures, and which others violate or "take away" from us by certain actions. This is a mindset that I've specifically had to work to overcome over the years, and one which I've found tended to lead me to certain errors in thinking about rights. One of these was to lose sight of the issue of rights as moral claims, and instead to focus on the loss of something that one is "entitled to by right" as the defining element of a rights violation.
I don't want to ask anyone to wear this shoe if it doesn't fit, but it seems to me that something like this is implicit in statements like "...whatever led to your action, you have violated the victim's rights." These place a focus entirely on the outcome, and the facts regarding what the victim has "lost," rather than on what moral obligations the alleged perpetrator can reasonably be expected to have had under the circumstances. The facts of the outcome, and what the victim has "lost," however, cannot be the sole and defining element of a rights violation. If they were, then a rock falling on you during an avalanche would be a "rights violation" as well -- and never mind the fact that moral claims that recognize context of knowledge cannot reasonably be made of inanimate nature.
That's an outline of my basis for thinking that context of knowledge has to be an important factor in defining when something is and is not a rights violation. I'm certainly interested in what others think, in particular about whether there may be any flaws in my reasoning. As Diana said, being wrong isn't a moral failing, and I won't object if anyone can make a case for why I am. :)
Wow, never in a million years would I have thought that a cat could do this:
(Via Doug Peltz.)
The Philosophical Gourmet Report has just updated its rankings of graduate schools in philosophy.
Read more...Jack Wakeland, frequently contributor to TIA Daily, just crossed the line into really damn scary:
The injustices under Kelo and other draconian regulatory orders that dispossess and ruin individuals always wakes the fury in me. When I read about these legalized crimes, I can feel the grip of my AR-15 in the palm of my hand, smell the cleaning solvent (I keep 'em clean), see the front sight settling on the target (some bureaucrat, judge, or neighbor's head) and the cool pressure of the trigger against the center of the last pad of my finger...I'm absolutely horrified. Even onerous government regulations do not justify armed rebellion, let alone the cold-blooded murder of fellow citizens -- not while bad laws might still be fought by peaceful means.
It is a good thing that I have never been in the position of victim in one of the state-sponsored crimes. If I were financially ruined and could not get a hearng and just compensation, I would serious consider becoming a murderer. I would consider it because I know I'd be in the right. Killing a regulator who does not answer to the will of the people is justice.
It is the full measure of the evil of regulation that one could reach such a conclusion in (supposedly) civil society. Regulation is the end of the rule of law, representative government, free speech, and society itself. It is dictatorship and when one cannot remove a dictorship by peaceful intimidation, one makes war on it.
Today's story of epistemology in action concerns a lawsuit over the proper definition of a "sandwich". In this case, a judge ruled that a burrito was not a sandwich:
Is a burrito a sandwich? The Panera Bread Co. bakery-and-cafe chain says yes. But a judge said no, ruling against Panera in its bid to prevent a Mexican restaurant from moving into the same shopping mall.Read more...
Panera has a clause in its lease that prevents the White City Shopping Center in Shrewsbury from renting to another sandwich shop. Panera tried to invoke that clause to stop the opening of an Qdoba Mexican Grill.
But Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Locke cited Webster's Dictionary as well as testimony from a chef and a former high-ranking federal agriculture official in ruling that Qdoba's burritos and other offerings are not sandwiches.
The difference, the judge ruled, comes down to two slices of bread versus one tortilla.
"A sandwich is not commonly understood to include burritos, tacos and quesadillas, which are typically made with a single tortilla and stuffed with a choice filling of meat, rice, and beans," Locke wrote in a decision released last week.
In court papers, Panera, a St. Louis-based chain of more than 900 cafes, argued for a broad definition of a sandwich, saying that a flour tortilla is bread and that a food product with bread and a filling is a sandwich.
Some years ago, feminists were agitating for explicit consent with every new activity in a sexual encounter. That absurdity is perfectly dramatized in this funny video.
Read more...An alert NoodleFood reader send me a link to this fantastic interview with Miss Manners. She discusses her personal history, the history of etiquette, the distinction between manners, etiquette, and law, and much more. Some of her comments were quite thought-provoking, but I particularly liked this tidbit at the end:
Cole: I was just thinking . . . My father's highest accolade about somebody was that he was a gentleman.Indeed! Read more...
Martin: Exactly. But in court societies you'd be a gentleman by birth no matter how you behaved. That's the point about America--you have to behave like a gentleman to be a gentleman. And surely that is a superior system.
This interesting article in the Christian Science Monitor describes the growing strength of environmentalist ideas within the evangelical movement. Notice how the fight against "global warming" is being cast in moral terms, yet leads to very similar policy prescriptions as the leftist environmentalists. Here are some excerpts:
...[T]he Rev. Gerald Durley had long thought of himself as enlightened and involved when it came to issues that hurt people's lives. He felt he was fulfilling his responsibilities to others. Until, he says, he saw the film "The Great Warming" last May.Read more...
"My total perspective on environmental issues and life in general was drastically altered," says the pastor of Providence Missionary Baptist Church. "This went beyond any political, racial, or gender issues -- it is a moral crisis."
...Richard Cizik, Washington spokesman of the National Association of Evangelicals, urges action based on the biblical demand for "creation care." Rev. Cizik had his own change of heart after listening to an Evangelical scientist from Oxford University lay out the scientific consensus.
..."It's not just individuals turning off the lights, but whether industries continue to pump pollution into the atmosphere," says Tony Campolo, cofounder of a nonpartisan group, Red Letter Christians. "Unless government starts controlling industry better than it has, we are not going to have a solution to this problem."
With global warming affecting poor countries more than the developed world, Dr. Campolo says, there is a biblical imperative for a wealthy America, responsible for at least 25 percent of global carbon emissions, to act.
From ARI:
Dr. Yaron Brook is scheduled to appear on CNBC's program "On the Money" tonight, November 13, 2006, between 7 and 8 PM Eastern time (4 to 5 Pacific time) to discuss CEO compensation.
As usual, The Onion has the inside scoop:
"Republicans Blame Election Losses On Democrats"Read more...
WASHINGTON, DC -- Republican officials are blaming tonight's GOP losses on Democrats, who they claim have engaged in a wide variety of "aggressive, premeditated, anti-Republican campaigns" over the past six-to-18 months. "We have evidence of a well-organized, well-funded series of operations designed specifically to undermine our message, depict our past performance in a negative light, and drive Republicans out of office," said Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman, who accused an organization called the Democratic National Committee of spearheading the nationwide effort. "There are reports of television spots, print ads, even volunteers going door-to-door encouraging citizens to vote against us." Acknowledging that the "damage has already been done," Mehlman is seeking a promise from Democrats to never again engage in similar practices.
Two funny instructional videos just for women:
ARI's press release about Veterans Day:
On Veterans Day we must call for a stop to the sacrifice of our soldiers November 6, 2006Read more...
Irvine, CA--This Veterans Day, we will once again pay tribute to our fellow Americans who have served in the military. "Americans should be very proud of our heroic veterans," said Alex Epstein, junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. "But we must also acknowledge that our government has repeatedly failed our men in uniform.
"It is proper to send soldiers to war only when their and our freedom is truly threatened, and only if we make every effort to protect their lives during war.
"Shamefully, America has repeatedly failed to meet this obligation. It has repeatedly placed soldiers in harm's way when no threat to America existed--e.g., to quell tribal conflicts in Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. America entered World War I, in which 115,000 soldiers died, with no clear self-defense purpose but rather on the vague, self-sacrificial grounds that 'The world must be made safe for democracy.' America's involvement in Vietnam, in which 56,000 Americans died in a fiasco that American officials openly declared a 'no-win' war, was justified primarily in the name of service to the South Vietnamese. And the current war in Iraq--which could have had a valid purpose as a first step in ousting the terrorist-sponsoring, anti-American regimes of the Middle East--is responsible for thousands of unnecessary American deaths in pursuit of the sacrificial goal of 'civilizing' Iraq by enabling Iraqis to select any government they wish, no matter how anti-American.
"In addition to being sent on ill-conceived, 'humanitarian' missions, our soldiers have been compromised with crippling rules of engagement that place the lives of civilians in enemy territory above their own. To send soldiers into war without a clear self-defense purpose, and without providing them every possible protection, is a betrayal of their valor and a violation of their rights.
"This Veterans Day, we must call for a stop to the sacrifice of our soldiers and condemn all those who demand it."
Last week, Allen Farris sent me this essay on Christian fundamentalism. I didn't have time to post it before the election, but I knew that I would post it afterwards, as I wish to continue my investigations into and writings on Christianity in America. Since I grew up entirely without God, I'm particularly intrigued by and appreciative of the personal perspective of this essay.
As a result of the recent statement by Dr. Peikoff on the upcoming elections, there is considerable disagreement on the significance of the rise of religious fundamentalism in the United States. I completely agree with Dr. Peikoff's position and I regard the rise of religious fundamentalism and its desire to seek political power as the most serious problem this country faces today.Read more...
I wish to contribute to this discussion by giving you some indication of what it is like to live in a fundamentalist world.
I grew up in a small cotton mill town in the South. My parents were fundamentalists. People spoke in tongues at their church and, occasionally, at tent revivals, handled poisonous snakes. The time period is the 1940s and 1950s. Everyday life was completely dominated by a religious perspective. Children's books mostly had religious themes; no Winnie the Poo here. Discipline was harsh and beatings were common. Yes, the idea was to beat the Hell out of children. Since I was a naturally intelligent and curious child, and strong willed, I got the worst of them.
One of the things that saved me was that I took religion seriously. Everyone around me was telling me that this is what was really true. So, it seemed to me that I should try and understand it. So, I began to ask a lot of questions, to anyone who would listen. Even as a child, I could tell the responses I got did not answer my questions. Thus began a long search for answers. For me, school became a precious resource, even as poor as schools were in a small Southern town. I learned to use the library and extend my search beyond my immediate surroundings. School was the only contact I had with a world outside of religion. I discovered science and mathematics and I continued my quest to understand religion.
The admonition that I heard over and over again as a child was "Don't get above your raising." On such occasions I would think: Isn't that what children are supposed to do? To rise above their parents. Isn't that how we make progress? But, by then I had learned to keep such opinions to myself; beatings were dished out for much less provocation. I am quite certain if it were not for compulsory education laws, I would not have been allowed to attend school.
I graduated at the top of my class and paid for my college tuition by working in the cotton mills. Even though I had taken every math course my high school had to offer, I lacked sufficient courses to qualify for the sequence of courses required for science and engineering students. The college arranged for me to take a remedial course for non-credit. I wound up taking four math courses my freshman year and winning the Freshmen Mathematics Achievement award. When I was a graduate student in physics, I read Atlas Shrugged and it was like finding the Holy Grail. At last I had discovered a world that was intelligible.
It is difficult to convey to someone who has had little contact with fundamentalism the stifling atmosphere, both intellectually and emotionally, that pervades a fundamentalist environment. I will give you one concrete example. When I was about ten, I was encouraged to read a book called "The Rapture." It was an account of the second coming of Christ and in vivid detail described how the chosen were taken away and the damned left behind to horrific suffering. It was absolutely frightening. No child should ever read such a book. In my judgment, making a child read such a book is a form of child abuse. I never forgot that book, and in subsequent years, it came to be a symbol of everything I struggled to overcome as a child.
Later in my life my mother came to visit me in Green Bank, West Virginia. I took her to see the giant radio telescopes on which I worked. She did not really understand them and saw no point to scientific research. But, she added, "Just think, you might be the first to see Jesus return." The point here is that everything, every detail of the world, is interpreted from a religious perspective. If you listen to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, you will see that they have precisely the same attitude. In the language of the DIM Hypothesis, they are thorough-going M2s.
On some occasions, my mother, who is still living, has attempted to talk to me about religion and my lack of faith. I usually try to be patient; long ago I realized the achievement of any understanding between us was not possible. On more than one occasion she has said directly to me: I hope God does not strike you down for your beliefs and your stubborn arrogance. It does not take very much psychological insight to recognize that there is a straightforward logical progression from "I hope God does not strike you down" to "God should strike you down" to "As an agent of God, I will strike you down."
Make no mistake. If the religious fundamentalists ever gain control of political power they will destroy anything and anyone who rises to stand against them.
I would like to recommend a book that I recently read. It is an historical novel called Remembering Hypatia by Brian Trent, published in 2005. Hypatia was one of the foremost scholars of her day, a mathematician, astronomer and philosopher, and head of the great library at Alexandria. In 414 A.D., having been condemned as a pagan sorceress, she was brutally murdered by a mob of Christians. This event is taken by some as marking the beginning of that period known as the Dark Ages. The head of the Christian community at the time was Archbishop Cyril, who probably orchestrated the attack on Hypatia. Today, he is canonized by the Catholic Church as a saint.
Trent's novel is a compelling story woven around the few known facts of Hypatia's life and death. He does an excellent job of painting the contrast between those who believe we are capable of understanding the world and those who wish to destroy that capacity. I will quote one passage. Thasos is a young man of 19, who two years before at the time of Hypatia's death, had been one of her students. He is giving a lecture to a group of Alexandrians."Tonight," Thasos told his listeners, "The sky will glimmer with stars. Watch them. Realize they are something we can understand. You must be an observer of this world! Gather facts and formulate opinions, then test those opinions. Build on the work of others, and expand our understanding of the universe. Because that's our purpose." His voice quivered, a tear spilled. "That's our future."Shortly after this lecture Thasos is arrested and burned alive.
After listening to Dr. Peikoff's lectures on the DIM Hypothesis, I decided to do a bit of investigation. To my utter shock, I discovered that not only does the book, "The Rapture" still exist; it has now expanded to a whole family of similar books. One of them is The Rapture: In the twinkling of an eye, countdown to the earth's last days by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins. As of this writing, its sales rank on Amazon.com is 1,953. By contrast Atlas Shrugged's rank is 1,769 and OPAR's is 27,035.
Based on my experiences as a child, I see the growth of religious fundamentalism as a monster lurking in the darkness. It is powerful. It is growing. It is real.
Allen Farris
November 4, 2006
Although there has been lots of news discussion of the controversial interrogation technique known as "waterboarding", I never had a clear sense for what it actually entailed until I saw this video, in which Fox News reporter Steve Harrigan volunteered to undergo the procedure.
Here is an article excerpt describing the technique in more detail:
Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.Although it looks like a thoroughly unpleasant fear-inducing experience, it does not appear to cause any kind of permanent physical damage. Nor does the subject ever appear to be at a real risk of drowning.
According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.
The act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.If one accepts that definition, then I'm not sure that waterboarding quite falls into that category. Because it appears to induce strong reflexive fear response (as opposed to direct pain), it seems different in kind from more "traditional" forms of torture (such as sticking hot pokers into the victim's body), although there are definitely some similarities as well. And there are also legitimate questions as to the reliability of any information gained by this technique.
Due to the consolidation of precincts, the voting centers in my county were jam-packed all day long. They were even worse this evening, so it took me 2 hours and 20 minutes to vote. I'm so glad that's over! I hereby promise to vote early from this day forward.
Read more...Noumenal Self has two recent posts on the election: one on foreign policy and one on domestic policy. I haven't had a chance to read them yet -- heck, I'm not even awake yet -- but I'm sure they'll be worth reading.
Read more...One of the central topics of the pre-election discussion has been whether the US is at genuine risk of turning into a Christian theocracy. The purpose of this essay is to argue that the risk is real and significant, and to show how this relates to Dr. Leonard Peikoff's DIM hypothesis. Even though the 2006 mid-term elections will be over tomorrow, the underlying issue will remain important. And my hope is that even if a reader is not immediately convinced by my arguments, he or she will keep them in the back of their mind and remain on the lookout for additional evidence of the trends I will be describing.
First, for the purpose of this essay, I'm defining a "theocracy" as a system of government in which the laws are justified based on their fidelity to religious principles -- as opposed to, say, the Objectivist understanding of individual rights.
Hence, a central feature of a theocracy is that there should be no separation of church and state. Quite the contrary -- if a government is enforcing laws based on religious grounds, then the state by its very nature must be using religious doctrine as a guiding principle. Conversely, a government which generally adheres to a policy of separation of church and state cannot be a theocracy. (Of course, such a government may be good or bad in other ways; e.g., a Communist dictatorship is not a theocracy, but is still based on bad principles of secular collectivism.)
So one indicator of whether a country is at risk of becoming a theocracy is whether the concept of "separation of church and state" is under serious attack in the culture or whether it is a solid wall.
It is therefore with great interest that I read this recent article in the October 2006 issue of Imprimis (the journal of Hillsdale College, a well known conservative college), entitled "Origins and Dangers of the 'Wall of Separation' Between Church and State" by Daniel Dreisbach, professor of Justice, Law and Society at American University. His article is quite detailed and worth reading in its entirety, but here are his main claims:
1. Thomas Jefferson was the originator of the phrase "wall of separation between Church and State".
2. The US Supreme Court has misinterpreted that metaphor in its constitutional rulings to the detriment of American society. As a result (according to Dr. Dreisbach),
...The "high and impregnable" wall constructed by the modern Court has been used to inhibit religion's ability to inform the public ethic, to deprive religious citizens of the civil liberty to participate in politics armed with ideas informed by their faith, and to infringe the right of religious communities and institutions to extend their prophetic ministries into the public square. Today, the "wall of separation" is the sacred icon of a strict separationist dogma intolerant of religious influences in the public arena. It has been used to silence religious voices in the public marketplace of ideas and to segregate faith communities behind a restrictive barrier.3. The founding fathers recognized that a self-governing society such as America (as opposed to a tyranny or dictatorship) required a culture of morality and religion amongst the citizenry:
Federal and state courts have used the "wall of separation" concept to justify censoring private religious expression (such as Christmas creches) in public, to deny public benefits (such as education vouchers) for religious entities, and to exclude religious citizens and organizations (such as faith-based social welfare agencies) from full participation in civic life on the same terms as their secular counterparts. The systematic and coercive removal of religion from public life not only is at war with our cultural traditions insofar as it evinces a callous indifference toward religion but also offends basic notions of freedom of religious exercise, expression, and association in a pluralistic society.
Tyrants and dictators can use the whip and rod to force people to behave as they desire, but clearly this is incompatible with a self-governing people. In response to this challenge the founders looked to religion (and morality informed by religious faith) to provide the internal moral compass that would prompt citizens to behave in a disciplined manner and thereby promote social order and political stability.4. The founding fathers believed, "that religion and morality were indispensable to social order and political prosperity" and "that the very survival of the civil state and a civil society was dependent on a vibrant religious culture, and religious liberty nurtured such a religious culture. In other words, the civil state's respect for religious liberty is an act of self-preservation."
The free press guarantee, for example, was not written to protect the civil state from the press, but to protect a free and independent press from control by the national government. Similarly, the religion provisions were added to the Constitution to protect religion and religious institutions from corrupting interference by the national government, not to protect the civil state from the influence of, or overreaching by, religion. As a bilateral barrier, however, the wall unavoidably restricts religion's ability to influence public life, thereby exceeding the limitations imposed by the First Amendment.In other words, according to Dreisbach, the constitution only requires separation in one direction -- i.e., that churches should not be subject to infringement or interference from the state. However, it does not bar attempts by the church to influence the government. Quite the contrary -- because morality and religion are essential to a functioning civil society, then any attempt to erect a "bilateral barrier" (rather than the one-way protections) would jeopardize the very core of the American system.
"The Constitution establishes freedom for religion," says Mr. Kemp, "not from it" -- a sentiment which is shared by President Reagan and by the whole New Right.A closely-related idea is that America needs religion. In fact, this is the precise theme of a 9/26/2000 lecture at the highly influential Heritage Foundation given by Board member William Simon entitled, "Why America Needs Religion".
Does America really need religion? I believe this question is of supreme importance for our country as we begin the 21st century, and the answer goes far beyond the number of times presidential candidates sprinkle their speeches with references to God. And yet the United States is increasingly characterized by confusion, controversy, and contradiction over the answer.He then cites, "'the eternal triangle of first principles' -- a set of three interlocking and interdependent ideas that were viewed as absolutely foundational for sustaining freedom."
...The three legs of this triangle are liberty, virtue, and religion. The premise is that each leg requires the other so that simply stated: liberty requires virtue, virtue requires faith, and faith requires liberty.Simon then repeats the familiar argument the we have strayed from the Founding Fathers and have enshrined a mistaken modern view about the separation of church and state:
...The first leg of the triangle is the principle that liberty requires virtue. For the Framers, liberty was not just a form of negative freedom -- a freedom "from"; rather, it was positive freedom -- a freedom "for," or freedom "to be."
In Lord Acton's famous formulation, freedom is not the permission to do what we like but the power to do what we ought. In a similar vein, Benjamin Franklin once said, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom."
...The second leg of the triangle is the principle that virtue requires religion. For the Framers, virtue was more all-encompassing than many view virtue in today's society. For one thing, it included strong features such as excellence and courage. For another, it had to be grounded and rooted. It was not a cliche that floated in thin air. Religion provided virtue with its content, its inspiration, and its sanction.
...The third leg of the triangle is the principle that religion requires liberty. Here, and not in the separation of powers, is where our Framers were perhaps most original and most daring.
Religious freedom then becomes freedom from religion instead of freedom for religion. Public life becomes a "religion-free zone" so that religion is considered inviolably private and public life inviolably secular.And finally,
...This view of a "religion-free zone" is a radical departure because for the greater part of our history, America adhered closely to the Framers' understanding of the First Amendment. Great leaders such as Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan, following in the footsteps of the Framers, continually reminded us that faith and religion are not just important to the character of our people and nation, but also, to repeat Washington's words, "indispensable" to the preservation of our democratic institutions.
When Michael Novak addressed the Library of Congress in 1998, he was asked, "Can an atheist be a good American?" His answer was yes, "that has been done, many times." But, he continued, "Can American liberties survive if most of our nation is atheist? The most common, almost universal judgment of the Founders was that it could not."In other words, according to Simon, religion is essential for the survival of America. And if an atheistic philosophy such as Objectivism were ever to become dominant in this country, it would mean the end of our liberties.
In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.In other words, the moderate Christians who believe in some sort of separation of church and state, but who also believe that religion is the only source of morality and functioning civic society will lose to the more consistent extremist Christians who believe that there should be no separation of church and state. And this is how America could slowly (or quickly) devolve into a theocracy.
...When two men (or groups) hold the same basic principles, yet oppose each other on a given issue, it means that at least one of them is inconsistent. Since basic principles determine the ultimate goal of any long-range process of action, the person who holds a clearer, more consistent view of the end to be achieved, will be more consistently right in his choice of means; and the contradictions of his opponent will work to his advantage, psychologically and existentially.
Psychologically, the inconsistent person will endorse and propagate the same ideas as his adversary, but in a weaker, diluted form and thus will sanction, assist, and hasten his adversary's victory, creating in the minds of their disputed following the impression of his adversary's greater honesty and courage, while discrediting himself by an aura of evasion and cowardice.
Existentially, every step or measure taken to achieve their common goal will necessitate further and more crucial steps or measures in the same direction (unless the goal is rejected and the basic principles reversed) thus strengthening the leadership of the consistent person and reducing the inconsistent one to impotence.
The conflict will follow that course regardless of whether the basic principles shared by the two adversaries are right or wrong, true or false, rational or irrational.
Within two decades of America's birth John Jay and other founding fathers were alarmed that contemporary currents of unbelief and secularism would become a "political engine" to the ruin of American society and constitutional order. In retrospect Jay has been proven prescient. Today American civilization manifests a loss of ethics, mores, manners, civility, and common decency. This cultural crisis is religious and spiritual at its root and stems from the triumph of radical ideologies to sever faith from society, politics, and law. As a consequence Americans are reaping a whirlwind of confusion about the meaning of our civilization, our country, and our selves.Among their many activities, they are sponsoring a 2006 calendar year lecture series entitled "Christian Perspectives on Engaging Political Islam", which features a number of talks by prominent thinkers on the conflict between America and the Islamists. One lecture is entited "The Ghosts of Appeasement: Christian Realism and the Rise of Islamo-Facism", and the central argument is that the only viable alternative to the current leftist/secular appeasement and surrender to Islam is "a recovery of Christian realism about the problem of evil in a post-9/11 world", i.e., the willingness to make moral judgments and take a stand against Islamism based on Christian values.
The late Russell Kirk observed how this crisis portends on government and law, "When the religious understanding, from which the concept of law arose in culture, has been discarded or denied, the laws may endure for some time... but in the long run, the laws will be discarded or denied.... I venture to suggest that the corpus of English and American laws ...cannot endure forever unless it is animated by the spirit that moved it in the beginning: that is, by religion, and specifically by the Christian people."
Mike Williams recently sent a lengthy post on Dr. Peikoff's (free!) DIM Hypothesis course to FRODO (Front Range Objectivism's discussion list). I thought it worth reposting on NoodleFood.
Like many others, Mike was in strongly favor of voting for Bush in 2004. He's changed his mind after thinking through the issues. When I asked him whether I could say that in introducing his post, Mike replied:
Absolutely. Most importantly, my progression came about after I reviewed Peikoff's DIM course as well as reviewed the factual evidence about the rise of religion, both in the culture at large and within the leadership structure of the Republican Party. In retrospect, I think the evidence has been there (about the culture but particularly about the Republicans) at least since 1980 and certainly by the close of Reagan's first term. However, it really took reviewing the fundamental significance of philosophy ("Duel Between Plato and Aristotle" and "For the New Intellectual", in particular) combined with the insights of The DIM Hypothesis to see religion as the real threat that could preclude the advocacy of a rational alternative. (The most easily accessible factual info about the influence of religion within the Republican Party has been theocracywatch.org. Yes, its run by ACLU-types, but the best thing either side of the aisle ever does is expose the flaws of their opponents!)So here's Mike's post on DIM:
In order to fully grasp what is at stake in the 2006 (and future) elections, it is important to bear in mind one of the central tenets of Peikoff's DIM Hypothesis: that societal change [for the better] will not come from electing a given political candidate or slate of candidates from a particular party.Read more...
Fundamentally, electing neither Democratic nor Republican politicians will advance freedom or in any way secure our rights. Politicians from both parties will continue to erode the Constitution, hamstring our national defense and move us closer to a totalitarian regime. Both pose significant threats to our rights of free speech, self defense and free choice in medicine. Neither party's members have any clear conception of how to fight and win the war with the Islamic bloc, nor the requisite moral certainty to do so. The party platforms of both the Democrats and the Republicans (as well as the Libertarians) are recipes for disaster in the short term and for tyranny in the long term. There is, however, a key fundamental philosophical difference between the two major political parties, and that difference has real consequences for us as advocates of a rational philosophy.
One of Peikoff's identifications in his DIM hypothesis work is that the current schools of thought and future trends in a given field are shaped by the underlying approach toward integration of the intellectual leaders within that field. In spite of the successes that ARI and other intellectually active rational individuals have recently enjoyed, a reality-oriented, reason-based conceptually integrative orientation is not widespread in any culturally influential field today. The 'I' approach is not even a factor in the political arena (where it has no significant adherents), while it is just barely represented in the educational and cultural fields to which politics is derivative. Further, Peikoff notes that an other-worldly, faith-based misintegrative (or 'M') approach will be more internally consistent, more attractive, more influential and ultimately more sustainable in practice than the third possible alternative: concrete bound, conceptually blind disintegration.
Some in the Democratic Party, particularly the ideological hardcore of the far Left, are representatives of the disintegrative approach in politics (to the extent that they represent anything). They seek to destroy America and the West (for the sake of the third world, or the environment, or in the name of equality, or however they care to excuse and dress up their hatred of the good). While the majority of Democrats are surely less consistent mixed cases, and even with some consistent religionists obviously included, the most consistent 'D' types set the trend and the agenda within the Democratic party. The DNC is far more in thrall to Greenpeace, MoveOn or the ACLU than it is to Focus on the Family. If elected, the long term political influence of today's Democrats will be to continue America's slide toward self-destruction through increasingly statist policies.
However, Peikoff argues that the disintegrative approach is impotent in the long term. Politically, the far Left does not appeal to the majority of the American population and will not be able to hold political power or remain culturally dominant for any lasting period of time. These mixed cases or even pure nihilists do not offer any type of integrated worldview, no deeper motivating internally consistent system with which to justify or sustain their political ambitions. Whatever ideological remnants of their Marxist past might remain are in decline in the broader culture and pose no lasting threat to the advocacy of a rational philosophy. The Democrats in power will not be successful in implementing the full gamut of their political agenda, even if they were to gain control of both houses in Congress. And, though tenuous and vestigial, the Left retains some nominal commitment to hearing all viewpoints and to the equality of all opinions in their multicultural relativism.
Yet continuing political control by the Republicans could and would lead to political domination of the US by religionists. Make no mistake: the RNC is as deeply committed to as it is indebted to the Family Research Council, the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family and their ilk. Unlike the disintegrative, nihilistic agenda of the far left, the misintegrative policies of the religious right are supported by an ardent, confident and growing base of US fundamentalists, who cannot be opposed by their less consistent, but equally faithful, fellow travelers. Republican success would fuel the ascendancy of an other-worldy misintegrative theology in both academia and the wider culture. Further, and most alarmingly, the continued control of the US federal government by the Republicans could lead to the political imposition of totalitarian Christianity, supported by a comprehensive though false worldview that has proven to be as sustainable as it is destructive (see medieval Europe).
And a primary target of the Republican religionistas is and will continue to be freedom of speech. Keep in mind Rand's observation that each political party in the US seeks to control the realm that it considers important, either the mind or the body. The breakdown of the 1st Amendment injunction against state-sponsored religion under Bush, combined with the stacking of the judiciary to prevent legal challenges to this breakdown, continues unabated and will only accelerate if Republicans remain in power. The substitution of Christianity for cultural relativism in the schools, direct government funding for religious organizations, censorship of the media and the internet in the name of decency and family values: all these are only precursors to the political actions the religionists will take in their all out attack on the remnants of our rational, secular Enlightenment heritage (which they correctly identify as their only real enemy, rightly dismissing the hardcore of the nihilistic Left). Clearly, the Christian Republicans are seeking to control the minds of US citizens, or at least enough of us to ensure their dominance of the country.
Prior to the landslide election of Reagan in 1980, individual candidates from either party could be evaluated independently for their political philosophies, as they were often almost identical pragmatists, each grabbing for power and not serving to advance any real intellectual trend one way or the other. Exceptions like McGovern, who were holdovers from an already fading secular Marxist past, were soundly defeated. Today, individual dissenters within the Republican Party are ineffective and do not serve to stem the current dominant misintegrative trend as long as the Christian-Neocon cabal sets the agenda for the Republican leadership. Any truly pro-freedom Republicans cannot come to the fore until the religiously motivated political agenda of today's Republicans has been stopped. Also, widespread failure of current Democratic candidates to get elected may prompt a philosophical shift within that party, giving a further boost to true leftist religionists, such as Barack Obama, while lessening the prospects of a pragmatic power luster such as Hillary. Failure to support a political stopgap today might destroy the possibility for such an alternative, and could lead to the further rise of an 'M' element within the Democratic party as well.
Try not to think of this election in terms of which candidate has the better understanding of the fact that we are at war, or who might lessen the chance of socializing medicine. (If you are concerned with the war, recall the assessment of Peikoff, Lewis, Brook and others that there is no foreign enemy that can defeat the United States militarily if we have the will to defend ourselves.) The real threat is not the Islamic theocracies abroad. Rather, it is the possibility that our political system will continue to be co-opted by Christian theocrats as they serve to reinforce and further institutionalize their growing influence, thereby shutting out the possibility of a true rational alternative ever having the chance to matter. Voting for a truly pro-freedom candidate in the future will be the eventual consequence of widespread adoption of a rational philosophy not its cause. Such a possibility will never even come to pass if the majority of individuals in this country succumb to Christian fundamentalist delusions and their mandates are enforced by law.
Regards,
Mike Williams
PS: For comprehensive historical documentation of the calculated power grab within the Republican Party by the Christian fundamentalists, please see Theocracy Watch or the books With God On Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America by William Martin and The Theocons: Secular America Under Siege by Damon Linker, in addition to the Thompson article in The Objective Standard. While informative, recognize that these details are not necessary to understanding the basic alternatives we face in this election.
Elan Journo of the Ayn Rand Institute recently published this op-ed Washington's Failed War in Afghanistan.
America's campaign in Afghanistan was once widely hailed as a success in the "war on terror." We have nothing more to fear from Afghanistan, our policy makers told us, because the war had accomplished its two main goals: al Qaeda and its sponsoring regime, the Taliban, were supposedly long gone, and a new, pro-Western government had been set up. But as the daily news from Afghanistan shows, in reality the war has been a drastic failure.In other words, 340 American soldiers have died in Afghanistan fighting for absolutely nothing. In Iraq, 2801 American soldiers have died for worse than nothing, i.e. in order to create yet another virulently anti-American Islamic regime. In both conflicts, over 10,000 American soldiers have been seriously wounded.
Legions of undefeated Taliban and al Qaeda soldiers have renewed their jihad. Flush with money, amassing recruits, and armed with guns, rockets and explosives, they are fighting to regain power. In recent months, they have mounted a string of deadly suicide bombings and rocket attacks against American and NATO forces; more U.S. troops have died in Afghanistan in the last 20 months than did during the peak of the war.
Taliban forces have effectively besieged several provinces in southern Afghanistan. Local officials estimate that in some provinces the "number of Taliban... is several times more than that of the police and Afghan National Army." Taliban fighters are said to amble through villages fearlessly, brandishing their Kalashnikovs, and collecting zakat (an Islamic tithe) from peasants. With astounding boldness, they have assassinated clerics and judges deemed too friendly to the new government, and fired rockets at a school for using "un-Islamic" books.
The Taliban and al Qaeda forces are so strong and popular that Senator Bill Frist recently declared that a war against them cannot be won, and instead suggested negotiating with the Islamists.
How is it that five years after the war began--and in the face of America's unsurpassed military strength--Taliban and al Qaeda fighters are threatening to regain power?
Victory in Afghanistan demanded two things. We had to destroy the Taliban and we had to ensure that a non-threatening, non-Islamic-warrior-breeding regime take its place. But we did not think we had a moral right to do what was necessary to achieve either goal.
Our military was ordered to pursue Taliban fighters only if it simultaneously showed "compassion" to the Afghans. The U.S. military dropped bombs on Afghanistan--but instead of ruthlessly pounding key targets, it was ordered to gingerly avoid hitting holy shrines and mosques (known to be Taliban hideouts) and to shower the country with food packages. The United States deployed ground forces--but instead of focusing exclusively on capturing or killing the enemy, they were also diverted to a host of "reconstruction" projects. The result is that the enemy was not destroyed and crushed in spirit, but merely scattered and left with the moral fortitude to regroup and launch a brazen comeback.
Even with its hands tied, however, the U.S. military succeeded in toppling the Taliban regime--but Washington subverted that achievement, too.
A new Afghan government would be a non-threat to America's interests if it were based on a secular constitution that respects individual rights. The Bush administration, however, declared that we had no right to "impose our beliefs" on the Afghans--and instead endorsed their desire for another regime founded on Islamic law. Already this avowedly Islamic regime has jailed an Afghan magazine editor for "blasphemy"; earlier this year Abdul Rahman, an Afghan convert to Christianity, faced a death sentence for apostasy. The new Afghan regime cannot be counted on to oppose the resurgence of Islamic totalitarianism. Ideologically, it has nothing to say in opposition to the doctrines of the Taliban (two members of the Taliban leadership are in the new government). It is only a matter of time before Afghanistan is once again a haven for anti-American warriors.
The failure in Afghanistan is a result of Washington's foreign policy. Despite lip-service to the goal of protecting America's safety, the "war on terror" has been waged in compliance with the prevailing moral premise that self-interest is evil and self-sacrifice a virtue. Instead of trouncing the enemy for the sake of protecting American lives, our leaders have sacrificed our self-defense for the sake of serving the whims of Afghans.
The half-hearted war in Afghanistan failed to smash the Taliban and al Qaeda. It failed to render their ideology--Islamic totalitarianism--a lost cause. Instead, at best it demonstrated Washington's reluctance to fight ruthlessly to defend Americans. How better to stoke the enthusiasm of jihadists?
America cannot win this or any war by embracing selflessness as a virtue. Ultimately, it cannot survive unless Washington abandons its self-sacrificial foreign policy in favor of one that proudly places America's interests as its exclusive moral concern.
Elan Journo is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Contact the writer at media@aynrand.org.
Copyright (c) 2006 Ayn Rand(R) Institute. All rights reserved.
I'm Diana Hsieh, a philosopher specializing in practical ethics. I received my Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Colorado at Boulder in 2009.
Paul Hsieh is a physician specializing in orthopedic and emergency radiology. He blogs about science, technology, and random humorous items at GeekPress. He's a co-founder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM) and regularly writes for its blog, We Stand FIRM. He has published a slew of op-eds and essays on health care policy. You can e-mail Paul at paul@paulhsieh.com, and follow him on Twitter @PaulHsieh.
Greg Perkins is a software architect working in the R&D labs at Hewlett-Packard, Boise. His degree is in mathematics and computer science. Greg hosts The Objectivism Seminar. Aside from work and philosophy, he plays jazz saxophone professionally with groups such as The Sidemen and Onomatopoeia. You can e-mail Greg at greg@eCosmos.com, and follow him on Twitter @gregperk.
Back to TOP
Tweet
Share
Stumble
Reddit
