tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post6006867905365192994..comments2024-03-25T16:03:36.810-07:00Comments on The Existentialist Cowboy: The Right Wing Threat of TheocracyAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-29984146323389210052007-12-10T14:53:00.000-08:002007-12-10T14:53:00.000-08:00BT said......the deep runaway culture of debt will...BT said...<BR/><BR/><EM>...the deep runaway culture of debt will blow up because $20 trillion of national and private debt can no longer be serviced. </EM><BR/><BR/>First of all, welcome, BT. And thanks for the well-thought out comments. Indeed, every house o' cards will done collapse. <BR/><BR/><EM>A sort of religions civil war will break out between those who want to retain the original Constitution. And on how to fix the blown up economy, how to pay the horrific debts. This is Germany of the 1930's repeat.</EM> <BR/><BR/>This is as good a scenario as any. All is up for grabs at the moment. Given what the GOP has conspired with Bush to do, it is amazing to me that GOPPERS dare show their faces in public. <BR/><BR/>If I were a GOPPER who had actively supported George Bush, I would give serious consideration to making a public apology, joining a monastery, or perhaps volunteering to deliver meals to elderly and homeless for the remaining years of my life. <BR/><BR/>Instead, the GOP is putting into the field the same old shit: Romney, Thompson, and a man who has become a pathetic spectable: John McCain. <BR/><BR/>Huckabee is something else again, specifically, a throw back to dark ages. <BR/><BR/>One of them surely hopes to be the American "Mao" that you warn about.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-76547367200542828382007-12-08T20:14:00.000-08:002007-12-08T20:14:00.000-08:00There's a compelling reason the 1st Amendment call...There's a compelling reason the 1st Amendment calls for no church in state. <BR/><BR/>The Founding Fathers were all too well aware of how the integration of church and state in Europe have been the root cause of so so much tragedies - decades-long religious wars between states and among religious sects, inquisitions, crusades, burn alive at the stick, absolute power corruption hell, saints become devils in an instant morality, state-sponsored terror against secular and science. These have all been the way of life in Europe for a thousand years, since the Dark Ages. <BR/><BR/>With the chance to found a new nation in a new land, the Founders were absolutely terrified of only one big thing - create a European theocracy in America. <BR/><BR/>Looking back America's history, one find many examples of religions trying to gain a foothold on state power, but all failed to achieve even a small level of de facto theocracy. The current Bush administration, however, have achieved the highest degree of theocratic success. <BR/><BR/>It is amazing that the current crop of Republican candidates not only see no problem with de facto theocracy, the want to maintain or grow the theocratic success of Bush. <BR/><BR/>There is much debate about what will happen to America in the next 20 years, now in a historic critical juncture. I believe the predictions of the scholarly book The Fourth Turning (www.fourthturning.com), which says America will enter the epoch of Crisis beginning around 2015, which will last some 20 years. The authors analyzed history of the past 500 years and found that historical 'culture' cycles every 80 years, and there are 4 'sub-cycles' in those 80 years. The accuracy is such that its many predictions are completely believable. The last Crisis was the Great Depression and WW2. The one previous to that was the Civil war. <BR/><BR/>Just what will trigger the Crisis Turning? I am beginning to see the big powerful trends. First, the deep runaway culture of debt will blow up because $20 trillion of national and private debt can no longer be serviced. The USD will crash like one of those pesos, hyper-inflation rules the day. In time of such crisis, people turns to religion as they've always done. That will push America over the edge, becoming a full-blown theocracy. (Bear in mind that's exactly how Iran became a Islamic theocracy a quarter century ago.) A sort of religions civil war will break out between those who want to retain the original Constitution. And on how to fix the blown up economy, how to pay the horrific debts. This is Germany of the 1930's repeat. And like Germany of that era, a new strongman leader will emerge - either an American 'Presidential Pope', or an American 'Mao'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-44025350361316409252007-12-08T12:51:00.000-08:002007-12-08T12:51:00.000-08:00damien said...Religious claims are essentially "pr...damien said...<BR/><BR/><EM>Religious claims are essentially "private statements" inherently inaccessible to other persons, unfalsifiable and hence completely unscientific. You'd probably know better than me on this but I believe A.J. Ayer has described God statements as essentially meaningless.</EM><BR/><BR/>You are, of course, correct. Ayer classified all statements as "synthetic" or "analytic". Synthetic statements, by definition, convey verifiable information about a "real" world. "Analytic" statements are either true or false by the definition of terms. Ex: "Bald men have no hair". Synthetic statements are "significant" if and only if the conditions by which they are verified can be described concretely. Bertrand Russell, meanwhile, proposed that "denoting" phrases refer to entities known to exist. His examples include "Scott," (to denote "the author of Waverly"), "the golden mountain" , etc. By 1905, Russell had become convinced "...that denoting phrases need not possess a theoretical unity." Even so, God cannot be said to exist because the definition "supreme being" necessarily implies existence. I apologize for painting this with such a wide brush, but I hope I have, at least, touched on the basics. A much more detailed analysis treatment of Russell's work in symbolic logic can be found <A HREF="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell/" REL="nofollow">here</A>. Russell is not always easy going, but he is always a great read, a witty curmudgeon, a great intellect of both the 19th and 20th centuries. He was also committed to peace and nuclear disarmament and paid a social price for sticking with his convictions. Russell was not merely "smart", he was courageous. And he had integrity. <BR/><BR/><EM>Modern societies ought to be unflinchingly secular. There's also no reason why schools can't insist on a secular dress code for whatever reasons they want.</EM><BR/><BR/>That makes sense to me. An Islamic school which receives no public financial support whatever may have a right to require burkas but only if "citizens" have a similar right NOT to attend that school. Public schools, those supported with public tax monies, have a right to establish non-religious dress codes. It's a small price to pay for freedom, a small price to pay for the "wall of separation" between church and state. <BR/><BR/><EM>I don't mind if people hold religious beliefs, I just think it's obscene when people use them to classify themselves as morally superior and go on to abuse other citizens using religious standards.</EM><BR/><BR/>In my lifetime, I have tolerated all kinds of weird belief systems adhered to by "friends". As long as they accorded me the same consideration, all was fine. In the 1970's, however, I noticed that as the "right wing" grew increasingly virulent, an increasing number of "friendships" did not survive. I suspect that William Shakespeare was similarly torn as Elizabethan England radicalized in reaction to the appearance on English soil of the infamous Jesuit Priest Edmund Campion. Shakespeare might not have witnessed but was most certainly aware of the brutal executions of prominent "Ardens", relatives on his Mother's side of the family. Such a society is dangerous. Choosing the "wrong" friend could get you hanged, drawn, and quartered. <BR/><BR/><EM>At the philosophical level I'm not prepared to entirely dismiss all religious statements as hallucinatory or self-serving. Some Buddhist meditations are designed to shift consciousness and separate a superficial sense of self from a deeper, and more substantive, awareness. A number of yogic practices do the same. And I'm curious about anecdotal accounts of reincarnation memories and questions about people's abilities to enter into the consciousness of other persons.</EM><BR/><BR/>Indeed, the meditative state can be "measured". Now, whether this proves the existence of "God", I cannot say. Ayer and Russell could most accurately explain why not. You also mention the Gospel of St. John. It is there, I believe, that the statement <EM>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God</EM> can be found. I wish Russell had analyzed this sentence in terms of his theories of "denotation". In this statement from the Gospel of St John, it is implied that the word "word" --a method by which pure information is communicated --may have preceded "God" and is said to have been with "God". Moreover, "God" him/herself is defined as that <EM>word</EM>. If any agreement of terms could be achieved, a theory consistent with the theory of sub-atomic particles may derive from this single "religious" source. But --religious folk would will have none of it. The best they've been able to come up with is claptrap: "Intelligent Design".<BR/><BR/><EM>I just remembered the US Christian pharmacists who are refusing to dispense the morning-after pill on religious grounds. This is a prime example of religious sensibilities run amuck.</EM><BR/><BR/>Run amuck, indeed! In his "Unpopular Essays", Bertrand Russell published a short essay entitled: "Ideas That Have Harmed Mankind", filled with examples of similar absurdities. It is surprising that man has survived the extremes of its own religions.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-35629730274487409222007-12-08T08:01:00.000-08:002007-12-08T08:01:00.000-08:00Again, sorry to blog hog, but I just remembered th...Again, sorry to blog hog, but I just remembered the US Christian pharmacists who are refusing to dispense the morning-after pill on religious grounds. This is a prime example of religious sensibilities run amuck. If they feel so strongly about dispensing these medications then the principled course of action is not to take the job in the first place rather than deny a customer medication to which they are legally entitled under secular law. What next -- vegetarian staff at MacDonald's who remove the meat from your burger before they hand it to you? It's crazy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-48911182883827231052007-12-08T05:34:00.000-08:002007-12-08T05:34:00.000-08:00Apologies. Jack Abramoff may be Jewish not Christi...Apologies. Jack Abramoff may be Jewish not Christian. He worked with religious Right groups and with the religious group <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toward_Tradition" REL="nofollow">Toward Tradition</A> and that may be the source of my confusion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-77750126277333628012007-12-08T05:25:00.000-08:002007-12-08T05:25:00.000-08:00Len, you say...Christians, however, are absolutely...Len, you say...<BR/><BR/><EM>Christians, however, are absolutely certain of the truth of their ideology. It is not merely the case that there is no evidence in support of it. By its nature and logic there cannot be.</EM><BR/><BR/>I agree, Len, and the same applies to all religions. Religious claims are essentially "private statements" inherently inaccessible to other persons, unfalsifiable and hence completely unscientific. You'd probably know better than me on this but I believe A.J. Ayers has described God statements as essentially meaningless. The Buddha himself discouraged questions about the existence of God on similar grounds. But there are some side points that can be made.<BR/><BR/>Modern societies ought to be unflinchingly secular. I'm reminded of an English Muslim teacher who was recently sacked for insisting, as a religious right, on wearing her burka in the classroom -- which, of course, overlooks the rights of the children to emotionally relate to her by seeing her face. There's also no reason why schools can't insist on a secular dress code for whatever reasons they want. The teacher's rights to exercise her religion are still preserved, it's just that she has to bear the social consequences of her individual choice which should never be permitted to usurp secular laws.<BR/><BR/><EM>If this "belief system" were called anything but "Christianity", it would be considered to be a symptom of psychosis.</EM><BR/><BR/>I think this applies to most religious beliefs, and to the extent such beliefs influence government policy I think religion is pernicious. I don't mind if people hold religious beliefs, I just think it's obscene when people use them to classify themselves as morally superior and go on to abuse other citizens using religious standards. Society functions best with a secular ethical standard at its core. The current Presidential questions about religious beliefs and "moral values" are a dangerous load of crock signifying a deeply dysfunctional society.<BR/><BR/><EM>The prisons in Texas are designed to warehouse "criminals", most often those who simply don't fit in the "established society". But what is to be said of this situation when the "established society" itself is absolutely nuts?</EM> <BR/><BR/>Absolutely. And it's interesting that the broader ethical questions such as welfare, worker and union rights never get a look in with these warped ethical views. At the level of government and society religion is very much a menace, distracting people from the essential task of reasoned -- and equitable -- public policy. (Noted Christian Jack Abramoff voted down the legislation that would give improved rights to Chinese workers in the Marianas, eliminating the sweat shops and the brothels.) <BR/><BR/>At the philosophical level I'm not prepared to entirely dismiss all religious statements as hallucinatory or self-serving. Some Buddhist meditations are designed to shift consciousness and separate a superficial sense of self from a deeper, and more substantive, awareness. A number of yogic practices do the same. And I'm curious about anecdotal accounts of reincarnation memories and questions about people's abilities to enter into the consciousness of other persons. <BR/><BR/>While accepting A.J.Ayer's dictum that religious statements are private and not open to proof or debate the long and varied history of religious phenomena suggests, to me at least, that there may be components that reflect subtle components of human awareness and existence (It's intriguing, for instance, that the Sikh scriptures, the Guru Granth Sahib(1604), contains lengthy passages that are almost a word for word reflection of the early chapters of St John's gospel). <BR/><BR/>I also take Godel's theorem on board: that in any axiomatic system that is at least as rich as the natural numbers there will always occur true statements that are inherently unprovable within the system. In fact, there are massively more such statements than provable ones. Which suggests to me that there may be human experiences of a so-called "religious" nature which may be true for individuals but inherently unprovable or undemonstrable to others. <BR/><BR/>All of which is by the by, and should not form the basis of any public system of government. And certainly should not be used to chop people's heads off, stick them in jail or infest civil democracies with policies determined by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Cheers, Len.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-40494636521396535182007-12-08T01:48:00.000-08:002007-12-08T01:48:00.000-08:00Christopher, you are correct. That date is a typo ...Christopher, you are correct. That date is a typo that I will correct. Instead of 1992, it should read: 1892. Thanks for the heads up. <BR/><BR/><EM>...the fact is that no self-professed atheist can be elected to any public office in the USA, no doubt because only 5% of Americans or less are atheists.</EM><BR/><BR/>There are several reasons for that outcome but foremost among them is an apparent failure of universal education. It is too easy to conclude that the founders were exceptional people. Many historians have pointed out that literacy and educational development were fairly widespread in colonial times. This might have something to do with the fact that education throughout England at that time was rigorous.<BR/><BR/><EM>This raises the possibility there may be closet non-religionists, and even atheists, in the congress and senate, and among the presidential candidates. Will any ever have the courage to come out?</EM><BR/><BR/>You're right. I don't see things changing. Atheists, agnostics, logical positivists, scientists, pragmatists and existentialists don't "organize" and they don't collect millions, perhaps billions in contributions. <BR/><BR/>Even if they pull that off, monies raised would be taxed to support wars of aggression, Pentagon contractors, and religiously-biased education. In America, belief in God is subsidized with atheists' money. <BR/><BR/>damien said...<BR/><BR/><EM>At it's best, religion can be an ethical stake against which mature and decent people can grow. At it's worst it can be a hiding place for the fearful and the intellectually dishonest, the "toe-tapping" of GOP fraudulents, insecure little men and women who have settled for the first convenient ideas to cross their path.</EM><BR/><BR/>Anyone growing up in West Texas was surrounded by "God-fearin'" folk fitting your description. It was a time when "Impeach Earl Warren" bumper stickers outnumbered jack rabbits, horned toads, and prairie dogs. <BR/><BR/>There were a handful of intelligent, enlightened, talented people living among the gun nuts and fundies. One of them was the Defense Attorney, Warren Burnett, who earned the moniker: heir apparent to Clarence Darrow. The late Molly Ivins wrote of Burnett: "Burnett, son of a miner, had a strong sense of how the legal system in this country grinds down on those without money." <BR/><BR/>Ivins recalls the time Burnett advocated the creation of an upper-level UT Branch to supplement the existing Jr. Collegte in Odessa, TX. Asked if such a new school could be justified, Burnett replied: "Mr. Chairman, there is enough ignorance in Odessa to justify an eight-year college." That's probably still the case. <BR/><BR/><EM>At its public, and worst, levels it can manifest in the Inquisition and the cultural genocide of many native cultures and the current US crossbreeding of evangelism and crass political opportunism.</EM><BR/><BR/>You describe the symptoms of certitude itself. Christians, however, are absolutely certain of the truth of their ideology. It is not merely the case that there is no evidence in support of it. By its nature and logic there cannot be. <BR/><BR/>If this "belief system" were called anything but "Christianity", it would be considered to be a symptom of psychosis. It is only sheer numbers and lack of facilities that prevents the permanent lock up of these folk. This is an intolerable situation, of course. People act upon what they believe to be true. It is hard to imagine how good can come of believing things that are untrue and other things that cannot be proven to be either true or false. The prisons in Texas are designed to warehouse "criminals", most often those who simply don't fit in the "established society". But what is to be said of this situation when the "established society" itself is absolutely nuts?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-44433132804171187242007-12-07T22:51:00.000-08:002007-12-07T22:51:00.000-08:00Christopher, the phrase "under God" has something ...Christopher, the phrase "under God" has something of a history and is under <A HREF="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1690559,00.html?imw=Y" REL="nofollow">challenge</A> in the US courts:<BR/><BR/><EM>"In 1955, the year after lawmakers added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, Congress passed a law requiring all U.S. currency to carry the motto "In God We Trust."</EM><BR/><BR/>The Right has used religion to achieve certain political ends. So they're prepared to ignore the 1st Amendment: <BR/><BR/><EM>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.</EM><BR/><BR/>Accordingly, it's always disappointing to see such idiocy as this:<BR/><BR/><EM>The U.S. Congress officially recognized the Noahide Laws in legislation which was passed by both houses. Congress and the President of the United States, George Bush(snr), indicated in Public Law 102-14, 102nd Congress, <STRONG>that the United States of America was founded upon the Seven Universal Laws of Noah, and that these Laws have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization.</STRONG> They also acknowledged that the Seven Laws of Noah are the foundation upon which civilization stands and that recent weakening of these principles threaten the fabric of civilized society, and that justified preoccupation in educating the Citizens of the United States of America and future generations is needed. For this purpose, this Public Law designated March 26, 1991 as Education Day, U.S.A.</EM><BR/><BR/>You weren't aware that the USA was founded on the laws of Noah? It's <A HREF="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c102:H.J.RES.104.ENR:" REL="nofollow">here</A> in the library of Congress and it's discussed <A HREF="http://www.public-action.com/christmas.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>. Well, you live and learn. There.Is.No.Lobby.<BR/><BR/>On a more general note I'm somewhat sympathetic to the best of religion (I have to be as a former 12-year old altar boy and product of an unashamably Catholic upbringing, since discarded in toto). In an ideal world Filipina families would emerge fully-formed in a John Dawkins world of independent mindedness, but between stepping across the open sewerage drains and searching for cast offs in Manila's municipal garbage dumps they may choose to find hope in weekly prayer meetings, remembrance of a noble man who spoke about universal love and an ideology that reminds them that a part of them will always belong to the heavens. Who am I, or anybody else, to enforce our "wisdom" upon them. At it's best, religion can be an ethical stake against which mature and decent people can grow. At it's worst it can be a hiding place for the fearful and the intellectually dishonest, the "toe-tapping" of GOP fraudulents, insecure little men and women who have settled for the first convenient ideas to cross their path. At it's public, and worst, levels it can manifest in the Inquisition and the cultural genocide of many native cultures and the current US crossbreeding of evangelism and crass political opportunism.<BR/><BR/>Basically, there's something for everyone according to the disposition of their character. People should choose wisely: their friends and ideas will stay with them forever.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-30096167380333958622007-12-07T20:42:00.000-08:002007-12-07T20:42:00.000-08:00“……….the original pledge, authored by Francis Bell...“……….the original pledge, authored by Francis Bellamy in 1992, did not contain the words "under God"………..”. I dunno, I have a feeling the date of the pledge was somewhat earlier!!!!!<BR/><BR/>Yours is an excellently researched posting which deserves to be read by all Republicans no matter where they live in the USA. <BR/><BR/>However, the fact is that no self-professed atheist can be elected to any public office in the USA, no doubt because only 5% of Americans or less are atheists. <BR/><BR/>And more importantly, more than half of Americans would never vote for an atheist candidate. <BR/><BR/>Therefore all (100%) of the members of the congress and senate are practicing religionists. <BR/><BR/>But this doesn’t make them representative of the population at large, since at least 14%, and maybe as many as 20%, follow no particular religion. <BR/><BR/>This raises the possibility there may be closet non-religionists, and even atheists, in the congress and senate, and among the presidential candidates. <BR/><BR/>Will any ever have the courage to come out?Christopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02378087326571746733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-87099397532596073002007-12-07T12:36:00.000-08:002007-12-07T12:36:00.000-08:00jollyroger, you hit the nail on the head. A fanati...jollyroger, you hit the nail on the head. A fanatic is a fanatic is a fanatic. All have their idols and will murder to defend them. Shakespeare said it best: "A plague o' both your houses!"Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-10327626968757497852007-12-07T11:35:00.000-08:002007-12-07T11:35:00.000-08:00I've already given it a name: Jesusistan. The Chim...I've already given it a name: Jesusistan. The Chimpy and his wingtard zealot buddies are no different than the Taliban, unless you are talking symbols. A cross isn't a crescent, but the hatred and persecution in the name of the Almighty is exactly the same.Jolly Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15386411633471396349noreply@blogger.com