December 10, 2005

In defense of the Christmas Bush

So the Bush White House endeavors to send out a nice, simple, inclusive holiday card. No different than millions of Americans of all religions send out.

And what happens? The extreme religious right is offended. Hell, let's not even call them the extreme religious right, because that makes it sound like extremist Jews, Muslims, Shintoists, etc., are all on the same page. Let's call it what it is: Extremist Christians.

Here's the fascinating thing about Extremists: They're all the same. The philosophy of Extremist Christians is fundamentally no different than, say, that of Extremist Muslims. They believe in the same things: Exclusionary thinking. Intolerance. Ignoring fundamental lessons of their own faith when it runs afoul of extremist thinking. Where is the philosophy of Christian charity and understanding? Where is the writings in the Koran specifically forbidding the killing of innocents? They don't serve the Extremist viewpoint of exclusion and intolerance and thus are cast aside.

They only differ in degrees of their actions. Some chop off the heads of helpless victims. Others blow up abortion clinics.

And the most consistent link is that trying to accommodate them never, ever works. That's what Bush is discovering now, having staked his political star to the whims of the Extremists. It's insufficient for Extremists that eighty percent of this country celebrates Christmas. Instead the ONLY acceptable greeting at this time of year is "Merry Christmas" rather than something inclusive such as "Happy holidays." It's insufficient for Extremists that there is already an implicit lack of separation of church and state around the holidays (the government shuts down for Christmas. You see the government shutting down for Yom Kippur? For Ramadan?) They want an EXplicit lack of separation by having the official greeting card from the White House be in celebration of Christmas only.

It's never enough for Extremists. Never enough. Because the only thing that will really satisfy them--whether they're walking bombs or just bombasts--is if everyone thinks just like them, believes just like them, and wants the same things as them. Which is never, ever going to happen, which is why they will never, ever be satisfied. Bush has been trying to appease them and hopefully even he is now realizing that it's hopeless.

One is left shaking one's head at a people who are claiming their holiday, their very beliefs, are being threatened. No. When Romans were throwing them to the lions, THEN their beliefs were being threatened. Here, in this country, their core philosophies have complete dominance over just about every aspect of life in this country.

And it's not enough.

When dealing with Extremists and terrorists...it never is.

PAD

Posted by Peter David at December 10, 2005 12:24 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commenting
Comments
Posted by: ElCoyote at December 10, 2005 12:56 PM

The same can be said for the extreme left, the left that thinks no war is ever justifiable and that anyone who dons a uniform, be it police or military, is a fascist. The Noam Chomskys of the world.

Extremism sucks on ALL sides, Peter. Even on your side.

Which is why I hate both extremes. Both parties, both false idealogies.

Pragmatism, look into it.

Posted by: Luke K. Walsh at December 10, 2005 01:22 PM

Well said, PAD.

Posted by: Luke K. Walsh at December 10, 2005 01:28 PM

ElCoyote, grind that axe some place else. I agree that psycho-extreme liberalism is bad, just as any other zealotous extremism. But, since PAD, and most liberals, do not hold those extereme views you attack in your post, you overwhelm your own valid point. PAD is not an extemist liberal.

Posted by: Jerry C at December 10, 2005 01:55 PM

"I am not going to let oppressive, totalitarian, anti-Christian forces in this country diminish and denigrate the holiday and the celebration. I am not going to let it happen. I'm gonna use all the power that I have on radio and television to bring horror into the world of people who are trying to do that."


Any guesses to the source of that quote? Bill O'Reilly.

This thing with Bush isn't the first shot fired this year. Fox "News" Channel has been ramping up the war machine for its new crusade of the month. Christmas is under attack. "They" are stopping "you" from having Christmas. "They" want to keep "you" from being able to celebrate a public holiday devoted to generosity, peace, and love.

The talk radio nitwits have picked it up and run with it as well. It's strange to walk around in the real world and enjoy all the nice holiday things to be found this time of year (Christmas front and center in just about every place you go)and then to come into some conservative nitwit talk show and hear that the dark forces of the world have shut down Christmas and forced the U.S. of A. into removing all ideas of Christmas from public life as well.

I can't figure out what's wrong with "Happy Holidays" as a greating. Made a great Christmas song. Made quite a few great Christmas songs over the decades.

But, beyond the odd song, what gets me the most is that these monkies can't grasp two tiny little nuggets of fact through all their fiction making. There is a reason to say happy holidays. See, there's this thing that comes about a week after Christmas called.... what is that... oh, yeah... New Years. What's New Years? Well, for this argument, it's part of the holiday season. The same holiday season that starts after everybody is done burping from Thanksgiving I might add. It's part of the time of year that I wish people to be happy in. It's why I say happy holidays. There are two of them. And that's staying in Christian belief only.

It's also very stupid sounding to say "Merry Christmas" on Dec. 1st. Why? well, it's not Christmas. Why not sound like a complete jackass and wish people a happy New Year the day after Thanksgiving while you're at it. You are in the holiday season however. Why not just say happy holidays until about a day out from Christmas? It's always seemed to work quite well in the past.

But Bush is getting pounded for politics with this. See, Bush is getting nailed because he forgot to read the talking points memo. Christmas is the new culture war front. It's the new straw dog to hold up and use as a weapon to hit anyone they don't like with over the head until they submit. It's the new thing to hold up and point to as a target of "those people" that want to destroy "your" way of life and undermine everything that's good a true about "our" country. Bush can't wish a happy holiday to people unless they worship his God and that holiday is called, by him and them, Christmas. Why, to do anything but that would be to destroy the very fabric of America.

Posted by: mike weber at December 10, 2005 02:12 PM

PAD said

One is left shaking one's head at a people who are claiming their holiday, their very beliefs, are being threatened. No. When Romans were throwing them to the lions, THEN their beliefs were being threatened. Here, in this country, their core philosophies have complete dominance over just about every aspect of life in this country.

And why were Christians being thrown to the lions in ROme?

Because a sizable segment of Christians of the day blatantly refused to honour Rome's laws mandating religious tolerance, disrupted the observances of other religions, and vandalised other religions' temples and other places of worship and smashed their idols and other paraphenalia. ("Iconoclasts", they were called.)

In later years (a parodied in L. Sprague de Camp's time travel novel, "Lest Darkness Fall"), when Rome was ruled by the Ostrogoths (a thoroughly civilised rule, as Theodoric, King of the Ostrogoths, had had a thorough education while growing up as a hostage at the Byzantine Court), similar laws requiring tolerance of others' religious beliefs were decried by members of almost all Christian sects, because they forbade them going out and doing their most important duty to God -- smashing all those other heretical sects.

Fanatical monotheists are a terrible thing to have around, and ought, of course, be suppressed by the Government.

And when the time for such suppression comes, it just so happens, you know, that i know the One True Faith, and if enough people will join me, we can mash all the False Faiths, suppress the Secular Humanists, sweep away everyone whose sexual preferences don't match mine, and return this country to True Christian Principles...

Posted by: Brian at December 10, 2005 02:30 PM

Amen

Posted by: Wildcat at December 10, 2005 03:10 PM

And to add to Luke K's comment: I don't believe I've *ever* seen PAD defend the views and opinions of the extreme left, even as I've seen him *vigourously* defend the ability and right of not just the extreme left, but the extreme right and everyone in between, to voice their opinions.

Well said, Peter. It's fortunate that the people beating this "War on Christmas" drum are such an extreme minority, but it's equally unfortunate that they have such a deceivingly disproportionately loud voice with which to scream about this imaginary injustice.

Wildcat

Posted by: John Burgess at December 10, 2005 03:13 PM

The most fun little facts from this whole "War on Christmas" have come from MSNBC's "Countdown with Keith Olberman". On the same episode where Olberman showed President Bush's Holiday Card he also showed the webpage for Fox News' Gift Shop. Every item with a Christmas theme was titled Holiday (Holiday Ornaments, Holiday Cards, etc.). A few hours later all the names where changed to Christmas, but the html address still has the word holiday in it.

Add to that stuff that many a mega-church has decided to cancel Christmas services this year and I'm starting to wonder if the Extemist Christians are really trying to manufacture a since of doom in their members. Not just saying that the sky is falling, but actually trying to bring it down. Keep the base nice and paniced.

I've already run into one guy on another message board claiming that his town switching to a "Winter Festival" this year was the work of Atheist ACLU Feminists trying to make everyone a Pagan. How these three groups got so much pull in a small rural southern town is a question he has yet to answer. Also curious why Atheists would try to make people Pagans. Go figure...

Posted by: Josh Pritchett, Jr at December 10, 2005 03:20 PM

1Well, what do you expect from FNC? I mean they's love to tout to us that we're winning the war, the economy is growing, the debt is paid off, the borders are more secure, there's no danger of another terroist attack, that there's plenty of money to rebuild the Gulf Coast. Ect.
But they can't say those things, because their not true! I mean, yeah they can say those things, but then someone calls them on it.
So they need a new enemy. Enter the one or two werido's who think Christmas is bad and suddednly we have a threat greater than 9-11.
Jeez.
Next thing you know we'll be hearing about a secret Al-Quada/ Grinch plot to poison Christmas trees or something. God help us if we should have to occupy Hooville so we can fight the terriosts there!

Posted by: Lee Goodman at December 10, 2005 03:38 PM

This post, and others like it, is the reason I come to this site on a regular basis. I am not really into PAD's comic books (although I love his ST, Arthur and Apropos writings) but he often sums up my feelings on a current topic so much better than I ever could that it is a pleasure to read what's here.

Well said, thanks and Happy Holidays!

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 10, 2005 03:39 PM

I'm a bit curious to know what some of the people around here who routinely play the "Christians are under constant attack" card think of this, personally.

As for this whole tempest in a teapot -- I'm pretty much with PAD on this one, except that I'm a little more willing to show public glee about Shrubbo reaping the whirlwind on this one. He wants to hitch his wagon to a bunch of scorpions, that is (unfortunately) his call -- but when the scorpions turn around and bite him, he'll have to excuse me if I don't leap in to save him.

Oh -- and happy holidays, all. :-)

TWL

Posted by: gene hall at December 10, 2005 03:39 PM

"God help us if we should have to occupy Hooville to fight the terrorists there"

If we don't fight them in over there in Hooville,
we'll have to fight them at The Island of Misfit Toys or Candy Cane Lane...

Posted by: Thomas E. Reed at December 10, 2005 03:39 PM

Okay, since Mr. David is primarily a writer of dramatic fiction, he should be familiar with the axiom of dramatic tension. Namely, you can't have a hero without a villain. And you can't have a powerful, impressive hero unless your villain is equally impressive and powerful.

The Christian Extremists (although Christian Terrorists might be equally applicable) need an enemy so they can feel self-righteous. That's the important feeling about the movement. Mayberry, North Carolina had no contentious scenes in church ...except when Aunt Bee's huckleberry pie was stolen. They'd already cleared the area of any other faiths.

So, these guys need an enemy, and one of the most important tasks of their movement's leaders is to find such enemies. (Maybe "leaders" is inappropriate...they just push their flock along, so maybe they're "shepherds," although I wouldn't say good ones.)

This year it's "destroying Christmas." Next year it might be "wearing the Satanic Star of David." Whatever it is, it'll be a simple symbol they can use to move their herd animals into stampede position.

P.S. One of the most complete versions of "The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe" seems to be put out by one of these cross-burning groups, Focus on the Family. Does anybody know of an audio book version that is unabridged, and not done by somoene with a holy executioner's axe to grind?

Posted by: AdamYJ at December 10, 2005 03:58 PM

Sometimes I wonder if the Extreme Christian Right do these things not from extreme faith in their religion, but from doubt. I think that maybe they sometimes question their chosen faith, but instead of searching their souls and maybe looking for something new to believe in (because, God forbid, they go back on a decision) they decide they want the whole world to switch over to help validate their choice of faith.

Just a strange little thought.

Posted by: Thomas E. Reed at December 10, 2005 04:22 PM

In fact, thinking about the matter, I don't want the audio version of "Lion, Etcetera" at all. And I don't think I'll be going to "Narnia" after all.

It isn't that C.S. Lewis told a Christian parable as a children's adventure story. That's no problem. I have no problem with the Bible or Christian metaphors, which appear in all kinds of fiction. The problem is that the right-wing Christians have latched onto this book/movie and claimed it as their own, and are using it as a propaganda tool for their peculiarly un-Christ-like Christianity.

Just watch. The attendance figures at this film will be used by Pat Robertson and his homies on Monday evening's torchlight prayer rally to claim that America supports their cause. That being the case, I'd rather not stand next to the jackboots, thank you very much.

And as you all know, Disney paid a right-wing organizing group to propagandize "Narnia" as an exclusively Christian experience to the nation's churches. These groups will claim that because I attended the film in its premiere week, I support blowing up abortion clinics and exiling all Jews to Knuckledrag, Oklahoma.

Lewis's book is still out there. I can read it for free at the library. I can buy a used copy from amazon.com that won't be counted as a new purchase in their rankings. I can wait until this whole mess is over and be part of the "after-market" audience that no one will care about. But doing anything with this stuff for the next few weeks would make me another nail in the coffin of religious tolerance.

Posted by: Robert Fuller at December 10, 2005 04:41 PM

Bravo.

On a completely unrelated topic, I've finally gotten around to reading Madrox, and I am loving it. Can't wait for X-Factor (although I keep wanting to call it "Weapon X" for some strange reason... you'd think I'd remember the title, considering I grew up with the original X-Factor).

Posted by: Iain Gibson at December 10, 2005 05:05 PM

"Sometimes I wonder if the Extreme Christian Right do these things not from extreme faith in their religion, but from doubt. I think that maybe they sometimes question their chosen faith, but instead of searching their souls and maybe looking for something new to believe in (because, God forbid, they go back on a decision) they decide they want the whole world to switch over to help validate their choice of faith."

I think you're placing a bit too much credence on the fact that most of them even think.

I grew up in a church, my father's a minister of one, and I'm sure even he'd tell you that most of the problems within churches are that people don't want to think, they don't want to change, they just want to be in their happy little zone, stand up when they're told, say Amen when they're told and sit back down again when they're told.

Actually, it's not very much different from most of the people I see on my commute into work. Sheep-like behaviour is very easy to fall into.

The people who are doing the thinking are the leaders. They're the ones doing the rabble rousing - and all the thinking. With them it's not about fear over losing their faith, it's about keeping control over the power that they wield. If they can keep the sheep under control with fear, then they hold onto their power base. If they just let the sheep get contented then their power base consists of a bunch of grass-grazers, and that's no power at all.

Posted by: simon poulsen at December 10, 2005 05:16 PM

"Well, i wasn't expecting the spanish inquisition..."

Posted by: peter sutton at December 10, 2005 05:43 PM

One thing that really cracks me up is when Chritians talk about the true meaning of christmasbeing lost e.g Jesus and all that.

yet funny enough christmas as a christian festival has only been celebrated since the late 18th century round about 150 years or so.

Before that however the winter festival on December the 22nd the shortest day had been celebrated since pretty much the dawm pratically everywhere in the world to one degree or another at one time or another.

Ironicially a very religious British government once banned christmas on the grounds that it was and i quote "unchristian" eg a pagan festival celebraring the fact that the light was returning to the world.

having spent centuries uscussfully trying to ban the mid winter festival christians finally gave up and decided to to celebrate the birth of Jesus at the same time.

which leads to the strange miss-mash that is celebrated today a mixture of paganism christmas light, father christmas and christian icons.

appologies if i've been a bit general but i'm remembering a documentary about the evolution of christmas, which i saw several years ago.

Posted by: John Childress at December 10, 2005 06:10 PM

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/07.html#a6225

Check this link for a great video between O'rielly and the Daily Show. Seems FNC will do anything to promote thier fake war on christmas

Posted by: John Childress at December 10, 2005 06:13 PM

Hope i'm not double posting here..First time.. check this link for a very funny retort by the Daily Show to a fake news segment by Bill on FNC...More great War on Christmas fun.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/07.html#a6225

Posted by: ArizonaTeach at December 10, 2005 06:55 PM

While I'm not denying that overzealous extremists in the Christian Right may go overboard, let's not brush with too broad a stroke. Otherwise, what's to stop people from making John Walker Lindh the posterboy of the "extreme anti-American-involvement-in-the-war left"? After all, the vast majority of Christians and those on the right embrace those who blow up abortion clinics (which, honestly, has happened HOW often? And should we compare it to Left-Wing Animal Rights Extremists actions?) as much as those on the left would embrace the American Taliban, but hey, it makes good copy.

As for the disgusting Extreme Left, I point you all to this:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004021.htm

I don't for a second believe that's anywhere near the mainstream, but it should sure make you think before you complain about the Extreme Christian Right, who complain that the word Christmas was left off a card, as opposed to the Extreme Left, who do what's mentioned in that article.

Incidentally, RIP Mr. Richard Pryor...just heard the news.

Posted by: John Childress at December 10, 2005 07:16 PM

What is interesting is that we honestly have no way to trace who sent that card do we? We know the extreme right has no problem making up stories that don't exist. Not saying it isn't true but I like a little thing called evidence. I know full well there are crazy left wing people who would send a letter like that unfortantly, but the stories we are talking about can be fully traced to people and thier actions, not an anonymous card taht could have been sent by a crazy left winger or a crazy right winger who wanted to make the left look bad (see the previous O'reilly video for evidence of that). Regardless of which, Peter was bitching about extremists period. He did not mention nor imply that the left does not have its fair share of nuts...extremism in any manner is bad and serves no one's best interests.

Posted by: ArizonaTeach at December 10, 2005 07:40 PM

"We know the extreme right has no problem making up stories that don't exist."

Only as much as the mainstream left does, I suppose.

But no, you make a good point, and I think we can all now conclude that all abortion clinic bombings are actually the result of a grand conspiracy of neo-libs, intent on framing innocent Christians for their acts.

I think that Occam's Razor applies here.

Yes, I know that PAD mentioned all extremists; he did, however, only bring up what he perceives as Christian Right Extremism, so I was helping to identify alternates. Although the more I think about it, I would be surprised to find out that 100% of the people who are upset at the perceived "war on Christmas" are all right-wingers. Hmm...anyone know of any polls?

Posted by: John Childress at December 10, 2005 07:50 PM

Which was my point...to focus on the stories that can at least be attempted to be verified. If a left winger wrote the story they should have thier name printed in every newspaper so they can get all the hate mail they deserve. As for firebombing abortion clinics, you are talking about a much more serious crime than faking a news story and they have caught (again that whole evidence thing) crazy right wingers who do such things (as they did with the crazy left winger John Walker). And the only reason he mentioned right wingers was because they were the one's bashing Bush for doing such a thing. The only people I know who think there is a war on christmas are right wingers (not even far right but def strong conservatives). I would like to see a poll too. I like what MSNBC said about it. The so called war was first declared by Henry Ford in 1920, so this has been the worst fought war since 85 years have passed and they haven't even made a real dent in any way, shape, or form. Again... ALL extremists are very bad and make all the rest of us (the much more silent 95% of the Cons, Mods, and Libs) look bad. Extremism in any form by any group should not be tolerated, period.

Posted by: Kim Metzger at December 10, 2005 07:53 PM

The people I feel sorry for are the Christians whose faith is apparently so weak that Christmas can be taken from them. Because they're the only ones who can really take Christmas from themselves.

I think this whole thing (plus the flap over Wal-Mart and other stores selling "holiday trees" - wouldn't the most truthful name be "druidic trees?") is what's going to be revved up for next year's elections. You may remember, in spite of the pundits who use last year's elections of proof of support for Bush's war policies, that the reason most people gave for voting for him was that they felt they shared his values, especially preventing dirty, pinko, commie gays to marry each other. (And I hope that memory warms them as they watch gas prices soar and more Americans die in Iraq.) So I think we're going to hear more about "the war on Christmas" as November 7 (I think that's the date) approaches. It's a good way to distract people from more important matters.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at December 10, 2005 08:06 PM

The problem is that the right-wing Christians have latched onto this book/movie and claimed it as their own, and are using it as a propaganda tool for their peculiarly un-Christ-like Christianity.

I was just arguing this point on the IMDb forums (why? I don't know - those forums are utterly useless).

Some moron was claiming that the film, and all of the books, are merely Christian propoganda.

I disagreed, and stated that the only propoganda going on is from the likes of Disney and the Christians themselves who are trying to get other Christians to, as you say, "claim it for themselves".

Kind of like how they claimed many aspects of how we now celebrate Christmas from other cultures. (Last I checked, Jesus and Kris Kringle weren't college dormroom buddies.)

So, I think these Christian extremists need to spend some time studying history before they open their mouths again. Although, with anything they don't like, they just ignore it.

Anyways, the whole thing is a shame, because I don't see the movie as anything more than the allegory that it's meant to be. And even then, it's not all about Christianity - there are many elements in the stories, particularly Greek mythology in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

Only as much as the mainstream left does, I suppose.

The difference? There are no Rush Limbaughs or Pat Robertsons on the left. (And if you mention Michael Moore, I'll just laugh, as the man doesn't even compare.)

Posted by: ArizonaTeach at December 10, 2005 08:39 PM

John:
For that matter, if a right-winger wrote that letter, I'd certainly like to see him or her pilloried too.

Craig:
Michael Moore doesn't compare? OK, he's worse, fine, I concede...but to that list, I'll add Dan Rather, Al Franken, and raise you Randi Rhodes, who's more vitriolic than all the others combined!

As an aside, maybe I'm just locked on the word propoganda here, but you're not seriously saying that the Narnia books aren't Christian works, are you (I may have misunderstood your point, though)? While they aren't propoganda (in the terms that I think both you or I would agree), they are undeniably Christian...

Posted by: Iowa Jim at December 10, 2005 08:42 PM

Here's the fascinating thing about Extremists: They're all the same. The philosophy of Extremist Christians is fundamentally no different than, say, that of Extremist Muslims. They believe in the same things: Exclusionary thinking. Intolerance.

They only differ in degrees of their actions. Some chop off the heads of helpless victims. Others blow up abortion clinics.

Do you really know anyone who is a Christian who is an extremist like you describe? I don't mean on TV, I mean personally? I am sure you have met a handful, but is it really more than that? There is a pitiful lack of perspective in all of this. Out of the literally hundreds of thousands of so called "extremist Christians," you have maybe one abortion clinic bombing a year?

Yes, you would find me "intolerant" in my beliefs because I do believe there are some things morally wrong (such as abortion). I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I think evolution is a fraud. So what? You do not find me -- or 99.9% of those you would lump into the "extremist Christian" category -- forcing anyone to convert? Trying to reason and prove our point? Yes. So what. You do the same about the war in Iraq. I don't consider you intolerant because you think Bush is an idiot and the war unjustified and you try to convince others of the same.

If you cannot see the difference between legitimate persuasion an coercion, then you have lost touch with reality. I know that is not the case. So go ahead and say some of the "Christian extremists" are wrong to insist the card says "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays." Just spare me the fear mongering that one of those "Christian extremists" will be engaging in acts of terror over the issue.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Iowa Jim at December 10, 2005 08:56 PM

Here, in this country, their core philosophies have complete dominance over just about every aspect of life in this country.

You are confusing some traditions that still linger (such as government closing down for Christmas but not Yom Kipur) with actual philosophy. A very strong case can be made that Christian philosophy has not had complete dominance for at least the last 50 years. I am not claiming it has disappeared, but it is not dominant.

The most crucial example is evolution. This is more than a scientific theory. It is the foundation of a worldview that is radically different than Christian philosophy. This theory has held dominance in more than just biology classes. It influences social policies, educational philosophy, judicial practices, and even moral questions such as gay marriage and abortion. Yes, there are some do would say they believe God created the earth, but when you look at the other areas, you would find their philosophy is built on a foundation of evolutionary thought. Most on this thought would consider evolution to be a proven fact, and anyone who disagrees is as ignorant as those who still claim the earth is flat.

So is it "intollerant" by definition if I say evolution is a fraud? Am I "intollerant" simply because I want to argue that gay marriage harms society -- particularly when I argue not based on the Bible saying it is wrong but based on history and observation of human nature?

Just wondering.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Iowa Jim at December 10, 2005 09:00 PM

Anyways, the whole thing is a shame, because I don't see the movie as anything more than the allegory that it's meant to be. And even then, it's not all about Christianity - there are many elements in the stories, particularly Greek mythology in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

Technically, C.S. Lewis said his books were not allegorical. To use comic book lingo, they are more along the lines of an "elseworld" story. He called it "supposal" as in "suppose there was another world and suppose God wanted to redeem that world, what would happen?" So there are elements that are not Christian because Lewis was not limited to simply writing an allegory that had to be "theologically correct."

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Iowa Jim at December 10, 2005 09:10 PM

RE: Is there a war on Christmas?

I have not read every post, but the ones I scanned missed what is the main point for most Christians who are upset about "Happy Holidays." There is an atmosphere being created that forbids "Merry Christmas" being said. I don't think an employee should be forced to say "Merry Christmas" to anyone. But I do think it is wrong to say they cannot say it. The reality is the overwhelming majority in this country celebrate Christmas, either as a religious observance or as a cultural observance. If someone does not celebrate it, there is no reason for them to be offended if someone tells them "Merry Christmas." I would not be offended if someone said something to me about a Jewish or Muslim holiday.

Have many Christians over reacted to all of this? Perhaps. But only by pointing out the obvious. We are celebrating Christmas, not some other holiday.

PAD's point merits consideration: Why does the government shut down for a religious holiday? Because the majority observe it. It is not an attempt to force religion on anyone. It started out, and continues to be, simply a recognition that Christmas is a cultural phenomenon. I would argue it has largely moved away from its religious roots, but that is my opinion.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Peter David at December 10, 2005 09:14 PM

"So is it "intollerant" by definition if I say evolution is a fraud?"

No. Just ignorant of science...and spelling.

"Am I "intollerant" simply because I want to argue that gay marriage harms society -- particularly when I argue not based on the Bible saying it is wrong but based on history and observation of human nature?

Yes. And also ignorant.

PAD

Posted by: James Carter at December 10, 2005 09:53 PM

"particularly when I argue not based on the Bible saying it is wrong but based on history and observation of human nature?"

Total BS, Iowa Jim. Actually, I just did a paper on this for a college class. The only time a society starts to crumble is when it outlaws homosexual relations (which is what happened to Rome.) I also took a look at primitive culture. I figured that a lot of people like to claim that tolerance of homosexuality only occurs in decadent societies. Ergo, in a society that has no room at all for decadence, homosexuality should be out the window. Obviously when you are a member of a Native American tribe in the 1300's, there is no room whatsoever to tolerate anything that weakens your society (which is EXACTLY what the Right claims will happen) SUrprisingly enough, in those cultures, homosexuality was not only common, it was revered. Especially in the Americas where there people called "two-spirts" who were men who acted like women. It was seen as good luck to have one in the tribe, and they were PREFERRED as wives to women because they were stronger and could do more work. In South America, they were said to be beloved of the Gods, and there are legends of them actually saving villages by driving off rampaging Spaniards.

Further, in many sub-saharan African tribes, homosexual relationships are not only common, but are EXPECTED of young men as a coming of age ritual. The same holds true for many South pacific tribes.

This is all not to mention that homosexuality was very common in the early CHRISTIAN church, with several saints being homosexual, including St. Aldred (who wrote poetry to his deceased lover.) and one of the St. Bernards. (there are about 10, and I forget which one it was.)

So, unfortunately Jim, your argument that quote "gay marriage harms society" would seem to be totally disproved by the actual facts of many, many, MANY societies throughout history, including Christian ones.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 10, 2005 09:56 PM

I think evolution is a fraud.

"Fraud" is an extremely strong word, Jim. It implies that the scientists in question (including my wife) are knowingly perpetrating a falsehood with the intent of hoodwinking the general public.

I don't think you have any evidence to that effect, Jim -- but I think you're nicely providing evidence that not only don't you understand how science works, you don't care to. You're also maligning a huge number of scientists and teachers, some of whom are themselves very Christian and incredibly moral people. (Yes, I'm specifying both; despite what you undoubtedly would like to think, the two are not synonymous.)

In other words, you're acting like a jerk. I'll leave it up to you whether that qualifies as you being intolerant or not, but you're not exactly doing the public face of Christianity any favors with this response.

TWL

Posted by: Michael Brunner at December 10, 2005 10:03 PM

First, for anyone who has trouble viewing the Daily Show video, here's a transcript:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512080005

--------------
Also, a short history of Christmas in the U.S.:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/07/opinion/edcohen.php

Posted by: Nemo at December 10, 2005 10:14 PM

Have many Christians over reacted to all of this? Perhaps. But only by pointing out the obvious. We are celebrating Christmas, not some other holiday.

However, just about every other religion sets aside time during this point in the year for some kind of observance. To the Christians: Christmas, to the Jews: Hanukkah, to the Pagans: Yule. There's also the African Kwanzaa festival.

I have no problem with someone wishing me a Merry Christmas, or a Joyous Yule or a Happy Holiday. It's a blessing from one person to another, and I will always respect the intent of that individual, which is to share some form of human compassion and love.

Too many people are making WAY too big a deal about this.

Posted by: Cary at December 10, 2005 10:25 PM

PAD what a great post. It makes me laugh when I see things like this "war on Christmas", not only because it gets so much play in the media, but because if there is a war, it is perpetrated by monotheists, not the other way around. It is a shame that so few people know how much of the entire christian religion has been absorbed from pagan religions to make christianity more palatable to the people they were forcing into it. They did the same thing with the Greeks and Romans, co-opting certain aspects so that the people they were beating into their beliefs would have something of their previous religion to hang onto. I laugh every time I see the big wind up for Christmas and hear all the cries of how their holiday is being watered down. How watered would it be if they stripped out all they stole from the pagans? As a Pagan myself, I have no issue with Christmas, Holidays, or whatever else folks say in greeting to each other. To me, it seems to be much about nothing, but then christians have never been much for living and letting live.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at December 10, 2005 10:58 PM

Michael Moore doesn't compare? OK, he's worse, fine, I concede...but to that list, I'll add Dan Rather, Al Franken, and raise you Randi Rhodes, who's more vitriolic than all the others combined!

Rather is a left-wing extremist? Ok, time for your annual head exam.

Franken just wants some attention, but at least he's not saying all conservatives must die (like, oh, Ann Coulter). Nor is Moore.

I've never even heard of Rhodes, so I can't say he's in the same league as a Coulter, Limbaugh, or O'Reilly.

But maybe that's just because the media is liberal... oh, wait, if it were, I should've heard of the guy by now. ;)

As an aside, maybe I'm just locked on the word propoganda here,

Yes, you are, considering I did say that the stories are an allegory of many things, not just Christianity.

Now, Jim may be right, and, much like Tolkien with Lord of the Rings, Narnia isn't meant to be allegory* and I just haven't read about it. But it is easy to view it that way, due to elements such as Aslan's resurrection and so forth.

In the end, I do find it all amusing that there's this big thing over Aslan when Gandalf really fills the same role (fatherly, leader, higher power, death & resurrection) while Tolkien was Christian as well. :)

* Although Tolkien was, from what I've read, far more forthright in saying his stories weren't, specifically with regards to WWII. Heck, even Tolkien's introduction to the trilogy says "don't read this as allegory". I have not read Lewis' other writings or anything where he would've said that, no, Narnia isn't an allegory.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at December 10, 2005 11:05 PM

Oh, yes, and the even greater hypocracy by some Christians that nobody has mentioned yet, but I have been thinking about:

Why is it acceptable for copies of Chronicles of Narnia to be read by children, but not something like Harry Potter?

Is it because the only witch in the story is a bad one and she's being defeated? And that you can't use magic because magic is supposedly pagan, etc?

Quick, somebody take that magic healing potion away from Lucy!

Or is part of the reason they're acceptable because they are assumed to be Christian allegory?

Posted by: Denise at December 10, 2005 11:34 PM

In all my time in fundimentalist churches who were active in the pro-life movement in Pensacola, FL, I sortof/kindof knew of one man who later was convicted murdering an abortion doctor. I knew hundreds of people who worked at save a life clinics, donated, helped the parents and children of the unborn... And the murderer? I was told to stay away from them.

People don't want to think for theirselves normally, they want to use broad strokes to paint the world. Conservative Christians want the world to end because they have painted it in black. Christian Left sees the harm and still sees hope.

I see time and time again how people can paint Christians, many thousands who don't deserve it as evil, vile, racist people just by looking above.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at December 10, 2005 11:37 PM

Tim,

Do I think those who accept evolution are knowingly perpetuating a fraud? No. But evolution is based on assumptions that cannot be proved. The biggest assumption is that God does not play an active role in the universe. That is different than the assumption that the universe has laws and operates in an orderly manner. For hundreds of years there have been scientists who believe in a God who created the universe and who can even do miracles today, but who also believed the same God was orderly and gave us a world we could understand and interact with. It is not necessary to take God out of the equation to be a good scientist. For that matter, it is not necessary to believe in God to be a good scientist.

So do I think you are trying to commit fraud? No. Absolutely not. But I have looked at the evidence and have found it lacking. It is not out of blind ignorance that I reject evolution. I just have a different set of pressupositions.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 10, 2005 11:38 PM

Let's put Christ back in Christmas
Right back where he belongs
Let's put Christ back in Christmas
And back in your favorite Christmas songs...

Frosty the Snowman, was Jesus Christ's best friend
He stood there melting by the cross, until the very end...

Oh, you better not shout, you better not cry
Better not pout , I'm tellin' you why,
Jesus Christ is coming, again....

Jesus the long-haired Savior,
Had a very shiny glow,
And if you ever saw it,
You would call it a halo

Oh, let's put Christ back in Christmas
Right back where he belongs
Yes, let's put Christ back in Christmas
And back in your favorite Christmas songs.

Jingle bells
Go to hell
If you do not pray .....

(Thanks to the genius that is Pat Godwin)

Boy, I don't know what's more annoying--this whole "War on Christmas" deal or the idea that someone would boycott Narnia because they don't want Pat Robertson to gloat. Dude, you've just given him way to much power over you.

There are also those who, when given the common courtesy of a "Happy holidays" "Merry Christmas" "have a nice day" or whatever, use it as an opportunity to tell you about their personal philosophy of life. Here's a tip--get over yourself. It's not about you. I wish you a Merry Christmas as a kindness that we extend to strangers, a way of just making life a bit more friendly and courteous. All things being equal, I hope you have a nice day but if, in fact, you are crushed by a paint truck later that day it won't really have any major impact on my life so just take the kindness, smile, say "Happy Hannukah" "A fruitful Winter Solstice" "Happy Kwanzaa, cracker" or whatever is your personal pleasantry and let's move on, ok?

As for the folks on this board, who I would miss, I hope you all have a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, etc. Watch out for paint trucks.

Posted by: Michael Brunner at December 10, 2005 11:56 PM

One solution to this whole what greeting to use option is to require everyone who goes shopping between Thanksgiving & New Year's to wear a badge, like a nametag, announcing what holiday they're shopping for. Then when store employees see the badge they can use the approiate greeting.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at December 11, 2005 12:01 AM

PAD,

Nice. Just call me ignorant. Guess it is impossible for someone to have actually studied these issues and come to a different conclusion. (Oh, and pick on my lack of checking my spelling before I hit "send.")

Your post obviously pushed a button with me. I am rather tired of Christians being seen as the neo-nazis out to eradicate those who disagree. I happen to think that those who are mad at Bush about his card are over reacting. He is president of a country that does include many religions. It is fine with me if he chooses to say "Merry Christmas," and it is also fine if he prefers "Happy Holidays." That said, the reaction by Christians should in no way lead to a diatribe about the dangers of Christian extremists, painting us as just slightly better than terrorists. I could understand your thinking it was a joke, but a threat? Get real. Better yet, be a little more tolerant of those who disagree with you. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 11, 2005 12:07 AM

The biggest assumption is that God does not play an active role in the universe.

I would like to hear what it is that makes you believe that evolution demands, as a basic presupposition, that God does not play an active role in the universe. It doesn't, which is why religious people like the Pope have no trouble accepting evolution for the reality that it is.

True, if you do not accept evolution there is nothing much left to replace it other than the supernatural. But you could just as easily use that argument to argue that the universe revolves around the sun. If that were true it would be such an impossible thing that only the supernatural could explain it.

But here's the thing--just because it's true that if a certain belief were true it would prove the existence of God, it does NOT follow that not accepting that belief DISPROVES God, or even implies doubt. If someone wants to think that God pulls the sun across the sky on a golden chain it doesn't make him one single bit more devout than someone who recognizes that this is not how the solar system works.

Why is it acceptable for copies of Chronicles of Narnia to be read by children, but not something like Harry Potter?

Apparently it isn't. From Cathy Seipp comes word of this site: http://www.balaams-ass.com/journal/homemake/narnia.htm

According to these folks Narnia is part of Lewis' evil plan to indoctrinate kids into Satanism. Or something, I just skimmed. Life is short.


At any rate, the movie pulled in 23 million on Friday, more than the next 10 or so films combined. Not too shabby.

Posted by: Peter David at December 11, 2005 12:34 AM

"There are also those who, when given the common courtesy of a "Happy holidays" "Merry Christmas" "have a nice day" or whatever, use it as an opportunity to tell you about their personal philosophy of life."

For what it's worth, if someone says either of those to me, I just reply, "You, too." I don't think someone who's just trying to say something nice to you deserves a lecture in response.

Posted by: Peter David at December 11, 2005 12:40 AM

PAD,

"Nice. Just call me ignorant."

Already did. Got it covered, thanks.

"Guess it is impossible for someone to have actually studied these issues and come to a different conclusion."

No. Just impossible for you to have studied them with an open mind. Nothing you have ever said, in any posting, indicates that you have an open mind about anything. Yours is a mind slammed shut to anything that doesn't fall within your narrow-minded, intolerant fundamentalist religious doctrine.

"(Oh, and pick on my lack of checking my spelling before I hit "send.")"

That's not lack of checking spelling. Spelling "intolerant" incorrectly twice in the same post is, as noted, ignorance of spelling.

PAD

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 11, 2005 01:25 AM

For what it's worth, if someone says either of those to me, I just reply, "You, too." I don't think someone who's just trying to say something nice to you deserves a lecture in response.

It's worth plenty. It's the exact correct response. But then you have achieved enough in your life that you are pretty secure in who you are and not likely to feel that a stranger is attacking you by their expressions of kindness. I think that most people who take offense where none is intended probably have some serious unhappiness in their lives. When you're happy you tend to assume the best of people.

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at December 11, 2005 01:27 AM

"Happy Holidays" is used because it covers Christmas, Boxing Day, New Year's (Years'?) Day, Hanukkah, Ramadan, Yule, Solstice, Enlightenment Day, Kwanzaa, and any other holidays you might want to toss into the mix. Insisting that only "Merry Christmas" is allowed is prejudicial in the extreme.

If The Chronicles of Narnia is Christian propaganda because of the resurrection of Aslan, so too should be The Matrix, due to the resurrection of Neo (and his subsequent defeat of the evil Agent Smith). Oddly enough, I have yet to hear any of the fundamentalist Christian churches in these parts offer up the Wachowski brothers as examples of Christian thought..

Jim, I take offense at the idea that because I believe some parts of the Universe are explicable through natural processes (such as the process of evolution), that I must then deny that God could possibly have any had in said process. Which solution would seem the more elegant, nay, Divine, to you - patching everything together as one goes, like an old-school computer hack, or constructing a universe whose basic rules lead, with hypnotic inevitability, to the conditions one sought in the Beginning?

Personally, I've always found that when read as allegory, the first chapter of Genesis matches nicely with modern cosmological thought...

Posted by: JamesLynch at December 11, 2005 01:46 AM

The benefit of "Happy Holidays" is that it's all-encompassing, letting the recipient fill in their holiday. If you're Christian, it refers to Christmas. If you're Jewish, it can be for Chanukah. If you're Wiccan, it can be for Solstice. (Incidentally, I highly recommend the Dar Williams song "The Christians and the Pagans," a charming holiday tune showing how the differences can be bridged.) If you're an athiest, it can be for a day off (well, not this year) or a time to exchange gifts with friends and family. If you're an agnostic, it may or may not mean anything. So what's wrong with that?

Plenty, if you think your way is the only way. Just as the people who are after prayer in school only want their prayers (not many Catholics looking for Jewish bessings or Muslim prayers), they want the holiday time to be for Christian messages only. Kinda ironic, considering the date for celebrating Christmas was chosen because it was close to the date of the pagan Solstice.

Everyone can celebrate the holiday season, and everyone can enjoy a wish of Happy Holidays. Unless you're an extremist who can't tolerate the idea that people can celebrate anything other than Christmas. And they are Christians in name only.

Posted by: KnockaroundGuy at December 11, 2005 02:07 AM

Can I just say, that being a Christian and raised in "The Church" I can't help but take a lot of what you guys say personally. Even though I know your not commenting on me (I've never blown up an abortion clinic, or feel the need to) it's hard not to get defensive.

I just wanna remind everyone that Extremists of any political or religious party is very small minority of the true beleivers. We have a Christian political party over here in Australia, and one of the back benchers said, and I quote "All lesbians are witches and deserve to be burned at the stake." That became the soundbite for the entire party (media wise). Not a single thing they said to support families, homeless, whatever, was taken into consideration in the lection.

I guess what I'm saying is that in my experience the freak minority is the one with the loudest voice. I've seen interview after interview with Muslem clerics (I think that's the word) who have condemned the violence and what-not, saying (as someone else on this very thread has said) that it contradicts the Koran (spelling?). Most of us Christians have our head screwed on right, and we really don't care what you say... Happy Holidays OR Merry Christmas (Remember when X-Mas was disrespectful to Christ?) because the holiday is an important rememberance time to me no matter what you wanna call it.

I hope I've made sense.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 11, 2005 06:58 AM

Do I think those who accept evolution are knowingly perpetuating a fraud? No.

Then you might want to avoid statements like "I believe evolution is a fraud," as it rather blatantly and obviously suggests the exact opposite.

I'm not getting back into the evolution/creation debate with you right now; I've got too many other things going on, and I frankly haven't seen much evidence that you'll listen anyway. Maybe some other time. For now, I just wanted to point out that your words do not exactly present you as a kind, pleasant, mellow, tolerant person. Your back-pedal here does not change that assessment.

TWL

Posted by: Jeff Coney (www.hedgehoggames.com)) at December 11, 2005 09:35 AM

Pad let me go ahead and wish you and yours a happy holiday. Now lets break that down and wish you a happy hanakuh. And now that we have covered your faith just to go all out merry christmas, and krazy kwanzaa too. (I hearby admit to not having a clue what an appropriate Kwanzaa greeting would be.)

JAC

Posted by: Peter David at December 11, 2005 09:52 AM

"Can I just say, that being a Christian and raised in "The Church" I can't help but take a lot of what you guys say personally. Even though I know your not commenting on me (I've never blown up an abortion clinic, or feel the need to) it's hard not to get defensive."

See, whereas I believe that if I'm certain I'm not the type of person being discussed, I have no trouble not getting defensive. Notice that I was VERY careful to emphasize that I was talking only about the most extremist of beliefs. I never claimed (or believe) that Extremists represent the majority of thinking. I didn't take aim at Christianity, the Catholic church, priests, or even the relative silliness of getting passionate about celebrating Jesus's birthday on December 25 when we've no historical reason to conclude that that was his birthday (at least to my knowledge; I'm more than happy to hear from anyone who can present empirical evidence). Plus my wife and youngest daughter are both Catholic, so obviously I've no personal problem with the Church.)

So if you know in your heart that you're not within the type of group I was mentioning, then please, don't feel offended.

PAD

Posted by: Mitch at December 11, 2005 10:01 AM

One of the few lines of poetry my mind can call up consistently:

"The best lack all conviction; the worst are filled with a passionate intensity."

I remember it because I believe it.

Posted by: Jerry C at December 11, 2005 10:12 AM

"Have many Christians over reacted to all of this? Perhaps. But only by pointing out the obvious. We are celebrating Christmas, not some other holiday."

No, YOU are celebrating Christmas. I am celebrating Christmas. Others may be celebrating any one of the other holidays that fall in the late December time period that includes Christmas. Some of those hilidays, by the by, have been around hundreds and thousands of years longer then Christmas.

See, I just don't get why the "War on Christmas" crusaders won't get that. It's somehow a slam on Christians and an insult if you say, "Happy Holidays." It's Christmas and you're being insulting!!!! Ok, then, under that logic, isn't it an insult to keep saying to people of a non christian faiths, "Merry Christmas to you." You're snubbing their faith.

Happy Holidays seems a perfect fit for the season. It covers everybody that you may see and, as I noted above, it also covers the holidays (see the s at the end of holiday to point out that there's more then one) that Christians observe and enjoy this time of year. How is that an insult to Jesus?

It's also dumb to go after stores over this. They are in the real world (rather then the conservatives make believe Earth C) and deal with a base of consumers from all walks of life. The people that walk into these stores celebrate many different holidays. "Merry Christmas" only covers one holiday. Why snub 15% to 20% of your patrons? More then that in some areas.

Why force a store to shell out extra ad money each year to put out ads for just you and then one for the rest of the people? you want Christmas plastered on everything so bad then how about paying for it. Why not ask the Christmas Crusaders to pony up the funds out of their own pockets to cover the costs of getting what they want. They won't do it mind you. They don't care about the idea enough to actually give up anything themselves. They just want everybody else to give up something.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 11, 2005 10:17 AM

For the record, when I dismiss my classes the last day before we all go on break, I usually try to cover all the bases -- "Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, Happy Kwanaaa, Happy Solstice, or just have a great two weeks off." When I'm in a hurry, I'll just go with "whatever your holiday of choice, have a terrific one." Nobody's ever taken offense.

TWL

Posted by: Will Devine at December 11, 2005 10:42 AM

I want to wish everyone Happy Holidays, no matter what that holiday may be, if there is even a holiday. That especially goes out to the extremists on all fronts, who I hope can find some time to just be happy and chill out for a while, and not at the expense of others.

Posted by: Luke K. Walsh at December 11, 2005 10:56 AM

Just to be fair to Iowa Jim .... We're on opposite sides politically, and a belief in some sort of a higher power is probably the only common ground we would have in regards to religious thought. But I have not found him to be a close-minded, intolerant extremist such as those we have been discussing, and as he suddenly seems to be being lumped in with. He believes what he believes and sticks to it - but there are very few of us here who don't. He doesn't attack people for their "faithlessness"; he argues his points but doesn't try to convert (religiously); he has always seemed to me to be respectful of the right of others to their own opinions. He may take a different position than some of us on many issues; but I have certainly seen many more rude, intolerant, close-minded, and offensive - perhaps extremist - posters on here than Iowa Jim (not even including the banned and semi-banned). Now, maybe there's some communication which I've missed or am not privy to; but from what I have seen, Iowa Jim, agree with him or not, has practiced the kind of respectful discourse which should be encouraged in our debates around here.

Posted by: Nat Gertler at December 11, 2005 11:13 AM

I think that the next male stranger who wishes me a "Merry Christmas", I will respond with a "thank you, ma'am".

After all, if he's willing to presume that I'm in the majority in terms of religious affiliation and celebration, I should feel free to assume he's in the majority in terms of sex.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 11, 2005 11:27 AM

Luke, I'll agree that Jim is certainly not the sort of closed-minded extremist PAD is discussing in his original post, and I'll also agree that there are many more posters who are clearly and explicitly rude, intolerant, etc. There are times when I think Jim and I have had some excellent discussions.

However, Jim is (at least to me) in the far more frustrating category of someone who *thinks* he's far more polite and tolerant than he frequently is. He makes very broad generalizations that he doesn't realize are hurtful or offensive, and when challenged says things like, "well, we'll have to agree to disagree." That's not apologizing for causing offense. Jim claims to be tolerant, but is awfully quick to blame "liberal extremists" for anything that goes wrong, and to insist that he's merely being misinterpreted when in fact he's explicitly saying the things other people are taking offense to.

Am I more likely to take offense than some, given that I teach science and Jim's a young-earth creationist? Probably, I'll have to admit. But Jim *sounds* respectful a great deal more often than he actually *is* respectful, and there are times, like now, when I have to step in and point that out.

TWL

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 11, 2005 11:50 AM

I think that the next male stranger who wishes me a "Merry Christmas", I will respond with a "thank you, ma'am".

After all, if he's willing to presume that I'm in the majority in terms of religious affiliation and celebration, I should feel free to assume he's in the majority in terms of sex.

No offence to you personally, Nat, but this is the sort of thing I was talking about. This person is just exchanging a pleasentry. It has no greater meaning.Turning it into something more than that is an attempt to elevate yourself into something far more important to this person than is really called for. In a world where there are plenty of truly awful, mean spirited people, doesn't this seem a bit petty?

I'd wish you a happy day but I'm afraid you'll turn out to be a masochist and take offense. :)

Posted by: Bladestar at December 11, 2005 12:32 PM

PAD, I know you're jewish, but I'll just use my standard generic so it can apply to everyone else here:

"Happy Whatever-the-hell-you-freaks-Celebrate!"

;)

Posted by: BenD at December 11, 2005 12:33 PM

PAD,
First, please let me say that I have enjoyed your work as an author and have read both comics (Hulk, Spidey 2099, Captain Marvel, and others) and books (Arthur and Apropos, not big into the ST novels). I've been lurking on the site for some time, and was unhappy but resigned when I found out that we are on two different ends of the political spectrum. What the hey, it takes all kinds, right? I did want to comment on this particular post, however, and please excuse me if it rambles a bit.
I certainly relate to the earlier poster who felt defensive regarding the topic. I share those feelings. You later responded by pointing out that you were only speaking about "the most extremist of beliefs." What I didn't really get was a solid understanding of what YOU define as extremist? If it is those who believe that blowing up abortion clinics is a godly act, then no, your post didn't apply to me. However, you also seemed to lump those of us who feel that there is a continued attempt to remove religious symbolism from Christmas into that same category. Am I correct in this? Because I have seen such changes, and believe they need to be resisted, does that make me an "Extreme Christian?" (does anyone else get a mental image of a guy on a snowboard, carrying a bible and wearing a cassock while going down the side of a snow-covered mountain when they hear the phrase Extreme Christian, or is it just me?)
One thing I have found online is a large number of people willing to mock and condemn anyone who states that they are Christian, along with another group who seem to view Christians with a kind of amused contempt. Please excuse me for perhaps being overly sensitive on the subject, but quite frankly I'm sick of it, just as anyone would be irritated at generalizations that unfairly included them. Yes, there are extremists in Christianity, just as there are in any grouping in this world. The true sadness of it all, in my opinion, is that people want an easily followed set of rules to follow and are unable or unwilling to think for themselves, and this leads to them falling victim to their fears and prejudices.
One side note related to Narnia, it is the Christian allegory, neither Lord of the Rings nor the Matrix quite qualify. Think of it this way, while all three contain a similar theme of resurrection, only in Narnia is it the death of an innocent, who gave up his life to wipe away the "sin" of another.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at December 11, 2005 01:00 PM

Oddly enough, I have yet to hear any of the fundamentalist Christian churches in these parts offer up the Wachowski brothers as examples of Christian thought..

Oh, it has been done. Many times. While there is a lot of eastern thought in the first matrix movie, there is also a lot of themes that resonate with Christian philosophy.

Jim, I take offense at the idea that because I believe some parts of the Universe are explicable through natural processes (such as the process of evolution), that I must then deny that God could possibly have any had in said process.

You are confusing two different issues. Perhaps I should have used the term "naturalistic" evolution. The issue is not could God have used "natural" means to create the universe. The issue is whether I must not allow God to ever be a part of the equation in the first place. It is a central creed of naturalistic evolution that things MUST have a natural origin and explanation. Even the origin of the universe itself had to have a natural beginning. You and I may choose to believe God did it through natural means or in a literal 6 days. Either way it is bad science to even consider God in the equation.

Which solution would seem the more elegant, nay, Divine, to you - patching everything together as one goes, like an old-school computer hack, or constructing a universe whose basic rules lead, with hypnotic inevitability, to the conditions one sought in the Beginning?

There is a third option: God, like a master painter, lovingly crafting the universe over a 6 day period. Crafting it with basic rules that allow for life in all of its diversity. Making a being who is in God's image, meaning we are relational like God (in Christian trinitarian theology) is relational by his very nature. And therefore, as in any free relationship, open to us choosing to love or reject God.

But that view is obviously built on what I believe to be divine revelation. That is my presupposition. I fully admit that, though I think my presupposition is more congruent with the real world than the idea that God, if he exists, has no active role in the universe around us.

My assertion is that naturalistic evolution does not measure up. I have studied the evidence that life itself came from inanimate matter, and it is not convincing. You don't have to agree with me, but my hope is that you study not just the evidence but the presuppositions that underly the interpretation of the evidence.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Iowa Jim at December 11, 2005 01:12 PM

But Jim *sounds* respectful a great deal more often than he actually *is* respectful, and there are times, like now, when I have to step in and point that out.

Tim,

Have I been guilty of broad generalizations? Yes, at times. Have I been less than polite. Perhaps. But I have always have maintained a respect of others on this site. I would not claim I am "tolerant" since that seems to be defined as allowing others to do as they please unless it directly harms another individual.

Regarding evolution, I feel our presuppositions are so different that we would have to start there first. Perhaps another time (by email) would be appropriate.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Kelson at December 11, 2005 02:11 PM

Does anyone else get a mental image of a guy on a snowboard, carrying a bible and wearing a cassock while going down the side of a snow-covered mountain when they hear the phrase Extreme Christian, or is it just me?

Well, I didn't before, but I do now... ;-)

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at December 11, 2005 02:38 PM

But evolution is based on assumptions that cannot be proved.

And so is religion. Religion is far more based on assumptions than evolution ever will be.

But I'm not going around calling Christianity fradulent like you are with people who "believe" in facts of the real world like evolution.

Posted by: ScottN at December 11, 2005 02:47 PM

AdamYJ, re your December 10, 2005 03:58 PM:

My sig on SlashDot reads:

"People who need the govt to enforce their religion must not have much faith in the power of its message."

Posted by: ScottN at December 11, 2005 02:50 PM

To Nemo at December 10, 2005 10:14 PM:

Actually, Chanukah is a very minor holiday in the Jewish calendar. It has been blown out of proportion simply due to its proximity in the calendar to Christmas.

Posted by: Nat Gertler at December 11, 2005 03:01 PM

This person is just exchanging a pleasentry. It has no greater meaning.

Then I would be at least as happy if he would forego it. Really, if he's seeing Christmas as the celebration of Christ, then he's making an inaccurate assumption that I join in; if he's seeing Christmas as other than that, at some level he is disrespecting Christians and their beliefs, seeing their holiday as just something to coopt. In either case, giving him a bit of food for thought would likely not be the worst thing to happen to him.

If you think that saying "Merry Christmas" to everyone is a "common courtesy" and a way of being "friendly", but have trouble with people objecting to it... perhaps the thing is to question whether it is really as courteous and friendly as you believe or intend. If you're addressing a large group of people, that might be an appropriate thing to say as little addressed to a large group can expect to match with all. Say it to an individual, however, and it seems quite appropriate to be corrected by the individual.

(I spent yesterday at a memorial service that was filled with songs praising G-d and Jesus. However, it was a service for someone who was specifically not a believer. The folks selecting the music may have felt it the appropriate thing to do, kindly and courteous, but it was actually offensive to the memory of the man.)

Posted by: BenD at December 11, 2005 03:18 PM

Nat,
"Say it to an individual, however, and it seems quite appropriate to be corrected by the individual."

I suppose it depends on what kind of thing is said back. It almost seems the equivalent of saying "Hello" to someone as you walk by and having them respond by saying "Go to hell!" Of course you are going to be taken aback by such a reaction. If I were to say "Merry Christmas" to someone and have them respond "I'm Jewish" then I would reply "and Happy Hanukkah as well!" Two potential ways of replying to someone who is most likely only offering you a warm greeting and good wishes. One way tells them a little more about the person's beliefs, the other response about that person's lack of manners.

Posted by: Nat Gertler at December 11, 2005 03:47 PM

It almost seems the equivalent of saying "Hello" to someone as you walk by and having them respond by saying "Go to hell!"

I'm not clear what response you think is equivalent to being told "Go to hell!" -- a cheery "Thank you, ma'am"?

Of course, some people may believe that hell is an inviting place and thus "go to hell!" a cordial greeting...

Posted by: MikeC at December 11, 2005 04:48 PM

There comes a point, though, where thought policing oneself before saying anything becomes ludicrous. I understand the Merry Christmas argument, really, I do, but I agree that it is really basically just a pleasantry--the same as saying "god bless you" after someone sneezes.

Shall I refrain from saying "Happy holidays" to someone because he or she may not celebrate any of the holidays of the season?

I have no problem with anyone saying anything they wish to celebrate the season provided that it doesn't go anything further than saying.

Posted by: Nivek at December 11, 2005 04:56 PM

>>It isn't that C.S. Lewis told a Christian parable as a children's adventure story. That's no problem. I have no problem with the Bible or Christian metaphors, which appear in all kinds of fiction. The problem is that the right-wing Christians have latched onto this book/movie and claimed it as their own, and are using it as a propaganda tool for their peculiarly un-Christ-like Christianity.

Just watch. The attendance figures at this film will be used by Pat Robertson and his homies on Monday evening's torchlight prayer rally to claim that America supports their cause. That being the case, I'd rather not stand next to the jackboots, thank you very much.

And as you all know, Disney paid a right-wing organizing group to propagandize "Narnia" as an exclusively Christian experience to the nation's churches. These groups will claim that because I attended the film in its premiere week, I support blowing up abortion clinics and exiling all Jews to Knuckledrag, Oklahoma.

Lewis's book is still out there. I can read it for free at the library. I can buy a used copy from amazon.com that won't be counted as a new purchase in their rankings. I can wait until this whole mess is over and be part of the "after-market" audience that no one will care about. But doing anything with this stuff for the next few weeks would make me another nail in the coffin of religious tolerance.


Wow, I've been saying the same exact thing on various news boards about why I dont have any intrest to see Narnia. I even get the "I dont unnderstand why you let Pat Robertson have control over you" BS talkback as well!

Posted by: Nemo at December 11, 2005 05:09 PM

Actually, Chanukah is a very minor holiday in the Jewish calendar

That's the reason for the phrasing I used. I didn't say "major holy day", I said "some kind of observance". My first draft was written differently, but I realized that it didn't fit with Hanukkah very well.

Thanks for pointing it out, though. :)

Posted by: Jeff Coney (www.hedgehoggames.com)) at December 11, 2005 05:09 PM

I've got it. The perfect solution for retailers. Now it does leave out Wicca, other pagans, and non-celebrators (you know some hard core Christian faiths here in the deep south don't acknowledge Christmas) Anyway the solution....

HAPPY CHRISTMAKWANZANANUKAH!

(And when you say this to someone they can use the traditional response, happy googledgook to you too.)

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 11, 2005 05:09 PM

It is a central creed of naturalistic evolution that things MUST have a natural origin and explanation. Even the origin of the universe itself had to have a natural beginning. You and I may choose to believe God did it through natural means or in a literal 6 days. Either way it is bad science to even consider God in the equation.

Evolution does NOT have a central "creed". The idea that things have a natural explanation is central to ALL science. Why is it only evolutionists that get crap? If I say that a pencil falls when I drop it due to the theory of gravity why don't a bunch of people write angry letters to my school saying that I'm contradicting their belief that Satan is actually trying, always trying, to suck our souls to the fiery pit (located somewhere between the Moho and the Outer Core) and that THIS is why things are inexorably drawn toward the center of the Earth?

Also, and I will keep saying this until you hear it, evolution has little to nothing to say about either the origin of the universe or the origin of life. Those are entirely different things. The origin of the universe isn't even biology and, speaking as someone who is a biologist by training, makes my head hurt to think about it. It's Physics. Talk to Tim.

I have studied the evidence that life itself came from inanimate matter, and it is not convincing.
Then you haven't really studied evolution. Read Darwin. For a guy who wrote when our knowledge of genetics was, well, nonexistent, it's amazing how well Origin of the Species holds up. (I suspect the book is more often bought than read. Too bad. It's quite good and you even get a sense of the man behind the words. Poetic, in its way.)

Well, Nat, I guess we just don't see it the same way. I suppose there may be a small group of people who intend a "Merry Christmas" or "happy Holidays" as some kind of snide attack but personally I see that as such a small minority of people that it hardly seems rational to assume it as such. Your reply, far from "giving him food for thought" will probably just make him or her wonder what it was that made you so embittered.

It's not limited to the holidays. I've seen people go off on people who simply said "Have a nice day." They took the opportunity to tell them that they knew that they did not really care whether or not they had a nice day and the world would be a better place if people did away with phony blah blah blah. They achieved their purpose, I guess, making everyone turn and pay attention to them, something that must not happen often enough to their liking. To what greater goal I can't imagine.

(I spent yesterday at a memorial service that was filled with songs praising G-d and Jesus. However, it was a service for someone who was specifically not a believer. The folks selecting the music may have felt it the appropriate thing to do, kindly and courteous, but it was actually offensive to the memory of the man.)

Well, that's why you should put these things down in writing. Memorials are mostly for the living, since the deceased is, presumably, not able to hear it. (If he DID hear it I guess he has reassessed his opinion of the afterlife). I've told people I want Morricone music at mine (the finale for Once Upon A Time In America would be a particularly nice send off) but if they stick in some hymns it isn't like I'll rise up out of the coffin and object (though wouldn't that be GREAT?). Whatever makes my family happy.

That said, sorry about the loss of your friend.

Posted by: Jerry Wall at December 11, 2005 05:20 PM

Of course, what got the majority of the non-extremist Christians agitated was not any sort of "happy holidays", but rather businesses forbidding the use of the word "Christmas" in relation to Christmas symbols. A Christmas tree is a Christmas tree, not a holiday tree, until the tree starts being used at the 4th of July. A hanukkah menorah is a hanukkah menorah, not a holiday candelabra (and my advanced apoligies if I mispelled or misused a religious reference here).

I have no problem with people saying "Happy Holidays". Glenn Beck, one of the top rated conservative talk show hosts spent Friday DEFENDING Bush's Holiday card. Most Christians fall into that group.

However, when businesses or cities ban employees from even mentioning a specific holiday, that gives amunition and support to the extremists, even from those of us that don't support extremists...

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 11, 2005 05:21 PM

I even get the "I dont unnderstand why you let Pat Robertson have control over you" BS talkback as well!

Well, great minds think alike.

Don't know why you think it's BS though. If I read this correctly the fellow was implying that he WOULD have gone to see the movie but declined because he was afraid that Pat Robertson would gain some degree of pleasure from it.

Sounds to me like Mr Robertson's opinions carry a hell of a lot of weight to him. More than they ever possibly could to me. Boy, if Robertson is ever clever enough to learn about reverse psychology he will have some of you dancing on strings.

Anyway, you missed a really fun movie, in my opinion. With a 67 million dollar opening weekend (the second biggest December opening ever) you can probably feel assured that your contribution will not change Robertson's feelings one way or another.

(I hear Dick Cheney really wants you to see KING KONG).

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at December 11, 2005 05:38 PM

It is a central creed of naturalistic evolution that things MUST have a natural origin and explanation.

No, Jim, it is a central tenet of scientific thought that things must have a natural origin and explanation. Looking to the supernatural is a matter for philosophers and theologians, not scientists. Your objection is rather similar to saying that if one believes in the proton-proton interaction of nuclear fusion, one is denying God His place in lighting the stars.

For myself, I agree with Dr. David Brin - if God has gone to this much effort to make the universe look as if it's fourteen billion years old, and as if life has evolved on this planet over the past three billion years, who am I to call Him a liar?

Posted by: Nivek at December 11, 2005 05:59 PM

>>If I read this correctly the fellow was implying that he WOULD have gone to see the movie but declined because he was afraid that Pat Robertson would gain some degree of pleasure from it.

As do I, why is that strange? I have an intrest to see it, but as I quoted, CBN will take any huge box office and PROMOTE IT as a sign the public wants to see Christian Themed films, which is a severe misconception. I see their endorsement as a drawback, and personally do not want my box office dollar endorsing Robertson and his agenda.

>>Sounds to me like Mr Robertson's opinions carry a hell of a lot of weight to him. More than they ever possibly could to me. Boy, if Robertson is ever clever enough to learn about reverse psychology he will have some of you dancing on strings.

I really dont understand how my non-action shows he's pulling any strings. It doesn't mean im saying things like "Damn Pat Robertson, I wanted to see this, but now I cant because he's endorsing it". It's more like "It looks cool, but it can wait". Personally, I dont go to that many movies anymore for other reasons, so I usually see specific films in a year in the Theatre. Narnia doesn't intrest me as much as Kong, but thats a personal choice. If Robertson endorsed Kong (which he never would since it shows animals have 'souls") I dont think that would deter me ay all. Same with Dick.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 11, 2005 06:15 PM

Hey, you go or not go for any reason you want...I'm still not clear on what you're saying since your last post has parts that seem to be at odds with each other but it's probably not as big a deal as I've made it out to be.

Me, I'm such a movie buff that even the suggestion that some outside force, especially one I hold in such little regard as Robertson, could have an influence on what I go to see is just mind boggling. Hey, I watch movies I don't even think I'll like! I mean, normally I pass on movies about gay cowboys eating pudding but I have faith in Ang Lee so....

Posted by: Alan Coil at December 11, 2005 06:17 PM

NIVEK:

That's Knuckledrag, Iowa. Leave Oklahoma out of this.

CRAIG RIES: fyi, Randi Rhodes is a woman. And is on Air America. She may be Jewish, too, but that is just the impression I get. So that's 3 reason's why ArizonaTeach wouldn't listen to anything she says.

JERRY WALL: Of course Glenn Beck defended the Bush card. Bush can do no wrong, according to the Extreme Reich. Beck worships Pope Bush the Lesser.

Posted by: Nat Gertler at December 11, 2005 06:38 PM

A Christmas tree is a Christmas tree, not a holiday tree, until the tree starts being used at the 4th of July.

Except that not only is the tree used to celebrate other holidays, specifically Saturnalia. It was borrowed (usurped) for Christmas... in curious countervention to what the bible calls for:

Jeremiah 10:2-4: "Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not." (KJV, as quoted at http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_tree.htm )

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 11, 2005 07:00 PM

Jim,

Have I been guilty of broad generalizations? Yes, at times. Have I been less than polite. Perhaps. But I have always have maintained a respect of others on this site.

No, Jim, you haven't. You have, at least so far as I remember, taken pains to avoid being rude towards any specific person -- but when you feel equally free to condemn or otherwise disparage groups of which said person is clearly a part, that's not maintaining a level of respect. It's simply not, and I'm sorry that you don't appear to realize that.

Bill:

The idea that things have a natural explanation is central to ALL science. Why is it only evolutionists that get crap?

Because many people over in creationist-land don't realize that Big Bang cosmology *isn't* part of evolutionary theory. There is little doubt in my mind that cosmology will be a major target once somebody figures that out, however.

The origin of the universe isn't even biology and, speaking as someone who is a biologist by training, makes my head hurt to think about it. It's Physics. Talk to Tim.

If it doesn't make your head hurt, you're not grasping it sufficiently. :-)

More seriously, there is absolutely no conflict between Big Bang cosmology and the possibility of a creator. None. It's the creationist side, appropriately enough, that's creating a conflict where none exists.

And most of cosmology doesn't discuss the origin of the universe, either. The origin of galaxies, yes; early-universe nucleosynthesis, yes; events from the first billionth of a second or so onwards, yes. The origin, no. There are starting to be some hypotheses about the Big Bang itself, but that's much more speculative. Everything from about the first 0.000001 seconds up is pretty well established theory at this point. (And yes, that's a mind-blowing thing to be able to say.)

Jonathan:

Your objection is rather similar to saying that if one believes in the proton-proton interaction of nuclear fusion, one is denying God His place in lighting the stars.

Aaigh! For the sake of all that is good, don't give him more targets! :-)

And I hadn't heard the Brin quote -- absolutely lovely, and I may have to appropriate it from time to time (with proper citation, of course).


And in general: while I certainly understand Nat's point of view here (and others who share his opinion), I find the "happy holidays"/"Merry Christmas" tiff to be mostly tempest-in-a-teapot stuff as regards me personally. When the lead teacher at Katherine's day care told her that "God Bless You -- that's what we say when somebody sneezes," I didn't bother to jump in and say "um, actually that's NOT what our family says" -- it wasn't worth it, and she was well-intentioned. I prefer to save my separation-of-church-and-state battles for things that matter.

I completely understand why it might get some people riled up, and I respect that -- but IMO, at least, as long as it's just being used as a pleasantry I don't really care that much what people say.

(Similarly, to rouse another hornets' nest, I find the whole concept of the Pledge of Allegiance appalling -- but I don't picket when the school happens to say it during morning meeting. I just stand respectfully and remain silent. So far I don't know that anyone's even noticed -- if they do and ask, I'll explain, but it's more of a personal thing than anything else.)

TWL

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 11, 2005 07:02 PM

That's Knuckledrag, Iowa. Leave Oklahoma out of this.

Given recent events, I hereby recommend that we all adopt "Knuckledrag, Kansas."

TWL

Posted by: Sean McInerney at December 11, 2005 07:08 PM

Peter,

As a Roman Catholic, and a fan (not that they are seperate), have a very happy holiday season to you and yours. It was nice to see what you wrote, you said what I was and have said to my friends.

Be well and keep up the good work,

Sean

Posted by: Nemo at December 11, 2005 07:26 PM

When the lead teacher at Katherine's day care told her that "God Bless You -- that's what we say when somebody sneezes," I didn't bother to jump in and say "um, actually that's NOT what our family says" -- it wasn't worth it, and she was well-intentioned. I prefer to save my separation-of-church-and-state battles for things that matter.

Unless it's a state-run day care, then the argument is moot, anyway. Most day cares (around here at least) are private companies, not part of a state-run organization like schools. Therefore, there is no separation doctrine to apply.

As you say, though, she's well-meaning and sharing a blessing. Like "Merry Christmas" it just doesn't seem like a big deal.

Posted by: Brian Peterson at December 11, 2005 07:27 PM

Since Narnia is being debated so it's interesting no one has really said what they thought of it. As a childhood fan of the books, even though I had no clue of the religious overtones, I walked out of the theater think, Eh. The acting is top notch, special effects are good, it's fairly faithful to the book except for the opening...

But I walked out with no real emotion about it, I didn't love it, didn't hate it but don't really care to see it again. Been there done that sort of thing, time to move on. When comparing against the other big fantasy movie out there, just got back from enjoying Harry potter for the third time.

Posted by: Robert Frost at December 11, 2005 07:56 PM

"Unless it's a state-run day care, then the argument is moot, anyway. Most day cares (around here at least) are private companies, not part of a state-run organization like schools. Therefore, there is no separation doctrine to apply."

Actually, you are stating a misunderstanding of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

It is perfectly legal (and protected) for an employee of a state-run organization to say "God bless you." The first amendment only prohibits CONGRESS religion. There is no constitutional separation of church and state - only a separation of CONGRESSES law writing ability and the church. Neither the executive or judicial branches or and local government are held to any restrictions according to the US Constitution.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 11, 2005 08:08 PM

As far as the 3 book/movies go I'd say that Narnia is a better book than Potter but the Potter movies are better and getting better with each installment--for which I credit the fact that the author had almost unprecedented control over how badly the monkeys in Hollywood could muck with it. The studios should take note but they won't.

Rings beats them both, as book and film. But then again, Jackson is a genius, as those of us who have followed him from Bad Taste on know.

But hey, there's plenty of room for all 3. Narnia's better than 95% of what's out there, good enough for me. I rather wish they hadn't had Liam Neeson do Aslan's voice, not that Liam did a bad job but I kept thinking "Hey, it's Qui-Gon."

There also should have been a bit more gravitas in the battles. I realize this is a family movie so they couldn't show Minotaurs goring Centaurs but I really wanted to see...uh, Minotaurs goring Centaurs. I mean, how many times will I get the chance?

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 11, 2005 08:18 PM

Unless it's a state-run day care, then the argument is moot, anyway. Most day cares (around here at least) are private companies, not part of a state-run organization like schools. Therefore, there is no separation doctrine to apply.

Oh, it never even occurred to me that it could or should be any sort of legal issue. They can say whatever they want. (Come to think of it, though, it's a day care run through a state school, which means it might technically qualify as state-run ... hmm.) In any event, I was talking about it more as a question of "is this worth getting into a snit about?" than anything else.

TWL

Posted by: Darren J Hudak at December 11, 2005 09:01 PM

// Actually, Chanukah is a very minor holiday in the Jewish calendar. It has been blown out of proportion simply due to its proximity in the calendar to Christmas. //

And for most of the history of Christianty X-Mas was a realitivly minor holiday in the Christian calender, if it was even celebrated at all, (many Christian sects did not celebrate it at all till about 100-150 years ago, and there are still a few sects today that don't acknowledge it).

In fact, although most Roman Catholics are unaware of it, Christmas is not the major holiday in the Catholic calender, Easter is. Now if you stop and think about it this makes total sense, after all Easter celebrates the resurection of Christ, everyone was born, no big deal there, but to die and come back, now that's something worth celebrating.

Sadly since everyone gets presents on XMas they seem to think that's the big deal, not Easter, which compared to XMas seems kinda lame, (especialy if you're a kid).

As you point out Chanukah has already been blown out of propotion, (I have a Jewish friend who complains about that all the time), but give it another 100 years and it may become the major holiday in the perception of the faithful just as Christmas has become for most Christian followers.

Posted by: Bobb at December 11, 2005 09:10 PM

Jim, your comments on evolution highlight why the debate between evolution and so-called intelligent design even exist: a fundamental misunderstanding of what the science of evolution is, what it attempts to study, what it says about those studies, and what it is trying to explain. You (and others that decry evolution) feel that it attacks the fundamental building blocks of your belief. And for literal creationists, it does. But not because it wants to prove you wrong...but because that's what an impartial observer looking at the facts would conclude. The only people going around saying that the Earth is only 14,000 years old (max) are those are predisposed to hold that belief to being with. Anyone not looking to support the chronology of the Bible holds to the evidence that our planet is in fact billions of years old, and that obsverable life has been around for hundreds of millions of years.

But more than that, the very basis on which you attack evolution...

"But evolution is based on assumptions that cannot be proved...."

can be applied to nearly every passage of the Bible. Parts of itcan be supported with fact. But strictly looking at the story of creation, and adhering to it as a true story is simply making assumptions that cannot be proved. The only thing that supports a literal story of Biblical creation is faith. Which is actuall LESS than the evidence supporting evolution. Which, despite gaps in the fossil record (which can easily be explained by the fact that a very, very minor portion of 1% of all animals every become fossils), what we DO have of the fossil record indicates that life forms do change over time in ways that we can only perceive by examing the fossil record.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at December 11, 2005 09:14 PM

No, Jim, it is a central tenet of scientific thought that things must have a natural origin and explanation.

You have just made my point. By definition, if you insist the universe has a *natural* origin and explanation, you have made a philosophical statement. You have said it is at least possible (if not probable) for the universe to exist without there being a "god" of any kind.

There is a big difference between observing laws in effect today and making extrapolations about the past. It is necessary to do so. But when you get into the issue of origin, particuarly the origin of everything, you go beyond what science can prove. Why do the laws themself exist? Whatever your answer, it is based on presuppostions. I would say they exist because a rational, orderly God exists who put them into place. I have read a lot of alternatives, everthing from the speculation that there are multiple universes and that out of the infinite variations, one of them had to have our set of laws, to a simple statement that they just simply exist because they always exist. At least right now there is no way to test these theories, and I doubt we ever can. Until we do, you are dealing with a presupposition, not a "fact."

Science requires that things happen in an orderly fashion with a cause and effect. Electricity will always operate the same way. Chemical reactions, under the same conditions, will produce the same results. That is different than saying the origin of the universe HAD to happen naturally. That is a statement derived more from philosophy than fact.

To put it differently, your statement assumes the universe is a closed system. That cannot be proven. To say I believe it is open does not mean the laws of science are arbitrary. It simply means I believe there are dimensions beyond our own, dimensions that can, at times overide the natural order of things. I would refer to these events as miracles which occur due to the volitional actions of an intelligent being. As such, they are not random or arbitrary, so it does not make scientific thought impossible. It just acknowledges that there is, at times, more than meets the eye.

Feel free to respond and I will read and consider it. For my part, I will drop the issue since this is getting way off the original topic.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: kawherp at December 11, 2005 09:27 PM

Tim Lynch wrote" For the record, when I dismiss my classes the last day before we all go on break, I usually try to cover all the bases -- "Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, Happy Kwanaaa, Happy Solstice, or just have a great two weeks off." When I'm in a hurry, I'll just go with "whatever your holiday of choice, have a terrific one." Nobody's ever taken offense."

I do much the same, and again, have had no problem. Last year, I even had a student give me gift of gold chocolate coins and she said "This is my holiday, and I wanted to share it with you." Did I take offense because I'm not Jewish? Heck no! I was touched and appreciative. Likewise, I have a friend who is Jewish and married a Christian. The first December they were together, they had a Chanukah party and invited all of their mutual friends over. We played with the dreidel, ate traditional food, and learned all about her holiday. We muddled along with her as she lit the first candle. Again, I was pleased to be invited, not offended! Nor did I feel that I was being forced to convert. She was simply sharing her holiday with us. That dreidel now hangs on my Christmas tree as a treasured symbol of that evening we shared.

And as far as evolution...I start the first day of my freshman biology class with a discussion of the scientific method and how the THEORY of evolution is not using "theory" in the everyday context, but as a reflection of the scientific method. Then I address the key difference between religion and science- how to test it. You can test the workings of a cell. You can't put God in a test tube. This is followed with my spiel on respecting different religions, but keeping them out of a science class out of respect for both the science and the religion. I end with an assurance that they are welcome (and encouraged) to reconcile their faith, if they have one, and the theory of evolution any way they choose, including a talk with their own religious leaders. Faith is to be respected, but has no right to horn in on my biology class! And so we begin. I've laid out the boundaries of what is appropriate for discussion in my class while maintaining respect for other subjects.

I have yet to have a student complain that I was being hostile to their religion, intolerant of their beliefs or otherwise attacking them, much less making them uncomfortable. I have, however, had numerous students tell me in private that they liked how I was handling the issue.

I think it is respectful, in that context, to wish my students a "Happy Holiday" instead of Merry Christmas, at the end of the term. I KNOW they are not all Christian, but they are all looking forward to some time off!

Jackie

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 11, 2005 09:53 PM

Sadly since everyone gets presents on XMas they seem to think that's the big deal, not Easter, which compared to XMas seems kinda lame, (especialy if you're a kid).

Yeah but maybe it's all for the best. Easter hasn't been co opted the way Christmas has been. If one of the holidays had to be the gift giving one it should be the one celebrating birth. I mean, when my sister has another kid I send a present. If one of my relatives rises from the dead, I don't. In fact, I run like hell.

By definition, if you insist the universe has a *natural* origin and explanation, you have made a philosophical statement. You have said it is at least possible (if not probable) for the universe to exist without there being a "god" of any kind.

And I think that you have just demonstrated why we should not be teaching creationism in science classes.

Science, by definition, looks for natural laws. It does not deny that the supernatural exists, only that it can not be measured by science.

And anyway, why would God, who has used science to do every other thing we have found on this world, stubbornly insist on using supernatural means to make man? Oh, and go to so much trouble to make it seem as though he had used science? At least those who claim that fossils and other evidences of evolution were put here by the devil admit that such overwhelming evidence exists.

I think that some of what has been directed against you on this talkback has been overly harsh but I agree with Tim that id you use words like "Fraud" to describe evolution you are going to have to expect a fight on your hands. One that you will probably lose. I would urge you to explore not only the arguments against evolution but some of the many replies to those arguments (keeping in mind that if at the end of the day you decide that evolution is a fact it need not have one single iota of an effect on your relationship with God).

All that said, Merry Christmas to you.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 11, 2005 09:56 PM

I think it is respectful, in that context, to wish my students a "Happy Holiday" instead of Merry Christmas, at the end of the term. I KNOW they are not all Christian, but they are all looking forward to some time off!

I just send them off with a hearty "Get out of here! And don't steal any of my rocks on the way out!"

Yeah, it's not exactly jolly but every year I have to find more Fools Gold to replace the samples that have been stolen, presumably by some fool.

Posted by: Cary at December 11, 2005 10:10 PM

Boy, nothing like some religious fervor to really stir up a debate with the nearest fence post! To everyone out there, best wishes for the coming holidays, no matter which one(s) you might celebrate. Now move along. I have some non-believers to burn at the stake.

Posted by: ArizonaTeach at December 11, 2005 10:30 PM

Heavens to Merkatroid...there's like 60 posts since Friday night, so I'm just going to say Happy Winter-een-mas to everyone and go watch the Simpsons.

Posted by: The StarWolf at December 11, 2005 10:35 PM

>I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I think evolution is a fraud. So what? You do not find me -- or 99.9% of those you would lump into the "extremist Christian" category -- forcing anyone to convert?

I'd be strongly tempted to say that someone's unorthodox manner of thinking should not necessarily see them branded as 'extremist' as much as those who go to extreme lengths in either promoting, or forcing those views on others.

>I would be surprised to find out that 100% of the people who are upset at the perceived "war on Christmas" are all right-wingers. Hmm...anyone know of any polls?

I don't. But, though I've been a left/centrist most of my life (I see good, and not necessarily mutually exclusive ideas on both sides of the political spectrum, albeit tending more to those on the left than on the right), I'm finding myself more and more in agreement with those who are getting annoyed at what is perceived as political correctness throttling the life out of what was once a simple, pleasant time of year. When politicians want to officially change a city's annual centerpiece's name from "Christmas tree" to "holiday tree" (mercifully, that one was shot down), and when shop staff are instructed not to wish people "Merry Christmas" for fear of offending someone, something's gone off the rails.

When I go to Japan, no one worries about offending me by telling me to remove my shoes before I go into their home. And they shouldn't. I know what to expect and I make sure my socks don't have holes in them. End of problem. Ditto, if I were to move to a fundamentalist Middle Eastern country, I wouldn't raise a fuss because they won't let me open a liquor shop. It's the way things are there and I accept it. So why, exactly, should I be expected to change the way I've (and just about ecerybody I know) done things for decades, just because people who didn't like the way things were in their country have decided to take offense at the way things are here as well?

> To the Christians: Christmas, to the Jews: Hanukkah, to the Pagans: Yule. There's also the African Kwanzaa festival.

I've got a few Jewish friends and I invariably wish them Happy Hannukkah. But I also wish them Merry Christmas, send them Christmas card, and even exchange Christmas presents with a couple of them. No one gets their noses out of joint about it. What's the problem with the others (of whichever faith) out there that they get upset because someone wishes them well in the best way they know how?

>The benefit of "Happy Holidays" is that it's all-encompassing,

Since I tend to take my holidays (month's worth) usually either in the Spring or Fall, not really.

>when we've no historical reason to conclude that that was his birthday

In fact, I believe historians have proven that the year we've used as his birth is off by at least four years. And we're going to say the day is exact?

Posted by: Tom Galloway at December 11, 2005 10:51 PM

Lis Riba has pointed out on her blog that this whole attack on "Happy Holidays" bears a strong resemblence to the (extremely funny, even for this non-jew who probably only got a fraction of the references/jokes) plot of the movie The Hebrew Hammer (possibly the first and only jewsplotation movie in the spirit of 70s blaxsplotation movies). Dialogue she quoted included this from Santa Claus:

SANTA CLAUS (CONT'D)
I was responsible for pushing the Happy
Holidays Ordinance, in which all Merry
Christmas signage was replaced by the
Trans-relgious and inoffensive phrase
'Happy Holidays.'

Which is why upon examination of my
annual naughty and nice list it shocked
me to discover that my own son, Damian...
...the heir to the Red Suit, could be so
filled with hate.

Damian, when I learned of your ludicrous
scheme to wipe out Hanukkah, my first
reaction was one of disgust. Now, I'm
only filled with sadness and
disappointment. Disappointed that I
failed to teach you the true meaning of
Christmas. What do you have to say for
yourself?

Posted by: indestructibleman at December 11, 2005 11:06 PM

kudos to Jerry C for pointing out that the real force behind the whole inclusive Happy Holidays thing is capitalism.

it's not a bunch of left-wing loonies saying we have to be super careful that we never in any way chance offending anyone. it's a bunch of businesses trying to maximize their profits.

Happy Holidays sells more than Merry Christmas sells. that's the bottom line. so much of the political correctness stuff people complain about is driven purely by profit motive.

also, kudos to Bill for having impeccable taste

I've told people I want Morricone music at mine (the finale for Once Upon A Time In America would be a particularly nice send off)


-will

Posted by: Steve Horton at December 11, 2005 11:15 PM

To sum up: Happy Festivus, for the rest of us.

Posted by: Jonathan at December 11, 2005 11:49 PM

"That dreidel now hangs on my Christmas tree as a treasured symbol of that evening we shared."

That's one of the more interesting images I've encountered this season.

Unfortunately, I then imagine kids taking off the dreidel, playing with it and saying:

"Oh dear, I got a shin, now we have to give back the tree"

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 11, 2005 11:54 PM

Just for that, Will, you're invited.

I'll be the quiet guy in the coffin.

Posted by: Rex Hondo at December 12, 2005 02:49 AM

Okay, this ground has been pretty well covered, so I'll just drop a couple of points and reiterations.

What is commonly known as the Christmas Tree has deeply pagan origins, along with mistletoe, wreaths, the "holiday colors" red and green, the yule log (duh) and other symbols of the season.

Nobody is trying to tell anybody that they cannot say "Merry Christmas" on their own time. The rare person who takes offense to a heartfelt expression of holiday wellwishing needs emotional help, and you can feel free to ignore them. HOWEVER, when you're on the clock at Target, Wally World, or pretty much anyplace else you're dealing with the public, you are acting as an official representative of that company, and if the company wishes to use an inclusive holiday greeting, either deal with it or get a different job.

I don't think any of my fellow Christians here have actually claimed to be persecuted yet, and that's good. There's very little that makes me more sick. Walk down practically any public street in the Bible Belt, openly displaying a pentacle and see how people treat you. THEN get back to me on how "persecuted" you are...

RE: Narnia. I'll probably go see the movie, if for no other reason than the visuals look incredible. I'm reading the series for the first time currently, and only in book 3 it's starting to get a little bit preachy. I'll see how far I get before it gets unreadably so.

Happy Holidays to all!

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: Rex Hondo at December 12, 2005 02:56 AM

Whoops, forgot one in the heat of the moment.

If, like the guy who felt the need to call my home after reading my letter to the editor the other day, you ever end up using "Merry Christmas" or any other holiday greeting not as an actual greeting, but as some sort of epithet or just to "make a point," you have in that moment done more to "attack" the spirit of the holidays than any retail establishment can.

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: Elf with a gun at December 12, 2005 03:08 AM

***Posted by Jerry C at December 11, 2005 10:12 AM


It's also dumb to go after stores over this. They are in the real world (rather then the conservatives make believe Earth C) . . . . ***

Leave Captain Carrot out of this!

:)

Chris

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 12, 2005 05:12 AM

Science, by definition, looks for natural laws.

Unless you're in Kansas, which just changed the definition because they apparently know better than actual working scientists. Got it.

I'll be the quiet guy in the coffin.

Given all your talk about zombies, I have my doubts. :-)

TWL

Posted by: John Zacharias at December 12, 2005 06:29 AM

Time for my 2 cents

Who gives a shit?
Let me tell you a little about myself. I am Bi-polar 31 years old and for a large part of my life I was homeless. My standard joke to anyone that asks is I struggle between Athesicm and Agnostic. Want to feel "Christian"? Go volunteer at a homeless shelter. Not just at this time of the year all year round.
I wish for just one paragraph I could write as well as PAD. Get my point across better. Either way we concern ourselves with stupid things that do nothing to help those around us.

The reason I mentioned the Bi-polar thing is sometimes I MUST go talk to people. There is a Baptist church right down the street. So for a few Sundays I went down there mainly to socialise. I kept good control, I didnt talk anyone to death. Yet each time the Pastor would ask if I would accept god in my life. I had to be honest. I said no and I was Excluded, it was subtle but there.

Here is another fun story want a free meal in Mobile Alabama? Better be ready to sit in a pew starving for a few hours being preached too before you get any food. I am willing to work for my supper and have many times. Why do I have to be converted as well?
Religion, Shop talk, sports, Politics hell any group of people 3 or more becomes Exclusive. I try and look for ways in my life to be Inclusive.

We are all on a planet spinning thru the galaxy together. I have no clue what happens after death no one has come back to tell me. I do know for a fact that I can make my life what I want it to be. Somehow in my "travels" I didnt end up dead.
Currently I am on medication my wife makes sure I take it and we are raising a cute daughter. My life is wonderful, I am happy.

I guess my point is worrying about "happy holidays" or "merry christmas" seems like an intellectual game to distract from real life worries and concerns. It feels like spam news. Lets move on to better stuff. Find a homeless shelter help people there, devote time to someone in your family that is lonely.

Posted by: Peter David at December 12, 2005 06:43 AM

"Yeah but maybe it's all for the best. Easter hasn't been co opted the way Christmas has been."

Oh, I don't know. I'm thinking of the episode of "Sportsnight" entitled "Sally," where the Jewish Jeremy is trying to learn everything he can about Easter in order to impress the Christian family of the girl he's dating. Puzzled about something, he runs his understanding of the entire history of the holiday past his boss, Isaac, who then asks, "So what's your question?" And Jeremy says, "The bunny fits into this HOW?"

Long story short, I don't recall colored eggs, chocolate rabbits or marshmallow Peeps playing a major role in the death and resurrection of Jesus. But then again, it's not my religion, so I could have missed something.

PAD

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 12, 2005 06:44 AM

HOWEVER, when you're on the clock at Target, Wally World, or pretty much anyplace else you're dealing with the public, you are acting as an official representative of that company, and if the company wishes to use an inclusive holiday greeting, either deal with it or get a different job.

Ahhh, but what if the situation were reversed? Would it be ok with you if your place of employment FORCED you to say "Merry Christmas" or demanded that you remove your pentacle?

John, you make some very good points. I hope the holidays treat you well. Take care.

Posted by: Rex Hondo at December 12, 2005 07:17 AM

Bill, an interesting question. I think any company would have a hard time FORCING somebody to say "Merry Christmas" or remove religious iconography of any kind, assuming it fit within a resonable dress code. That would definitely fall within the realm of religious harrassment or discrimination.

"Happy Holidays," however, by it's very all-inclusive nature, is patently non-discriminatory. True, there are SOME people who will probably be upset that they have to lump themselves in with those OTHER people by using an all-inclusive, but then, naked bigotry of any kind is usually a fireable offense in just about any workplace I can think of.

Hopefully I managed to effectively describe what I see as the distinction. It's been a long night...

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: Bobb at December 12, 2005 08:15 AM

"Long story short, I don't recall colored eggs, chocolate rabbits or marshmallow Peeps playing a major role in the death and resurrection of Jesus. But then again, it's not my religion, so I could have missed something."

Who or what do you think moved the rock? The rabbits hatched from the eggs (being chocolate, they could only come from eggs), and placed the peeps under the rock. Then, they used the microwave beams attached to their forheads to inflate the peeps (c'mon, you ALL know what I'm talking about) to roll the rock aside. Finally, they ate the remnants of the peeps to cover up the evidence (30-40 AD CSI may have been primitive by today's standards, but even they couldn't have missed that).

Which of course, today translates into coloring eggs, hunting for them in your uncle's backyard, getting into a peep fight (think snowball fight, until someone puts an eye out), all culminating in the "hey, what would happen if we put a peep in the microwave?" event.

What, that's not Easter?

Posted by: Travis at December 12, 2005 08:17 AM

Alan Coil wrote
NIVEK:

That's Knuckledrag, Iowa. Leave Oklahoma out of this.

Thanks.. we have enough hard time with the idiots here already... Oklahoma does not at all need to be dragged into anything. We're capable of dragging ourselves into stupidity, thankyouverymuch.

Christ-Mass is very interesting, I believe... since the majority of the traditions seem to be, as stated above, usurped from other religions. The Yule Log, the Christmas Tree, the ritual trimming of the cat hair... though for some reason, i can't find anyone else who does this.

Just remember folks, the true meaning of the season is to give retailers a boost in sales to make their year goals. Anyone who tells you otherwise isn't a true American.


- Travis

Posted by: Jeff Coney (www.hedgehoggames.com)) at December 12, 2005 08:27 AM

"Long story short, I don't recall colored eggs, chocolate rabbits or marshmallow Peeps playing a major role in the death and resurrection of Jesus. But then again, it's not my religion, so I could have missed something."

Reminds me of the last ep of Farscape.
Scorpius: "I believe trust, like religion is an individual choice. Either you have faith, and bunnies are irrelevant, or you don't. In which case, chocolate!"

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 12, 2005 08:31 AM

Rex, I think you express it fine. It also points out the method behind the madness of the "war on Christmas" thing. If Target, Wal-Mart, et al insist on having their people say "Happy Holidays" so as not to offend paying customers, then having a bunch of them suddenly taking offense to it will force them to change.

Here's my solution. Anybody can wish anyone any freaking courtesy they wish, as long as it's genuine and not vulger. In return, the well wishee should reply in wahtever form THEY wish. It would go something like this:

"Merry Christmas!
"And a happy Solstice right back at you!"

And everyone can safely write off anyone who tries to make to big a deal out of it as a crank. No edicts from the corporate offices, no reasons to boycott or waste printing ink on a non-issue. Anyway, that's how it would be in MY world. Also, everyone has a rocket launcher, just to keep things interesting.

Long story short, I don't recall colored eggs, chocolate rabbits or marshmallow Peeps playing a major role in the death and resurrection of Jesus.

True. There's no doubt been SOME co-opting but nowhere near the degree that Christmas has. And anyway, while coloring eggs has only the vaguest link to the holiday, it's a nice family ritual. We have too few of those these days.

(I know that it is commonly claimed that the Easter Egg is another pagan ritual grabbed by the Church but there may be other explanations as well--eggs were considered meat and thereby banned for Lent. Hardboiling them would preserve them during that time. It's easy to imagine how this could have morphed into the the whole Easter Egg hunt game.).

Posted by: Bob Jones at December 12, 2005 08:36 AM

http://www.christianbooksonline.net/

This is one of the banner ads that comes up on your site. Merry CHRISTmas to everyone! BTW, PAD, I met Herr Hauman at PhilCon this weekend.

Posted by: indestructibleman at December 12, 2005 11:30 AM

spring + eggs + rabbits = fertility festival

i'm gonna have to go with the argument that Easter is another pagan holiday that's been co-opted by Christianity.

Posted by: Chadwick H. Saxelid at December 12, 2005 11:51 AM

Long story short, I don't recall colored eggs, chocolate rabbits or marshmallow Peeps playing a major role in the death and resurrection of Jesus. But then again, it's not my religion, so I could have missed something.

PAD

What do you think the crowd was eating? ;-)

Posted by: Rick Keating at December 12, 2005 12:42 PM

A brief “holidays” history lesson.

On two separate occasions, I’ve written articles about the origins of Christmas, Chanukah and Kwanzaa for the newspaper I write for. Here is an excerpt, focusing on how various Christmas traditions originated (since this thread is focused primarily on that holiday).

(And, for the record, the word “holiday” is derived from “holy day.”)

The holiday of Christmas can be traced to the Roman holiday of Saturnalia, a week-long carnival which culminated with the winter solstice on Dec. 25. The actual date (and even year) of Jesus’ birth remains unknown, though most scholars believe he was born between 6 B.C.E. and 4 B.C.E.

Not all Christian denominations celebrate Christmas on December 25, however. Members of Eastern Orthodox churches celebrate it Jan. 6, the feast of the Epiphany, when the three wise men were believed to have visited the baby Jesus.

As to Santa Claus, the symbol of the commercial Christmas, according to one legend, he evolved from St. Nicholas, a 4th century Bishop of Myra in Asia Minor who performed anonymous acts of kindness.

In his 1975 book “St. Nicholas, Life and Legend,” author Martin Ebon relates the popular story that before Nicholas became a priest, he anonymously threw bags of gold through the window of a now penniless, widowed nobleman who feared he would have to sell his teenage daughters into either slavery or prostitution.

B.A. Robinson, writing on the Internet site www.religioustolerance.org, disputes that theory, however. Robinson states that according to religious historians, there is no evidence to indicate that a man called St. Nicholas ever existed. Instead, he may have been a recycled Pagan god. Robinson said Nicholas seems to have been created out of legends attributed to the Greek god Poseidon, the Roman god Neptune, and the Teutonic god Hold Nickar.

St. Nicholas also shares similarities with the "The Grandmother" or “Befana” from Italy, who was said to have filled children's stockings with gifts.

Robinson also said that by the 19th century, Nicholas had been superseded in much of Europe by Christkindlein, the Christ child, who delivered gifts in secret to the children. He was accompanied by a dwarf-like helper called Pelznickel (a.k.a. Belsnickle). Eventually, all three were combined into the image we now know as Santa Claus. "Christkindlein" became Kriss Kringle.

As to the name “Santa Claus”, or “Sinta Claes”, some say it’s Dutch in origin; but Ebon cites Dr. Charles W. Jones’ article in the Oct. 1954 issue of the New York Historical Society Quarterly, as stating that there is no reference to Santa Claus during the Dutch rule of now New York. The first such reference, he says, comes in 1773, with an item in the Rivington’s Gazetteer.

Jones’ argument, Ebon says, is that St. Nicholas was an anti British symbol adopted by the colonists known as the Sons of St. Nicholas, and not meant to be taken seriously.

Many people trace the modern image of Santa Claus, including his appearance, his reindeer and his sleigh, to the works of Thomas Nast, a German born illustrator for “Harper’s Weekly,” who illustrated Christmas issues of the magazine between the 1860s and the 1890s; and Haddon Sundblom, an illustrator for The Coca-Cola company who drew a series of Santa images in their Christmas advertisements between 1931 and 1964. However, Ebon also names Washington Irving and Clement Clark Moore with helping to create the modern image of Santa Claus.

In 1809, Irving wrote a satirical history of New York “from The Beginning of the World To the End of The Dutch Dynasty”, which contained 25 references to St. Nicholas. In 1822, Moore, a Hebrew scholar is credited with writing “A Visit From St. Nicholas,” the poem that begins with “‘Twas the night before Christmas.” Robinson said, however, that some have attributed the poem to a contemporary of Moore’s named Henry Livingston, Jr.

Another Christmas tradition involves the decoration of a tree, under which presents sit. According to Tristram P. Coffin, in his 1973 volume, “The Book of Christmas Folklore”, one legend states that the custom of decorating trees began in 8th century Germany, when St. Bonifice dedicated a fir tree to Jesus, to rebut the sacred oak of Odin. The most popular legend, however, states that the first tree was cut down by Martin Luther and decorated with candles to imitate the “starry skies of Bethlehem.”

In Europe, the first Christmas Tree was raised in Strassburg in 1604. Princess Helen of Mecklenburg then brought the custom to France in 1837. It subsequently came to England in 1844; and to the U.S. with German immigrants. However, it didn’t gain national recognition until President Pierce decorated the White House with a Christmas tree in 1856.

Hope that wasn’t too long.

By the way, in case the ultra-right wing “Christians” haven’t noticed, the three holidays of Christmas, Chanukah and Kwanzaa are all celebrated in December (though I suppose Chanukah might occasionally fall in November). Sounds like a good argument for saying “happy holidays”. You know, since there’s more than one during this time of year. And that’s not even including Thanksgiving (when the “holiday season” traditionally begins), and New Year’s.

For the record, however, I have no problem saying Merry Christmas.

So, Feliz Navidad to all who celebrate.

Rick

Posted by: Kelly R Hoose at December 12, 2005 12:56 PM

This is why one day the government will destroy ALL religion.


They'll just one day going to have too much of the B.S. and get rid off them for being "anti-american" or "anti-government".

Posted by: indestructibleman at December 12, 2005 01:15 PM

for the record, most biblical scholars seem to agree that that passage from Jeremiah 10:2-4 is talking about making wooden idols, not decorated trees.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 12, 2005 01:26 PM

i'm gonna have to go with the argument that Easter is another pagan holiday that's been co-opted by Christianity.

Since Easter is tied to Passover does that mean that passover is also a pagan holiday? Unlike Christmas, which could have fallen on any day, Easter is very specifically tied to the Jewsish Holiday (JEsus and followers all being Jewish.) So if it falls on a Pagan day it would seem to be a happy coincidence.

Posted by: Dave OConnell at December 12, 2005 03:16 PM

All this conversation on the topic and virtually nothing about one of the biggest battlegrounds: the schools. Anyone care to defend one side or the other? How about the unenviable task of defending those schools that allow nods to Hanukkah and Kwanzaa, but not Christmas, even when the vast majority of the students are indeed the latter? Or the whitewashing of any religious references from some of our schools?

And while it's easy for someone like PAD to throw his hands up and say "All religious extremists are the same," it's exactly this sort of relativism that has made liberalism largely irrelevant in fighting the war on terror. A school of thought that cannot distinguish between a global movement of violence that regularly targets civilians (even ones of their own faith) and one whose "offenses" center largely on what they say will never be able to keep its focus on the task at hand, forever letting itself be thrown off the scent by antiquated red herrings like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.

They are the same in one key respect: they tend to have way more children than non-extermists. Especially the Muslims. Like it or not, that's your battleground for the future, because there's literally no future in liberal European-model, 1.3 kids per couple, abortion more-or-less on-demand societies.

-Dave OConnell

Posted by: JosephW at December 12, 2005 03:29 PM

Bill, Easter isn't quite as tied to Passover as one might think. Many years, in fact, Easter comes BEFORE Passover (as with this past year--Easter fell on March 27 while Passover didn't begin until April 24), as the actual date of Easter is based on a near-arcane formula which largely boils down to its being the first Sunday following the first full moon following the Spring Equinox (whoo!). This means the date for Easter can fall as early as March 23 (but only if the Spring Equinox falls on the 20th and the full moon occurs the 21st, but I believe that is not allowed to be a Saturday; in fact, Easter 2008 will fall on March 23--the last time it fell on that date was back in 1913), but generally no later than April 25 (the last time for that date was in 1943). Passover, on the other hand, is a "fixed" date, at least, by the Jewish calendar--as that calendar is a lunar-based one, it's shorter than the standard calendar in use in most Western countries, and so any fixed date on the Jewish calendar is not so by the Gregorian calendar; by the Jewish calendar, Passover begins on the 15th day of Nissan every year, regardless of when Easter falls. (For the record, it should be noted that the dates for Easter as listed above only apply to Roman Catholic and Protestant churches and adherents. The Eastern Orthodox Easter holiday may fall as late as the end of May, but is almost always after the Western Churches' holiday--and, incidentally, so is the Eastern Orthodox Christmas relative to the standard December 25.) More on the history of the determination of when Easter falls, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computus.

I'm rather amazed, though, that I haven't heard any complaints about "Chrismukkah" (that term seems to have become quite popular this year, courtesy of "The O.C."). I guess Bill O'Reilly, John Gibson and the "good" Christian hypocrites don't watch anything that doesn't appear on Fox News Channel.

Posted by: Bobb at December 12, 2005 04:08 PM

"it's exactly this sort of relativism that has made liberalism largely irrelevant in fighting the war on terror."

I take it the contrary assumption would then be that conservatism is relevant in fighting th war on terror? So relevant that we're engaged in a battle that is not against terrorists, but Iraqi insurgents. So relevant that, 4 years after 9/11, the only action the conservative government received high marks from the 9/11 commission were to add staff to the Canadian border...protecting us from those pesky Canadian terrorists. So relevant that the conservative government, after seeing the need for quick, decisive action in the wake of 9/11, stayed on vacation and failed to act quickly or decisevely during this countries greatest natural disaster, ever.

So, yeah, I can see how pointing out that a liberal acknowledgement that extremist thinking is the same wherever it occurs, and is generally a bad thing (even if a particular movement does not embrace wanton acts of destruction) makes a political bent irrelevant in fighting a war on another ideal. (I'd do the "eyerolling" thing, but I don't know what the smiley symbol is for that...)

Posted by: Michael Brunner at December 12, 2005 04:31 PM

Meanwhile, over at Democratic Underground, they have a screenshot of O'Reilly using the term "recommended holiday gifts" instead of "recommended Christmas gifts"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/05/225.html

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 12, 2005 06:04 PM

Long story short, I don't recall colored eggs, chocolate rabbits or marshmallow Peeps playing a major role in the death and resurrection of Jesus. But then again, it's not my religion, so I could have missed something.

Some stand-up comic had a great bit about that some years ago. "And Jesus said, 'Go, and gather thine eggs.' And so went the rabbit..."


How about the unenviable task of defending those schools that allow nods to Hanukkah and Kwanzaa, but not Christmas, even when the vast majority of the students are indeed the latter?

Can you name even one such school? I've taught at three and attended half a dozen in my time, and not once have I heard of anything of the sort happening in my schools or in neighboring ones. Maybe I'm just fortunate, but I suspect it's more likely that the propaganda has gotten ahead of the reality here.

Or the whitewashing of any religious references from some of our schools?

That one's a touchy issue, and I can readily see both sides of it. On the one hand, it seems very odd to keep December a religion-free month on a school campus, because virtually everyone is celebrating SOMETHING that month.

On the other hand, I suspect by the phrasing of your question that you don't have much sense of what it's like to be in the minority everywhere you go, and the sort of casual pressure to conform (usually unintentional) that goes along with it. As an atheist, I do, and there are times I've found it uncomfortable, to say the least. (Going to High Catholic weddings is ... an experience.)

The vicious circle you get into here is where it ends. If you're going to acknowledge Christmas, shouldn't Chanukah and Kwanzaa also get recognized? How about Diwali? The Winter Solstice? Zeusmas (a holiday a friend and I invented in college)? Festivus? (Okay, maybe not that last...) And, only half tongue-in-cheek, what *about* the atheists?

If you say "there must be X number of people who celebrate that holiday for us to recognize it," then you're telling any member of a faith that falls short of that message that their beliefs don't count.

So I don't know that I'm defending the schools that "whitewash" religious references away, as you put it, but I certainly understand and empathize with the conundrum they're in. That's part of diversity.

TWL

Posted by: indestructibleman at December 12, 2005 06:48 PM

allow me to modify my statement. i think it's fair to suppose that specific Easter traditions (rather than the very notion of the holiday itself) were co-opted from pagans.

this is just my pet theory, but at one point i found myself wondering what the heck eggs and rabbits have to do with the resurrection of Christ.

then it hit me that the common thread between the two was fertility, and as it's a spring holiday that strengthens the connection in my mind.

i speculate that when Christianity moved into certain areas they might already have had their own celebration of easter. this, coincidentally happened around the same time as a pagan spring festival.

in the process of converting people, they incorporated indiginous traditions and symbols.

i think it's just another example of how adaptable Christianity is. this is one of the religion's primary strengths.

-will

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 12, 2005 07:51 PM

There could well be a smarter political angle to this than I'd thought. Like a knee that can't help but jerk, some Democrats immediately jump at the bait. http://www.washingtongop.net/images/DemocratChristianHaters.jpg has a screen shot of some items for sale on the Washington State Democratic Party website, including a Fish symbol with a tilted cross eye, filled in with flames and the word "hypocrite".

Someone sane must have seen it and wrote them a letter using the words "Hey" "Dumbasses" and "What the hell were you thinking" because they took it down but not before conservative bloggers got the word out.

Posted by: Kelly Hoose at December 12, 2005 08:05 PM

WHY the hell are we talking about EASTER?

ALL that is on the news is "keep the Christ in christmas!" Happy Hoildays covers all religious and none religious people alike, however we're not renaming the hoilday, so X-mas will still be X-mas.


I think the REAL PROBLEM is they were outdone but that "I"M A GOD WARRIOR" ... lol

Posted by: Luigi Novi at December 12, 2005 10:09 PM

Peter, this was your best blog entry in a long time.

I posted a link to this blog entry at www.nitcentral.com, and my friend and fellow moderator Mike Cheyne posted this insightful bit in response, at http://64.33.77.146/discus/messages/6572/20318.html?MondayOctober1420020837pm#POST309821:

Another classic example of no news being turned into news.

What did President Bush put on his Christmas card last year?

Nothing that used the word "Christmas."

How about in 2003?

The same.

2002?

The same.

2001?

The same.

What did President Clinton put on all his Christmas cards from 1993 to 2000?

Nothing that mentioned Christmas.

So if you want to get all hot and bothered by it, you're about a decade or so late.

--------------------------------
And in a subsequent post, Mike mentioned:

(The other weird thing about it all is that people seem to forget that Bush included a Bible verse on his card. And yet, the extremists say he's not a "real" Christian.)

Iowa Jim: I think evolution is a fraud.
Luigi Novi: Can you cite scientific reasons for this, Jim? And if you don’t want to address this on this particular board because it’s off-topic, feel free to do so at the Evolution vs. Creationism boards in the Political Musings section of Nitcentral, at: http://64.33.77.146/discus/messages/2310/25987.html?1134075078.

Iowa Jim: You are confusing some traditions that still linger (such as government closing down for Christmas but not Yom Kipur) with actual philosophy. A very strong case can be made that Christian philosophy has not had complete dominance for at least the last 50 years. I am not claiming it has disappeared, but it is not dominant.
Luigi Novi: Of course it’s dominant. Our currency doesn’t say “In Jehovah We Trust.” President’s are not sworn in on a copy of the Torah. In courtrooms, witnesses are not asked to tell the truth “So help me Allah.” Congress does not open sessions with a prayer initiated by a tax-paid Wiccan priestess. Government doesn’t shut down on the Hindu Festival of Lights.

Iowa Jim: The most crucial example is evolution. This is more than a scientific theory. It is the foundation of a worldview that is radically different than Christian philosophy. This theory has held dominance in more than just biology classes. It influences social policies, educational philosophy, judicial practices, and even moral questions such as gay marriage and abortion.
Luigi Novi: Evolution is not a foundation of any worldview. It is a scientific principle in which organisms adapt to their environment through natural selection. Even if someone were to use as a basis for a worldview, it does not have any bearing on its veridical worth. Empirical and scientific facts are morally neutral. Those who use them are not.

And in what way does it influence these things you say it does, Jim?

Iowa Jim: Yes, there are some do would say they believe God created the earth, but when you look at the other areas, you would find their philosophy is built on a foundation of evolutionary thought.
Luigi Novi: Evolution has nothing to do with how the Earth was created. That is an area covered by cosmology, astronomy and/or geology. Not evolution.

Iowa Jim: Most on this thought would consider evolution to be a proven fact, and anyone who disagrees is as ignorant as those who still claim the earth is flat.
Luigi Novi: Evolution is a scientific fact. That in itself is a statement of fact. A fact is something that has been confirmed to such a degree that it is reasonable to offer provisional agreement. Evolution has been thus confirmed through the Scientific Method and the Peer Review Process. Your position, on the other hand, has not.

And yes, Jim, you are ignorant if you draw conclusions on a subject without having studied it in a sincere and good faith matter, and do so solely on an a priori basis. That you have done this with creationism is clear. The beauty of this is that you don’t have to be ignorant of it if you don’t want to. You can crack open a book on the subject—a real one, mind you, not one written on a priori basis by creationists who do not understand how the Scientific Method works—and read it, and learn about it.

Iowa Jim: So is it “intollerant” by definition if I say evolution is a fraud?
Luigi Novi: Possibly. It is certainly a statement made without any rational basis. In order to show fraud, you have to know that those who advocate it are not only incorrect, but knowingly so. Obviously, you have no way to show this, and you later stated that it wasn’t fraud. So why use a word apart from its actual definition? Isn’t making this accusation without any proof itself intoerlant? And isn’t that use of the word “fraudulent”?

Iowa Jim: Am I "intollerant" simply because I want to argue that gay marriage harms society -- particularly when I argue not based on the Bible saying it is wrong but based on history and observation of human nature?
Luigi Novi: Again, if you do so on an a priori basis, and without supplying a rational, reasoned, internally consistent argument or evidence for it that is based on facts, then yes, you’re being intolerant. What history or observation are you referring to? What society has been harmed by gay marriage? And what about gay married couples who exist today? In what way have they harmed society?

Peter David: No. Just ignorant of science...and spelling.
Luigi Novi: C’mon, Peter, that’s a cheap shot. So he misspelled a word. So what? I try to proofread my posts, and I still make errors of spelling or grammar. Doesn’t everyone? If anything, I think vocabulary is more important than spelling.

Craig J. Ries: Although Tolkien was, from what I've read, far more forthright in saying his stories weren't, specifically with regards to WWII.
Luigi Novi: How could it be, when he began writing material that led to it during WWI? Even when it he began writing it as a sequel to The Hobbit, it was only 1937.

Craig J. Ries: Why is it acceptable for copies of Chronicles of Narnia to be read by children, but not something like Harry Potter?
Luigi Novi: Where has anyone taken this position?

Iowa Jim: Evolution is based on assumptions that cannot be proved.
Luigi Novi: No. Evolution is not based on assumptions at all. It is based on same things that any other scientific principle is based on: testable and confirmed observations and facts.

Iowa Jim: The biggest assumption is that God does not play an active role in the universe.
Luigi Novi: Evolution makes no such assumption about God. It is entirely neutral on the subject. Evolution only deals with how organisms adapt to their environment. If you are perceived as being intolerant or ignorant, Jim, it is statements you make like this. Can you cite a single scientific text that claims this? If not, and you continue to claim, it then, yes, you are ignorant.

Iowa Jim: Guess it is impossible for someone to have actually studied these issues and come to a different conclusion.
Luigi Novi: Except that you and I both know that you have not “studied” the issue. If you have, then why have you made claims about evolution that no biologist does? If you’ve “studied” it, then why do you claim it is based on presumptions? Why do you claim that it takes a position on God, when in fact it does not? Why do you imply that it deals with the creation of the Earth, when it does not? Why do you repeat common creationist fallacies and Straw Man arguments, like the notion that evolution concerns how life first began?

Yeah, you’ve studied it. From your statements, it’s obviously that you’ve “studied” it solely from creationist sources, which you are parroting, which is akin to “studying marijuana by watching Reefer Madness, or studying Judaism by reading Mein Kampf. And that doesn’t count. If there are actually was a text in there somewhere that was not written a priori, then it would seem that you certainly read it that way. Can you cite these works that you’ve read, Jim?

Iowa Jim: I am rather tired of Christians being seen as the neo-nazis out to eradicate those who disagree.
Luigi Novi: Some Christians are. It is those we criticize. Not those who are not. So what difference does that make to you if you claim not to be one of them?

Iowa Jim: It is a central creed of naturalistic evolution that things MUST have a natural origin and explanation.
Luigi Novi: As Bill Mulligan pointed out, scientific principles like evolution do not have “creeds.” Science does, however, have a methodology, and that methodology requires that phenomena be observed, documented, tested, etc. The alternative to natural explanation would be supernatural explanations, which are not testable by this methodology. That doesn’t make it a “creed.” To argue that any science has “creeds” is silly. When we present DNA evidence in court to prove a crime was committed a given suspect, you are employing that methodology. That doesn’t mean that a “central creed” is being cited in court. Only a methodology.

Iowa Jim: My assertion is that naturalistic evolution does not measure up. I have studied the evidence that life itself came from inanimate matter, and it is not convincing.
Luigi Novi: Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life. That’s abiogenesis, not evolution.

Iowa Jim: You have just made my point. By definition, if you insist the universe has a *natural* origin and explanation, you have made a philosophical statement. You have said it is at least possible (if not probable) for the universe to exist without there being a "god" of any kind.
Luigi Novi: Wrong. All science does it observe the universe, and report. It doesn’t say that there is no god, only that it doesn’t see any evidence of one. If and when that changes, then it will incorporate that into its base of knowledge. That isn’t a philosophy. It’s just a statement of fact. Again, if I describe how DNA works, and you ask me where God is in it, and I say that there is no evidence of a god in DNA, that’s a philosophy. It’s a statement of observation. The reason your description doesn’t work is because it presumes the existence of a god at the outset. You don’t do that in science, because science presumes nothing. You have to establish a god first. At present, there is no scientific evidence for the existence of gods or any other supernatural entities, and any such discussion of them as a matter of “presumption” is non-scientific.

Iowa Jim: To put it differently, your statement assumes the universe is a closed system.
Luigi Novi: No it does not. It states that we don’t know the nature of anything beyond it. Not that it’s closed.

Tim Lynch: Some stand-up comic had a great bit about that some years ago. "And Jesus said, 'Go, and gather thine eggs.' And so went the rabbit..."
Luigi Novi: Jon Stewart and Dom Irrera’s bits on this were priceless.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 12, 2005 10:29 PM

I posted a link to this blog entry at www.nitcentral.com, and my friend and fellow moderator Mike Cheyne posted this insightful bit in response

Wow. That's amazing. Thanks Luigi. This should be sent out to anyone who had anything to say about this non-issue. You know, I was wondering why nobody was bothering to compare this Chirstmas letter to the previous ones...

Posted by: Darren J Hudak at December 12, 2005 11:45 PM

// spring + eggs + rabbits = fertility festival

i'm gonna have to go with the argument that Easter is another pagan holiday that's been co-opted by Christianity. //

Unfortunatly those annoying Christians didn't co-op the best part of those old fertility festivals, yes, of course I'm referring to naked women dancing in the moonlight.

Posted by: Darren J Hudak at December 12, 2005 11:55 PM

// The vicious circle you get into here is where it ends. If you're going to acknowledge Christmas, shouldn't Chanukah and Kwanzaa also get recognized? How about Diwali? The Winter Solstice? Zeusmas (a holiday a friend and I invented in college)? Festivus? (Okay, maybe not that last...) //

Don't laugh but every year more and more people are having Festivus celebrations, yes, they're probably doing it as a gag but it doesn't take much for a joke to become a tradition, and once it becomes a tradition the origins no longer matter as much as the need to follow the tradition.

Sadie Hawkins day started out as a gag in a popular comic strip and lots of high schools still have a Sadie Hawkens day dance even though the comic stip, (and it's creator) are long gone, the origins of the gag being largly unknown to those who participate in the tradition.

Posted by: Rick Keating at December 13, 2005 01:26 AM

Someone else may have mentioned this (I haven't had time to read through all the posts), but in regards to Easter and eggs, and so forth, I offer the following:

The Teutonic Goddess of Fertility was Eastre, whose symbol was the egg. Eastre was also the name of a spring festival. Just as the early Christian church incorporated aspects of "pagan" winter festivals into Christmas, and the birth of Jesus, so to did they incorporate spring festivals of rebirth into the resurrection.

But apparently, she wasn't the only influence. Joseph Cambell writes, in "Masks of God: Occidental Mythology" (pg. 138) (about both Passover and Easter), "It is highly significant that the later festival of the Passover, which... was first celebrated in 621 b.c. in commemoration of the Exodus, occurs on the date of the annual ressurection of Adonis, which in the Christian cult became Easter."

Campbell goes on to say that in both the "pagan" and Christian cults the resurrection is that of a god, while in the Jewish tradition, it was of the chosen people as a whole. As an illustration, he says that during the Hagadah of Passover, the father of a household reads aloud a meditition: "in every generation, one ought to regard himself as though he had personally come out of Egypt."

Later in the same book, Campbell addresses how and why Easter came to be celebrated on the first Sunday following the first full moon on or after the vernal equinox, but I'm too tired to go into details.

I'm also pretty sure Campbell addresses Eastre the goddess _somewhere_, but offhand, don't know which particular book that might be in.

Rick

P.S. It's been traditional throughout history for conquering cultures to destroy or assimilate the gods of those they've subjugated. Read, for example, "The Dictionary of Angels" for a list of "angels" and "demons" that had once been gods in their own right until both Jews and Christians told their followers that, nope, this "god" is either an angel who works for my God, or a demon, who opposes my God (the designation determined primarily by how "good" the particular entity was).

Anyway, if we're ever conqurered, we can expect our God- the T.V.- to be destroyed by whomever does the conquering.

Posted by: Rex Hondo at December 13, 2005 02:40 AM

Also, let us not forget Kurisumasu, the entirely secular festival celebrated in Japan with trees, gifts, Santa Clause, and a fair amount of sake to go around. Nary a religious reference to be found, and God hasn't sent the mother of all tsunami their way, nor has their society imploded on it's own.

Merry Christmaramachannukwanzolstice!

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: John Zacharias at December 13, 2005 09:03 AM

That is a very well thought out post Luigi. Remind me not to get into an argument with you anytime soon.
Here is the card my dad sends me once a year
http://www.funnypart.com/funny_pictures/card.shtml
Cynical and to the point. If the link doesnt work copy paste.

Posted by: Micha Roded at December 13, 2005 09:44 AM

A 12 page article from the NY times about the seperation of church and state

A Church-State Solution

A Church-State Solution

By NOAH FELDMAN
Published: July 3, 2005
I. THE EXPERIMENT
For roughly 1,400 years, from the time the Roman Empire became Christian to the American Revolution, the question of church and state in the West always began with a simple assumption: the official religion of the state was the religion of its ruler. Sometimes the king fought the church for control of religious institutions; other times, the church claimed power over the state by asserting religious authority over the sovereign himself. But the central idea, formally enshrined at Westphalia in 1648 by the treaty that ended the wars of religion in Europe, was that each region would have its own religion, namely that of the sovereign. The rulers, meanwhile, manipulated religion to serve their own ends. Writing just before the American Revolution, the British historian Edward Gibbon opined that the people believed, the philosophers doubted and the magistrates exploited. Gibbon's nominal subject was ancient Rome, but his readers understood that he was talking about their world too.

All this changed with the radical idea, introduced during the American Revolution, that the people were sovereign. This arrangement profoundly disturbed the old model of church and state. To begin with, America was religiously diverse: how could the state establish the religion of the sovereign when the sovereign people in America belonged to many faiths -- Congregationalist, Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, Quaker? Furthermore, the sovereign people would actively believe in religion instead of cynically manipulating it, and elite skeptics would no longer be whispering in the ears of power. Religion would be a genuinely popular, even thriving, political force.
This model called for a new understanding of church and state, and the framers of the American Constitution rose to the occasion. They designed a national government that, for the first time in Western history, had no established religion at all. The Articles of Confederation, which were drawn up during the Revolutionary War, had been silent on religion -- itself something of an innovation. But the Constitution went further by prohibiting any religious test for holding office. And the first words of the First Amendment stated that ''Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' If the people were to be sovereign, and belonged to different religions, the state religion would be no religion at all. Otherwise, the reasoning went, too many religious denominations would be in competition to make theirs the official choice, and none could prevail without coercing dissenters to support a church other than their own -- a violation of the liberty of conscience that Americans had come to believe was a God-given right. Establishment of religion at the national level was prohibited. Religious diversity had ensured it. The experiment had begun.

II. OUR PRESENT PREDICAMENT
During the two and a quarter centuries since America's founding, the experiment has progressed fitfully. The nonestablishment of religion, with a simultaneous guarantee of its free exercise, was an elegant solution but not a complete one. Generation after generation, fresh infusions of religious diversity into American life have brought with them original ideas about church and state -- new answers to the challenge of preserving the unity of the sovereign people in the face of their flourishing spiritual variety and often conflicting religious needs.
Consider the influx of Catholic immigrants that followed the Irish potato famine in the 1840's. In the overwhelmingly Protestant world of the framers' America, there was a common belief that taxation for religious purposes violated religious liberty. As a result, when public schools were invented a few decades later, they featured only ''nonsectarian'' Bible reading and prayer. But Catholic immigrants soon protested that the schools' nonsectarianism -- in which the Protestant King James Bible was free to be interpreted by the individual student but not by the teacher (let alone a priest) -- was in fact sectarian Protestantism in disguise. The unsuccessful struggle of Catholic immigrants to have their own schools publicly financed or, failing that, to take the King James Bible out of the public schools, generated half a century of vituperative and sometimes deadly struggle.
In our own era, two camps dominate the church-state debate in American life, corresponding to what are now the two most prominent approaches to the proper relation of religion and government. One school of thought contends that the right answers to questions of government policy must come from the wisdom of religious tradition. You might call those who insist on the direct relevance of religious values to political life ''values evangelicals.'' Not every values evangelical is, technically speaking, an evangelical or a born-again Christian, although many are. Values evangelicals include Jews, Catholics, Muslims and even people who do not focus on a particular religious tradition but care primarily about identifying traditional moral values that can in theory be shared by everyone.
What all values evangelicals have in common is the goal of evangelizing for values: promoting a strong set of ideas about the best way to live your life and urging the government to adopt those values and encourage them wherever possible. To them, the best way to hold the United States together as a nation, not just a country, is for us to know what values we really hold and to stand up for them. As Ralph Reed recently told an audience at Harvard, ''While we are sometimes divided on issues, there remains a broad national consensus on core values and principles.''
(Page 2 of 8)
On the other side of the debate are those who see religion as a matter of personal belief and choice largely irrelevant to government and who are concerned that values derived from religion will divide us, not unite us. You might call those who hold this view ''legal secularists,'' not because they are necessarily strongly secular in their personal worldviews -- though many are -- but because they argue that government should be secular and that the laws should make it so. To the legal secularists, full citizenship means fully sharing in the legal and political commitments of the nation. If the nation defines itself in terms of values drawn from religion, they worry, then it will inevitably tend to adopt the religious values of the majority, excluding religious minorities and nonreligious people from full citizenship.

Despite the differences, each approach, values evangelicalism and legal secularism, is trying to come to terms with the same fundamental tension in American life. The United States has always been home to striking religious diversity -- diversity that has by fits and starts expanded over the last 230 years. At the same time, we strive to be a nation with a common identity and a common project. Religious division threatens that unity, as we can see today more clearly than at any time in a century in the disputes over stem-cell research, same-sex marriage and end-of-life issues. Yet almost all Americans want to make sure that we do not let our religious diversity pull us apart. Values evangelicals say that the solution lies in finding and embracing traditional values we can all share and without which we will never hold together. Legal secularists counter that we can maintain our national unity only if we treat religion as a personal, private matter, separate from concerns of citizenship. The goal of reconciling national unity and religious diversity is the same, but the methods for doing it are deeply opposed.
Yet neither legal secularism nor values evangelicalism has lived up to its own aspirations. Each promises inclusion, but neither has delivered. To make matters worse, the conflict between these two approaches is becoming a political and constitutional crisis all its own. Talk of secession of blue states from red in the aftermath of the 2004 election was not meant seriously; but this kind of dark musing, with its implicit reference to the Civil War, is also not coincidental. It bespeaks a division deeper than any other in our public life, a division that cannot be healed by the victory of either side.

III. CLOSING THE RIFT
The split between legal secularism and values evangelicalism was not born in a day. Legal secularism arose in the post-World War II era, reflecting a growing concern about the need to protect religious minorities, especially newly visible Jews who were arguably excluded by public displays of Christian religion like crèches or recitations of the Lord's Prayer. But instead of attacking religion directly, as some antireligious secularists did earlier in the century with little success, organizations like Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the American Civil Liberties Union argued more narrowly that government ought to be secular in word, deed and intent. In 1971, in Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Supreme Court made this position law, requiring all government decisions to be motivated by a secular purpose, to have primarily secular effects and not to entangle the state with religious institutions. This new standard -- known thereafter as the ''Lemon test'' -- did much more than simply reaffirm a deeply rooted American norm of no government money for religion; it prohibited school prayer and Bible reading, which had been practiced in the public schools since their founding, and in many instances it removed Christmas decorations from the public square. The framers had neither known nor used the category ''secular'' as we understand it, but the court made secularism an official condition of all acceptable government conduct.
In many quarters of religious America, there was outrage at this court-mandated secularism, which to many believers soon came to seem of a piece with the Supreme Court's 1973 guarantee of abortion rights in Roe v. Wade. By 1980, the televangelist Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority, the political organization he founded, succeeded in mobilizing this frustration to help elect Ronald Reagan president. In time, Reagan's judicial nominees began to roll back the advances of legal secularism by allowing the government to pay for religious education and other activities via vouchers or other neutral and generally available government programs. In a particularly ingenious twist, evangelicals won these cases by depicting themselves as a minority subject to discrimination by secularists who wanted to deny them government support.

But the values evangelicals did not succeed entirely in reversing the Supreme Court's embrace of legal secularism. Throughout the 90's, in a series of 5-4 decisions in which Justice Sandra Day O'Connor provided the swing vote, the Supreme Court refused to permit the government to take any symbolic action that might be seen to ''endorse'' religion, thus preserving and even expanding the ban on school prayer. The other eight justices on the Rehnquist Court held that government financing and state-sponsored religious symbolism should be treated the same way: either both were permissible or both weren't. But since those justices were split 4-4 on whether to allow more of each or less of both, O'Connor's compromise -- allowing some government financing of religion but no government endorsement of religious symbols -- has been the law of the land for the last two decades.

The resulting doctrine has been the cause of the major church-state controversies of recent years. In 2004, for instance, when a California man named Michael Newdow pressed the court to find that the words ''under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance impermissibly endorsed religion, the court ducked the issue. The more liberal justices seemed afraid to rule the pledge unconstitutional yet were unwilling to embrace the view (advanced awkwardly by O'Connor, given her usual opposition to endorsing religious symbols) that there is no endorsement when the religious symbol is longstanding and common.
During the same Supreme Court term, a young man named Joshua Davey asked the court to require the state of Washington to let him use his public scholarship money to pay for his studies as a theology major at an evangelical college. But the court, including Chief Justice William Rehnquist, refused to overturn the state's policy against paying for religious courses of study, even though Davey was as much the victim of ''discrimination'' as were earlier evangelical plaintiffs whom the court had granted access to government money to pay for their student publications. In essence, the court, divided itself and uneasy about O'Connor's fence-sitting, is unwilling or unable to take a unified stand on what the Constitution really means when it comes to the relation between religion and government. It will be surprising if the Ten Commandments cases just decided by the court bring to an end the judicial wrangling over the church-state question.
The O'Connor compromise between values evangelicalism and legal secularism may be unsatisfactory, but the truth is that neither approach deserves to prevail. Both are self-contradictory: they fail precisely where they want to succeed, namely in reconciling religious diversity with unity. The values evangelicals want to find shared values, but that leads them to rely on the unexamined assumption that deep down, Americans agree on what matters. The trouble is that ''we'' often do not agree. The Ten Commandments may appeal to Jews and Christians, but to Muslims, they are an imperfect revelation superseded by the Koran, and Buddhists and Hindus find no appeal in the Commandments' self-attribution to the single God who took the Children of Israel out of Egypt.
Even a joint commitment to ''the culture of life'' turns out to be very thin. Catholics and conservative Protestants may agree broadly on abortion and euthanasia; but what about capital punishment, which Pope John Paul II condemned as an immoral usurpation of God's authority to determine life and death but which many evangelical Christians support as biblically mandated? To reach consensus, the values evangelicals have to water down the ''values'' they say they accept to the point where they would mean nothing at all. They are left either acknowledging disagreement about values or else falling into a kind of relativism (I'm O.K., you're O.K.) that is inconsistent with the very goal of standing for something rather than nothing.
Meanwhile, the legal secularists have a different problem. They claim that separating religion from government is necessary to ensure full inclusion of all citizens. The problem is that many citizens -- values evangelicals among them -- feel excluded by precisely this principle of keeping religion private. Keeping nondenominational prayer out of the public schools may protect religious minorities who might feel excluded; but it also sends a message of exclusion to those who believe such prayer would signal commitment to shared values. Increasingly, the symbolism of removing religion from the public sphere is experienced by values evangelicals as excluding them, no matter how much the legal secularists tell them that is not the intent.
Despite the gravity of the problem, I believe there is an answer. Put simply, it is this: offer greater latitude for religious speech and symbols in public debate, but also impose a stricter ban on state financing of religious institutions and activities. This approach, the mirror image of O'Connor's compromise, is drawn from the framers' vision and the historical experience of separating church and state in America. The framers might well have been mystified by courthouse statues depicting the Ten Commandments, but they would not have objected unless the monuments were built with public money. Having made a revolution over unfair taxation, they thought of government support in terms of dollars spent, not abstract symbols.
From this logic, it follows that a moment of silence to begin the school day should not be invalidated just because it is intended to let children pray if they wish. Though it will never be easy to determine when schoolchildren are being coerced by peer pressure, at least some older students at optional events like a Friday-night football game surely are not being forced to pray when others are doing so voluntarily. Intelligent-design theory, itself a product of the ill-advised demand that religion disguise itself in secular garb, should be opposed on the educational ground that it is poor science, not on the constitutional reasoning, which some secularists have advanced, that it is a cover for religious creationism. If its advocates can persuade a local school board to put it in the curriculum, the courts need not strike it down as an establishment of religion. On the other hand, charitable choice, which permits billions of dollars in federal money to support faith-based organizations, should not be a vehicle for allowing government to pay for programs that treat alcoholics by counseling them to accept Christ. Schools that teach that Shariah (or Jewish rabbinic law or canon law) is the ultimate source of values should not be supported by tuition vouchers.
Such a solution would both recognize religious values and respect the institutional separation of religion and government as an American value in its own right. This would mean abandoning the political argument that religion has no place in the public sphere while simultaneously insisting that government must go to great lengths to dissociate itself from supporting religious institutions. It would mean acknowledging a substantial difference between allowing religious symbols and speech in public places (so long as there is no public money involved) and spending resources to sustain religious entities like churches, mosques and temples. Public religious symbolism expressed in statues, oaths and prayers reflects citizens' desires to see their deeply held beliefs expressed in those public situations where moral commitments are relevant: legislatures, schools and, yes, courthouses and statehouses. Religious proclamations or prayers may open sessions of Congress without costing anyone a dime.
But government money, even when nominally available equally to all, inevitably creates political competition between religious groups over how and where scarce money will be spent. Zero-sum appropriations drive zero-sum politics. A tuition voucher is never priced out of thin air: its amount is set by a political process that favors some schools (for example, Catholic schools that already have infrastructures and support from a centralized church) at the expense of others.
In the courts, the arrangement that I'm proposing would entail abandoning the Lemon requirement that state action must have a secular purpose and secular effects, as well as O'Connor's idea that the state must not ''endorse'' religion. For these two tests, the courts should substitute the two guiding rules that historically lay at the core of our church-state experiment before legal secularism or values evangelicalism came on the scene: the state may neither coerce anyone in matters of religion nor expend its resources so as to support religious institutions and practices, whether generic or particular. These constitutional principles, reduced to their core, can be captured in a simple slogan: no coercion and no money. If no one is being coerced by the government, and if the government is not spending its money to build religious-themed monuments or support religious institutions and practices, the courts should hold that the Constitution is not violated.
Admittedly, this approach goes against the trends of the last several decades, which are for stricter regulation of public religious symbolism and more permissive authorization of government financing and support for religion. At first blush, then, the proposal may strike both sides of the current debate as mistaken, since it requires each to give up some victories in exchange for an alternative solution. Nonetheless this approach is not only faithful to our constitutional traditions; it also stands a chance of winning over secularists and evangelicals alike and beginning to close the rift between them.

The solution I have in mind rests on the basic principle of protecting the liberty of conscience. So long as all citizens have the same right to speak and act free of coercion, no adult should feel threatened or excluded by the symbolic or political speech of others, however much he may disagree with it. If many congressmen say that their faith requires intervening to save Terri Schiavo, that is not a violation of the rules of political debate. The secular congresswoman who thinks Schiavo should have the right to die in peace can express her contrary view and explain why it is that she believes a rational and legal analysis of the situation requires it. She may lose the vote, but she is not excluded from the process or from the body that votes against her, any more than a Republican would be ''excluded'' from a committee controlled by Democrats.
Legal secularists may fear that when facing arguments with religious premises, they have the deck stacked against them. If values evangelicals begin by asserting that God has defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, then, say the secularists, the conversation about same-sex marriage is over. But in fact, secularists can make arguments of their own, which may be convincing: if the state is going to regulate marriages, shouldn't they be subject to the same equality requirement as every other law? Some might even go further and ask the evangelicals how they can be so sure that they have correctly identified God's will on the question. They may discover that few evangelicals treat faith as a conversation stopper, and most consider it just the opposite.
In any event, when the debate is over, the people will vote, and they will decide the matter. Legal secularists cannot realistically expect that they will win more democratic fights by banning the evangelicals' arguments, which can usually be recast, however disingenuously, as secular. Once in a while they may, if the composition of the Supreme Court is just right, thwart the values evangelicals' numerical superiority with a judicial override; but in the long run, all they will accomplish is to alienate the values evangelicals in a way that undercuts the meaningfulness of participatory democracy.
When it comes to religious symbolism, typically some group will ask the state for a display or an acknowledgment of their holiday or tradition -- a crèche or a statue, a song or pageant. Invoking Justice O'Connor's endorsement test, legal secularists ordinarily object that if the state acquiesces, then it is embracing the religious symbol and excluding adherents of other religions. But this interpretation of what state support would mean may not be the best or most natural one. The fact that others have asked for and gotten recognition implies nothing about the exclusion of any religious minority except for the brute fact that it is a religious minority. There is no reason whatever for religious minorities to be shielded from that fact, since there is nothing shameful or inherently disadvantageous in being a religious minority, so long as that minority is not subject to coercion or discrimination.
Take the fact that the government treats Christmas as a national holiday. It would be absurd if Jews or Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists felt fundamentally excluded from citizenship by this fact -- and I would venture to suggest that very few do. Most Americans are still Christians who celebrate Christmas, and the state acknowledges that fact, just as the culture does through the songs on the radio and the merchandise in the stores. The celebration may not always be deeply religious, but the atmosphere corresponds to the realities of the Christian majority. Just what is threatening to religious minorities about Christians celebrating the holiday or singing carols in school? What, exactly, is the harm in being wished Merry Christmas even if you're not celebrating? The state has not made Christianity relevant to citizenship nor has it spent taxpayers' money to advance the cause of the church. It has simply acknowledged the preferences of a majority. Some members of religious minorities may choose to spend December feeling bad that they are not part of the majority culture -- but they would have this same problem even if Christmas were not a national holiday, since Christmas would still be all around them. The answer is for them to strengthen their own identities and be proud of who they are, not to insist that the majority give up its own celebration to accommodate them.

In the last 50 years, legal secularists have expressed concern that public manifestations of religion marginalize religious minorities and hence reduce the capacity of those minorities to participate in a common national public life. And at times, that has been a valid complaint, as with mandatory religious exercises in schools. But today the increasing presence of other non-Christian religious minorities, and an attendant atmosphere of religious multiculturalism, mean that public manifestations of religion -- at least at the national level -- are becoming increasingly pluralistic and inclusive. Consider the televised memorial service led by President Bush on Sept. 14, 2001, a day he had designated as a national day of prayer and remembrance for the victims of the 9/11 attacks. With the cabinet, members of Congress and the foreign diplomatic corps in attendance, the president assured the congregation that God created a world ''of moral design'' and that ''the Lord of life holds all who die and all who mourn.'' Suffused with theology as much as any presidential address since Lincoln's second inaugural, the speech took on the problem of evil while commending the future of the republic to God's grace.
Yet despite the high-Protestant venue -- the Episcopal Washington National Cathedral -- the president was preceded in the pulpit by the dean of the cathedral as well as by the Roman Catholic archbishop of Washington, an African-American Methodist minister, Billy Graham, a rabbi and an imam who quoted verses from the Koran. The display of inclusiveness was driven not only by political imperative but also by the recognition that this extraordinary national-religious moment must reach out to America's religious diversity.
In this latest demographic version of a religiously diverse environment, where Protestants may soon cease to be a majority in the United States, the danger that Christmas crèches or prayer at high-school graduations will marginalize non-Christians is substantially decreased. Some parts of the country are still dominated by particular denominations or trends; but even in the heart of the Bible Belt, diversity is growing as a result of immigration and shifting population patterns. Indeed, the Ten Commandments monument that Judge Roy Moore erected in the Alabama Supreme Court was thought by its supporters, however inaccurately, to be nonsectarian, on the theory that Jews and Christians alike respect the ideals it represents. Although insensitivity and ignorance are still very much with us, today we are unlikely to see the religious majority refusing to allow religious minorities to display their symbols alongside those of the majority. The five-times daily broadcast of the Muslim call to prayer from a mosque may at first raise hackles, but when the comparison to church bells is made, public acceptance is likely to follow, as it did in the town of Hamtramck, Mich., last summer.

V. WHAT INCLUSION REALLY LOOKS LIKE
Atheists will doubtless maintain that any public religion at all -- like ''under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance -- excludes them by endorsing the idea of religion generally. But this misses the point: it is an interpretive choice to feel excluded by other people's faiths, and the atheist, like any other dissenter from a majoritarian decision, can just as easily adhere to his own views while insisting on his full citizenship. So long as no one is coerced into invoking God, it makes little sense to accommodate the atheist's scruples by barring everyone else from saying words that he alone finds to be metaphysically empty. Complete subjective inclusion is impossible, so if our goal is to include as many people as possible, we need to reach as widely as possible by letting the ordinary democratic process take its course. The Jehovah's Witnesses, who in the 1940's fought for the right not to salute the flag, never insisted that the salute or the pledge should be abolished altogether -- they just wanted their children to be exempt from a mandatory ritual that violated their consciences and hence their religious liberty.
In some instances, pluralistic, public expressions of religion even hold out the possibility of enabling new religious minorities to participate fully in the American public sphere. Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, for whom religion and immigrant status may be closely connected, may well seek opportunities for the symbolic recognition of their citizenship that can be gained in schools, legislatures and elsewhere. Acknowledging holidays like the Muslim Eid al-Fitr or the Hindu Divali in what has traditionally been a Christian country may validate a sense of belonging in a way that no secular civic symbol can. Such an embrace of minority faith might go beyond symbols like legislative prayers, which remain legal despite secularist objections, and extend to celebrating holidays in the schools or granting adherents those days off from work, which would be of questionable constitutionality under current law. Ultimately, the nation may have more success generating loyalty from religiously diverse citizens by allowing inclusive governmental manifestations of religion than by banning them.
Observing the political clout of the values evangelicals, many legal secularists cannot imagine how the former could possibly feel marginalized from American society. They must realize, however, that the evangelicals' political strength has not often extended to the cultural realm, about which values evangelicals care the most. These evangelicals feel defensive not only because they believe they are losing the culture war and have trouble enacting religious values into public policy -- though, in fact, they have made some strides on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage -- but because they have difficulty making the religious sources of their ideas acceptable in the cultural-political conversation. To give a religious reason for passing a law is still to run the risk of that law being held unconstitutional as serving a religious rather than a secular purpose. So evangelicals end up speaking in euphemisms (''family values'') or proposing purpose-built dodges like ''creation science'' that even they often privately acknowledge to be paradoxical.

A better approach would be for secularists to confront the evangelicals' arguments on their own terms, refusing to stop the conversation and instead arguing for the rightness of their beliefs about their own values. Reason can in fact engage revelation, as it has throughout the history of philosophy. The skeptic can challenge the believer to explain how he derives his views from Scripture and why the view he ascribes to God is morally attractive -- questions that most believers consider profoundly important and perfectly relevant.
This kind of exchange need not produce agreement on abortion or same-sex marriage or anything else. To the contrary, hard moral questions will remain controversial. But acknowledging a moral debate as a moral debate in which all sides deserve a say will have the effect of communicating to evangelicals that their voices count. In the long run, this approach is more likely to focus our national debates on substance instead of procedure -- on what God or reason or whatever source of values teaches about human life and intimate choices, not about whether God belongs in the conversation at all. Secularists who are confident in their views should expect to prevail on the basis of reason; evangelicals who wish to win the argument will discover that their arguments must extend beyond simple invocation of faith.

VI. THE PROBLEM WITH MONEY
If we are to progress toward reconciliation of our church-state problem, it will not be enough for legal secularists to re-evaluate their attitude toward religious symbols and religious discourse. Values evangelicals must also change their ways and give something up -- by reconsidering their position in favor of state support for religious institutions. The reason they should be prepared to do so is that such state support actually undercuts, rather than promotes, the cohesive national identity that evangelicals have wanted to restore or recreate. When filtered through vouchers distributed by the government and directed by individual choice, state financial aid for religious institutions like schools or charities does not encourage common values; it creates conflict and division.
Today's voucher programs, like the one in Florida that is currently under challenge before the Florida Supreme Court, focus on helping kids in failing schools. But imagine a broader voucher system. Many or most parents might well use the vouchers to send their children to private, mostly religious schools; more than half the beneficiaries of the Florida program do exactly that, and in other, more focused plans, the numbers have been upward of 90 percent. Because we value religious liberty so highly, most Americans would surely agree that it would be wrong to regulate and supervise religious schools closely enough to ensure that they teach some version of prescribed American values. That is precisely why the Constitution has been interpreted to protect the right to educate your children in private religious schools altogether. But given this right to educate according to your own values, what is to ensure that the curriculum in state-supported religious schools will promote common values? It is at least as likely that balkanized schools will generate balkanized values as that they will promote a common national project.
While the great majority of schools run by most religious groups do encourage loyal citizenship by their lights, we cannot simply assume that any school of any religious denomination will teach shared American national identity or values. Some schools will teach that the best form of life is to prefer your fellows -- whether Protestants or Jews or Muslims or Catholics -- to other Americans. No religious tradition is without at least a hint of such particularism, which is just one mechanism by which common citizenship may be undermined by some forms of religion. Different religious schools will also teach disparate values, increasing national disagreement when it comes to controversial issues. There is nothing inherently wrong with that type of values diversity, of course. Private schools unsupported by vouchers can in any case teach whatever they want about citizenship and loyalty. But while values evangelicalism claims to advocate national unity and inclusion through shared values, school-voucher programs cut exactly the other way, promoting difference and nonengagement. Permitting schools supported by private money to teach that there is no common American undertaking is not the same as encouraging that teaching through state subsidy.
Now consider what will happen when some delegate in a state legislature rises to argue that voucher payments should not be extended to schools that teach racism, or anti-Americanism, or sexism. Under the law as it is developing, the state cannot pick and choose but must pay for all the schools or none. Cutting financing for the offending school would require cutting it for every school. There will then inevitably ensue a debate about whether the outrage of financing this one school outweighs the benefits of financing all the others. In essence, this will be a debate about how bad the teachings of the religion under attack are, and how good the others.
(Page 8 of 8)
This situation, reminiscent of 19th-century legislative debates about the supposed ills of the Catholic Church, captures precisely the sort of divisiveness in politics that institutional separation aims to avoid. Only this time it will probably not be Catholicism in the dock but something else -- Islam, say, or polytheistic Hinduism, or some religion so new that it still seems like a cult. The framers' innovation of nonestablishment was designed so that the sovereign people should not spend their legislative sessions debating the relative merits of different faiths and their compatibility with American values. That is a recipe for real and deep division.
The tradition of institutional separation that must be reasserted goes beyond blocking money for religious schools. All attempts to use government resources to institutionalize religious practices countermand the American tradition of nonestablishment, grounded historically in the belief that government has no authority over religious matters. When government pays for social programs through the rubric of charitable choice, the programs must not be ones that rely on faith to accomplish their goals -- or else the government is institutionally sponsoring the religious mission of the church in question. This is also why the state itself must not compose or mandate public prayers, which then take on the shape of state-imposed religious exercises in a way that is very different from voluntary prayers chosen and led by individuals in public contexts. The founding father James Madison himself understood that paying the chaplains of the House and Senate out of the public till was a constitutional anomaly, and he wisely, if belatedly, suggested that the members of Congress ought to pay for their services from their own pockets.
Surprising as it may at first sound, the changes from existing laws and practices that I'm advocating have a realistic chance of being adopted and even embraced by values evangelicals. It may already be possible to glimpse a growing recognition among values evangelicals that voucher programs do not necessarily promote common values but may do just the opposite. The ballooning of school-voucher programs that some expected in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2002 decision holding them constitutional has not come to pass. Faith-based charities have not yet managed to crowd out secular service providers, although more extensive government financing for faith-based social services remains a stated goal of the Bush administration. Given that voucher programs have not spread, it should be relatively easy for values evangelicals to abandon them -- especially since they will be getting something in return, namely greater recognition and acceptance for their values-based arguments and the corresponding symbols of public religion.
Government financing of religion is, after all, a relative latecomer to the ideology of values evangelicalism. The movement from the start drew its energy from symbolic questions of culture and morality, not from any desire to see a merger of church and state. Catholics may have pressed hard from within the movement to make vouchers an important issue, but even they turn out to be relying little on those voucher programs for educating their own children; the voucher students in Catholic schools in Milwaukee or Cleveland are heavily inner-city non-Catholics. Evangelicals should also be prepared to acknowledge the historical fact that our constitutional tradition, flawed though it assuredly is, has always made institutional separation the touchstone of nonestablishment.

VII. THE EXPERIMENT REVISITED
The proposal is a simple one -- and it looks backward to history in order to look forward. If we could be more tolerant of sincere religious people drawing on their beliefs and practices to inform their choices in the public realm, and at the same time be more vigilant about preserving our legacy of institutional separation between government and organized religion, the shift would redirect us to the uniqueness of the American experiment with church and state. Until the rise of legal secularism, Americans tended to be accepting of public, symbolic manifestations of faith. Until values evangelicalism came on the scene, Americans were on the whole insistent about maintaining institutional separation. These two modern movements respectively reversed both those trends.
The novelty of these developments does not mean they are wrong, of course. But in an America grown so religiously diverse that it can no longer easily be called ''Judeo-Christian,'' we need to learn from our history if we are to have any hope of constructing a single nation that will endure. Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus will have to join Protestants, Catholics, Jews and atheists in finding a resolution to our church-state problem that all can embrace. A solution that will work for our generation must bind us to the past. But like all successful nation-building, it will work only if it also sets a foundation for our future.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at December 13, 2005 10:12 AM

Luigi Novi: How could it be, when he began writing material that led to it during WWI? Even when it he began writing it as a sequel to The Hobbit, it was only 1937.

I think you entirely miss the point of why LotR is seen as an allegory for WWII, since, you know, LotR itself was written over like a dozen years, including WII. Not WWI.

Luigi Novi: Where has anyone taken this position?

Umm, hello? Are you awake, Luigi?

Have you not read stories about the Potter books being banned from school libraries and such, whereas the Narnia novels can easily be found in churches and so forth, even though it involves magic and such as well?

It wasn't a case of whether somebody took this position in this thread, but it does matter when you consider how some view the Chronicles of Narnia as nothing more than Christian propoganda.

I thought I was still allowed to point out the hypocracy, nonetheless.

Posted by: Rat at December 13, 2005 11:37 AM

PAD, according to a few different places in my vast library of esoterica, Jesus was born October 11. The same day as my sister, which might explain things about her. Right now, the only place I can think of is in a book by Hans Holzer, but I've seen it other places too, I think.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at December 13, 2005 11:43 AM

Craig, I have never heard any mention of whether or not the libraries that ban the Potter books also do so with Narnia.

Posted by: Joe Nazzaro at December 13, 2005 11:46 AM

This is one of those things that I just can't figure out. The card opens with one of the Psalms and it's not religious ENOUGH? Maybe if the Bush dogs had crucifixes dangling from their collars.

Posted by: Bobb at December 13, 2005 12:00 PM

"This is one of those things that I just can't figure out. The card opens with one of the Psalms and it's not religious ENOUGH? Maybe if the Bush dogs had crucifixes dangling from their collars."

Anyone remember the history of the French Revolution...the big one, with capital F and Rs (as opposed to the numerour other revolutions that occurred in France)? Skip ahead to the point where the various factions that formed a big portion of the revolution started turning on each other, as the more extreme factions started feeling like the others weren't going far enough in their revolutionary actions.

This is what Bush is feeling now. In order to secure his victory (twice) he appealed to the more extreme conservative religious factions, making them think that he was "one of them." And now, after helping him attain 2 terms in the White House, and also putting a lot of his buddies into the Congress and Senate, they're looking for results. And despite the fact that this year's Holiday card from the Bush's is essentially the same as the past 5 years, it's not enough. Because they want to see Bush step up and defend Christmas, by sending out Christmas cards.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at December 13, 2005 12:21 PM

Craig, I have never heard any mention of whether or not the libraries that ban the Potter books also do so with Narnia.

That's because they don't ban the Narnia books, because the Narnia books are seen as allegory for Christianity. I thought I made that clear in my initial post.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 13, 2005 01:28 PM

Craig, I think he was looking for some confirmation one way or another. Is there a source, perhaps some place where they condemn Potter but praise Narnia? I was able to find the one site I mentioned, which condemned both, but I don't know any way to tell if that's typical or an aberration.

Posted by: Khendon at December 13, 2005 01:39 PM

Yup, "Christmas" is a stolen "pagan" holiday... "Easter" the same thing (and I love the expression on the face of certain people when they find out what the "Maypole" ritual really is)...

Apparently, most "Christians" don't realize that their religion has been co-opting the stories and traditions of earlier and earlier faiths for so many centuries...

Horus, Mithras, etc - half-men, half-god - both killed, and both came back from the dead...

There are so many man-gods around through history... even Hercules fits the "Jesus" myth - a god coming down and impregnating a woman... Zeus just didn't get as much PR about it...

Posted by: Den at December 13, 2005 01:55 PM

"This is one of those things that I just can't figure out. The card opens with one of the Psalms and it's not religious ENOUGH? Maybe if the Bush dogs had crucifixes dangling from their collars."

That's because about 90% of this "War against Christmas" is manufactured by certain fundamentalist groups and Fox News. Fox went as far as recycling a Comedy Central clip from last year to create the impression that the "liberal media" is really waging war against Christmas. O'Riley presented the clip as if it were new and made no mention that it was a year old.

My question to the fundamentalists who are boycotting stores over "Happy Holidays" and writing letters to the President is this: Why are you looking for the true spirit of the baby Jesus in Department stores or the government. Stores are where you go to see crass commercialism. The goverment is where you go to see naked pandering. Any use of religion by either of them would simply be motivated by a desire to maximize their appeal. If you want to see the true spirit of Christmas, go to church.

Oops, that's right, many of your "megachurches" have cancelled Christmas day services because they didn't think enough of you would show up.

Posted by: Thom at December 13, 2005 02:01 PM

Craig J. Ries: Why is it acceptable for copies of Chronicles of Narnia to be read by children, but not something like Harry Potter?
Luigi Novi: Where has anyone taken this position?

There are some Christian groups that oppose Potter on the grounds that it will lead children into the hands of Satan. These same groups often hold the Narnia books (as well as the LotR) as "safe" alternatives to Harry Potter. I am aquainted with some of the people who review movies for the Christianity Today website. Every time a new Harry Potter film comes out they are berated for their positive reviews of both the films and books.

Posted by: Dave OConnell at December 13, 2005 02:58 PM

Can you name even one such school? I've taught at three and attended half a dozen in my time, and not once have I heard of anything of the sort happening in my schools or in neighboring ones. Maybe I'm just fortunate, but I suspect it's more likely that the propaganda has gotten ahead of the reality here.

Well, it's a big country. In Plano, Texas, the colors red and green have been banned from the various Plano Independent School District "winter" parties because they are too associated with Christmas. Somewhow I doubt they monitored the colors associated with Hanukkah and Kwanzaa quite so closely.

I take it the contrary assumption would then be that conservatism is relevant in fighting the war on terror?

The contrary assumption would actually be that conservatism is largely relevant in fighting the war on terror, since I originally said that the liberalism was largely irrelevant. Tony Blair, Joe Lieberman---they're relevant liberals. Pat Buchanan--irrelevant anti-war conservative. The key is to look where the momentum (or Joe-mentum, as Lieberman might say) is. Within liberalism, the momentum is with the anti-war crowd.

First of all, when confronted with the problem of Iraq, who had repeatedly defied U.N. resolutions, sought nuclear weapons in definace of those resolutions, failed to account for the weapons the international community agreed he did have, repeatedly attacked troops policing the no-fly zones, and gave safe harbor to terrorists (all cited by George W. Bush in his pre-war speeches as arguments for war), most of the liberal democracies of Europe essentially punted the ball and said, "Let's have more inspections, even though they've failed to do the trick the last eleven years." And some of them had no problems helping Saddam violate his sanctions either. So they're largely irrelevant to the issue, since they're prone to inertia.

Over here in America, liberals were pretty much split down the middle. The Democratic leaders gave the go-ahead and then naysayed the war even before it started (Jack Murtha, anyone). And after it begun, they nominated a Presidential candidate whose heart clearly was never in the war, given as he was to isolationist pronouncements (like in his convention speech) that we shouldn't be closing firehouses in the States while we open them in Baghdad (why spend any money on foreign policy then?) and rogue state-coddling in the form of debate talk about how we should've given Iran nuclear fuel to see if they'd use it for "peaceful purposes." Last week, he went on Face The Nation and said this:

There is no reason … that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the — of — the historical customs, religious customs.

When the party leaders of the most relevant liberal party in the world start sounding like the terrorists themselves, then you know something's gone wrong. And that's why I think they're irrelevant. They're too busy fighting their own side to fight the other side.

-Dave OConnell

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at December 13, 2005 03:02 PM

In re: the argument over ID - I found this an interesting article (and it contains a link to an equally interesting article about creation "science")...

http://www.skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html

(Sorry, I can never get the links to work, so I've stopped trying.) :)

Posted by: Den at December 13, 2005 03:05 PM

The Democratic leaders gave the go-ahead and then naysayed the war even before it started (Jack Murtha, anyone).

Actually, Murtha was a big supporter of the war until just recently, so he didn't naysay it "even before it started."

But why let facts get in the way of your hater, right?

Posted by: Den at December 13, 2005 03:17 PM

Reading some of Iowa Jim's posts underscores why I've come to believe that it's just pointless to argue evolution with an ardent creationist. Jim at least is honest enough to admit that he is a creationist rather than hiding behind the pseudo-scientific idea of intelligent design.

But, as long as creationists start with the assumption that evolution and science in general is some kind of "creed" that is intended to tear down all belief in God, there is no point in discussing it. Faith and science are two different things. Science is about studying what can be observed (except in Kansas) while faith is about believing in something that is unobservable. There are scientists who believe in one religion or another, but they understand that religion and science do not belong in the same classroom together.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 13, 2005 03:35 PM

Can you name even one such school? I've taught at three and attended half a dozen in my time, and not once have I heard of anything of the sort happening in my schools or in neighboring ones. Maybe I'm just fortunate, but I suspect it's more likely that the propaganda has gotten ahead of the reality here.

Well, it's a big country. In Plano, Texas, the colors red and green have been banned from the various Plano Independent School District "winter" parties because they are too associated with Christmas. Somewhow I doubt they monitored the colors associated with Hanukkah and Kwanzaa quite so closely.

I'd like to know more details on this. If they said that the colors cannot be *exclusively* red and green, then I can understand that position. If they said simply "red and green are banned" without paying any attention to other colors, then I think that's absurd, and I can already see that various first-amendment groups are justifiably fighting it.

How exactly this relates to your thesis that liberals are apparently the next best thing to Judas Iscariot seems a bit murky to me, though.

Tony Blair, Joe Lieberman---they're relevant liberals.

If you think Joe Lieberman is even REMOTELY liberal, then we have no common ground upon which to base any discussion. Combine that with your flat-out lies about Jack Murtha, and I think you're waaaaaaay too busy regurgitating conservative agitprop to actually have a discussion. Seeya around.

TWL

Posted by: Tom Galloway at December 13, 2005 03:56 PM

With regards to the proper greeting for atheists during this season, per Dave Barry's Guide To Holiday Shopping:

"In the old days, it was not called the Holiday Season; the Christians called it 'Christmas' and went to church; the Jews called it 'Hanukkah' and went to synagogue; the atheists went to parties and drank. People passing each other on the street would say 'Merry Christmas!' or 'Happy Hanukkah!' or (to the atheists) 'Look out for the wall!'"

Alas, as a non-drinking atheist, that doesn't quite work for me.

Posted by: Michael Brunner at December 13, 2005 03:59 PM

naysayed the war even before it started (Jack Murtha, anyone)

I thought the Liberals were the ones "rewriting history"?

Iraq, who had repeatedly defied U.N. resolutions

So have Israel & Turkey. As have other countries.

sought nuclear weapons in definace of those resolutions

no non-forged proof provided for this.

failed to account for the weapons the international community agreed he did have

Agreement he has them does not equal proof he has them. Especially since none have ever been found even after 3 years of occupation.

safe harbor to terrorists

Terrorists who got safe harbor were in areas where Saddam had no control. i.e. the no-flight zones. Where he did have control, there were no terrorists.

And some of them had no problems helping Saddam violate his sanctions either

Like Haliburton while Cheney was chairman & CEO. Or other oil companies (U.s. & foreign) who likewise profited selling Iraqi oil

isolationist pronouncements ... that we shouldn't be closing firehouses in the States while we open them in Baghdad

What, you're in favor of closing firehouses in the U.S.?

debate talk about how we should've given Iran nuclear fuel to see if they'd use it for "peaceful purposes."

I haven't heard anyone say this. Please provide a name & source.

American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women
&
party leaders of the most relevant liberal party in the world start sounding like the terrorists themselves

In school I was taught that this was the sort of thing done in Communist Russia & Nazi Germany, and that America was the 'good guy' because we didn't do things like this. And opposing such tactics is terrorist talk? If so, your concept of freedom & democracy is way different from mine.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at December 13, 2005 04:03 PM

Is there a source, perhaps some place where they condemn Potter but praise Narnia?

Here's a link to a story regarding Narnia & Harry Potter comparisons.

The article talks to an individual about it, then mentions later on that the Christians that have a problem with Potter are a minority (but, like the Robertsons and Falwells, they can be a very vocal minority).

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 13, 2005 04:04 PM

Actually, Murtha was a big supporter of the war until just recently, so he didn't naysay it "even before it started."

It is incorrect to say he naysayed it "even before it started."

It is also, however, incorrect to say he was a big supporter of the war "until just recently."

Here's Murtha in May, 2004: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/specialreports/iraq/s_192988.html

Murtha: 'We cannot prevail in this war'

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A statement from a pro-defense Democrat that the Pentagon's current military strategy in Iraq makes the war unwinnable drew a sharp rebuke Thursday from Republicans, who accused Democrats of using the war for political gain.

Whether he was ever a "big supporter" is open to debate. he did vote for the initial vote that allowed us to go in but I've been told by people here in this forum that such votes were simply from cowardice. From what little I know of Murtha he seems like a good man and hardly deserving of such a label but I have no idea what was in his heart. Certainly though, nobody can honestly say that his opposition to the war is a recent development, though the media reporting sure made it seem that way.

Posted by: roger tang at December 13, 2005 04:21 PM

Whether he was ever a "big supporter" is open to debate. he did vote for the initial vote that allowed us to go in but I've been told by people here in this forum that such votes were simply from cowardice. From what little I know of Murtha he seems like a good man and hardly deserving of such a label but I have no idea what was in his heart. Certainly though, nobody can honestly say that his opposition to the war is a recent development, though the media reporting sure made it seem that way.

I would think that his combat experience would be relevant here, but that's just me....

Posted by: Den at December 13, 2005 04:43 PM

Murtha has been criticizing the administration's handling of the war for some time now, but until about a year ago, he had been firm in his stance that pulling out would be a disaster. Until then, he had been a strong believer that we must stay in.

Criticizing the imcompetence of this administration's execution of the war is not the same thing as calling for a pullout.

Posted by: Den at December 13, 2005 04:45 PM

I would think that his combat experience would be relevant here, but that's just me....

Only in that anyone who actual combat experience has been routinely ignored by the chickenhawks in this administration in every step of the planning and execution of Bush's Big Adventure.

Posted by: Den at December 13, 2005 04:54 PM

One more thing about Murtha: From his record in Congress, he has been regarded as one of the Pentagon's biggest supporters. In fact, Dick Cheney actually sought him out for advice in the 80s when he was Secretary of Defense because of his complete lack of military experience.

Now, like most veterans who have found the courage to speak their honest opinion about Operation Fix Daddy's mistake, he gets villified in the media and called a coward on the floor of Congress. Even though his initial statement was a gradual pullout over six months, he gets attacked for calling on us to "cut and run." Whenever I hear a republican trying to take the moral high road in a debate, I think about people like Murtha and Max Cleland, who have sacrificed much for this country and how they get treated by the chickenhawks on the right if they dare disagree with the administration.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at December 13, 2005 06:21 PM

Bill (& Tim),

The use of the word "fraud" had implications I did not consider. My thought at the time was that evolution has far bigger implications than just the biology class. The implications of the theory influence our whole culture, and as such, has deceived our culture into believing a lie.

That said, after consideration, I would not use the word because Tim was right, the term normally means the person involved in knowingly trying to deceive. I don't believe that to be the case. Based on their (and my) presuppositions, we interpret the data differently.

James

Posted by: Iowa Jim at December 13, 2005 06:27 PM

Luigi Novi: Evolution is not a foundation of any worldview.

Are you serious? Go read the history of pragmatists here in America, people like Oliver Wendel Holmes and John Dewey. Have you not heard of sociobiology? There is a whole branch of psychology that is based on the principle that we evolved and our morality comes from the influence of natural selection. Not everyone agrees on these issues, but to say evolution is not a foundation of any worldview is demonstrably false.

I will go check out the website you mentioned. Thanks.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 13, 2005 07:22 PM

Jim,

While that's not really an apology, I think it's pretty close -- so thank you, and accepted.

As for evolution not being the foundation of a worldview...

Are you serious? Go read the history of pragmatists here in America, people like Oliver Wendel Holmes and John Dewey

You're mixing up cause and effect. Sure, evolutionary theory has been used by people to justify some other weird ideas. That does not make it a core part of evolutionary theory; after all, Christianity has been used to justify seventeen shitloads of weird ideas, some of which sparked wars. Evolution is not a worldview itself, and evolutionary theory did not come about because of anyone's desire to change worldviews. Evolution is a set of scientific observations -- the fact that you feel it's a threat to your own personal worldview is, with all respect, not the biologists' problem. They're just reporting what is.

As Den said, science does not have a pre-eminent "creed". It's like the anecdote I've reported before, where a pair of Jehovah's Witnesses, upon hearing that Lisa was an atheist, asked her if she "followed the teachings of I-zay-ack Asimov." You seem to have difficulty with the idea that someone can pursue scientific discovery for its own sake, rather than being part of a hierarchical system trying to topple religious thought as you know it. I don't expect you'll listen to this, but --

I know a heck of a lot more working scientists than you do, I'll wager. Not one of them -- not ONE -- has expressed a hope that their work would help topple religious thought. They haven't expressed it verbally, they haven't expressed it in deed.
They do not think it in a car. They do not think it in a bar. They do not think it in their hearts, they do not put it in their charts.
They do not dream it late at night, they are not looking for a fight.

Please, Jim. If you learn nothing else from the myriad of discussions you've had here on the topic, learn that.

TWL

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 13, 2005 08:57 PM

Jim,

I second what Tim said.

And while you are correct that evolution has been the foundation of worldviews, Tim is also correct that this has little to say about evolution. Bad stuff has been based on all manner of good and correct things.

And here's something to ponder; suppose it's true that scientists secretly know the evolution is false and that the only explanation that makes sense is a creator. Basically that means that scientists, can prove that there is a God.

And they are keeping this a secret because...? because they are afraid of other scientists being mad and not letting them play any scientist games? BFD! The one who writes the book Hey, I Got Your God Right Here! instantly becomes the most famous, popular, wealthy and beloved scientist of all time. Good grief.

It's analogous to those who think that doctors secretly could cure AIDS or cancer but don't because they make so much money treating the diseases they could cure. Uh huh. Because, after all, they wouldn't be able to charge MONEY for a cure, right? You'd think that just one guy would break ranks and announce that he had the cure for AIDS and was willing to sell it for a generous $1000 a pop, giving him a potential windfall of about 40 billion dollars. Which is more than what most doctors I know made last year.

(I know you didn't actually claim that scientists know that evolution is false but why do you suppose that the vast majority are so sure that this supposedly weak theory is obvious truth?)

Whenever I hear a republican trying to take the moral high road in a debate, I think about people like Murtha and Max Cleland, who have sacrificed much for this country and how they get treated by the chickenhawks on the right if they dare disagree with the administration.

Well Den, keep in mind that I never called Murtha a coward. You, on the other hand...

From Nov 29

Bill- Is there anyway we can distinguish between Democrats who voted for it because they actually felt it was the right thing to do and those who did so because they are timorous cowards? I'd hate to paint them all with a broad brush but how do we know which is which?

Den- Simple those that voted for it were timorous cowards. Those that thought it was the right thing to do - do not exist.

Simple enough for you?

Since Murtha is one of those Democrats who initially voted to approve the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, by your own reckoning he is (or at least was) a "timorous coward".

Personally, I disagree. I think Murtha's call for an immediate "redeployment" (which I have a bit of trouble distinguishing from an immediate withdrawal...unless they are being immediately redeployed to other places in Iraq...which doesn't sound very logical) is wrong headed and would be disastrous but I have no reason to doubt that he is sincere in his beliefs. It IS possible to disagree with someone without automatically assuming the worst of their motives.

Posted by: Micha Roded at December 13, 2005 09:31 PM

Evolution has not been the foundation of worldviews. Evolution was developed at a time when several different ideologies and philosophies were trying to gain authority and/or undermine traditional authorities (such as religion) by appealing to science and philosophy. Since evolution was a significant scientific theory, it was co-opted by such ideologies. It was part of a process in which secularized society sought (mistakenly) to use science to replace traditional authority. This process started before evolution. Prior to evolution there were other ways to undermine traditional authority.

I think the technical term for that process and time period is modernism. However we live in post-modern times, and now it is science and some of these ideologies that are undermined.

Fundementalism perceives evolution as a threat not because evolution tries to undermine religion (at least nowadays), but because it does not recognize the authority of religion in dealing with scientific questions. In a way, it is the same mistake that the modernists did when they tried to use science to deal with questions of morality and ideology (which is not to say that religion should have a monopoly on these questions either).

The use of evolution (or other sciences) to study morality as a natural phenomena is reasonable (i.e. socio-biology). To use evolution to make moral decisions is wrong (i.e. social-darwinism and eugenics).

Posted by: Iowa Jim at December 13, 2005 09:47 PM

and evolutionary theory did not come about because of anyone's desire to change worldviews.

Tim,

I beg to differ. For some scientists, it is their stated desire to disprove the existence of God by demonstrating everything came about by natural means. I agree that most scientists are not motivated by this reasoning. They are simply using science to do their job and to discover what is out there. But my high school physics teacher was such a person. We watched every episode of Sagans series "Cosmos." He was very clear that his belief in evolution was in part because it proved God did not exist.

(While he was not a scientist, my high school government teacher took great glee in mocking Christians, particularly those who believed in Creation. My logic teacher in college did as well. While they were not explicit like my physics teacher, their argument for evolution was more based on it being a way to bash Christians than based on the evidence. In contrast, my chemistry and biology teachers, while they taught evolution, were more as you described. They had no interest in toppling religious thought. So I have encountered both sides.)

I don't have the time to go research all of the quotes, but here is one that I found intersting by
Richard Dawkins: "Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of Darwinian theory . . . we would still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories." Why? Because it is naturalistic -- it explains things without having to "invoke" a "god" who created things. If you go back to Darwin's time, some scientists were more explicit. There search for a mechanism for evolution was specifically to overthrow religious thought. They felt religion was detrimental, but it was hard to completely deny it when they could not explain a natural way for life and the universe to exist. Darwin provided the way.

In one sense "evolution" when referring strictly to the idea of gradual changes over time is not in itself a worldview. But there is a key presupposition that most have in conection to it: "Science" requires there to be a "natural" explanation apart from god. As soon as you make that assumption, you have most definitely moved into the realm of a worldview. That is not a criticism, it is simply a recognition that it is impossible to not have a worldview. Without it, we would not have the context to interpret the data.

I agree that both evolution and Christianity have been used and abused to justify a lot of things both good and bad. But "naturalistic" evolution (meaning life and the universe coming about by natural means) itself is a worldview that does have implications, just as "theistic" creation that says God created the universe and man has implications.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Darren J Hudak at December 13, 2005 10:05 PM

// The use of evolution (or other sciences) to study morality as a natural phenomena is reasonable (i.e. socio-biology). To use evolution to make moral decisions is wrong (i.e. social-darwinism and eugenics). //

You would think a decade later we would have learned the lessions of the 1990's Eugenics War.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at December 13, 2005 10:06 PM

Evolution has not been the foundation of worldviews.

I would agree it is not the "origin" of all naturalistic worldview, but I specifically chose the word "foundation" because it is the cornerstone on which many naturalistic worldviews rest.

Again, it is crucial to recognize that the term evolution has come to mean far more than Darwin's orginal theory. In many uses it has no reference to a particular model but to the concept that the universe and life came about by natural means apart from divine involvement. If science were to discover a naturalistic model that differed greatly from Darwin's (however unlikely you might think that to be), I am sure we would still use the term "evolution."

I agree that it was a tool coopted by some to undermine traditional authority. That does not mean it is not now foundational to some worldviews. When I read philosphers, it is clear that evolution is the foundation of how they derive things. You may reject eugenics, but it is a worldview built on darwinian thought.


Fundementalism perceives evolution as a threat not because evolution tries to undermine religion (at least nowadays), but because it does not recognize the authority of religion in dealing with scientific questions.

I would put it differently. "Fundamentalism" sees evolution as a threat because it sees evolution as removing objective authority to deal with the issues of life in the real world, whether that be morals or science. Or to turn it the other way, many who believe in evolution perceive Christianity as a threat because it if true, it holds them to a moral standard that they reject. This is deeper than just a fear of church vs. state.

There are 3 basic questions a worldview has to answer: Where did we come from / Why are we here? Why is there pain, suffering, and problems in the world? How do we correct what is wrong in the world? Naturalistic Evolutionary thought offers very different answers than "fundamentalist" Christianity. And those answers make a difference.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Rob Staeger at December 13, 2005 10:08 PM

I'm neither religious nor a scientist, but I think your statement

"Science" requires there to be a "natural" explanation apart from god.

is a little off.

It seems to me that science requires a natural explanation, regardless of whether or not God exists. That's not necessarily "apart from;" God's existence is simply out of science's purview. Science can't take something into account that is, by its nature, beyond science. If it were to do so, it would not be science.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at December 13, 2005 10:16 PM

I think Murtha's call for an immediate "redeployment" (which I have a bit of trouble distinguishing from an immediate withdrawal...unless they are being immediately redeployed to other places in Iraq...which doesn't sound very logical)

Murtha's call seemed to lean toward the notion of keeping some of our soldiers overseas, just not in Iraq.

Whereas most calls for withdrawal simply mean bringing the troops back home entirely.

To a degree, I agree with Den: it is cowardice (on some level) that all these guys (and gals) who would not stand up to the Bush Administration over Iraq and the Patriot Act are only now doing so because Bush has thrown away all that political capital he said he earned after last year's election.

If there's one thing both sides should know, it's that this Administration can make you look bad if you don't fall in line. And that's what alot of these politicans were afraid of after 9/11: of looking soft, regardless of how unjustified the war has become, or how many civil liberties the laws will take away.

Posted by: Rex Hondo at December 13, 2005 10:50 PM

Let's try not to paint with too broad a brush there, Jim. A great many people who believe in evolution, or at least agree that it is the most reasonable theory, given the data, do not see Christianity as a threat, especially considering that a great many scientists and those who understand scientific thought ARE Christians.

The threat is from the Christian extremists (to make a half-assed attempt to bring the thread back on track) who wish to redefine science and abolish rational thought.

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 13, 2005 11:02 PM

But "naturalistic" evolution (meaning life and the universe coming about by natural means)

Jim, I don't know how many times it has to be said before one has to reach the conclusion that no amount of evidence will sway you; Evolution has nothing to say about the origin of the universe or the origin of life. They are completely separate things. I've said this, Tim has said this, others have said this. For all I know God himself placed a cell in a primordial pool. Were that proven to be the case (by what means I have no idea) it would not change the reality of evolution by natural selection. One. Iota.

So much for the origin of life (which, as has been pointed out, is abiogenesis, not evolution. Different words, different theories, etc.) As for the origin of the universe, it isn't even biology!


Murtha's call seemed to lean toward the notion of keeping some of our soldiers overseas, just not in Iraq.

Whereas most calls for withdrawal simply mean bringing the troops back home entirely.

Ok...but just so I'm clear, when you have troops in a country and then you pull them out, it's a witdrawal, isn't it? Even if they don't go home? (If I understood Murtha's argument, it was to station them somewhere on the Iraq border...hmmm, let's see, Iran? Syria? Saudi Arabia? Jordon? Turkey?...guess it will have to be Kuwait, unless I'm missing someone. And there they will...what? Watch everything fall apart, I guess.)

As I said, I don't think much of Murtha's plan. But I do think a lot about the man, certainly more than Den or Jean Schmidt do.

Posted by: Brian P at December 14, 2005 12:04 AM

There are 3 basic questions a worldview has to answer: Where did we come from / Why are we here? Why is there pain, suffering, and problems in the world?

In your world maybe, but I seriously doubt most people in the world really care about the first 2 and the 3rd one boils down to a personal view of how do I and my family survive the problems, pain and suffering.

Or to turn it the other way, many who believe in evolution perceive Christianity as a threat because it if true, it holds them to a moral standard that they reject. This is deeper than just a fear of church vs. state.

I read that and couldn't help but laugh. I seriously doubt any evolution believing person is afraid of Christianity or it being proved right because of moral standards. I know I'm certainly not. What is to be feared, is not religion being proved right in it's lack of supportable emperical evidence, but religion gaining the upper hand and snuffing out original thought and new ideas, as it even now attempts to do. As to moral standards, well what moral standards does religion really enforce? None...

Throughout recorded human history, moral standards haven't really changed all that much from before the advent of the three major religions that impact our lives, today. The very powerbrokers within religion, I would argue, thumb their noses probably more so at their own moral standards more than any scientist who pushes evolutionary science.

In reading this entire thread a question poped into my head, the radical religious freaks ultimate goal is to put the church back into the government. I wonder if they realize that every time the church has become part of the government, that the government actually takes control of the church and begins to make religious declaration not based on religion but based on governmental needs and wants. If religion is actually what these people treasure it is better to keep their religion as far away from the government as possible.

Posted by: Brian P at December 14, 2005 12:05 AM

Okay I thought I had it figured out, but evidently not. Sorry everyone for my lack of italics on the quotes above. How do you do that?

Posted by: Rat at December 14, 2005 01:56 AM

Three words for anyone (not to single you out, Iowa Jim) who doesn't give any credibility to evolution.

Have. A. Kid.

It's 1:30 in the morning, and I just got he who we affectionatley call Cloneboy to finally go to sleep/pass out. And I looked around the room, at all the Brian pictures on the wall, and it made me think that I could, if I wanted to, do an entire video with his pictures, starting from the first sonogram u[ to the picture he just had taken with Santa last week. (No, we don't have the sonogram pictures on the wall, but they ARE in the computer...) Every day with this guy, something's different. Now he can write his name, couldn't do that last week. Sorry if I'm gushing about that, but it's kinda relevant and it's also a big kick for me.

Wanna have some fun? Get a creationist and an evolutionary scientist in a room together and tell them to explain the pictures they see. Then show them pictures of:
1.The platypus
2.The flying squirrel
3.The human appendix
I'm sure there are others I could throw in there, either more valid to my point or funnier, but I'm tired, and I think the point is made. Although I would like to know what the story with the appendix is, meself. Now, most creationists I know, evolution is right out. Most, well, non-creationists look at evolution and say "Here ya go. This is how it works. Just don't ask me to explain where it came from or I'll hemmorage."

A while back, my best friend and I were having a conversation before a show. The human species, for being top of the food chain, is not terribly well adapted to this planet. Our upright stance causes all kinds of back problems, our lack of extensive body hair (my ex-girlfriend's family notwithstanding) makes us especially ill suited for living under the sun, and a whole host of other things that I've forgotten. Now, the conversation wasn't having to do with evolution/creationism per se, but when I thought later, if we're created in God's image, why do we have all these problems? And for that matter, isn't it more likely that an all-powerful God is capable of many images, explaining the many and varied types of life in the world. I suggested that once to a couple overly religious guys that I work with. The one, who is currently writing a book on Christ and the teachings, nodded and said that I was wise. (Yeah, I didn't buy that one either) The other argued the point with me for three weeks, getting all the more angry and frustrated because "WE are created in God's image, we look like God, like he always looks!" And that's the biggest pair of problems I have with strict creationism. The assumption that anyone knows the mind of God along with the strict adherence to what the Bible says about where we came from. Just because Science explains how something works it doesn't preclude the Designer that put it that way, with all respect to Slartibartfast.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 14, 2005 06:08 AM

and evolutionary theory did not come about because of anyone's desire to change worldviews.

I beg to differ.

Beg away. You're fundamentally incorrect.


And as Bill has reminded you AGAIN overnight, would you please stop referring to evolution as dealing with the origin of life and/or the universe? All you're doing is making it clear that you haven't the slightest clue what evolutionary theory actually DOES address, because those two things aren't part of the package.

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, Jim, I really am -- but it's becoming increasingly clear that you simply hear what you want to hear during these discussions and ignore everything else (like most of the actual facts). Your own worldview seems to be that most scientists are anti-Christian because it would hold them to a standard of morality they'd find threatening. I'm not sure whether to find that deeply offensive or just sad -- because not only does that worldview stray incredibly far from an accurate portrayal of most scientists, but it's more an indication of paranoia and ignorance than of Christianity.

Again, I'm sorry, Jim. You seem like a bright guy, but you've got blinders on the size of a planet and clearly have no interest in removing them when it comes to science. You talk about people "believing" in evolution, showing that the idea of examining evidence just doesn't penetrate where you're concerned. You don't understand how science works or why people choose to pursue it, and you just as clearly don't care to.

That's your call and your right. But it's sad.

TWL

Posted by: Rex Hondo at December 14, 2005 07:09 AM

I was pondering over the last hour or two, mulling over some of the comments in this thread, and it struck me that there seems, at least to me, to be a tremendous, almost ludicrous irony that the proponents of Intelligent Design are the ones displaying the most Socially Darwinistic behaviors. They yell, scream, bite, claw, lie, fabricate, obfuscate, and do just about anything else to push forward their agenda.

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 14, 2005 08:19 AM

Another thought upon rereading some of last night's discussion:

Jim said:

My thought at the time was that evolution has far bigger implications than just the biology class.

Yes, it does.
It tells us that we are PART of life on this planet, not separate from it.
It tells us that we have a connection to the world we live on, and that we'd better not screw around with it too much lest we bring about nasty unforeseen consequences.
It tells us to be aware of how we affect other species, because in the end that's likely to affect us as well.

In short, most of evolution's "implications" that so disturb you are ones that should make us better stewards of our planet, of our environment, and of our fellows (both humans and not).

I leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine why this might disturb so many members of the religious right.

TWL

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at December 14, 2005 08:44 AM

Ok...but just so I'm clear, when you have troops in a country and then you pull them out, it's a witdrawal, isn't it?

Pretty much, yes, but all boils down to what the troops would be doing when they leave Iraq. And then how one interprets the words.

Most are just saying the troops should come home; Murtha isn't.

To many, there is no such line, obviously - leaving Iraq is leaving Iraq.

Although, contrary to comments made by many idiots on the right, Murtha isn't calling for us to leave Iraq immediately - unless you think 6 months is 'immediate' when we've been there for 1001 days (which is nearly 3 years).

Posted by: Den at December 14, 2005 09:23 AM

Since Murtha is one of those Democrats who initially voted to approve the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, by your own reckoning he is (or at least was) a "timorous coward".

Okay, Bill, I'm going to call you on your bullshit right now, because you're being a damn liar, pulling shit out of context and distorting its meaning. I'd expect this from someone like Sean Hannity, but not you.

Here is that quote you pulled in context:

You:

But calling the Patriot Act a bipartisan measure is like calling a mugging a voluntary donation because you gave the mugger your wallet in exchange for not getting shot.

Is there anyway we can distinguish between Democrats who voted for it because they actually felt it was the right thing to do and those who did so because they are timorous cowards? I'd hate to paint them all with a broad brush but how do we know which is which?

Me:

Simple those that voted for it were timorous cowards. Those that thought it was the right thing to do - do not exist.

So, when I called the Senate democrats (and, last I checked, Murtha was a member of the House, not the Senate) cowards, I was referring to the vote on the Patriot Act, not the invasion of Iraq.

And, yes, Murtha did vote for the Patriot Act and I do think he was wrong for it, but but a single act of political cowardice does not negate several years of honorable service (something our current president would know nothing about) in the military.

So, if you're not going to be honest about your snippy little comments, then I'm not going to bother talking to you anymore.

In short: Fuck you, Bill. You're a liar.

Posted by: Den at December 14, 2005 09:34 AM

Or to turn it the other way, many who believe in evolution perceive Christianity as a threat because it if true, it holds them to a moral standard that they reject.

I guess that would make sense if you believe that all scientists are immoral atheists. Having worked with many scientists in a variety of fields, but as a student and a professional, I can tell you that such a generalized worldview is not accurate in the least.

Posted by: Bobb at December 14, 2005 09:36 AM

Jim, the thing that strikes me about your stance on evolution is that you appear to understand that there are some people that have co-opted evolution and applied and expanded it beyond it's basic tenents. And some of those have attached evolution to world-views and philosophies, some of which are contrary to and destructive of some religious views. And because of that, you appear to have the opinion that all evolutionary ideas must therefor be wrong.

Because one faction (or a few factions) have accepted evolution, and those factions are anti-christian.

But using that logic (discarding the whole because a part has become corrupted) leads us to discarding just about everything, because every idea and ideal at some point has been corrupted, including Christianity itself.

Jim's bigger problem seems to be with worldviews that seek to discredit/debunk Christianity. And I don't see any problem with that. But these worldviews are not opposed to Christianity because of an adherance to the precepts of scientific evolutionary study: rather, the conclusions of evolutionary study simply provide an outlet for these worldviews to attack religious foundations. Evolution doesn't say "the Biblical story of creation cannot be factually correct because the timeline needed for the Bible to be fact is not supported by the fossil (and geological) record." People can make that claim. But they can apply the same statement to just about ALL religious/cultural creation myths. But the people making those statements are most likely already predisposed to view those creation stories as myths...evolution just gives them a rational outlet for attacking them. Without evolution, there'd be people saying that God didn't create the earth in 6 days because the great Firebird created the earth during her 17th circle around the sun. Of just saying "that's silly...it takes God 10 months to make a baby, yet only 6 days to make the whole planet?"

People have always attacked other religions. There will probably always be such people. But to single out the method of attack is exactly like treating the symptoms and not the disease. Evolution itself is not a worldview any more than the study of gravity is. Or mathematics. It's just a tool that provides an outlet to attack a particular belief.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 14, 2005 10:55 AM

Den,

Two things:

1- You are absolutely correct that I screwed up and thought that our discussion was on the Iraq vote and not the Patriot Act. Lucky for me it doesn't matter much since Mr Murtha voted for the Patriot Act as well. Dodged a bullet there.

2- You can hide behind all of the anger and bluster all you want. It doesn't change what you said. Pulling it out of context? You wish. I said you called Murtha a coward. You agree that you called him a coward--on the basis of no evidence, I might add, just your assumption of what he was secretly thinking.

One of the disadvantages of saying stupid things about people is that they can come back and bite you on the ass. I considered not throwing your words back in your face but I figured that anyone who could dish out "Whenever I hear a republican trying to take the moral high road in a debate" would have enough guts to take it. It's one of those things that comes with the territory.

I've enjoyed many of our conversations but I'm not going to pull punches with someone who enjoys making big broad generalizations and assumptions about other people's ethics.

Posted by: Den at December 14, 2005 11:18 AM

Bill, I said that the vote for the Patriot Act was an act of political cowardice, and I stand by that. However, you took that statement and applied it to a completely different act, and that's dishonest. I don't respect that at all. The statement I made weeks ago was about one action taken at one time by one group of people. You can pull it out weeks later and claim that I meant it to apply to someone else as the sum total of their life, but you and I both know that wasn't what I said or meant at the time.

I also stand by my other statement that the republican party and its lackeys on Fox News have gone out of their way to villify anyone who dares to disagree with them.

Do I think Murtha was being a political coward when he voted for the Patriot Act? Yes, I do. However, he also displayed a great deal of personal courage (again, tell me where Cheney, Bush, and Rummy were in the 60s?) during his service in the marines and political courage in his more recent stand against the administration. Yes, context is important. People don't always act in a consistent manner. Sometimes they show more courage in certain circumstance, less in others. I can forgive one act of political cowardice in the greater context of his whole life, a trait not shared by this administration who paints anyone who disagrees with their cowboy attitude towards foreign policy as total cowards.

Is that clear enough for you?

Again, this kind of out-of-context quote mining is something I would expect from Hannity or Karl Rove, not someone like you who is capable of making a reasoned, intelligent argument.

You can continue down the road of personal attacks by saying I can dish it out, but can't take it, but I never took one of your quotes out of context and misrepresented it.

Never.

Posted by: Micha Roded at December 14, 2005 11:48 AM

It's not evolution, it's science.

Why is the naturalistic explanation offered by biology for the development of species seems to trouble religious people so much, but geology's naturalistic explanation for the creation of continents does not? How about a historical explanation of victories andd defeats that explains it without resorting to the will of god?

Look, it all comes down to authority. Authority in general, authority in the realm of morality, politics (state), science, education, esthetics, etc.

In the past, the main source of authority was tradition, including traditional stories of creation.

Another source of authority was revelation.

A third, later source of authority was rational analysis = philosophy or science, which was immediately perceived as a threat to the other two.

Since then religion has been dealing with philosophy/science constantly for thousands of years in order to preserve its authority. This has been going on way before evolution.

This was done in two ways:
a. Attacking science/philosophy
b. Coopting it, and giving it a place inside the authoritative religious system.

A third way would be to set a boundry between what was under the authority of science and what of religion, but that would require science to give up some of the authority it had in these subjects.

Modern science has gone even further than philosophy in requiring a naturalistic/mechanistic explanation without resorting to a god (in science, not in general). At least in philosophy, if an explanation had a god, than religion could say it was its god.

Why modern science does not make use of god in its models? Well, it seems more justified on a scientific/philosophical point of view for its purposes. Sciences also limit their scope. Unlike philosophy, natural sciences don't deal with moral issues. But had science actually added god to its models, it would have dealt with him in a naturalistic, rationalistic way, which would not have been so good for the authority based on tradition and revelation anyway.

The seperation of church and state, and the democratic systems are other modern examples for the undermining of religious authority.

Multi-culturalism -- the acceptance of other religions as equal -- is a post-modern threat to the authority of religion. Which is why "happy holiday's" is considered bad.

Jim said:
"I would put it differently. "Fundamentalism" sees evolution as a threat because it sees evolution as removing objective authority to deal with the issues of life in the real world, whether that be morals or science."

Actually, science in general, including evolution, is a threat because it presents a different objective authority than religion to deal with scientific issues. Science certainly does not remove objective authority, it is the paragon of objective authority, it only removes the authority religion held. But it does so only in its own realm. Unlike philosophy (or rationalistic thought in general), it does not undermine religion everywhere. In fact, since most of the actively secular ideologies of the past have lost popularity, science does not deal with religion at all if it can avoid it (except for religious comparative study and history).

Science does not perceive christianity as a threat. It does perceive religious establishments as a threat when:
a. a religious establishment attacks them physically or economically or curtails their freedom.
b. When religion tried to undermine science's authority (or rather reclaim its authority), as with Intelligent-Design. Science is likewise threatened by many new-age and pseudo-scientific ideas.

Jim said:
"There are 3 basic questions a worldview has to answer: Where did we come from / Why are we here? Why is there pain, suffering, and problems in the world? How do we correct what is wrong in the world? Naturalistic Evolutionary thought offers very different answers than "fundamentalist" Christianity. And those answers make a difference."

Actually, evolution in particular and science in general do not deal with these issues. science deals with two quesions: what are the processes we know of that caused us to be here with all our pains etc.? And how will future processes affect us (or other aspects of the universe). Why, and wrong are not part of science's vocabulary.

However, a person who rejects the authority of religion but accepts the authority of science may answer the question of why are we here by saying that since science cannot tell us why we are here, and religion's answer is not scientifically sound, that the question is not relevant. He might then replace it with the question"how can we live best? But science can then only tell him the results of different ways of living, for what is "best" you have to go elsewhere.

At the end, for peace between religion and science and philosophy to take place three things have to happen:
a) religion should not try to reclaim its authority on scientific things, and be satisfied with the power it has in other realms.
b) It must recognize that in a pluralistic society in cannot have absolute authority anymore on anything. It must deal with different ideologies, some of which may include scientific ideas. It must be content with the freedom offered by pluralistic society to promote its ideas as well.
c) Ideologies must never be confused with scienceor misrepresented as science.


Micha

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 14, 2005 01:14 PM

Bill, I said that the vote for the Patriot Act was an act of political cowardice, and I stand by that. However, you took that statement and applied it to a completely different act, and that's dishonest. I don't respect that at all.

I made a mistake and admitted it. Obviously, you can choose to believe otherwise. Since it would not have changed my point one single bit to point out that you were calling a Murtha a coward over the Patriot Act rather than the War resolution, it stands to reason that my mixing the two was unintentional. If you had called him a coward over his vote on the Fenwick/Penfold Highway Billboard Act of 2001 it wouldn't change the point.

When you claim that republicans are not to be taken seriously when they "take the moral high ground" because of the mean things that have been said about Murtha, it kind of rankled, being that YOU were the one who had called him a coward. No, not by name, though you have clearly done so now (And I guess I do have to give you credit for consistency, even though I still say you have no basis to assume that anyone's vote was based on cowardice).

You can pull it out weeks later and claim that I meant it to apply to someone else as the sum total of their life, but you and I both know that wasn't what I said or meant at the time.

I did not say that you applied the coward label to the totality of his life. In fact I said " by your own reckoning he is (or at least was) a "timorous coward"." Had I left out the "at least was" part you might have a legitimate complaint.

If you object to the statement I made that I think more about Murtha than you do, well, we both agree that he has served this country with distinction. I'm also more willing than you to assume that those decisions he has made that I disagree with are ones made from honest conviction. So yeah, I think I'm on solid ground there as well.

But I'm willing to see that you could have thought that I was claiming that you believed him to BE a coward, not just a good man who made A cowardly choice. There is a difference. That was not my intention and obviously not you opinion.

My complaint was and is over your overstatements and assumptions, which are dangerously close to the same kind of attacks you accuse the administration of doing. It weakens your criticism if you engage in anything like it yourself.

That said, I don't want there to be anger between us, since I have genuinely enjoyed many of our conversations in the past.


Posted by: Ham at December 14, 2005 01:23 PM

Den queried:
tell me where Cheney, Bush, and Rummy were in the 60s?

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html :

President Bush was born on July 6, 1946, in New Haven, Connecticut, and grew up in Midland and Houston, Texas. He received a bachelor’s degree in history from Yale University in 1968, and then served as an F-102 fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard.

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/vpbio.html :


Mr. Cheney was born in Lincoln, Nebraska, on January 30, 1941 and grew up in Casper, Wyoming. He earned his bachelor's and master's of arts degrees from the University of Wyoming. His career in public service began in 1969 when he joined the Nixon Administration, serving in a number of positions at the Cost of Living Council, at the Office of Economic Opportunity, and within the White House.

From http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/rumsfeld.html :


Mr. Rumsfeld attended Princeton University on academic and NROTC scholarships (A.B., 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor. In 1957, he transferred to the Ready Reserve and continued his Naval service in flying and administrative assignments as a drilling reservist until 1975. He transferred to the Standby Reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and to the Retired Reserve with the rank of Captain in 1989.

In 1957, he came to Washington, DC to serve as Administrative Assistant to a Congressman. After a stint with an investment banking firm, he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Illinois in 1962, at the age of 30, and was re-elected in 1964, 1966, and 1968.

So, basically two were in school preparing for a life of national service, which included some military for one of them (unless you discount the national guard as not being military, which does a great disservice to national guardsman!) and the third had already finished school, had serve time in the regular military and was an avid member of the Naval Reserves until he retired from the Reserves, and spent the 60's as a member of the House of Reprensatitives.


Where were you in the 60's?


It is a stupid question.

Posted by: Den at December 14, 2005 01:29 PM

Bill, I am angry about this and I'm likely to be angry for a while. Yes, I do find it hard to swallow that you went back through the archives, pulled a quote out of its context, and yet ignored the sentence right above it relating to the Patriot Act. I also disagree with your interpretation that just because I said voting for the Patriot Act was being a coward, that meant that every person who voted for it was a coward for 100% of their life. You distorted something I said out of context to make a cheap shot at me and I resent it.

But, since this is PAD's blog and not mine, I'm going to show some respect for him and take a break from this forum for a while.

Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, Happy Kwanza, and Happy New Year everyone.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 14, 2005 01:42 PM

basically two were in school preparing for a life of national service

You misspelled "fleecing the public". Hope this helps.

TWL

Posted by: Den at December 14, 2005 01:56 PM

I discount Bush's national guard "service" since he has yet to prove that he actually completed it.

As for where I was: in 1969, I was "being born."

Happy Holidays everybody.

Posted by: Ham at December 14, 2005 02:45 PM

Actually, there is no proof that he didn't complete, no dishonorable discharge or anything like it. There is proof that he was a member and no creditable reason to believe that he did not honorably complete his duty. Except if you consider your personal lack of knowledge of military process and procedures creditable.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 14, 2005 03:11 PM

I also disagree with your interpretation that just because I said voting for the Patriot Act was being a coward, that meant that every person who voted for it was a coward for 100% of their life. You distorted something I said out of context to make a cheap shot at me and I resent it.

If you find the part where I said anything like I also disagree with your interpretation that anything I said meant that you believed "that meant that every person who voted for it was a coward for 100% of their life." I'll apologize for it.

But you won't because you can't and all the anger in the world won't change that. All your doing is trying to pretend I said something I didn't, the very thing you accuse me of...it's called projection.

Posted by: Den at December 14, 2005 04:08 PM

Bill, you said straight out that I said Murtha was a coward, which is not true. You used a circular out of context comment to make that claim.

Again, your dishonesty disgusts me.

Okay, I said I was taking a break and now I mean it.

Merry Chritsmas.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 14, 2005 04:22 PM

You said any Democrat who voted for the Patriot Act was a "timorous coward".

Murtha voted for the Patriot Act.

Simple enough for you?

You did not mean that he was ALWAYS a coward, just that he acted cowardly on that particular day.

Fine.

Which does not change the fact that:

You said any Democrat who voted for the Patriot Act was a "timorous coward".

Murtha voted for the Patriot Act.

You have every reason to be disgusted, though I'd suggest the proper target is closer to home. And if it hurts to have ill chosen words thrown back in your face, maybe you should take considerably more care in choosing them. But that might require acknowledging a mistake, a difficulty you seem to share with the President.

Posted by: Michael Brunner at December 14, 2005 06:48 PM

no creditable reason to believe that he did not honorably complete his duty.

Except for questionable records & a complete lack of anyone coming forward to say that they saw bush serving because they served with him.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 14, 2005 07:04 PM

Oh, Michael, don't be silly. Saint George can do no wrong in some men's eyes, don't you know? Bringing evidence (or the lack thereof) into it is just SO last century...

TWL

Posted by: Ham at December 14, 2005 07:13 PM

Oh, Tim, you silly twit,you are so right, everyone who doesn't denounce everything about the president is just a blind worshipper of his!

Or, it could be that I have military experience and can see the records that are available as proof of service and the 'missing evidence' as proof of lazy and stupid conspiracy thinking on the part of those who are only wanting to trash someone that they disagree with.

Oh, and the only 'questionable' records that have been produced are the forged documents that Dan Rather came up with.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 14, 2005 07:40 PM

Or, it could be that I have military experience and can see the records that are available as proof of service and the 'missing evidence' as proof of lazy and stupid conspiracy thinking on the part of those who are only wanting to trash someone that they disagree with.

It could be, but that's not where the smart money bets.

You claim that "there is no proof he didn't complete his service." That's an argument based on lack of evidence.

Michael has pointed out that not one single person has ever positively verified Bush's presence in the latter period of his alleged service.

That is also an argument based on lack of evidence -- but when the latter evidence should be trivial to produce and the former evidence might not be, Occam's razor suggests going with the latter.

Face it, "Ham" -- Shrub's a spoiled rich brat. He grew up a spoiled rich brat whose friends and relatives always bailed him out of trouble, and he remains such to this day. You can agree or disagree with his policies all you like, but it mystifies me how anyone can see him personally as anything other than a waste of protoplasm.

(And for the record -- yes, I'd happily say that to his face.)

I'm not saying that "everyone who doesn't denounce everything about the president is just a blind worshipper of his," though that's an impressive straw man you built up there.

TWL

Posted by: Michael Brunner at December 14, 2005 07:44 PM

And yet none of the bushbots ever offer a reason why none of the people bush "served" with during his unconfirmed time have ever come forward to say "bush served & I was there with him".

Even though a couple of veterans groups & Gary Troudou have offered cash awards for anyone who does so.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at December 14, 2005 07:58 PM

(unless you discount the national guard as not being military, which does a great disservice to national guardsman!)

Well, it was certainly a great disservice to those that were drafted, since Bush signed up for the NG only so he could avoid the draft.

Posted by: James Carter at December 14, 2005 08:29 PM

Well, the impossible happened. My respect for Bush actually went up a little. Of course, going from more negative to less negative isn't all that much but still....
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/14/bush.iraq/index.html

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," Bush said during his fourth and final speech before Thursday's vote for Iraq's parliament. "As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just that."

I gotta admit, at least he is taking responsibility. Of course, Iraq is still a hopeless SNAFU, and things aren't gonna get better soon, and he still thinks we should be in Iraq....and...and...

But whatever. At least he is showing some signs of maturity and responsibility. It's a sad day for America, though, when a president taking some small responsibility for his mistakes is worth being noticed, let alone commented upon.

Posted by: Michael Brunner at December 14, 2005 09:13 PM

Not much of an apology. He's still claiming Saddam was a threat to America and others even while saying the intelligence was wrong.

To me, this is little more than Orwellian doublespeak.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 14, 2005 09:25 PM

Forget the Orwellian doublespeak (though I agree with Michael on that). He's also promising "total victory" in the war on terror.

When's the last time anybody used the phrase "total victory" in wartime who wasn't utterly and completely round-the-bend psychotic? "Total victory" in a case like this would basically mean one of two things: either everyone recognizes that "we're the good guys" and decides never to bother us again, or any possible threat to us is permanently destroyed.

If he expects the former, he's delusional and dangerous. If he intends the latter, he's a megalomaniac and dangerous.

Is there a choice here I'm missing? I frankly hope so.

I'm not heartened at all by today's speeches. I'm really nervous about what the hell's about to happen.

TWL

Posted by: Michael Brunner at December 14, 2005 10:36 PM

Fun picture of bush here:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11306.htm

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 14, 2005 10:46 PM

When's the last time anybody used the phrase "total victory" in wartime who wasn't utterly and completely round-the-bend psychotic?

Hmm, FDR?

Posted by: David Bjorlin at December 14, 2005 11:58 PM

When's the last time anybody used the phrase "total victory" in wartime who wasn't utterly and completely round-the-bend psychotic?

Every war President we've ever had except (possibly) for his father. If the word "war" starts being tossed around, popular politics require that only absolute victory be considered as a possibility. Midway through World War I, a British Nobel laureate suggested in a letter to the Times that the war be resolved by a negotiated settlement as so many preindustrial wars had been; public reaction was negative to put it mildly. And of course in the next war, that raving lunatic Winston Churchil announced his war aims thus: "You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs - Victory in spite of all terrors - Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival." In January of 1943 during the Casablanca Conference, the United Nations announced the Axis's "unconditional surrender" as its requirement for the end of the war. UN Resolution 82 called for North Korea's withdrawal to its own borders, not a plebiscite about reunification. Even Nixon, faced with widespread popular opposition to US involvement in Viet Nam (an involvement tied to the guy he was running against, no less-- Humphrey was Johnson's VP, remember) portrayed his plan to cut and run from Viet Nam as a plan to "win the peace." No politician can campaign on a platform of partial success or measured response; there is no way a modern President could promise anything but victory witohut committing political suicide.

Amusingly, the least sane candidate was actually the one who least exhibited the behavior you categorized as "completely round-the-bend psychotic." "O fortune, how you mock me." (Gratuitous South Park reference.)

As for the war on terror, a total victory would mean a world characterized by an utter and global rejection of terrorism as a desirable or effective means of political action. That's the only world worth living in. Why should we not at least accept that as our goal, even if we never completely achieve it?

(One footnote-- I've been trying like hell to remember who it was that was lambasted in the Times for suggesting a negotiated peace in WWI, and I'll let you know if I remember his name. I can provide citations for everything else.)

Posted by: David Bjorlin at December 15, 2005 12:17 AM

Bill wrote, I think Murtha's call for an immediate "redeployment" (which I have a bit of trouble distinguishing from an immediate withdrawal...unless they are being immediately redeployed to other places in Iraq...which doesn't sound very logical)

Craig responded, Murtha's call seemed to lean toward the notion of keeping some of our soldiers overseas, just not in Iraq.

Whereas most calls for withdrawal simply mean bringing the troops back home entirely.

Actually in Armyspeak "Redeployment" is a term of art generally meaning a relocation of troops, but as best I can tell, the most common usage is a relocation of troops from a foreign zone back to their bases. Given that Murtha was career military, I assumed that he was using the word in its more common usage and meant bringing them all back to base immediately. On further review I think that's exactly what he meant, since I found news stories that quoted him saying, "The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home." Although it is worth noting that for the last 60 years "home" for some divisions has meant "Germany."

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 15, 2005 06:05 AM

Every war President we've ever had except (possibly) for his father. If the word "war" starts being tossed around, popular politics require that only absolute victory be considered as a possibility.

Yes, David, but not a single example you cited used the actual phrase, and that's what I was reacting to. Of course every politician plays the game as though victory is the only possible option -- but "victory" and "total victory" have very, very different connotations.

Had Bush said simply "victory" or even "certain victory", then I'd just think he was being his usual blowhard self. He didn't; he upped the ante in his rhetoric, which makes me wonder how the ante will be upped in substantive ways.

So while I appreciate the history lesson (about 10% of which I didn't know previously), you've done precisely nothing to assuage my concerns.

As for the war on terror, a total victory would mean a world characterized by an utter and global rejection of terrorism as a desirable or effective means of political action. That's the only world worth living in. Why should we not at least accept that as our goal, even if we never completely achieve it?

First, because Bush didn't call it our ultimate goal. He said that specific actions were going to achieve it. That's rather like claiming that your actions in the next day are going to bring about a Golden Age. It's pie-in-the-sky moronic.

Second, because (as I already said) there are other definitions beyond the one you just described. It could also mean "all who oppose us are dead." Given Bush's usual martial bent, I think there's a significant chance that's the one he meant, and that scares the hell out of me.

(There's also the issue that calling this "the war on terror" itself assures permanent war, but that's a different rhetorical problem and one of longer standing. More on that some other time.)

TWL

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 15, 2005 06:12 AM

I think I need to recant one point I made above; now that I'm going back and trying to find a citation, I'm not sure Bush ever really did talk about particular actions achieving "total victory". I could swear I remember seeing that someplace, but I'm not finding it now. So that point (the third-to-last paragraph above) is one I'll back away from.

TWL

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 15, 2005 07:00 AM

Yes, David, but not a single example you cited used the actual phrase, and that's what I was reacting to. Of course every politician plays the game as though victory is the only possible option -- but "victory" and "total victory" have very, very different connotations.

I was beginning to doubt my memory of FDR using the phrase, so I looked it up--as it turns out he apparently could barely order lunch without adding the words "total victory".

From his Fireside Chat 26 (September 8, 1943)
This war does not and must not stop for one single instant. Your (our) fighting men know that. Those of them who are moving forward through jungles against lurking Japs -- those who are (in) landing at this moment, in barges moving through the dawn up to strange enemy coasts -- those who are diving their bombers down on the targets at roof-top level at this moment -- every one of these men knows that this war is a full-time job and that it will continue to be that until total victory is won.
...Nobody knows when total victory will come -- but we do know that the harder we fight now, the more might and power we direct at the enemy now, the shorter the war will be and the smaller the sum total of sacrifice.

from the Fourth Inaugural Address:
In the days and in the years that are to come we shall work for a just and honorable peace, a durable peace, as today we work and fight for total victory in war.

from Address Delivered by President Roosevelt at Washington, March 15, 1941:
From now on that aid will be increased-and yet again increased-until total victory has been won.

From THE ANNUAL MESSAGE TO CONGRESS Delivered on January 6, 1942:
That is the conflict that day and night now pervades our lives. No compromise can end that conflict. There never has been-there never can be-successful compromise between good and evil. Only total victory can reward the champions of tolerance and decency and freedom and faith.

Holy crap, Tim, can you imagine how you would have felt if Bush had said the last one? (Actually it sounds as though Steve Ditko wrote it!)

There are plenty of reasons to critique the president but this seems like a stretch, in my opinion.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 15, 2005 07:27 AM

Thanks, Bill. That's actually useful information.

I'm not especially comfortable seeing that rhetoric from FDR either, but it does help to see that others have used the phrase *without* having some sort of America Uber Alles in mind as the end result.

Doesn't change my overall opinion much if at all, but it certainly lessens my immediate concern. Thanks.

(Just as a side note, though, the last quote you used did come less than a month after Pearl Harbor, and I don't think anyone should find it a surprise that the rhetoric was over-the-top bombast right then. :-)

TWL

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 15, 2005 08:09 AM

True. And it was a very different time. I did a chapter of an education book once on propaganda and, in the course of researching it, stumbled across a photo of FDR examining a letter opener that had been sent to him from some soldiers. It was carved from the legbone of a dead Japanese soldier. Yow.

There's a great book on the subject: War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War by John W. Dower. Highly recommended.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 15, 2005 09:13 AM

I'd heard that story before (the letter opener made from a legbone). Definitely a different time.

(Or perhaps not. After all, I think everybody here is familiar with the fact that Bush apparently shows off Saddam's pistol to Oval Office visitors...)

TWL

Posted by: Thom at December 15, 2005 01:01 PM

I think I am more comfortable with the President showing Saddam's pistol off to visitors than, say, a lamp made from Saddam's skull.

These may be gentler times afterall.

Posted by: Michael Brunner at December 15, 2005 02:22 PM

Returning to the original topic for a moment, a resolution has been introduced in congress to support for "the symbols and traditions of Christmas."

http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/dp-39306sy0dec15,0,1382931.story?coll=dp-news-local-final

Posted by: James Carter at December 15, 2005 02:48 PM

What really disturbed me was the speech Bush made Monday, saying that foreign regimes were a threat to America, and saying:

"The long run in this war is going to require a change of governments in parts of the world."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002680398_bushiraq13.html?syndication=rss

Great.

Think that all those "parts of the world" might be say, the Middle East? Places like Iran and Syria? Or do you think hes gonna go after North Korea? Hey, last I heard, Vietnam was still communist, think we might take another crack at it?

You know, I no longer pray that we will elect a democrat next time around, I pray that there will be a country to lead. preferably one that isn't bankrupt and hated around the world, especially by the people most likely to become terrorists.

Posted by: Sasha at December 15, 2005 05:00 PM

Well, the impossible happened. My respect for Bush actually went up a little. Of course, going from more negative to less negative isn't all that much but still....
">http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/14/bush.iraq/index.html

[snip]

I gotta admit, at least he is taking responsibility. Of course, Iraq is still a hopeless SNAFU, and things aren't gonna get better soon, and he still thinks we should be in Iraq....and...and...

But whatever. At least he is showing some signs of maturity and responsibility. It's a sad day for America, though, when a president taking some small responsibility for his mistakes is worth being noticed, let alone commented upon.

Actually, he isn’t taking responsibility at all. Or at least not of any mistakes.

It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just that.

The only thing he ‘fesses up to is that he decided to go to war and that he’ll fix America’s intelligence gathering abilities – not that he ignored good intelligence that undermined the case for war in the first place, not that he ignored warnings from analysts that the intelligence he was basing his decisions on were suspect if not outright wrong. Indeed, “much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong” – namely, the intelligence that he used to justify the war. The intelligence that said the war was unwarranted, intelligence that he ignored, was not.

Don’t be fooled. W. is not taking responsibility for really anything. All the blame is being dumped upon the intel-gathering community, but his speech is crafted to make it seem like he’s conceding he is actually to blame for something when it’s actually a disingenuous mea culpa designed to help his (and the GOP’s) image . . . much like what he did with Katrina.

But what really twists me (and the fact that this bit is being mostly ignored by almost everyone) is this little detail he dropped after his speech:

Knowing what I know today, I'd make the decision again. Removing Saddam Hussein makes this world a better place and America a safer country."

Is W. actually saying that if he knew with certainty that Saddam wasn’t a threat (immediate or long-term), wasn’t developing WMD, wasn’t colluding with terrorists, and was being successfully contained with sanctions and inspectors he still would have invaded Iraq?

WTF?!?

That’s not preemptive war; that’s just plain, old-fashioned, naked aggression.

And it suggests that this war was never a preemptive war, but rather a manufactured war designed to realize some nebulous neoconservative ideology.

And if that’s true (and I hope to God I’m not) then he and his circle are criminals and we are all accessories.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at December 15, 2005 05:41 PM

Returning to the original topic for a moment, a resolution has been introduced in congress to support for "the symbols and traditions of Christmas."

It's about time the pagans and other got their due for all the things Christians stole... err, pagans and others contributed to make Christmas what it is today.

And what is Christmas today? Well, it certainly isn't a celebration of Christ to most people.

So, if Congress wants to protect that, by all means.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 15, 2005 05:48 PM

Is W. actually saying that if he knew with certainty that Saddam wasn’t a threat (immediate or long-term), wasn’t developing WMD, wasn’t colluding with terrorists, and was being successfully contained with sanctions and inspectors he still would have invaded Iraq?

Of course he is. That's what he's been saying for years. He was just a little more obvious about it this time.

Cheney, Rummy, Perle, Wolfie, Feith, and the rest of the PNAC crowd didn't give a rat's ass about WMD's and still don't. They want to remake the Middle East by way of naked American power, and saw an opportunity here.

And it suggests that this war was never a preemptive war, but rather a manufactured war designed to realize some nebulous neoconservative ideology.

And if that’s true (and I hope to God I’m not) then he and his circle are criminals and we are all accessories.

Not all of us, Sasha. As one who recognized this as a sham and protested the war from the git-go, I categorically refuse to shoulder any of the blame for this. I have no doubt that David Bjorlin and other unreconstructed nationalists (I believe that's the term he's used to describe himself before; apologies in advance if I'm wrong) will consider that refusal disloyalty bordering on treason, but I think my duty to human decency is a hell of a lot more important than my duty to a nation that's become way too corrupt for its own sake.

Like James above, I'm hoping that there's still a country left in 2008 and that we can start picking up the pieces. I have my doubts.


As to why that particular bit of his speech isn't being picked up and discussed ... hmm, gee, well, you'd think the allegedly liberal media would be all over it, wouldn't you? I can't imagine what part of our assumptions are wrong there...

TWL

Posted by: David Bjorlin at December 15, 2005 06:04 PM

TWL achieved a new level in drawing distinctions without differences when he wrote, Yes, David, but not a single example you cited used the actual phrase, and that's what I was reacting to...So while I appreciate the history lesson (about 10% of which I didn't know previously), you've done precisely nothing to assuage my concerns.

And the distinction between a "total victory" and the "unconditional surrender" of one's enemy is precisely what? Please also distinguish "total victory" from "Victory at all costs" and "Victory, however long and hard the road may be." You seem to think that the "actual phrase" "total victory" somehow implies that Bush entertains options that are out of line with practices that American wartime presidents routinely engage in, but not to put too fine a point on it, you're wrong. Do you honestly think that the slight word change really means that they're discussing different things? That carpet bombing Germany was not a quest for total victory? That firebombing Tokyo was not a step towards ensuring that, in your own words, "all who oppose us are dead?" That even as far back as Sherman's march to the sea, the US strategy of making war upon the enemy's ability to make war is anything but a quest for total victory? I stand by my original claim: Total war is the primary form of warfare and plans for victory in a total war can only be categorized as an attempt to achieve total victory. You are elevating style far above substance, and I'm not even sure you're right about the style (q.v. Bill's post). Not only was Bush's rhetoric perfectly consistent with Presidential precedent, but the things you're afraid he means are precisely the things that our military has done time and time again.

Please enjoy your second 10%.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 15, 2005 07:19 PM

I'd written most of a lengthy, somewhat angry response to David's last post (from 6:04, in case another one comes up as I write this).

I took a break towards the end to put my daughter to bed, which always tends to change one's outlook.

Y'know, the argument's not worth it. You want to think I made an irrational call on this one, feel free; the particular buzzword struck a very ugly chord that I felt was worthy of comment, but that's as far as I really want to take it. I'm sure we both have better things to do than belabor this particular go-round.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got one more day of school until winter break and have some quizzes to grade.

And as for the original topic of this thread: Happy Holidays, all.

TWL

Posted by: David Bjorlin at December 15, 2005 07:30 PM

As one who recognized this as a sham and protested the war from the git-go, I categorically refuse to shoulder any of the blame for this. I have no doubt that David Bjorlin and other unreconstructed nationalists (I believe that's the term he's used to describe himself before; apologies in advance if I'm wrong) will consider that refusal disloyalty bordering on treason, but I think my duty to human decency is a hell of a lot more important than my duty to a nation that's become way too corrupt for its own sake.

You are partially right and partially wrong in anticipating my position. You're right that I'm an unreconstructed nationalist, and that sounds like something I'd say so I'm inclined to think you're quoting me correctly. The American republic is the greatest social institution that humanity has yet made work, and I see its survival as the greatest possible good in the world today.

What you're wrong about is my definition of disloyalty. The war in Iraq has been, if not a disaster, well short of what its supporters had hoped; while we've rid the world of a brutal dictatorship, Iraqis have gone from living in daily fear of one thing to living in daily fear of a completely different thing, which is not a "success" by any definition I can think of. People who said all along "this is going to suck" are entitled to say "I told you so." One of the things that makes the American republic the greatest social institution yet devised is that citizens are free to say "I told you so," as well as burn flags, call George Bush a weenie, listen to disco music, and generally do things that annoy the crap out of me. The fact that the republic protects those rights for its citizens is what makes it worth defending, so I'm not going to lose my composure because you're enjoying the political culture I want to conserve. (That is my own personal definition of what makes me a conservative-- I think we have a good thing going, and I'm inclined to keep it that way and only tweak the problem areas; from my viewpoint, radical changes seem more likely to invoke the Law of Unintended Consequences than to substantially improve things.)

I don't believe I have ever questioned your loyalty for criticizing the government, and I hope to God I never will let myself commit that error. If I recall correctly, the only time I questioned your moral fiber was after the 2004 election when you suggested you might emigrate due to the result. I rather strongly implied that the nation might be better off without people whose devotion to the country could be shaken by the results of any number of elections. I believe that's when I used the word "unreconstructed" in my self-description to allude (ironically) to the last time large numbers of people sought to disassociate themselves from the United States following an electoral reversal. It was wrong in 1860 and it's wrong now. That's my definition of disloyalty; sedition is perfectly OK, and I fully intend to criticize the government the next time the Democrats manage to elect a President.

Posted by: David Bjorlin at December 15, 2005 07:49 PM

Y'know, the argument's not worth it. You want to think I made an irrational call on this one, feel free; the particular buzzword struck a very ugly chord that I felt was worthy of comment, but that's as far as I really want to take it. I'm sure we both have better things to do than belabor this particular go-round.

Probably so. I've always felt that debating issues on here is an entertainment end in and of itself, and it helps to procrastinate wrapping Christmas presents, but it's not really important. I just thought that the "So while I appreciate the history lesson..." comment came across as a bit snide, and nobody out-snides me. I'm a lawyer, dammit.

Anyway, have a good evening, and in case we don't start another tempest in a teapot before then, have a Merry Christmas.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 15, 2005 08:18 PM

You know, I no longer pray that we will elect a democrat next time around, I pray that there will be a country to lead.

Like James above, I'm hoping that there's still a country left in 2008 and that we can start picking up the pieces. I have my doubts.

Sigh. I'll make a prediction of my own. The Democrats will pick up seats in both the House and Senate in 2006. Despite their well demonstrated ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. it is hard to imagine they can't manage to do at least that. Wouldn't shock me if they took back one or both houses.

Anyway, that's not the prediction. A monkey could pick that one. My prediction is that, following this first glimmer of good news in 6 long years, the fact that the country WILL still exist in 2008, that there WON'T be a draft, that martial law ISN'T declared, that a Red State/Blue State/Old State/New State/ civil war FAILS to occur, that the elections of 2008 are NOT canceled, etc etc, will all be credited to the election of 2006 having stopped the jackbooted neocon takeover of America.

And yeah, it's fun to roll one's eyes over this stuff but conservatives should remember that there were plenty on our side who said the exact same goofy stuff about what Clinton would do.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at December 15, 2005 09:18 PM

Anyway, that's not the prediction.

How about...

A generation from now, we'll be in some stupid war, and once again (like with McCarthy, Vietnam, and now during this war in Iraq) the government & military will be keeping tabs on the innocent, peace protestors, and the like.

Posted by: James Carter at December 15, 2005 09:33 PM

Curse you Bill!

Your reasoned arguments and trust in the American process that has worked beautifully for over two and a quarter centuries has taken all the fun out of my liberal angst!!

I was just settling in with a survival guide to see how I was going to survive the coming atomic holocaust when YOU, Mr. Well-reasoned-logical-type-person, pops up with his sound arguments and blows it all to hell!

Do you have any idea how little fun it is being the Grinch when all the Who's start singing???

Anyway, I think you are right. I hope what will happen is what happened after Nixon, that we will be able to waltz a Democrat into office with the debonair grace of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers.(This is in reference to your comment on the "Kong" thread that no one remembers the old icons. Sheesh, you old fogies have no trust in the classics ;) ) Hopefully, however, it can be done this time without the whole hostages/oil/Reagan-looking-really-good triple whammy that screwed it up LAST time.

Actually.....Jimmy Carter only served one term. We should re-nominate him!

Carter '08! Lets give Georgia something to be proud of!

Posted by: Bobb at December 15, 2005 11:29 PM

"And it suggests that this war was never a preemptive war, but rather a manufactured war designed to realize some nebulous neoconservative ideology.

And if that’s true (and I hope to God I’m not) then he and his circle are criminals and we are all accessories."

I also have to say that anything that's happened in the past 5 years is none of my fault. I started saying about 2 years ago that Bush and his administration, were they taking these actions at the helm of just about any other country, would be seen as war criminals, and that they will be lucky if they manage to survive to the end of their days and avoid being brought before the World Court. From the day Bush first announced that the US was launching a pre-emptive, unprovoked all-out attack on a sovereign nation, I've basically held my breath, waiting for the rest of the world to realize that the most powerful military in the world has now become an aggressive, unpredictable force. And if someone doesn't step forward to reign in this madness, we won't have to worry about where the terrorists are, because conventional war is going to come looking for us.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 15, 2005 11:35 PM

Don't put away that survival manual just yet James. There are plenty of other far more plausible scenarios where it will be needed: zombie plague, collision with some large meteor, and my new personal favorite, someone exploding a nuclear bomb at a high altitude, sending an electromagnetic pulse that will destroy all electronics, sending us into the 18th century technology-wise while still having to feed a 21st century population.

Imagine a world where the Society For Creative Anachronism members are the new elite...

For my part, I'm reading up on how to bleach the tannins out of acorns to make them edible. I just raked about 100,000 of the bastards off my driveway, a potentially lifesaving food source once I've gone through all of our canned goods and cats.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 16, 2005 07:04 AM

Imagine a world where the Society For Creative Anachronism members are the new elite...

Hey, my wife and one of my good friends are both SCA'ers (though the former's been inactive for a while). Count me in to THAT new regime. :-)

TWL

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 16, 2005 07:14 AM

and nobody out-snides me. I'm a lawyer, dammit.

I'll cop to "snide," but I'll note in return that the post before it was coming off to me as more than a little pompous -- and if nobody out-snides you, nobody out-pompouses me. (Just ask my students, though occasionally there are some of them who'll try to out-snide me as well. They usually discover that's a bad idea after one attempt...)

In any case, have a good holiday.

TWL

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at December 17, 2005 07:50 PM

Well, since this is a "Buck Fush" thread...

Is anybody surprised to find out that Bush gave permission for the NSA to go several steps further than even the Patriot Act gave the power to do?

And then that he admits it, all in the name of 'protecting Americans'?

Do we really need to deal with this law-breaking son of a bitch for 3 more years?

Posted by: David Bjorlin at December 18, 2005 12:12 AM

Well, since this is a "Buck Fush" thread...

Oddly, it started as a "Bush did the right thing this time" thread.

Do we really need to deal with this law-breaking son of a bitch for 3 more years?

Yes, law-breaking sons of bitches are typically allowed to serve out their terms. (See: Clinton, William Jefferson. See also: Perjury.) Also, until we know what the heck Bush actually authorized and the NSA actually did, shouldn't we hold off legal conclusions like "law-breaking" until we have enough information to make that determination? Based on reading the NY Times story, the NSA has apparently been listening in on international communications that originated in the United States, and this is a new development although surveillance of foreign communications to the United States has not previously been considered problematic. Bush's claim seems to be that the President's war powers implicitly authorize counterespionage surveillance, and I'd like to see that position briefed and argued by people familiar with the issue before reaching an opinion. I recall from prior discussions that you're really not all that impressed with details like what the law on any particular subject actually is, but some of us care.

Posted by: David Bjorlin at December 18, 2005 12:25 AM

I'll cop to "snide," but I'll note in return that the post before it was coming off to me as more than a little pompous-- and if nobody out-snides you, nobody out-pompouses me.

Maybe, but the problem is that it's almost impossible to say "I'm right and you're wrong" without sounding pompous, and it's also nearly impossible to have an interesting debate unless each party is convinced he's right and the opponent is wrong (because if the declarant doesn't think he's right, he should have the good grace to shut up and end the discussion). I think a little constructive pomposity is inevitable. So pomp away: I'm wrong three or four times a year, and you may stumble across one.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at December 18, 2005 01:07 AM

Oddly, it started as a "Bush did the right thing this time" thread.

And then he turned around and did the wrong thing. Again.

Yes, law-breaking sons of bitches are typically allowed to serve out their terms.

And last I checked, lying about a blowjob had nothing to do with torture, war, and other things presidents such as Bush have to defend on a daily basis.

Bush makes Nixon look like a saint.

Posted by: Davie at December 18, 2005 08:04 AM

Cristmas Bush....heh.....
No comment

Posted by: bushrules at December 18, 2005 08:44 AM

"Exclusionary thinking. Intolerance..." That's you, fat jewish. Is all you are. And you know it. Pice of shit!

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at December 18, 2005 09:30 AM

spellcheck in aisle 3... spellcheck in aisle 3

on another note...

I'm awaiting a thread on the latest Bush revelation of secret wire taps and bugging. It would certainly bring about some thoughtful discussion here.

Fred

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 18, 2005 11:15 AM

And we have a new candidate for banning. Swell.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at December 18, 2005 02:52 PM

I'm awaiting a thread on the latest Bush revelation of secret wire taps and bugging.

Well, that's why I brought it up.

Between the recent stuff about what the Pentagon has been doing, and now Bush's approval of what the NSA was doing... well, that quote about having neither liberty or safety (if I'm remembering it correctly) certainly applies.

And for a fun side note: a Senator used that Benjamin Franklin quote in speaking out against the Patriot Act renewal, which thankfully failed.
I wonder if the news about the NSA spying had anything to do with it.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 18, 2005 04:16 PM

Oh, I'd be surprised if the NSA spying issue *didn't* have anything to do with it -- and I think at least a couple of senators have explicitly said it did.

My biggest issue at the moment is with the media. The allegedly-liberal NY Times had this story for over a year -- since before the 2004 election. They decided to sit on it because administration officials told them it could jeopardize national security.

Methinks the very events depicted IN said story represent a threat to national security in and of themselves, albeit of a different type than what's normally used as a bludgeon. Mealsothinks that more than a few eyes might have opened and eyes might have changed had this story actually seen print when they first found out about it. There's no way to know -- but I find it deeply irresponsible journalism, and another example of the way most mainstream publications have been too busy running scared or kissing ass to actually do their jobs.

TWL

P.S. to Craig -- it's actually liberty and security, not safety. The overall sense of it's certainly right, though.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at December 18, 2005 05:08 PM

Tim & Bill,

Neither of you had an email link, so I will briefly respond here.

You have made very clear that "evolution" is not the term to refer to the scientific theory for the origin of life. What, then, is? I know abiogensis is a technical term for it, but I have frequently seen "evolution" used as the generic term for the explanation of the origin of life. I am not trying to debate this, I am just asking what term you would use for the origin of life. What term would you use for the origin of the universe?

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 18, 2005 05:25 PM

For life it's "abiogenesis". That's not just the technical term but the only one I know. Since evolution by natural selection requires life to be there it can't really have a whole lot to say about the issue.

I don't know what the proper term for the origin of the universe would be...cosmogenesis? Again, evolution has absolutely nothing to do with it, any more than you could say evolution explains how a mountain forms.

I can see how some people may be slapping the term evolution on anything that takes place over time and, indeed, evolution does mean "change over time" but when we talk about Darwin we are very specifically talking about the change of life forms over time (Change in gene frequencies to be specific). It's a mistake to equate change with evolution. My eyes are getting weaker and my ass is getting saggier but neither really qualifies as evolution.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 18, 2005 05:47 PM

May I just say that I don't need to hear about Bill's ass getting saggier? :-)

In answer to your question, Jim, I'm not sure there is a name used to refer specifically to "the scientific theory for the origin of the universe", for any number of reasons.

Cosmology is a general term used to refer to the study of events early in the universe's history -- nucleosynthesis, formation and evolution (!) of galaxies, the formation of large-scale structures, etc.. It's sometimes broken down into "early-universe cosmology" and "later-universe cosmology", but that's not an amazingly common usage.

NASA's web site, for the record, defines cosmology as "the scientific study of the large-scale properties of the Universe as a whole", but they do continue to include the origin of the universe in that.

Cosmology seems a reasonable enough term -- "Big Bang cosmology" would certainly make the point that you're discussing the Big Bang theory specifically.

You will see cosmologists discussing "galactic evolution", but that's using the term in a sense completely unrelated to life.

TWL

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 18, 2005 05:51 PM

May I just say that I don't need to hear about Bill's ass getting saggier? :-)

Oh right, like you could bounch a quarter ever higher off of yours as the years pass... :)

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 18, 2005 06:31 PM

If you think Joe Lieberman is even REMOTELY liberal, then we have no common ground upon which to base any discussion.

Tim, I know this is from waaaaaaay back in the thread but I have to point out that the ADA (Americans For Democratic Action), one of the most respected liberal institutions, gives out ratings for congressional members and Lieberman scored a 75 out of 100 (100 is a "Hero"--a perfect liberal score).

A score of 40-60 makes you a "moderate".

Now you can certainly argue with their methods and it is true that among Democrats a 75 is actually a low score but I don't think it's fair to say that nobody can even make an argument about Lieberman's liberal credentials.

(One critique regarding the ADA method is that they cherry pick just a few particular votes to get their scores. Obviously "liberal" and "conservative" are often defined individually. Sometimes people can't even keep their definitions straight in a single post--they blast Bush for not being a "true conservative" but still complain about the conservative takeover).

Lieberman seems to hold a particular position of scorn in your book. Any reason? I know some blame him for the loss in 2000, though I'd place that more at the guy at the top of the ticket.

Are you done with school? Would you believe I still have 3 days this week? Yeah, they ought to be REALLY MOTIVATED...

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 18, 2005 07:15 PM

Oh right, like you could bounch a quarter ever higher off of yours as the years pass... :)

I never said I could -- but in a rare example of good taste on my part, I don't bring it up in public. :-)

As for Lieberman and the ADA -- first, since I have absolutely no idea which 20 votes per year they're basing this on, it's awfully hard to gauge whether that rating has any meaning or not. (I would note, however, that Lowell Weicker, a former Republican senator from the same state, got a lifetime rating of 87, which suggests that 75 is relatively low down the scale in some ways.)

Second, I never said that "nobody can make an argument about his liberal credentials". I said that anyone who felt he was liberal had no sufficiently common ground with me to have a coherent discussion.

Lieberman seems to hold a particular position of scorn in your book. Any reason? I know some blame him for the loss in 2000, though I'd place that more at the guy at the top of the ticket.

Pull up a chair -- this one's gonna be a while.

In ascending order of importance --

1) My dad knew him in college and found him motivated solely by political expedience, which does not lend itself to obvious praise in my book.

2) I partially blame him for the 2000 "loss", primarily for his performance in the VP debate. Cheney's oft-quoted "and the government had nothing to do with it" was begging for at least six different wonderfully devastating comebacks, and he instead decided to be the genial doddering uncle type. Twit.

3) More than anything, though, it's because he has hitched himself to the wagons of the pseudo-moralistic holier-than-thou branch of the WeKnowBetter party (which has adherents in both the Democratic and Republican branches, though more in the latter). He calls upon Clinton to resign for the Lewinsky stuff, yet sees no problem with Bush leading us into a unilateral war. Until the Social Security debacle, I'm fairly certain he supported every single major Bush initiative, up to and including the Patriot Act (and its extension), the tax cuts, and the war. More recently, he's come out and said that it's inappropriate for Democrats to criticize Bush's handling of the war, which is one of many cases when he's crossed over a line where I'm concerned.

Basically, I think he's a DINO (Democrat In Name Only -- I'm sure you know the acronym, but others might not). He claims to be with the Democratic caucus and occasionally votes with them, but he more often is carrying water for the Bush administration and providing them political cover when an opposition party might reasonably be expected to lobby criticism.

It's often been said that the Democratic party stands for nothing, and I consider Lieberman one of the reasons why that statement carries whatever weight it does. Frankly, I'd respect him more if he broke ranks and actually crossed over.

I didn't especially like him pre-2000, though it wasn't a major thing. Now he's one of the senators I most want gone in the 2006 elections, though he's well behind Santorum and Frist in that category. Were I living in CT, I'd even consider a moderate Republican as a replacement, which is not something I say lightly.

In the words of Londo Mollari, "Does that answer your question?"

Are you done with school?

For the moment, yes -- we ended on Friday. We go back on the 2nd, though, so I'm not sure how much of an actual break this is going to feel like...

(And Lisa's giving exams on Tuesday night and Wednesday afternoon, so she extends her sympathies. :-)

TWL

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 18, 2005 07:20 PM

Gack. I goofed on one thing -- ADA's web site has Weicker's lifetime rating listed at 69, not 87. The "pre-1990" average is 87. (Since everything post-1990 is listed as "N/A", though, I'm kinda confused as to how the rating changed so dramatically...)

In any case, sorry 'bout that.

TWL

Posted by: David Bjorlin at December 18, 2005 07:53 PM

My biggest issue at the moment is with the media. The allegedly-liberal NY Times had this story for over a year -- since before the 2004 election. They decided to sit on it because administration officials told them it could jeopardize national security.

My biggest issue is with the opposition party, who have been sitting on this thing for three years. Quoth Nancy Pelosi, "As is my practice whenever I am notified about such intelligence activities, I expressed my strong concerns during these briefings." Gee, I'm sure having the minority leader express her concerns in private really made the government rethink its position. Whether this intel program turns out to be legal or illegal, it's nonetheless disturbing. If the opposition doesn't scrutinize disturbing uses of government power, what's the use in having one? How do these guys ever expect to become the majority party again if they don't even look competent when the GOP screws up?

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 18, 2005 08:07 PM

This is an unusual occasion -- I agree completely with everything David just wrote. (I hadn't seen Pelosi's statement. "Ugh" barely begins to cover it.)

TWL

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 18, 2005 08:25 PM

Why wouldn't Lowell Weicker be considered a liberal? yeah, he WAS a republican once but he later became an independent. He endorsed Bill Bradley and Howard Dean in the last 2 elections. He obviously went through some changes, which may explain the sudden rise in his ADA ratings.

My dad knew him in college

Ok, I thought there might be a personal issue and that's cool. I have something similar with Jimmy Carter and he will have to build a hell of a lot more homes for poor people to make up for it.

His debate performance was just average...pretty much what you get from 2 senators. that's one reason why Governors do better; more used to the rough and tumble politics, not the phony "The distinguished murderer from the grand state of Massachusetts" stuff.

He calls upon Clinton to resign for the Lewinsky stuff, yet sees no problem with Bush leading us into a unilateral war.

I'm almost 100% sure that he did not call for Clinton to resign. He gave a speech that criticized Clinton's ethical lapses while arguing against impeachment, as I recall.

Mind you, I have no great love for the guy, though he is fun to have around, mostly to tease Democrats over the fact that the guy they thought was suitable to be one heartbeat away from the presidency is now Public Enemy #1.

Incidentally Lowell Weicker is talking about going after Lieberman's seat as a independent.

Anyway, that clears that up. have a great Holiday!

Posted by: David Bjorlin at December 18, 2005 08:30 PM

This is an unusual occasion -- I agree completely with everything David just wrote.

It's a Christmas miracle!

Actually I'm pro-choice and comparatively sympathetic (for a Republican) to affirmative action. The surprising thing is that we don't overlap more often. Darn foreign-policy threads.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at December 18, 2005 08:37 PM

Gee, I'm sure having the minority leader express her concerns in private really made the government rethink its position.

Part of the problem wiht this whole situation is that I read that all Congressional members who were aware of this stuff were sworn to security (national security and all that mumbojumbo).

Either way, I think that anybody involved with this, whether authorizing it (Bush) or aware of it (members of Congress) should resign.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 18, 2005 09:02 PM

Pelosi is a poor spokeman for the Democrats. Today's is just the latest. Her opinion the other day that there would be no Democrat position on the war just took away another reason to think they stand for anything.

There is a lot of potential for blowback on this issue. Democrats who acted too outraged may have to explain how they knew about it and did nothing. The Times may have to expect calls for an investigation of who leaked this secret information (it isn't only illegal if Karl Rove does it). And I suspect the average American doesn't care much, figuring that if their phones were tapped nothing bad would happen to them.

Actually, we probably have fewer constitutional protections in these matters than most imagine. Maybe some good will come of it if people do get upset over this fact and demand stricter controls (as happened in the recent landgrab debates).

Posted by: David Bjorlin at December 18, 2005 09:25 PM

Part of the problem wiht this whole situation is that I read that all Congressional members who were aware of this stuff were sworn to security (national security and all that mumbojumbo).

Yeah, but that's the whole reason for having secret Congressional committee sessions.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at December 18, 2005 09:45 PM

Yeah, but that's the whole reason for having secret Congressional committee sessions.

If it's in the name of national security, then nobody can bitch at the Democrats about knowing about this for several years and doing nothing about it - they couldn't say anything, and they certainly don't have the power to stand up to the Bush Administration.

Either way, I stand by my opinions. This goes well beyond national security and into the kind of stuff Communist China does, or the USSR and Nazi Germany. It isn't America.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 18, 2005 11:39 PM

One bit that is still puzzling me aboutthis latest thing--is there anything NEW there? Instapundit points the way to this 60 Minutes piece from 2000 about the fact that "If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency."

http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm

So again, what is new? Is the only differenec that while everything that is phones, emailed, etc is allowed to be screened it takes a special deal to specifically target an individual?

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at December 19, 2005 01:18 PM

One bit that is still puzzling me aboutthis latest thing--is there anything NEW there?

That depends on whether it's something you've heard about it.

I'd never heard of Echelon.

I just find it criminal that Bush outrights admits to approving of it and, like most of the rest of his policies such as rendition and torture, finds nothing illegal about it.

Posted by: Bobb at December 19, 2005 01:46 PM

"Either way, I stand by my opinions. This goes well beyond national security and into the kind of stuff Communist China does, or the USSR and Nazi Germany. It isn't America."

That's not totally accurate: It IS the kind of stuff America does, it just usually requires a warrant. There's a special court set up to grant these warrants, and yes, they are secret, but at least there's an independant body giving the legal oversight, requiring the government to make it's case of probably cause in order to get the warrant. I don't know how Bush's system works, but it seems to consist of the CIA making the decision on its own.

The claims that this is something that needs to be done are just plain false. Existing law allows unwarranted surveillance for up to 72 hours, so long as a showing can be made at that point that justifies a warrant.

I will say one thing in Bush's defense, though, and that's that the expression of authority granted to the President following 9/11 probably can be read broadly enough to allow this kind of act. Which is maybe the biggest reason, when I read that authorization, that I felt a big sense of impending doom. That authorization handed to the President the authority to wage war without a declaration of war, expressly given to congress in the Constitution. Among other things. It concentrated far too much power into a single branch of government, something our founders wisely opted to split between three separate branches. No one should be surprised that ultimate power has once again corrupted.

Fortunately, we can undo that, if we can just get congress to rescind the grant of power.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at December 19, 2005 02:59 PM

That's not totally accurate: It IS the kind of stuff America does, it just usually requires a warrant.

And in the case of the NSA, Bush told them to not bother getting a warrant, even though, acocrding to a NBC Nightly News report the other night, the judge in charge of handing out those warrants rarely refuses.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 19, 2005 03:11 PM

Craig, you are probably wrong that it's illegal, therefore it isn't a crime.

Whether or not it SHOULD be a crime will probably come up for debate. There is a potential risk in the Democrats doing this; what if in the course of the investigations it turns out that one or more of these wiretappings revealed and prevented a terrorist attack? The Republicans will portray the Democrats as the party that worries more about terrorist rights than public safety.

Since it's already been revealed that some Democrats knew about the arrangement and did nothing it's hard to see much good coming out of this for them unless of course it could be shown that the investigations were not of terror suspects but just political enemies. THAT would be a disaster for the administration.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 19, 2005 04:04 PM

If the Democrats spend every time worried about the "what if" game, they don't deserve to win. These wiretaps are repugnant to the American ideal and should be ended. Period.

I have no doubt that many administration officials will try to play exactly the game Bill describes; that's pretty much their standard practice, after all. It's time for the Democrats to say "this has gone several steps past too far; if this is to be the new status quo, then the terrorists HAVE won and America is dead."

And if they're too worried about "the risks" to do that, then it's up to us to do it for them.

TWL

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at December 19, 2005 05:04 PM

The Republicans will portray the Democrats as the party that worries more about terrorist rights than public safety.

And that's how they've portrayed everything else to date anyways.

It still doesn't excuse the trampling of our civil liberties, does it?

Even many the Republicans realize this, otherwise the Patriot Act would've been renewed. But it wasn't.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 19, 2005 07:29 PM

If the Democrats spend every time worried about the "what if" game, they don't deserve to win.

Well they have to at least examine how best to achieve their goals. You ARE tired of seeing them lose, right?

Look at the last few weeks. They begin to have a semi organized response to the Iraq situation and the net result seem to be that Bush has the best poll numbers in 6 months.

It figures that just when I predict that the Dems will gain in 2006 they begin to do everything in their power to keep that from happening.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at December 19, 2005 07:34 PM

Oh, great, I caught a bit of one of Bush's speeches where he's talking about the spying.

The way he sounds when he says "I'm doing everything in my power to protect you", he sounds like a parent scolding a childen.

But I guess that's what we get for not stepping in line and taking whatever insanity Bush comes up with.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 19, 2005 09:13 PM

Well they have to at least examine how best to achieve their goals. You ARE tired of seeing them lose, right?

Yes, of course -- but not at the cost of their souls, and that's the road we're heading for if they keep being mealy-mouthed.

A party needs to have principles. I think most Democrats, and certainly most liberals, share most of the same ones, and I've mentioned before what I think they are.

Certain things have to be lines in the sand, and to me this is one of them. They worry about what's "politically astute" in a clear-cut case of people being flat-out corrupt and evil, and they can kiss my support goodbye at the same time they kiss my ass.

Christ, at least the Bush administration admits it's being actively evil...

TWL

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 19, 2005 09:53 PM

It's not just a question of being politically smart, it's also a matter of being right.

When I made the suggestion that this could bounce back at them it wasn't just based on the idea that Bush and co would simply say that the Democrats were being careless with American lives. It could well end up being true. If these wiretaps have stopped just one major attack it will look very very bad for anyone who opposes them. Very few Americans would trade their lives for the ability to talk long distance to Al Qaeda unrecorded.

Again, I'm not clear exactly on what is new here. I'd been told by many that as soon as you say "assassination" or "bomb" on the phone it triggers some recording device--my only doubts about that were whether or not the technology exists and whether or not they have enough people to monitor the sheer number of calls made each day.

On the other hand, if the taps were done for political reasons, with no likelihood of terrorist involvement, it could well lead to impeachment. So I can see why Democrats are willing to take the chance. Just don't be shocked if it turns out to be another Karl Rove rabbit trap, timed just right for the next election.

Posted by: Sasha at December 19, 2005 10:23 PM

When I made the suggestion that this could bounce back at them it wasn't just based on the idea that Bush and co would simply say that the Democrats were being careless with American lives. It could well end up being true. If these wiretaps have stopped just one major attack it will look very very bad for anyone who opposes them. Very few Americans would trade their lives for the ability to talk long distance to Al Qaeda unrecorded.

But even if such a example exists, would it have been able to be gotten legally as well? I think part of the problem with WireTapGate is not that it was done, but rather that instead of going through the proper procedures and doing it legally, the administration, in a fit of we-know-best-and-can-do-no-wrong, goes ahead and unilaterally does an end run around the legal code.

And even if a major attack was stopped, since the evidence was obtained improperly, the perpetrators would have to be let go (unless of course they get classified as "enemy combatants" I guess).

And I am especially fond of the legal reasoning used to justify the adminstration's actions (it essentially boils down to "We have the authority to wiretap because we don't have the authority to wiretap.")

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at December 19, 2005 11:17 PM

If these wiretaps have stopped just one major attack it will look very very bad for anyone who opposes them.

Well, the Bush Administration certainly loves to play the "What if" game, don't they?

I mean, this is the group that insinuated that if Kerry were elected, we'd have another 9/11.

When you have to try and justify things like torture, and spying on ordinary people... well, you've already lost the war, you just don't realize it yet.

Posted by: Bobb at December 19, 2005 11:45 PM

"When you have to try and justify things like torture, and spying on ordinary people... well, you've already lost the war, you just don't realize it yet."

I read a review for Spielberg's film Munich (opening soon, I hear...with the newborn, we don't really pay attention to movies anymore) today. The short of it is, the film's about the spook team that goes after the terrorists behind the Olympic murders of 30 years ago. I was like 2, maybe 1, so if I'm getting any of those details wrong, I'll have to drool on you, because that's all I was doing at the time.

Anyway, one of the points of the film is that, if you sink to the levels of your enemy, who you've painted as evil, what's the point of fighting? And when we sacrifice the basic beliefs that our country was founded on, then we've lost that sense of self that makes us a country.

Preventing these wiretaps isn't about terrorists rights. It's about our basic freedoms. Privacy is one of the few things that protects us from the government, and these wiretaps threaten the privacy of every American citizen. Terrorists can attack us, killing thousands in a day. But only rarely. For the most part, they can attack us in small groups. Eroding the protections of privacy attacks the rights of 278 million Americans simultaneously. In doing this, Bush has more effectively struck fear into the hearts of Americans than a lifetime of Bin Laden's could.

And those that don't yet feel that fear are living in ignorance.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at December 20, 2005 01:22 AM

Tim & Bill, while my use of "evolution" was not correct strictly speaking, it is shorthand for the naturalistic alternative to divine creation -- hence the "Creation vs. Evolution" usage. But I will be more careful in the future in how I use the term.

RE: Bush wiretaps. I agree that there is a tension here. I have yet to hear of an actual case where someone was falsely arrested or the information collected was used for wrong purposes. It really depends on how limited and purposeful the wiretaps actually were. If they were indeed limited to known terroist contacts, I have no problem with it. As this leak itself proves, you have to limit who knows what to keep anything secret. And letting the enemy know specifics about how we are listening can hurt us and prevent us from defending ourselves.

To state the obvious, a person's prior convictions about Bush play a huge role. If you think he is trustworthy, then this is not as big of a deal. If you do not, then it is. I am not trying to downplay the principle behind it, but I think the rhetoric against this is partially driven by a distrust for Bush and would be different if this was Clinton, Gore, or Kerry (on both sides).

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 20, 2005 06:46 AM

Bill,

Bobb and Sasha have answered far more eloquently than I'm likely to at the moment. My only additional comment is that when ANY administration embraces obviously unethical behavior in the guise of "we're doing this to protect you," I'm shocked that anybody is stupid enough to fall for it -- especially when it's a particular administration's pattern of behavior, as is the case now.

If they use that defense again, and it works again, then the country is dead, and I for one will simply pick up a shovel and help dig the grave.

Jim's right in that at least some of this is going to depend on one's prior impressions of Bush ... but it shouldn't. I also note that Jim is coming extremely close to following Bush's lead in condemning the leaker in this rather than the action itself.

TWL

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 20, 2005 06:50 AM

People might be interested in the below link. Bryan Lambert is ... well, let's just leave it at "undiplomatic" :-), but he's also right FAR more often than he's wrong.

http://www.youaredumb.net/node/501

TWL

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 20, 2005 07:18 AM

And even if a major attack was stopped, since the evidence was obtained improperly, the perpetrators would have to be let go (unless of course they get classified as "enemy combatants" I guess).

that's a good point, Sasha. I'm still not sure that this was illegal. Unwise, perhaps, though I guess we will find out.

Anyway, one of the points of the film is that, if you sink to the levels of your enemy, who you've painted as evil, what's the point of fighting?

If that's the point of the movie I doubt I'll like it much. If some guy kidnaps and imprisons innocents and we send him to jail--effectively kidnapping and imprisoning him--have we stooped to his level?

To state the obvious, a person's prior convictions about Bush play a huge role. If you think he is trustworthy, then this is not as big of a deal. If you do not, then it is. I am not trying to downplay the principle behind it, but I think the rhetoric against this is partially driven by a distrust for Bush and would be different if this was Clinton, Gore, or Kerry (on both sides).

I dunno, how happy would you be if it turned out Hillary Clinton had done this? At the very least, we would want to know some of the details.

I also note that Jim is coming extremely close to following Bush's lead in condemning the leaker in this rather than the action itself.

Well, if leaking classified information is wrong, and we have been told repeatedly by the folks who wanted to see Karl Rove frogmarched out of the White House that it is, isn't it wrong in this case as well?

I mean, you can't go from demanding that Robert Novak be forced to reveal his sources to suddenly demanding that the Times protect their sources despite any laws that might have been broken.

Truth to tell, I'm not even sure where I stand on that. I don't like seeing press folks having rights I don't have...on the other hand, I'd rather have an irresponsibly unfettered press than the alternative. So...

As for the wiretaps, maybe I am being naive here, but I was always under the impression that this goes on all of the time. The government can wiretap any of us at will. Always have been able to do so. Yeah, they may have to find a judge willing to sign off on it but that will just slow them down by a few days max. Hell, we even had a show on FX called THE WIRE. We've all thrilled to news reports of mafia kingpins bragging about whacking their enemies, never suspecting that the FBI was recording it. There's the whole Echelon deal.

I don't want to minimize this. It could become a major major scandal. But so far I'm not seeing much new here, which may be why the Senators who were told about it didn't raise a stink until it became politically expedient to do so.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at December 20, 2005 08:43 AM

If they were indeed limited to known terroist contacts, I have no problem with it.

But between the Pentagon and NSA, they haven't.
We've said that multiple times, Jim. Are you just not reading this stuff properly, or is your support of Bush blinding you?

I am not trying to downplay the principle behind it

Yes, you are. You are trying to downplay this specifically because of your support of Bush, while trying to tell us we're just being paranoid because we don't support Bush. Guess what? It's BS.

Posted by: Robbnn at December 20, 2005 09:40 AM

That's where we have a disconnect, I think.

I believe we live in a savage, uncivilized world in which a handful of countries, America being one of them, had carved out a fairly civilized piece of it by compartmentalizing our "barbarism" to the men and women who safeguard civilization. That doesn't mean we should dip any further into barbarism than is necessary to meet the opposing force, but I think it's silly to think we can march into a den of thieves and cutthroats with our derby and bumbershoot and chastize them politely into submission.

At the same time, I don't have a terribly high opinion of people, either. We have our civilized veneer, but you don't have to scratch too deep to find the barbarian. Which means we've got fallible men and women making the decisions of how much isn't too much.

Torture, for example, is very bad. Still, if Yoyo over here makes the claim that he has just planted a dirty bomb and he's not gonna tell us where, then I'll be the first in line with pliers to rip out his fingernails. Where it gets dicey, of course, is if we just THINK Yoyo has done something dastardly. Then we have to rely on the judgment of fallible people.

I worked with the police for several years, which gives me a different perspective on a lot the restraint laws out there that well-meaning people try to slap on cops. They haven't been out there, they don't know how they hamstring cops... and yet I know cops who NEED some of those stupid laws to prevent them from being abusive jerks. I have NOT been in a war, but I suspect it's even worse, that we hamstring our fighting forces to the point where lives will be lost. War is barbaric, and when it's necessary, it must be waged so to the point that it is successful. Winning is the major thing. It would be nice to win with principle, but when the dust clears, it needs to be a win, and God help our military.

Carnivore, Eschelon(sp), are software programs that pick up key words and "score" the results. Certain scores get elevated to analysts blindly (no names attached) until a threat is determined, then the name is up for grabs and a warrant is issued for a direct tap. Dunno how this latest tap was done, but if it's the same computer evaluated thing, I'm okay with it. Computers can't invade privacy, only people can.

Ultimately, though, our system is in trouble. We elect people we feel we can trust to administer properly those laws that can tread on our rights. Yet we don't trust politicians any longer. I'm an independant conservative and I don't much like anyone who runs for office anymore - not Republicans or Democrats. To get where they are they have to compromise principle at best and be corrupt at worst. I don't know how to fix it. Does anyone out there?

Posted by: Jeff In NC at December 20, 2005 10:06 AM

Well, it comes as NO suprise that because the signal intercept (not wiretap) story came out now, it's another "Bush is Evil" cry for some people.

However, here's a secret for you all. Now don't tell anyone...
That's the NSA's job. Yes, the times broke a story saying that the NSA is doing the job it was created to do. Shocking!!!!

And before some of you get all upset, read this link and look at the date.
http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm

Posted by: Den at December 20, 2005 10:09 AM

But so far I'm not seeing much new here, which may be why the Senators who were told about it didn't raise a stink until it became politically expedient to do so.

Except that now, many of those Senators are claiming that they either weren't told all the details of the plan or did raise a stink in classified reports.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051220/ap_on_go_co/domestic_spying_14

And it goes w/o saying that if they had raised a public stink about a classified program in 2003, they'd have been accused of "helping the terrorists."

Posted by: Bobb at December 20, 2005 11:26 AM

"As for the wiretaps, maybe I am being naive here, but I was always under the impression that this goes on all of the time. The government can wiretap any of us at will. Always have been able to do so. Yeah, they may have to find a judge willing to sign off on it but that will just slow them down by a few days max. Hell, we even had a show on FX called THE WIRE. We've all thrilled to news reports of mafia kingpins bragging about whacking their enemies, never suspecting that the FBI was recording it. There's the whole Echelon deal.

I don't want to minimize this. It could become a major major scandal. But so far I'm not seeing much new here, which may be why the Senators who were told about it didn't raise a stink until it became politically expedient to do so."

Echelon and court-approved wiretapping are two separate issues. And the Echelon program itself is not totally without concerns. Although the initiation of the Echelon interception is based on keywords, not targeting specific people for cause. And getting a warrant isn't just a case of find any judge. There's a specific court that issues those warrants, and just like in any other case, sufficient cause must be demonstrated to the judge. And that justification is reviewable at trial, meaning that if the warrant is unlawful, all the information gained from it is inadmissable. They aren't just handed out, they have to be supported by evidence. Echelon doesn't target specific people, it is triggered by keywords. It's controversial, and follow-up, unwarranted monitoring is likewise illegal.

But what Bush is allowing is the specific, unwarranted monitoring of private international transmissions of American citizens. Saying that there's no harm in that is like saying that Russian Roullette is a safe game because you got an empty chamber. Whether it's Clinton, Bush (take your pick) Reagan, Jefferson, or Washington, no person or persons should have this unsupervised authority. There's a reason why a court was established to do nothing else but issues warrants for wiretaps. Privacy is a paramount right held by American citizens. It is THE foundation of all other rights enumerated in the constitution. It is the basis for the reason why the first colonists came to this land. For the government to take action, even under the guise of "trying to protect us," that so undermines this basic precept of our very way of life, essentially signals the end of the American dream.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at December 20, 2005 11:29 AM

And before some of you get all upset, read this link and look at the date.

Well, if there's anything to get upset with with your post, it's the fact that you're late for the party by a couple of days.

Not only did Bill already post the same link, I replied saying I was not aware of that stuff.

So, I remain pissed off and both Democrats and Republicans who knew of this and did nothing to stop it.

Bush is still evil, regardless of this.

Posted by: Bobb at December 20, 2005 11:39 AM

Robbnn, one way to fix it is term limits on all elected Federal office. Take those yahoos that have been sitting on the Hill for 20 years and make them get real jobs.

The other option is make civil service random. Like jury duty, when you get called, you go serve. Put in your 4 years, or whatever, and return to your prior life. It'd take a major overhaul of election laws, and the Constitution, but it would hopefully put an end to the stream of corruption and favors we currently have.

Finally, end corporate sponsorship of political candidates. Totally. Make every contribution to a campaign come from people that can actually vote, rather than legal constructs that have no morals, no conscience, no soul.

None of which will ever happen. The people that have the authority to do anything are the very people that benefit the most from the current system. It would take a literal political revolution at this point to do anything. The Soviets were right all along: We're truly capitalist slaves these days.

Posted by: Den at December 20, 2005 11:48 AM

Finally, end corporate sponsorship of political candidates.

Since that's not likely to happen, I advocate the NASCAR solution to campaign financing: Candidates have to walk around wearing the corporate logos of every company that has contributed more than say, $500 to your campaign. That way, the voters know who has bought and paid for each candidate.

Posted by: Den at December 20, 2005 11:55 AM

In other news, the anti-science crowd was defeated in PA today:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051220/ap_on_re_us/evolution_debate

Now, hopefully, this media circus will leave us in Pennsylvania alone as they focus on undermining science in Kansas.

Posted by: Bobb at December 20, 2005 12:15 PM

"In other news, the anti-science crowd was defeated in PA today:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051220/ap_on_re_us/evolution_debate

Now, hopefully, this media circus will leave us in Pennsylvania alone as they focus on undermining science in Kansas."

And a small cheer rises from the Planet X crowd.

I love the idea of forcing elected officials to wear NASCAR suits. I'm sure they could incorporate the kevlar plates the President's suits have much easier into a nomex jumpsuit. We make them tell us who pays for their TV ads, why not?

Posted by: Den at December 20, 2005 02:29 PM

And corporations would love the NASCAR solution. Everytime a politician cuts a ribbon or appears at a fake townhall meeting, they get free advertising.

The GOP could even offer different patch sizes depending on whether the corporation's donation qualified them to be a pioneer or a ranger. They could even bid on patch location. Obviously, the jacket lapel region would be prime real estate while the seat of the pants would be the most undesirable.

Oh, and just so no one thinks I'm picking on the GOP or corporations, politicians that get support from unions can proudly wear the AFL-CIO and UAW labels.

Posted by: Micha at December 20, 2005 02:43 PM

Iowa Jim wrote:
"Tim & Bill, while my use of "evolution" was not correct strictly speaking, it is shorthand for the naturalistic alternative to divine creation -- hence the "Creation vs. Evolution" usage. But I will be more careful in the future in how I use the term."

It is important to distinguish between the scienctific method and naturalistic philosophies that hold that everything is science. Who are you opposing Jim?

Do you want divine creation to be part of the scientific method (which at the moment does not include god in any of its models)? Or is it just that you want to oppose philosophies that reject anything but science? If the second, do you think that attacking the scientific method is the best way to undermine those philosophies?

The difference is that if you were sick, a naturalistic philosopher would tell you that praying is futile since science has no evidence of its effectiveness; while a scientist will tell you that praying is outside his or her methodology; but a peron who mixes science and religion will either make the false scientific claim that praying helps (beyond the placebo effect), or worse, that praying should replace tthe medical treatment.

Iowa Jim also wrote that:
" Evolution theory] influences social policies, educational philosophy, judicial practices, and even moral questions such as gay marriage and abortion."

I don't see how any of these are influenced by evolution as such. People who support a certain moral or political or legal point of view may use facts, or scientific data to justify their claims. Some of these facts may be connected to evolutionary theory. But usually at the base is non-scientific moral assumptions. Usually both sides will try to refer to scientific data.

For example:
"[Jim argued] that gay marriage harms society -- particularly... not based on the Bible saying it is wrong but based on history and observation of human nature?"
The arguement is based on history, sociology and psychology, which Jim felt necessary to distinguish from Religion [the bible]. The argument would then be examined by the methodologies of the relevant sciences, presumably without religion. But the basic moral attitudes towards homosexuality go beyond science.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 20, 2005 03:06 PM

If that's the point of the movie I doubt I'll like it much. If some guy kidnaps and imprisons innocents and we send him to jail--effectively kidnapping and imprisoning him--have we stooped to his level?

I haven't seen the film, but I doubt that your example is indicative of its point. I certainly don't think it's relevant to Bobb's.

What's more indicative, I think, is when accusations of torture at Abu Ghraib are met with responses of "oh yeah? Well ... well, at least we don't chop people's heads off!" These are people who have defined "appropriate conduct" as "anything 1 micrometer less than what 'the bad guys' use", and thus justify escalations as necessary to save us.

If you define yourself solely in terms of your enemy, you've already gone a long way towards becoming them -- and at that point, you've lost the important battles. (Which is why I find Robbnn's "winning is the major thing" so transcendently repugnant. No, it's not, Robbnn -- and if you claim it is, then you've given Saddam's defense lawyers all the argument they should need. "Winning first, principles after" is a pretty damn good recipe for tyranny.)

One of my favorite exchanges in "Chariots of Fire" comes to mind:
"In my day, it was king first, god after."

"Yes, and the War to End Wars bitterly proved your point."

Back to the point...

if leaking classified information is wrong, and we have been told repeatedly by the folks who wanted to see Karl Rove frogmarched out of the White House that it is, isn't it wrong in this case as well?

That's an astonishingly disingenuous response. It implies that all leaks are created equal, and I can't imagine anyone making that argument who doesn't have ulterior motives for doing so.

The leak in this case was meant to alert the public to illegal behavior on the part of the government. That strikes me as part of the main reason why leaks are an important part of civilized society.

The leak in the Plame case was political retaliation -- or if you want to argue that that hasn't been proven, at a minimum it was a leak by people high in the administration eager to provide political cover for policy.

The motives behind the two leaks are transparently and fundamentally different. Thus, opinions on the wrongness of said leaks are perfectly entitled to be as well.

I advocate the NASCAR solution to campaign financing: Candidates have to walk around wearing the corporate logos of every company that has contributed more than say, $500 to your campaign. That way, the voters know who has bought and paid for each candidate.

Works for me; a brilliant idea. Naturally, it'll never happen, but to me it just seems like extending disclosure laws one little half-step, from making the information publicly available to making it present at all times.

TWL

Posted by: Bobb at December 20, 2005 03:42 PM

"If that's the point of the movie I doubt I'll like it much. If some guy kidnaps and imprisons innocents and we send him to jail--effectively kidnapping and imprisoning him--have we stooped to his level?"

I don't want to give too much away, but it's more about adopting the methods of your enemy in trying to defeat him, and in the process becoming indistinguishable from your enemey.

The analogy would be a civlized man gets attacked by a barbarian. If the civilized man had been attacked by another civilized man, the attacker would be arrested, tried, determined guilty or innocent, and imprisoned as according to law. Not because the law says so, but because underlying the law is the belief that administering justice in this fashion is what civilized men must do.

But when the attacker is a barbarian, the response is to seek out the barbarian and kill him, all those with him, and anyone that looks like him. Just as the barbarian would do. And you do so under the guise of "our laws don't apply to him."

Gak, no, that's not the movie, that's our government.

Posted by: Sasha at December 20, 2005 06:32 PM

If they were indeed limited to known terroist contacts, I have no problem with it. As this leak itself proves, you have to limit who knows what to keep anything secret. And letting the enemy know specifics about how we are listening can hurt us and prevent us from defending ourselves.

If they were limited only to "known terrorist contacts", then why not do it right and get a warrant instead of risking evidence being thrown out? And nothing about getting a warrant first would compromise the secrecy of the wiretaps; in fact, because the Bush administration failed to follow procedure, the issue of warrantless wiretaps became public knowledge, thereby "letting the enemy know specifics about how we are listening, [preventing] us from defending ourselves". Basically, don't blame the whistleblower for exposing a chink in America's armor, blame the politicos who made it necessary to point it out.

To state the obvious, a person's prior convictions about Bush play a huge role. If you think he is trustworthy, then this is not as big of a deal. If you do not, then it is. I am not trying to downplay the principle behind it, but I think the rhetoric against this is partially driven by a distrust for Bush and would be different if this was Clinton, Gore, or Kerry (on both sides).

If any president did this, I'd be honked (and I'd be doubly honked if Clinton, Gore, or Kerry did it because they're supposed to know better). And considering how mendacious and untrustworthy the current administration has been, that makes me even less happy.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at December 20, 2005 08:46 PM

Iowa Jim: Are you serious? Go read the history of pragmatists here in America, people like Oliver Wendel Holmes and John Dewey. Have you not heard of sociobiology? There is a whole branch of psychology that is based on the principle that we evolved and our morality comes from the influence of natural selection. Not everyone agrees on these issues, but to say evolution is not a foundation of any worldview is demonstrably false.
Luigi Novi: First of all, psychology is not a worldview. Second, as I stated above, empirical and scientific facts are morally neutral. Those who use them, and the ends to which it is used, are not. Yes, evolution has been used to justify everything from communism to laissez-faire capitalism, but that does not make it the basis of those things. The validity of evolution, or any scientific idea, rises or falls on its own merits. Whether someone uses it to justify a sociopolitical ideology does nothing to mitigate that validity. If you want to refute evolution, you have to do so on its own merits, by presenting an alternate scientific model that not only accounts for observable phenomena, but does so better than evolution does.

Now at first I thought perhaps that I erred in that by calling it the “basis” of these things, you were not saying that this is was what defined evolution, or why it was first explained, but that this was an emergent outcome of its discovery. But then, after Tim said that evolutionary theory did not come about because of anyone's desire to change worldviews, you said you disagreed. Well, unfortunately, you’re wrong, because it is true that evolution did not come about for this reason. Evolution was something that was observed by scientists, and when Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace first described natural selection, they did so because that was what appeared to explain their observations. They had no interest in changing a worldview.

Iowa Jim: I beg to differ. For some scientists, it is their stated desire to disprove the existence of God by demonstrating everything came about by natural means.
Luigi Novi: Which has nothing to do with the reasons why evolution, as a scientific idea, came about. It came about through observations by scientists, who were merely trying to explain natural phenomena. This has nothing to do with whether some crackpot “scientist” makes this claim today.

As for these so-called scientists you mention, no credible science would ever argue such a ridiculous thing, for the simply reason that in science, you could never “disprove” such a thing. God exists outside of science, and cannot be proved or disproved one way or the other. No real scientist would be dumb enough to make such a stupid statement. Creationists who do not understand what science is, on the other hand, would most certainly make it, which is why it is clear that this is a Straw Man of their imagination.

If I’m wrong, cite just one scientist who has ever said this.

Iowa Jim: But my high school physics teacher was such a person. We watched every episode of Sagans series "Cosmos." He was very clear that his belief in evolution was in part because it proved God did not exist. (While he was not a scientist, my high school government teacher took great glee in mocking Christians, particularly those who believed in Creation. My logic teacher in college did as well. While they were not explicit like my physics teacher, their argument for evolution was more based on it being a way to bash Christians than based on the evidence. In contrast, my chemistry and biology teachers, while they taught evolution, were more as you described. They had no interest in toppling religious thought. So I have encountered both sides.)
Luigi Novi: Nice little bait-and-switch. You start off saying that scientists have made this claim, then bring up a high school science teacher, and then a government teacher, a logic teacher, etc., and when you finally get to those who teach specific subjects like biology that would require some understanding of evolution, they turn out to have not expressed this attitude. In any case, “mocking Christians” has nothing to do with the idea that science or evolution can “disprove” God. Anyone who thinks that science can either prove or disprove God doesn’t know what science is.

Iowa Jim: I don't have the time to go research all of the quotes, but here is one that I found intersting by
Richard Dawkins: "Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of Darwinian theory . . . we would still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories." Why? Because it is naturalistic -- it explains things without having to "invoke" a "god" who created things. If you go back to Darwin's time, some scientists were more explicit. There search for a mechanism for evolution was specifically to overthrow religious thought. They felt religion was detrimental, but it was hard to completely deny it when they could not explain a natural way for life and the universe to exist. Darwin provided the way.

Luigi Novi: Notice how he never said that evolution disproved God, or even that those scientists did. They wanted to “overthrow religious thought”, which will not disprove the existence of a God. I would question who these “scientists” were, and would argue that if they ever thought such a thing, then they didn’t understand science, the Scientific Method, or the Peer Review process any more than you do, Jim.

But again, who are these “scientists”?

Iowa Jim: In one sense "evolution" when referring strictly to the idea of gradual changes over time is not in itself a worldview. But there is a key presupposition that most have in conection to it: "Science" requires there to be a "natural" explanation apart from god. As soon as you make that assumption, you have most definitely moved into the realm of a worldview.
Luigi Novi: Wrong. The problem with this description of science is that it is you who are injecting God into it. Science doesn’t do that. It does not “assume” anything “apart from God” any more than it assumes anything connected with him. It is entirely neutral on the subject of God, and has nothing to say about him one way or the other. “Apart from God” is a description one can only make if they assume God’s existence at the outset. In science, you don’t assume this, or anything else. Science merely observes natural phenomena, and tries to form explanations for them. It does not comment on things that it cannot observe. Therefore, this description of yours is false, as it arbitrarily insists on putting a mention of God in it.

Iowa Jim: Again, it is crucial to recognize that the term evolution has come to mean far more than Darwin's orginal theory. In many uses it has no reference to a particular model but to the concept that the universe and life came about by natural means apart from divine involvement.
Luigi Novi: This use you describe is fraudulent. It does not have anything to do with life or the universe, except for the dishonest creationists who pretend that it does.

If you want to discuss evolution, then use the term correctly.

If you want to discuss the origin of life or the universe, then use those phrases.

Stop using “short hand” when using the proper terms is necessary in a discussion like this.

Iowa Jim: There are 3 basic questions a worldview has to answer: Where did we come from / Why are we here? Why is there pain, suffering, and problems in the world? How do we correct what is wrong in the world? Naturalistic Evolutionary thought offers very different answers than "fundamentalist" Christianity.
Luigi Novi: Wrong. It does not offer any answers at all to these questions. This is why it is not a worldview.

Posted by: Micha at December 20, 2005 09:43 PM

I think Richard Dawkins himself has spent much time arguing against religious thought I'm not 100% sure if his arguments are the result of an ideological animosity towards religion, or just that he feels the need to defend evolution against creationist attempts to undermine it by presenting divine creation as a legitimate scientific theory.

It is also true that evolution developed at a time of increased secularism and even anti-clericalism, although I don't know if that was Darwin's own motivation. What this shows is that the reduction of religious authority made it possible for explanations not dependant on religion to be developed.

But all this is irrelevant. In any case, science is naturalistic only in the sense that it seeks explanations whose components are in nature, and whose explanation can be broken down to mechanistic cause and effect relations. God and divine creations do not fit that critirion. So it can be said that prior to Darwin, the scientific explanations for the existence of biological species were:
a) incomplete, in the sense that any reference to god was mostly a reflection of a lack of knowledge concerning the natural processes that caused the existence of species.
b) not very good scientifically, because they refered to an entity (God) that itself could not be understood in naturalistic mechanistic terms (and what kind of God would it be if it could?)
c) derived its explanation not from scientific inquiry, but from an external religious authority.

So Dawkins may also be the kind of person who holds the philosophy that science is everything. Some but not all scientists are. It is the same in the mind-body question, in which some scientists tend to be materialistic. But he is still right in saying that evolution is a better scientific explanation than God, even if it were not so strong on its own merits.


Posted by: Iowa Jim at December 20, 2005 09:59 PM

Gotta love Drudge. He says that both Clinton and Carter conducted warrantless searches as well.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

I repeat what I said earlier: The hype about this has far more to do with distrust for Bush than the issue itself. I am not saying you don't care about civil liberties. But there among the politicians and the media, there is quite a bit of hypocrisy. You may disagree with what Bush has done, but two things are clear:

1.) September 11 was a unique event in the last 50 years. While you may think he has gone beyond what he should have, there was clear reason for him to want to do so.

2.) I have yet to hear any story where there was a blatant use of this authority to intimidate his political enemies here in the US. If Bush was accused of doing what the Clinton Justice Department is accused of doing (namely, investigating political enemies and initiating IRS audits to intimidate those enemies), you would have the Democrats in Congress calling for impeachment. Those same Democrats who today are saying Bush abused power are blocking the publication of a report that gives evidence of the Clinton administration doing that very thing.

Gotta love it.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Iowa Jim at December 20, 2005 10:02 PM

RE: Evolution, etc.

Read the comments, but feel I have strayed too far from the point. I will let what I said stand as said and will just read any other comments you all would like to make.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Iowa Jim at December 20, 2005 10:03 PM

Clarification: Strayed too far from PAD's point at the start of all of this. While it had some relevance at the start, debating this issue is best left for another time and place.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 20, 2005 10:42 PM

If Bush was accused of doing what the Clinton Justice Department is accused of doing (namely, investigating political enemies and initiating IRS audits to intimidate those enemies), you would have the Democrats in Congress calling for impeachment. Those same Democrats who today are saying Bush abused power are blocking the publication of a report that gives evidence of the Clinton administration doing that very thing.

Evidence for this assertion, if you please.

(And for the record, I at least have been calling for impeachment for over a year.)


[On evolution]
Read the comments, but feel I have strayed too far from the point. I will let what I said stand as said and will just read any other comments you all would like to make.

The problem, of course, is that "what you said" is manifestly ignorant and quite possibly deliberately so.

The last time you found yourself faced with several posts all boiling down to "you're wrong, we've explained how you're wrong, and we're starting to get annoyed at how intensely determined you are to be wrong", you rather conveniently left on a trip for several days and said you wouldn't be able to continue the conversation. This time you're dropping it because "it's strayed too far from the point", though you have no problem whatsoever discussing the wiretap issue which is equally far if not farther from said point. (At least the evolution discussion is actually related to religion, which last I checked was part of PAD's original subject.)

No response needed -- I just wanted to make it clear that the likelihood of some of us engaging you yet again is dropping, since your choice is inevitably to exit the debate rather than actually admit that there's a chance you're mistaken. Next time I might just insert links to the last three conversations and let people enjoy the reruns.

TWL

Posted by: Micha at December 20, 2005 10:47 PM

Jim, it all boils down to the relationship between Christianity and other things in the U.S. and in general: other (happy) holidays, namely religions; other explanation of natural phenomena -- science; other ways of life -- homosexuality; other philosophies; and other moral point of view -- humanism, etc.

One of the greatest questions of human existence is how can people with different point of views live together?

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 21, 2005 12:21 AM

If you define yourself solely in terms of your enemy, you've already gone a long way towards becoming them

I agree with that. well said.

The leak in this case was meant to alert the public to illegal behavior on the part of the government. That strikes me as part of the main reason why leaks are an important part of civilized society.

The leak in the Plame case was political retaliation -- or if you want to argue that that hasn't been proven, at a minimum it was a leak by people high in the administration eager to provide political cover for policy.

The motives behind the two leaks are transparently and fundamentally different. Thus, opinions on the wrongness of said leaks are perfectly entitled to be as well.

then they should immediately drop all charges against Mr Libby since they will not be able to prove his intent or motive beyond a reasonable doubt. One of the excuses that had been offered for libby was that he was trying to explain why Wilson got the job to investigate accusations of yellowcake in Niger. Despite Wilson's claims to the contrary, his wife had a role in getting him the assignment. Libby may or may not have been aware of Plame's covert status when he outed her.

By your reasoning, if Libby genuinely felt that he was setting the record straight--remember, some were claiming that Wilson was sent on a fact finding mission by Cheney himself, which was not true--he should not be held accountable.

Interestingly, I'd brought up some of this in earlier threads, wondering what would happen if people leaked this kind of info for "good" reasons but as I recall the reply from some of the "let's execute Rove for treason" crowd was pretty much on the order of "the law is the law".

Seems to me the easiest system is to apply the law fairly. If the intentions of the leaker are deemed relevant then so be it--but we will have to establish that, won't we? So justice demands that we investigate, identify and possibly indict the leakers, let the facts come out and lionize or imprison them, as the truth comes out.

Picking and choosing who gets to break the law seems a bit disingenuous.

There are beginning to be drips and drabs coming out about how often presidents from carter to Clinton have supported and used Warrentless searches and i8investigations. It seems a bit early to conclude that this is commonplace but I'd bet that is how it will end up. That is not an excuse for continuing it but it will certainly weaken the likelihood of any major impeachment hearing coming out of this.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm
May 1979
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

Signed by Jimmy Carter

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp
"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General."

"It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."

Feb 1995
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

Signed by Bill Clinton.

Where was the outrage?

Posted by: Sasha at December 21, 2005 12:50 AM

RE: Unauthorized Wiretaps by Carter and Clinton

I have a feeling this is one of those way out of context exerpts a la those quotes by prominent left-leaning politicians that suggested they they were always for invading Iraq.

But I wait to be retroactively outraged (along with Reagan and Bush 41 whom I also suspect performed similar acts).

And besides, isn't the current crop of conservatives supposed to be better than that?

Posted by: Robert Jung at December 21, 2005 01:59 AM

Good call, Sasha. Here's the real dope on the "Clinton authorized wiretaps too!" myth. The full text of the order -- the part that Bill Mulligan omitted -- reads:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
(Full text here)

Or, in layman's terms,

"I’m here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations regarding Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the National Security Agency…

"There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether directly or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department."
--George Tenet, Congressional testimony, 4/12/2000

--R.J.
http://www.electric-escape.net/

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 21, 2005 06:50 AM

No, Bill. Even if Libby felt he was "setting the record straight", that still falls under the heading of "providing political cover for policy."

Regardless of how you want to spin Libby's motives, he was not leaking to expose wrongdoing -- which, last time I checked, was the criterion I posted and you're trying to do an end run around. Leaking to correct a mistake is not the same thing.

It's not primarily a question of intent -- it's a question of the venue to which the leak is relevant, and that's verifiable by three blind monkeys at this point.

You are once again trying to argue that all leaks are created equal, and displaying an unusual-for-you bit of black-and-white thinking in the process. Sorry. Not this time.

TWL

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at December 21, 2005 08:42 AM

I have yet to hear any story where there was a blatant use of this authority to intimidate his political enemies here in the US.

Then you've been living under a rock the whole time Fitzgerald has been investigating the Bush Administration's outing of Valerie Plame.

Posted by: Den at December 21, 2005 08:52 AM

Since I know how certain people love to take quotes out of context, I'm going to try to make this as clear as possible:

If Bush has been ordering wiretaps and other electronic surveillance in the United States of US citizens without going through the channels required by law to obtain a warrant, he is morally and ethically wrong.

If Clinton and Carter were ordering wiretaps and other electronic surveillance in the United States of US citizens without going through the channels required by law to obtain a warrant, they were morally and ethically wrong.

Here, however, is the crucial difference for the "where's the outrage" question: Clinton and Carter are the past. They are out of office. There is nothing we can do about their past actions as president. Bush is the current president and after listening to him thump his chest in 2000 about how morally superior he was and how he was going to "restore honor" to the White House, for his apologists to use the "Clinton did it, so it's okay for Bush to do it" arguement is just plain laughable.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 21, 2005 08:59 AM

tim, I simply don't understand how you can expect anyone to accept your interpretation of the motives of these various leakers--when we don't even know who they are.

Is there at least the possibility in your mind that this could have been done for less than admirable motives? What if it turns out that the leak was designed to do nothing more than cause political trouble for the president--would that then become illegal in you eyes or does the the end justify the means 9and intent).

Look, I'm not unhappy that this came out, especially since this seems to have been a lot more common than we knew. But given the naked screaming outrage directed at karl rove for his (so far) minor role in the Plame leak I just have to marvel at the contortions it takes to praise other leakers of national security issues. If people want to admit that they don't give a rat's ass about the law, it should just be applied depending on where the political fallout end up, hey, fine. But that doesn't quite jibe with their previous positions.

Here's the real dope on the "Clinton authorized wiretaps too!" myth. The full text of the order -- the part that Bill Mulligan omitted -- reads:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

Uh, Robert? Here's what I posted:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

I got it from http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm which has the actual executive order (EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949 for those who collect them). I didn't change a word and I'm having a difficult time seeing any big changes in what I copied and what you wrote...so please tell me what I "omitted"? Also, how exactly did I omit something from an executive order when all I did was copy and paste? Did I hack into the White House computers and change the order? Would that I had such power!

Incidentally, While George Tenant's comments are interesting they A-don't change the executive order one bit and B-have a lot of wiggle room. If You are deemed under the control or influence of Al Qeada you may well be considered "agents of a foreign power" and all bets are off.

It may well be true that the Clinton Administration did not pursue their belief that the President has the authority to order warrentless searches but their strenuous arguing that the president COULD do so certainly weakens the likelihood of impeachment charges against Bush. My argument is that this is so remote a possibility that if Democrats focus on it they will just lose and there will be no attention at all paid to the greater issue of whether or not such orders should be allowed--legal or not.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 21, 2005 09:12 AM

Den.
Wah wah wah.

Haven't heard anyone here actually use the "Clinton did it, so it's okay for Bush to do it" defense but then you ARE gifted with the preternatural ability to read minds and motives, eh?

And careful or even casual readers will note that what I said was "Where was the outrage?" Get that? "Was"? Past tense? yeah, I get that "Clinton and Carter are the past. They are out of office. There is nothing we can do about their past actions as president." (Hope I'm not quoting you out of context. I'm using the cut and paste method but you never know what might get dropped out in the transition). But here's the thing--these actions were reported. People knew. And. They. Did. Nothing.

Personally, I want this fully investigated. That may make me an apologist but I'll live with it.

Posted by: Bobb at December 21, 2005 09:22 AM

Bush approved...and will continue to approve illegal wiretaps.

But it's ok, because Clinton, and other presidents, did it too.

Fine. Anyone have the language or statute (for the lay person, that means the LAW) that Bush is using to approve his wiretapping? If I understand Bush, it's the same congresional resolution that he used to declare war on Iraq. The resolution that was to approve the president's actions taken to counteract terrorists wherever we found them. Bush saw them in Iraq, despite the fact that no one else did.

He was wrong then. He's wrong now. I don't understand how anyone, in good conscience, can continue to defend this man. His mistakes have cost the lives of over 2,000 us troops, injured thousands more, over (his own admission) 30,000 Iraqi lives, hundreds of foreign allied troops, and now he's invading the very privacy of US citizens that he claims to be protecting.

And your best defense is "Clinton did it, too?" That's a lie.

Don't just cite some vague law. Do the rest of the homework. You can find the relevant sections of FISA here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001822----000-.html

I'll do the shorthand for you: that authorization was explicitly for property controlled or owned by a "foreign power of powers," and explicitly NOT to include a "substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person"

Let me state that clearly. The citation to Clinton's wiretapping was for foreign property ONLY.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 21, 2005 09:26 AM

Bill,

You're spending way too much time arguing about legalities here.

However, here's my last comment on the legal issues. Your claim that "well, if that's the standard, charges against Libby should be dropped" is incorrect on its face, because Libby was not charged with breaking that law in question. He was charged with perjury and impeding an investigation, neither of which depends on whether the "leaking classified info" act was broken. Since, last I checked, you considered perjury a serious crime (at least when committed by a Democrat about an irrelevant subject), that should end the discussion about Libby.

Second -- on the wiretaps. If this were simply nothing more than continuing the status quo, don't you think the administration would be saying that? The fact that Bush has given all of these addresses and press conferences saying "we're saving your lives, you stupid scum" strongly suggests that they think this is a new action. Why, therefore, should we pay attention to the Clinton-did-it-too crowd?

tim, I simply don't understand how you can expect anyone to accept your interpretation of the motives of these various leakers--when we don't even know who they are.

Look at the effects, Bill.

The Wilson case -- was not revealing wrongdoing against or a threat to the American public. At its most generous interpretation, it was "setting the record straight" by offering an alternate interpretation to some events -- but it was, at its heart, addressing a political question and not one of constitutionality.

The wiretap case -- raises questions about the constitutionality of this administration's behavior. That is what a free press is for. That is what leaks are for.

The leaker in the wiretap case could have had it in for Bush, sure, though that's not what's come out so far. It doesn't change the effect that the leaks themselves were qualitatively different. Leaks about potential abuses of power on behalf of the group of people currently in power are always okay in my book -- that's often the only way for anybody to find out about such behavior.

given the naked screaming outrage directed at karl rove for his (so far) minor role in the Plame leak I just have to marvel at the contortions it takes to praise other leakers of national security issues.

Marvel all you like. The differences are pretty plain, and I don't feel that I'm making even minor contortions. (And coming from a background in cosmology, I certainly know what logical contortions look like...)

Let's cut through some of the verbiage here. I'm going to ask you three questions, and would appreciate simple, straight answers.

1) Do you feel that the actions of those who outed Valerie Plame -- Libby, Rove, and whoever talked to Woodward -- were justified, or a breach of ethics? Not "legal vs. illegal" -- ethical. If you don't feel you have enough information, what other information would you need?

2) Do you feel that the actions of the Bush administration as regards setting up these wiretaps are an abuse of power, or reasonable? If you don't feel you have enough information, what other information would you need?

3) Do you feel that the actions of whoever leaked this info to the NYT are justified, or an ethical breach? If you don't feel you have enough information, what other information would you need?

TWL

Posted by: Bobb at December 21, 2005 09:26 AM

Bill, I may not have read clearly, but it sure seemed to me that you were saying "Clinton did it, and no one got outraged. Why now that Bush is doing it?"

Which, I'll admit, one needs to do a little mental gymnastics to get to "Clinton did it, it must have been ok."

But if when you say

"People knew. And. They. Did. Nothing."

regarding Clinton, check the link in my last post. Even if a US citizen were proven to be an agent of Bin Laden, Clinton would still have needed a warrant. FISA prevents invasion of privacy of US citizens without a warrant.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 21, 2005 09:32 AM

Personally, I want this fully investigated.

So do I, and I'm happy to bring past presidents into it as well.

However, I want the primary focus to be on the current wrongdoing, because that's the one we can do something about.

And might I humbly point out that the argument "wah wah wah" is perhaps not the best way to come across as on the side of reason?

TWL

Posted by: Den at December 21, 2005 09:51 AM

Haven't heard anyone here actually use the "Clinton did it, so it's okay for Bush to do it" defense but then you ARE gifted with the preternatural ability to read minds and motives, eh?

Ah, Bill, you injected Clinton into the debate and challenged those who are outraged today to explain why they weren't outraged then (and since you asked, had I seen those reports in 1995, I would have been outraged) and by doing so, you are implying that anyone who criticizes Bush today is a hypocrite.

You brought it up and used it to counter those who said what Bush is doing is wrong.

But, go ahead and make another personal attack on me, since you seem to think that's a substitute for a debate these days.

But here's the thing--these actions were reported. People knew. And. They. Did. Nothing.

Which, if true, was wrong but, other posters have pointed out that Clinton's order apparently did not cover wiretapping of US citizens living in this country, which Bush's order allegedly did. If this is true, then that's a key difference. US Citizens under the law are supposed to be granted at least the nominal oversight of the FISA court. Foreigners do not have that protection.

Personally, I find the idea of secret warrants to surveil US citizens repugnant, but the law allows them if they go through proper channels. No president should feel he is free to bypass those channels.

You say you want it investigated, fine. But attacking people for not being outraged ten years ago does nothing to advance the investigation. It's a deliberate distraction from the current issue. Perhaps they should have been outraged, but again, that's the past. Let's put the actual law on the table and look at what is being done right now. The "Clinton did it" defense is not a justification if Bush's order does in fact violate the law.

I'm not a fan of Clinton. He did many things that I disagree with, but if you really want the legality of these wiretaps investigated, attacking people for not being outraged over Clinton does nothing to advance the investigation.
Doing so only tells people that your true interest is shutting down the debate.
Fine. Anyone have the language or statute (for the lay person, that means the LAW) that Bush is using to approve his wiretapping?

I'd love to see that, too. So far, Bush's assertion that his wiretapping order was legal boils down to, "because I said so."

He's going to have to do better than that.

As for outrage, the NYT apparently had this story in 2004 and sat on it, giving Bush a pass to avoid this sticky issue during the election. That seems like a strange action for a newspaper that is supposedly his mortal enemy.

Posted by: Den at December 21, 2005 10:05 AM

Which, I'll admit, one needs to do a little mental gymnastics to get to "Clinton did it, it must have been ok."

Maybe, but anytime you compare the actions of a past president to the current one and say words to the effect of, well, you weren't outraged when President A did it, so you have no right to be outraged now that President B did it, you are implying that people have already given implicit approval to the current president's actions.

Of course, that sidesteps the points that 1) the technical difference between the two may have been just different enough to make one legal and the other not (jury is still out on that) and 2) Clinton's actions were not reported in the media as widely as Bush's are now. Which is a grievous and unforgivable error on the part of the media, but hardly a counter argument against people who are outraged today.

Posted by: Robbnn at December 21, 2005 10:08 AM

Bobb,

I suspect term limits wouldn't work as an overall answer because government has become so complex that you'd have an even bigger problem with non-elected aids actually running the show.

Tim,

Respectfully disagree. The goals and motivations for war are what sink Saddam as well as inappropriate response to the situation (nerve gassing unarmed protestors, for example). The same onus falls on us: our goals and motivation must be above reproach (which is, to some, a large question in the Iraq war), but once war is engaged, you wage to win. If we dropped a nuke on Iraq then you've got your inappropriate response and something to complain about, but to lie down and lose because some principles will be offended, no. War is war and you fight to win.

As an atheistic evolutionist, aren't "principles" just social conventions, anyway? A layered illusion on the back of evolved animals? (I'm not saying you feel this way, I'm just not sure what principles are for one such as yourself. What gives principles validity for you? Honest question -- when I was an atheist, unlike you, I was a scumbag with no principles to examine, so I honestly don't know.)

Posted by: Den at December 21, 2005 10:23 AM

I suspect term limits wouldn't work as an overall answer because government has become so complex that you'd have an even bigger problem with non-elected aids actually running the show.

I'm not sure if I buy that argument. After, each new president brings in his own people to run the White House. Even if he's from the same party as the incumbant, often the top slots go to someone the incoming president is familiar with rather than friends of the incumbant. A few cabinet positions may be holdovers, but there is always so turnover.

If we put term limits on Congress, I suspect that there would be more turnover among Congressional aides as well. Perhaps some would find a new patron once their current one left office, but many would also use connections made while working for Congress to get jobs as lobbyists or consultants.

Posted by: Bobb at December 21, 2005 10:25 AM

Robbnn, is "War is war and you fight to win" the equivilent of "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead?"

Meaning, once you get into the thick of things, you do what is necessary to accomplish you objective, regardless of the consequences?

I'll be blunt: I think that the US is engaged in kidnapping, transportation of kindappees, torture, illegal imprisonment, and confinement without justice. All of these things, when American citizens do them to other Americans, are regarded as Federal crimes. Our president tells us that these acts, under different names, are necessary to accomplish our objective of defeating terrorism and maintaining the safety of our country. Both admiriable goals, to be sure. But what's the point, if our methods destroy the very thing we are fighting to protect? Our ideals and beliefs, that there's a better, more civilized, free way of life decry the acts that our soldiers and agents are allowed to commit. I just watched Serenity last night, so I'll bring in the analogy of the Operative. Are we creating monsters, fighting to give us a better world, but one that has no place for the monsters? And if so, what does that make us?

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 21, 2005 10:26 AM

I'm just not sure what principles are for one such as yourself. What gives principles validity for you? Honest question -- when I was an atheist, unlike you, I was a scumbag with no principles to examine, so I honestly don't know.

That question is so unbelievably insulting, I don't know where to begin.

Thank you, however, for helping lend validity to the argument that when some religious people claim there can be no morality without religion, it's because they themselves have no morality outside of their faith. You've just claimed openly that that's the case for you.

I'm not going to discuss my principles with someone who implies I'm scum and refers to me as "one such as yourself." Feel utterly free to piss off -- but if you want a serious answer, I would think that the last two years of posts I've made here would be sufficiently illuminating.

Bye now. Don't wait up.

TWL

Posted by: Den at December 21, 2005 10:35 AM

Are we creating monsters, fighting to give us a better world, but one that has no place for the monsters? And if so, what does that make us?

A better question may be, are creating new monsters that will one day turn around and bite us in the ass? (See: Osama bin Laden, Fidel Castro)

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at December 21, 2005 10:36 AM

Haven't heard anyone here actually use the "Clinton did it, so it's okay for Bush to do it" defense

I have on another forum. Damn twit instantly brought up "well, this existed under Clinton & Carter".

But nevermind the fact that, if thats the case, this also existed under Bush Sr, as well as Reagan, who I feel was far more likely to use this abuse of power than Clinton & Carter.

Either way, the circumstances between actual use by Bush, and potential use by Clinton (did Clinton ever use this act?) are different - Bush said "don't bother getting a warrant".

Posted by: Den at December 21, 2005 10:44 AM

I have on another forum. Damn twit instantly brought up "well, this existed under Clinton & Carter".

But nevermind the fact that, if thats the case, this also existed under Bush Sr, as well as Reagan, who I feel was far more likely to use this abuse of power than Clinton & Carter.

A quick look at the political blogs shows that this argument is everywhere and always omitting Reagan and Bush the first. Bill is using a slight variation in telling people that they have no right to be outraged over Bush the second since Clinton may or may not have gotten away with it, but that mindset is the same.

Posted by: Robbnn at December 21, 2005 11:18 AM

Tim, you misunderstand me. I'm not implying you're scum (I said the exact opposite, in fact), I said I was scum so I don't understand, having had no reason to look at the question when I was on that side of the fence. Quite clearly you HAVE principles, that's why I'm asking where they come from/how they are valid. To look at your posts over the last several years indicates to me that you are not scum and that you do have principles. In no way am I insulting you, I'm asking for your philosophy of principle. If principles are "real" I'm asking for an understanding of how that can be.

As I undestand them principles/morals are handed down by God. If you don't believe in God but believe morals are something more than social convention, I'd like to know how that can be. I'm sure there's an answer; I just don't know what it is.

I don't understand your reaction, either. I praised you, slammed myself, and asked for help understanding. What's wrong with that?

Posted by: Jerome Maida at December 21, 2005 11:24 AM

Tim,
Have been staying out of this, since I can understand the concern of many, including conservatives like George Will, have over the Eavesdropping Issue.
However, I feel such actions may be necessary -it was eavesdropping that helped foil a plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. Bush has just made this unnecessarily hard on himself, since from what I've heard it is universally acknowleged that he would have obtained warrants rather easily.
Also, I think you may be misreading Robbnn's statement, which at first glance I thought was a bit over the top against you.
But if you reread her words,
"When I was an atheist, unlike you, I was a scumbag with no principles to examine."
She specifically says UNLIKE you. Which would tend to imply she has recognized that you DO have principles you live by.
I could understand your being upset if she said what I think you thought she said; but she didn't say it, so it makes no sense to be mad.
You are, of course, free to feel however you like. Just thought I'd give you a different point of view.
Especially since - although there's times you've portrayed me as foaming-at-the-mouth - I really do enjoy these discussions a lot more when you and Bill are around.
It makes for a passionate and intelligent exchange of ideas.

Posted by: Bobb at December 21, 2005 11:26 AM

I saw that, Den, and if that doesn't send a chill out among people, nothing will. The FISA court was established as the last line of protection individual Americans had against the vast might of the Executive office. It was the administrative tool that gave life to the Constitutional check on the Executive. And now the validity of that check has been compromised. The idea that warrants might have been issued on the basis of information gained through illegal means taints the entire legal process. This next statement isn't just hyperbole...it calls into question Bush's entire prosecution of the legality of this so-called war he's fighting.

Yes, for those that think this, there is a difference between gassing a couple thousand people engaged in civil disobeidience (or revolt, as others might put it) and eroding or outright tromping on the essential rights of a nation. The second is far, far more dangerous. That sounds cold, I'm sure, but I would trade the lives a few thousand people if it meant I don't have to worry whether the government is going to listen in on my private conversations, search my property, seize me and imprison me without a trial, or just make me disappear for a few years. And unless I'm mistaken, we did just that...only it was a few hundred thousand lives, during the 40s.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 21, 2005 11:42 AM

Robbnn,

Fine. You didn't mean the statement to come across the way it did. It's not exactly an apology, but I suppose it'll have to do.

As I undestand them principles/morals are handed down by God. If you don't believe in God but believe morals are something more than social convention, I'd like to know how that can be. I'm sure there's an answer; I just don't know what it is.

Fine. Here's my "manifesto", if you will.

I believe that what time we get on Earth is all we ever get. No rewards or punishments after, depending on how good a person we were or which particular bureaucratic hoops we jumped through. As Neil Gaiman has written, you get what everybody gets -- a lifetime.

As such, if that's all we ever get, I think each of us has a moral duty to leave this planet and this species better off than we found it -- or at an absolute minimum, to obey the larger version of the Hippocratic oath and do no harm. The greatest gift I can give to my daughter is a world and a country that she can be proud to live in, and that she CAN live in -- and I need to be able to look back while on my deathbed and say, "Yes, I helped bring this about."

That means, over the long term, that you look at what's best for humanity and for the planet as a whole. None of this nationalistic "hey, aren't WE the best there is" crap holds up except insofar as it serves those ends.

Thus, people who refuse to recognize things which threaten our entire global environment (such as global warming), or who dismiss long-term questions with "how should I know? we'll all be dead" are utterly antithetical to living a good life. They live only for the short term and are concentrated on maximizing their own temporal gain while impeding long-term survival.

And for the record, I think religion can get in the way of this a great deal, though it certainly doesn't have to. When you have individuals who are so busy waiting for the Rapture that they not only overlook problems here, but indeed root for them because it'll accelerate what they see as prophecy, they are part of the problem and not the solution.

There. That's a worldview in a few hundred words. I have no idea if it answers your question or not -- but there it is.

TWL

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 21, 2005 11:43 AM

He was charged with perjury and impeding an investigation, neither of which depends on whether the "leaking classified info" act was broken. Since, last I checked, you considered perjury a serious crime (at least when committed by a Democrat about an irrelevant subject), that should end the discussion about Libby.

Bingo. You sir, are correct and I was wrong. My arguing that Libby was being prosecuted for leaking was as incorrect as those who keep saying that Clinton was impeached over a blowjob.

1) Do you feel that the actions of those who outed Valerie Plame -- Libby, Rove, and whoever talked to Woodward -- were justified, or a breach of ethics? Not "legal vs. illegal" -- ethical. If you don't feel you have enough information, what other information would you need?

I "feel" that they were probably a breach of ethics. I "think" that I don't have enough information to say for sure--the trial will possibly bring that out, though, as we have established, that won't matter much to the perjury charge. One bit of info needed would be whether or not Libby knew that Plame was a covert agent--it might not change the legality but it would have an effect on whether or not what he did was unethical.

I also think that, given the qualification that you have put on the legalities of leaks a good lawyer could raise enough doubt to make conviction almost impossible on that charge, should it be raised.

2) Do you feel that the actions of the Bush administration as regards setting up these wiretaps are an abuse of power, or reasonable? If you don't feel you have enough information, what other information would you need?

I don't know. My gut feeling--and there isn't enough info yet for me to feel comfortable to call it more than that--is that it is, if not an out and out abuse of power at least far too great a temptation for such abuses to occur. We don't yet know how many wiretaps there were, on who, or why, or what they gained from them or...well, much of anything.

3) Do you feel that the actions of whoever leaked this info to the NYT are justified, or an ethical breach? If you don't feel you have enough information, what other information would you need?

Again, how could I make a reasoned judgment? We don't know who did it. We have no way of knowing why they did it. Since we don't know any of the answers of 2) we also can't answer whether or not these leaks have exposed a dangerous abuse of power or damaged a valuable tool in the fight against terrorists. (Or C-neither of the above) Some may feel comfortable jumping to one extreme conclusion or the other on the basis of such skimpy info. I'm not.

For an informed opinion, an investigation is called for. Let the chips fall where they may. The most regrettable outcome would be if some new technology that we aren't aware of is revealed as a result, giving the terrorists a heads up but I would hope that congress could put aside petty partisan score settling to get to the truth without endangering lives.

Bobb,

My actual point was that I think this may have been going on for some time and that the idea that this is an impeachable offense is a fantasy. I think this is extremely worthy of investigation but if Democrats try to go for the big enchilada they will blow any hope of something concrete coming out of it.

Again, whether or not the Clinton administration pulled the trigger on their stated legal opinion that the President had the legal authority to do warrentless searches, it certainly makes it unlikely that congress can claim that Bush has done an impeachable offense.

And might I humbly point out that the argument "wah wah wah" is perhaps not the best way to come across as on the side of reason?

Oh, agreed. But if Den continues to pretend that I quoted him out of context I'm going to treat the argument with the level of respect it deserves. If there were some way I could format the line Since I know how certain people love to take quotes out of context, I'm going to try to make this as clear as possible: in a way that makes it sound like it's being said in a whiny pissy tone I would have but I only know italics and bold. Maybe I should be a better person but a man needs to know his limitations.

Ah, Bill, you injected Clinton into the debate and challenged those who are outraged today to explain why they weren't outraged then (and since you asked, had I seen those reports in 1995, I would have been outraged) and by doing so, you are implying that anyone who criticizes Bush today is a hypocrite.

Speak of the devil! And like clockwork, he does it again. Go ahead, my man, find and quote the relevant passage where I, ahem, "challenged those who are outraged today to explain why they weren't outraged then". Go on.

(Here's a hint-- even I wasn't outraged then!)
(And I've expressed serious reservations about whether or not this is a good thing to be doing now)
(which would mean that I'm calling myself a hypocrite!. Wow, This is puzzling! How to explain the seeming contradiction?)

Actually, it was Iowa Jim for first "injected Clinton into the debate" (must have been a large syringe). My first comment on the matter was: There are beginning to be drips and drabs coming out about how often presidents from carter to Clinton have supported and used Warrentless searches and investigations. It seems a bit early to conclude that this is commonplace but I'd bet that is how it will end up. That is not an excuse for continuing it but it will certainly weaken the likelihood of any major impeachment hearing coming out of this.

From that you carry on. Ah well. You see what you want to see. You see my pointing out that previous presidential executive orders giving the president warrentless search powers did not create a furor as somehow "Attacking" those who did not raise a stink. All in your mind, sir. A good number of folks on this board were hardly old enough to be outraged by ANYTHING Carter did. My point, again, was that previous executive orders and legal opinions will make it very hard to make this stick to Bush unless it can be shown that this was used for nakedly partisan purposes. A majority of those polled think the Patriot Act is either fine as is or needs to be stronger. Bush won't suffer a bit if it turns out he tapped the phones of legit targets. As for why they felt the need to bypass the usual system--there's the question. I can think of a few possibilities, some benign and some impeachable. That's why I want an investigation.

You seem to believe that any criticism, even those that exist in your own mind, are attacks. Sorry, but my point, and I'll keep on repeating it until it takes, is that given the lack of outrage over previous attempts to assert presidential power to issue warrentless searches, I just don't believe it can now be turned into an impeachable offense. You can spin that any way you want, if it makes it easier for you to argue than sticking to the facts but it is what it is.

Maybe, but anytime you compare the actions of a past president to the current one and say words to the effect of, well, you weren't outraged when President A did it, so you have no right to be outraged now that President B did it, you are implying that people have already given implicit approval to the current president's actions.

Ah, once again in the Land Of Your Dreams. Said no such thing, implied no such thing, and this would be far more acceptable coming from anyone except the guy who went into a hissy fit when I quoted him. And I mean I actually quoted him, not saying weasel phrases and words like "in effect" "implying" etc etc. Pro. Jec. Tion.

Tim,
While I understand your anger, I thought that Robbnn was saying that when he was an atheist he was a scumbag--unlike you, who is an atheist and NOT a scumbag. I think he was making a complement. It would be hard for anyone to read this blog on a regular basis and come to any other conclusion.

But it was awkwardly phrased so I can well see how one could come to another interpretation without resorting to Den-like logic gymnastics.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 21, 2005 11:49 AM

Bingo. You sir, are correct and I was wrong.

Thank you. See, that wasn't so hard. :-)

I think the rest of this is likely to be in "agree to disagree" territory, so I'm going to lay my portion of the wiretap arguments to rest here.

(And between your post and Jerome, I think the essential question now is: Is Robbnn a "he" or a "she"? You went with the former, Jerome with the latter. I haven't a clue.)

TWL

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at December 21, 2005 11:51 AM

Tim, I believe that Robbnn has previously stated that he is a "he".

Fred

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 21, 2005 11:54 AM

Bill is using a slight variation in telling people that they have no right to be outraged over Bush the second since Clinton may or may not have gotten away with it, but that mindset is the same.

Psychological projection (or projection bias) can be defined as unconsciously assuming that others share the same or similar thoughts, beliefs, values, or positions on any given subject. According to the theories of Sigmund Freud, it is a psychological defense mechanism whereby one "projects" one's own undesirable thoughts, motivations, desires, feelings—basically parts of oneself—onto someone else (usually another person, but psychological projection onto animals and inanimate objects also occurs). The principle of projection is well-established in psychology.

Posted by: Den at December 21, 2005 11:56 AM

Translation: Bill has nothing but personal attacks to make.

Whatever, Bill. My last shred of personal respect for you has just evaporated.

Posted by: Bobb at December 21, 2005 12:02 PM

"Again, whether or not the Clinton administration pulled the trigger on their stated legal opinion that the President had the legal authority to do warrentless searches, it certainly makes it unlikely that congress can claim that Bush has done an impeachable offense."

Bill, I think I understand where you're coming from, but this line of thinking isn't logical, and if this ever does become an impeachment issue, it won't be dispositive.

You can't make an act legal just by saying "but we've been doing this for years." There's many cases where a law gets ennacted, enforced, applied, and only until it's challenged before a court, despite how many other courts have upheld it, does it get declared unconstitutional or otherwise struck down. If it were simply a matter of historical repitition that made a law valid, jaywalking laws would be entirely unenforcable in about 90% of American cities today.

If it's wrong now, it would have been wrong under Clinton. Whether Clinton acted, or just stated that he thought he could or should be allowed to act, has only annecdotal weight if Bush ever sees and legal ramifications from this.

Although I think the chances of Bush getting impeached right now are very slim. Public opinion may be way down, but until the sitting GOP members start feeling like their own political lives are at stake, they still control the congress. And there can't be any impeachment if the Senate won't call for one.

And you know what? As much as I hate this current administration, I don't think an impeachment would be good for the country. The GOP, for better or worse, is in control. An impeachment would mean a total fragmentation of the controlling party, and that can't be a good thing for any American.

Posted by: indestructibleman at December 21, 2005 12:04 PM

Robnnn,
i'm going to try to field the question of morality without God, as it's something i've put a great deal of thought into.

my morality is, quite simply, to seek pleasure and avoid pain. i believe this is the most basic drive of all animals.

now, the trick to turning this imperitive into anything resembling what we might call morality is to recognize that the wellbeing of others affects you and to be sufficiently far-sighted about the consequences of your actions.

if i give to charity, it is, on a very important level, because i believe that by easing poverty we can reduce crime thereby reducing the risk that i or someone i care for will be harmed by criminal actions.

i approach morality pragmatically. what can it do for me? i treat other people well because that raises the chances that they will treat me well. i think the golden rule has a good solid practical basis.

bottom line is, i personally don't do anything that i don't see as benefitting (directly or indirectly) myself or those i care for.

and my caring for people is in no way altruistic either (i actually don't believe altruism exists) because caring for people adds to my quality of life.

that's just my approach, i expect other non-believers may have a very different take on things.

oh, and please no one try to tell me that some people enjoy pain. enjoying pain is a logical impossibility. you may enjoy something i consider to be painful, or you may find pleasure in your ability to bear pain. this is not really the same as enjoying pain. many things in life give both pleasure and pain. a certain pleasure (love) may be worth a great deal of pain. it's all about making intelligent choices to maximize pleasure and minimize pain,and there are frequently compromises involved.


-will

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 21, 2005 12:05 PM

This is getting very fun, if not quite in keeping with the holiday spirit. But, alas, I must leave to go on a long trip from North Carolina to Eastern PA, including long stretches through West Virginia. Ever hit West Va during a snow storm? In the mountains? Where every human looks like an inbred worshiper of The Corn God? (note to those from West Virginia: I'm kidding! Although you know what I mean...)

So a Merry Christmas to all the Christians! Have some eggnog while you sit in front of the fireplace and watch repeats of Highway to Heaven and Joan of Arcadia! Happy Holidays to all the Atheists! Eat a Christmas cookie while watching episodes of Highway to Nowhere and Joan of Schizophrenia! Happy Chanakah to all the Jews! See if you can pry your kid away from his X-Box 360 long enough to spin a dreidal! Despite all the sniping and carping and secret wishes that some of you could experience being staked to an ant hill for a few minutes you guys and gals and people of indeterminate gender are part of my daily ritual and I'd shake the hand and buy a drink for any one of you. Just not all at once.

And a special thanks to PAD who is the reason we're here. here's hoping that 2006 will bring even more success. Thanks for letting us play in the sandbox.

(aplogogies for having no idea how to spell Chanaka or dreidal)

Posted by: Den at December 21, 2005 12:20 PM

Although I think the chances of Bush getting impeached right now are very slim. Public opinion may be way down, but until the sitting GOP members start feeling like their own political lives are at stake, they still control the congress. And there can't be any impeachment if the Senate won't call for one.


Point of order: It is the House that drafts articles of impeachment first. The Senate then serves as the jury to determine if the president should be removed from office. So, the Senate can't block a president from being impeached by the House, but they can refuse to remove him from office.

Still, you are right, the GOP in the House are not likely to vote to impeach him for illegally spying on US citizens, even if the worst case scenario turns out to be true and he used wiretapping against political enemies insted of terrorism suspect.

After all, that's not a really serious "high crime and misdeanor" like lying about a blow job.

And you know what? As much as I hate this current administration, I don't think an impeachment would be good for the country. The GOP, for better or worse, is in control. An impeachment would mean a total fragmentation of the controlling party, and that can't be a good thing for any American.

I don't think that's a valid concern. We are blessed with a very stable system of government and it's strong enough to withstand a split withing the GOP.

Besides, Bush has already started to drive a wedge between the social conservatives and small government conservatives in the GOP, so unless their next nominee can reunite the two factions, fragmentation of the GOP may be inevitable.

Posted by: Micha at December 21, 2005 12:21 PM

"As an atheistic evolutionist, aren't "principles" just social conventions, anyway? A layered illusion on the back of evolved animals?"

1) Religious people require morality to be something that was handed down from God. Without the validation by God, they feel there can be no morality.

2) But, why would something that was handed down from God be considered automatically moral? (Even assuming that it was handed by God, and not actually ancient human traditions interpreted by many different people over a long period of time).

3) Why should we insist on such a level of validation? especially considering the very obscure nature of god and the many different interpretations of god's will. After all, a religious society has not proven a guarentee for a moral society.

4) If morality were something else, not divine, such as social conventions, why should it be considered as "just" social conventions? Is being a social convention such an insufficient source of validity? And aren't there other sources of validity that are not divine and still have power? There are many different philosophical accounts of morality, (although still less than religious accounts)

5) In any case, morality, religious or secular is an act of choice. Whereas the laws of nature cannot be broken, in deciding to follow any moral creed we make a choice to attribute value to it. So in a sense, any morality is a human/social act.

6) I myself am a humanist, which means that the validity of my morality does not come from the divine but is based on a value attributed to humans because they are sentient (without getting into aliens and animals now). There is no objective reason why I should consider sentience valuable any more than that I place value on God's will. But I do. The only difference is that sentient beings are known entities and God is not so familiar.

7) However, not all people are humanists or religious. We live in a society that has many different moral points of view. Our social conventions are the result of bargaining between these points of view. But that is not as bad as it sounds. Not long ago, African-Americans and women were viewed by social convention to be inferior. By appealing to the humanist idea that they are also humans deserving the same considerations, as well as appeal to the religious idea that they are all made in god's image, leaders of these groups were able to change social convention. Would that have been possible had this inferiority been validated as God's will?

Anyway, I hope this is a sufficient answer:

It should be noted that an evolutionary account of morality would say that morality was something in our genes that helped the human species survive, not a social convention. It should also be noted that since society is not an illusion, social conventions should not be considered illusions either.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 21, 2005 12:23 PM

just when I think I'm out they pull me back in...

Bobb, good points.

I realize that this would not necessarily inoculate Bush from accusations of illegality. Hell, Nixon thought that by definition he couldn't break the law--anyone who used him as a precedent would be unfettered.

We have some lawyer types here. It isn't unusual for a president to assert executive privalge or powers and then have them later determined to be invalid. If Bush argues that his Attorney general and other legal scholars determined that precedent and the war powers act allowed him to do this, how likely is it that he would be impeached?

And this is all aside from the fact that I'm guessing that the majority of Americans will not support even a hint of such talk if it turns out that this was done on terror suspects. Note to those who don't read carefully--I'm not saying I agree with that. (I'm also not "attacking" them).

I can't go as far as you did...there does come a point where the right to untapped phones is superseded by protecting our lives...but I'd rather err on the side of privacy, for now. But I'd like to see how this all plays out.

Posted by: Bobb at December 21, 2005 01:05 PM

"there does come a point where the right to untapped phones is superseded by protecting our lives"

The law aggrees with you. That point ends 72 hours after the wiretaping begins.

In any case, Bill, Merry Holiday/Happy Christmas/insert whatever non-offensive holiday greeting fits you.

Having just watched the I Shouldn't Be Alive where the couple and their newborn son get stuck for something like 8 days in a snowstorm, remember to bring some food, water, and for heavans's sake, some winter clothing and blankets, just in case. If for no other reason than when my wife makes me pack all that stuff for our own trip this weekend, I won't feel like the only one that's acting a little paranoid. :)

Posted by: Robbnn at December 21, 2005 01:14 PM

I'm a guy. :)

Missed this: "Are we creating monsters, fighting to give us a better world, but one that has no place for the monsters? And if so, what does that make us?"

I wouldn't use the term "monster" but "warrior", and since warriors are people and people are very adaptable, most can still fit into that better world. That would make us "wise as serpents" I think.


"A better question may be, are creating new monsters that will one day turn around and bite us in the ass? (See: Osama bin Laden, Fidel Castro
)"

This IS a better question and one we need to consider most intently.


Tim,

Where does this "moral duty" come from? Am I wrong if I disagree with this "moral duty" (not saying I do, but if I did)? The rest of what you said can be attributed to... (okay, I won't say that name because it ends converstations, how about...) Gangis Kahn. He was trying to make the world a better place for his loved ones.

Will,

Spot on. Completely and utterly unassailable.

Micha,

Why are they illusions if they don't come from God? Because then the morals you live by are no more valid than those, say, a facist holds. What makes you right and Castro wrong?

You make a good point about there being several religions and therefore several moral imperatives from several gods. Ultimately that's why we can't enforce moral laws through legislation unless breaking them harms others.

I do believe social progression is possible within a religious community. People are the problem with morality (like the laws of nature, we grow in our under of them, likewise with moral laws) and our expression of them may change.

Can morality be on a genetic level? Evolution is "concerned" with the survival of the individual, not the species. Or am I misunderstanding?

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 21, 2005 01:25 PM

Evolution is "concerned" with the survival of the individual, not the species. Or am I misunderstanding?

Actually it's the opposite. It is only concerned with the species. There are many species where the vast majority of individuals don't even have the possibility of reproducing and their individual survival is of no concern even to themselves- ants, for example.

Ok, I mean it. I'm turning off the computer.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 21, 2005 01:27 PM

Robbnn,

Where does this "moral duty" come from?

From within. You have no better answer if I were to ask you the same question, since I don't accept "from God" as a meaningful answer.

Am I wrong if I disagree with this "moral duty" (not saying I do, but if I did)?

There's no answer I can give here that will satisfy you. If I say "no", then you'll claim it's not really a moral code compared to yours. If I say "yes", you'll condemn me for inflexibility.

The rest of what you said can be attributed to... (okay, I won't say that name because it ends converstations, how about...) Gangis Kahn. He was trying to make the world a better place for his loved ones.

Ah. I see.

Bill and Jerome, I do hope it's okay if I get offended *now*.

Robbnn -- you asked where my principles came from. I told you. You've now likened me to Genghis Khan.

My invitation to piss off is hereby reinstated. And you may rest assured that your own divine moral code contains all sorts of stuff that has been said by horrible people as well.

Happy to help. Now please go away. You're part of the problem now.

TWL

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at December 21, 2005 01:37 PM

Tim, if I may. Moral barometers come in all shapes and sizes. I've no doubt that much of you direction at this point in your life comes from within. These values were planted there by individuals and experiences. Without acknowledging this, you potentially set yourself up for someone to reply that no man is an island and without an outside influence, one has no constant to get one's moral bearings. Don't fall into that trap. ;)

Fred

Posted by: Micha at December 21, 2005 01:43 PM

1) "Why are they illusions if they don't come from God? Because then the morals you live by are no more valid than those, say, a facist holds. What makes you right and Castro wrong?"

The disputed assumption is that morals have to be as true or as false as mathematical or logical or scientific facts. But maybe the question should not be about right or wrong, but about consequences? If I and Castro share humanistic principles, then the argument would be, whether our actions help or harm humans, and this is something that can be examined. If on the other hand we do not share the same humanistic assumptions, then, still for me, the relevant question is not being right, but whether the actions cause harm to other humans.

2) "You make a good point about there being several religions and therefore several moral imperatives from several gods. Ultimately that's why we can't enforce moral laws through legislation unless breaking them harms others."

True

3) "I do believe social progression is possible within a religious community. People are the problem with morality (like the laws of nature, we grow in our under of them, likewise with moral laws) and our expression of them may change."

It all amounts to the same thing, whether religious or secular, our morals are a social phenomenon. In both cases we are struggling to understand what is right or wrong to do in a changing reality.

"Can morality be on a genetic level? Evolution is "concerned" with the survival of the individual, not the species. Or am I misunderstanding?"

Actually, according to Richard Dawkins's Selfish Gene, it is the survival of the gene, not the individual. The assumption is that humans (or some of them) had in their genetic makeup that caused them to act "morally", and that these genes helped these humans survive, and so passed on to future generations of humans. This is not so strange, since we know other animals have herds or packs, and have certain instincts that govern their behavior. It is reasonable to assume that parents' instinct to care for their offsprings has something to do with the fact that they share genes. This does not make the love of a mother to her child any less real.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 21, 2005 01:46 PM

Fred,

Oh, I'll acknowledge it; that trap's a non-starter.

However, I'm not falling into the broader trap of discussing morality with Robbnn any more. I'm sick of the likes of him, reputing to want to understand others while really handing down condemnation with a broad and ever-sanctimonious smile.

I show my morality by my deeds, by how I treat the world and other people. Robbnn and his ilk are inclined to say that that somehow "doesn't count" because I don't use the right buzzwords while being a decent human being.

I have put up with that sort of crap for years, and I will not in any way shape or form put up with it here.

Grownups don't need a morality that's imposed from without. Robbnn's already said that if his faith were to go away, so would his morals. Mine won't.

And that is where I intend to leave that.

TWL

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 21, 2005 02:03 PM

Actually, one more point comes to mind.

People are wondering where that moral code I described above could come from.

One place, quite honestly, is an understanding of science. When you understand how the world generally works and how interconnected everything truly is, it's awfully difficult to take a viewpoint that then says, in effect "cool -- I've got mine, so you can all jump off a cliff." We're on the same cliff.

So that's one area that's shaped my views. It's perhaps not as deep in some people's eyes as hearing a reformed drunk saying that his favorite philosopher is Jesus Christ, but I think it's significant.

TWL

Posted by: Robbnn at December 21, 2005 02:15 PM

Tim,
I didn't compare you to Gengis Kahn, I said he could claim the same thing. There is no "trap." I'm not debating you, or trying to give you enough rope or make you say something you'll regret, I'm asking questions to understand. That's what grownups do. I'm not comparing your beliefs with mine, I'm trying to understand yours. Without my faith, I would do as Will says, live to find pleasure and avoid pain. Also as he says, my pleasures can be a bit extreme...

Why must everything be a trap? To suggest I'm trying to trap you into something is awfully cynical. Is that what you were doing with Iowa Jim? Draw him out so you can slap him down? His beliefs can be examined but yours can't?

Bill and Micha, thank you for the correction on evolution.

Micha, how do you get everyone to define "harm" in the same way? Communism does believe it's better for the people. We disagree, but who are we to say? Liberals promote globalism, but doesn't that require all of us being on the same page (which we clearly aren't). Conservatives are nationalists, recognizing that to get the world together they must embrace a single philosophy. Bush says that philosophy is Democracy. He's taking the first steps of globalization and getting shot down for it...

Rob "and his ilk" attempt to understand through discussion. The questions from my side will be from my worldview, but I have not and will not condemn others. I have not called anyone ignorant, inflexible, or damned. I am firmly of the belief that if God wants you in His camp he will light the fire in your heart; I have no matches. Tim, meanwhile, has condemned me. ?

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 21, 2005 02:38 PM

Robbnn,

I don't think everything is a trap. I also don't think you have a real interest in how I think, though -- given how breezily you brought Genghis Khan into it, it's clear that you don't think I've got a real moral code, or at least that I haven't satisfactorily explained its origins.

And I'm not prepared to continue the conversation on that basis. I'm sorry that ... well, actually, I'm not especially sorry that disturbs you. Honesty trumps diplomacy this time.

You say you're only asking questions to understand. Fine. Ask ones that don't imply a lack of morality on the part of your fellow conversationalists, and I'll consider coming back to the table. Your current questions, to put it mildly, aren't fitting the bill -- they continue to imply that you're mystified I'm not out raping and pillaging without the threat of some sort of cosmic comeuppance, and it's hard for me to understand why you don't understand how offensive that is.

As I said previously, I've explained my moral code. You appear to be questioning its validity. That is your right, but don't expect me to be sitting idly by while you do so.

TWL

Posted by: Robbnn at December 21, 2005 03:00 PM

Tim,

I DO think you have a moral code, I am NOT implying you're out raping and pillaging. I don't know why you insist on going there. I haven't discussed a singe example of your morality (I doubt the examples would be all that different than mine, though your politics are).

Like the evolution argument, I'm not talking about evolution of your moral code but the abiogenisis of it (see, I am listening). I'm glad you have one (you teach children, I'm VERY glad you have one). It comes from within you. I only brought up Kahn because he could say the same thing about his code. I could have said the same thing about Dr. Schwietzer. I am hearing a disconnect from you is why I'm questioning it. Will gave, IMO, a very sound, irrefutable rationalization. Micha did too. Yours comes from within you. Iowa Jim's understanding of evolution comes from within him. Ya'll didn't like that answer and challenged him, then challenged him again when he went off to regroup. You don't want to discuss it, fine.

Should I be offended because you don't see how offensive it is when you question my intentions, when I've stated them clearly? Yes, I question your moral code's validity (as in why they would be valid beyond yourself, not that the morals themselves are suspect.) I'm not asking you to sit idly by, but I'm not attacking you, either.

Sheesh.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 21, 2005 05:53 PM

Robbnn,

I DO think you have a moral code, I am NOT implying you're out raping and pillaging. I don't know why you insist on going there.

Well, let's see. I describe my moral code, you tell me that Genghis Khan could have said precisely the same thing about his, and you wonder why I'm offended.

A few possibilities come to mind:

1) You honestly don't see how your statement could be seen as drawing a deeply offensive comparison. If that's the case, then we have so little common ground as to make a discussion of morality meaningless.

2) You can understand how it's easy to interpret your statement in the way I'm doing, but don't care. In that case, I've no interest in engaging you in the discussion, since you're just going to continue engaging in heedless offense.


Either way, it is bad for Zathras ... and for the continued discussion.


I am hearing a disconnect from you is why I'm
questioning it.

Fine. That's a valid statement. My question in return: what precisely is the disconnect you're hearing? If you answer that, then maybe we can get somewhere.

Yours comes from within you. Iowa Jim's understanding of evolution comes from within him. Ya'll didn't like that answer and challenged him, then challenged him again when he went off to regroup. You don't want to discuss it, fine.

Oh, horseshit.

Robbnn, evolution is a scientific process, and one that Jim was incorrectly defining during his discussion. Understanding that does not "come from within" someone -- it's a matter of education and understanding how science works. That's not challenging some inner code he has, that's correcting him on a question of fact. I corrected him, Bill corrected him, Luigi corrected him, and Jerome's pet parakeet probably corrected him in private e-mail.

How you can even conceive of drawing a comparison there only shows why this conversation is past pointless (not to mention ones on evolution). Thus, I suspect this is the last time I'm going to contribute to it unless it starts going somewhere constructive fast.

Sheesh.

On that we agree.

TWL

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at December 21, 2005 06:36 PM

That "Genghis Khan" argument could be used for literally any moral code, from Dawkins' near-violent atheism to Mother Teresa's sincere Catholicism. It's one of the basics of good fiction, and of reality as well - no one ever considers himself a villain. Everyone will claim that whatever they do is justified - and the worse it is, the more likely it is that the justification will involve the "greater good".

In short, Tim, the comparison is utterly meaningless, and getting angry over it has no point. Your opposite number in this conversation needs to work a bit on the ol' rhetoric, though...

Posted by: Micha at December 21, 2005 07:42 PM

It is necessary to distinguish between science and morality. Let's take the example of killing someone. Suppose person A is considering killing person B. All science can tell you about it is to describe the related phenomenon that generally occur when a person is killed. These can be biological phenomena, chemical, social, historical, psychological etc. These generalizations are scientific laws. However, science cannot tell us why thou shall not kill.

So why not to kill?

A religious person will say that he does not kill because it is forbidden by God (or laws ascribed to god).
A humanist will say that he doesn't kill because he ascribes value to human life.
An egotist, because he fears harm to himself.
And so on.
In each case the person is doing something similar to that of the scientist, he makes an observation that killing is against god's law, or will result in harm to himself etc. But when you ask each of them, why should you follow god's laws, why ascribe value to human life, why does it matter if you yourself are harmed? There is no way to answer that question. This is beyond scientific observation, it is a moral choice. Evolution and antropology may tell us that humans have a tendancy to attribute value to the authority of god, or to other humans, or to their own well being. The sympathy I feel to the suffering of another may very well be the result of evolution. Yet, still I have a choice to ignore that sympathy. I have no choice about obeying the laws of physics.

"How do you get everyone to define "harm" in the same way?"

Supposedly the argument between those who support the war in Iraq and those who oppose it is that the first consider the war to be beneficial, and the other think it is harmful. However the argument is not about the definition of harm, or whether harm is something good or bad. The argument then is not about moral choice, it is about observation and prediction -- is the war harmful or beneficial? Will it be harmful or beneficial in the future? etc. Many but not all moral arguments are not about defining harm.

However, in the case of abortion defining harm is difficult, both because of the problem of definning life, and because of references to harm to the soul.

The case of racism is also difficult, because racists don't consider harm to inferior races to be bad.

But even in these cases the sides of the argument tend to refer to similar concepts of harm, so that a moral argument is not futile.

Micha

Posted by: Robbnn at December 21, 2005 10:52 PM

Or...

3) It is a logical comparison showing the subjectivity of an inner moral compass. I.E. the moral basis is the same in either case; it is subjective and therefore it can't be universal. Anyone's inner compass must be as valid as anyone else's. You refer to a "moral duty" and the disconnect is where does that moral duty come from. If it comes from within, then it is subjective; my within doesn't match your within, so who's is valid and who's is not? By taking offense, you're saying your way is right and how dare I disagree? I should live up to your morals and not be offensive. My morals say I wasn't offensive.

IF God exists, and IF he has issued a moral code, THEN anyone's behavior can be held up to that code for validity. Genghis Kahn's falls short. So does mine.

Science is a process; Logic is a process. I understand the difference. Both can be examined for inconsistancies, though, and emotion is a great way to cloud the issue. Taking offense because a question is raised is your right, but it's hardly helpful.

Micha discusses consequences, which is helpful in determining universal application, if you can get everyone to agree to terms, or they must be encoded into law. The Law is an outside construct imposing a lawful code. She is also right in saying most of us come to a moral agreement of sorts by various means; God, Humanism, Centrism. The gray areas tend to get greyer, though. Urg, I'm too tired to make sense....

Posted by: Jason at December 22, 2005 12:46 AM

Time out: everyone grab a relaxing beverage of their choice and chug it. Repeat as necessary.

Happy Chrismahanakwanzaka everyone. Or just enjoy your day off next week... whatever floats your boat...

Why am I thinking of the school play from the first South Park holiday show? (Happy, Happy, Happy... Everybody's Happy)

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at December 22, 2005 01:02 AM

No time off for me - just recently landed a job as a night auditor/front desk clerk at the local Hilton, and as the junior guy on shift, I get those nights. (Besides, the current night auditor just got out of the Navy, and hasn't been back to see his mother in NC for three years, so...)

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 22, 2005 06:56 AM

Robbnn, this is clearly pointless. I don't think either one of us is paying the slightest bit of attention to the other. (I will say, though, that "where does that moral duty come from?" is not a disconnect. It's a question. Please use words correctly.)

Have a good holiday.

TWL

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at December 22, 2005 07:12 AM

>Or...

>3) It is a logical comparison showing the subjectivity of an inner moral compass. I.E. the moral basis is the same in either case; it is subjective and therefore it can't be universal. Anyone's inner compass must be as valid as anyone else's. You refer to a "moral duty" and the disconnect is where does that moral duty come from. If it comes from within, then it is subjective; my within doesn't match your within, so who's is valid and who's is not? By taking offense, you're saying your way is right and how dare I disagree? I should live up to your morals and not be offensive. My morals say I wasn't offensive.

>IF God exists, and IF he has issued a moral code, THEN anyone's behavior can be held up to that code for validity. Genghis Kahn's falls short. So does mine.

Not sure I agree with a Christian moral code kacing subjectivity. Wasn't it Robinson who recently said that we should kill a leader in order to save money. He certainly appeared to believes what he was saying, yet several other prominent Christians denounced his words and he eventually caved to the pressure and said he spoke out of line. Abortion clinic bombings, justified war theory, voting for a pro-life candidate, obstaining from alcohol, etc. These are just a few examples that my not-yet-awake brain is coming up with. Subjectivity exists not only wihin those who believe in God, but within any religious sect that has more than 1 person.

Fred

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 22, 2005 07:15 AM

But ... okay, fine, one last time.

Where does the moral duty I mentioned come from?

I think I answered this before, at least in part -- but it comes from a recognition of our shared humanity and our shared world. Given how interconnected things pretty much always turn out to be upon further examination, you should always assume that harm you cause is going to rebound back on you at some point and in some way.

There. Is that an answer that is more what you had in mind?

And since you're now trying to argue that you've only been following logical consequences ... a logical flaw exists in your justification for using the Genghis Khan comparison, kiddo. You're now saying that it's showing the subjectivity of an inner moral compass -- but you drew the comparison before you even waited for my answer about where said moral code came from. Either you're clairvoyant and knew what my answer was going to be in advance, or you're ... well, let's leave it at "mistaken" when you describe your motives after the fact.

Y'know, it wouldn't have been hard for you to apologize. A simple "I have not been meaning to cause offense, but I can see how my phrasing could upset you, and I apologize for any offense I might have inadvertently caused" would have worked wonders here. Instead you've been accusing me of taking offense in order to avoid any actual discussion. How exactly does that fit in with your moral code? Does said code read something like "don't worry about causing offense, because You Are Right"?

Now I really am done with this.

TWL

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at December 22, 2005 08:34 AM

No your not, Tim. :p

Posted by: Den at December 22, 2005 08:48 AM

he eventually caved to the pressure and said he spoke out of line.

Actually, he just gave a mealy-mouthed excuse that he was misquoted - by the video cameras in his own TV studio.

Robertson is an example of the kind of people who believe that they are so righteous that anything they say or do is justified because it's for the "greater good." I sincerely doubt his moral code comes from God. It comes from his own ego.

You can find people with this kind of mentality in any kind of belief system, both religious and nonreligious.

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at December 22, 2005 09:04 AM

Den, that was my point. Subjectivity, rationalization and personal interpretation enters into every religious organization and its participants that I've ever encountered or read about.

Fred

Posted by: Robbnn at December 22, 2005 09:24 AM

Tim,

Actually, yes, that answers it.

Your use of the words "it comes from within me" IS subjective. Left at that, anyone can justify their actions, so the Kahn reference wasn't clairvoyant. I stand by that is was a logical comparison, but I am sorry you were offended (and I apologize for not believing you were truly offended.)

Scrolling back up to find where you had addressed this before, I saw a post I hadn't seen before where we must have posted at the same time (the one where said we're all on the same cliff). So my bad; I wasn't "not listening," I missed one. The word "disconnect" came from that question and applying it to what I understood of your worldview. A "moral duty" sounds like a platonic form - something that pre-exists "out there" and not "in here" hence the disconnect in my mind.

Robertson, Fred Phelps, and such simply prove my point. You know and I know they fall short of a godly moral standard. I fall short of it constantly. The moral standard I try to adhere to is far more difficult than one I would invent. With an objective moral standard, you've got a yard stick. We have the same problem as the Humanist philosophy in that we may not agree on terms, but ultimately you've got accountability and at the end of it all, judgment (by God).

Are your moral codes easy to measure up to?

Posted by: Bobb at December 22, 2005 09:34 AM

"I sincerely doubt his moral code comes from God. It comes from his own ego."

But the problem is, Robertson doesn't see it that way. This is the danger of large-scale organized religion. On the plus side, the amount of money it can generate from the donations (we can discuss later whether it's a tithe or not) of the congregation, pooled together, can be used for a lot of constructive purposes.

But when the folks at the top, directing all that power that comes from loyalty and devotion, believe that they can open themselves up to God, receive his instruction, or have God act through them, you enter a dangerous place where anything can be (and has been) justified as doing the will of God.

Put another way, when you say you're just riding in the boat, and God's steering, you step away from personal responsibility, and the only thing keeping you from trodding all over everyone else's rights is a continuing sense that God wants you to restrain yourself. Once that restraint is gone, any outward appearance of morals vanishes. But to you, the person thinking you're doing God's will, you remain the most moral of people, because your morals are "whatever God tells me to do."

The movie Frailty is an excellent example. And a good, creepy movie, to boot. It shows what can happen when one's perception of reality is so skewed by religion. The film certainly opens up the possibility (spoilers for those that haven't seen it here) that the family is touched by God in a very real way, and that the killing they do is indeed working on God's behalf. But to the rest of the world, they just look like every other psychotic serial killer.

So, is one (religious/societal moral code or internal belief system) better than the other? That depends on your viewpoint...to the person getting killed at the hand of a Christian Crusader, no, the religious moral code kinda sucks. To the person getting killed by the serial killer that thinks it's ok to kill homeless people, well, that internal moral code sucks as well.

The thing is, Robbnn seems to be looking for a way to validate the moral codes we all have. Simply put, there isn't. There's no objective measuring stick to put everyone's set of morals against. Society's laws attempt to codify some of the more common ones, but even those are not all communually accepted.

We all start out as selfishly oriented individuals, only concerned with our own needs and wants. Anyone with a newborn can tell you that. It's only as we grow older that we learn that sometimes our own desires have to take a back seat to other things. Whatever moral code you have, it comes from your family, your friends, religion in some cases, education (as Tim's description seems to be one based on a heightened understanding of the interelation of all things to all other things), and personal experiences. Given that, to expect that there would be some universal, base set of morals seems rather foolish to me.

Robbnn said "IF God exists, and IF he has issued a moral code, THEN anyone's behavior can be held up to that code for validity." Which is true, but it contains the same problems any discussion of a moral code: what is God's code? People have been debating the finer points of the Bible for centuries. The best, and some of the not-so best, minds have attempted to discern the single, true message of that book. So even IF God did put a message about Life, the Universe and Everything in the Bible, we've not been able to agree what that is in over 2000 years.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 22, 2005 09:46 AM

Your use of the words "it comes from within me" IS subjective. Left at that, anyone can justify their actions, so the Kahn reference wasn't clairvoyant.

Timestamps are wonderful things.

You asked me where said moral code came from at 1:14 yesterday afternoon.

I answered you at 1:27 (with the "within me" part).

You made the Genghis Khan reference at 1:14, before my answer had appeared. Thus, you made the reference at the same time as you asked the question. That makes it extraordinarily difficult to claim that the reference is in response to my answer.

I leave it to better philosophers than I as to what this all means in the larger scope of your own moral code.

TWL

Posted by: Den at December 22, 2005 09:54 AM

Bobb, you are absolutely right, religion has been used to justify all sorts of atrocities. So has nationalism and ethnic pride.

The reason why I'm not a believer in large-scale organized religion is the very reason you mention: Sooner or later, it becomes more about money and power then about morality. I personally believe that one's spiritual path should be a personal thing and not subject to the external dogmas demands of people who are more interested in their own self-egrandisement then in helping people.

Posted by: Robbnn at December 22, 2005 10:13 AM

Okay, you're right. I was wrong. I thought I was responding to one thing and misrepresented what I was actually responding to. I went back and checked and found that I'd included my justification in the comment:

"The rest of what you said can be attributed to... (okay, I won't say that name because it ends converstations, how about...) Gangis Kahn. He was trying to make the world a better place for his loved ones."

No clairvoyance, no saying "you ARE Kahn", not even saying "you are like Kahn" just "Kahn could say the same thing". Honestly, Tim, this wouldn't offend me. I am SORRY you took offense to this. If I knew you in person, probably why you took such offense would make sense to me, but it was never my intent to offend.

Bobb, yes, anyone who is not under accountability can be whacked out. We are sinners all. I believe there is a standard that we are all answerable to, though. I am interested in the question of globalization, which seems to be a liberal desire, yet when everyone does what is right in their own eyes, globalization isn't remotely possible. Bush seems to be taking the first steps of globalization by trying to bring democracy to the Middle East, which can work because capitalism turns selfishness somewhat to good ends. I doubt globalization will work in our lifetimes (well, not in mine, anyway, I'm older than most of you, I think).

Anyway, Tim, thank you for sticking with it so long. I'm sorry it couldn't have been a smoother ride. It has been instructive and I appreciate your persistance.

Happy Holiday's, all. Or, just Happy-Happy for those to which that applies.

Posted by: Bobb at December 22, 2005 10:46 AM

Is it Festivus time yet?

To all those travelling this weekend and next, safe journies, and return here so we can all engage in more philosphical/religious/political debate.

oh, and talk about PAD's comics, too.

Posted by: Jerome Maida at December 22, 2005 10:48 AM

Tim,
"and Jerome's pet parakeet probably corrected him in private e-mail"

How did you know I have a pet parakeet?!?! You really do have a gift:)
Seriously, though, I would like to wish you and everyone a Happy Holiday Season. Just enjoy it. Life is too short not to enjoy as many moments as you can.
On that, I think we all can agree.

Posted by: James Carter at December 22, 2005 10:56 AM

"No clairvoyance, no saying "you ARE Kahn", not even saying "you are like Kahn" just "Kahn could say the same thing"."


I can't resist:

KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHN!!!
KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHN!!!

Happy/Merry Whatever, everybody.

Posted by: Robbnn at December 22, 2005 12:29 PM

...but like a bad marksman, you keep. missing. the target...

I love that movie. :)

Posted by: Iowa Jim at December 22, 2005 12:33 PM

Ouch. I apologize to one and all for this becoming an "evolution" debate. (I will leave any pun about this discussion "evolving" in better hands than mine.)

That said, it has been educational to read the posts. Your posts have amply illustrated the differences we have in worldviews. Which is a good discussion to have.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 22, 2005 01:38 PM

I just goes to show you something deficiant in my moral makeup that the only part that really got me excited was when someone mentioned the movie "Frailty".

(VERY underrated, btw).

Well, I made it to PA. No snow this time, a rare thing indeed. My New York relatives, liberal Democrats all, are ready to tar and feather the transit union ( Do ANY of the dues go toward paying someone who understands public relations) but they managed to send me my presents, including (yeah I peeked, can you PROVE that our Lord wasn't born on the 21st? Can you? Huh? Then shaddup.) a book on how to do really gory makeup effects. Life.Is. Good.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 22, 2005 03:17 PM

How did you know I have a pet parakeet?!?!

That ... would be telling. :-)

Congrats to Bill on making it to PA intact. Tomorrow's our turn -- we're driving down to DC to spend Christmas with Lisa's family. (A serious mix both politically and religiously, so interesting conversations are bound to be had.) A 4-6 hour drive with a 1-year-old; wish us luck.

And Bill, if you feel like giving the title of that effects book (once it's "officially" yours), I've got a friend back in California who'd probably adore it.

Echoed thanks to PAD for giving us all this forum to vent spleens and other assorted internal organs, and a happy (belated) solstice to all!

TWL

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 22, 2005 05:11 PM

Tim
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/087830178X/qid=1135289248/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-7363211-7093661?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

It's called Special Effects Make-Up by Janus Vinther

Very very nice.

If your friend is interested in some low budget ideas for horror movies have him get in touch with me. We've managed to come up with some particularly nasty and effective stuff on a zero budget. I'm convinced that there isn't much you can't do with cotton, gelatin and food coloring.

I may end up having to make a website that shares some of this stuff. Most of my ideas have been outgrowths of stuff I found on the web and I'd like to give some back.

Posted by: Micha at December 22, 2005 08:15 PM

First of all, Micha or Micah or Michah is the name of a man. It is a hebrew biblical name of a small prophet. I am an Israeli living in Jerusalem.

The make a moral choice based on the inner belief that it is the right thing to do is equally as subjective as making a moral choice based on the inner belief that this choice is right according to God's moral code.

This would be true even if God's moral code was easily available and understood by us all in the same way without ambiguities. In fact how do we even know that God's moral code is a good moral code?

The fact that what we do have are many ancient texts full of contradictions and ambiguities and even more interpretations, makes things even more difficult.

Nor is there any objective system of accountability that can help us assess what is moraly right to do, the way that experiments can tell us that our scientific hypotheses are correct. Robynn may believe that Ghengis Khan is toasting in hell. But we have no objective verification. During his lifetime no sign was given to indicate with certainty that he was acting moraly wrong, but thte only justification we have is our belief that killing a lot of people is wrong.

"I am interested in the question of globalization, which seems to be a liberal desire, yet when everyone does what is right in their own eyes, globalization isn't remotely possible. Bush seems to be taking the first steps of globalization by trying to bring democracy to the Middle East, which can work because capitalism turns selfishness somewhat to good ends. I doubt globalization will work in our lifetimes (well, not in mine, anyway, I'm older than most of you, I think)."

I don't exactly understand, nor am I sure your understanding of the terms are correct. The term globalization refers to the economic processes thay connect the economies of the world. It could be said that attempts to hold all the countries accountable to the same legal standards with organs such as the UN, international law, international courts of law etc, came from liberal circles. However there are some obvious problems, mainly that the system is politicized. It is interesting that many Neo-Cons were former liberals. Also note, capitalism and democracy are two seperate things."


Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 22, 2005 09:43 PM

Why is everyone picking on Ghengis Khan? Yeah, a lot of people died during his wars of conquest but that doesn't make him any worse than Alexander. By many accounts he was a fairly enlightened conqueror.

Ok, ok, I know, Yarnek, the big rock alien from Star Trek's THE SAVAGE CURATIN included him in the Rogues Gallery of Evil but why should we accept the opinion of an alien that, frankly, looks like Marmaduke just took a dump on the carpet?

Posted by: James Carter at December 22, 2005 11:02 PM

"Robynn may believe that Ghengis Khan is toasting in hell. But we have no objective verification."

This reminds me of an idea I read in C. S. Lewis' "A Grief Observed" where he was discussing the question of why God allowed suffering. He said that one possible explanation was a kind of "Extreme Calvinism" and that we were so far removed from God that what he saw as good we would see as evil, and vice versa. So compassion, generosity and so on would be bad, whilst hatred would be good.

While I don't subscibe to that idea, I do believe that God is so far above our understanding that religion is little more than a guideline. While (as a Christian) I belive that the big J.C. is "the way the truth and the life" I also can't believe in a God who would allow a murderer to go to Heaven after a conversion, but send Mahatma Ghandi to hell.

Posted by: Rex Hondo at December 23, 2005 07:19 AM

Bill, also, let us not forget that Yarnek only had what he could pull from the Enterprise crew's minds to work with, which is why his version of Khaless was fairly despicable, not to mention flat-foreheaded.

Besides, when one believes in reincarnation, it generally removes Hell from the equation altogether. So, ol' Ghengis would probably be wandering around still, working off karmic debts and moving ever closer to ultimate enlightenment.

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 23, 2005 01:01 PM

Rex, if that's the case, shouldn't the world be becoming an ever better place? If people are all trying to work off their previous karmic debts how do we end up with a Hitler or Mao--is it possible that they are the reincarnation of someone even WORSE?

Not a beiever in reincarnation though it has a tremendous amount of appeal--it would certainly help explain why certain historical events are so appealing to me while others illicit a shrug. (My big problem with reincarnationis that people who follow it always manage to trace their lineage back to Charlamane or Joan of Arc or some of the other major figures of history. Since the vast vast vast majority of people are not the major figures of history, that seems pretty unlikely. How come nobody ever undergoes hypnotic regression and ends up discovering that they are the reincarnation of the guy who cleaned Charlamane's stables or some French peasent who said "Hey look, there goes Joan of Arc?")

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at December 23, 2005 02:25 PM

is it possible that they are the reincarnation of someone even WORSE?

I suppose that's possible.

I mean, until the last couple of hundred years, you really couldn't go genocidal on the human race as a whole - most of the worst people of hundreds or thousands of years past had their own little corner of the globe to ruin, instead of the entire world. :)

That's more of a modern thing, due to modern methods of warfare and other wonderful creations of the human mind (such as gassing chambers).

Posted by: Bladestar at December 23, 2005 02:32 PM

I don't believe in karma, but Re-incarnation is one of those fun things. If reincarnation is real, what purpose does it actually serve?

What, if any, memories, tendencies, personality traits, etc carry over between lives? How long is the gap between the end of one's life and the new beginning in a reincarnated form, and what happens in that interim? Are they somehow aware that they've had past lives, and compare notes on them, before being sent to a fresh start with no recollection of the past lives?

Is the declining animal population the result of the increasing human population? Are there a finite number of "souls/spirits/consciouses" on earth? For another being to be born, does one have to die?

All fun and exciting questions...

Posted by: Den at December 23, 2005 02:35 PM

I'm no expert, but don't some religions teach that there are "old souls" and "young souls"? As some of the older souls achieve nirvanna, they move on to the next plain of existence while the young souls continue on in this one? Certainly, with a world population at about 6.5 billion, there are a lot more souls on Earth then have ever been here before. Maybe the Hitlers and Pol Pots of the world represent the young souls that haven't "learned" yet and are still accruing massive karmic.

Although, I have to admit that the idea of Hitler being continuously reborn until he learns not to commit genocide is a pretty chilling one.

Posted by: Bladestar at December 23, 2005 03:16 PM

Especially, if you believe in eveil, who says a reincarnated Hitler is trying to to "better" in terms of being a good human, rather than "better" in terms of more evil, violent and destructive?

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 23, 2005 03:58 PM

Are there a finite number of "souls/spirits/consciouses" on earth? For another being to be born, does one have to die?

This is all starting to sound extremely Minbari to me. Who else here (apart from Peter, of course, since he wrote the thing) is thinking of the Delenn/Garibaldi conversation in "Soul Mates"?

TWL

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 23, 2005 04:28 PM

I had an idea once for a seriel killer who was convinced that he was actually ridding the world of the "soulless"; that once we reached the point where there were more people living on Earth than had ever lived before, an increasingly larger proportion of those born were without souls. And he was taking them out. Never really figured out what to do with it, I was just trying to come up with lots of seriel killers for a great idea I had about a seriel killer convention...you know how this ends, right?

(And the worse part is that Gaimen's story was about 300 times better than ANYTHING I ever would have done, so I'm left with nothing to bitch about. It's one thing when some piece of crap Sci Fi channel dud comes out with the same idea you had and you can smugly think "Oh well, they should have come to me!" but when they actually do it and it's better than your wildest dreams...THAT hurts!)

Bladstar--I wondered about some of what you say too--what's the point of coming back when so much of what makes me me are factors that would not apply in this new life?

Posted by: Bladestar at December 23, 2005 05:41 PM

Hey Bill,

That kinda ties into the "why" are you coming back thing.

Maybe the whole point is all the past life stuff is "buried" and subconsious, part of the whole nature vs. nuture argument about what shapes a person.

Fun stuff if you don't want to fall asleep and give your self insomnia :)

Posted by: Rex Hondo at December 23, 2005 10:08 PM

Well, one thing to keep in mind is that proponents of reincarnation are just like those of any other spiritual belief in that you'll find as many beliefs as people, and the wingnuts are always going to be the ones shouting for attention the loudest. Five people claim to be Joan of Arc, odds are all five are nutbars and the REAL reincarnation of Joan either doesn't know it, or knows it and is content to sit back and laugh at the loonies.

Now, for myself at least, my beliefs in reincarnation are built, firstly, on personal experience. (This is where people either want to know more or decide I'm one of the wingnuts) Secondly is my belief in God as an infinitely patient parental figure. We are his (or her or it's or their) children, and I don't believe a loving parent would condemn a child to ETERNAL hell. Now, I'm fairly certain there's some sort of hell for those whose lives are particularly atrocious (Hitler) but one that is as bad and lasts as long as is appropriate before said soul being sent back to continue it's journey.

I'm not sure if souls pick where they get born next, or if the higher power picks, or if it's some combination of the two, but I know that we tend to come back into contact with people we've known before, either because we simply like being around them, or we have unresolved issues to take care of.

Lastly, at least for now since I should probably actually try to get some work done, much of the belief in karma and reincarnation is based on belief that there's no such thing as a truly evil soul. Honestly, that's one that I struggle with, being relatively new to search for truth outside of what I was raised with.

But then, only those on the other side know for sure, and they aren't telling...

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: Rex Hondo at December 23, 2005 10:16 PM

Whoops, one thing I wanted to address, but forgot. Why people generally don't remember things like "Gee, there goes Joan of Arc," is the same reason most people couldn't tell you what they had for dinner this evening last year. It's just not particularly memorable, and what's more in a more spiritual sense, there isn't any particular lesson to be learned from it.

Just like pretty much anybody can tell you where they were on 9/11, the things that stick out for people with (real) past life experiences are things like particularly violent and/or unpleasant deaths.

There's also a certain amount of faith involved that we remember those things that we are meant to remember when it is the right time to do so.

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: David Bjorlin at December 23, 2005 11:45 PM

Geez, I wander off for a few days and y'all forget to stop posting.

Micha: I think Richard Dawkins himself has spent much time arguing against religious thought I'm not 100% sure if his arguments are the result of an ideological animosity towards religion, or just that he feels the need to defend evolution against creationist attempts to undermine it by presenting divine creation as a legitimate scientific theory.

That isn't an either/or proposition. For one thing, if he fears that creationists are trying to undermine science, he might form a genuine animosity for them and their cause. Think of it as a scientific Red Scare. Dawkins is also on record (in The Blind Watchmaker) saying that before Darwin it was virtually impossible to be an atheist. Of atheism before Darwin, he further wrote, "I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." I'm not sure what exactly to make of that comment, but it does appear to be safe to say that a belief in evolution is part of Dawkins's world view as well as his professional opinion. It would be a little weird if he didn't form an emotional attachment to a tenet so fundamental.

Den: But nevermind the fact that, if thats the case, this also existed under Bush Sr, as well as Reagan, who I feel was far more likely to use this abuse of power than Clinton & Carter.

And your basis for this is... oh, right, they're Democrats and therefore morally superior. Gotcha.

And for what it's worth, the people who are bringing up the "why didn't you complain about X under Clinton?" aren't saying that X is okay now, so much as they're calling the complainants hypocrites who are strategically outraged. With regard to this incident, it seems to me that, "We didn't know about it until last week," would be a pretty good defense to that accusation, but only a moron would think that the only hypocrites in politics are Bush apologists.

Bill: We have some lawyer types here. It isn't unusual for a president to assert executive privalge or powers and then have them later determined to be invalid. If Bush argues that his Attorney general and other legal scholars determined that precedent and the war powers act allowed him to do this, how likely is it that he would be impeached?

Near zero. For one thing, the White House, House and Senate are controlled by the same party. The only way for Bush to be impeached would be if he had done something completely nuts, like using the NSA to wiretap political enemies, which is an allegation I've only seen on this blog, and then only in the postings of one person. So, as a practical matter, it ain't happening. But the answer would be the same if the Democrats were running Congress, for two reasons. One is that the President couched this in terms of a foreign policy operation-- note that the wiretapping was on communications that had one endpoint overseas. The President's authority over international relations is essentially untrammelled. Given that the Government has previously had an assassination department at the CIA and nobody got impeached, it's hard to claim that this is the abuse of power that someone should be impeached over. The second issue is that the Federal government is actually designed for branches to push the envelope of their authority, and promptly be shot down by the other branches when they overreach. (Q.v. Federalist #51: "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.") Simple overreaching isn't going to prompt an impeachment, particularly if the President has cover from his legal counsel. Abuse of power isn't sufficient; he'd have to abuse his power for personal gain (e.g. Watergate) to generate that level of opposition.

TWL: You have no better answer if I were to ask you the same question, since I don't accept "from God" as a meaningful answer.

Two things:
1) Whether you accept the answer isn't important. God either exists or not independent of your approval. If he exists, that implies certain things about the nature of the universe that don't require anyone's consent. Either way:
2) Whether God exists or not isn't determinative. A person's belief in a Judeo-Christian God provides him with a reason to act in a certain manner, independent of the validity of that belief. I suspect your counterargument is that it's still from "within himself" in some sense, but I think there's a fundamental distinction between "it comes from within myself because of a philosophy I've devised for myself" and "it comes from within myself because I hold certain assumptions about how the universe is constructed." Fear of what happens after death is an effective deterrent even if that fear will never, in fact, be realized.
3) Get over the Genghis Khan refrence already. It was a reductio ad absurdam comment to begin with, aimed at moral relativism generally, not at you. (Since you don't actually seem to be a moral relativist, none of this debate makes much sense to me. Let's all gang up to bash Jean-Paul Sartre instead.)

Grownups don't need a morality that's imposed from without.

Maybe you don't. Maybe I don't. But if people didn't need to be forced to behave, I wouldn't have a job. People are oversized chimpanzees, and sometimes they/we act like it. Okay, Sartre did have one thing right: hell really is other people.

Merry Christmas!

Posted by: David Bjorlin at December 23, 2005 11:50 PM

OK, that was three things rather than two things.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at December 24, 2005 02:01 AM

And your basis for this is... oh, right, they're Democrats and therefore morally superior. Gotcha.

And it's comments like this that lead me to believe you're an asshole.

But hey, even though I've called for not only Bush's head over this, but the heads of any one of those worthless morons in Congress who knew about this, that means jack shit to you, right?

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at December 24, 2005 02:07 AM

Oh, and in case you didn't get it...

For all those who feel like defending The Scum that is Bush, here's something for you to take note of:

Bush is the idiot that got caught red-handed over his latest little power trip.

Not Clinton. Or Daddy, or Reagan, or Carter.

Bush.

Maybe some of you will remember that the next time you plan on blaming Clinton for the problems that Bush created.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 24, 2005 06:56 AM

1) Whether you accept the answer isn't important.

Actually it is. If someone wasn't accepting my answer as to the source of my moral code, I think it's relevant to point out that their answer will be equally unsatisfactory to my "side" (not that there should be sides in this, but you get the idea).

A person's belief in a Judeo-Christian God provides him with a reason to act in a certain manner, independent of the validity of that belief.

Fair enough.

I trust that you also saw some of my other posts, where I did give more of an answer than "from within". I'd prefer to think that the part you're responding to here isn't what you think is the whole of my answer.

TWL


Posted by: David Bjorlin at December 24, 2005 10:53 AM

Me (responding to Den): And your basis for this is... oh, right, they're Democrats and therefore morally superior. Gotcha.

Ries: And it's comments like this that lead me to believe you're an asshole.

Understandable. I think that people who proclaim the supremacy of Democrats are assholes too. But I was being sarcastic.

Look, Den made a random ad hominem attack on Bush1 and Reagan, saying that they'd be more likely to abuse power than Carter and Clinton, with no further supporting argument. I can only assume that he meant that because of their party affiliation. Don't get huffy with me because a third person made a sloppy argument and I called him on it.

TWL: If someone wasn't accepting my answer as to the source of my moral code, I think it's relevant to point out that their answer will be equally unsatisfactory to my "side" (not that there should be sides in this, but you get the idea).

I see what you're doing, which is really what I'm getting at. I don't think the other poster had the "authority" (for lack of a better term) to deny the validity of your statement. By turning the tables, all you're really doing is duplicating that fallacy. I don't think that either of you gets to define the terms of the debate by simply refusing to accept the other's premise.

I trust that you also saw some of my other posts, where I did give more of an answer than "from within". I'd prefer to think that the part you're responding to here isn't what you think is the whole of my answer.

No, I was responding to that particular strand of argument.

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at December 24, 2005 11:34 AM

Are there a finite number of "souls/spirits/consciouses" on earth? For another being to be born, does one have to die?

This is all starting to sound extremely Minbari to me. Who else here (apart from Peter, of course, since he wrote the thing) is thinking of the Delenn/Garibaldi conversation in "Soul Mates"?

Actually, it's putting me in mind of George Carlin, on the album On the Road...

"There used to be six people, right? I mean, I avoid two, because it's controversial, but most people are willing to say, 'Yeah, at one time, there were six people.' So, six people, six souls. Six people die, six new people - still six souls. Now you've got billions of people, all claiming to have souls! Someone's printing up souls!! And it lowers their value, you know..."

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 24, 2005 12:12 PM

At least we have lots of good news coming out here at the end of the year--The IMF has decided that Iraq is stable enough to lend them $685 million dollars; the UMass Dartmouth student who claimed he was harassed by Homeland Security agents after checking out Mao's Little Red Book has admitted that it was a hoax (how anyone believed this is beyond me); a huge chache of dodo bones has been found; it turns out the Koreans aren't as far ahead of us in stem cell research as some thought they were; and best of all, research shows that playing a Didgeridoo might cure sleep apnea. I've been looking for an excuse.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at December 24, 2005 12:19 PM

Look, Den made a random ad hominem attack on Bush1 and Reagan, saying that they'd be more likely to abuse power than Carter and Clinton, with no further supporting argument.

Did Den say that? I didn't notice.

I, too, said it seemed more likely that Reagan would abuse his power in such a fashion.

Carter was too timid.

Bush Sr, based on how the Gulf War went, seemed more than willing to play by the rules (see: not taking out Saddam when we had the chance).

Reagan already proved that rules don't matter thanks to the "Must Win" attitude of the Cold War, and the Iran-Contra stuff.

If Clinton was impeached over a blowjob, just imagine what would've happened had he done something like this.

And if you want to go back a little further, is it any surprise to see such abuses of power in the Bush Administration when Cheney and Rumsfeld worked for Nixon?

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at December 24, 2005 03:10 PM

And if you want to go back a little further, is it any surprise to see such abuses of power in the Bush Administration when Cheney and Rumsfeld worked for Nixon?

The scary part is, this implies that Nixon may have been his administration's force for moderation...

Posted by: Rex Hondo at December 24, 2005 09:57 PM

Now, as I recall from HS history (which is admittedly a bit foggy, being over a decade ago) Nixon, pre-Watergate, was actually one of the better presidents of the latter part of the 20th century. The main reson he's so vilified is that HE GOT CAUGHT. Historically, people have always assumed a certain amount of corruption by their leaders, and haven't really cared all that much. But, we DO hope that they're competent enough to not get caught with their hand in the cookie jar. People can generally forgive a bit of corruption in a leader, but incompetence is unforgiveable. (At least, apparently, until the last decade or so)

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 24, 2005 10:35 PM

Nixon did some good things--re-establishing relations with China being the main one. But his total abuse of power, over and above Watergate, made him unfit for office. The enemies list, using the power of the Federal government to harass his opponents, these are the reasons he deserved his fate.


Posted by: Micha at December 24, 2005 10:40 PM

Merry Chrismas.

About Dawkins: I wasn't sure if he dislikes religion because he likes Darwin, or he likes Darwin because he dislikes religion, or both. In any case, I've read his book about 10 years ago, I don't remember all the details. He seems to put much faith in the scientific method.

"Whether God exists or not isn't determinative. A person's belief in a Judeo-Christian God provides him with a reason to act in a certain manner, independent of the validity of that belief."

A person's belief in anything provides him with a reason to act in a certain manner. Examining the belief is part of examining the reasoning behind an action or an argument.

"I think there's a fundamental distinction between "it comes from within myself because of a philosophy I've devised for myself" and "it comes from within myself because I hold certain assumptions about how the universe is constructed.""

If the assumptions of how the universe is constructed are part of a philosophy devised by someone for himself, then there is no difference. If the assumptions came from somebody else's philosophy then there is a small difference. But: (a) by holding certain assumptions, even if they are not originally yours, you are presumably using your own mind to decide that these assumptions are worth holding; (b) the philosophy these assumptions are part of had to have began with one or more person who has devised them. Both religious traditions and other philosophies are often the result of the accumulation of assumptions devised by many people over time.

Some religions trace their basic assumptions to a revelation from god, although this is often followed by much interpretation by humans. But the question remains, how does one make the decision to accept the assumption offered to him by a god or by said god's interpreters?

Some religions and philosophies, I think, claim that their basic assumptions were some how placed by god in the minds of humans. But there still has to be a process of recognition of this innate knowledge usually, since there is the possibility of mistaken assumptions.

Philosophies usually work by logically analysing assumptions in peoples' minds.

Science analyses data acquired by our senses, and mathematical relationships perceived by the mind.

"Fear of what happens after death is an effective deterrent even if that fear will never, in fact, be realized."

Fear is a form of belief or assumption.

I don't think Sartre was a relativist. I hav somewhere a little book called "Existentialism is Humanism." But I'm no expert on Sartre. The teacher in the class I took on Existentialism was not very good.

Posted by: David Bjorlin at December 26, 2005 11:40 AM

Mr Ries wrote: Did Den say that? I didn't notice.

Actually Den quoted you without attribution (a formatting error; he had your prior statement in bold), so I thought it was his unsupported assertion. Thank you for explaining your point. I don't necessarily agree with you, but now at least I know what we're in disagreement about.

Posted by: James Carter at December 26, 2005 05:29 PM

"I don't think Sartre was a relativist. I hav somewhere a little book called "Existentialism is Humanism."

Sartre was a relativist. He believed, as do most of us existentialists (and he is the only esitentialist philosopher who is actually an existentialist)that morality is rooted in our own inner-core-self-soul-thingy. However, as with most philosophers, he wasn't perfect, as in "Between Existentialism and Marxism" he is quick to criticize the Vietnam war on moral grounds, without once admitting that it is possible that the leaders morality permitted it.

But generally, yes, he was a relativist. Check out this link for the lecture in which he defended it: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm

and David, lay offa Sartre....what did he ever do to you, man? Besides, contrary to what I percive as your sweeping denouncement of moral Relativism, the plain and simple truth is that at some level, most morality, morals, and human ethics are largely subjective. Even such plain black and whites such as "thou shalt not kill" have many, many, MANY exceptions. And at leasy 1000 of them since the 1970's have been state sponsored.

In essence, David, there is truth, but it is generally very relative and highly subjective. While it is true that there are some few absolute morals nad even fewer absolute truths they are just that: few and far between. However, here is ONE absolute truth: anyone who tries to claim that all, or even most, truths are objective and non-relative (as I believe you are) is acting quite foolishly.

Posted by: Micha at December 26, 2005 07:15 PM

James, I believe you are confusing the subjective aspect of existentialism with moral relativism. In the lecture Sartre addresses the claim that existentialism is moral relativism.
You may certainly find his answers unconvincing -- they are problematic, as was his support of marxism, and his language is difficult -- but it seems he did not think of himself as a moral relativist. However, I'm not an expert on existentialism. So, although I have some sympathy for it, I can't call myself one.

In any case, here are some relevant quotes. Sartre also talks in the essay about the relationship of existentialism and religion and naturalism.

Micha

"people say to us, “You are unable to judge others.” This is true in one sense and false in another. It is true in this sense, that whenever a man chooses his purpose and his commitment in all clearness and in all sincerity, whatever that purpose may be, it is impossible for him to prefer another. ... We can judge, nevertheless, for, as I have said, one chooses in view of others, and in view of others one chooses himself. One can judge, first – and perhaps this is not a judgment of value, but it is a logical judgment – that in certain cases choice is founded upon an error, and in others upon the truth. One can judge a man by saying that he deceives himself. Since we have defined the situation of man as one of free choice, without excuse and without help, any man who takes refuge behind the excuse of his passions, or by inventing some deterministic doctrine, is a self-deceiver. ... Furthermore, I can pronounce a moral judgment. For I declare that freedom, in respect of concrete circumstances, can have no other end and aim but itself; and when once a man has seen that values depend upon himself, in that state of forsakenness he can will only one thing, and that is freedom as the foundation of all values. That does not mean that he wills it in the abstract: it simply means that the actions of men of good faith have, as their ultimate significance, the quest of freedom itself as such. ... Obviously, freedom as the definition of a man does not depend upon others, but as soon as there is a commitment, I am obliged to will the liberty of others at the same time as my own. I cannot make liberty my aim unless I make that of others equally my aim. Consequently, when I recognise, as entirely authentic, that man is a being whose existence precedes his essence, and that he is a free being who cannot, in any circumstances, but will his freedom, at the same time I realize that I cannot not will the freedom of others. Thus, in the name of that will to freedom which is implied in freedom itself, I can form judgments upon those who seek to hide from themselves the wholly voluntary nature of their existence and its complete freedom. ... Thus, although the content of morality is variable, a certain form of this morality is universal."

Posted by: James Carter at December 26, 2005 08:21 PM

Micha,
Don't worry about not understanding existentialism. I've spent several months studying the damn subject and about all I can tell you is I like it.

"as was his support of marxism"

If you have heard or thought of an explanation for that, then I would love to hear it. I cannot understand how someone who subscribes to a philosophy that is focused largely (in Nietzsche's phrase) the "Will to Power", can at the same time subscribe to another philosophy that is focused upon subjugating your will to the good of the state.

"Thus, although the content of morality is variable, a certain form of this morality is universal."
This is...similar to what I was saying. However, the largest point at which JPS and I differ is that I was refering to TRUTH as well as mere morality.

However, fascinating as that is, it doesn't answer the basic question, was Sartre a Moral Relativist? I don't have instant access to most of his major works, so I will have to go largely on guesswork here, but I would say yes. He is not a PURE relativist, but then, who is? In essence, he believes that freedom comes from choice, and that our choices were highly individual, and that as long as our choices are informed, any choice is ok. However, he offers this with the quid pro quo that this choice cannot exploit others.

Thus, the choice to join the KKK would be invalid, morally, as it is based upon the opression of others. This is, I believe the "universal" part of morality that he mentioned at the end of the quote you had.

Is he then a moral relativist? Yes. He is (Drum roll please) a limited moral relativist. So, in other words, he is simply being realistic. it is impossible to be totally morally relativistic in any reasonable world-view.

Which would seem to be another point against his pure existentialism, but who's counting?

Posted by: James Carter at December 26, 2005 08:23 PM

incidentially, an excellent discussion of some of those points can be found at:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at December 26, 2005 08:32 PM

Okay, now that Christmas is over, was anyone here prevented, in their own personal private life, from wishing a Merry Christmas to anyone they wanted? I mean, that was what we were all being threatened with by the War-On-Christmas crowd, wasn't it - that even saying "Merry Christmas" would get you sued by those doggone liberal ACLU Satan-worshippers?

Funny, I was still hearing the phrase all over the place on Sunday...

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 27, 2005 12:28 AM

I cannot understand how someone who subscribes to a philosophy that is focused largely (in Nietzsche's phrase) the "Will to Power", can at the same time subscribe to another philosophy that is focused upon subjugating your will to the good of the state.

Well, you could do what good communist leaders have done for decades: preach a good talk about subjugating your will to the good of the state to the masses while reserving individual power for themselves.

Posted by: Rex Hondo at December 27, 2005 12:33 AM

Well, just a few personal experiences from the past month:

My wife and I actually had trouble finding religiously neutral holiday cards amongst the many "inspirational" cards, and only went into one store (Target) that actually had a marked section for Hannukkah cards.

A co-worker who volunteered ringing a bell for the SA said "Merry Christmas" to everyone she saw, and received NO complaints or so much as a dirty look. Another person she knows followed up with "and God bless you" to anyone who donated, and also received NO complaints.

My wife responds to every "Merry Christmas" she hears with a "Happy Holidays," and nobody tried to burn her at the stake.

So, my conclusion mirrors PAD's, that the whole "War on Christmas" has been fabricated by a very small, VERY loud and bigoted minority who like to pretend at being persecuted so they can make themselves feel better by comparing themselves to Christ.

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: Rex Hondo at December 27, 2005 12:35 AM

Well, the problem with Communism, as with ANY political philosophy, is that human nature will always assert itself, and people who want personal power will always find a way to gain it.

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: David Bjorlin at December 27, 2005 01:48 AM

James Carter wrote However, here is ONE absolute truth: anyone who tries to claim that all, or even most, truths are objective and non-relative (as I believe you are) is acting quite foolishly.

Putting words in other people's mouths (including mine) is even more foolish, particularly when the other people are around to call you on it. I'll point out precisely what truths I think are absolute, and you let me know if you think I'm wrong.

Don't worry about not understanding existentialism. I've spent several months studying the damn subject and about all I can tell you is I like it.

Dude, if you think Sartre's worldview is premised upon Nietzsche's will to power, you really can't tell us much about existentialism. While you're studying, look up "value pluralism." It's like relativism for smart people.

And Sartre, by the way, was the guy who denounced the French press for denouncing the Munich Olympic attack. Sartre was a bad existentialist. You point out that, Thus, the choice to join the KKK would be invalid, morally, as it is based upon the opression of others. How is that latter concern relevant under his own theory? The best he can do is diagnose "nausea" without offering a palliative. The solution to the existential dilemma is not to assume that all positions are relatively equal, assuming the actors are true to themselves; you deal with the meaningless of life by imposing meaning. The struggle to bring order, goodness, morality to an uncaring universe is what makes life meaningful. (Harkening back to an earlier part of this thread) it's no more achievable a goal than a world without terrorism, but we have to make the attempt if we're to become anything more than oversized chimpanzees. "One must imagine Sisyphus happy." A recognition of the absurd is a call to arms, not an end point.

Sartre lived during World War II and even joined the Resistance, but his moral philosophy eschewed Big Questions for a discussion of whether an obsequious waiter was being true to himself. (Answer: no.) The solution is not Sartre, but Kant. If you accept people as ends in and of themselves (or steal a line from the Declaration of Independence, and proclaim all men to be created equal), then certain logical corollaries follow from that premise. It doesn't hurt anything to call these corollaries absolute moral truths. All people deserve to be free to live their lives in any way that doesn't impair other people's freedoms. Acknowledging that, say, Tookie Williams and I would have different interpretations of that last clause (e.g. whether his freedom to be free trumps my freedom to be safe, talk amongst yourselves), I'd still say that's a moral truth.

Moral relativism, taken to its extreme, does precisely what Robbnn accused it of doing: it makes it impossible to condemn Genghis Khan, who was after all being "authentic" within himself. I do recall that you were the one who asked why Genghis Khan was being ripped on in this thread; the simple fact is that Genghis's authenticity had deleterious effects on the populations he conquered. Now if you want to make the claim that Genghis was slightly nicer than his grandson, whose forces made nice pyramids of the skulls of conquered Iraqis pour encourager les autres, then yes perhaps Genghis was only a second-rate butcher, but that's about as meaningful as an argument about whether Hitler, Mao, or Stalin was the worst monster of the 20th Century.

I'm going out on a limb here: I roundly condemn slaughtering the educated people of a city and making a pyramid of their skulls. I'm going to say that's absolutely Bad. As were the Holocaust, Stalinist purges, and nearly everything Mao did, and if you like then we can have an uncomfortable debate about whether what the Eight Air Force did to Dresden was justifiable in the context of a war to stop the Nazis. (Relativists should find it perfectly OK or absolutely horrible, depending upon one's point of view. We foolish absolutists find it problematic. It's that pluralism thing again.) You mentioned "exceptions" as though they undermined moral absolutes, as in "thou shalt not kill." 1) Nuances don't contradict core values, q.v. pluralism; and 2) the original commandment was "Thou shalt not commit murder" and mistranslations also do not contradict core values. A robust theory of justice or morality probably cannot be reduced to a pithy statement, but still should be able to identify core values that stand up irrespective of time or culture. Murder is wrong. Rape is wrong. Slavery is wrong.

There's a famous problem in moral philosophy: what do we do with collaborators under despotic regimes? People who ratted out their neighbors to the Nazis were in full compliance with both the laws and mores of the society in which they lived; can we now say that it was wrong to inform the SS that the guy in the apartment down the hall had a Jew hiding in the closet?

Hell yes, we can.

Chattel slavery was once practiced in the state in which I live. People from that culture felt it was an acceptable form of social organization; they were wrong, not in the sense that from today's perspective we would call it wrong, but in the sense that slavery was always appalling and they were wrong at the time to practice it. If Wilberforce could figure it out, then Calhoun should have as well. Jim Crow was as wrong in 1890 as it was in 1950.

Morality applies to individuals as well as societies; if anything, it's easier to apply absolutes to individual acts. Earlier this month my office sent someone to prison for holding a samurai sword to his wife's throat and threatening to kill her. Polemicist that I am, I assert that was absolutely wrong. One guy in Asheville kidnapped, raped, and murdered three people. Perhaps he was being true to his nature as a serial killer, but if so his nature was absolutely immoral. In February I sent someone off for 14 years for stealing beer and cigarettes (gotta love that "habitual felon" law), and he earned it for a 15 year pattern of absolute disregard for other people. When I don't have felony duty, I prosecute hundreds of misdemeanor cases a week, and even most of those crimes are illegal because they're wrong on some fundamental level. Larceny and assaults are wrong, because they abuse other people, and it's rare that "self defense" or "choice of evils" can be argued with a straight face. People do genuinely bad things all the time, and claiming they're only "relatively" or "contingently bad" demeans both the victims and philosophy itself.

And oh yeah, Merseault killed an Arab for no reason, and that's why he was executed in The Stranger. Merseault seriously impaired the Arab's ability to lead an authentic life by ending it. I suspect Camus rolls in his grave every time some college student rails about how unfair it is that he was sentenced to death because he didn't cry at his mother's funeral. Narrator's view != author's view, people.

Perhaps not all truths, or even most truths, are absolute truths, but there are a hell of a lot of absolute truths. You can claim, if you want, that it's foolish to say so, but somehow I feel less foolish than the fool who claims otherwise. From time to time we may misidentify moral truths, but that does not mean they don't exist.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 27, 2005 11:31 AM

Hey David, I'm not deep enough to meaningfully participate in the Sartre debates (I once found an entire notebook from 1983 filled with philosophy notes which, though written in my handwriting, I could swear I'd nver seen before.) but just wanted to say thanks for the work you do.

The number of criminals is small but the eggect they have on our lives is not so we should all have gratitude toward the police and prosecuters who remove them from the picture.

Posted by: Micha at December 27, 2005 01:13 PM

1) It seems to me, from what is written in "existentialism is humanism," that Sartre did not think of himself as a moral relativist. However, since the text is available and short, anyone can read and make his own decision.

2) The reason Sartre was communist is that he,like many peop;e who did not live in communist countries, was more familiar with the ideals of communism than its actualisation. At the time communism seemed to him to represent freedom because it supposedly stood against the oppresive aspects of capitalism as well as against colonialism, racism and fascism. He was unaware or ignored the oppresive aspects of communism. He was guilty, in his own terms, of bad faith.

3) The difference between Sartre and Kant is that Kant tried to develop objective logically true moral principles that were independant of actual events, whereas Sartre thought that moral judgement can and should be appllied by subjective people to actual events (for example the French Resistence good, the Iraqi insurgency bad).

4) "The solution is not Sartre, but Kant. If you accept people as ends in and of themselves (or steal a line from the Declaration of Independence, and proclaim all men to be created equal), then certain logical corollaries follow from that premise." If the act of acceptance of Kant's moral principle is done by a subjective person than this is not Kant but existentialism. Kant believed that his principle is a objective, a-priori, necessarily logical truth in and of itself.

5) I am yet to see any moral or philosophical system that works all the time.

6) "The solution to the existential dilemma is not to assume that all positions are relatively equal, assuming the actors are true to themselves; you deal with the meaningless of life by imposing meaning. The struggle to bring order, goodness, morality to an uncaring universe is what makes life meaningful. (Harkening back to an earlier part of this thread) it's no more achievable a goal than a world without terrorism, but we have to make the attempt if we're to become anything more than oversized chimpanzees. "One must imagine Sisyphus happy." A recognition of the absurd is a call to arms, not an end point."
I'm not sure if this is said in support or in opposition to existentialism.

7) "there are a hell of a lot of absolute truths" is a statement that needs to be proved. In the past this statement would have been justified based on the belief in God. Kant tried to base it on formal logic. Others tried to bse it on empiric sensations. The significance of existentialists is that they tried to create not relativistic moral systems that are not dependant on that assumption.

8) I don't think anybody on this thread actually supported moral relativism.

9) What is difficult for us is that people that we admire, like Jeffreson for example, lived in a society that today we would consider immoral. Was Jefferson a bad logician, a bad Christian or a guilty of existentialist bad faith?

10) "February I sent someone off for 14 years for stealing beer and cigarettes." Have you considered chopping his hand or at least flogging?

Posted by: James Carter at December 27, 2005 01:16 PM

I second Bill, David. What you do is very important, and I thank you for doing it.

As far as the debate goes, however, I think we are talking at cross purposes. I agree (as did Sartre) that there are moral absolutes. More correctly, there is ONE moral absolute: Do no Harm. In all the cases you mentioned, the person involved was harming, or threatening harm to another person. You can make decisions even "bad" decisions, for yourself, but not for others. Suicide isn't wrong, murder is.

However, as I stated, there are exceptions. For instance, sending a mass murderer to the chair. Are we harming him? Yes. Is it moral? This gets right down into the debate about capital punishment, so let's change the punishment. Life imprisonment. Of course it is moral! Actually, now that I think about it more, in a way, it is extremely moral as you are PREVENTING him from being immoral and harming others. But besides that little point, imprisoning a mass murder is perfectly ok. I said as much, and Sartre said as much. I think you may have missed mine and Micha’s last posts, because that is exactly what was said.

Sartre: "Thus, although the content of morality is variable, a certain form of this morality is universal."

Me:"Thus, the choice to join the KKK would be invalid, morally, as it is based upon the oppression of others. This is, I believe the "universal" part of morality that he mentioned at the end of the quote you had."

As far as I can tell then, you, JPS, and I are all in agreement on that point.

Now, for the point you made about Kant, and the point you made about Meursault.

First, I agree with you that Meursault was the bad guy. Actually, that was Camus' SOP. For instance, in "The Fall" the most despicable character is the Narrator. In the case of Camus, the Narrator is not always the way the author feels.
However, Meursault. was NOT a critique of Existentialist thought (as you seemed to insinuate) rather he seemed much more of a critique of Rationalism. Meursault's lack of feeling and largely analytical view on life would make him more of a critique of rationalism, possibly even Kantian Rationalism.
However, the other point that Camus was making is that the trial focused NOT on the killing, but why he didn't cry at his mothers funeral. And the fact is, is that he might not have been given the death penalty if it wasn't for that.

You said:
"If you accept people as ends in and of themselves (or steal a line from the Declaration of Independence, and proclaim all men to be created equal), then certain logical corollaries follow from that premise. It doesn't hurt anything to call these corollaries absolute moral truths."

This is true, however we already discussed that there are some moral absolutes.

However, Kant strikes me (and I may be wrong here, and I would appreciate your correction if I am) as believing that ALL morality originates outside the mind, and the mind is largely a Tabula Rasa, with no inherent ability to formulate morality outside the semi-platonic moral absolutes that already exist. As we have already discussed that there are some moral absolutes I won't try to prove him wrong on that count, but ALL morals are NOT absolute, and to say so is very dangerous.

Kant never really explained how exactly we discover these moral absolutes, so we don't really know what to look for. How do we know which is correct: Pat Robertson's belief that all homosexuals are evil, or my belief that homosexuality is perfectly fine? With no way to prove or disprove the existence or validity of moral absolutes one leaves open ones philosophy to severe abuse.

Rather, we must concede, as did Sartre, that there is only one real moral absolute: Do no harm. And I would add to this the corollary that when faced with two choices that involve harm (say, assassinating Hitler, or letting millions of people die) it is your duty to do that which causes the least harm: killing Hitler. (And for the sake of argument, let us ignore the historical arguments.)

Further, Moral Absolutism can be bad. If my morals state that sodomy is wrong, can I make a law against it? From a moral absolutist position, yes I can. That is actually the most moral thing I can do, because it will prevent other people from acting immorally. So if you accept moral absolutism, then you have to accept such things as perfectly moral. That is why moral absolutism, in its strictest (Kantian) sense is wrong, and why Sartre (Limited Moral Absolutism)is right. Quite frankly, Kant can make you believe that your position is moral because you “know” it is.

As a matter of fact (outside the one exception I mentioned) you would be perfectly valid in believing this, precisely because morality is relative. If you “know” that sodomy is immoral, you are right. For you. However, if you “know” that sodomy is ok, then you are also right. For you. Kant would claim that one of you HAD to be wrong, when simple observation tells us that that is incorrect.

One last thing: you question my understanding of Existentialism, by saying that Sartre wouldn’t have have accepted Nietzsche’s “will to power.” First, I never said specifically that Sartre was a big fan of it, but his professed philosophy is STRONGLY rooted in it. Not to mention the fact that “will to power” simply means wishing to do the best for oneself However, that is beside the point.

You question my understanding of Existentialism, I question your understanding not only of Sartre, but of philosophy. You said:“Sartre lived during World War II and even joined the Resistance, but his moral philosophy eschewed Big Questions for a discussion of whether an obsequious waiter was being true to himself. (Answer: no.) “

First, if you think that Sartre avoided the “Big Questions” the check out a slim little volume humbly entitled “Being and Nothingness.” I don’t know about you, but Being strikes me as one of the big questions.

Further, you say: “a discussion of whether an obsequious waiter was being true to himself” as if it was a bad thing. There is nothing more common in philosophy then using precise, clear cut examples (large and small) to discuss a larger thought. For instance at a Philosophy club meeting, we once had a large discussion of whether Red was really Red. Now, that may seem silly, unless you realize that we were discussing the question of perception, and by reducing it to something so simple we made it easier to see what exactly was going on. That is the same reason Socrates invented a city in the Republic, or Nietzsche invented Zarathustra, or for that matter, why Hitler always comes up in discussions of right and wrong. With clear cut, simple examples, it is a lot easier to see what is going on. Now, I don’t know the exact discussion you are referring to, but I will bet you a copy of PAD’s latest book that that is EXACTLY what Sartre was doing.

Posted by: Micha at December 27, 2005 01:17 PM

"10) "February I sent someone off for 14 years for stealing beer and cigarettes." Have you considered chopping his hand or at least flogging?"

I must clarify that I do not wish to condemn your actions, nor am I a moral relativist.

I am intersted in questioning our assumptions about morality. I find a little humility when it comes to morality appropriate. And I also believe that by reexamining our morality we can strengthen it.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 27, 2005 03:16 PM

Micha, the thing about the guy going to jail for stealing the beer and cigs--it isn't the actual crime that causes his sentance but rather the fact that (I don't think I'm crawling out on a thin limb here) this guy commits crimes all the time. Mostly small ones but it's just a nonstop thing. And these are the idiots who really diminish our quality of life, the ones who steal our lawnmowers, force us to lock our doors, make us fearful of noises in the night, etc etc. I've had a close encounter with one of these losers, the spouse of a co-worker. He's never physically harmed anyone that I know of but the number of lives he's made worse must be into the scores by now. Taking him off the street has made our town a better place and allowed his family to move on.

And consider the mindset of a habitual criminal who knows that if he is caught agin he will do hard time but does it anyway--and not for a loaf of bread to feed his hungry belly. For beer and cigarettes. No Broadway musicals for this guy.

In some ways you could make an argument that it improves society by a far greater extent when you put away a robber, rapist or child molester than if you do a murderer, especially if the murder was something going on between the killer and victim. Obviuosly, a wman who murders her husband over an affair is unable to do it again, but a molester often has hundreds of victims. Putting a habitual thief in prison will prevent potentially hundreds or thousands of future crimes.

(Note-I'm not saying let murderers off free. It's just that I occasionally see news stories with the baffling observation that "WHile crimes has gone down, the number of those imprisoned in jails has gone up." like there is some puzzling contradiction there...)

Posted by: Rick Keating at December 27, 2005 03:24 PM

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 23, 2005 01:01 PM

(SNIPPED) “My big problem with reincarnationis that people who follow it always manage to trace their lineage back to Charlamane or Joan of Arc or some of the other major figures of history. Since the vast vast vast majority of people are not the major figures of history, that seems pretty unlikely.”


Just curious, are you saying that people who have traced their lineage back to Charlemagne believe in reincarnation; or just that those people you’ve met who _do_ believe in reincarnation _also_ claimed to have a familial connection with him? Or, are claiming to _have been_ Charlemagne?

In point of fact, there could very well be thousands of people who can trace their ancestry to Charlemagne. That fact, in and of itself, has no bearing on the subject of reincarnation. A former girlfriend with an interest in genealogy is among those who has traced her ancestry to Charlemagne; and she didn’t believe in reincarnation. At least so far as I knew.

On the other hand, unless Joan of Arc had a child no one knows about (she was supposed to have been a virgin, after all), no one could trace their ancestry to _her_. They might possibly be able to trace it to a sibling, cousin, aunt or uncle- if she had any- but that’s as close as they could get.

Likewise, Abraham Lincoln has no living descendants. The last one died off sometime in the mid 20th century.

People who believe they _are_ the reincarnation of Charlemagne, or Joan of Arc, or Lincoln, or anyone else wouldn’t necessarily believe they’re also a direct descendant of said individual in their present-day persona. I’m sure that some people _do_ believe that, but nothing I’ve ever read about reincarnation suggests that adherents believe people are reborn within their specific bloodlines.

But it would be kind of interesting if it were the case. I wonder if there’s a story in that? Hmmmmmnn.

On a related note, my cousin Kelley, the eldest of what I call the “Fourth generation”, was born on the 11th anniversary of my paternal grandmother’s death. Reincarnation? Not likely, but I sometimes refer to her as such among family.

Curiously, Kelley’s mother (also my cousin) was born on my grandparents’ wedding anniversary. No reincarnation there, since Grandma (and Grandpa) was still alive at the time; but it is another interesting coincidence involving Grandma.

Personally, if reincarnation does exist (and it seems just as likely or unlikely as an after-life beyond this Earthly plane), I don’t think we’re automatically reborn along our own bloodline. I think it’d either be random, or if the universe has any sense of cosmic justice, it’d be ironically appropriate. For example, Hitler being reincarnated as a member of an oppressed minority group.

On a final note, Bladestar brought up the philosophical question about whether there’s a finite number of souls. There was actually a short story that addressed that issue, though I don’t remember who wrote it, or how long ago. As I recall, the story concerned immortality. Humans became immortal, and after a time, no Humans were being born (or those who were lacked something compared to previous generations; like I said I’m vague on the specifics). At any rate, someone soon figured out that there are only a finite number of souls to go around, but with a lot of people not dying, their souls remained unavailable as future generations were born (if they were being born).

Or maybe it wasn’t immortality. It may have been that there are only X number of souls, and once the population grew too large, and we had Y number of people, there weren’t enough souls to go around. As a result, the balance were being born without souls. I _really_ wish I could remember the particulars of the story; but either way, the gist of it was that due to either extended lifespans or increased population growth, there weren’t enough souls to go around. End result: the Human race was diminished because of it.

Rick

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 27, 2005 04:13 PM

I was thinking of the people who believed that they WERE Charlemagne. It seems as though there are more reincarnations of Napoleon than there were Napoleons. But maybe that's how it works.

I do think that sometimes people, when they do their geneology, start making big assumptions at some point. My ex-wife has a good number of Mormons in her family and they traced the family all the way back to Adam. You can sort of see where the true lineage may or may not end; at some point the name changes and it was noted that family tradition maintained that so and so was the illegitamate sone of the Earl of Whatever. At that point it was just another English History Lesson of Kings and Dukes.

It could be all true. I suspect though that when people trace their history back to Charlemagne's time they usually end up discovering that they are related to him for no better reason than he being the only guy anyone wrote about. Nobody wrote about the guy who picked potatos in Charlemagne's potato farm but I'll bet he left a lot more decendants. I'll also bet his name was Mulligan.

Posted by: Micha at December 27, 2005 07:12 PM

Bill, both your claims are valid. It seems to me that all of our system of law, law enforcement and especially punishment should be reexamined, taking into consideration its different aspects (deterance, prevention, prisoner rights, victim rights, rehabilitation, public safety, economy etc.). I don't know what the answer is, but it seems to me that the current system is not working very well. It also seems as if the whole system is based on what we inheritent from previous generations + patches. I'd like to see an approach that doesn't take things for granted, is not politically polarized, and is creative.

My specific reference to flogging was not an attack on David. In Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers he has a part were he says that flogging is a better punishment than prison. Heinlein is very preachy and a little crazy, but he is thought provoking. Is prison really better than flogging? When is prison appropriate and not? Does prison rehabilitate or actually a nursery for criminals? What is the role of vengence in punishment? etc.

Posted by: David Bjorlin at December 28, 2005 12:15 AM

Bill: Micha, the thing about the guy going to jail for stealing the beer and cigs--it isn't the actual crime that causes his sentance but rather the fact that (I don't think I'm crawling out on a thin limb here) this guy commits crimes all the time. Mostly small ones but it's just a nonstop thing

Actually, in this particular instance, it's not even true that most of his crimes are small ones. One of the guy's three prior "strikes" that qualified him as an habitual felon was Assault With the Intent to Kill Inflicting Serious Injury," which is a modern codified variant on the common-law offense of attempted murder. I think he was about 18 when he committed that one, and when we sent him off he was just shy of his 32nd birthday. (I remember this because he is only four months older than me.) During that interval, the only substantial periods of time that he did not pick up new charges were periods he was incarcerated.

(Longwinded dissertation that may be skipped by those who are uninterested in legal minutia:) The central feature of North Carolina's felony sentencing scheme is that it's a two dimensional grid, with the Y axis being the level of the offense and the X axis being the defendant's record level (a weighted sum, with each conviction date counting as from 1 to 12 points, depending on the most serious offense that the defendant was convicted of on any given occasion). The offenses that are used as prior "strikes" cannot be used to calculate the record level in felony sentencing for an habitual felon, and the habitual felon status itself merely serves to move the offense level up the Y axis, so that any felony is sentenced from the same row as serious crimes such as second degree rape, first degree kidnapping, and the felony assault that this guy committed back during the first Bush administration. (This is different from, say, California, where an habitual offender status can lead to life imprisonment.) Bringing the breaking and entering/larceny charge up to habitual felon raises it five rows, from an H to a C. (Read along here: http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_15A/GS_15A-1340.17.html) Even deleting the three strikes used to make him habitual, the guy STILL maxed out the chart by virtue of his prior record level (Column VI). (NB: Under a recent Supreme Court opinion, the "aggravated" ranges listed weren't available at the time.) After the jury came back with the habitual finding, the judge read the list of the guy's prior offenses aloud. It took a few minutes.

Think about this: I am the most junior prosecutor in our office. This guy is four months, two weeks older than me, and he's maxed out the state's prior record grid. An habitual felon sentence isn't necessarily about deterrance or punishment. It's more a statement by the judicial system to the effect that: "We give up on you, and we're going to put you the only place we can be sure you'll stay out of trouble for the next few years."

Micha: My specific reference to flogging was not an attack on David. In Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers he has a part were he says that flogging is a better punishment than prison. Heinlein is very preachy and a little crazy, but he is thought provoking.

I recently read an American's account of living in Saudi Arabia for a time. One of the things that struck the writer was how safe the place was; if you leave your wallet in a restaurant and come back to look for it the next day, it will almost certainly be there. This safety is secured by a draconian system of justice such as you describe. I'm simply not willing to live in the society necessary to secure that.

Posted by: David Bjorlin at December 28, 2005 12:21 AM

Nitpicky typo: his prior felony was Assault with a Deadly Weapon with the Intent to Kill Inflicting Serious Injury. This is only important because I'm campaigning to make the acronym ADWIKISI into a word. (Prounounced ad-WIK-si.)

Posted by: David Bjorlin at December 28, 2005 12:25 AM

It may have been that there are only X number of souls, and once the population grew too large, and we had Y number of people, there weren’t enough souls to go around.

This entire subthread reminds me of nothing so much as the Demi Moore movie

Posted by: David Bjorlin at December 28, 2005 12:26 AM

The Seventh Sign.

Somehow the title was lost in transmission. Odd.

Posted by: Rat at December 28, 2005 01:37 AM

First off, in response to all the postings on reincarnation--Okay, first, Bladestar--what in my experience gets passed on is memories only, for example in my last life I was a piano player in San Francisco (which I've remembered from the time I was at least two and a half) who had arthritis and I couldn't play anymore. Right now, put me in front of a piano, and I'll feel like I SHOULD know how to play, it just gets lost from my head to my fingers. Second-to Bill--most of the ACTUAL reincarnates that I've met don't claim to be anyone that historically relevant. The closest I come to being anyone historically relevant is first time around, I was the son of a minor either Irish or Welsh landowner. I had a black horse and a nasty temper. Now for the part that's gonna have some people thinking I'm off my nut. I have these memories, and would be willing to think it was just my imagination if it wasn't for the confirmations that I've had. Like meeting the woman who was my wife in San Fran who at the time was going out with my best friend. Other things like that happen all the time amongst my little crew. And no, not all souls come back. (The joke in our house is that my four year old is probably older than me.)

And Bill, as far as the whole prison/punishment question the problem I've always had is you put the bad guys in prison, fine. So, they don't have to worry about room and board, clothing, food...and we who are free DO.

Posted by: Bobb at December 28, 2005 08:41 AM

"The Seventh Sign.

Somehow the title was lost in transmission. Odd."

Whew. 'Cause, just for a second there, I was thinking "how's a shortage of souls tie in with Striptease?"

Posted by: Jerry C at December 28, 2005 09:49 AM

I was thinking "how's a shortage of souls tie in with Striptease?"


See, I just thought he was talking about her acting rather then her movies.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 28, 2005 02:51 PM

And Bill, as far as the whole prison/punishment question the problem I've always had is you put the bad guys in prison, fine. So, they don't have to worry about room and board, clothing, food...and we who are free DO.

Yeah but we also aren't forced into non-consensual sex acts with Big Vito and One-Eyed Tyrone, followed by being forced to drink caustic drain cleaner until our esophagus comes sluicing out in a bloody froth. So it all evens out.

Posted by: Rat at December 28, 2005 04:43 PM

Well, One Eyes' need love too, after all. If yer gonna look at it THAT way...

Posted by: James Carter at December 28, 2005 04:56 PM

Just a sort of Random FYI

This is now (to the best of my knowledge) the second longest thread on here, surpassed only (again, as far as I know) by a June thread:
"My two and only two responses to the new village idiot"

That was at 435...this one stands, as of this post, at 429.

Why am I saying this? I thought you might like to know.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 28, 2005 07:48 PM

I know we can break the record....quick, someone compare a politician to Hitler. And it can't be Mussolini.

Posted by: Micha at December 28, 2005 08:13 PM

If the image of prison rapes is as common as TV suggests, and it is a foreseeable consequence of going to prison, then sending someone to prison could be considered a cruel and unusual punishment much more draconian than flogging or even cutting one's hand.

In general it seems to me that the way we deal with crime-punishment at the moment is not working very well, not from a liberal or a conservative point of view, and it should be reexamined.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 28, 2005 08:59 PM

I was thinking "how's a shortage of souls tie in with Striptease?"

Geez, you have to ASK?

(And personally, if we're discussing Demi Moore soul-killing vehicles, I think I'd have to go with "The Scarlet Letter" on general principles...)

TWL

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 28, 2005 09:57 PM

Tim, what are you talking about? Her version was the only one that got the Indian attack sequence just as Hawthorne described it.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at December 28, 2005 10:31 PM

I'll confess that it was an offhand remark -- I've not actually seen the film. The concept of Moore as Hester Prynne seems nearly as bizarre to me as would a new version of Hamlet starring Adam Sandler (with special guest star Carrot Top as Horatio), so I kinda generalized on that basis.

Based on the presentation of the film and the reviews I remember, though, I don't think the Indian attack sequence was the main focal element...

TWL

Posted by: David Bjorlin at December 28, 2005 10:41 PM

2) The reason Sartre was communist is that he,like many peop;e who did not live in communist countries, was more familiar with the ideals of communism than its actualisation. At the time communism seemed to him to represent freedom because it supposedly stood against the oppresive aspects of capitalism as well as against colonialism, racism and fascism. He was unaware or ignored the oppresive aspects of communism. He was guilty, in his own terms, of bad faith.

I'm not sure that acting from ignorance is really covered by Sartre's idea of good or bad faith. Good and bad faith refer to the individual's ultimate responsibility for his own actions: he has to choose, and he can either choose to act in conformity with his own mind (good faith) or in conformity with some other influence at the expense of one's own nature (bad faith). Naivete and stupidity aren't really implicated by the doctrine of authenticity.

7) "there are a hell of a lot of absolute truths" is a statement that needs to be proved. In the past this statement would have been justified based on the belief in God. Kant tried to base it on formal logic. Others tried to bse it on empiric sensations. The significance of existentialists is that they tried to create not relativistic moral systems that are not dependant on that assumption.

I'm basing it on the wager that I can enumerate certain statments that are true for all people in all times. If nobody can falsify some or any of these statements (and I notice nobody has chosen to refute any of them) then I feel confident that I have, indeed, identified moral "facts." As proposed moral facts, I submit that the following things, inter alia, are always wrong:
* Forcible rape
* Slavery
* Murder of an innocent (leave off discussions of time travel and whacking a three-year-old Temujin, please)
* Arson
* Statutory rape, taking into account that somewhere in the late teens arguments will erupt about what is an appropriate age of consent; as I mentioned before, boundary questions don't necessarily impact the core claims, which is why I also don't wish to debate whether the Jefferson-Hemings relationship (see below) constituted rape.

8) I don't think anybody on this thread actually supported moral relativism.

As a definitional matter, if one is opposed to absolutism, one is necessarily some form of relativist.

9) What is difficult for us is that people that we admire, like Jeffreson for example, lived in a society that today we would consider immoral. Was Jefferson a bad logician, a bad Christian or a guilty of existentialist bad faith?

I don't mean to go off on a rant here, but I probably will. Jefferson was guilty of non-existentialist bad faith: he was a hypocrite. He wrote the Declaration of Independence but also wrote Notes on the State of Virginia, which included comments about blacks and women that would make Orval Faubus blush. Holding those opinions, he then proceeded to conduct a long-term relationship with Sally Hemings. He did many great things for this country, but many of them were at least arguably inconsistent with his stated political principles (for example, how the foremost strict constructionist of the Constitution could endorse the Louisiana Purchase has never been satisfactorily explained). Jefferson stands for the proposition that a great man need not be a good man. (Abraham Lincoln and John Paul II stand for the proposition that it is possible to be both.)

The larger point that you're after (now that I've finished ranting) is that good people have lived in bad times, and done things that we'd rather they hadn't because either they didn't know better or because they couldn't leap out of their frames of reference. Jefferson's other foibles notwithstanding, American slavery is an obvious example. George Washington claimed to have loathed slavery, although he had slaves at Mount Vernon. Alexander Hamilton did as well (but somewhat atoned for that by advocating abolition at the Constitutional Convention and founding an early abolitionist society with John Jay and Gouvernor Morris). A belief in absolutes doesn't necessitate unrealistic judgments; we can acknowledge that good people participated in an evil institution, and acknowledge that it takes an heroic effort of will sometimes to escape the frame of reference one is born to. Just remember that we are in fact forgiving them for something that was wrong.

With regard to the lengths of threads: That was at 435...this one stands, as of this post, at 429.

I blame myself. It took me two posts to get a random reference to a Demi Moore movie onto the internet.

Posted by: Rex Hondo at December 28, 2005 11:15 PM

Hmm... Perhaps the Scared Straight program should include a video about big, sweaty man-rape.

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 28, 2005 11:37 PM

And Rex breaks the record! Say something to the folks at home, Rex!

Posted by: Rex Hondo at December 29, 2005 12:38 AM

I'd like to thank everybody who made this possible, with nods to Bill, Jim, Den, Jame, Micha and many others. I'd also like to give special thanks to Peter David, without whom, we would not all be here.

I could go on, but in light of this evening's acheivement, there's only one thing that truly needs to be said:

BUSH SUCKS!

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: David Bjorlin at December 29, 2005 01:20 AM

I thank everyone for the kind words about my profession, and I'll try to suppress my first reaction, which is to ask each of you how fast you were going and when's your court date?

In other news, a recent poll found that 64% of Americans, including 81% of Republicans and 51% of Democrats, approve of the NSA surveillance program. Tim and I are officially now members of the same minority. It's a strange, strange world.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion of philosophy.

As a matter of fact (outside the one exception I mentioned) you would be perfectly valid in believing this, precisely because morality is relative. If you “know” that sodomy is immoral, you are right. For you. However, if you “know” that sodomy is ok, then you are also right. For you. Kant would claim that one of you HAD to be wrong, when simple observation tells us that that is incorrect.

Does it really? It seems that way because social mores with regard to sodomy have shifted considerably in our lifetimes. Let's rephrase the question: Suppose I "know" that pedophilia is wrong, and someone else "knows" that pedophilia is right. Are we both right? Is neither of us right? Kant would say that only one of us is right, and it's me. Does simple observation settle that issue as well?

Sodomy is an interesting example to toss out, considering what happens to your reasoning when you really follow through with your "Do no harm" absolute. If you're right, then I'm right, because that leads us to a host of moral absolutes, and the most that can be claimed about traditional morality is that it has often misidentified absolutes. My worldview is completely compatible with the notion that we should reexamine our assumptions periodically to make sure we haven't been sloppy. In the immortal words of Oliver Cromwell, surely no relativist, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken." I have claimed that there are absolutes; I never claimed to have perfect knowledge or understanding of them. Maybe sodomy was misidentified as a moral issue, and certainly slavery was misidentified as not being a moral issue. That doesn't actually challenge my premise.

One last thing: you question my understanding of Existentialism, by saying that Sartre wouldn’t have have accepted Nietzsche’s “will to power.” First, I never said specifically that Sartre was a big fan of it, but his professed philosophy is STRONGLY rooted in it. Not to mention the fact that “will to power” simply means wishing to do the best for oneself However, that is beside the point.

Actually what you said was that Sartre was 'someone who subscribes to a philosophy that is focused largely (in Nietzsche's phrase) the "Will to Power"'. I merely submit that there is a significant difference between saying that Sartre's philosophy was "focused largely" on a Nietzschean concept and saying that it is "rooted in" it. The former suggests endorsement of the idea, whereas the latter is consistent with a reaction against the idea or a development from it. Your second statement is correct.

You question my understanding of Existentialism, I question your understanding not only of Sartre, but of philosophy. You said:“Sartre lived during World War II and even joined the Resistance, but his moral philosophy eschewed Big Questions for a discussion of whether an obsequious waiter was being true to himself. (Answer: no.) “

First, if you think that Sartre avoided the “Big Questions” the check out a slim little volume humbly entitled “Being and Nothingness.” I don’t know about you, but Being strikes me as one of the big questions. Further, you say: “a discussion of whether an obsequious waiter was being true to himself” as if it was a bad thing. There is nothing more common in philosophy then using precise, clear cut examples (large and small) to discuss a larger thought. For instance at a Philosophy club meeting, we once had a large discussion of whether Red was really Red. Now, that may seem silly, unless you realize that we were discussing the question of perception, and by reducing it to something so simple we made it easier to see what exactly was going on.

Well, I'm glad you had a club meeting, but you should have known perfectly well that I wasn't insulting the field of epistemology. Questioning How We Know What We Know is a reputable tradition going back to Plato, who as usual arsed it up. However, it's perfectly clear that I was speaking, as the entire discussion up to that point had, of moral philosophy, which in Sarte's writing is the ghost of a chimera.

First, Being is a big question, but it's one that was resolved by Dr Johnson who, in refernce to George Berkeley's claim that nothing actually exists except as ideas, said "I refute him thus" and kicked a rock. We exist, and Sartre and I agree on that ontological point; its the deontological ramifications of existence that I take issue with Sartre.

Second, the use of simplifications as heuristic models is a splendid idea if they are extrapolated back out. Plato, for all his many faults, had the right idea on this: he had Socrates work inductively, taking limited examples like you mentioned, of, say, what goodness consists of, and trying to construct from them a general Theory of the Good. (Admittedly he went haywire and also tried to construct a general Theory of the Triangle, Theory of the Chair, and other Platonic form nonsense, but hopefully that doesn't invalidate the whole approach.) Sartre left the definition of the good up to each person, which (I contend) ignores certain issues that are universally good, moral, or whatever adjective you wish to insert. Questioning perceptions is a good idea. Take the next step. Sartre never did.

I didn't mention the Resistance by accident. Sartre lived through some of the worst atrocities of his or any age-- hell, he moved to Berlin in 1933-- and on occasion he actively fought against them. As France's preeminent intellectual he had an enormous audience with whom he could have started a dialogue. He could have discussed the nature of evil, why men do what they do, how the calamities of his century came about. He. Said. Nothing. Hannah Arendt couldn't explain the banality of evil, but at least she was able to name it. Sartre wasn't even that helpful. He did talk about lesser calamities; he said, in reference to the 1972 Olympic attack, that "The only guilty party was the Munich police." http://www.is.wayne.edu/raronson/Articles/Terror%20Symposium.pdf I'm going to assume that the authors of that symposium know a little more about Sartre than I do, so I'll accept their somewhat contradictory summaries of Sartre's endorsement of political violence. I might agree with you that "Do no harm" is a reasonably plausible moral absolute; unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have been Sartre's view at all. Sartre, in fact, would have "set the murderous Machiavel to school." (3 Henry VI , III, ii) That is another problem with relativism: with no countervailing principles (q.v. value pluralism) the ends really do justify the means, because the ends are the only justification for anything. That is how Sartre was able to endorse Stalinism. (Earlier when I said his Communism was naive or stupid I was probably being too forgiving.)

And no, writing The Condemned of Altona does not atone for the damage Sartre has caused philosophy in his other writings. He also wrote Dirty Hands, whose hero, unlike Merseault, probably does reflect the author's own opinions.

Posted by: Den at December 29, 2005 09:23 AM

Wow. I take a few days off to go to NYC and this becomes the existentialist discussion group. I can't say that I'm familiar with Kant or Sartre, but I can sum up my own peronsal view of morality fairly succinctly: If it involves one or more consenting adult humans and has not effects beyond what the consenting adult humans know and understand at the time they engage in their own behavior, then the MYOB rule applies. Anything that causes harm to another nonconsenting human is immoral.

Oh, and Demi Moore's verion of The Scarlet Letter is blasphemy. There's no other word to describe it.

Posted by: James Carter at December 29, 2005 10:52 AM

"* Forcible rape
* Slavery
* Murder of an innocent (leave off discussions of time travel and whacking a three-year-old Temujin, please)
* Arson
* Statutory rape"

If I read you right David, you are saying that these are wrong, have been wrong, and will always be wrong.

Well, First, let me say that, once again, Sartre, You, and I, all agree on this. These all fall under the heading of, "Do no harm to others" which is the ONLY absolute truth. The only two that are really debatable are the Statutory rape (ancient Greece?) and the slavery (Bible has rules for becoming a slave) However, I would argue that, in Ancient Greece, there really were no statues, and the entire society was structured that way, and it wasn't really rape.

As for the Bible, what it describes is a whole lot closer to Indentured Servitude then slavery. Not that Indentured Servitude is a good idea, but it isn't so morally repugnant.


"It seems that way because social mores with regard to sodomy have shifted considerably in our lifetimes."

Social mores only reflect what the majority believe. Certainly in Victorian London, there were plenty who were okay with sodomy. It simply isn't what the majority believed.

"Suppose I "know" that pedophila is wrong, and someone else "knows" that pedophilia is right."

Wrong here David (you don't mind if I call you David do you? I mean, now that my TRUE identity as a college student who by night fights crime in Gotham city has been revealed, I feel like I should be calling all you people sir.)

anyway, the point here is that pedophila causes extreme damage to the child, thus falling under the "Do no harm" clause. Sodomy, being between two consenting adults, is fine. Pedophila, between an adult, and a usually non-consenting minor, is bad. Now, in Ancient Greece, the Quid Pro Quo is that, since it was so common and consensual, that no harm was really done to the child, and the relationship was ok. but only in such a society where it could be assured that the child experienced no long term damage.

"Well, I'm glad you had a club meeting"

Ehhh..I really shouldn't call it a club, its more like a buncha guys who, when they happen to see each other, by arguing about reality.

"First, Being is a big question, but it's one that was resolved by Dr. Johnson who, in reference to George Berkeley's claim that nothing actually exists except as ideas, said "I refute him thus" and kicked a rock."

Which is clever and all, but not really ontologically sound. It's still a great story, but even if we do really exist (which I will concede) then that leaves tons of other questions...foremost among which is "Why?" and "Whodunnit?"
So Sartre's discussion of what being is all about is not really invalidated by Doc Johnson.

"Sartre left the definition of the good up to each person, which (I contend) ignores certain issues that are universally good, moral, or whatever adjective you wish to insert. Questioning perceptions is a good idea. Take the next step. Sartre never did."

Again, Sartre himself placed that all important Quid Pro Quo on right, which automatically invalidates a lot of things that we know to be immoral (and yes, I use know in the Kantian sense, he never took the next step either.)

"He. Said. Nothing."

First, what could be said? And second, there is some question as to how aware people really were about the Holocaust. Remember, in WWI, a lot of horrible stories had been released about (non-existent) German Atrocities, so most people didn't believe the stories about the Holocaust. Certainly a member of the Resitance hiding in Paris would have had a lot of trouble getting information from Poland. Even many of the Jews didn't believe the stories (Eli Wiesal's "Night" discusses this.) Thus, his not speaking out could simply be because he didn't know, or didn't believe.

"That is how Sartre was able to endorse Stalinism. (Earlier when I said his Communism was naive or stupid I was probably being too forgiving.)"

Did he actually endorse Stalinism? or merely communism? and did he endorse Big-C communism (IE the USSR, China etc.) Or Little-c communism (the idea.) Further,, as with Hitler, the atrocities under Stalin weren't reveled until much later.

I am forced to agree with you, however. Sartre wasn’t the best of men. However, that in no way invalidates his ideas. I mean, just cause Jimi Hendrix was a serious stoner doesn’t mean his music is bad. Same thing with Sartre. It doesn’t matter so much if HE practiced what he preached, as long as his followers do.

"Hmm... Perhaps the Scared Straight program should include a video about big, sweaty man-rape."

and thus are records broken. With Man-Rape jokes.

"Oh, and Demi Moore's verion of The Scarlet Letter is blasphemy. There's no other word to describe it."

You want blasphemy? I just heard Pat Boone's version of (I kid you not) Jimi Hendrix's "and the wind cries Mary."

excuse me, I have to go stop the blood shooting from my ears.

Posted by: Rat at December 29, 2005 11:46 AM

First off, James--hope yer ears have stopped bleeding. Don't worry, eventually the nightmares leave.

And now just to add my two cents about society and mores. Soceities are, as a GENERAL rule, dynamic. Old members leave or die, new members come in. So ideas change. The ideas that are absolute now may no olnger be absolute next week. Not to be trite, but once upon a time there was an absolute about the world being flat.

And lastly, Demi Moore and The Scarlet Letter. REmember what I said about the nightmares fading?? Ain't ALWAYS true...

Posted by: Den at December 29, 2005 11:48 AM

Pat Boone was always the recording industry's go-to guy to make what used to be called "black music" acceptable to inbred racists. His version of "Tutti Fruiti" is horrendous, too.

And let's not even discuss what William Shatner did to "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds."

Posted by: Bobb at December 29, 2005 01:04 PM

"And let's not even discuss what William Shatner did to "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds.""

Hey, now, don't knock the Shat. Although, he "performed" at the George Lucas' tribute a while back. I kept waiting for him to actually start singing...and then I remembered, for him, that WAS singing. (shudder)

Posted by: Micha at December 29, 2005 10:00 PM

"I'm basing it on the wager that I can enumerate certain statments that are true for all people in all times. If nobody can falsify some or any of these statements (and I notice nobody has chosen to refute any of them) then I feel confident that I have, indeed, identified moral "facts."

You are begging the question. We need to take a step back. This whole discussion started with the question of what could be the basis of moral principles? And the argument was made that without god to validate moral principles -- i.e. for anyone who has a naturalistic view of reality -- nothing but complete moral relativism can exist.
The list of moral principles you give seems to be based on a scientific/observational basis. That is either history or anthroplology = all human societies have these principles, or a naturalistic basis = it is in human nature to have these principles, though you have not spoken of natural law in general.

I'm not clear if you dislike Sartre for his actions and opinions on political questions or the fact that according to his philosophy moral decision is made by individuals in given circumstances. If not, than who would make moral decisions? Should we leave it to qualified anthroplogists, historians, or biologists to do so?

Sartre based his morality on the philosophical observation that moral choice rests in individual humans, which he calls freedom. The result of that view seems to be not moral relativism but the moral principle of freedom. He would probably oppose slavery and rape too. Regretably, I know very little of Sartre.
As for his politics. I believe he wrote about/against antisemitism, and was also vocal about the War in Algeria. He could not have spoken about the Holocaust until after the war, since the Holocaust proper only started after France was conquered. About Communism: the two watershed events of communists in the West happened in the mid-50s: the revelation of Stalin's crimes and the the subduing of an uprising in Hungary by tthe Soviets. I know this caused a break among communists, I do not know where Sartre stood. If Sartre supported freedom and continued to support a regime that was oppressive that would be bad faith. I will not hold against him his opinions about Munich. As an Israeli I am familiar with the state of mind. It requires three partially true assumptions:
a. That the Palestinians were fighting for their freedom.
b. That the use of violence is justified in the fight for freedom.
c. That the objective of the Palestinians in that event was not to kill innocents.
In a sense, Sartre seems to have repeated his mistake with communism in blindly supporting somebody just because they seemed to be waving the flag of freedom.


Sadly, I know even less about Isaiah Berlin, who coined the term value pluralism. However, according to Wikipedia, value pluralism seems to be something in middle between moral absolutism and moral relativism. The link to Isaiah Berlin also seems to suggest that he did not support the view that moral values have objective validity. But as I said, I know close to nothing of him.

About sodomy and pedophilia: today most people who hold to a morality based on harm view homosexuality as moral and pedophilia as immoral. In the past sodomy was considered by most immoral, while slavery was not. The assumption is that somehow since then human society (or some of its members) has learned something about morality that people in the past did not realize, and therefore they were wrong and we are right about both counts. In a sense I share this view. I think in a sense Sartre does too, which is not to say that we all have the same opinions. The philosophical problem of justifying this view is a little more difficult. I don't think you have solved it.

Dr. Johnson's response to Berkley is not good if you think that the philosophical discussion on ontology and epistemology was worthwhile. It is not an anser to it as much as a claim that the discussion itself is silly. I find the discussion interesting and important. there is a relation between this discussion and the moral philosophy called utiliterianism, from which the idea of harm as a moral principle is derived.

For Pat Boone to sing anything by Hendrix (and probably many others in the list of great rock musicians) is absolutly immoral.




Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 29, 2005 11:27 PM

I have a chilling fear that in the future Pat Boone will be considered One Of The Greats, who was unappreciated during his life but now revered as a musical giant.

All of which is one good argument against longevity.

BTW, here's a suggestion; Everyone post at least once each week to this thread, which will keep it alive forever and ensure that no other thread gets as large just for the sake of getting large.

Also, in the future, some kid will be able to write his of her thesis on how the subject matter changed over the ensuing decades. They will probably be listening to Pat Boone as they write it.

Posted by: Rex Hondo at December 30, 2005 08:00 AM

Great merciful crap. My (really fairly lame) sweaty man-rape comment could some day be scrutinized as some sort of historical turning point?

The thought that there could be Pat Boone playing just makes it doubly disturbing...

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: James Carter at December 30, 2005 10:39 AM

"Great merciful crap. My (really fairly lame) sweaty man-rape comment could some day be scrutinized as some sort of historical turning point?"

Yes.

Which is why, when History is approaching, you choose your words carefully! What if Ceasar hadn't thought of Veni, "Vidi, Vici?" Or Lincoln had forgotten about "A nation of the people, by the people and for the people??" What if THEY had made sweaty man-rape jokes at such a historic moment??? WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED TO HISTORY???

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 30, 2005 06:34 PM

Sonja: Judgment of any system, or a priori relationship or phenomenon exists in an irrational, or metaphysical, or at least epistemological contradiction to an abstract empirical concept such as being, or to be, or to occur in the thing itself, or of the thing itself.

Boris: Yes, I've said that many times.


Russian gentleman: So who is to say what is moral?
Sonja: Morality is subjective.
Russian gentleman: Subjectivity is objective.
Sonja: Moral notions imply attributes to substances which exist only in relational duality.
Russian gentleman: Not as an essential extension of ontological existence.
Sonja: Can we not talk about sex so much?

Boris: What would Socrates say? All those Greeks were homosexuals. Boy, they must have had some wild parties. I bet they all took a house together in Crete for the summer. A: Socrates is a man. B: All men are mortal. C: All men are Socrates. Means all men are homosexuals. Heh... I'm not a homosexual. Once, some cossacks whisled at me. I, I have the kind of body that excites both persuasions. You know, some men are heterosexual and some men are bisexual and some men don't think about sex at all, you know... they become lawyers.

Boris: The question is have I learned anything about life. Only that human being are divided into mind and body. The mind embraces all the nobler aspirations, like poetry and philosophy, but the body has all the fun. The important thing, I think, is not to be bitter... if it turns about that there is a god, I don't think that he is evil, I think that the worse thing you could say s that he is, basically, an under-achiever. After all, there are worse things in life than death. If you've ever spent an evening with an insurance salesman, you know what I'm talking about. The key is, to not think of death as an end, but as more of a very effective way to cut down on your expenses. Regarding love, heh, what can you say? It's not the quantity of your sexual relations that counts. It's the quality. On the other hand if the quantity drops below once every eight months, I would definitely look into. Well, that's about it for me folks. Goodbye


All quotes form Woody Allen's great LOVE AND DEATH

Posted by: James Carter at December 30, 2005 07:17 PM

450th POST!!!!!!!

Posted by: Micha at December 30, 2005 07:19 PM

Very funny Bill. I've been reading up on some moral philosophy and I remembered why I didn't continue with it after the BA: at a certain point it become very technical.

In any case, I tend to think that human society as a whole has some shared moral principles. So that most oral arguments are not about the basic idea but about the specific circumstances. I also think that these principles are grounded in objective reasoning, namely a shared concept of harm which is based on humans having a similar sensation. Which means that a killer and his victim do agree that dying is a form of harm, and that therefore killing is absolutely immoral. So I'mnot a moral relativist in the sense that I think that a murderer's morality is equaly valid as his victim.

But, on the other hand, I don't believe there is any principle (such as the law of god or physics or logic) that can determine that killing is wrong in an absolute sense, other than the fact that we all have a shared idea of harm more or less. So at the end killing is wrong only in so far as humans perceive it to be wrong.

Posted by: James Carter at December 30, 2005 07:33 PM

"The mind embraces all the nobler aspirations, like poetry and philosophy, but the body has all the fun."

Well, a wag of my finger to Woody Allen! Especially for someone who's comedy can be so..errr....intellectual. Certainly one of the most important premises of existentialism is that the pleasures of the mind can be at last as great at those of the body. And here I was thinking that Woody was considered (in some circles) an Existentialist!

Although, there is the distinct possibility I am severely overanalyzing the entire section....

Nahhhh..THAT could never happen...

Posted by: David Bjorlin at December 30, 2005 08:06 PM

I wrote: I'm basing it on the wager that I can enumerate certain statments that are true for all people in all times. If nobody can falsify some or any of these statements (and I notice nobody has chosen to refute any of them) then I feel confident that I have, indeed, identified moral "facts."

Micha responded, You are begging the question.

Which question? Am I not allowed to define my own claim? Must I only address the issues you wish to be addressed, in the manner you prefer them to be addressed? I notice that nobody has taken me up on my wager, so please excuse me if I think at least part of my claim is as irrefutable as I believe it to be. (E.g., name one circumstance in the history of mankind where a forcible rape has been morally just. Just one.)

We need to take a step back. This whole discussion started with the question of what could be the basis of moral principles? And the argument was made that without god to validate moral principles -- i.e. for anyone who has a naturalistic view of reality -- nothing but complete moral relativism can exist.

Yes, the claim was made. But I didn't make it, or endorse it. Tim claimed that morality is possible even without a belief in God, and I agree with him. Indeed, Kant's entire moral philosophy was designed as a way to replicate traditional Christian morality without requiring an epiphany as its basis. I think that Kant was on the right track: I think that there is at least some form of universal morality.

The list of moral principles you give seems to be based on a scientific/observational basis. That is either history or anthroplology = all human societies have these principles, or a naturalistic basis = it is in human nature to have these principles, though you have not spoken of natural law in general.

I'm obviously not relying upon anthropology as you describe it, because I've said several times now in quite clear language that social conditions are among the things that can be adjudged morally repugnant, and that some things are wrong even if they are broadly accepted. Natural law is a closer label, because I do in fact beleive that ethics derive in large part from man's nature as a free and intelligent creature.

I'm not clear if you dislike Sartre for his actions and opinions on political questions or the fact that according to his philosophy moral decision is made by individuals in given circumstances. If not, than who would make moral decisions? Should we leave it to qualified anthroplogists, historians, or biologists to do so?

Well, you're starting off with a false dichotomy. I don't like or dislike Sartre. He died when I was seven. I never met the man. My problem with him is that he was the writer of morally bankrupt philosophy. The idea that moral decisions are made by moral actors is not unique to Sartre.

Moral decisions should be made by the same people who make driving decisions, policing decisions, parenting decisions, and nearly any other decision that affects or could affect other people: whoever is engaged in the activity at the time. (If you're going to set me up with a straw man, at least make it a plausible straw man, for God's sake. Nobody who thinks what you're trying to suggest that I think would have the mental capacity to type.) My claim, in very small words so everyone will understand it, is merely this: 1) Many actions can be evaluated as being either moral or immoral, and the evaluation can either be conducted in advance (by the person considering the action) or retrospectively (by observers). 2) Many of these moral evaluations do not depend on the identity or background of the actor or the situtation he finds himself in; many actions are good or bad in and of themselves, without regard to circumstances.

Sartre based his morality on the philosophical observation that moral choice rests in individual humans, which he calls freedom. The result of that view seems to be not moral relativism but the moral principle of freedom. He would probably oppose slavery and rape too. Regretably, I know very little of Sartre.

Or of philosophy, or of... I'm sorry, that's beneath me. Not sufficiently beneath me to delete it, but beneath me nonetheless. (See how easy it is for someone to make a moral decision that can be judged by others? Come on, raise your hand if your first reaction upon reading that seemingly gratuitous insult was to say, "Well, David was being true to himself..." Yeah, that's my point exactly. My argument is that people not only do judge others based on external standards of ethics, but that we should do so. We can even have an interesting discussion regarding whether it was appropriate for me to insult someone at random just to make a point for "the greater good." I've already endorsed the concept of values pluralism-- that sometimes principles can be in conflict with one another. As long as we all agree that the conflicting principles really and truly exist, I'm happy.)

As for his politics. I believe he wrote about/against antisemitism, and was also vocal about the War in Algeria. He could not have spoken about the Holocaust until after the war, since the Holocaust proper only started after France was conquered. About Communism: the two watershed events of communists in the West happened in the mid-50s: the revelation of Stalin's crimes and the the subduing of an uprising in Hungary by tthe Soviets. I know this caused a break among communists, I do not know where Sartre stood. If Sartre supported freedom and continued to support a regime that was oppressive that would be bad faith.

I'm really uncomfortable with the assumption on this thread that "inconsistent logic" = "bad faith." I don't think that's what Sartre meant with the term.

But you're the second person who's missed my point about the Holocaust. Of course he could have only talked about that after the war. During the war he did his talking about the Nazis in Resistance newspapers, and through 1945 at the latest, and probably through 1946, he'd have known only (through personal experience living in two Nazi-dominated countries) that the Nazis were bad without knowing all the specifics. But he lived 35 years after the war ended. Where's his magnum opus addressing group mentality, mob violence, fascism, racism, or really any moral precept beyond "authenticity?" Hannah Arendt couldn't explain the banality of evil, but at least she saw it and named it. (In 1961, mind, well after the end of the war.) I'm not claiming that Sartre was under an affirmative duty to discuss the evils of his time, although as France's most eminent intellectual he could have done some good. But I think it's laughable to say his philosophy includes a system of morals when it has a hole that big.

I will not hold against him his opinions about Munich.

Bloody hell. I will. Or at least I would if he were still alive causing trouble, which, as I've mentioned, he is not.

As an Israeli I am familiar with the state of mind. It requires three partially true assumptions:
a. That the Palestinians were fighting for their freedom.
b. That the use of violence is justified in the fight for freedom.
c. That the objective of the Palestinians in that event was not to kill innocents.
In a sense, Sartre seems to have repeated his mistake with communism in blindly supporting somebody just because they seemed to be waving the flag of freedom.

Actually, I think your last statement is exactly what Sartre was doing. From what I've read, it was an ongoing pattern for him: as long as the "oppressors" (a term which begs various questions) were the ones taking the punishment, he didn't much care what means the "oppressed" (see note re: "oppressor") employed. I actually think at least part of his point in the letter was to call the French press hypocrites, for decrying the Munich terror attack when they were generally sympathetic to the Algerian insurgents who employed basically similar means. A fair point, but the problem that I see is that Sartre was pretty cool with both of them. Consistency isn't always a good thing. In Sartre's case it just means he's wrong a lot.

Dr. Johnson's response to Berkley is not good if you think that the philosophical discussion on ontology and epistemology was worthwhile. It is not an anser to it as much as a claim that the discussion itself is silly. I find the discussion interesting and important. there is a relation between this discussion and the moral philosophy called utiliterianism, from which the idea of harm as a moral principle is derived.

In my case, it was a claim that James's response was silly. I made the argument that Sartre focused on minutiae rather than vast, important concepts, and James responded with the argument that sometimes arguing minutiae can lead to broader understanding. This is true, but Sartre never took a shot at the broader understanding, instead focusing on the authenticity of the individual rather than the individual's place in a larger, if existentially meaningless, system, so I didn't think his point really addressed the issue it was meant to address. Moreover, the example he specifically cited was useful for an epistemological insight but inapposite for a discussion of ethics. My comment was meant much the way that I assume Johnson's was: "Can we move along to the next, more pressing issue, please?"

Besides, my true self has a little bit of a snide streak, and I was only being true to myself. Can't we all just appreciate my good faith?

And I'm still not convinced that Sartre's philosophy actually embraced the utilitarianism everyone keeps ascribing to it. I'll shut up about that if someone can cite an example in Sartre's own works, but until then I'll assume that some people are interpolating a concept that isn't fairly present. Please, someone, show me the underappreciated underlying morality to Sartre's philosophy. I beg.

For Pat Boone to sing anything by Hendrix (and probably many others in the list of great rock musicians) is absolutly immoral.

Wait, does that mean that aesthetics are an appropriate basis for moral evaluation again? Can I indict someone because he's ugly and has stupid hair? Or engages in a form of sex that I find gross and repugnant? (I suspect you were making a joke, but I didn't find it to be a very funny one. That, unlike ethics, is a question of personal taste.)

Posted by: David Bjorlin at December 30, 2005 08:19 PM

Which means that a killer and his victim do agree that dying is a form of harm, and that therefore killing is absolutely immoral. So I'mnot a moral relativist in the sense that I think that a murderer's morality is equaly valid as his victim.

The difference of course being that the killer thinks that killing is generally immoral but that it's okay for him to do it anyway, at least in this particular circumstance, whereas his victim most likely thinks that killing is both generally immoral and particularly immoral right now. Unlike you, I believe that only one of them is right.

But, on the other hand, I don't believe there is any principle (such as the law of god or physics or logic) that can determine that killing is wrong in an absolute sense, other than the fact that we all have a shared idea of harm more or less. So at the end killing is wrong only in so far as humans perceive it to be wrong.

Okay, here is where James's "Is red red?" game comes into play. Killing is wrong only insofar as human perceive it to be wrong in precisely the same way that red is red only insofar as people perceive it to be red. Light still has the same range of wavelengths whether there is anyone to perceive them or not, but the concept of "red" (or for that matter the concept of "light") only exists when there is a human mind to frame the concepts. Similarly, an object hitting another object at 1200 feet per second is physics; only when the first object is a bullet fired at a person, who is the second object, by yet another person who is angry, does physics gain a moral component. In an arid, depopulated desert there is no morality because there is nobody to exploit or be exploited.

Wow, we actually did get into epistemology.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 30, 2005 09:11 PM

Can I indict someone because he's ugly and has stupid hair?

Depends. I probably should have been jailed for some of the haircuts that I had in high school. How my sisters ever let me leave the house looking like that is beyond me.

Posted by: David Bjorlin at December 30, 2005 09:50 PM

I probably should have been jailed for some of the haircuts that I had in high school. How my sisters ever let me leave the house looking like that is beyond me.

Because that's what siblings are for. The fact that you made yourself the object of mockery only saved them the trouble. Such a good brother you were.

Posted by: James Carter at December 31, 2005 08:24 PM

"Hey, now, don't knock the Shat."

Speaking of Shatner, I am watching the Twilight Zone episode he did.

No one plays a man thinking he is going crazy like the Shat.

"Theres a MAN out there!!"

Now if only he did cartoons..

"I TAWT I TAW a PUDdyTAt!"

Posted by: Micha at December 31, 2005 11:42 PM

I'm not sure how to do the bold for quotations. All of the quotations will be in quotation marks and from David's long reply:

"Which question? Am I not allowed to define my own claim? Must I only address the issues you wish to be addressed, in the manner you prefer them to be addressed?"

The question was what makes moral principles valid? Obviously making a list of principles, even if you inscribe them on stone tablets, does not make them valid, even if the person making the list is you and not Sartre. It is still just a list. Not answering that question can therefore be considered begging the question. Your answer to the question was only implied, when you said that these principles were true for all people at all times, and I was not certain if that was the basis for the validity of the objective principles you were proposing.

"I notice that nobody has taken me up on my wager, so please excuse me if I think at least part of my claim is as irrefutable as I believe it to be. (E.g., name one circumstance in the history of mankind where a forcible rape has been morally just. Just one.)"

a) A few years ago a woman in Pakistan (I think) was sentenced to be raped, I think for the crime of adultary.

b) Although to the best of my knowledge most societies in history viewed rape negatively (I'm not an anthropologist, and my studies in history were not of that topic), our concept of rape has changed a lot due to feminism in the last 30 years, especially with regard to date-rape and rape by husbands of their wives. If you ever watched Hitchcock's movie Frenzy (?), which is about a rapist, it has a scene portrayiong a woman excited about the idea of being raped. I believe today this scene would be considered tasteless.

c) I do not know if soldiers raping women during wars think of their acts as immoral or not. Nor do I know if rapists in general do. Rape is all too common. I think that most rapists do consider it immoral but alow other considerations to affect them, but I have no way of verifying it.

d) As was previously mentioned rapes are said to occur in Jails often, yet we still send people to Jails. Does that mean that we endorse the rape of criminals?

As for myself (just so I'm not accused by David of endorsing rape), the only reason I can give for my view that rape is immoral is the fact that it causes suffering to a person, and my own feeling that they should be spared that suffering. Yet I cannot produce any logical or scientific reason for that.

"Yes, the claim was made. But I didn't make it, or endorse it. Tim claimed that morality is possible even without a belief in God, and I agree with him. Indeed, Kant's entire moral philosophy was designed as a way to replicate traditional Christian morality without requiring an epiphany as its basis. I think that Kant was on the right track: I think that there is at least some form of universal morality.
I'm obviously not relying upon anthropology as you describe it, because I've said several times now in quite clear language that social conditions are among the things that can be adjudged morally repugnant, and that some things are wrong even if they are broadly accepted. Natural law is a closer label, because I do in fact beleive that ethics derive in large part from man's nature as a free and intelligent creature."

Tim based his morality on natural reality -- the connection between humans and the environment. To which I replied by saying that one cannot deduce moral facts from natual/scientific facts. This subject was not persued further.
You have stated that you believe that there are moraly objective principles, and mentioned Kant once. I replied by writing something about Kant's attempt to create a system of logical a priori morality. This also was not further discussed. Here you again refer to Kant, but you do not discuss the nature of his moral philosophy. Your argument in the most recent post refered to history, which is obviously not a priori. Also, to say that all human societies share a moral principle is an an anthropological argument. Now you seem to have clarified things a little, I think. Although I'm not sure if your answer to Robynn is that morality does not require god because it can be deduced logically (Kant) or a part of human (evolutionary?) nature.

"Well, you're starting off with a false dichotomy. I don't like or dislike Sartre. He died when I was seven. I never met the man. My problem with him is that he was the writer of morally bankrupt philosophy."

I assume it would be clear that when I wrote that you dislike Sartre I meant you dislike his philosophy, his politics, and his fiction, not his haircut. But I appologize if it was not clear.

"The idea that moral decisions are made by moral actors is not unique to Sartre."

The idea in question is whether morality exists independantly of people making moral judgement as objective entities or not. Obviously if it were based on scientific principles or logic or the word of god it would be. If it is based on human nature it could be considered as both objective and subjective.

"If you're going to set me up with a straw man, at least make it a plausible straw man, for God's sake. Nobody who thinks what you're trying to suggest that I think would have the mental capacity to type."

I was not setting up a strawman or attributing anything to you. However, I was not certain what was your opinion concerning the above question. If my wording was not clear I apologize.
It is reasonable to assume that if morality is objective, than moral decisions should be made by the people who have the best access and understandinb of that morality. However I did not claim that was your opinion as much as trying to develop the question.

"Or of philosophy, or of... I'm sorry, that's beneath me. Not sufficiently beneath me to delete it, but beneath me nonetheless. (See how easy it is for someone to make a moral decision that can be judged by others? Come on, raise your hand if your first reaction upon reading that seemingly gratuitous insult was to say, "Well, David was being true to himself..." Yeah, that's my point exactly. My argument is that people not only do judge others based on external standards of ethics, but that we should do so. We can even have an interesting discussion regarding whether it was appropriate for me to insult someone at random just to make a point for "the greater good." I've already endorsed the concept of values pluralism-- that sometimes principles can be in conflict with one another. As long as we all agree that the conflicting principles really and truly exist, I'm happy.)"

The only reasons I can give for you not to insult me are that it would hurt my feeling and maybe cause me to think less of you. Yet it is your choice whether or not to care about these considerations. Obviously you do not. I do not know you well enough to know if it is authentic of you to insult me. It doesn't really matter, the consequences would be the same. If you are truely insensitive to my feelings, obviously talking about it would not achieve anything, nor would labeling you as immoral.

"I'm really uncomfortable with the assumption on this thread that "inconsistent logic" = "bad faith." I don't think that's what Sartre meant with the term."

I don't know enough. I think it means inconsistency with one's authenticity. Although I got the impression that it also means not admiting that one is responsible for one's moral choices. As for example, your choice to insult me. But. like I said, I don't know enough. I tried to look it up, but I'm too lazy right now to check my own notes. If you do know what it means be so kind as to right it down.

"Actually, I think your last statement is exactly what Sartre was doing. From what I've read, it was an ongoing pattern for him: as long as the "oppressors" (a term which begs various questions) were the ones taking the punishment, he didn't much care what means the "oppressed" (see note re: "oppressor") employed. I actually think at least part of his point in the letter was to call the French press hypocrites, for decrying the Munich terror attack when they were generally sympathetic to the Algerian insurgents who employed basically similar means. A fair point, but the problem that I see is that Sartre was pretty cool with both of them. Consistency isn't always a good thing. In Sartre's case it just means he's wrong a lot."

When I was a peace activist until about a year ago, I encountered many Israelis who did not understand that Palestinian terrorism does not validate their oppression, and some Israelis, Palestinians and Internationals who did not understand that Israeli oppression does not justify Palestinian terrorism. Although most activists I met did not support terrorism at all and others did not suppott it as much as understood it. I felt they were wrong, but I understood them. Like I said, many believe (including Americans) that violence is justified in the cause of freedom. At the time, since I wanted to oppose Israeli oppression, because I felt it was my responsibility as an Israeli and hoped it will eventually reduce Palestinian violence, I felt I must ally with these people, because a large part of the peace camp was paralyzed. Over time I lost faith in my own ability and in that of the peace camp's abiility to afferct change, so I didn't have to tolerate their opinions. However, I believe our arguments stemmed from a shared moral objection to oppression and terrorism, and that heir problem was blindness more than immorality.

"Besides, my true self has a little bit of a snide streak, and I was only being true to myself. Can't we all just appreciate my good faith?"

Even if by being snide you were being authentic, there is no requirement to appreciate it. If you are suggesting that you had no choice but be snide, that would be, I think, bad faith. You have made a choice to be snide. That choice can now be judged. One result is that it was not clear to me what you meant.

A"nd I'm still not convinced that Sartre's philosophy actually embraced the utilitarianism everyone keeps ascribing to it. I'll shut up about that if someone can cite an example in Sartre's own works, but until then I'll assume that some people are interpolating a concept that isn't fairly present. Please, someone, show me the underappreciated underlying morality to Sartre's philosophy. I beg."

I didn't say that he was a utiliterian. Sartre's philosophy is derived from Husrel's phenomenology, that is derived from Decartes famous statement that the only thing known for certain is that "I think therefore I am," and from Berkley and Hume's philosophy that all we knw are our (phenomenologiocal) sensations of the material world. Utiliterianism was also informed by these in a different way.

"Wait, does that mean that aesthetics are an appropriate basis for moral evaluation again? Can I indict someone because he's ugly and has stupid hair? Or engages in a form of sex that I find gross and repugnant? (I suspect you were making a joke, but I didn't find it to be a very funny one. That, unlike ethics, is a question of personal taste.)"

You could indict someone for his hair if you lived in the Taliban regime. Until recently you could indict someone in the US for having sex is ways that some found repugnant. The difference between morality and aesthetics is the issue in question. I personaly am a fan of Hendrix, and that's the only meaning of my statement.

"The difference of course being that the killer thinks that killing is generally immoral but that it's okay for him to do it anyway, at least in this particular circumstance, whereas his victim most likely thinks that killing is both generally immoral and particularly immoral right now. Unlike you, I believe that only one of them is right."

Not true. I suspect that you, like most people, believe that killing is justified under certain circumstances. I was not exactly clear, but I got the impression that you are for capital punishment for example. (This is not an attack, I am not completely opposed to them either, just the application. But the question is mostly irrelevant in Israel).

In any case, my point was that most of the time the argument is not whether killing is right as much as whether the circumstances warrant it. Which means that we share moral principles but argue about their application.

"Okay, here is where James's "Is red red?" game comes into play. Killing is wrong only insofar as human perceive it to be wrong in precisely the same way that red is red only insofar as people perceive it to be red. Light still has the same range of wavelengths whether there is anyone to perceive them or not, but the concept of "red" (or for that matter the concept of "light") only exists when there is a human mind to frame the concepts. Similarly, an object hitting another object at 1200 feet per second is physics; only when the first object is a bullet fired at a person, who is the second object, by yet another person who is angry, does physics gain a moral component. In an arid, depopulated desert there is no morality because there is nobody to exploit or be exploited.

Wow, we actually did get into epistemology."

That is the point of the discussion I was trying to make.

"The very desire for guarantees that our values are eternal and secure in some objective heaven is perhaps only a craving for the certainties of childhood or the absolute values of our primitive past." — Isaiah Berlin

If, as I believe, the ends of men are many, and not all of them are in principle compatible with each other, then the possibility of conflict — and of tragedy — can never wholly be eliminated from human life, either personal or social. The necessity of choosing between absolute claims is then an inescapable characteristic of the human condition. This gives its value to freedom as Acton conceived of it — as an end in itself, and not as a temporary need, arising out of our confused notions and irrational and disordered lives, a predicament which a panacea could one day put right." — Isaiah Berlin, "Two Concepts of Liberty" (1958), part VIII.


I should really read his book one day.



Posted by: David Bjorlin at January 1, 2006 05:33 PM

Micha wrote I'm not sure how to do the bold for quotations.

The key for HTML markup is >. Insert an i between the > to start an italicized section, and a b between the > to start boldface. To end one of those sections, it's the same markup but with a / in front of the letter, so that it's blah blah blah (omitting the spaces).

The question was what makes moral principles valid? Obviously making a list of principles, even if you inscribe them on stone tablets, does not make them valid, even if the person making the list is you and not Sartre. It is still just a list.

But my question is, "Is my list right?" If my list is right, we can go back and try to determine why each, or all, of the items on the list are valid. But if I can provide at least one example of an absolute moral imperative, it necessarily proves that such a thing exists.

I've already offered my opinion about why I think a great many things are inherently wrong-- because they offend the dignity of humans as sentient beings-- but my observations may be correct even if my proposed explanation of my observations may be wrong.

I wrote, "I notice that nobody has taken me up on my wager, so please excuse me if I think at least part of my claim is as irrefutable as I believe it to be. (E.g., name one circumstance in the history of mankind where a forcible rape has been morally just. Just one.)"

Micha replied, a) A few years ago a woman in Pakistan (I think) was sentenced to be raped, I think for the crime of adultary.

And you think this was morally just? The fact that some country did something morally despicable is not exactly breaking news. We've done morally despicable things in the past (slavery, My Lai, sales tax).

b) Although to the best of my knowledge most societies in history viewed rape negatively (I'm not an anthropologist, and my studies in history were not of that topic), our concept of rape has changed a lot due to feminism in the last 30 years, especially with regard to date-rape and rape by husbands of their wives. If you ever watched Hitchcock's movie Frenzy (?), which is about a rapist, it has a scene portrayiong a woman excited about the idea of being raped. I believe today this scene would be considered tasteless.

You say that as if tastelessness would keep something off the screen. I'm aware that some people have rape fantasies, but if it's voluntary it's not really rape, is it? As to former marital rape laws, you seem to have confused morality with legality. The law was unjust then.

c) I do not know if soldiers raping women during wars think of their acts as immoral or not. Nor do I know if rapists in general do. Rape is all too common. I think that most rapists do consider it immoral but alow other considerations to affect them, but I have no way of verifying it.

Look, you seriously seem to have a huge problem discerning between what ACTUALLY happens and what is MORAL. Not everything that actually happens (e.g. Stalinist purges) SHOULD happen. A discussion of morals is about what SHOULD happen. I know rapes actually happen, otherwise I wouldn't be able to say they're wrong, now would I?

I said last post that you were making my position into an idiotic straw man, but now I see I was mistaken. You actually don't seem to understand what I was saying to begin with, or what I said last time, and I am not optimistic you understand the discussion we're having even now.

d) As was previously mentioned rapes are said to occur in Jails often, yet we still send people to Jails. Does that mean that we endorse the rape of criminals?

No, it just means we have nowhere else to put criminals except prison. Blasting them into space would be an option, but I fear the cost would be prohibitive.

The only reasons I can give for you not to insult me are that it would hurt my feeling and maybe cause me to think less of you.

Really? I could come up with a few more than that. Manners are important. My point is that not only should you be unhappy with a gratuitous insult, but that everyone else reading it should agree, "well that was uncalled for," and that whatever was rattling around in my head when I make the statement isn't determinative of whether I was right to make it.

A lot of times my position will overlap with utilitarianism, but not always. Calculations of utility will often allow for fairly fascistic considerations, or more often can be abused to justify fascism. ("I'm sorry, but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, in this case, your needs. Please get in the van.") I prefer a framework that allows for a more robust notion of individual rights.

Posted by: Den at January 1, 2006 07:24 PM

Wait, does that mean that aesthetics are an appropriate basis for moral evaluation again?


To a degree. There is a certain thing called respecting the artistic integrity of a piece of work and that implies a certain degree of morality. And allowing Pat Boone to defile anything by Hendrix is an absolute disrespect to the artistic integrity.

Can I indict someone because he's ugly and has stupid hair?


No, because an indictment is a legal term, not a moral one. Just because something is immoral, doesn't necessarily mean it's legal. Lying is usually considered immoral, but it's only illegal if it's done under oath or to obstruct an investigation.*


Or engages in a form of sex that I find gross and repugnant?


Until recently, you could in Texas, but the Supreme Court said otherwise.


(I suspect you were making a joke, but I didn't find it to be a very funny one. That, unlike ethics, is a question of personal taste.)


I actually thought it was very funny, but then that's a question of personal tast. And, while personal taste may be somewhat subjective, there are simply some people who have no taste whatsoever.

*Unless, of course, the person lying to the investigator did it to provide political cover for a Bush, then, according the conservative blogosphere, that person is a hero.

Posted by: Micha at January 1, 2006 07:47 PM

Look David, you write down a list of moral principles and then challenge me to prove whether they are right or wrong, absolute or relative? But by what critrion should I decide whether your list s right or wrong, absolute or not? Without a critirion I can not concede that you have proved the existence of an absolute moral principle.

Obviously you and I would consider the rape in Pakistan, as well as any other rape as immoral. But by definition (of our discussion) our personal judgement (or at least mine) cannot be considered in itself a critirion for the absoluteness of a moral principle. We believe that our morality is better than that of these Pakistani, but is our belief enough? Obviously not if what we are seeking are absolute moral principles.

to use your language: WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO FIND OUT IS WHAT MAKES MORALS TRUE.

So it is not that I cannot distinguish between what is moral and what actualy happens. But that I have a critirion to define when something actually happened but not for whether it was moral or not. (or to be precise, I was not given one by you in the context of this discussion, and my own critirions were not discussed much).

It seems that our discussion is at a standstill possibly because we are not even having the same discussion. As for myself, I can claim that I have tried to clarify the positions (my own and yours) as much as I can so we can join each other in the same discussion. If I failed it is not because of lack of trying.

And now in this post you do give a critirion for defining moral princiles as absolute, and you do it explicitly and not implicitly, so that even someone like myself can understand. Finally we are talking about the same thing. How nice it would have been if you provided that critirion earlier.

And the critirion is: because they offend the dignity of humans as sentient beings.

Wonderful, I believe this basic principle is shared by many good people. It is a humanistic principle I also share. But, is it a critirion of absoluteness of moral principles? After all, isn't it in itself just a moral principle, a good one, a very encompassing one, but to say that something offends is basically to say that it is immoral. Why is it wrong to offend human dignity? Is there an objective reason that we shouldn't offend human dignity? Is there something essential about humanity that necessitates that its dignity should not be offended?

I can see no other than this: that you an I choose (most of the time) to value human dignity. I tend to believe that the idea of respect for human dignity is a basic aspect of a morality naturaly shared by most humans on a deep emotional level (i.e. something that can be studied by psychology, anthroplogy, sociology etc.), and that in the cases where it is ignored it is because of other emotional motivations. But still some people choose respect human dignity and some do not, and there is no objective way to define that what they offend as valuable, except that we humans consider it as such.
One last thing:
"The only reasons I can give for you not to insult me are that it would hurt my feeling and maybe cause me to think less of you.

Really? I could come up with a few more than that. Manners are important. My point is that not only should you be unhappy with a gratuitous insult, but that everyone else reading it should agree, "well that was uncalled for," and that whatever was rattling around in my head when I make the statement isn't determinative of whether I was right to make it."

>To say that you should not insult me according to the principle of politeness is like saying that you shouldn't kill me because it would harm the fabric of society in some way. It is a valid moral principle, but one that is too motivated by a calculated self interest in the existence of a society with manners.

Why would everybody else agree that insulting me was wrong? It could be because they value manners or it could be because they value human dignity. In other words, because we all have a shared comprehension of what it feels like to be insulted, we would not want someone else to experience this feeling, meaning that others care about how I feel. But that caring isn't an absolute moral principle as far as I can tell.

Posted by: Micha at January 2, 2006 06:17 AM

Since my last post I did three things that might help prevent this argument from continuing in the same way.

1) I looked up moral skepticism and was reminded how technical moral philosophy gets at a certain point.

2) I looked at David's arguments from another direction. Instead of asking what critirion makes David's list of moral principles true, I asked a different question of applicability. Is it ever necessary when applying these moral principles to refer to the specifics of a case in order to decide whether the principle is true or false? And I indeed can't think of a time when any circumstances can cause me to think that rape was not moraly wrong (without asking on what I base my assumption that rape is immoral).
Taking the discussion in this direction opens a whole new group of questions. I also am not sure that we can divorce that question from the question I was asking (what makes a moral view justified?). But maybe it can help clarify some of the mess we had had in this argument.
I prefer to think of it as an argument stemming from different points of view and misunderstanding and not about stupidity. But this is a matter of choice.

3) It also seems to be that both I and David and others share the same basic moral principle at the heart of our morality:
Human dignity is of moral value.

A religious humanist might justify this claim by saying that human dignity is of valuable because god created man and so on.

But without god I and David and Tim (I think) would say that:
Moral dignity is of value because humans are sentient.

But the point in which we may differ (I'm not sure) is that I don't think that we can deduce the fact that humans are valuable from the fact that humans are sentient (the way we deduce scientific facts from natural facts). What I believe is that the fact of sentience makes humans capable of ascribing a moral value to human sentience. It is not an deduction as much as an action or choice.

In the real world this is a small difference since the end result is that we value human dignity. But it is of philosophical significance.

I hope this helps clarify things as much as morality can eve be clarified.

Posted by: David Bjorlin at January 2, 2006 09:34 PM

This is probably as good a stopping point as any for the debate, since Micha and I ended up tolerably close to one another. It was fun, folks.

Posted by: James Carter at January 3, 2006 06:37 PM

"For Pat Boone to sing anything by Hendrix (and probably many others in the list of great rock musicians) is absolutly immoral."

you want horrible?

Try Britney Spears covering both Joan Jett's "I love Rock n Roll," AND *shudder* the Rolling Stone's "(I can't get no) Satisfaction"

"Hello Officer. Why am I speeding to the hospital with blood shooting out both ears? You wouldn't believe me if I told you."

Posted by: Micha at January 3, 2006 08:13 PM

Actualy, I was being rather silly. Covering great songs is a long tradition. Sometimes you get good ones, sometimes bad ones and some as great as the original. (See Peter's latest post on fan reaction).

Posted by: David Bjorlin at January 3, 2006 11:23 PM

On the other hand, Bowling for Soup's cover of "Baby One More Time" reveals what an actually good song that was.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at January 4, 2006 11:04 AM

Actualy, I was being rather silly. Covering great songs is a long tradition. Sometimes you get good ones, sometimes bad ones and some as great as the original.

Speaking of... I heard Korn's cover of "Another Brick in the Wall" yesterday. It's utter crap.

Posted by: James Carter at January 4, 2006 12:52 PM

"Speaking of... I heard Korn's cover of "Another Brick in the Wall" yesterday. It's utter crap"

Yeah, but it gets worse. The Scissor Sisters covered "Comfortably Numb" on SNL last year. That was, for me, the absolute nadir of modern music. Even Britney and the Spice Girls never dreamed of anything that foul.

Posted by: Rex Hondo at January 5, 2006 04:27 AM

Speaking of horrible covers, the R&B version of "Bohemaian Rhapsody" I heard once was pretty abominable, and Madonna's version of "American Pie" should be considered a capital offense.

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at January 5, 2006 08:31 AM

The basic problem with covering "Another Brick In the Wall Pt 2" (or pretty much anything off The Wall) is that out of context, the songs aren't nearly as good, nor do they seem to make a lick of sense. I mean, divorced from the context of the post-WWII British boarding school system, what in the hell is "Another Brick In the Wall Pt 2" supposed to be about?

On the other hand, I did love Weird Al Yankovic's "Bohemian Rhapsody" cover, "Bohemian Polka"... :-)

Posted by: Tim Lynch at January 5, 2006 09:11 AM

and Madonna's version of "American Pie" should be considered a capital offense.

Several years ago, I happened to play Weird Al's "The Saga Begins" in one of my classes (as background music while they did a lab). For those unaware, the song basically recaps Star Wars: Episode I to the tune of "American Pie."

A few days later, a student came to me with a song that she said I needed to hear. "It's using the same music as the song we heard."

I said, "Wait -- is it the Madonna cover?"
"Yeah!"
"Sorry -- I can't listen to that."

As a huge Madonna fan, she was quite puzzled.

TWL

Posted by: Bladestar at January 5, 2006 09:52 AM

Madonna must die for that crime against humanity she inflicted on that classic song...

Posted by: Rick Keating at January 5, 2006 10:15 AM

Slightly related to cover songs, back when I was in college in Cincinnati, one of the local independent stations, channel 64, had an interesting ad campaign about the classic 50s and 60s TV shows it aired in reruns. At the time, several re-makes of old shows were appearing, either as new TV shows such as _Next Generation_ or as reunion TV movies, such as _Get Smart, Again._ Channel 64’s ad featured a record player playing a cover of a song and a voice over announcer saying “remakes are never as good as the original.” A hand then drew the record player’s arm across the record, and the song was replaced with the original version.

All well and good. Except--

One of the station’s “remakes are never as good as the original” spots had the Eisley Brothers’ version of “Twist and Shout” replaced by the Beatles’ version.

The Beatles’ version _was_ the remake.

Rick

Posted by: David Serchay at January 5, 2006 11:06 AM

On the other hand, I did love Weird Al Yankovic's "Bohemian Rhapsody" cover, "Bohemian Polka"... :-)
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

And for you Lost fans


http://www.weirdal.com/lostrhapsody/lostrhapsody.htm

Posted by: Den at January 5, 2006 11:22 AM

As a huge Madonna fan, she was quite puzzled.

I think that's another typo. You meant, "As a person with absolutely no taste, she was quite puzzle," right?

Madonna has been skirting a much-deserved death sentence for two decades now, mostly for her alleged "acting."

Posted by: Rat at January 5, 2006 11:47 AM

Personally, and this is speaking as a DJ, Remakes fall into two categories-A)Why didn't the original sound this good, or B) THE PAIN! THE PAIN! SOMEONE GET ME OUT OF HERE! Case in point, Carfax Abbey's rendition of Cry Little Sister. A touch morehaunting than the original. Check it out at WWW.Carfaxabbey.com. I' ALMOST gotten the horror of Madonna's Pie out of my head. But at night, the freams still come.... Now if I could just get Weird Al's The Night Santa Went Crazy out of my noggin, I'd be a very happy man....

Posted by: Tim Lynch at January 5, 2006 01:18 PM

Personally, and this is speaking as a DJ, Remakes fall into two categories

I'd agree. Mostly, I think a remake makes a lot of sense if the new person gives the song something new -- a case in point is the cover of "Mad World" that came out a couple of years ago. The original Tears for Fears version was forgettable pop (IMO); the new one was haunting.

As for Madonna's song -- KFOG, a radio station in San Francisco, has a feature called "10@10" where they play ten songs from the same year. Occasionally they have theme days rather than a particular year (e.g. taxes, which they do every April 15). Whenever we get a Friday the 13th, the theme is always the same -- "Hits From Hell."

Madonna's American Pie frequently gets high billing in that event.

Now if I could just get Weird Al's The Night Santa Went Crazy out of my noggin, I'd be a very happy man....

Spoilsport. :-)

TWL

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at January 5, 2006 02:18 PM

The original Tears for Fears version was forgettable pop (IMO); the new one was haunting.

You know, this is a perfect way to describe Marilyn Manson's cover of "Sweet Dreams".

I also think Metallica's cover of "Turn the Page" is incredibly better than the original. :)

I should've mentioned it at the time, but the cover of "Another Brick in the Wall" with Layne Stanley singing was a pretty good version. But Korn... *shudder*

Posted by: Bladestar at January 5, 2006 03:13 PM

Complete the circle and return to Sci-Fi land with...

"Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" covered by Bill Shatner :)

And "The Night Santa went Crazy" isn't a parody, it's an original, ain't it? The "Extra Gory" version is even better :)

Posted by: Tim Lynch at January 5, 2006 04:04 PM

I also think Metallica's cover of "Turn the Page" is incredibly better than the original. :)

Gotta disagree here. Metallica's cover is perfectly decent (and I just heard it yesterday), but Bob Seger's version is, IMO, one of the absolute best life-on-the-road songs ever made. There's a reason that Metallica kept that same lone saxophone wail.

TWL

Posted by: James Carter at January 5, 2006 04:53 PM

but Bob Seger's version is, IMO, one of the absolute best life-on-the-road songs ever made

The funniest thing is that "Turn the page" was originally a country song...which ended up being covered by a heavy metal band.

The seger version has the more haunting vocals, but metallica's has a much rougher edge to it that really goes well with the lyrics. Also, the music video they did for it worked perfectly. It was the story of an aging stripper trying to make a living for her and her two kids. Very poignent. But yeah, that sax...the only other sax riff that even comapares to it is the riff from "Baker Street."

Also, so that this thread is not merely a source of unending pain...what about the BEST covers out there? I would say the Hendrix version of "all Along the Watchtower," and the Warren Zevon "Knocking on Heaven's door."

by the way, if my first, sad attempt at HTML fails, don't blame me. Blame Wikipedia.

Posted by: David Bjorlin at January 5, 2006 05:12 PM

the only other sax riff that even comapares to it is the riff from "Baker Street."

Which, appropriately enough, was covered by the Foo Fighters. As best I can tell, they got the same wail out of a guitar.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at January 5, 2006 07:37 PM

The seger version has the more haunting vocals, but metallica's has a much rougher edge to it that really goes well with the lyrics.

It works fine with the lyrics, agreed -- but I think the haunting nature of Seger's version did a great job capturing the loneliness of the thing. Both work -- I just think that Seger's was one of those songs that didn't need to be improved upon.

But yeah, that sax...the only other sax riff that even comapares to it is the riff from "Baker Street."

I think the Clarence Clemons riff in "Jungleland" is up there as well -- but other than that one, I agree with you. (And "Baker Street" is fantastic -- one of the few times I've bought a CD without knowing any material other than one song.)

Also, so that this thread is not merely a source of unending pain...what about the BEST covers out there? I would say the Hendrix version of "all Along the Watchtower," and the Warren Zevon "Knocking on Heaven's door."

Both are superb.

There are two I like that I'm not even certain count as covers. Linda Ronstadt's version of "Desperado" matches the Eagles cut, in my opinion -- but since I believe they were released simultaneously I'm not sure it really counts as a cover. And the Police covered themselves with "Don't Stand So Close '86", which IMO at least equals the original.

Straight-up covers: hmm. Someone else already mentioned "Twist and Shout". I think Otis Day and the Knights' version of "Shout" (from the Animal House soundtrack) is far superior to the original, though I'm sure that's also just a function of connecting it to the film.

Judy Collins' cover of Joni Mitchell's "Both Sides Now" is beautiful, though the original is also great.

Patti Smith's cover of "Because the Night".

Manfred Mann's cover of "Blinded by the Light" easily outstrips the original Springsteen version.

Speaking of Bob Seger, he does a pretty good job on CCR's "Fortunate Son."

Cry Cry Cry (a collaboration of Dar Williams, Richard Shindell, and Lucy Kaplansky) has an album of nothing but covers of less-well-known folk artists' material. (At least, usually, it's less well known. They also cover REM's "Fall On Me" and do a stellar job.)

I could mention Barnes & Barnes' "Please Please Me", but that one's just evil.

Oh, and one other for the list of "why was this ever made?" -- I believe it was Dolly Parton who did a cover of the Eagles' "Seven Bridges Road." Eek.

TWL

Posted by: roger Tang at January 5, 2006 08:05 PM

Covers....hm. The Creedence Clearwater versions of GOOD GOLLY MISS MOLLY and I HEARD IT THROUGH THE GRAPEVINE were pretty good....

Posted by: James Carter at January 5, 2006 09:01 PM

I believe it was Dolly Parton who did a cover of the Eagles' "Seven Bridges Road." Eek.

I saw her on the 25th Anniversary of John Lennon's death performing "Imagine" on CMT. She did an excellent version IMHO, and I NEVER expected CMT to do a John Lennon Tribute.

The Creedence Clearwater versions of GOOD GOLLY MISS MOLLY and I HEARD IT THROUGH THE GRAPEVINE were pretty good....

I actually sorta prefer the CCR version of "I Heard it through the Grapevine." It's rawer, and a LOT more pissed off.

Jose Feliciano's "Light My Fire" should be turned into mandolin picks....no....wait...HE should be turned into mandolin picks for doing it.

Rage against the Machines version of Dylan's "maggies Farm...."

oh....the pain....

On the OTHER hand...there are the GOOD covers..

Stevie ray Vaughn's version of Hendrix's "Little Wing" was much better, primarily cause it is much longer. He also trumped Hendrix's "Voodoo Chile" especially in the live versions. Surprisingly enough, his version of "Superstition” was also excellent.

And Rufus Wainwright's cover of "Hallelujah" by Leonard Cohen is the best....although Jeff Buckley runs a close second, with both severely trumping the original.

And, thanks to the "The Who" Collection I just got, I now realize that "Summertime Blues" is an awesome song. Previously I had only heard the country version.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml;sessionid=0YYI3EIM55XSLQFIQMGCM54AVCBQUJVC?xml=/arts/2004/11/20/bmcovercont20.xml&sSheet=/arts/2004/11/20/ixtop.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=35206
This is one list of the top 50 covers of all time.

Some are dead on, some just suck...(the scissor sisters' “comfortably numb” is BETTER than the original???)

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at January 5, 2006 10:10 PM

You know, this is a perfect way to describe Marilyn Manson's cover of "Sweet Dreams".

Oy. Well, different stokes and all...I had a mad crush on Annie Lennox so MM's version seemed like someone raping my childhood.

Linda Ronstadt's version of "Desperado" matches the Eagles cut, in my opinion -- but since I believe they were released simultaneously I'm not sure it really counts as a cover.

ANOTHER mad crush. yeah, I love Linda's stuff. Louise, the Paul Siebel song on the Silk Purse album always chokes me up.

Good covers?...Police and Thieves by The Clash, Rocket man by Kate Bush (ANOTHER mad crush!), Money (That's What I Want) by The Flying Lizards (or am I the only one who prefers that version?),...come to think of it, aren't some of the great 60s songs often remakes of others? I think that some of the Byrds stuff was originally Dylan songs but it's the Byrds versions I prefer.

Definitely One by Johnny Cash. Full props to the guys who wrote it but Johnny Cash made it his own.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at January 5, 2006 10:32 PM

Rocket man by Kate Bush

I have GOT to find myself a copy of that. I've never heard it, but I love the original and I can easily see how KB could do a great job with it.

come to think of it, aren't some of the great 60s songs often remakes of others?

Especially in the folk community, yes, but also outside it (several early Beatles cuts, for one example).

TWL


Posted by: Bladestar at January 5, 2006 11:05 PM

Best cover....

Tom Jones and Art of Noise covering Prince's "Kiss"

Posted by: jon at January 6, 2006 03:30 AM

Covers of note;

Sixpence None The Richer's cover of the La's' "There She Goes."

They might be giants version of The Four Lads' "Istanbul, not Constantinople"

Silverchair's version of the Clash's "London's Burning"


And this whole thing started with PAD responding to the reaction to Bush's Christmas card.

I've read about information cascades, this must be an information mutation.

(slightly bad mood, I've just read a bunch of online biographies of the Clash. All that passion, all that political commitment, and what changes did they acommplish? Almost nothing from what I can see. Okay, they set the stage for bands susch as chumbawamba who donate profits to worty causes, still...)

Posted by: Rex Hondo at January 6, 2006 04:53 AM

Disturbed's covers of "Shout" (Tears for Fears) and "Land of Confusion" (Genesis) both fall into the GOOD cover category. Even though I like the originals just fine, Disturbed adds the edge that both songs deserve.

As for performers remaking their own songs, I much prefer Eric Clapton's original work to his "Unplugged" performances, especially "Layla."

On the just plain BAD end of the spectrum, Lenny Kravitz should be flogged naked in the street for raping "American Woman" the way he did...

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at January 6, 2006 07:01 AM

slightly bad mood, I've just read a bunch of online biographies of the Clash. All that passion, all that political commitment, and what changes did they acommplish?

They made some GREAT MUSIC! Which is all a band can really expect anyway. Yeah, they thought they could change the world. Everybody does. Seldom works out, probably for the better--as economists, most bass players make very good bass players. At the end of the day the Clash boys can look back and say they made "Somebody Got Murdered", among other gems. That's enough for one lifetime.

Posted by: indestructibleman at January 6, 2006 10:01 AM

Diamonds And Rust (by Joan Baez)as performed by Judas Priest.
also, Green Manalishi as performed by Judas Priest (originally a Fleetwood Mac song when Peter Green was their front man).

other covers of note, U2's Like A Song as covered by Believer, White Wedding covered by Sentenced, Type O Negative's cover of Sabbath's Paranoid.

the list goes on . . .

Posted by: Thom at January 6, 2006 10:18 AM

"This is one list of the top 50 covers of all time.

Some are dead on, some just suck...(the scissor sisters' “comfortably numb” is BETTER than the original???)"

Wow. They chose "One" over "Hurt" by Cash? His cover of U2's "One" is good...but "Hurt" pretty much redefined the song for everyone-including the guy who wrote the song.

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at January 6, 2006 12:03 PM

Wow. They chose "One" over "Hurt" by Cash? His cover of U2's "One" is good...but "Hurt" pretty much redefined the song for everyone-including the guy who wrote the song.

Gotta say I agree - Cash's version made Trent Reznor sound downright optimistic!

"The Night Santa Went Crazy" and "Christmas At Ground Zero", both originals by Weird Al, are among the cornerstones of my personal Christmas CD. Most of the songs on it are, of course, from Bob Rivers ("I Am Santa Claus", "Little Hooters Girl", "Wreck the Malls", etc), and it starts off with Tom Lehrer's "Christmas Carol", but it just wouldn't be complete without the Yankovic tunes...

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at January 6, 2006 12:11 PM

They chose "One" over "Hurt" by Cash? His cover of U2's "One" is good...but "Hurt" pretty much redefined the song for everyone-including the guy who wrote the song.

Maybe they, like me, were thinking of Hurt when they wrote down One. Whoops.

More:

Head On by the Pixies (orignally a Jesus and mary Chain recording)

Winterlong by the Pixies (originally by Neil Young.

Superstar by Sonic Youth (originally by the Carpenters)

Hush by Deep Purple (original by Joe South)

Pearl Jam's version of Last Kiss

Tori Amos doing Famous Blue raincoat by Leonard cohen

Posted by: Tim Lynch at January 6, 2006 12:55 PM

"The Night Santa Went Crazy" and "Christmas At Ground Zero", both originals by Weird Al, are among the cornerstones of my personal Christmas CD.

Seconded (or at least, it would be if I had a personal Christmas CD).

I think a lot of people don't realize just how good a lot of Al's original songs are. "Dare to be Stupid" is the absolute best Devo song that Devo never made, just as an obvious for-instance. (They're not all terrific, of course, but he hits an awful lot more than I think people might suspect.)

TWL

Posted by: indestructibleman at January 6, 2006 01:38 PM

ooh, completely forgot Tori Amos.

i absolutely adore her cover of Angie by The Rolling Stones.

Posted by: Micha at January 6, 2006 08:39 PM

Cream's version of Crossroads

Posted by: Tim Lynch at January 6, 2006 08:42 PM

ooh, completely forgot Tori Amos.

i absolutely adore her cover of Angie by The Rolling Stones.

Which reminds me: the Sundays have a terrific cover of the Stones' "Wild Horses". Worth a listen.

TWL

Posted by: James Carter at January 6, 2006 09:27 PM

http://newgrounds.com/portal/view/285267

Speaking of music....

watch this...

its....just watch.

I have NEVER EVER EVER laughed so hard.

And the music is kickin'.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at January 7, 2006 12:34 AM

You beat me to it, James!

Although I would have had Godzilla pull it off in the end...

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at January 7, 2006 01:42 PM

Hey, maybe we can keep this thread alive forever by using it to point out interesting sites.

here's today's entry--a scientific paper proposing that alien lifeforms have been discovered in a mysterious red rain that hit India in 2001.

story here: http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/exclusives-nfrm/060104_specks.htm

the actual peper is at: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601022

I love the idea of panspermia since it could explain things like both the origin of life on earth and mass extinctions (Now THAT, Ms. Morrison, is ironic). I'm dubious that they've proven anything but I hope they are keeping these "cells" or whatever they are in a same place.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at January 7, 2006 06:38 PM

Hey, maybe we can keep this thread alive forever by using it to point out interesting sites.

Well, I have something that will bring it back to discussing Bush:

Was going through some websites the other day, and came across a little gem - this woman was wearing a t-shirt with a phrase on it.

The phrase was "War starts with Dubya". :)

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at January 15, 2006 09:59 PM

Both to keep the thread alive and issue a warning:

Capsule Brings First Comet Dust to Earth
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060115/D8F5CKSO7.html

My analysis:
A- Liklihood of Contamination by Interstellar Virus-High

B- Liklihood of zombie plague as a result of A-Moderate

C- Recommended course of action-- make sure tool box is well stocked, keep gas tank filled, sharpen katanna.

Posted by: James Carter at January 15, 2006 10:57 PM

well, this is the 504th comment.

Think we should let this thread go....or just keep posting till we run out of numbers?

and while we are on the suject of interesting sites....this also goes with the lennon thread...

http://www.delta.ro/beatles/paudi.html

TONS of beatles songs...the site is really awesome.

Posted by: James Carter at January 16, 2006 05:01 PM

well, this is the 504th comment.

*Grumble Grumble* Psychic Bill posting at the same time *Grumble*

and, did you get a message saying, in essence that you couldn't post until your post was approved? whats up with that?

anyway...

about the zombie threat....I just plan to follow the steps outlined in the following handy websites:

http://www.zombiedefense.org/main/index.html

http://www.fvza.org/

also, stay far, far away from Hati.

Posted by: James Carter at January 22, 2006 07:22 PM

just keepin' the dream alive..


oh, and I thought I would post this..

its one one of the best daily show clips out there..

http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=23651