Support Your Local Religious Gun Nut

pam, peter, (others?)
i've begun posting here. join me.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/david_wolpe/2009/09/boors_cads_and_cretins.html

pam, peter,
let's go to that david wolpe thread i linked to. it's pretty new so won't close for a while. if/when it does, if we're still at it, we can go to another new not popular thread. i think this way we'll only have to change every 2 weeks or so instead of every week.

see you guys there?

Hi Walter,
"...scientists have got it all wrong because their presuppositions are all wrong...bunch of idiots...."

LOL!

Fine with me to move to the empty thread, but I think the problem will persist to some extent - when a thread "ages out," which seems to happen when the question is about three weeks old, it gets shut down to new posts. At least the empty ones will be easier to navigate. And we can continue to find each other in the current Jacoby thread if we get "lost."

peter, pam,
i would have no problem going here:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/david_wolpe/2009/09/boors_cads_and_cretins.html

it opened yesterday and has no comments yet. susan's has over 200...

as far as having cut and pasted stuff, are you saying you can't access "expired" forums?

just answer as many questions as you can/like. i'd like to keep going. i'd like to hear your thoughts on everything i've asked. don't apologize for the biblical perspective. i know that's what i'm getting.

Hi Walter and Pam,

I'm finding it frustrating changing from forum to forum. Would you be willing to try one of the other panel members and ask them if we could invade one of there less used forums? Someone who is not getting the bites like Susan does.

Also my trip to Florida is almost here. I can find you, no doubt, on the Jacob's forums when I get back and we can take up where we left off. I have cut and snipped your posts to a clip board, so I can address some of the more interesting statements and your questions as best as I can.

Yes I did read the two links you provided Walter. I don't have a response to all your questions on the other forum, or to all the questions in the two links, but I'll be glad to respond to those I do.

As you know, the field your asking me to delve into is large and I would come at it from a biblical view, not an evolutionary scientific one. I'm not a scientist. In this way I'm not going to satisfy many of your questions. We look at life from two totally different points of view. My reference point is the Lord Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:3) whereas your is evolutionary science. That is the circle you operate in.

I'm trying to find some sites that support the biblical view of creation that will answer your questions. I have only found one so far that claims an impartial view but heavily favors some form of Old Earth progressive creationism. It does however present evidences from both sides - YEC and OEC. You are probably already aware of the site, but if not,

http://www.asa3.org/asa/education/ORIGINS/index.html

This will answer some of the questions posed by your two links if you look at "Age of the Universe." It has some answers to the questions posed by Mark Isaak's book on the logistics and problems he identified on Noah's ark.

As to your question on the number of ID proponents that are Christians, the site breaks them down into three main branches, with Christians being the most prevalent.

http://www.asa3.org/asa/education/ORIGINS/design.htm#b

I'm sure I can do better than this by identifying some of the non-Christian supporters of the ID movement if you want some specific names, but you can probably find that out as easily as I can. I do remember someone identifying some of these non-Christians, however. It might have been on one of the video presentations from the Discovery Institute???

Anyway, I'm babysitting for the rest of the evening until 1AM.

pam, you said,
"However, change does sometimes come pretty swiftly when exposed to persuasive new ideas. Think of cults led by charismatics, or of loss of faith when exposed to scientific knowledge."

but if your "presuppositions" (hi peter!)are in order, your faith can withstand any conact with science. besides, scientists have got it all wrong because their presuppositions are all wrong...bunch of idiots....

DanielintheLionsDen, you said,
"That is why most Muslims do not choose to be Muslim, and most Christians do not choose to be Christian; they merely experience a heritage passed on to them, without choosing anything at all."

agreed. most people "inherit" their religion.

i've always thought it was "immoral" of the judeochrislamic god to make heaven contingent on belief in him. salvation is largely an accident of birth. that's not fair.

Hello DITLD,

Thank you for your reply.

I am not with your belief in our lack of choice and control in our lives, thoughts, beliefs, cares, desires.... I believe that all is changeable and maleable, and that we have the ability to (indeed) create ourselves as we choose. Free will gives the ability, (so the name), but alone it is usually impotent, as it takes more than the application of free will to manipulate change. Deeply complicating the endeavor is the role of conditioning, whose service is not limited to the maintaining of the personality and ego identity from flailing too far from home. Conditioning is a very strong master. And we are virtually all pledged to the service of that master, unfortunately, and not the other way around.

To cast yourself as powerless over these influences, which are YOU, (leastwise a reflected aspect of you and the you that is considered in this world as valid), will only serve to hobble you like a sheep to your own ego.

You, and the rest of humanity, are greater than that imposter! Yet still the imposter acts out it's joys and dramas on the stage of life and We sit listlessly along for the ride. A shame!

DITLD,
You said "People say, 'This is my belief, it may change gradually over time, as I accumulate a lifetime of expereinces, but there is really no valid or logical argument that anyone can present to me that will motivate me to change what I believe, because what I believe is true, and not subject to other people's arguments'."

While I largely agree with you - most people are indoctrinated into their beliefs at a very young age by their parents, extended family, and community. However, change does sometimes come pretty swiftly when exposed to persuasive new ideas. Think of cults led by charismatics, or of loss of faith when exposed to scientific knowledge:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/mar04.html

Most who blog here are pretty well dug in, else they wouldn't take the time, but those who drop in casually might find themselves thinking...

Well, WFIC:going back, I wrote that religion served two functions: 1) to help man face his death, 2) to prevent man from serving only his own self-interests rather than society as a whole, society in this sense being his tribe. It was/is useful if 'God' demands the same thing but Christianity, at least in its purest sense, is about God's love for his creation, not about counteracting man's inherent egoism. IMHO the 'morals' would be there no matter what the religion.

Justtilthen

Yes I was referring to you. I think my brain got a little tongue-tied for a moment.

I also believe in free-will. HOWEVER, it is a more limited and complex process than most people are willing to admit. (Mary Cunningham? are you listening?)

I do not understand it myself; I am not pretending to; I am merely aware of this awful complexity, that is probably beyond the understanding of anyone.

Obviously, you cannot choose your thoughts. You cannot summon them, nor dismiss them, except maybe in tiny bursts of energy over brief periods, but your thoughts keep going on and on, waking and sleeping, off on their own, beyond your consious control.

You cannot "choose" your beliefs. For, your beliefs are what actually compose YOU, YOURSELF, YOUR PERSONALITY. You cannot choose your mind or your soul, or your internal essence. To say that you choose your beliefs is to say that you actually and consciously "create yourself."

Perhaps a person may gain some momentary or occaisional grasp of the controls that form belief, and tinker with them some, and adjust them some, so as to modify belief a little. But even when a person "casts off" all old belief, in a radical reorganizaation of belief, even this is not something one "chooses" to do. There is a cause, exterior to you, and your choice making apparatus, that pushes you into this.

People believe what seems true. And people do not choose what "seems" true, anymore than they choose the landscape that they see outside of their windows.

Something seems true because that is how it seems, and not because you have chosen to think it seems true.

It is a conundrumsous concept, I agree. Yet also, at the same time, many choices are presented to us, not as profound as what to believe, and we are given the opportunity to choose, one way or the other, and we make these choices.

But we only choose from the choices put before us in our adventures in the world. We do not have infinite choice. That is why most Muslims do not choose to be Muslim, and most Christians do not choose to be Christian; they merely experience a heritage passed on to them, without choosing anything at all.

Likewise, people raised as Christians who experience doubt, and become atheistic, because of this doubt, did not choose to doubt. The doubt pre-exists as a characteristic of their personalities, which they did not choose, and cannot make go away.

Mary_Cunningham, you said,
"The Hebrew Bible is violent, yes, but there's also a lot about justice and morals..."

the thing that bothers me about all the morals in judeochrislamic scripture is that you're supposed to "do it" for god (instead of your fellow human).

the scriptural "definition" of moral is "what god wants". i understand why it has to be stated that way, but it allows for abuse: maybe god wants me to kill/harm/discriminate/exclude for him (god does it lots of times himself).

don't even get me started on islam.... that was definitely a BIG step BACKWARDS morally.

PS: did you know that another definition of demi-urge is public official? 1. in the Gnostic and certain other systems) a supernatural being imagined as creating or fashioning the world in subordination to the Supreme Being, and sometimes regarded as the originator of evil.
2. (in many states of ancient Greece) a public official or magistrate.

Just thought I would point that out.

WIFC:

Ah! Man's moral improvement. But then, why, some 600 years after the death of Christ do we get--wait for it!--Islam, an extremely violent faith? Anyway--and TG this blog is closed, because no PC brigade--at least its Holy (?) Koran is even more violent than the OT, so it is pretty violent. And the first thing the Arabs do, after getting their own prophet and a 'Holy' Koran just for them, is burst out of the Arabian peninsula, (admittedly a pretty nasty place,I can understand how they'd like to leave, especially since oil hadn't been invented yet) and conquer everything in sight? I wouldn't call that moral progress.

So back to Christianity. We are dealing with chicken and egg here. The Hebrew Bible is violent, yes, but there's also a lot about justice and morals, thanks to the role of the prophets. Christ's morality stemmed from them, and the first Christian converts were Jews. ( Well, they would be wouldn't they? Paul hadn't converted yet and none of the others spoke Greek.) So much of the moral improvement of man was partly due to God's revelation. .

De Nada on the 'demi-urge'. I'm fond of it myself.

Best,
MC

Mary_Cunningham, you said,
"...the Church does not regard all the OT as historic truth or even inspired. That is our biggest difference with the evangelicals."

when you say, "the church", you mean catholic? which books do they consider less-than-historic and/or less-than-inspired?

i know catholics are "allowed" to admit of evolution and old earth so on, so at least they can participate in scientific endeavors.

Mary_Cunningham,
though "pharaoh" was given that ultimatum, i still put the blame on yahweh for the passover massacre.

you said,
"Did you know that the God of the OTseemed so different from the Creator in the NT that some of the ancients (Marcion) posited that the NT God was the real one and the Hebrew God was the demi-urge?"

it's impossible not to notice god's moral improvement (dare i say "evolution") in the new testament. the advance could be summed up with "convert others by persuasion and example, rather than the edge of the sword." gone are the days of joshua's jihads and of "cleansing the temple" by destroying other peoples' religious paraphernalia.

i would of course attribute the improvement to MAN's moral improvement.

i was not specifically aware of the marcion speculation. it seems just as valid as any religious "theory". (how many angels can dance....?) for me, marcion is free to do that because he's dealing with made-up story to begin with. and, heck, thankfully christians have generally (except in times of war) deferred to the god described in the new testament over yahweh the "war god" of the old testament.

btw, thanks for "demi-urge" - i had to look that up. good word.

Good Grief! How wrong I am. I can't believe I wrote it.

God killed all the first born Egyptian sons, but only after giving the Pharaoh an ultimatum: let His People go or the kids get the chop. So in a way the Pharaoh killed them.

Did you know that the God of the OTseemed so different from the Creator in the NT that some of the ancients (Marcion) posited that the NT God was the real one and the Hebrew God was the demi-urge?

WIFC

Well, I think you have your Bible stories mixed up. The Pharaoh killed all the first-born sons in Egypt in Genesis (Hebrew Bible); Herod killed boy babies in Judaea in Mark (?), New Testament.

But I agree about the violence in the Old Testament: heard an atheist wag refer to it as running on the railtrack of sanctified slaughter from start to finish (with a detour for the Psalms).

Although I would no go that far, the Church does not regard all the OT as historic truth or even inspired. That is our biggest difference with the evangelicals.

Best

Tying the previous up with US individualism

It follow then that the most communal states will be the most ethnically homogeneous: the Scandinavian countries, Ireland, Israel. Tibet, if only China hadn't invaded.

Thus multiethnic, multicultural US will not be a particularly socialistic society. Its citizens don't resemble each other sufficiently.

Best again
MC

Mary_Cunningham, you said,
"Seems somehow sacrilegious to combine the love of the Creator with the annihilation of the innocent."

your mention of the word "innocent" got me to thinking about king herod. when he (supposedly) killed innocent babies, it was called the "massacre of innocents". when yahweh did it, it was called "passover"... lovely...

Justtillthen:

Well, the only groups to which man is really loyal are family and clan. Most ancient religions were merely an extension of this loyalty, in essence tribal, although, say, the Romans were very happy to add other tribes' gods to their already burgeoning pantheon.

Jesus Christ was something very different. Preaching the love of humanity, God's divine love for all humanity, the love of the Creator for his creation. Profoundly beautiful IMHO.

This thread is defunct, so maybe we can talk about abortion another time. (Seems somehow sacrilegious to combine the love of the Creator with the annihilation of the innocent.)

Best

justillthen, you said,
"No need to get despondent with the "blah-blah-blah's". The message, whether one believes 'literally' or not, is good."

i was not mocking "the message" with the feed the humgry...blah, blah, blah..."

i said "blah, blah, blah..." because "feed the hungry (etc...)" IS the GOOD part of the message that pure free-market capitalists would rather ignore. pure free-market capitalism would say, "good luck, you're on your own."

"Hey, what is with this "Jesus is a socialist..." thing? Don't be silly. He was not a socialist, or even a communist. He was a monarchist."

well, sure, he was a monarchist in the sense that (according to the bible) HE wanted to be king. but his attitude toward society was more of the "we're all in this together", "let's help each other out", "let's share", "what's mine is yours" kind of thing. he did (supposedly) say "render unto caesar" - that's hardly the kind of thing a "tea-party", tax-hating, "it's all mine" republican would like to hear.

Now now walter-in-fallschurch,

No need to get despondent with the "blah-blah-blah's". The message, whether one believes 'literally' or not, is good.

Hey, what is with this "Jesus is a socialist..." thing? Don't be silly. He was not a socialist, or even a communist. He was a monarchist. You must recognize that, at least, no? It is the 'metaphor' of the 'Good King' certainly, but monarchy is the message. We all are in in together, and it All Belongs to the King.

Now, WFiC, I do not mind that message, personally. I also believe that we are in it together, akin, (ha!) to a family.

And so the "Good" is reliant, and a support for, Unity.

Since we are on a retired thread it is only appropriate, no?

peter,
hope vacation is going well. i played in a golf tournament this weekend where i was (i think) the only person who thought the world is not 6000 yrs old. it was our annual church tournament - great "fellowship".

hope you and pam and jac find your way here. wanna continue here? or elsewhere?

like pam, i'm wating too...

justillthen, you said,
"Our [americans'] conditioning, our mythology, is very much cowboy. Individual rights, states rights, me and mine. Any form of social reforms and social systems are frowned on, to our own detriment. Socialism, collectivism, communism, are all slanderous words here."

you know, the american capitalist mindset ("the cowboy, the individual") is very "darwin" - survival of the fittest (business entities and people). i suspect the "republican base", would be uncomfortable with that connection.

also, i think they would be uncomfortable with the idea that were jesus an economist, he would be socialist, if not communist. "give your things away, feed the poor, care for the sick, blah, blah, blah..."

WalterInFallsChurch:

"i didn't "choose" atheism. given the state of my knowledge about the universe, it just seems more likely than theism in general and any specific religion i've ever heard of."

PRECISELY! No one proves there is no god...how do you prove a negative indeterminate!

DanielintheLionsDen, you said,
"Therefore, freedom of religion is freedom to believe as one believes, not freedom to choose ones beliefs."

well said.

obviously "choose" a belief is a figure of speech. i didn't "choose" atheism. given the state of my knowledge about the universe, it just seems more likely than theism in general and any specific religion i've ever heard of.

http://www.good.is/post/how-might-we-put-people-at-the-center-of-evaluation/

So now we can consider these questions: How may one put people at the center of evaluation? How does one reconcile raw data with human stories? What strategies can be used to measure impact beyond quantitative analysis? Are there other realms -- education, the prison system come to mind suggest themselves? -- where evaluation could stand to be less number-centric?"

Hello Persiflage,

Thank you for your comments, and thank you for the links as well...

My free will tells me that I am essentially in agreement with you.

And so therefore, I speak...

:'-)

Hello Mary_Cunningham,

It has been awhile. Some of what you said was very interesting. In your comments on free will and strong instincts you dialogued our will to propogate, and the possibility that is has been receding.

"Alone of the mammalian kingdom we deliberately kill our young in utero ."

Although I do not know that quote to be altogether true, abortion is an obvious and conscious practice that is up for heated debate. At the same time, there are few other species that have so swept across the face of this Earth and populated so dramatically. Outside of the argument that 'we are alone in consciousness, awareness, and the ability to manipulate of all the animals', we also are on the brink of overpopulating the planet and it's easy resources.

When we were a struggling species, even to when we were multiplying but still contending with other species, with huge frontiers and wildernesses untouched, we often had large families and little to no known abortion.

Perhaps one of the dynamics that fuel abortion is a shrinking of the NEED to propagate.

Most animal colonies or families have self adjusting mechanisms to tune their numbers to environmental influences and resource pools. Perhaps abortion has become one of the manifestations of that same need.

Your example of human tendency to act in self interest over societal well being is well taken. It seems particularly true in America. Our conditioning, our mythology, is very much cowboy. Individual rights, states rights, me and mine. Any form of social reforms and social systems are frowned on, to our own detriment. Socialism, collectivism, communism, are all slanderous words here.

Not so in many 'societies', and even some democratic societies. European societies. Some people do not have an aversion to the communal nature of life, and of a healthy and functioning society.

Curious.

Hello Danielinthelionsden,

There is a Justacomment that posts here, but he is not me. The names are similar and easy to merge together I am sure, but you quoted from some of my recent posts.

Who does not like to be recognized is a more advanced entity than I...

I like what you said, as well. To be clear, I do believe in free will and conscious volition. But I believe that much of what we consider to be freedom of will and receptivity and maleability to a changing environment is overrated. It is my belief that we almost constantly interact and react, internally and to 'external' sources, from a conditioned framework... We are creatures of habit, and even those that like change in their worlds usually seek to control that change. Most do not really like much change at all. If people were more honest in their self reflection, I believe, they would recognize this fact.

As to your assertion that We Who Post Here are little effected by the inputs of others, I generally agree. We come with our own certitudes, and are rue to trash them when holes may show up in the seams. So we mend when needed, but rarely strip off the rags altogether.

'Tis far more comfortable to learn mending, (or pick up a Peacemaker), than to find oneself naked in the recognition of our own ignorance.

Yet shifts occur in friendly discourse. Even and perhaps especially under unfriendly fire I have been forced to expand my comfort zone and find empathy for something where judgment or ignorance exited before.

So I have to say that there is hope, DanielLionman.

As to the term 'bot', I am aware that it has particular meaning for some, and that term could not possibly apply to any thinking person, leastwise those with The Definition. I just thought to spread that definition out on that cake a bit more. I think that though we may not be machines that lack conscious awareness altogether, we all have something in common with bots. Much that we do is done without though, as we have already made our assumptions. Automatic pilot.

The "theobots" crank out the automatic responses, based on their religious conditioning. Atheisobots have their own library of speeches at the ready...

It is all in the execution of it, perhaps.

Hello Langenscheidt,

Thank you for your specious ranking of my comments. Much appreciated.

Taking an assumptive leap here, I bow before your high ranking as godless illuminati/philosopher/king. It is a revelation to be in the presence of greatness, neighboring awareness that comprehends WhatIsTheTruth. I am awed. As such, and dumbstruck to eek myself forward in this line of dialogue with You, I refer you to the last comment of Danielinthelionsden.

Clearly, some Are Right.

Again, thank you for the Blessing of Bestowal of Ranking. I am giddy.

It seems the discussion somehow came around to the issue of ' free will' toward the end. We generally concede that any act of free will must be a conscious act based on a conscious/autonomous decision made by an individual.

Some thinkers (Gurdjeiff was mentioned) held that all of these so called independent and volitional acts were illusory, and were controlled/conditioned by forces unknown to the actor from moment to moment. In this view, people were essentially automatons without an iota of free will.

Whatever one's beliefs regarding the actuality of free will, there is consensus on what is typically exempt from conscious control - that being the myriad unconscious functions that keep us alive and upright to begin with.

Consequently, the smallest voluntary movement is beholden to the coherence of countless and generally tamper-proof biological and electro-chemical functions/interactions occurring from instant to instant.

Yogans and other meditators seek to control some of these critical autonomous functions, thus demonstrating the power of mind over matter - and here there is an implicit assumption that while mind is completely integrated with body, it is essentially immaterial by nature.

If true, this kind of uncommon control certainly proves the reality of free will at very deep unconscious levels - and implies that science has much further to go in it's understanding of what exactly makes humans tick.

With regard to Western medicine, the field of psychosomatic medicine recognizes the role that mental states can play in our overall physical health.

http://www.sol.com.au/kor/10_02.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosomatic_medicine

God does not exist. Religion is an illusion which, evidently, even the most primitive among men cannot live without. Since man cannot seem to live without the lies of religion is it perhaps better to allow him to keep his religions, and allow a handful of illuminati, who know the truth and can live with it, keep it among themselves? Man would then be even more divided into the wise and the foolish, the philosophers and the common man, and the truth would become a guarded, esoteric doctrine. If the illusions of religion were to be widely discredited, I wonder what what madness, what uncontrollable anguish, misery and evil, common man would be seized with.

No, abortion as birth control simply won't work: ask the Indian authorities. In a developing country IMHO the simplest way to limit births is by raising the age of marriage. The older the bride, the fewer the children, fertility in a woman generally declining very rapidly from about 35 onwards.

This was the method Ireland used for generations. That and emigration. It worked. It didn't produce a particularly happy society, but, after 1845, no Irishman was aiming for that. They simply wanted never starve to death again!

Mary Cunningham and anyone else still reading this:

You do not pick and choose your beliefs; you believe what you see as true. And there is no choice about what you see as true; you merely see what you see, without choosing what you see.

Once you get to this level of thinking, it starts to get clear, and undeniable the nature of free choice, and the nature freedom.

The people who post on this forum have many different beliefs, and they are all always trying to show how they are right, and how others are wrong. But has anyone here ever said, "oh, you're right. I am wrong; I see that now; I freely choose a different belief than the one I had yesterday."

No. That never happens. People say, "This is my belief, it may change gradually over time, as I accumulate a lifetime of expereinces, but there is really no valid or logical argument that anyone can present to me that will motivate me to change what I believe, because what I believe is true, and not subject to other people's arguments."

That is sort of what people say, I think.

Re: why animals don't need religion

But men. They know, maybe too much. Still, atheists mostly lead perfectly useful, happy lives.

Re: Malthus

Well, this is a good example of man's tendency to egotism. The good of the group a militates against too many children. But the good of a single family (we are talking about the developing world where the population expansion is) is enhanced. Children, after all, are a source of labour.

Mary_Cunningham,
btw, i am not in any way advocating abortion as birth control. i am advocating for birth control as birth control. a world where a couple having 4 children is too many.

Mary_Cunningham, you said,
"We have as strong an instinct to live and propagate as any animal, well maybe we don't have much desire to propagate anymore."

humans have become SO DARNED GOOD at propogating that this is the elephant in the room for any environmental issue. not to go all malthusian an you, but there are too many people in the world. and people in the "developed" world, me included, are consuming too much.

"alone of all the animals we know we are living beings and that we are going to die."

This may not be true. Consider that certain animals, elephants for instance, establish places to die, to which they head when they feel they are about to expire. This would indicate some awareness of life and that it has an end.

JustTillThen: Origin of the Specious.

Mary_Cunningham, you said,
"Yet we also have intelligence: alone of all the animals we know we are living beings and that we are going to die."

yes, this is why other animals haven't invented religion.

re: free will:
i've always thought this is as something philosophers make overly complicated (i suppose that's their job...). of course we have free will, but it's limited by natural laws (like gravity etc..., not moral "natural laws").

we don't have free will to flap our arms and fly, but we have free will to try.

Well, Daniel, I am not sure there is no such thing as free will. We have strong instincts--like the animal we are--for sure; the brief excerpts here about the moment of birth of one's baby are testimony to that. We have as strong an instinct to live and propagate as any animal, well maybe we don't have much desire to propagate anymore. Alone of the mammalian kingdom we deliberately kill our young in utero . So we are distinct here, although I wouldn't say it's a distinction to be proud of.

Yet we also have intelligence: alone of all the animals we know we are living beings and that we are going to die. Additionally whilst animals in, say, the ant world instinctively act for the good of the colony, we can hold back and sometimes--oftentimes--act in our own self-interest, versus the good of the group, well often to the detriment of the group as a whole. So IMHO free will is very much alive and well and living in homo sapiens . Whether it will kill our species--and much of the world with it--in the end is an open question.

Mary Cunningham small
by a waterfall.

Justacomment said:

"I believe in a Causal Conscious Intelligence."

That is not bad. I call it "Providence" which is traditional synonym for "God" but which is a different word, with a different meaning, to me, meaning, the utlimate source of all that is provided to us, which I do not completely understand.

Justacomment also said:

"We are all conditioned bots carrying out our programmed instructions. We all just tend to think that we see it correctly, and that are minds are free and clear and have chosen our beliefs well."

The word "bot" may not necessarily be exactly the right word in this context, but I think there is a stumble here into a deeper truth, which is rarely touched on in this forum. And that is that what is usually thought of as "free will" is mostly an illusion ... and that our minds operate by processes and mechanisms that we do not control, in response to a a flow of experience which comes to us, by means usually, that we also do not control.

Our true excercise of free will is actually much less extensive than we think.

Freedom is not really the right to choose freely whatever one wishes to choose, but more, freedom is the freedom to be as one is without coercion into pretending to be something or someone else.

Therefore, freedom of religion is freedom to believe as one believes, not freedom to choose ones beliefs.

Anyway that is my take.

Justacomment has made some very good points, which seem to be mostly lost on everyone else.

Farnaz,

Thee:
"No neo's they."

I agree. If their jonglerie should cease to please the punters, what act can follow but that over-sequelised shadow play of the Cave?

Again, I wield my chalcolithic implements awry, and smite away pharaoh's gneiss nose with my wannabe finesse.

Found wanting, I sup with crows on husks of humble pie...and stumble by.

However, if she wishes to continue in her guise as a master of philosophy, our puppet master should learn how to spell 'Nietzsche'. (Her marionettes can content themselves with Plato, not so key for college students as Friedrich and much easier to spell).

Just a tip.

Arminius wrote to the Moderate:

Amazing, is it not, how the population here of sock puppets / ankle-biters keeps morphing, increasing, decreasing, yet with all having the same goal, to wreak confusion and despite, and worship their owner.

Well, what I wonder at that last characteristic of the marionettes. Why should our prejudiced paedagogue, our precious puppet master, be so in need of adoration? Her grasp of some things is competent, whilst of others she can flail around and toss enough sand on the stage to obscure the fact she knows almost nothing.

Yet, she needs that worship and she will have it!

It’s a mystery.

Hello Onofrio, ye wise curmudgeonly creature!

Nay, not so much the curmudgeon as I am. Some things are better left untouched...

Thank you for the Gurdjieff flag. I am an admirer of the work of that one. It all does come together into a congruent whole once the trappings and colorings come off of it. I am a lover of 'essential christianity' as well, though I rarely see it practiced these days. Buddhism is my fave, along with Sivism. Gotta love Hanuman.

Gotta love a lot...

Thank you for the reference to starships burning off the shoulder of Orion. Something deeply poetic and romantic about that image! :-)

Ahh Langenscheidt,

Again, I recognize that the term bot has a particular meaning to you, one that you may not want to confer upon but a select few. Alles gut. I co-opted the term and spread it out, like an icing, perhaps, upon all of us cakeeaters here. I am all kinds of aware that my definitions may not find resonance with you, and that is all good.

Still, I stand by my insult. The identities that we attach to the personality ME is a package of conditioning and programming. It is rare that we break out of the groove, and we do so at supreme risk of creating a new program.

This does not deny the fact that we have free will. Hell, those certifiable bots have the gift of free will! They spend it in strutting up and bolstering their own preconceptions and prejudices.

Like the rest of us do.

Except perhaps you, who is undoubtably free, illuminated, and beyond attachment or affect to the manifest world of Cause and Effect, Karma and Dharma.

I bow before you as the Deity that you are... In all seriousness....

Bot is a term which you applied to everybody, including yourself. Apply it to yourself if you wish...I'm inclined to believe it is appropriate. It does not apply to others simply because you think it does. Evidently it has been a harsh task for you.

Posted by:

JustTilThen wrote:

"Bot is your term of derision on those that are irritating to you, perhaps. That I can understand. Cracking out of deep conditioning can be a harsh task."

Bot is a term which you applied to everybody, including yourself. Apply it to yourself if you wish...I'm inclined to believe it is appropriate. It does not apply to others simply because you think it does. Evidently it has been a harsh task for you.

Posted by: Langenscheidt

Onofrio,

Now that the applause for Derider and Fuco - those jongleurs - has dwindled, can Plato's mummy sustain another neo?
------------------------
One-and-two-handed clapping can be heard almost everywhere. The jongleurs jongle,jingle apace. No neo's they. No more to come for awhile, I hope. Dis grace.

Onofrio says:
"I think the claim that God is beyond gender can all-too-easily function as a sort of code for male - the default human."

In the religious mind, yes - they don't call them "patriarchal" religions for nothing.

All the same, in biology, female is the default. It could not be otherwise.

"Five will get you ten that the last three letters, JMJ, are Jesus, Mary and Joseph."

The first 6 are "The Truth Will Set You Free." Now if someone can just figure out the middle... :)

Being beaten by your spouse is a pre-existing condition.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/14/when-getting-beaten-by-yo_n_286029.html

Arminius,

Yes, I mean a she-god.

I don't agree entirely that God is beyond gender. I would say that since we humans are gendered, then God(s) must be also, insofar as God has any interest in relating to us. I have some sympathy with the Wiccan-Pagan view in this regard. And given that the imagineering of the divine in our culture is prevailingly masculine, I think the claim that God is beyond gender can all-too-easily function as a sort of code for male - the default human. I do not suggest that you mean this.

My little theo-thea-utopian dream is that males revere a goddess who is immanent in their own souls, and that women, conversely, revere a god, likewise immanent. Males would access the god in and through women; and vice versa.

Might make us a bit humbler, in terms of divinity.

Ononfrio,

May I assume that by 'Thea' you mean a female deity?

My own experience in this matter has brought me to realize that attempting to assign gender to God is a waste of time.

Running out of steam here, time to crash.

Arminius,

By theasm I mean an -ism of Thea.

Both chasm and spasm are in there as well.

My coinage, it's true, is no gold, but clunky copper.

Onofrio,

Actually, Deism lies beyond atheism.

Onofrio,

"Might a theasm lie beyond atheism?"

Please enlighten this benighted one here - just what the hell is a 'theasm'? Did you mean 'theism'? If so, the answer is yes. Been there, done that.

"At times in the sturm and drang of debates over things on which we are divided, we can loose track of the basic human experience that we have in common."

Well said, Moderate, and I am as guilty of that as anyone here.

Moderate,

I like your axioms.

Might a theasm lie beyond atheism?

THEMODERATE,

Thanks for your comment. I haven’t read Minsky, but I google him and found this reference to his work:

“The cornerstone of Minsky’s theory is the conception of minds as collections of enormous numbers of semi-autonomous, intricately connected agents that are themselves mindless.” He could have said a collection of bots.

But he also talks about the “necessary illusion” of the free will. I don’t know to what extent to agree with him on this. If you allow me to speculate a little bit on this, I will say that that yes, many things that we decide or do without conscientious awareness, sustain in us an illusion of free will. But our mind is capable of develop and nurture potent agents that can guide us very close to free will.

This is an open matter for who ever want to speculate today or dedicate the next 30 years to study.

JAC

Farnaz,

"When we held our daughter, we thought, ah, here is the person to whom we've spoken all these months, for whom we played music, recited poetry. We felt as if she had come for a visit, that she was a guest for whom we'd been preparing for a long time, perhaps, for all our lives."

Prose poem, that. At times in the sturm and drang of debates over things on which we are divided, we can loose track of the basic human experience that we have in common.

Onofrio,

"Birth rather shows up our fragility, no? Males I mean. In terms of divinity, it has confirmed my long held suspicion that any deity worth the name must feature the female."

Yes, in my axiomatic theology exercise I got down to two axioms:

1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2. She did this to make an abode for life.

Something inescapably feminine about that.

So far, the data do not support more axioms that I can identify. Yet the search remains a point of significant interest. Many things follow from that spare set, so the enterprise has not been entirely useless.

WalterInFallsChurch:

"you know, it's kind of funny that he's TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1, with the "1" on the end...to distinguish from others with that screen name."

God forbid that we should confuse him with anyone else of the same name.

you know, it's kind of funny that he's TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1, with the "1" on the end...to distinguish from others with that screen name.

Onforio,

"Moderate, O Aristotlocrat, I think your erudition would look rather fetching in a Lyotard."

Not sure how I would look in a leotard, having eaten to many Doritos over the last year.

Moderate,

Thank you for your kind wishes. Best to your tribe as well :^)

The birth of my first child - the one I described - was traumatic. The black dog stalked my wife after it. The birth of the second (yes, like you, I was amazed at the willingness to endure again) was much less protracted, though I still baulk at saying *easier*. Two healthy girls - we are blessed.

Birth rather shows up our fragility, no? Males I mean. In terms of divinity, it has confirmed my long held suspicion that any deity worth the name must feature the female.

Yet where is Thea? The Wiccans claim to have found her. Catholics and Orthodox let her in through a side entrance - don't ask; don't tell. She can keep her crown, but must leave her eros at the transept door. One sees shakti and tara in the East, yet they are thrice removed, too *borrowed* for the pining occidental.

Where is She?

Arminius,

"I think we need a definition of 'bot' here."

My favorite is Parry. A lot of the conversation around here could be accounted for by various versions of that one talking to each other.

JAC,

Thanks for the clarification. We're headed down the same path after all.

justacomment,

"We may not be a “bot”, but we run on multiple bots."

Ever read Minksy's society of mind? He goes on an explore of the concept of multiple levels of simple agents that edit each other as a model of human intelligence. Kind of an interesting conceptual sandbox that one was.

Of course he also famously said: The human brain, after all, is just a computer that happens to be made out of meat. Which would mean we *are* all meat heads after all.

Arminius,

In the context that bot has been brought to this conversation, I picture a bot as a small routine that combined with other major programs lead to results.

In that sense you are perfectly right to say that we as humans are not a bot, meaning not a full robot. But I believe we run many things on a variety of bots that have entered or developed in our mid. This is not new, is just an allegoric form of expressing what many studious of the mind have told us.

But let me say it again: religious fanatics are missing the critical thinking bot. On the other hand, there are measured religious believers that have this CT bot strong enough to be tolerant with members of other religions or not-religions. Like…well, Arminius.

JAC

Langenscheidt,

Organ and harpsichord? Struth! This savage is awed. I love a passacaglia. May you transmit gloriously.

Zesta.

Onofrio,

"No transcendence to report. I'm flayed hollow at the sight of my wife's bloody rending. My fingers are still blue from her day-long agonised grip."

I understand what you are saying. and oh yes, for the year after, I said to all and sundry the I wouldn't want to do that to a dog. She did suffer. I did not ask that she do it again, and was amazed that she wanted to go for another. I volunteered for 3:00 A.M. feedings and such to help as I could after the fact. But the simple fact is that they do all the hard parts of creating new life. She loves her sons and would not have missed it for anything. I found that amazing. I hope all is well with you and yours.

Walter,

Thee:
"you know, i've asked TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 what the heck "TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1" stands for, but s/he ignored me on that question."

Ditto for me, Walter. Langenscheidt, I believe, is correct about the JMJ.

TTWSYF stands for "The Truth Will Set You Free". I would guess that the mysterious central initials AMDGGAH contain several Latin liturgical terms and phrases, like Ave Maria, Deo Gratias, Gaudeamus, or some such.

I have asked TTWSYF repeatedly to confirm whether he approves of Opus Dei and its founder Escriva. He has persistently ignored my requests. I have also asked whether he approves of the Opus Deistic mortifying disciplines of flagellation and wearing the cilice. Again, steadfast silence. Not to be deterred, I have asked TTWSYF to share what he thinks about the Society of St Pius X and its devotion to the Latin Mass. Again, you guessed it, silence.

So now I simply assume that TTWSYF is a sarcophobic Opus Deist self-punisher who longs for the good old days of papal imperium and Tridentine liturgy.

He has never denied any of this.

Arminius,

"Amazing, is it not, how the population here of sock puppets / ankle-biters keeps morphing, increasing, decreasing, yet with all having the same goal, to wreak confusion and despite, and worship their owner."

Sock Puppet LangenScheißer is a good case. The signature trigrams tell the tale. You are right about ignoring the Goatse Sock Puppets.

JAC and others,

I think we need a definition of 'bot' here. To me it means a preprogrammed thing incapable of independent decisions. What am I missing here?

WalterInFallsChurch:

"you know, i've asked TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 what the heck "TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1" stands for..."

Five will get you ten that the last three letters, JMJ, are Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

Onofrio:

"Are you a musician, Langenscheidt?"

Yes, organ and harpsichord.

We may not be a “bot”, but we run on multiple bots.

The difference between religious fanatics and rational seculars is that all the rational seculars have one dominant bot of critical thinking, while in religious fanatics this bot is missing or have low priority and thrust. This later case is exemplified by scientists that support creationism because faith based beliefs. They run bots in different compartments of their mind.

JAC

Onofrio,

Vare, legiones redde!
- Augustus
YEEEE-HAH!
- Arminius

We be kindred spirits, at least sometimes! Langenscheidt is right, you do have a gift with words.

you know, i've asked TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 what the heck "TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1" stands for, but s/he ignored me on that question. i assume it's the first letters in the words of a sentence, perhaps a scripture verse or something.

Langenscheidt,

Thee to me:
"If I could paint with sounds"

Are you a musician, Langenscheidt?

Arminius,

"Some here, like Mr AlphabetSoup, our resident theocrat"

Lovely characterisation, Arminius. That's the spirit :^)

Langenscheidt,

Thee to Walter:
"There is no god. The Theobots like TTWSYetc and Peter Huff, don't get it, have never gotten it, and never will. Why bother arguing with them. Let them dwell in their fantasies."

Wise words, Langenschiedt. But in my folly, I sometimes get an appetite for the joy of battle - tilting at windbags (apologies to Cervantes); riding "to ruin and the world's ending" (thank you, Theoden king); "No prisoners!" (thank you, Peter O'Toole); "hoisting the black flag and slitting throats" (thank you, G K Chesterton, you pudgy old papist).

That I indulge thus proves that nothing much has changed since the days of Varus and his three legions, consumed in the Teutoberger Wald. Incidentally, this very month is the 2,000 year anniversary of that epic embarassment to Roman arms, wrought by....ARMINIUS of the Cherusci!

I am a savage :^)

Onofrio:

If I could paint with sounds the way you paint with words, I'd be very impressed with myself!

One wonders if TTWSYetc., Peter Huff, and the other Theobots daily check their Rapture Index, as Reagan daily checked his stars. One would not be surprised...

I do not believe it would be an exaggeration to say that if the city of New York were suddenly replaced by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American Theobot population would see a silver-lining in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen: the return of Christ . . .Imagine the consequences if any significant component of the U.S. government actually believed that the world was about to end and that its ending would be glorious. The fact that nearly half of the American population apparently believes this lunacy, purely on the basis of religious dogma, should be considered a moral and intellectual emergency.

Sorry, that was *conditioned bots* I should have cited.

Justillthen,

It has been a while, sir. Good to see you contending re conditioning.

Your references to *preconditioned bots* remind me strongly of Gurdjieff. Are you something of a disciple?

My favourite machine? Bladerunner's Blake-quoting Roy Batty, who saw attack ships burning off the shoulder of Orion...

Langenscheidt and Justillthen,

Thank you.

Walter,

Thee to TTWSYF:
"the most you could possibly say is that the declaration of independence (which is NOT our founding legal document) credits a "creator" with granting inalienable rights. jefferson intentionally DID NOT say, "jesus" or "christ" or "yahweh" as some would have had him do. "creator" includes EVERYBODY'S gods..."

Well said, Walter. The god here is more that of Deism and Freemasonry - the Great Architect.

It really doesn't get the credit it deserves, this old Nilotic crypto-deity, haunting greenbacks and obelisks. Of course, like any god, it has inspired atrocities (cf. Robespierre's Terror), and silliness (provincial grand poo bahs) yet on the whole, its reign has been robustly benign.

And how both the Vatican and evangelicals loathe this quiet eye. No Sauron; it wept humanity.

Justillthen,

I am not a bot, nor are you. Some here, like Mr AlphabetSoup, our resident theocrat is, as is CCNL.

But many of the rest of have free will, and despite the obvious attempts at early brainwashing, have overcome much of it and can make decisions, find a new path.

I did this, in my late 50's. After attempts to raise me religiously, I turned away from it for over 30 years after college. But something happened to me, and it had nothing to do with a creed, nothing to do with a book, had nothing to do with another person. It completely changed my life. I will speak no more of this except - Programming? No, very definitely no.

JustTilThen wrote:

"Bot is your term of derision on those that are irritating to you, perhaps. That I can understand. Cracking out of deep conditioning can be a harsh task."

Bot is a term which you applied to everybody, including yourself. Apply it to yourself if you wish...I'm inclined to believe it is appropriate. It does not apply to others simply because you think it does. Evidently it has been a harsh task for you.

Hello again Langenscheidt,

"Repeatedly intoning this response does not make it true. If you see yourself as a bot, that is your...perception, privilege, whatever."

I do not need to repeat anything for it to be true. It is. All fundamentals of human psychology recognize the conditioning of the human mind, from family, societal and religious influences to the conditioning of genetics. Tendencies, likes, dislikes, beliefs, loves and hatreds have deep roots in our conditioned beliefs and perspectives. An atheist may be as adamant in his philosophy as a religionist, and as embedded in that world view.

There is nothing surprising here. We may think that we think freely, and some do think with less constraint than others, but it is virtually all the conditioned persona that is thinking about how he thinks.

Bot is your term of derision on those that are irritating to you, perhaps. That I can understand. Cracking out of deep conditioning can be a harsh task.

Walter In Falls Church:

"as to "why bother" (discussing it)with "the bots"? i don't know. it's fun. maybe an interesting psychology thing."

Hahaha. Well, to each his own!

Langenscheidt, you said,
"America was founded in secularism as a beacon of eighteenth century enlightenment. Rapidly, recklessly, it is becoming the victim of religious politics, a circumstance that would have horrified the Founding Fathers. etc..."

amen!

as to "why bother" (discussing it)with "the bots"? i don't know. it's fun. maybe an interesting psychology thing.

"That is not much different than any of us, if not more irritating. We are all conditioned bots carrying out our programmed instructions. We all just tend to think that we see it correctly, and that are minds are free and clear and have chosen our beliefs well."

Repeatedly intoning this response does not make it true. If you see yourself as a bot, that is your...perception, privilege, whatever.

Hello Langenscheidt,

I liked your last post. Nicely written and to the point. My issue is with your pronouncement that there is no God. Although I am not a believer in most religious versions and visions of "God", I believe in a Causal Conscious Intelligence. I don't believe in "Great White Thrones" and such bunk, but then I do not know in what form ones' spiritual nature may reveal itself to an individual.

Your "theobots" are conditioned toward collectively agreed upon theology and imagery. One gives up ones own inner world and superimposes the map downloaded by their faith of choice. These are conditioned programs, 'bots' by your term, reiterating repeatedly what they were programmed to believe.

That is not much different than any of us, if not more irritating. We are all conditioned bots carrying out our programmed instructions. We all just tend to think that we see it correctly, and that are minds are free and clear and have chosen our beliefs well.

Walter-In-Falls-Church:

America was founded in secularism as a beacon of eighteenth century enlightenment. Rapidly, recklessly, it is becoming the victim of religious politics, a circumstance that would have horrified the Founding Fathers. The political ascendancy today values embryonic cells over adult people. It obsesses about gay marriage, ahead of genuinely important issues that actually make a difference to the world. It gains crucial electoral support from a religious constituency whose grip on reality is so tenuous that they expect to be 'raptured' up to heaven, leaving their clothes as empty as their minds. More extreme specimens actually long for a world war, which they identify as the 'Armageddon' that is to presage the Second Coming.

There is no god. The Theobots like TTWSYetc and Peter Huff, don't get it, have never gotten it, and never will. Why bother arguing with them. Let them dwell in their fantasies.

It gets weirder, Walter. There are actually several lists of commandments in the Hebrew Scriptures. See the article in Wikipedia.

arminius3142,
as to whether it's the first 3 or 4 commandments, certain christians (catholics and certain lutherans, i believe) COMBINE "no other gods" and "no idols" into one commandment, slide the others up one, and then SPLIT "covet" up into two commandments to keep the proper 10.

weird, huh?

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1,
btw, the constitution itself, which IS the founding legal document says that rights are granted to the government BY THE PEOPLE, to protect etc... the people. there's not a single word about god/religion except to LIMIT its role in lawmaking.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1,
"The three Commandments do not force you to pray to God, or not have false gods, or honor one god. They are telling you what you are to do according to God’s laws. They are not Civil Laws but Natural Laws that explain the basis for your inalienable rights."

that is true NOW because modern morals do not allow killing, or even discriminating, based on religion.

when the commandments were offered the penalty for "other gods" was death. this has softened over the years (except in segments of islam), but until the u.s. comstitution, there was always this idea that a country had to have a national deity (like a mascot or someting). just about all the colonies had constitutions extending "natural rights" only to protestants or episcopals or calvinists or whatever. some generously inlcuded ALL christians...

you said,
"Nations who do not recognize the presence of the Judeo-Christian God are invitations to the Four Horsemen of Apocalypse--Famine, Pestilence, War and Death that plague the present atheist nations like N. Korea or China."

since the secular founding of america, nations (except islamic ones) have learned the sky won't fall and they won't have any more or less pestilence than if they had a god/mascot.

america is SECULAR not atheist. were the government to impose/favor/honor atheism it would be as bad as to impose/favor/honor a religion. (and you're on extremely shaky ground quoting thomas jefferson in defense of a christian nation.)

you said,
"Without a Christian God, there is no basis for one’s inalienable rights because all rights would be given by man and not God, and what man gives, man can take away."

why can't some other god grant inalienable rights?

you said,
"Therefore, the recognition of a Christian God was a prerequisite for the FF’s Bill of Rights."

the most you could possibly say is that the declaration of independence (which is NOT our founding legal document) credits a "creator" with granting inalienable rights. jefferson intentionally DID NOT say, "jesus" or "christ" or "yahweh" as some would have had him do. "creator" includes EVERYBODY'S gods...

""My witness of childbirth:..."

Magnificently written."

Aye, for a second.

arminius3142,
re: commandments 1-4 (or 3), you said to TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1,
"Next, you say they are the basis for inalienable rights. These commandments state very clearly that we are supposed to worship this deity alone. I fail to see how that props up the inalienable right of anyone to choose his/her own religion, or none at all."

exactly! one does not follow from the other. now, it seems like all those "good" commandments were just thown in to give the first 4 credibility...

and those "pray like this" commandments were NOT optional as some suggest. the penalty for commandment-breaking was death.

this (or at least some form of censure) was even the case in many "christian societies" through the dark ages and up to the enlightenment. the u.s. constition put an end to all that.

persiflage, you said,
"Needless to say, language in general and numbers in particular are THE defining cognitive characteristics of our symbol-based human culture - and continue to make possible all things human."

yes, language is a HUGE part of our "cultural chromasome".

imagine how civilization would "crash" is somehow magically humans "lost" language, if suddenly we couln't read/write/talk.

you said,
"It seems probable that religion emerged in part from an inherent human need/compulsion to explain and understand, as you say. Can the origins of science be any different?"

oh, absolutely not. science stems from exactly that same "impulse" (instinct?) to understand and "make sense" of the world.

all of our "scientific knowledge" is part of our "cultural chromasome" too. imagine if we "lost" all that. we'd instantly go right back to "geocentric, flat earth" cosmology. to a person standing on earth, without any scientific knowledge, it sure SEEMS flat, and everything moves around him. in fact, it's "self-evident"

while science has replaced religion in terms of explaining how things are, religion now explains how we'd like them to be.

Ouch! Disregard previous posting...once again sent to the wrong blog.

One idea I've seen floated has been to uneven the playing field for people
who are clearly responsible for their health problems (esp. smoking),
which gets back to something Vlad was saying earlier.

I don't think I'd have a problem with increasing the cost of health
insurance to smokers -- like increasing the cost of car insurance to bad
drivers. I do wonder how the grey areas would be implemented (e.g.
somebody who's 70 and smoked for 10 years in his 20's). Risk tables could
be built from many factors, of course, but they may or may not be
realistic.

I also wonder how the concept might be adapted to other potentially
self-inflicted causes of health problems. Do I have type 2 diabetes
because I didn't get enough exercise in my 30's and 40's? Did my wife get
cancer due to stress or due to exposure to carcinogens or due to some
other combination of causes?

I'm not worried about the impatience. It's unnecessary to wait for the
"perfect" solution to present itself.

oops...
make that 'border reiver'.

Onofrio,

Yes, I'm back, for a while. I took a month off because I became really concerned about how I was acting here. So I am trying to clean up my act. Farnaz won't believe that, because the first thing I did was pick a fight with her. I tried, and I think partially succeeded, to keep it upbeat and simply annoy her.

Mr Alphabet Soup, our resident theocrat, is a real trip. I have no real problem with Peter Huff, although I disagree with nearly everything he writes.

BTW, strictly speaking I'm not a gallowglass, I'm a border reaver. Guard yer horses and cattle!

Onofrio wrote:

"My witness of childbirth:..."

Magnificently written.

O' O.U.R. Dear fellow AMERICAN's, & Friendly's: DO NOT believe in White-Hous's BIG LiE!

According to todays NEWS; DO-NOT, NO/NOT BELiEVE [Todays] THE U.S. Controlled News-Networks nor such FEDeraly paid SiNdicates via PENTAGON & CO. i [WE] know, via facts & 'TRUTH' (opposite MYTH) THAT: Osam Bin Laden is Really/Acually Dead; since June 2007 by a Botched Kidney-Transplant Failure.

Do not Listen to the News-Networks nor believe their "FAKE-TAPES" [Voice makeovers] P-R-o-p-a-g-a-n-d-a's campaign. Osam Bin Laden is Really Dead; since June 2007! Shame on BUSH! Shame on OBAMA, POLOSi, BADEN et al!

Osam Bin Laden is Really Dead; Osam Bin Laden is Really Dead; since June 2007!

.....O.......……………………,/////////////……………..........,/..
..0.........………,……..__,---///////////////////,…..............,/././..
0............…………,-'.. ). ). ). ). ). ).''///////_\…........../././././ ..
....O.......……_,-' ))`.. ) .) .). ) .) .) .). ). ).)..`-......././././././
............…/..(XY)_).).).).).\. ) .). ) .). ). ). ) .). )__././././././././ .
............…\____ ).).).).).). ). ). ). ). ) .). ). ).__.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\...
{-OSAMa ALQAiDA;> |.))))). )./.). ). ) .). )_/,-’__.\.\.\.\.\.\..
............…..___,').),'). ). ). ). )_),,--'……………...\.\.\.\.\.\ …
............….(_______............\.\)_),--'"……………...`\.\.\.\ ...
............……………….-.........\.\.\……………………...`\.\.\ ..
............……,…………...........\.\.\……………….............`\.
.....................................................................................

DEAR "C.ONcered C.hristian N.ow L.iberated" & CO;

According to Ye Jealous Diciples @ LUKE12:51.. that

Your (not OUR) "NT" , as if ye (not OUR) god be in 'Flesh' & 'Blood' is in fact "ANTi-HUMANITY" & thuseth, but FREUDiANTLY slipeth'd & begged yo singing, "Suppose? I came not to make/bring YE (not Us) PEACE [Blessing]; but NO-NO-NO rather & in TRUTH (opposite MYTH) I, ye Rabbi & PELEGian-Yashua/Jesus-gods player, INSTEAD brings ye WAR [Blessing]s, D-V-i-S-i-o-n.." la la la. AND

@ LUKE:14:26 .... "HATE-HATE-HATE la la Ye-selves, Ye Kids, Ye Mother & Father, Syblings & ALL LIFE FORMS, if Ye want to Follow ME/US & get to the Kingdom..." [Similar sang]! Sooooo

C.C.N.L. & CO., a self-ordained/serving Expert on YE (not OUR) "N.ew T.estament" a Jealous Copy-Cat JUDEO-abe-JU Bible (Bas{orah) rehashed from YE (not OUR) "O.ld T.estament" and suddenly became the JUDEO-abe-CHRiSTO [un{ holy (Masorah) "NT" Book; similar to the Jealousy's of the WHABI JUDEO-abe-ISLAMIcO's Quran/Korans!?

C.C.N.L & CO; YE art DRUNK & gots Blinded by Swallowing To much "PUKARIST" aka Symbolic Cannabilism & Vampirism [Communion/Eucharisk] via eating rabbi JESUS's FLESH & BLOOD in effigy!

Luckilly for YE & Co; there are "EKLAHT"ion run REHAB CENTERS, for PROPHIT, that can reverse the CURSE/SiNs of Ye Parents (not Ours) To Reverse the "WAR BLESSINGS & translate & Expose, them to OUR S.S. Earthlings/ASPERANTS the "RiDDLES OF YE (not OUR) DEVIL/JINN/SATAN/KALi.."!

I notice some old contenders have returned to the merry fray.

Hello fellows!

Moderate, O Aristotlocrat, I think your erudition would look rather fetching in a Lyotard. Gramercy! Now that the applause for Derider and Fuco - those jongleurs - has dwindled, can Plato's mummy sustain another neo?

Arminius, O gallowglass, good to see you posting again. I hope not to trip into your river of ire. Zesta!

Hello too, winsome Walter and peerless Persiflage.

And last and less than least, my old mate TTWSYF...the flagellant anti-Baum. Still boring everyone to death with your Opus Deism, I see. You and Peter Huff would make ideal bedfellows, what with your theomachinery, absolute objectivity and all. You could play Thirty Years War, with multiple defenestrations...you hurl me; I'll hurl you. What fun!

Hi Farnaz :^) ,

Re Disgrace

No, haven't read the book, but I saw the film. Searing.

Thee:
"Not a good choice for self-diversion."

Too right, sister.

Re those other tongues. Uncanny and unnerving, it was. I was expecting crying or gurgles, but not this tiny chirruping glossolalia. Mondo bizarro.

Hi Onofrio,

Ah, yes, strange tongues....

Speaking free associationally of nontransendance, I've been trying to distract myself with Coetze's "Disgrace." Not a good choice for self-diversion. Have you read it?

My witness of childbirth:

No transcendence to report. I'm flayed hollow at the sight of my wife's bloody rending. My fingers are still blue from her day-long agonised grip.

Future and past clot into something like grief. My newborn daughter is in my arms, not bawling, but speaking in strange tongues - traces of Pleroma.

Placenta. Sutures.

They say this is one of life's peaks. I must feel enhanced, must be able to recall joy in some festive future. But I am lost; my wife is broken and spilled. I have no wings for the summit.

Heaven and earth, what have I done?

"When we held our daughter, we thought, ah, here is the person to whom we've spoken all these months, for whom we played music, recited poetry. We felt as if she had come for a visit, that she was a guest for whom we'd been preparing for a long time, perhaps, for all our lives."

Yes. We spoke to them, read to them, sang to them. We saw them on the sonogram screen. In a sense, we knew them before we saw them. When they arrived, yes, for a visit, they also brought the lives of their parents to an unexpected joy and fulfillment. The best two things I have ever done in an otherwise mostly uneventful life.

Arminifuss wrote:

"Fun for a while, but boring all too soon."

But not as much fun as being drunk, right Arminifuss?

The Moderate wrote:

"LangenScheißer,

Welcome back, sock puppet. Same as you ever were."

Keep shaking your impotent little fist. Its very amusing!

Moderate,

When we held our daughter, we thought, ah, here is the person to whom we've spoken all these months, for whom we played music, recited poetry. We felt as if she had come for a visit, that she was a guest for whom we'd been preparing for a long time, perhaps, for all our lives.

Moderate,

Amazing, is it not, how the population here of sock puppets / ankle-biters keeps morphing, increasing, decreasing, yet with all having the same goal, to wreak confusion and despite, and worship their owner.

But is not trying to converse with them just as futile as trying to converse with CCNL? Fun for a while, but boring all too soon.

TTWetc replied to Walter:

"The three Commandments do not force you to pray to God, or not have false gods, or honor one god. They are telling you what you are to do according to God’s laws. They are not Civil Laws but Natural Laws that explain the basis for your inalienable rights."

You made one mistake, and one self-contradiction.

First, IIRC, Walter mentioned the first 4 commandments. How did they get reduced to three?

Next, you say they are the basis for inalienable rights. These commandments state very clearly that we are supposed to worship this deity alone. I fail to see how that props up the inalienable right of anyone to choose his/her own religion, or none at all.

By the way, I am Christian. I am having serious trouble believing that you are one too.

Farnaz,

BTW, what did you think of Rosenau's critique of postmodern deconstruction?

LangenScheißer,

Welcome back, sock puppet. Same as you ever were.

"Looking at the foundations of modern science today, we see that our material reality is without true substance - e.g. energy/matter have no irreducible set forms, but do have limitless transformative functions."

I really don't think that is a very good interpretation of the foundations of modern science. It is a very low resolution rendering of some remarkable and complex principles. You should not use it as a basis for further philosophical inference.

I think you are looking for the concept of a quantum state. The wik-o-pedia article on that isn't half bad.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
WALTER-IN-FALLSCHURCH
POSTED ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2009 10:40 PM THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE COMMANDMENTS

IRT:
“Your idea that our laws are based on the 10 commandments could not be farther from the truth. What is guaranteed by "freedom of religion" is that nobody can tell anybody 1) how many and which gods there are or not worship. 2) Whether to make idols, 3) What to say or not about god, 4) When to pray to god. those are the first four commandments, which are NOT ALLOWED to be laws in America. “

ANS:
The three Commandments do not force you to pray to God, or not have false gods, or honor one god. They are telling you what you are to do according to God’s laws. They are not Civil Laws but Natural Laws that explain the basis for your inalienable rights.

IRT:
“Many Islamic countries do make laws about these things, informed by scripture, but America does NOT.“

ANS:
Yes, some other religions also make laws that force you to believe their religion, but Christianity doesn’t do that,

Nations who do not recognize the presence of the Judeo-Christian God are invitations to the Four Horsemen of Apocalypse--Famine, Pestilence, War and Death that plague the present atheist nations like N. Korea or China. Consequently, Thomas Jefferson said, “To whom do we go in search for our moral exegesis if not the Church?”

The “right of religious freedom” was based on Christianity by the Founding Fathers (FF) because God gave man a free will so that man may freely love Him.

Subsequently, Adam was free to disobey God who is the same God of the Jews and Christians. Therefore, the Constitution relied on God’s moral principles in the Christian Commandments God gave to man.

Without a Christian God, there is no basis for one’s inalienable rights because all rights would be given by man and not God, and what man gives, man can take away. However, the FF recognized that these rights are endowed by God not by man and are subsequently inviolable.

When these rights are denied to man, society obstructs not only the purpose of man’s existence but its own purpose as well, viz. to facilitate man’s purpose in life. Consequently, the inalienable rights imbedded in the Commandments of Christianity are based on human nature and are implicit in the Bill of Rights.

The social order of all societies rest upon their adherence to the nature of man. The social order is directly in proportion to this adherence that is implicit in the Commandments that are based on man’s nature. Therefore, the recognition of a Christian God was a prerequisite for the FF’s Bill of Rights.

TheModerate wrote:

"Welcome back, sock puppet. Same as you ever were."

Poor Moderate. Ever impotent, ever insignificant.

Arminius,

"He was presented to me, crying. I looked at him and said, "Hello, Patrick". He stopped crying and looked at me. I will never forget that moment."

Yes, when my wife gave birth to our first son I picked him up just after the nurse had cut the umbilical cord and checked bilirubin and such. He did not cry, but seemed astonished at the world around him. His personality was radiant and well formed at birth. Then I presented him to his mother who nursed him and he was at peace. A transcendent experience. I remember it like this afternoon, as I am sure you do.

Farnaz,

Yes, I experienced the apprehension you describe in your husband. And that first moment of holding this new life in my arms was indeed transformative. Because of the pace of delivery she ended up doing it all without anesthesia. Very difficult to watch that kind of pain in the one you love most in the world. The amazing thing was that she did it again two years later. After watching her birth the first one, I would not have asked her to do it again. She wanted to, and said the joy of the child was more important, and that she could not really remember the pain anymore. Remarkable experience it is.

LangenScheißer,

Welcome back, sock puppet. Same as you ever were.

Hi Farnaz,

Agree that aggression against Native Americans was a one-sided affair, considering the near-extermination of many tribes and tribal groups.

Although periodic trespass on native lands by white folks migrating west in pursuit of 40 acres and a mule, was usually a death penalty offense. All in all, the Wild West was no place for the faint-hearted.

Walter, I was glad to see Michigan pull out a win yesterday in the last 20 seconds vs Notre Dame!

Persiflage writes:

In my view, and looking at both religion and science, what I see is a perceived moebius strip of sorts - the ancient intuitive perception that the material world of phenomena also has a immaterial component without fixed qualities or characteristics, but which is nevertheless essential to material existence. This other side is more than a mere matter of invisible processes.

Looking at the foundations of modern science today, we see that our material reality is without true substance - e.g. energy/matter have no irreducible set forms, but do have limitless transformative functions.

And of course energy is only a concept, albeit a useful one.
-------------------
The societal correlative is metaphysics, immanence. What is needed is a healthy skepticism toward ingroup/outgroup definitions, "first principles," the social imaginary/unconscious, a skepticism about social "facts," akin to Descartes "doubt."

Doubt is also viewed as healthy in most religions.

Hey Walter,

Needless to say, language in general and numbers in particular are THE defining cognitive characteristics of our symbol-based human culture - and continue to make possible all things human.

It seems probable that religion emerged in part from an inherent human need/compulsion to explain and understand, as you say. Can the origins of science be any different?

In my view, and looking at both religion and science, what I see is a perceived moebius strip of sorts - the ancient intuitive perception that the material world of phenomena also has a immaterial component without fixed qualities or characteristics, but which is nevertheless essential to material existence. This other side is more than a mere matter of invisible processes.

Looking at the foundations of modern science today, we see that our material reality is without true substance - e.g. energy/matter have no irreducible set forms, but do have limitless transformative functions.

And of course energy is only a concept, albeit a useful one.

The non-religious tend to see the constructs of science as useful explanatory tools that are amenable to fruitful manipulation, while they view the constructs of religion as leading nowhere remotely useful. In the scheme of human history this position remains debatable.

I like Bertrand Russell, although as I recall that his pal Alfred North Whitehead harbored more religious predilections....

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1, you said,

"The Commandments are not repudiated by the Bill of Rights, but are guaranteed under the protection of its “Freedom of Religion” clause."

what is guaranteed by "freedom of religion" is that nobody can tell anybody 1)how many and which gods there are, 2)whether to make idols, 3)what to say or not about god, 4)when to pray to god.

those are the first four commandments, which are NOT ALLOWED to be laws america. many islamic countries do make laws about these things, informed by scripture, but america does not. that's why america is what it is.

Persiflage,

"Outgroup (superimposed) identities tend to be stereo-typical, and are a far cry from the self-identity of ingroup members. This mis-match causes vast difficulties, as history makes very evident"

Very much enjoyed reading your erudite, beautifully written comments. What I quote is a large part of what I have said, periodically, in different ways. "Outgroups," typically minorities, must be understood on their own terms, in accordance with their subjectivity, self-understanding, if we are to free ourselves from the ignorance of certain unfortunate "social facts," exploitations of "tribal instincts."

As for Native Americans, it is true, as you say, that some Indian tribes were more warrior like, more territorial than others, as we see from the oral literatures of the different groups. However, they were not the aggressors against the Europeans, I'm sure you will agree.

"incomprehensibly absurd"?? No, TTWSY, your monopoly on that market is assured. You can rest easy.

"you noted/asked,
"religion has been with man from the beginning. Can this be said to be an instinct?""

No less than Bertrand Russell said that, faced with a global catastrophy that demolished everything, one of man's first acts would be to assemble stones from the rubble and build an altar to god.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
WALTER-IN-FALLSCHURCH
POSTED ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2009 10:40 PM THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE COMMANDMENTS:

IRT:
“Our country is based on the idea that no matter what god or gods one prays to, or does not pray to, all are equal in the eyes of the law. Where the first amendment GUARANTEES freedom of religion, the first commandment PROHIBITS it.”

ANS:
It is written, “If you love the LORD your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his ordinances, then you shall live and multiply.” Mt. 5: 17

Moreover, God has given man a free will that man might choose God freely. The first three Commandments are a harbinger of a warning God gives to man. He does not forbid you to act according to your free will, as did he not forbid Adam to choose to defy Him. However, it is said that a word to the wise is sufficient.

Consequently, those nations who have defiled the first three Commandments historically have been shown eventually to destroy themselves.

Therefore, it is propitious that men not intentionally disobey any of God’s Commandments. For even though man might have the prerogative to do so, he has no prerogative to choose the consequences that ensue.

Since God is the Creator of the Universe, all laws of the Universe, the Natural & Moral (N&ML), and Civil laws, come from God. Consequently, Civil Law cannot legitimately contradict the N&ML because God, who is Truth, cannot contradict Himself.

The Ten Commandments are both moral and religious. They are given to man from God through our Judeo-Christian heritage and they govern all mankind.

The Founding Fathers (FF) relied in writing the Bill of Rights on this heritage. Namely, that all men are created equal by God and endowed with certain inalienable rights that must, by necessity, be recognized by all men and all governments.

The N&ML are not necessarily enforced “per se“ under the auspices of the Civil Law, but rest wholly under the panoply of the N&ML that overshadows all Civil Law. Thus, the FF declared that our rights are from a transcendental authority above man's authority.

In addition, the N&ML is impartial, universal, and intransigent. It is neither compassionate nor merciful.

The Commandments are not repudiated by the Bill of Rights, but are guaranteed under the protection of its “Freedom of Religion” clause.

The FF relied on the existence of a Judeo-Christian God in order that man’s inalienable rights are preserved in spite of the governments of man. To posit that the Bill of Rights contradicts the Commandments is an attempt to be incomprehensibly absurd.

"I looked at him and said, "Hello, Patrick". He stopped crying and looked at me."

Perhaps he was stunned by the alcohol on your breath.

persiflage,
enjoyable post. that all seems very reasonable.

you noted/asked,
"religion has been with man from the beginning. Can this be said to be an instinct?"

i think the underlying "instinct" might be something along the lines of a "need to understand". a long long long time ago humans became smart enough to realize how amazing the universe is. the birds, the trees, the sun, the rain, fire and so on.

religion, originally, was an attempt to explain the apparent chaos and order in the world around us, and explain how we got here. now, it largely serves to perpetuate (imaginary) souls into the (imaginary) afterlife. imho...

btw, i love golf, and the only reason i can post now is because the 'skins aren't playing...

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1, you said,
"Thus, I will assume that what is causing your disconcertion and ventilation is the first three Commandments that pertain to God."

yes. though i would include the fourth (sabbath). you must be lutheran or catholic if counting "sabbath" as the third commandment?

the "bad" ones, the devisive ones, the ones overridden by the constution, are "one god", "idols", "name in vain", "sabbath". these are the religious ones.

the ones you ticked off, the good ones, the ones which could be construed as informing the constitution, are the SECULAR ones.

continuing......

My view is that the driving forces of instinct and tribalism are (ideally) lost through the impetus of social/cognitive evolution.

It seems to be the case that any number of groups insist on preserving these group (tribal-based) identities for various reasons. This is not true for all people.

For example, I don't like crowds, generally shun groups whenever possible, and greatly mistrust collective thinking and membership alliances - but still identify myself as a human with certain demographic/ethnic features.

I don't hang out with groups of men, don't play golf, and don't even particularly like football. I recognize that we all rely to varying degrees on social institutions, and I'm willing to concede that society today is the ultimate result of tribal instinctual forces that appeared in humans 100,000 years ago, as a genetic holdover from earlier proto-typical hominids.

However, I say it's time to move on - respect individual differences, and recognize that self-identity as part of the all-inclusive human tribe, is the ideal that we should be striving for.

This is an inherited membership that is very hard to de-construct, and said identification does wonders for releasing our empathetic instinct.

Please excuse all the stream-of-consciousness rambling :^)

regards, Persiflage

Walter and Arminius,

I take the position with regard to tribalism and tribal identity that Farnaz has enunciated at various times. Group and individual identities are social/cognitive constructs that are imposed both from within and without, and are anything but instinctual.

Outgroup (superimposed) identities tend to be stereo-typical, and are a far cry from the self-identity of ingroup members. This mis-match causes vast difficulties, as history makes very evident.

If a socio-cultural group is quite isolated from outside influences, the gregarious instinct that indeed does have evolutionary survival value (strength in numbers) results in a powerful group identity that may or may not welcome outsiders, depending on other socio-cultural factors. This can still be seen among certain primitive peoples today.

Beyond the instinct/impulse for banding together in groups among our early forebearers, culture at any level is the result of learned behavior. I would maintain that the gregarious instinct that originally fueled human culture can be lost altogether as experience accumulates.

The fight or flight instinct is among the few that are never lost - although today has limited value and causes no end of stress-related health problems. Instincts are very much sublimated in modern man.

Chimpanzee behavior would be a good example of early/primitive human behavior, without the advanced cognitive functions - and where the similarities end. While alpha males generally emerge as indisputable leaders among other primate groups, this is not by any means the case with human groups (especially of the modern kind).

However, it is a kind of personality construct that holds considerable sway in any competitive arena. But what exactly constitutes the 'alpha male'? It all depends on the circumstances - but is seldom completely synonymous with brute power or force, unlike the rest of the animal world. For example, Steve Jobs is an alpha-male, and a mighty slim one at that.

Many American Indian tribes were quite hostile and warrior-like, while the Hopi and a few other desert dwellers were peace-loving and distinctly unwarrior-like - why so? Social anthropologists have the answers to such questions. Shamans held positions of great authority among all Native American enclaves - religion has been with man from the beginning. Can this be said to be an instinct? Some would say so.

What happened when the Spanish brought horses and the Plains Indian tribes acquired arms? They became much more effectively aggressive. So much for outside influences tempering the basic extant culture.

All of this says nothing about their ultimate destruction at the hand of even better armed and more brutal U.S. military forces driven by the monumental land grab known as Manifest Destiny, resulting in the take over of all tribal lands - pure genocide. Was all of this murder and mayhem based on instinct or learning, or some combination of the two?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
WALTER-IN-FALLSCHURCH
POSTED ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2009 10:40 PM THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE COMMANDMENTS:

IRT:
“You said, [Consequently, the Founding Fathers inferentially based the Bill of Rights, viz. our inalienable rights, on the implicit moral laws embedded in the Ten Commandments from our Judeo-Christian heritage.]

You know, you can say this over and over, but it won't make it true. The U.S. Constitution is an explicit REPUDIATION of the 10 commandments.

ANS:
Why would it need to be said over and over when it is explicitly self-evident?

Only in crass ignorance, or moral blindness could one conclude that “Thou shalt not kill (commit murder), steal, and lie" is repudiated by the Constitution. Is “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors goods or his wife, or commit adultery also proscribed? That would be ludicrous! Thus, I will assume that what is causing your disconcertion and ventilation is the first three Commandments that pertain to God.

Moreover, I believe your confusion about not only the first three Commandments but also all the Commandments is caused by a pedantic ignominious Supreme Court that has indeed repudiated the Commandments and claimed that their being displayed in the public-square, particularly in the Public Schools, would corrupt the minds of children.

To the contrary, neither the Constitution nor the Founding Fathers, who wrote it, repudiated the Commandments; only a juvenile and amoral out of control narrowminded Court has had the temerity to be so incomprehensibly injudicious as to proscribe the Commandments.

Unfortunately, this is a Court that has compounded its moral and legal incompetence in “Lawrence v. Texas” by concluding that traditional morality serves no legitimate purpose to the State and could not be a basis for Civil Law because morality is subjective.

To the contrary, Morality is not subjective but objective and universal because it is based on human nature. Moreover, it is the basis for all Civil Law. Consequently, laws that contradict human nature are immoral and illegitimate.

An Active Shooter (a spree murderer) is usually "finished" with his murder spree in two-to-three MINUTES. Active Shooters favor "UNARMED VICTIM ZONES". Think about it.

Police response in less than three minutes from the beginning of an "incident" is nearly impossible.

When the "bad thing" happens, those involved will be on their own to solve the problem, TO LIVE OR DIE. That is the reality of dealing with an Active Shooter.

If more "good citizens" were armed (and trained), there would be fewer victims of criminal assaults. Ultimately, we are responsible for our personal protection, the government cannot be with us every moment and I do not want them with me every moment.

There is nothing wrong with guns in the hands of these Rabis who are trained in the use of these tools of protection. Private citizens can be equally well trained with no mental strain whatsoever.

Choose NOT to be a victim.

Posted by: Karl_in_Phoenix

I looked at him and said, "Hello, Patrick". He stopped crying and looked at me. I will never forget that moment.
-------------------------
A blessed, moment surely, beautiful.

Both the births of my kids were Caesarian. The first was not planned to be that way, so I was exhausted at the end. But I greeted my daughter, and managed not to turn green. I had no doubt about my wife's toughness. With my son, a planned section, I was awake. He was presented to me, crying. I looked at him and said, "Hello, Patrick". He stopped crying and looked at me. I will never forget that moment.

My husband was present at our daughter's birth. I did not know until much later, how apprehensive he had been about seeing me in pain.

During the delievery, he appeared, for a few moments, to turn green. At the time, I thought I was hallucinating, but he later assured me that green, he was, indeed.

But, later, as I looked at him as he gazed at our newborn, he seemed transformed-- positively illuminated. He brightened, shined. I'm sure of it.

Einstein's doctoral advisor was Alfred Kleiner, if I'm not mistaken.

When I was a child, my mother gave me a little book on Einstein that actually explained Brownian colloidal suspensions, etc., in, I suppose, very simplified form.
It stuck with me, as did Einstein's metaphors, perhaps, the latter, far more. Later (much), when I became interested in modernity/modernism, I found I was not alone in my interest in his way of thinking.

Since we have moved on to Einstein without having addressed Heidegger, Nietsche, Marx, Lyotard, Chomsky/Foucault, I suggest you return there. Still waiting, as it were.

Might as well add Adorno, Dialectiscs of the Englightenment, Negative Dialectics--for obvious reasons.

Since you raise the "existent" in your post, explain Heidegger's critique of essence/existence, how it was exposed and by whom pre-Lyotard.

To repeat: explain how Nietzsche and Marx disrupted the thinking/being problem. Finally, explain why the century's greatest pragmatist erred when he supported the postmodern critique.
-----------------------------
You mention Chomsky. Explain the thesis of Language and Mind by the Marxist, Chomsky. Also, summarize the Foucault-Chomsky debate.

Moderate,

Nurture and Nature, such a glorious mix, such a conundrum. Such a challenge. I am very, very thankful that I was present when they came into this world, and very, very thankful that I - we, my ex and I - did a good job to guide them into the future, to forge their own paths, not follow a pre-programmed one.

Arminius:

On nature vs nurture, my children and I expect yours were born with a well formed personality. Remarkable to be present at their birth and see a new person. I thought it was more nurture before I raised a couple of kids. Nature has its role. Nurture complements it.

"Don't bother. Pretty good for a diss (Ph.D.)"

In 1904? Your interlocutors fail you, and you have no familiarity with the primary sources to even know how.

Walter, you said,

"fortunately humans are MUCH more nurture than nature. our brains literally aren't "done" when we're born..."

Sometimes fortunate. Depends on the training - witness assorted fanatical groups brainwashing their kids to illustrate the bad side of that. Also, has it been proven or disproven that some people are genetically disposed to be malleable to early training? Or are all of us? Yet we all know a few that totally rejected a harsh upbringing and went in a much different direction.

arminius3142,
i totally agree...even with the "uncomfortable" part.

fortunately humans are MUCH more nurture than nature. our brains literally aren't "done" when we're born (neural connections etc...). what we learn (i.e. how we are nurtured) is what makes us more than 2% different than chimps. i call it our "cultural chromosome". it is language, art, crafts, cooking, math, science, love...etc...everything.

the cultural chromosome evolves much faster than our regualar somatic ones...

Farnaz wrote:

"Plautus is a well-rounded pub, and will not, we think, cut off his old friends once he becomes a dad."

Trust me. Male scotties are never candidates for father of the year -- basically, they just don't give a damn. But he won't abandon his friends.

justillthen,
re: where the first amendment GUARANTEES freedom of religion, the first commandment PROHIBITS it.

yes, i think when most people think wistfully about how great the commandments are, they're probably thinking of the the "good ones" like murder/steal/lie/adultery etc...

the first 4 commandments are entirely religious instructions for jews about who/what/when/how to PRAY...

Walter,

I have postulated here that tribalism is a defense mechanism of a group, a product of evolution, and racism may be a by-product of that 'Us and Them' attitude.

I am not comfortable with that, but no one has seriously refuted it.

persiflage, you said,
"In the context of our previous discussion on racism, how shall humans interpret and otherwise explain the functions of their own nature and the behaviors that follows?"

very good question, and i'm not even sure if i understand it....

are you asking what would be an instinctual basis for racism? like why would it be evolutionarily beneficial?

Langenscheidt,

Correction to previous post. Meant to write "pup."

Langenscheidt writes:

Titus Maccius Plautus (c. 254–184 BCE), Roman playwright.

Ah, Pautus. My mistake. Good name for a scottie, possibly.
----------------------
Plautus' owners so named him because he appeared to have a good sense of humor. He is soon to be married and will become the father a whole bunch of Menaechmi.

Fortunately, for Farnaz's Tochter, Plautus is a well-rounded pub, and will not, we think, cut off his old friends once he becomes a dad.

"Social construct? Social contract? Let us step below this level in our inquiry. It is idealistic, mankind has a lot of holdover urges from the primordial, and we are seeing these emerge today on the right. Only a matter of time before it explodes, and the left answers in kind."
------------------------
I quite agree, and, in fact, wrote, "Dominance, power are sociohistoric, sociopolitical phenomena, best understood at the societal level, and they are malleable."

Surely, the issue also merits a materialist analysis.

Farnaz wrote:

Titus Maccius Plautus (c. 254–184 BCE), Roman playwright.

Ah, Pautus. My mistake. Good name for a scottie, possibly.

"What defines "tribe," however, is a social construct..."

And where does a 'social construct' come from?

How does a leader arise in a group of people faced with a crisis? They don't vote on it.

Packs of wolves and prides of lions decide the leader by combat. They don't vote on it either. Man is also a predator, a two-legged wolf with a few tricks that can run down his prey. I suspect that leadership in early tribes was decided by conflict. In a very real sense, this continues today, the difference being that (usually) nobody is killed. At least in this country. Not since the 60's, anyway.

Social construct? Social contract? Let us step below this level in our inquiry. It is idealistic, mankind has a lot of holdover urges from the primordial, and we are seeing these emerge today on the right. Only a matter of time before it explodes, and the left answers in kind.

SUSAN JACOBY:

ON TOPIC: I posted to you earlier on the fog cast by OnFaith's linking the Kentucky pastor with a few desperate New York City rabbis, who, as in years past, have tried to call attention to the failure of the US government for four decades to protect one segment of New York's (America's)population from threats by racist lunatic Islamist extremists. Here are some comments by Panelist John Mark Reynolds, from his thread.
---------------------
Farnaz Mansouri:

The fact that people cannot worship in safety in this nation makes me sick.

I hope we can all agree that the REAL scandal, whatever our views of the actions of these particular rabbis, is the ineffective response of the state to the peril of good men and women.

Something should and must be done.

John Mark

Posted by: johnmarkreynolds | September 12, 2009 12:40 PM

SUSAN JACOBY:

ON TOPIC: Here are more comments by Panelist John Mark Reynolds from his thread.
-----------------------
Let me be clear as I can be:

1. Most of us in America are very, very safe . . . lucky to be here . . . and served by effective and honest law enforcement. We have little need to be armed to the extent I discuss and it would be unreasonable for us to get too heated up.

2. Sadly some communities are not so served . . . and folk in them are terrorized by gangs or threats of terrorism. Some of my friends who live in these areas have to take self-defense more seriously than I have to do. They live in areas with shocking murder rates fifteen minutes from safe communities.

This should not be tolerated but has gone on for years. Why should this be? Should they allow innocents to die while they wait for "help" that keeps on not coming?
Certain groups in American culture have strong historic reasons to think that state power will not always be on their side. This grounds a reasonable suspicion of the police power of the state in some parts (to give but one example) of the African-American community.

3. Jewish persons in particular in NY are the subject of real and violent threats against their safety.

So while most Americans should not be paranoid and have no reasonable need to think very, very strongly about self-defense some communities have such reasons.
It is an American tradition (following English traditions we inherited) that such groups are not being "evil" when they defend themselves or consider doing so.
Christians agree with this right (it was shaped by the reflections of mostly Christian philosophers from Augustine to Locke) . . . though certainly one does not have to be a Christian to exercise it, agree with it, or deserve it.

It is the heritage of all, because all human beings are created in the image of God.

In particular ignoring the horrible pressure on some parts of the NY Jewish community is wrong. Putting it down to right wing paranoia is wrong. I am not personally in the communities that reasonably have such fears, but that does not mean I can remain silent when fellow citizens are badly served.

Continued

The sufferings of these folk matter to all good men and women.

It is not o.k. that some of our fellow citizens live in fear . . not fear whipped up by talk radio or cable television, but fear based on real threats and real violence. In fact, most people ignore the plight of these "other" communities so the murder rate in parts of LA continues sky-high and good men and women must pass through metal detectors when they go to worship.

That is the problem.

This is a crying shame . . . and a blight on our republic. These threats and the fact that good people, good Americans, have to live in fear are the real scandal and issue.

Some "armed" rabbis trying to make a point are not the danger to a Republic founded (after all) by men of action like Washington. The base foes of an open society that drive good men to arms are the real issue.

Posted by: johnmarkreynolds | September 12, 2009 12:37 PM

As we know, there is considerable support for "tribal" instincts in anthropology. What defines "tribe," however, is a social construct, and, as Persiflage notes below, so is everything else. The treatment of one "tribe" by another, however, is not "instinctual."

Dominance, power are sociohistoric, sociopolitical phenomena, best understood at the societal level, and they are malleable.

Persiflage,

Your inclusion of a link to an article about tribalism is instructive.

Tribalism - what I call the 'Us and Them' syndrome. Might it be possible that tribalism is a group defense mechanism, and that racism might be a natural outcome of this?

I do not claim this to be true, I am just asking a question. I personally prefer 'We and We' to 'Us and Them'.

Hey Walter,

Here's one more shot over your bow as regards primal instint vs learned behavior.

In the context of our previous discussion on racism, how shall humans interpret and otherwise explain the functions of their own nature and the behaviors that follows?

As something inherited, something learned, something to be enhanced, or something to be suppressed?? Or all of the above....

It depends on who you talk to :^)

best, Persiflage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct

Langenscheidt writes:

"Daughter still adore Plautinus?"

Ah, yes. They are almost inseparable.

Titus Maccius Plautus (c. 254–184 BCE), Roman playwright.

Studying up with your Langenscheidt, Langenscheidt?

Farnaz

Hello Walter-in-Fallschurch,

I liked your quote:

"the u.s. constitution is an explicit REPUDIATION of the 10 commandments. our country is based on the idea that no matter what god or gods one prays to, or does not pray to, all are equal in the eyes of the law. where the first amendment GUARANTEES freedom of religion, the first commandment PROHIBITS it."

Particularly the last sentence. I had not made that correlation between the First Amendment and the First Commandment. Thanks.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
MAYBE JACOBY SHOULD WORRY ABOUT OMBAMA’S CLOSE ADVISORS.

IRT:
"That some anti-rational members of the clergy are spreading this same sickness, this paranoia, this exaltation of weapons, is hardly surprising. I have nothing more to say about it, except that all of us in the media--from blogs like On Faith to cable news--ought to give serious thought to our own role in publicizing these lunatics."

ANS:
Here’s two other Obama Czars one should be concerned about and they aren‘t clergy either.

“Until last week, Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama's pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change. “ Browner is apparently a compliment of Obama‘s “Science Czar,” John Holdren.

Socialist International, an umbrella group for many of the world's social democratic political parties such as Britain's Labor Party, says it supports socialism and is harshly critical of U.S. policies.

By Thursday, Mrs. Browner's name and biography had been removed from Socialist International's Web page, though a photo of her speaking June 30 to the group's congress in Greece was still available.

The group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, the organization's action arm on climate change, says the developed world must reduce consumption and commit to binding and punitive limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. Obama, who has said action on climate change would be a priority in his administration, tapped Mrs. Browner last month to fill a new position as White House coordinator of climate and energy policies. The appointment does not need Senate confirmation.

AUTO CZAR RESIGNS UNDER CLOUD: - Steven Rattner, who led the Obama administration's auto task force, is leaving that post as a probe into his New York pension dealings heats up.

The Treasury Department said Monday that Rattner, an investment banker, wanted to return to private life and his family in New York after overseeing efforts to lift General Motors and Chrysler from bankruptcy.

However, sources said ongoing federal and state investigations into pension-business kickbacks made it difficult for Rattner to remain in the job.

Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's office has been intensifying its scrutiny of Rattner and Quadrangle Group, the firm he co-founded, in recent weeks, an official familiar with the investigation said. But there is no indication charges are looming from Cuomo's office or the Securities and Exchange Commission, the source said.

Farnaz wrote:

"Moderate,

Still waiting for your explanations."

Farnaz, why do you bother with this zero. He clearly is attempting to compensate for something he lacks, which other men have. Imagine what that could be!

Daughter still adore Plautinus?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
DO OBAMA CZARS BOTHER JACOBY?

IRT:
“This country is currently in the grip of a powerful anti-rationalism that, while it is the work of a minority, is nevertheless seeping like poison into the body politic.”

ANS:
Yes, there is currently a powerful anti-rational minority that has a hold on our country but it’s not rabbis or clergy, it is Marx seditionist attempting to overthrow our democracy and plunge it into a system of material anarchy,

It is not rabbis or clergy but the Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein, just nominated to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs that hypothesized that animals could be granted "the right to bring suit" while represented by an attorney. He also recommended we celebrate “Tax Day.”

It wasn’t clergy but John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar, who said in “his 1973 book, co-authored with the Ehrlichs, that “Human values and institutions have set mankind on a collision course with the laws of nature. Human beings cling jealously to their prerogative to reproduce as they please—and they please to make each new generation larger than the last—yet endless multiplication on a finite planet is impossible. "Most humans aspire to greater material prosperity," he said, "but the number of people that can be supported on Earth if everyone is rich is even smaller than if everyone is poor.”

Holden argued that neither the fetus, nor the newborn, nor the toddler, is truly human anyway.

Holdren and company go so far as to argue that abortion is essentially an act of mercy for “unwanted children” because it spares them from “undesirable consequences. Holdren apparently agrees with the Princeton University “ethicist” Peter Singer that infants up to the age of two or so are not really human beings, and so can be eliminated without qualms. Apparently, he would have murdered Beethoven and Christ.

Holden’s solution, was to make everyone poor. He argued that the West should be “de-developed,” by which he meant that countries like the U.S. should have their economies deliberately dismantled and their wealth redistributed to the poor at home and abroad.

“Ecoscience,” Holdren’s 1977 book endorsed compulsory abortion, mass sterilization, child abduction, the sterilization and abortion of undesirables, and a ‘Planetary Regime” with the power to dictate life and death to Americans.

http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=34344&page=1

Hello FH123

"Ironically, it is this attempt to stay above the fray that has defined our current president as well. He seeks to heap platitutes on his political opponents, while clearly dismissing any input from them."

Would you care to compare the administrations of Obama, (short lived to this point so with less history to draw from), and the previous Bush Administration, in terms of their track record of accessability, availability and receptivity to the opposition Party? Obama wins the open to input contest hands down.

Hey FH123.

YOU LIE!!!

DILD

To make the comments you do about conservatives illustrates either your ignorance or just a plain old prejudice against conservative thought. Either that or you are hanging around some old rural area in the south.

Conservatives disagree with obama on principles and political philosophical points nothing more.

I wonder where people come from that keep playing the race card. It is all you have apparently .

Someday I will explain the diffusion equation to you if you care to know about it.
---------------------------------------
Don't bother. Pretty good for a diss (Ph.D.)

Would rather you addressed the following:

Since you raise the "existent" in your post, explain Heidegger's critique of essence/existence, how it was exposed and by whom pre-Lyotard.

To repeat: explain how Nietzsche and Marx disrupted the thinking/being problem. Finally, explain why the century's greatest pragmatist erred when he supported the postmodern critique.
-----------------------
You mention Chomsky. Explain the thesis of Language and Mind by the Marxist, Chomsky. Also, summarize the Foucault-Chomsky debate.

Goodnight.

Still waiting for your explanations.

Since you raise the "existent" in your post, explain Heidegger's critique of essence/existence, how it was exposed and by whom pre-Lyotard.

To repeat: explain how Nietzsche and Marx disrupted the thinking/being problem. Finally, explain why the century's greatest pragmatist erred when he supported the postmodern critique.
-----------------------
You mention Chomsky. Explain the thesis of Language and Mind by the Marxist, Chomsky. Also, summarize the Foucault-Chomsky debate.

Farnaz,

Someday I will explain the diffusion equation to you if you care to know about it. Time to sign off now. Have a nice night.

Still waiting for your explanation.

What did the diffusion equation, as developed by Einstein, have to do with the logical positivism of Mach?

Also, You never did answer Pauline Rosenau's summary the method of postmodern deconstruction. If she is correct it is pointless to discuss it further. I believe that was Chomsky's conclusion as well.

Moderate,

Still waiting for your explanations.

Since you raise the "existent in your post, explain Heidegger's critique of essence/existence, how it was exposed and by whom pre-Lyotard.

To repeat: explain how Nietzsche and Marx disrupted the thinking/being problem. Finally, explain why the century's greatest pragmatist erred when he supported the postmodern critique.

peter, we could go here:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/susan_jacoby/2009/08/if_you_think_the_culture_wars_are_over_think_again.html

"This does not permit you to ignore the other points I raised. "

You raised no points other than the evident one that you are in over your head on the philosophy of science. You don't know the language of the realm, so you cannot enter into a coherent discussion. Can you write the diffusion formula? Can you explain it? Those are yes/no questions. Bluster is not logical argumentation.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1, you said,
"Consequently, the Founding Fathers inferentially based the Bill of Rights, viz. our inalienable rights, on the implicit moral laws embedded in the Ten Commandments from our Judeo-Christian heritage."

you know, you can say this over and over, but it won't make it true.

the u.s. constitution is an explicit REPUDIATION of the 10 commandments. our country is based on the idea that no matter what god or gods one prays to, or does not pray to, all are equal in the eyes of the law. where the first amendment GUARANTEES freedom of religion, the first commandment PROHIBITS it.

your idea that our laws are based on the 10 commandments could not be farther from the truth.

yahweh explains, “He who sacrifices to any god except the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed” (Ex22:20). “utterly destroyed” does not mean “suffer financial hardship,” or, “have a streak of bad luck with crops,” it means “killed.” this is the kind of morals, and law, fundamental islamic theocracies still impose.

we in america do not care what (if any) god(s) you sacrifice to or whether you make idols. contra the 10 commandments, in america you can pray (or not pray) on any day of the week using whatever language you like.

get it? see the difference between a society based on religious laws and one based on enlightenment principles?

Hi Walter, Pam, Justacomment,

It seems we have exhausted another forum. I can't post. Any suggestions where to next?

Moderate,

Nice attempt at cherry-picking. And the initial response to Einstein? Tell us later.

I'm aware that you are a mathematician. This does not permit you to ignore the other points I raised. It works out to your advantage, however, in a way I doubt you have anticipated.

Since you raise the "existent in your post, explain Heidegger's critique of essence/existence, how it was exposed and by whom pre-Lyotard.

To repeat: explain how Nietzsche and Marx disrupted the thinking/being problem. Finally, explain why the century's greatest pragmatist erred when he supported the postmodern critique.

Do not call me "Dear." Use no epithets.

Farnaz dear:

"Perhaps, it is you who should explain how Einstein's methods threw mathematicians as well as entomologists into a frenzy."

I am a mathematician. I know and knew a couple of generations of them back into the twentieth century. I don't know any mathematicians who were "thrown into a frenzy" by einstein. I don't think you know any either. You are in way over your head on this.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1,
the ten commandments trump nothing in the constitution.

Nice bluster. No content. What does it mean, that funny little equation for D. What did it do to Mach's arguments? Go ahead and tell us. You know every thing about the philosophy of science. Go ahead explain it first, and then deconstruct it for us.

TTWSY writes:

I see no problem with the Jews protecting their synagogues in light of a Marxist president in bed with social terrorists, (one being ACORN) protected by the Dems who are attempting to funnel some 8.5 billion into their seditious coffers.
-----------------------------
I'm afraid you are misrepresenting the source of the threat. However, at least, you are not obscuring it or obfuscating it with diversionary tactics as OnFaith has done.

Putting the Kentucky pastor and the rabbis in the same category is akin to uniting the Janjaweed with the National Guard. After all, both are armed.

Rather than deal directly with the problem of Jews having been threatened for FOUR DECADES by lunatic, racist Islamist terrorists, OnFaith prefers to distract attention with this week's obfuscating question.

The problem of Muslim terrorist threats against synagogues, Jews in predominantly Jewish neighborhoods has been going on for FOUR DECADES. Frankly, people are sick, tired, and disgusted with being targeted.

A few years ago, some people, including rabbis began stating that they intended to defend themselves, and not only during the High Holy Days. They do not want their congregations to be burdened all year with the cost of paying for private security and they don't want to be under siege by police.
The rabbis' rhetoric, as OnFaith well knows is simply that, nothing new and largely irrelevant to anything but the threat to our safety, which remains unaddressed or marginalized.

The synagogue I occasionally attend declined police protection this year. This resulted in a meeting with the chief, followed by two more, in which the rabbi and her committee were finally persuaded to give in.

The congregation, a gentle enough bunch, was not happy from what I hear. Enough is enough as this brilliant young rabbi declared in her email. Jews, like everyone else, have enough problems living day to day without being threatened by Muslim terrorists.

We Jews, cultural and observant, need to organize, as taxpayers. We need to stage demonstrations demanding that those who threaten us be caught, tried, and jailed, if convicted. (Can you imagine what would have happened if, decades ago, Catholic and Protestant churches, neighborhoods, were threatened by Islamist extremists?)

As this discussion continues within the community, I am hopeful that much stronger efforts will be made to apprehend those threatening our lives and the lives of our children right here in the US.

In the interim, I am rather astonished at how the real issue, Americans held hostage to terrorist threats in New York City has not been handled.

We need help here.

Moderate,

Perhaps, it is you who should explain how Einstein's methods threw mathematicians as well as entomologists into a frenzy. When you are done, explain how Nietzsche and Marx disrupted the thinking/being problem. Finally, explain why the century's greatest pragmatist erred when he supported the postmodern critique.

Do not call me "sweetie." If you have an honest problem with what I posted below, deal with it substantively.

DLTD,

"And most conservative are "horrified" that a black man has become President, and treat him rude and ugly contempt."

The contempt for Obama looks like a lot like the contempt for Clinton before him. The pattern is straight up 'publican hectoring of the democrat party. It may be that racism is being invoked reflexively in your explanation when there are plenty of non racist ones out in full view that we have seen before. Just a thought.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
“CRACKPOTS? NUT CASES?”
IRT:
Jacoby asked, “Do the Ten Commandments trump the Second Amendment.”

ANS:
Yes, the Ten Commandments are the implicit universal objective moral laws that govern human nature given to man by God. Man can choose any religion he wishes because he has a free will; however, he doesn’t alleviate the responsibility for his choice of religion.

To the contrary, man has no choice as to his choice of Moral Law; morality is not subjective; you either get it right or pay the penalty to the Natural Law.

Traditional morality governs all human behavior because it based on human nature; therefore, traditional morals are universal and objective. Any moral imperative that contradicts the Natural Moral Law is immoral and illegitimate because it frustrates the natural rights of man. Furthermore, man is not bound to obey any immoral act, because immoral acts are impediments to the end and purpose of human life.

Proper Moral rights are not impeachable, beyond human or Civil Law; man does not give them, God does. Man can and must recognize them, because they are endowed by God in human nature.

Consequently, the Founding Fathers inferentially based the Bill of Rights, viz. our inalienable rights, on the implicit moral laws embedded in the Ten Commandments from our Judeo-Christian heritage. Hence, the Founders deduced the Second Amendment, a right to bear arms inferentially from an inalienable right to "Self-Defense" ingrained implicitly in the Fifth Commandment.

Farnaz sweetie:

"The thinking/being problem that long dominated Western philosophy took a giant hit with Neitsche, Marx, Freud, and Einstein. The Heidegger controversy brought into question the existent, a question from which we have not recovered."

Do tell what Einstein told us about the thinking/being problem in the context of postmodern deconstruction. O please do give forth on the implications of Einstein's method for determining Avogadro's number from the Diffusion Constant had for Mach's logical positivism ...

Words fail you. And oh, by the way, it is your thinking that has not recovered.

Part one

From Daniel12 to everyone concerned with my statements on race in America.

First, there are differences between races not confined to skin color. There are even differences between ethnic groups. If anyone wants to call me racist for that observation, so much the worse for that person--for that person is not solving anything by denying it. In fact the person makes the problem worse. And the problem will only become more apparent with the continued advancements of the biological sciences.

I believe firmly that people are unwilling to admit differences between races and ethnic groups because there is no satisfactory solution to the problem. If anyone wants to say that is not the reason why he says there are no differences between races and ethnic groups, I would ask that person to demonstrate a solution to the problem to prove that is not why he denies differences. And I know the result already: No one will propose a satisfactory solution.

America is getting more and more into a moral quandary the more people such as Hispanics and blacks are expected to compete intellectually against whites and Asians--which is to say all judged by the same school standards. We have no problem with blacks dominating in boxing, running,--virtually every sport--which is to say we have no problem with racial differences in sports (and by the way, whites throw objects such as a baseball better than any other race), but when it comes to intellectual matters everyone is afraid to notice obvious differences.

And this situation of the TOTAL VARIATION IN THE WORLD CONCENTRATED IN AMERICA IS NEW. PRIOR TO THE PAST FORTY YEARS FOR ALL CONFLICT BETWEEN IMMIGRANTS TO AMERICA THESE IMMIGRANTS WERE FAR FROM BEING A REPRESENTATION OF THE ENTIRE WORLD. THEY WERE IMMIGRANTS FROM EUROPE AND THEIR DIFFERENCES WERE DIFFERENCES SUCH AS THE CONTEMPT OF THE ENGLISH FOR THE IRISH, THE CONTEMPT OF GERMANS FOR FRENCH AND SO ON.

Part one and a half

And the way this quite new problem is playing out, the problem played out between the two major political parties, is disturbing. First we have white America which IS THE MIX OF PREVIOUS IMMIGRANTS TO AMERICA FROM LARGELY EUROPE, IMMIGRANTS THAT DID NOT HAVE RACIAL BUT RELATIVELY MINOR ETHNIC AND NATIONALISTIC CONFLICTS AMONG THEMSELVES. And out of this white America we have the view--most notoriously held by Southern slavers--that if a white has only a drop of blood from another race, specifically black, the person is not white but that other race (specifically black).

In other words racism obviously still exists in America. There is a suspicion of people not white. And it is not based on something as simple as skin color. What an insult it is to whites--whites which have brought forth what we mean by modern society--to say they are prejudiced simply for the reason of skin color. No, whites can see with their own eyes the cultures from which people of different skin colors come from. And it is perfectly healthy to be concerned about people coming from societies which are failed in comparison to the legacy of Western Europe.

Asians have successful societies--whites accept them quite easily no matter the words "chink", "gook", "slant eyes", etc. Blacks and Hispanics come from problem societies and are judged accordingly. But apparently the left wing does not make that judgement. The left wing says all people are equal--there are no real racial and ethnic differences. The left says all peoples can fit into America no problem--the multicultural is not a danger.

Nice hypothesis that--for it is a quite new thing the left proposes. IT IS QUITE NEW TO HAVE SOMETHING OF THE ENTIRE WORLD CONCENTRATED IN ONE PLACE AND EXPECTED TO HAVE A POLTICAL STRUCTURE SUPERIOR TO ANYTHING IN THE PAST. But is the left prepared to be scientific about that? No, of course not. For all science of the left the left is not prepared to put its hypothesis to the test--which is to say put it to the test in any other place than America. THE LEFT WING IS NOT AT ALL PREPARED TO GIVE UP CITIZENSHIP IN AMERICA TO GO LIVE IN AFRICAN CAPITALS OR MEXICO CITY TO REALLY FEEL HOW IT IS TO BE SURROUNDED BY THE VERY PEOPLES THEY DEFEND SO MUCH. AND THE REASON WHY IS OBVIOUS: THEY WILL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TRY TO RETURN TO AMERICA. SO MUCH FOR THE SCIENCE OF THE LEFT.

The left has a nice little narrative: those bad whites beating up on "innocent" minorities, never mind the minorities defended did not invent democracy, and in fact have quite sad political structures, structures liberals are quite content to view from a distance and not go live in. And what happens to that "one drop rule", the rule in America that a white with blood other than white is not white--specifically black--when it comes into the hands of the left wing in America? Why they twist it to their advantage of course!

Part two

Now that slavery is over and the playing field is becoming more and more levelled in America certain people are only too happy to have a person with blood other than white be considered not white. The racist whites may have invented the one drop rule but the left wing is the party keeping it more than alive. The left wing tries to find the most successful of mixed race people in America--especially people with black blood--to support their view that all races are equally capable of being intellectually successful. In other words the left finds mixed race people and insists they are not white but the other race. The left keeps the old argument alive for their advantage.

And what makes it so repellent is that the left says "we are for a multiracial society". Multiracial society? Then why is it when a white is mixed with a black the children are called anything but white? Especially when a white is mixed with a black--hell, any race mixed with black--the children are called black. In other words the left uses the language, the classification scheme, the paradigm, conceptual order, which does not say people in America mixing with other races results in a mixed America, but rather that mixing results in anything but a white America.

This is most easily seen if we make the thought experiment of having all whites have children by blacks. What will the result be? According to the left wing America will be entirely black. Not half black half white but black. Obama has a white mother--was raised entirely by the white side of his family--but is considered black and a champion of the black race, a sterling example according to liberals that blacks can be equal to whites.

Part three

Certainly there are many white racists in America. But the left is far from proposing any solutions to that. First of course the left insists there are no differences between races--and I said that the reason why to more than a great degree is because there are no solutions let alone easy ones to the problem. But then the left as it says all peoples are equal says on the other hand that white mixed with another race--but especially black--is not white but black, entirely black! In fact I would say the left does know there are racial and ethnic differences and its solution is to have the children of whites mixed with another race--but again, especially black--considered the other race and not white.--Especially if the children demonstrate a high degree of success in intellectual matters.

So far as I can tell neither political party has a viable solution to race in America. Take the recent Gates getting arrested incident--Gates the Cambridge professor of black studies arrested by a white Cambridge cop. Here we have a white cop with decades upon decades of white police brutality as his history faced with a professor who considers himself black although he has white blood and immerses himself daily in black studies, a scholarly pursuit clarified more easily in the mind by imagining a white man trying to get a teaching position in college for white studies...

But I suppose it is more convenient to just dismiss me as a racist and leave it at that. Then race will be solved in America.

TTWSY wrote:

A lot of his customarily foolish drivel.

If god was not already dead, your writings would give him heart failure.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
“CRACKPOTS? NUT CASES?”

IRT:
“Why not have prayers wishing evil on those we hate, as well as guns, in houses of worship of every faith?”

ANS:
Here is one reason why the Rabbis and Preachers need to defend themselves and in most cases police stand by and do nothing.

The homosexual movement's organized response to losing popular votes on Marriage Amendments has exposed their total dysfunction. America has never seen this kind of barbarism.

http://prod.forums.contracostatimes.com/topic/mormon-kiss-in-in-utah-leads-to-shouting-match*
NEW YORK CITY: SCREAMING "FASCIST CHURCH" A LARGE MOB OF HOMOSEXUALS TERRORIZES MORMON TEMPLE.

Iwww.massresistance.org *
IN LOS ANGELES, THE LARGEST AND MOST VENOMOUS ATTACK WAS AGAINST A MORMON TEMPLE. IT LASTED OVER TEN HOURS. Words can't describe it: you need to look for yourself.

Even the Fox News building in Los Angeles endured a terrifying riot, apparently because they didn't cover the homosexuals' issues as biased as the other networks.

Patriots and Liberty » Blog Archive » ‘Gays’ Attacking ...patriotsandliberty.com/wp-trackback.php?p=3151
church
“Prominent homosexual activists lead screaming demonstration, terrorize Boston church sponsoring ex-gay religious event

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=9335
MICHIGAN: GAY FASCISTS STORM CHURCH
November 11, 2008
On Sunday, November 9, a band of about 30 gays stormed a church in Lansing, Michigan. Some were well dressed and were stationed inside Mount Hope Church; others were outside dressed in pink and black. The group of self-described homosexual anarchists, “Bash Back” claims the evangelical church is guilty of “transphobia and homophobia.”

HOMOSEXUALS BEGIN CAMPAIGN OF TERROR OVER PROP 8 LOSS large swastika in order to terrorize parishioners. Newspaper report. Parishioners at a Catholic church in Riverside, CA, found ... go wild in attack on Christian church https://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08c/Prop8/church_attacks.html
“
WILL THE MORMON CHURCH DECIDE WHO GETS MARRIED IN CALIFORNIA ...Homosexuals begin campaign of "terror and violence" against churches in California and across US because of Prop-8 election loss. Mormons singled out for special wrath.

Even though OSAMA BIN LADEN is dead [since June 2007] that "9.11", like what the "SHOA" is for JUDEO-abe-JU's via WW2; is the "SECULAR'S-SHOA/HOLOCAUST" so to speaketh 'Truth' (opposite MYTH).

O' al JUDEO-abe-ISLAMICs; Never forget: eat ye "SATANIc VERSING" hearts out, if any!

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
“CRACKPOTS? NUT CASES?”

IRT:
“This country is currently in the grip of a powerful anti-rationalism that, while it is the work of a minority, is nevertheless seeping like poison into the body politic.

That some anti-rational members of the clergy are spreading this same sickness, this paranoia, this exaltation of weapons, is hardly surprising. I have nothing more to say about it, except that all of us in the media--from blogs like On Faith to cable news--ought to give serious thought to our own role in publicizing these lunatics."

ANS:
“Duhh! I believe we have a First and Second Amendment that is a Constitutional right to bear arms and guarantee the inviolable rights "freedom of religion," and "Self-Defense."

The lunatics that are threatening America are not Rabbis or Cops; they are left wing loonies concentrated in the White House with a Socialist President in their pocket. We have a President who has surrounded himself with Socialists and is attempting to transmogrify our nation into a Socialist or Fascist State.

Yes, this country is "in the grips of a powerful anti-rationalism that, while it is the work of a minority is nevertheless seeping like poison into a body of politic." However, the problem is you’ve wrongly identified the lunatics. It is not the clergy defending their religion and lives; it’s the wacko left-wing fringe and a Muslim Socialist President surrounded by socialist in the White House threatening them.

I see no problem with the Jews protecting their synagogues in light of a Marxist president in bed with social terrorists, (one being ACORN) protected by the Dems who are attempting to funnel some 8.5 billion into their seditious coffers.

We see a President surrounded by Socialist, Communist, and ultras Muslims. He is apologizing to the radical Muslims, paid homage to a Communist despot in Venezuela, declared that the war on terror is over, is attempting to free the terrorists at Guantanamo, abolish the military tribunals, and adjudicate war criminals under our justice system. He has blocked the trial of one of our top terrorist, and has launched an assault on the CIA for defending our nation.

There are "facts" in the sense that we all accept them as verifiable. The thinking/being problem that long dominated Western philosophy took a giant hit with Neitsche, Marx, Freud, and Einstein. The Heidegger controversy brought into question the existent, a question from which we have not recovered. Hence, persons familiar with the postmodern critique, persons raised to doubt "social facts" just as Descartes insisted on doubt for nature, are often as gullible and naive as those who never heard of Derrida, Levinas or any other ethicists on Levinas' level, and, thanks to Heidegger's disgusting past, and I would add, to Paul de Mann's, some folks now know that.

There is, however, no way of dismissing the critique as valueless, not by the giants in philosophy, such as the great pragmatist Rorty.

I believe that we do have certain trible instincts, that some of them may be genetic. However, what constitutes tribe, race, or the suis generis Jews, is not genetic. It is a mental construct, chimera.

DITLD Wrote:

"Just hating him because he is black is racist. Disguising this hatred as a "policy disagreement" does not make it any the less racist."

Most conservatives I know, and one would have to assume I find myself in conservative circles more so than you, vehemently disagree with the direction Mr. Obama is trying to take this country. This is not a rascist sentiment, it's a conservative sentiment.

"I am not trying to shut down debate "from the left." That is simply silly non-sense."

When you argue that;

"most conservative are "horrified" that a black man has become President, and treat him rude and ugly contempt."

You are defining conservatives in a light that makes any argument against policy, a rascist argument. As you do not know "most" conservatives, you are obviously not in a position to speak for what it is that they believe.

"What is the "left" anyway? I am giving my opinion on things, not the "left's" opinion. Is the left a person? an organization? a place? or some mystical diabolical force? Who knows? not me. If you have a problem with something I say, then just say that, and don't drag the "left" into it, unless you can tell me what you are talking about when you refer to the "left."

Well, one could define the left as a political position that seeks to change traditional social orders in order to create a more egalitarian distribution of wealth and privilege. There are many other ways it could be defined, but when one is discussing political issues, using the term is a helpful way of putting a metric on the direction of an argument. Are you arguing from the "Left" or "right". You are trying to remain above the fray by raising an objection to a label that clearly fits you. Ironically, it is this attempt to stay above the fray that has defined our current president as well. He seeks to heap platitutes on his political opponents, while clearly dismissing any input from them.

persiflage,
'preciate your thoughts, as always. i think it's nature and nurture and you think it's all nurture. i guess we'll agree to disagree on this one.

Hi Walter,

I crafted a long response to your post that was unfortunately lost (or maybe not). However, I have to disagree with you regarding the 'racist instinct' hypothesis.

Sure there are obvious physical differences and genetic pre-dispositions to be found among races and ethnic groups, as Moderate points out. The propensity for racsim is not in-born, however.

I would maintain that racism is environmentally based, learned behavior, from start to finish. Exactly like any other element of a person's belief system and world view - and including religion as you frequently point out.

A host of social scientists, learning theorists, and geneticists will support this view - although a few early noted geneticists were largely responsible for the eugenics movement. Very smart people gone bad, as you noted in regard to the antisemitism of the German philosopher Heidegger.

Regarding the fairly recent phenomenon of black racism in the USA - they did after all have the best role models in the world in their white Christian brethren....what's good for the goose is good for the gander, as the saying goes.

Regarding the superior attitudes of some minority members - in significant ways I see this as a rejection of Whitey's forcibly imposed identity of inferiority and the inevitable pendulum of history, set in motion through a conversion of well-founded fear and paranoia based on discrimination and abuse of every kind, to the search for and re-discovery of cultural significance and black self-identity - but that's just my white bread hypothesis. Exaggerated behaviors and attitudes are an inevitable part of the process.

And of course there's plenty of discrimination to be found within racial and ethnic groups as well - for example, South and Central Americans make fun of the Mexican culture, etc. Human nature or human nurture??

You have badgers and the badges are busy. The ammo business is profitable. If you can read this you are in range.

FH123

Disagreeing with Obama on policy matters is not rascist.

But challenging the legitimacy of his citizenship and his Presidency, and heckling him as he speaks in Congress is racist. Plain and simple.

Constantly seeking technicalities to invalidate and undermine the respect he is due as President is racist.

Just hating him because he is black is racist. Disguising this hatred as a "policy disagreement" does not make it any the less racist.

I am not trying to shut down debate "from the left." That is simply silly non-sense.

What is the "left" anyway? I am giving my opinion on things, not the "left's" opinion.

Is the left a person? an organization? a place? or some mystical diabolical force? Who knows? not me. If you have a problem with something I say, then just say that, and don't drag the "left" into it, unless you can tell me what you are talking about when you refer to the "left.

That is the lazy man's way out of arguing.

President Obama's rasicist hecklers are the ones shutting down debate, by keeping their racist sentiments always in the forefront of every discussion.

You call them "grass-roots" town meetings? I call them "casting calls for the Jerry Springer Show."

That is your policy that you are proud of?

Daniel ITLD is indeed correct.
I am 66, grew up in the Jim Crow South, and saw its horrors. Believe me, I know a racist when I hear one. I do think it is unfair to call all conservatives/republicans racist, but the ones I am hearing certainly are.

DITLD wrote:

"And most conservative are "horrified" that a black man has become President, and treat him rude and ugly contempt."

I'm afraid you are right. I do not know a single conservative/republican who has said anything even remotely civilized about Obama. The anger and hatred are quite overt. And these people consider themselves to be good christers. I'm coming to the conclusion that it is impossible to be both a republican and a true christian.

DanielintheLionsDen, you said,
"I am merely being skeptical of anyone's utopian-esque ideas that the world would be a better place, if only...(and you can take it from there).
The America that was then, is now gone, morphed into what we are now..."

indeed, and people are often nostalgic about "the good old days".

the great american philosopher frank zappa talked about how american culture is suffering "death by nostalgia". for instance, the founding fathers were nostalgic about the good old days of ancient greece. in the 70's/80's we became nostalgic about the 50's. the gap keeps getting smaller... not quite the point you were making, but related.

when people became nostalic about the good old days, my father used to say, "you mean the days of tuberculosis and outdoor plumbing?" then he'd say, "today, THESE are the good old days."

Daniel12 wrote:

"This conversation is really only beginning in America."

You are sick, sick sick. You don't have the first clue what the conversation is about, and you are already ten minutes late to it.

"DITLD Wrote"
And most conservative are "horrified" that a black man has become President, and treat him rude and ugly contempt.
Conservatives deny, deny, deny that this is true. But; well, as they say, actions speak louder than words.
As the months have passed since his inauguaration, Republicans have gradually become more blunt, and more ruthlessly and openly racist towards him."

Wow, this is a stunning commentary. So, objecting to policy has now become a rascist endeavor??? This is an example of how people on the left seek to squash dissent and discussion, and it is no less appalling than anything done on the right.

DanielintheLionsDen,
distinction noted.

Yes, Walter-in-fallschurch,

...you are a little naive about how people regard President Obama's race.

Most liberal people are "amazed" that a black man has become President, and regard him with a little more repect than is usual for a President.

And most conservative are "horrified" that a black man has become President, and treat him rude and ugly contempt.

Conservatives deny, deny, deny that this is true. But; well, as they say, actions speak louder than words.

As the months have passed since his inauguaration, Republicans have gradually become more blunt, and more ruthlessly and openly racist towards him.

...and another thing...

To contradict Daniel12 on another point, the "rule" that any person with a drop of "black" blood in them is therefore "colored" is not a contruct of the so-called "left."

In fact, this "race rule" is our legacy of the Southern slave owners. That was the rule of the Jim Crowe South, into which I was born. In that culture, Barak Obama would have been considered "colored" and would have beeen required to drink from the "colored" drinking fountain, and would not have been allowed as a customer in most resaurants, or to stay overnight in a hotel.

That is the way it was.

...and another thing,

In the nine-teenth century, the immigrants that came to America were indeed mostly from Europe. But the fear of their influence on American culture was EXACTLY the same as Daniel12's fear is now. The arguments against them then were EXACTLY the same as his are now:

Chicken Little: "Oh my, the sky is falling, it's the end of the world... yada... yada... yada...)

I am not belittling anyone's fear of bad things and warning of what is to come.

I am merely being skeptical of anyone's utopian-esque ideas that the world would be a better place, if only...(and you can take it from there).

The America that was then, is now gone, morphed into what we are now, and by no one's hand or plan, but by some organic process of its own, which no one understands, nor controls.

And the America of now, will likewise, disappear, as it morphs into some, as yet, and unknown, future society. That is the nature of the world, and of our lives.

Daniel12 is just afraid. I agree that there is plenty to be afraid of. So, what else is new?

But, all we can do is face our unknown futures, with grit and courage, or at least, without worrying so much about what might happen, when in fact, we do not know at all what will happen, except that man's lot on earth will continue in the same repeating pattern as it has for thousands of years.

...and another thing,

I have a problem with continued reference to "the left" or "the right."

While there may be arguments that trend left or trend right, there is not really any such thing as the "left" or the "right." When my arguments are criticized as coming from the "left" or by calling the "left" stupid, or by attributing a perceived motivation to a thing called the "left," I am not sure what to make of it, nor what it means.

I do not participate in anything that I know of called the "left" so if anyone wants to criticize something I have said, just do that, and leave the "left" out of it.

A preoccupation with the "left" or the "right" seems to be a little paranoid, since, as with race, there is really no "there" there.

To: Themoderate, Susan, and everybody else reading this:

Regarding Daniel12's very confused and sad essay about race, Themoderate thinks that I wrote THAT essay and he is confusing me with Daniel12.

Both of us are named "Daniel" but we could not be more different on this matter.

I would just like to make it clear that DANIEL IN THE LIONS DEN (DTLD) did not with that racist essay; DANIEL12 wrote it.

Regarding meaningful qualities in other human beings, I have ZERO interest in race!

Being a white man in America is a perk, which is nice, but I do not, in my heart of hearts, think it is fair, and I have no interest in seeking to maintain the "white man's discount."

I have made my opinion clear on race, that race is mostly an illusion, that it is pretty hard to define in exact terms, that there are no biological markers to define race, but instead only a collection of traits, which can be observed ad-hoc, or cataloged methodically by committe, or by politicans.

It is a trick of the dominance of our visual sense, that so much regard is paid to the variation in skin color, when in reality, it is infinitessimal, trivial, and of no importance or value at all. Daniel12, you are seemingly so intelligent; how can you be completely unaware of this fact?

persiflage, you said,
"Walter, you make a good point. Racism is instilled at an early age..."

well, thank you and i'd like to leave it at that with you thinking i made a good point....but actually i was saying racism is at first genetic. kind of like on the level of our fear of spiders and snakes... now i did say this genetic instinct can be easily overcome/influenced by parenting (and i would add life experiences).

you also said,
"...my granddaughter is mixed, and she's had considerable trouble with her black female school mates."

um...this might be politically incorrect of me to say, but in my experience "minority" races seem to be the MOST racist. maybe this is because they deal with it regularly. my heart goes out to a black (or mixed-race) person growing up in south carolina.

speaking of s.c. and race, i was surprised to hear people calling joe wilson's outburst "racist". black people said he wouldn't have done that to a white president. i mean, it was boorish and disrespectful, but "racist" never entered my mind. naivete on my part?

Walter, you make a good point. Racism is instilled at an early age through subtle processes generally unknown and unrecognized by the subject of that conditioning.

I'm not necessarily a big fan of B.F. Skinner, but he did get the specifics of operant conditioning down cold....and it's a big deal when it comes to attitudes and beliefs - and the behavior that follows. They are all notoriously difficult to undo.

For example, my granddaughter is mixed, and she's had considerable trouble with her black female school mates. She has always been very aware that it's primarily because to these fellow students, her black identity has been compromised/diluted by virtue of being mixed. This is not an uncommon experience with children of mixed parentage.

In the meantime, her self-identity is seemingly both black and white in equal parts. She's an excellent student with high aspirations, but these days is more sensitive to her racial composition.

She has many black relatives both north and south of the Mason-Dixon line that she's been in contact with her entire life, as well as an equal number of white relatives.

She is politically quite liberal like her parents and grandparents, and wonders why so many people seem to 'hate' Obama. She says he seems like such a nice man - and we all agree. Why indeed?

I live in South Carolina, and was embarrassed the other day when Rep. Joe Wilson publicly acused Obama of being 'a liar' with regard to the public healthcare option and illegal immigrants. Our state is full of absolute idiots that pass for politicians - and yet they do the work of their constituents. Joe Wilson will no doubt be an outspoken hero to his idiot supporters.

Anyway Walter, regarding the differences in race, ethnicity, political idiocy, et al - it's all about conditioning from where I stand and has little or nothing to do with DNA. Nature is indisputable regarding basic human assets, but as you say, proper nurturing wins the day.

And as Farnaz says, these are all social/mental constructs, as is every other concept under the sun. People falsely treat them as actual realities, and that's where all the trouble starts.

regards, Persiflage

themoderate, you asked,
"...should we not treat the likelihood of sickle-cell anemia as different in present day blacks than in present day whites?"

that is a philosophical question we as a society have to ask ourselves. i say, absolutely we "treat" them differently, medically. we acknowledge the difference (between races) and tailor MEDICAL treatment to a person's genes. HOWEVER, we cannot charge more for insurance for genetic characteristics. insurance companies have to take the risks as part of doing business or (i can imagine you rolling your eyes here) the government makes up the difference. that sounds like socialism to "the right", but i think it's just humane. genetic conditions are a different animal than say smoking and skydiving. those are choices we make.

funny video about "socialism" (oooohhh...) from zefrank: http://www.time.com/time/video/player/0,32068,37761983001_1920887,00.html

daniel12,
strange post. seems like your charges against "the left" amount to saying, "wait 'til all the 'whites' are gone - then you'll be sorry."

it is "the left" who embrace "multiculturism". the very term "multiculturism" is an epithet when used by "the right". as i said to farnaz, all people are different, but deserve equal treatment.

you said,
"What I find even more amusing is that for all declaration by the left in America that people are the same, that one should not think in racial categories..."

again, we should all be treated with equal respect. DUH... the race thing must be confusing you. think of it like this: women are DIFFERENT than men in many ways, but deserve EQUAL respect. it's not really complicated.

of course there are two realms of "respect". the legal realm is easy - laws apply to everybody, equally. the social realm is harder because people are racist and afraid. this seems to be more of a problem on the right (generalizing, obviously).

then you said,
"...the left has no problem at all insisting that a child by a white person and a black is black."

i don't think it's the left ONLY who does that. that's just way people talk. it's based on superficial apperance - the product of the dominance of certain genes for certain physical characteristics. unfortunately, it's based on how you look...

Walter:

"now, if you say, "we shouldn't treat people differently based on race", then i would completely agree."

Good point. To it I would add: should we not treat the likelihood of sickle-cell anemia as different in present day blacks than in present day whites? Would we be responsible if we did not take genetic differences into account if by doing so could achieve better healthcare? The whole issue of medical treatment customized using the genome is in some sense fundamentally racist. But it will save lives in the future.

"Postmodern is a term that is almost impossible to define. Arguably,..."

Of course it is. It has no epistemology. It is in essence anti-rational. Once you have escaped the bonds of rationalism, you are "free" to operate out of whatever else remains in your intellectual arsenal. Sadly this is often fear and outrage. Because it has no standard of proof, or sound basis for knowledge, its practitioners are often operate on the assumption that the loudest, most strident voice is, at the end of the day, the right one. With no way to settle arguments and move on, other than exhaustion of the participants, postmoderns are given to simply repeating themselves.

That doesn't mean that every thing you say is wrong, just that you have no moorings to a system that can tell you if it is right nor a way of approaching problems larger than your own personal emotional sensibilities permit.

An example last night Daniel wrote:

"The fears previous immigrants to America had were not largely racial fears, but nationalistic fears--"

Now that was an interesting observation with implications for the understanding the past, and the present. Instead of seeing where logic would take you with that as a premise you launched into your well worn diatribes starting with the persecution of the Irish and going on from there. While you may have made observation based upon history, they were not based upon Daniel's interesting observation.

By the way, the last time I was in Dublin, I found a couple of remarkably moving books on the depredations the English visited upon the Irish. One was: Robert White's 1847 Famine Ship Diary - The Journey of an Irish Coffin Ship, and the other To Hell or Barbados - The Ethnic Cleansing of Ireland by Sean O'Callaghan. So I am not disputing the veracity of your observations on prejudice against the Irish.

But, I do suggest that postmodern methodology is fundamentally obsessive and closed to rational persuasion. Daniel might reasonably ask: Why are you saying this to me? as he searches in vain for connections to what he actually said.

In all seriousness I don't see why those who ascribe to one of the 3 major monotheistic religions are objecting to the overt show of weaponry. The Torah, Bible and the Koran are filled with lionized figures who killed or ordered the slaying of tens if not hundreds of thosands of people and the brandishing of fire arms and an attitude of militarism are nothing new. So much for trusting in the Lord and the weilding of plowshares instead of swords.

Part one.

To Farnaz from Daniel. I have read Lyotard--and Baudrillard and Foucault and Genet and Camus and Sartre and--so on with the French writers. But I see no reason to read Lyotard for the reason you want me to read him, for you have said everything already (according to you): Everyone is the same.

I reject the notion that all people are the same. I believe there are racial differences between people, which is to say differences not confined to color--even significant differences between ethnic groups. And I do believe a lot is genetic. But I can understand the desire to view all people as the same. It sure would be inconvenient if people are not the same, right?

I believe much of the belief that people are the same to exist because people do not know what to do otherwise. What if certain peoples continue to lag behind in school? What answer to that? No one has a satisfactory answer. What really amuses me though is all that left wing expenditure of energy--entire books written--to defend the simple belief that all people are the same.

What I find even more amusing is that for all declaration by the left in America that people are the same, that one should not think in racial categories, the left has no problem at all insisting that a child by a white person and a black is black. In fact the left goes even further, that a child by a Hispanic and white is Hispanic. The left speaks of a multicultural society--a post race society--but THEIR LANGUAGE, THEIR SCHEMATICS has white whenever mixed with another race anything but white.

Part two.

The only exception I have noticed is when whites and Asians mix. But so much for the Asians as well in America! If an Asian mixes with a black or Hispanic--especially a black--the child is most certainly not considered Asian. The child is considered black. Tiger Woods. How many people really know he has a Thai mother? Few. He is considered black.

The logic--or rather the language of the left--continued as races mix in America will inevitably result in a backlash in which even white liberals will join. What happens as the races mix and the children are called anything but white in America? Inevitably white people will be upset that all of America is swinging to be considered anything but white.

I have no problem if, as the races mix, the children are called biracial or whatever, but the language of the left does not allow for that apparently,--unless maybe if a white and Asian mix. The assertion by the left that only the right wing--essentially people the left considers racist--thinks in racial categories is nonsense. The left does the same. Obama with a white mother--raised entirely by the white side of his family--is considered black and that is final according to the left. Obama is representative of the black man. The white aspect is not applauded at all. In fact it is better forgotten. It does not meet the left's agenda. So far as I can tell, relatively few people can really think beyond race--and even that might be no great accomplishment but error, for there are differences between races, even ethnic groups.

This conversation is really only beginning in America.

farnaz, you said,
"How is it, to focus more narrowly on the matter of race, that my friend Victor is lighter in complexion than another friend who is Italian? Yet, the latter has been designated "white," by most, he black, by whites, yellow by blacks. As a result, they have had very different experiences in life, been treated very differently, etc."

well, that's because people are racist.

they make the immature (in terms of human moral development) leap from "he is different" to "he is a threat". it seems to some extent, at some level, people instinctively fear "others". it's probably left over from our hunter-gatherer past. this fear can be easily overcome by early childood influences and so on. or the fear can be "nurtured" to grow into full-blown racism. imho.

you it kills me when people like heidegger "go bad". i read and generally liked (as i vaguely reacall) "on being and time" in college.

Persiflage,

RE: Your post

Read the link, and will wonder forever why we cannot overcome the NRA. The New York City rabbis, linked ridiculously to the Kentucky pastor, are protesting the continual threats Jews here endure from Islamist terrorists, particularly, during the High Holy Days.

This is mere rhetoric, occurs periodically, and as I note in my post will not end the problem. Like everyone else, we have enough to do getting by from day to day, without being targeted by racist lunatics. As I mention, the rabbi of the synagogue I occasionally attend attempted to refuse police protection. We don't like being under siege by police. Many of us can ill afford the private security forces we have to pay for.

We want those threatening us arrested and tried. This has been going on for decades. I fervently hope that next year, we are brought together to celebrate the High Holy Days at New York City Hall. Although generally unobservant, I sometimes participate, would surely go to City Hall to join in festivities.

Hi Walter,

Yes, I said it loudly. I am referring to race as a social construct, a social "fact." Let us remember, that for the Nazis, Jews were a race and that remains the case today. For others, Jews are suis generis at the boundaries of race, religion, and nationality.

Scroll down and read Mary Cunningham's post, for instance. Mary assumes the girls who attacked my daughter could just as easily be called "Latino" (sic) as Catholic. However, they were not Latinas. But, for her, Catholics, Protestants must have a nationality--that nationality would be what identifies them--but not "the Jews." Jews are "the Jews." See, for instance, Ramdas Lamb's essay in which he refers to "the Jews and their allies" (sic).

"Hiedegger and the jews" is only one critique of the liminal status of Jews in Western thought, betwixt race, religion, and nationality. Jews are an excellent example, perhaps, the locus classicus of the myth of social facts.

How is it, to focus more narrowly on the matter of race, that my friend Victor is lighter in complexion than another friend who is Italian? Yet, the latter has been designated "white," by most, he black, by whites, yellow by blacks. As a result, they have had very different experiences in life, been treated very differently, etc.
Am I being clear?

farnaz, you said (loudly),
"THERE AIN'T NO SUCH ANIMAL AS RACE. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS BLACK, BROWN, WHITE, YELLOW, RED."

while i get your point, i think this kind of "colorblindness", though well-intentioned, is not accurate.

the "purity" of a race would be related to its reproductive isolation from everybody else in the world. for most of our (human's) history, populations were pretty small and far apart. there was lots of isolation going on. populations in isolation develop certain genetic similarity. it's just a fact. human genes are over 99.9% similar, but i daresay any geneticist could correctly "predict" a person's "race" based on his/her dna. and just by looking, most "laymen" can identify someone's race.

lately (last few 100 years) we've been "mixing" a lot more than we used to, so the "purity" of these races is disappearing, but the word "race" still has some meaning. i'm not making a value judgement here, just an observation.

now, if you say, "we shouldn't treat people differently based on race", then i would completely agree.

An unexpected opinion piece coming by way of Fox News, regarding the current gun ownership issue. How did such a generally liberal reporter ever get a byline, one wonders.....

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/04/08/time-end-americas-lock-load-mania/

Daniel12:

Indeed, you do need to do more researh. And you need to remember that people who cling to paradigms (which means just about all of us) take one
look at the possibility that everything they think is guaranteed
to be nonsense and pedal rapidly in the opposite direction. Surely there
is no power, no control, no understanding, not even a reason for being,
much less acting, embodied in the notion that there is no certainty in
*any* worldview. But, in fact, everyone who has managed to entertain that
idea, for a moment or for a lifetime, has found it to be the basis for
radical empowerment. If no paradigm is right, you can choose whatever one
will help to achieve your purpose. If you have no idea where to get a
purpose, you can listen to the universe.

It is in this space of mastery over paradigms that people throw off
addictions, live in constant joy, bring down empires, get locked up or
burned at the stake or crucified or shot, and have impacts that last for
millenia.

Postmodern is a term that is almost impossible to define. Arguably, it refers to distrust in grand narratives, as Lyotard would have it, perhaps, along with false "binaries," such as Germans and Jews, as Derrida, in fact did have it, that is, did put it.

The critique is paradigmatic. For most who grew up with it, it is inescapable. It recognizes differences, but not inequality due to race, religion, gender, social class, religion, etc. However, it also recognizes that power is differentially distributed and that inequalities must be made conscious even if that means using essentialism strategically as Gayatri Spivak suggests. As a result of this way of thinking, we now know that women are not imitation men, for example. We know that their heart attack symptoms are significantly different.

The research that led to this conclusion did not develop "naturally," since research does not exist in nature.

Also, as a result of the current interpretive bias, several distinctive subdisciplines have developed, among them, "the metaphysics of science." Even science, arguably the least "metaphysical" of disciplines, has come to see that metaphysics is almost, though not entirely, inescapable. The more conscious we are of it, the better equipped we are to combat it.

DANIEL12, Read Lyotard, "Heidegger and the jews." Apply the principle you find in it to all identity categories. Apply it to the political left, right, middle, and sideways. Of any way of thinking, ask who benefits.

Farnaz dear,

"And, always ask who benefits from this or that way of thinking. Ask this of the left, right, middle, and sideways."

And your own deeply held bigotry against Christians in general, but especially Catholics in particular? Are such prejudices a common pitfall in your intellectual methods? Who benefits from that school of thought?

Pauline Rosenau (1992 summarized the method of postmodern deconstruction as:

- Find an exception to a generalization in a text and push it to the limit so that this generalization appears absurd. Use the exception to undermine the principle.
- Interpret the arguments in a text being deconstructed in their most extreme form.
- Avoid absolute statements and cultivate intellectual excitement by making statements that are both startling and sensational.
- Deny the legitimacy of dichotomies because there are always a few exceptions.
- Nothing is to be accepted, nothing is to be rejected. It is extremely difficult to criticize a deconstructive argument if no clear viewpoint is expressed.
- Write so as to permit the greatest number of interpretations possible.....Obscurity may “protect from serious scrutiny” (Ellis 1989: 148). The idea is “to create a text without finality or completion, one with which the reader can never be finished” (Wellberg, 1985: 234).
- Employ new and unusual terminology in order that “familiar positions may not seem too familiar and otherwise obvious scholarship may not seem so obviously relevant”(Ellis 1989: 142).
- “Never consent to a change of terminology and always insist that the wording of the deconstructive argument is sacrosanct.” More familiar formulations undermine any sense that the deconstructive position is unique (Ellis 1989: 145).

Not that deconstruction is not analysis, but rather a methodology for obfuscation.

DTLD,

Interesting essay. Your final point:

"I think rather than bringing up peoples to a state of "good America" America will become more and more crass, dumbed down, polluted, trivial, anti-technological--just like any third world nation one cares to use for example."

Is particularly well taken. The post modern view in the academy has been particularly damaging to the classical eduction in America. It replaces foundations in grammar, logic, and rhetoric, with the theory that no theoretical understanding is possible. Subjective views become the reigning principle. Loudest and most caustic assertions being the closest thing to "rignt" in such discourse.

If you think that this is antithetical to the scientific method which brought you the Industrial Revolution, Calculus and Physics, electricity, airplanes, antibiotics, microelectronics, bioinformatics, and vaccines based on the germ theory, to name a few trinkets we all know and love, you would be right. I am hard pressed to see similar benefits to postmodern deconstruction.

"The fears previous immigrants to America had were not largely racial fears, but nationalistic fears--Germans at odds with, Italians at odds with, and so on.--In other words, the 19th century fears--and into the 20th century--were a mirror of nationalistic rivalry in Europe."
------------------------
You should do some more research. For decades, the Irish in America were considered backward and suffered horribly. The Jews were considered backward, regardless of their "nationality." "The Jews," of course are "the Jews," have no nationality, but that is beside the point.

In England, being an Irish Catholic is still, in some circles, a race, the equivalent of being black in America.

THERE AIN'T NO SUCH ANIMAL AS RACE. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS BLACK, BROWN, WHITE, YELLOW, RED. THEY ARE A FIGMENT OF FEAR, GREED, AND POWER'S IMAGINATION. IN THIS SAME SENSE "THE JEWS," NEITHER A RACE, NOR A RELIGION, NOR A NATIONALITY, DO NOT EXIST.

Get it? See Lyotard, "Heidegger and the jews" and then apply the principle to all of the foregoing categories emerging from a people's sociohistorical imaginary.

And, always ask who benefits from this or that way of thinking. Ask this of the left, right, middle, and sideways.

Lions Den, first your comments on the immigrants to America from before the last forty years (or if you prefer, in your terms, during the 19th century): they overwhelmingly came from Europe. Sure Irish conflicted with...and Italians conflicted with...but the immigrants were, again, from primarily Europe--a place of proven progress. These days the immigrants coming to America are to a troubling extent third world--backward. The fears previous immigrants to America had were not largely racial fears, but nationalistic fears--Germans at odds with, Italians at odds with, and so on.--In other words, the 19th century fears--and into the 20th century--were a mirror of nationalistic rivalry in Europe.

As for your notion of America becoming more diluted by the mixing of races and that the world is multicultural and intermingling is inevitable, I have no problem with that--provided that there is a counter urge toward meritocracy, an uplifting of the gifted (which becomes more and more impossible when different peoples intermingle and conflict--really there are dangers from various points toward the notion of meritocracy). The point I am trying to make is that the left wing is not satisfied with "multiculturalism" and other such concepts at all. The left wing--and this is precisely the language used, the paradigm of thought--says white mixing with another race is not white but black or Hispanic or whichever race you prefer. In other words, the mixing does not lead to merely multiracial society, but the elimination of the use of the concept of white.

If you need any proof of that, take Obama. He has a white mother--was raised entirely by the white side of his family--and yet there is very little spoken of that. What we do hear is that he is black--and a champion of the black race. If you need it spelled out any clearer, the perspective of the left, its classification scheme, its (again) paradigm, has white whenever mixed with any other race considered not white but that other race, when in your terms it should be--to be fair--multiracial.

And that the left does have that classification scheme means really just another part of the total emotional response of the left, its envy, its desire for petty revenge. The left never tires of calling the right greedy, but left wing generosity is really a helping of themselves--and again, to have a white mixed with another race means not white but that other race. All assaults on the hope of future sophistication of democracy in America.

Daniel 12

Your ideas are mostly based in fear, but I am not sure why. Your argument about the debasement and dillution of American values is the exact same argument that was made in nine-teenth century America, when they were then, also, awash in immigrants. So, who is the one who does not know history?

Read the novel, "My Antonia" by Willa Cather.

And you seem a little preoccupied with race. The United States is still overwhelminly white. All of the other races only have any identity at all in contrast to the dominating white culture.

If all of the races intermarried and had children as you suggested, the resulting "race" would still be mostly a "white race" only perhaps, not quite as white, since most Americans are white.

"Race" itself, as a bioligical concept, is not really meaningful. There is no caucasion gene, for example, nor a negro gene, nor a hispanic gene., nor an asian gene. There are instead separate genes for hair color and texture, skin color, facial structure. Race, as a biologically sound concept, is an illusion that comes from our perceptions of the collections of particular genetic traits that appear in populations that have been "isolated" for many generations.

You cannot find any place in the world where there is a fine geographical line separating the white race from the black race. Instead, as you go from North to South, (from Sweden to Central Africa, for example) the populations change ever so gradually from very white, to tan, to brown, to black, to very black, just gradually and impercptibly.

Did you know that, or have you ever considered that?

The modern world is "de facto" multi-cultural, and the collection genetic traits that give the illusion of race are now being dispersed and intermingled among populations once isolated from each other, but now intermingled. That is not a liberal thing, that is just how it is.

This is planet Earth. You have to find a way to live on it as it is, because you do not get a chance to get off, and go somewhere else.

You cannot control the intermingling of races, and the gradually increasing merging of the races. Because you seem to have a very strong racial identity now, it seems threatening, but to future generations, they will not care. They will live in the world that recieves them at their birth, just as we are doing.

"Racial" differences that people fight over are actually cultural differences, not biological differences. A black child raised in a white home will be culturally as WASPish as Beaver Clever.

Aside from all of that, I would not want to attend a church where the congregation and pastor is armed, because I do not want to get shot. It is not a matter of liberal or conservative; it is just my basic survival instinct. I do not want to get shot, merely to make a point in an argumenht that my murderer has a right to bear arms.

Part one.

Should weapons be brought to church, synagogue, mosque?

It seems in a modern democracy such as America's that for all talk by liberals (left wing, Democratic party) about religion, how they understand religion, they really know absolutely nothing about the same. Daily we are treated to the arrogance of liberals--how they are so much brighter than the rest of us. But constantly they prove themselves utterly ignorant of history.

That a weapon would be brought into a place of worship--a place which professes peace--is a contradiction only from the modern perspective of individuality, differences between people, not really being a danger, and that individuality rather can drive society to greater heights of sophistication whether we mean cultural, economic or political.

Part two.

But our modern age, our democracy, was dearly bought, and still is by no means secure. Obviously a history lesson is in order. The monotheistic religions Judaism, Christianity, Islam--but particularly the latter two--were necessary forces to prevent differences between peoples, tribes, even individuals from leading to the perpetual chaos that in fact existed. Western Europe, and particularly the Middle East were notorious for war after war, plunder after plunder. Still in the Middle East houses present a formidable facade to the street.

In short, particularly Christianity and Islam were forces which professed peace, but the peace had to come by the sword. Christianity and Islam were types of totalitarian force which were absolutely necessary, because the alternative was war and more war. There was absolutely no contradiction between piety and weaponry for century after century. It has only been with the success of peoples putting their differences to rest that the sword no longer has to back the message of peace.

In fact the more able people are to put their differences to rest and to at least obey basic laws the more monotheistic religion itself becomes unnecessary--people no longer need to have this totalitarian directive from on high. But the big question in our modern democracy--and I mean America--is whether differences between peoples can be put to rest without religion--or whether we need religion to the point of weaponry.

Part three.

My belief is the left wing is incredibly naive if not downright stupid. What they have essentially is the belief that this people and that can just get together and talk differences out, that there is no danger of what now infamously is called multiculturalism leading to factionalism, conflict, war--dissolution of Commonwealth. As if this is not bad enough, what they mean by multiculturalism is the "greedy" Republicans overcome by the "generous" Democrats, when obviously the generosity of Democrats does not mean aid for Republicans. Essentially the generosity of Democrats is a helping of themselves.

Unless a Democrat wants to step forward and say he means to help the Republicans as well--the Republicans he despises. And as if that is not bad enough, the left wing flat out aims to ensure no white people exist at all. An outrageous claim, that? Then why is it that when a white person has children by a black or Hispanic or other race the children are considered anything but white and must be swung to the left wing side against, "greedy white and privileged" America?

Take the logic, the language of the left wing to its conclusion. Have every white person in America have children by other races or ethnic groups and tell me what the result will be. According to the language of the left the children will be black, or Hispanic or whatever. Not white. No, most certainly not white. We have a movement in the U.S. to flat out end the white race. And people wonder why religion is being turned to to the point of weaponry.

The fact is for all democracy democracy has still not proved itself preferable to theocracy, monarchy, aristocracy in uniting disparate peoples, ethnic groups, races. Most democracies are quite homogeneous, a particular people decisively in power. Where democracies are not homogeneous we have all the signs of stress: political indecision, groups facing off against one another, religion being turned to to the point of violence, law and order stressed beyond what seems reasonable--the list goes on. If anyone has any sense they will recognize in these symptoms America.

Part four.

In fact America is in grave danger. The conservative part of the nation is not identified with government as it should be--not identified with a center which was quite obvious in monarchy, theocracy, aristocracy. Instead the left wing trends are identified with government, which means the forces of fragmentation are more evident than a center which must be held. The surprising thing is why the conservative forces are not stronger. My belief is the U.S. will continue on its present course until it will be too late.

By too late I do not necessarily mean the dissolution and fragmentation of the nation. It would be called too late if only the conservative powers were to become more violent--more violent in an organic, intuitive attempt to right the nation, prevent differences between ethnic groups, races, individuals from destroying the nation. The past is by no means the past. If differences between peoples cannot be solved in a painless manner they will be solved in a painful one. All of history bears witness to that.

You would have to be a modern day liberal not to see that. Or perhaps they do see it and do not give a damn. Anything to dislodge white "privilege", "greed", etc. Things are rapidly becoming revenge for revenge between the two major political parties. It does not surprise me at all that weapons are brought into places of worship. Furthermore I think the problem will only increase. I am not one of those that believe multiculturalism is a good thing. I lived overseas. I saw with my own eyes the countries from which Hispanics, blacks, originated. I do not believe in education in America, its professed goal of making all peoples equal and good Americans.

I think rather than bringing up peoples to a state of "good America" America will become more and more crass, dumbed down, polluted, trivial, anti-technological--just like any third world nation one cares to use for example. Weapons in places of worship are only the beginning. The national discussion is only getting started. We all whether we like it or not are about to understand what it means to be a citizen of an advanced democracy. And all of this without the slightest bit of schooling.

A pity this lesson has not been taught in school.

Putting the Kentucky pastor and the rabbis in the same category is akin to uniting the Janjaweed with the National Guard. After all both are armed.

The problem of Muslim terrorist threats against synagogues, Jews in predominantly Jewish neighborhoods has been going on for decades. Frankly, people are sick, tired, and disgusted with being targeted.

A few years ago, some people, including rabbis began stating that they intended to defend themselves, and not only during the High Holy Days. They do not want their congregations to be burdened all year with the cost of paying for private security and they don't want to be under siege by police.

The synagogue I occasionally attend declined police protection this year. This resulted in a meeting with the chief, followed by two more, in which she and her committee were finally persuaded to give in.

The Congregation, a gentle enough bunch, was not happy from what I hear. Enough is enough as this brilliant young rabbi declared in her email. Jews, like everyone else, have enough problems living day to day without being threatened by Muslim terrorists. However, the rabbis arming themselves is not the right way, as they very well know since the announcement was rhetoric.

We Jews, cultural and observant, need to organize, as taxpayers. We need to stage demonstrations demanding that those who threaten us be caught, tried, and jailed, if convicted. As this discussion continues within the community, I am hopeful that this will occur.

Susan writes: "As anyone who lives in New York (and I expect, other large cities) knows, many synagogues have, sadly, been force to install metal detectors at their entrances as a result of Islamist terror threats."

This is not "sad." It is unacceptable. Can you imagine what would have occurred decades ago if Catholic and Protestant churches had been threatened by Muslim terrorists?

We Jews do not need rabbis speaking out in this way. We need them to unite us. When we finally get it together, a few million of us might celebrate the High Holy days in front of City Hall. 2010 would be a good year to begin this new tradition.

test

Hello, Persiflage, always good to see you here.

First, my stand: 2nd Amendment, fine and good. BUT, let's regulate. No one untrained should ever, ever carry a firearm. It would be giving weapons to children.

Second, the NRA. The greater number of the rank and file, I think, believe in safety first. But the CEOs of the NRA, like CEOs everywhere, are concerned about the bottom line and the fund of their bailout money. They will do their best Rush Bimbo imitation to drive the sheep to contribute. Also, from what I understand, the majority of those who purchased weapons in the recent upsurge of sales were collectors, not first owners. Says something there, no?

Third, our Congress seems to be almost totally corrupt. In accordance with Dirksen's laws, Get elected, Get re-elected, Don't get mad get even. Stand up and drop trow for every donor.

Fourth, as a Christian I say that bringing a firearm into a church prostitutes the beautiful message of love taught by Jesus. The people who would do this live by the perverted law of 'Who would Jesus bomb?'

Take care, and keep the faith, whatever yours might be.

Hello Persiflage,

"A fully armed and totally incompetent general public is the ultimate dangerous weapon. This is not a trained militia, but rather a wide assortment of individuals with little or no reason to be armed, much less the reasoned judgement and skill to use those arms prudently, judiciously, and wisely."

Even scarier is the fact that there is little central cultural merging or gathering point for this armed public to rally to in case of actual emergency. America is a collection of various and often divergent micro cultures. The differing sub-societies interface peacefully and productively in some environments, but in many settings or environments there may be the opposite effect of distrust and combativeness.

It could go back to tribalism far too quickly, brains deadened and cloudy with hysteria and phobia.

One could make a movie of these potential horrors, and feed it to a hungry populace to urge on the fear and loathing...

Hello Langenscheidt,

Rubbish. This is not a Second Amendment issue. There is no law broken, I believe, in churchgoers carrying their .45's to church right next to their Bibles, though they would find better philosophical alignment if they stashed it along with their spare clips, (in case of islamic terrorist attack at their neighborhood Carolina church, of course, let us do be prepared!), in the OT section of their KJV.

This is ludicrous. It is not a 2nd issue, it is a political play, and a threat. Simple.

Why do bright minds suffer from delusion, do you think, Langenscheidt, even when they have all the facilities and information to make a reasoned and rational conclusion. It is because we are more invested in supporting and defending our beliefs and world views than in being honest and truthful, me thinks.

Hey, let's play with the format that you presented to Edbyronadams. You said:

"When one believes that one's political views are rational, one will naturally regard one's opponents as "anti-rational"."

I am sure that plays out in the politically polarized politics of the day, (and so causes preachers to call arms into church and sermonize how they hope the President dies of brain cancer quietly and quickly). Does it hold true for religion, do you think. I feel sure. Even Christians believe other Christians are going to hell, and Muslim fathers are strangling their daughters to save face. (It was not long ago that Christians practiced arranged marriages, and womenfolk were effectively property.)

There is no doubt that many of these preacher/demons are inciting hatred and loathing in their flock. That is far more of a sin, in my view, than carrying Mr. Smith to church. It sets up and funds future blood feuds.

What happened to the Christ in Christian?

In thread after thread we see justification for our contemporary & rampant gun mania as something inherently/rationally based on the 2nd ammendment. The fact is, this is a non-issue from start to finish - and quite without a fundamentally cogent point. There is no threat to anyone's right to bear arms - other than the one manufactured by the private arms industry interests and their minions, including the NRA and various congressional (GOP) supporters.

In fact, the local run on permits to carry and the widespread stockpiling of ammunition is really a form of mass hysteria, based on the same kind of mis-information and overall lack of common understanding and common sense that stands in the way of healthcare reform.

And not to mention the accompanying well-publicized nutty behavior in opposition to the 'public option' that would probably drive down the overall cost of healthcare by removing the current monopoly enjoyed by the private medical insurance industry. And where costs continue to rise while benefits fall.

The numbers of legislators that depart congress for lucrative jobs as highly paid lobbyists for the private healthcare and arms industries, and other corporate concerns is legendary - and practiced by both parties.

Mass movements of the political kind generally have covert agenda that are quite separate from the highly touted 'public' issues driving public opinion, and the de rigour mis-information that effectively obfuscates the real issues behind these faux movements.

A fully armed and totally incompetent general public is the ultimate dangerous weapon. This is not a trained militia, but rather a wide assortment of individuals with little or no reason to be armed, much less the reasoned judgement and skill to use those arms prudently, judiciously, and wisely.

Shooting first and asking questions later is likely to be the first response by a random but well-armed citizen in a perceived 'crisis' situation, and the last response for the citizen on the receiving end of that all-too-hasty and adrenalin-charged response.

Guns in church is a kind of sanctioned insanity encouraged by law, and we're not even talking about drunks with guns - a whole other horror story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Edbyronadams writes:

"Why does Susan Jacoby characterize all political opponents as "anti rational"? "

Surely you can answer this one for yourself. When one believes that one's political views are rational, one will naturally regard one's opponents as "anti-rational".

Justtillthen writes:

"This is a political statement and a threat, not a Second Amendment issue. "

That is your opinion. In the eyes of Christian fundamentalists who consider themselves to be endangered when they gather enmasse (especially now that the arguments for god have been defeated and they can no longer rely on their god for defense purposes) it is very much a second amendment issue.

As a Jew, journalist, black belt and gun owner, I don't mind having a few of my Jewish brothers carrying concealed weapons. What would have happened in Israel if those hijacking bulldozers and chosing other soft targets had not been stopped by responsible armed civilians.

What personally bothers me, believe it or not, is that Moscowitz and others have chosen to be photographed in silly, dramatic poses utilizing incorrect gun handling technique.

Did this guy really receive professional training? Doesn't look like it from any of the photos.

http://newhopepa.blogspot.com/

The next logical step, of course, is for the Vatican "state" to acquire nuclear weapons. And why not.

Hello Edbyronadams,

"Do the Ten Commandments trump the Second Amendment?"

This is a nice catchy phrase to add zest to the discussion. Yet this is still not about Second Amendment rights, it is about a political statement made from the pulpit and about the threat of arms. In this you agreed, referring to the Kentucky church minister. Religious leaders that encourage the arming of congregations to offset external threats of violence are out of touch. It is rare that there is any violence inside houses of worship.

This is a political statement and a threat, not a Second Amendment issue.

The fact that so many Christians have gone so far from Christian roots as to be pro-war, pro-violence-as-deterence, pro-life yet pro-death is beyond me. They are not Christians in any 'fundamental' way. They are mutations.

But then that is another discussion, no?

Arminius and the Mod:

Thanks for your acknowledgement. However, I didn't stay around and I don't intend to in future.

For one thing I'm an Irish expatriate in London, not America, so this is not my home territory. Additionally, I feel my Catholic beliefs and background are ill suited to an atheist blog. Finally, there's Farnaz1Manzur1 and all her puppies. To put it bluntly she hates Catholics! Her--or one of her puppies--rationale: Catholic gangs have beaten up her nephew, daughter, grandmother, (choose one or all). Frankly, any group of teenage boys associated with a Catholic school who beat a 7 yr old girl would be expelled! Immediately. It would be all over the newspapers and the boys would probably be arrested. The Catholic gangs she mentioned earlier are probably as Latino as they are Catholic. And we know the lady herself tends to fantasize. She has problems, real problems, in this area.

Anyway, best to you both.

The early Christians were pacifists. Christ’s direction to his apostles before his crucifixion is clear and the Church fathers similarly were non-violent. They were anxious to separate themselves from their Jewish origins: Jews who did rebel—often—and were subsequently crushed, decimated, and finally annihilated (at least in Judaea) by Rome. The first destruction of the Temple was in AD70 under Titus, but Hadrian’s later campaign was far more ferocious. Diaspora Jews forced to pay an extra tax as punishment for their disloyalty, Jews were expelled not just from Jerusalem but from all of Judaea, and the province itself was renamed Aeolia. This latter persecution happened in AD140. Jews would not return to Jerusalem for 1,700 years.

The fledgling Christian Church, having already undergone two traumatic persecutions, watched Hadrian’s actions anxiously. It continued to affirm its loyalty to the Roman state, if not to Roman gods. The fathers stressed Christ’s pacifism. Mindful of the pagan religious underpinnings of the formidable Roman legions—fighting machines that had conquered just about the known world—the Christian fathers debated amongst themselves whether soldiers could be Christians. Did membership in the famous legions disallow one from becoming a follower of Christ? Tertullian wrote emphatically against. (Eventually former soldiers were allowed to join, it was, after all, a universal Church). So the idea of a gun in a Christian Church is laughable, so completely is it at odds with the message of the Saviour.

I am not sure about pacifism in Judaism. The Hebrew Bible is far less pacifist than Christian gospels; Israel itself bristles with arms and is an extremely militaristic model; additionally Jewish militants (like Farnaz1Manzuri1) will cite the Holocaust and generic Christian persecution as a rationale for synagogues arming themselves.

I grew up in the South, in a rural area, in the 50's and 60's, Our family did not have a gun in the house, since there were 4 of us kids, I suppose, and my parents were sane and level-headed and not "gun-loving freaks," (no offense to anyone). We did not, and no one I knew, hunted squirrels or rabbits for food. We mostly got chicken and hamburger from the Safeway or A&P, and we paid for it with money, just like all the "citified" people. (We also slept out on the front porch on hot summer nights, so no, we were not afraid of crime, even though we did not have a gun.)

I realize that there are some people who have an interest in guns for technical and historical reasons, and possibly for aesthetic reasons. But mostly, an interest in guns indicates some level of nuttiness. That is just a fact, plain and simple.

Yes, for rural people to own guns in high numbers is not so much of a problem simply because there are not many people in rural areas, and they are spread out and not living right on top of each other--that is why it is called "rural." (Duh).

But in the city? Come on! Give me a break. It simply is not even remotely plausible or workable to maintain order in a modern densely populated urban area, if each person carries a gun. PERIOD!

One reason that I fear "law abiding citizens" who carry guns is because, yes, they are law abiding, right up until the moment they start shooting people. That is why I do not think it is a good idea to arm teachers; they might shoot the students. (I had a couple of high school teachers whom I think may have started shooting in the classroom, if they had a gun in their desk).

And preachers with guns? Oh my God-AWFUL GOSH? Alot of them are already nutty enough, standing up there, dissecting Bible verses and diagraming sentences for the EXACT nuance of meaning.

Guns for preachers? I don't think so.

The day my church allows guns on the campus is the day I will resign my membership.

justillthen writes:

"I do not think that this topic has anything directly to do with gun ownership or Second Amendment rights. Neither should you, and I don't imagine that you do. It does have to do with presentation of arms as a political statement, clearly. It is a threat."

It clearly does have to do with the Second Amendment as stated in the question. "Do the Ten Commandments trump the Second Amendment?"

Personally, I think that anyone drawing and firing a weapon inside an assembly is nuts but perhaps giving notice that someone is armed inside the assembly if they reasonably feel threatened might act as a deterrent. As far as the Kentucky church goes, the minister should be defrocked or the church lose its tax exempt status if such blatant political acts are part of the service.

Hello Edbyronadams,

I do not think that this topic has anything directly to do with gun ownership or Second Amendment rights. Neither should you, and I don't imagine that you do. It does have to do with presentation of arms as a political statement, clearly. It is a threat.

Anyone that uses threat of arms in the environs of public intercourse is making a clear statement that cannot, and should not, be dismissed. If that environment is in a Christian church or Jewish synogogue it is all the more startling in it's contrasts.

Don't make this an issue of gun rights. It is not. It is about threatening a peaceful gathering with firearms.

That may or may not be termed "anti rational", depending on your perspective. But I am clear that it is a threat, and should be dealt with as such.

Farnaz,

From the previous thread...

I would suggest From Mathematics to Philosophy by Hao Wang. He extensively interviewed Kurt Gödel on his incompleteness theorem and the very general consequences for philosophy it has. The problem is that it can take a year or two to read even if you have the educational background when you start. Peter Kreeft's Socratic Logic can be a good preparatory volume which is also a slow read if done right. If you want a more breezy introduction to the topic, I would suggest Rebecca Goldstein's magnificent little volume called Incompleteness.

As for Derrida and Foucault, you can't be serious? I read some of that stuff when they wrote it and you were in diapers. Next you will be talking about Marxist dialectic. Just to begin with, how do they know anything with no viable epistemology? I would suggest Kieth Windschuttle's The Killing of History to you as a very well researched commentary on bankrupt postmodern methodology for some perspective.

You can have the hermeneutics of suspicion for yourself too.

Susan,

"I have nothing more to say about it, except that all of us in the media--from blogs like On Faith to cable news--ought to give serious thought to our own role in publicizing these lunatics."

Yes, we should. Yet here we are doing it. The topics our moderators choose are clearly designed to whip up paranoia, anger, fear, and loathing. Perhaps you could speak of that with them.

You know, last week I suggested a topic on the meaning of Ted Kennedy's life. Redemption seemed to be central to his later years, and service to his nation and the people who need help the most. Why can't we take some time and talk about the example he set instead? He had his personal demons and wrestled one at a time until his life became an example to us all. You don't have to agree with all of his programs and ideas to admire him for what he accomplished with his time here on earth.

When I was growing up, everyone had a household gun, often a small calibre rifle or a shotgun. My relatives who were a bit more rural kept a "varmint" gun in the kitchen to keep the pests out of the vegetable patch. A little rabbit stew came of it too, sometimes. People didn't even really think of them as weapons for the most part except in exigent circumstances. The boys got a bee-bee gun when they were seven, and a .22 rifle when they were twelve. They also got gun safety lessons.

The nut cases showing up at political rallies with rifles is another matter. There is a public safety issue here. Free speech does not extend to shouting "Fire!" in a crowed theater, and bring weapons to political rallies to make a spectacle and an implicit threat is beyond it too.

As for anyone who would pray for someone else to go to hell, why he's praying to someone other than Jesus. Hard to imagine someone who really reads the Gospels doing something like that.

edbyronadams

I don't suppose the low numbers of potential murderers and/or victims had anything to do with low murder rates, that would be way too logical!

Feeling safe in a VERY rural area!

As a veteran of America's armed forces - combat engineer, Vietnam era, served in West Berlin - I know full well that putting a firearm into the hands of someone who is not trained is putting a gun into the hands of a child. It is madness.

I am also Christian. To bring a firearm into the house of worship of the Prince of Peace is to violate, to indeed rape, everything He ever taught. Those so-called 'Christians' who worship guns and call for the death of other people are NOT followers of Jesus. They never ask 'What would Jesus do?', no, they obscenely scream 'Who would Jesus bomb?'. This is sickening, and is not just anti-American, it is a threat to all good people anywhere, regardless of country, race, or belief or lack of belief.

Jesus wept.

Why does Susan Jacoby characterize all political opponents as "anti rational"? There is no reason to claim that supporters of private firearms possession are not rational and most owners I know do not "exalt" their firearms. They generally regard them as dangerous tools. So is a knife or a hammer, but given the right circumstances, all tools are useful.

For instance, I grew up in a rural area in which police response time might be measured more closely by the hour than the minute. People who live in such areas who do not possess the means to defend themselves are foolish. Most did and the murder rate was extremely low.

Just because someone's view is different does not make it "anti rational".