The 8/28 Rally

[JayR]

I'm no fan of Beck but the kind of uninformed hyperbole you're using here doesn't represent your case well. Sharia is a very specific thing. If you were to spend about thirty minutes reading about it you will realise your error. Mainly, not in the nature of the laws but their application and the specific structure of government required.

That is not to say that his wanting to blend church and state is desirable, just that more accuracy on your part would better further your point. Church and state blended as advocated by some Christians is surely bad but not any equivelent of Sharia. We're comparing hurricanes and earthquakes here.

When someone says "Im so hungry I could eat a horse", I dont reply with "if you spent 30 minutes reading about the dietary needs of a human, you would realize you error". Yes, it was hyperbole, does it necessarily folow that its uninformed? I realize theres no "christian form of sharia", the point is, as you said, the blending of faith based ideologies and government force cannot be accepted. Whether its locking up gays who get married, not allowing an incest victim an abortion, or, taken to the extreme, stoning a woman because she was raped, its obviously unacceptable. Rather than comparing hurricanes to earthquakes, we should note that they both suck, and are antithetical to life as a human being. It seems awfully pragmatic to assert that because chritianity is "not any equivalent to sharia" that the two cant be painted with the same barbaric brush.

j..

Edited September 1, 2010 by JayR

[Maximus]

They can't be painted with the same barbaric brush. Although you may have individuals committing acts "in the name of Jeebus," such as shooting abortion clinic Doctors, the religion itself does not teach violence as does Islam. Under our constitution, we are in no danger of becoming a Christian Theocracy. No danger whatsoever. I find the constant excoriation of people that hold religious views curious, and rather disturbing. Reject the concept of a deity all you want on philosophical grounds, just leave the invective on the grade school playground where it belongs.

The fact is that we have existed as a Christian majority country for 230+ years. It has been stated that Capitalism and religious belief can't exist together, yet during all of this time, and before, capitalists have invariably been people who were religious. It did not effect their bottom line in the least. The vast majority of our leadership, Congressional, Executive, Judicial and military have been people who professed religious belief, yet here we are, no Theocracy, no ecclesiastic courts, no stoning of adulterers, burning of witches at the stake or killing of homosexuals.

In my opinion, the fear of people who profess religious belief, from the evidence of our history as a nation, is unfounded, and refusal to co-operate with them politically foolish.

Edited September 1, 2010 by Maximus

[SapereAude]

When someone says "Im so hungry I could eat a horse", I dont reply with "if you spent 30 minutes reading about the dietary needs of a human, you would realize you error". Yes, it was hyperbole, does it necessarily folow that its uninformed? I realize theres no "christian form of sharia", the point is, as you said, the blending of faith based ideologies and government force cannot be accepted. Whether its locking up gays who get married, not allowing an incest victim an abortion, or, taken to the extreme, stoning a woman because she was raped, its obviously unacceptable. Rather than comparing hurricanes to earthquakes, we should note that they both suck, and are antithetical to life as a human being. It seems awfully pragmatic to assert that because chritianity is "not any equivalent to sharia" that the two cant be painted with the same barbaric brush.

j..

Hurricanes and earthquakes do both suck. But what do you do with something that sucks? a rational being analyses, understands and prepares. Hurricanes and earthquakes come from different origins, cause different forms of damage and one takes different precautions to mitigate harm done by them. If you simply say "it doesn't matter which one is heading my way they both suck equally" you will be dead or kept alive only by the good graces of others.

Keeping that in mind, I'll let you draw your own conclusions on why comparing the Christian right to Sharia law.

...in reference to Maximus' post, lest anyone try to argue that violence is just as much a part of the Christian faith as it is Sharia law... reread the books. While Christians have been very irrational and violent it is not in any way part of the actual Christian teaching. That is, it is not part of any of the teaching of Christ. Laws advocating violence are based on the Old Testament. Whenever a Christian condones violence they are ignorantly referring to laws that (if the Bible is to be believed) Christ specifically said he had come to overthrow.

[ScarlettCatherwood]

It has been stated that Capitalism and religious belief can't exist together, yet during all of this time, and before, capitalists have invariably been people who were religious.

I never said they couldn't exist together in a philosophy, I said they shouldn't. For reasons I am going to assume we all know, this being an Objectivist forum.

I'd also like to mention that I never said I am totally against the Tea Party. I think they can do a great deal in turning some of Obama's ridiculousness around, such as healthcare, and I hope they do. However, I can't fully back them either, for previously stated reasons, and if I can't, why would I call myself one? At present, I will neither endorse nor condemn them. Or rather, I will endorse those ideas I agree with, but not the party as a whole.

Deciding on a political party is a personal decision. I will remain an Independent until I have a good reason to do otherwise. Although I want to and do, I have no duty to go out and spread Objectivist thought. And I don't really think that politics is a good place to start when trying to convince people of this philosophy anyway, but to each his own.

And for the third time, the reason I won't associate with them is the lack of a philosophy. They want some of the same things, but not all of the same things. Their lack of cohesiveness is my main objection.

[ZSorenson]

Indeed, ditto, hear hear.

To everyone.

Religion has driven the defeat of capitalism. Look - please at least glance in order to understand - at the most recent awful and hideous National Review which again goes to painstaking efforts to excorciate Ayn Rand. In fact, I'll make a post on that later because there's a specific point I think needs to be made in response.

The pseudo-concepts of religion are a problem. Let me offer an example (a big one): the idea that fate works in man's favor. This just isn't true, and it leads to an awful lack of attention to detail in reality. However, accepting this notion on faith allows a person to fully consider what they might do if fate were to work out in their favor. This allows them to plan for the better world before it can be seen. In other words, it allows for integration to occur without a full understanding of the epistemological principles involved.

Remember that even Ayn Rand didn't expect everyone to be able to understand philosophy. A special class of intellectuals - according to the principle of division of labor - would study the science of ethics and philosophy, and pass down/along simplified principles to the rest of society. The goal is to reform that class.

One way to reform that class is to defeat the factors that enable the mystics to inhabit that class. Religious mystics have long since been excluded from the top tiers of the intellectual class. The secular mystics are the problem. One way to defeat them is to erode their base of support in the public, by eroding the barriers they place on society's intellectual framework.

Pseudo-concepts can serve as scaffolding, or bridges, over these barriers. The idea is that they connect good concepts to other good concepts. They make inaccessible good concepts available.

Glenn Beck is a great example of where things are headed. I simply can't imagine his ratings rising more than what they are. I can imagine him continuing to erode the ratings of his competitors by undercutting their moral arguments - even if he has to appeal to pseudo-concepts in order to do so. In the end, the result is a vacuum - which we need to fill.

Vacuums can be dangerous - read 'Ominous Parallels'. But part of why I'm glad Beck is the man doing what he's doing is that his ilk - his followers - are the sort to reject a vacuum. They'll continue to demand a certain integrity from their intellectual leaders. It might be a while before they can move beyond their religious worldview, I can conceive of a deistic approach that might work, but in the end I see no evidence to suggest that their political aspirations will be all that damaging.

They'll never let the Catholics in their ranks install a monarch, nor will the Catholics allow an Evangelical takeover of the moral sphere. There's too much diversity, and America's history has provided too strong a basis for common cause: freedom of religion, and a source of prosperity through liberty. That's ultimately what Beck's message seems to be about.

Again, I think the right response has been mentioned often. I don't endorse Beck, but I will defend him against the unfair criticisms leveled by the Left. I am also happy to join in the effor to erode the moral/cultural dominance of the Left in the public sphere. I will also continually advocate from within Beck's 'movement' against the religious emphasis. I will point out where that emphasis, and my values come to a common understanding.

I don't think a religionist would ever accept my values, but they would accept me as an ally, and have a greater respect for me, and a greater willingness to make concessions to me, if I point out what we have in common.

Beck isn't the enemy: National Review is the enemy. Jonah Goldberg isn't the enemy: Conrad Black is the enemy.

The world needn't be split into one grand dichotomy. Elements of Beck's movement are bad, but most elements are good against the worst element of my worst enemies. This isn't a pragmatism, because I don't want to make any concessions to Beck. (EDIT: any concessions on core values, I mean)

Conceding that people have a right to pseudo-concepts is permissible, so long as I ensure than they will not interfere with my right to reject those same pseudo-concepts.

Edited September 1, 2010 by ZSorenson

[freestyle]

There are some nice answers about this in the Q&A about religious conservatives in Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A.

Because the question was asked, "Why should we keep religion out of politics?", AR was able to expound on that specific in a way I don't recall her doing in detail anywhere else. And what strikes me is that, at least in these particular answers, she doesn't antagonize religious people in any way. She merely explains, logically, why it has no place in politics.

This is the big problem with Beck (as I see it). He wants religion in politics (or, hasn't yet figured out that he really doesn't want it there). Palin? I'm not so sure, but I'm currently under the impression that she does fall back on religion as a basis for her politics, as opposed to reason. (We'll see where this "common sense conservatism" ends up.)

I'll post a little bit, but if you have access, there are some good answers in here that I wish more who call themselves conservatives and/or tea partiers would read and take a stand on. I know there are those who consider themselves conservatives, are religious, but hold that their religion is a private matter and is not part of the foundation for their political arguments. That's a good thing.

I was hoping the tea party (and its ties to the founding of the country) would re-introduce this proper separation as they promote capitalism and smaller government. Beck just muddied that up, but it is Beck trying attach himself to the Tea Party when I think it is much bigger than him.

Ayn Rand in Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A

Religious conservatives

Question: We are told that religion is our best protection against communism. Why do you say we should keep religion out of politics?

Ayn Rand:

For the same reason the Founding Fathers gave. Religion is a private matter. There are many different religions. The difference between religion and philosophy is that religion is a matter of faith. You either have faith or you don't. You cannot argue about it. But when you deal with philosophy, you deal with reason and logic. That is an objective element of language common to all men. You can try to persuade others that you are right, or you are free to disagree with them. In a free country, you need not deal with them. But religion is an issue of faith. By definition, if one doesn't accept faith, or if different people believe different faiths, no common action, agreement, or persuasion is possible among them if religion is made a condition of political agreement. ...

...

Persuasion, reason, argument are not the province of religion. Religion rests on faith - on an acceptance of certrain beliefs apart from reason. This is why it must be private.

When it's a private matter, it's fine, it can even be a kind of inspiration to people. Faith is what each man may choose for himself, if he wishes. I don't.

[emphasis added - a little surprising]

Question: If religion is instrumental in spreading altruism, can we fight altruism in America without fighting religion?

Ayn Rand:

In America, religion is relatively nonmystical. Religious teachers here are predominantly good, healthy materialists. They follow common sense. They would not stand in our way. The majority of religious people in this country do not accept on faith the idea of jumping into a cannibal’s pot and giving away their last shirt to the backward people of the world. Many religious leaders preach this today, because of their own leftist politics; it’s not inherent in being religious. There are many historical and philosophical connections between altruism and religion, but the function of religion in this country is not altruism. You would not find too much opposition to Objectivism among religious Americans. There are rational religious people. In fact I was pleased and astonished to discover that some religious people support Objectivism. If you want to be a full Objectivist, you cannot reconcile that with religion; but

that doesn’t mean religious people cannot be individualists and fight for freedom. They can, and this country is the best proof of it.

[emphasis added]

...

In America, you would not find it difficult to divorce religion from altruism. After all, Christ said: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” So you must love yourself. After that, you can argue about your neighbors.

There is more in a related question/answer that follows. Searching for the quote on the internet, I only saw it come up in one place.

If this is to be a fight on the political right, then I believe it is proper to demand a clear stance on whether or not a particular politician believes that religion is a POLITICAL or PRIVATE matter.

[Black Wolf]

They can't be painted with the same barbaric brush. Although you may have individuals committing acts "in the name of Jeebus," such as shooting abortion clinic Doctors, the religion itself does not teach violence as does Islam.

Inaccurate. Not every branch of Islam preaches violence, and neither does every branch of Christianity promote the opposite.

[Maximus]

Inaccurate. Not every branch of Islam preaches violence, and neither does every branch of Christianity promote the opposite.

The Qur'an does. The Hadith does. The life and example of Muhammad does. Even the most "peaceful" branch of Islam, the Sufi, support Hammas.

Nothing I have seen that Jesus supposedly taught supports violence.

[JayR]

They can't be painted with the same barbaric brush. Although you may have individuals committing acts "in the name of Jeebus," such as shooting abortion clinic Doctors, the religion itself does not teach violence as does Islam.

Huh? It all depends on what part of the "holy scripture" the believer decides to take literally.

If there arises among you a prophet, or dreamer of dreams . . . saying, 'let us go after other gods, which you have not known, and let us serve them' you shall not hearken to the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for God tests you ... And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he has spoken to turn you away from God . . .

nice huh? and:

If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend, which [is] as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods, which you have not known . . . you shall not consent to him, nor hearken to him; neither shall your eye pity him, neither shall you spare, neither shall you conceal him, but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And you shall stone him with stones, that he die; because he has sought to thrust you away from God.

(bold mine)

I never said we shoud "refuse to cooperate" with these people, but I wont refrain from pronouncing moral judgement,(which is what I assume you mean by "invective"), and I'll certaily not be a christian apologist.

j..

[SapereAude]

Inaccurate. Not every branch of Islam preaches violence, and neither does every branch of Christianity promote the opposite.

But here we have a distinction that must be made- there is what a branch of a religion may preach and then there is what the actual definitive religious texts say.

Christianity should rightly be the (alleged?) teachings of Jesus. Not the Old Testament and not writings that were tacked on hundreds of years later by people with their own agendas. I'm tempted to say that Christianity would be best served being seen as a closed system (as Objectivism is).

The definitive religious texts of Islam do advocate for violence. That a branch may choose to ignore that is admirable but it doesn't change the fact that they are deliberately evading certain truths about what they profess to believe.

Freestyle, thanks for the AR quotes on the topic. Very helpful.

Edited- morning typos!

Edited September 3, 2010 by SapereAude

[Dante]

I do not understand how religion is any less dangerous than socialist-type or mixed-economy-type policies. Maybe most tea party supporters aren't in favor of anything like making abortion illegal, but even granting that, the point is there is no one guiding any ideas. And when it comes to movements, unless there is a cohesive and organized structure to them, they always fizzle out. So the only expectations I have now is that either (1) the Tea Party movement dies out in a year or so, or (2) the majority who support the Tea Party movement, the religious-inclined, will take it over.

In certain contexts religion can be much more dangerous than those who advocate the mixed economy (in a theocracy, for example). However, in America today, the vast majority of people, even religious people, accept some form of the separation of church and state. The prevailing view of religion is that of a personal choice. By contrast, very few people accept the separation of economy and state. Most people simply see no reason to separate the two altogether. They may think that their taxes are too high, or that the government should tweak what it's doing, but the separation is much less accepted. This is why I would argue that in the context of modern day America, advocates of the mixed economy are much more dangerous than the religious in the realm of politics.

[ZSorenson]

In certain contexts religion can be much more dangerous than those who advocate the mixed economy (in a theocracy, for example). However, in America today, the vast majority of people, even religious people, accept some form of the separation of church and state. The prevailing view of religion is that of a personal choice. By contrast, very few people accept the separation of economy and state. Most people simply see no reason to separate the two altogether. They may think that their taxes are too high, or that the government should tweak what it's doing, but the separation is much less accepted. This is why I would argue that in the context of modern day America, advocates of the mixed economy are much more dangerous than the religious in the realm of politics.

There are a series of articles this week at pajamasmedia.com about the educational system in America today. The thesis is: in the struggle between the X-tian Texas BoE and the liberal Obama-California axis, everybody loses.

That to me highlights why I'm not concerned about religious conservatives. In the worst case scenario, they are a different flavor of what we already have. But it is far more likely that they will contribute to structural fixes that will be beneficial. For instance, school choice.

[freestyle]

"

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

This has been hashed out before. Take that literally. So long as there is agreement that NO LAW (Sharia or otherwise!) be involved with respect to religion, people with right leaning politics can stand on some common ground, whether they privately choose "faith," or not.

The free/private market will do just fine without the need for any government FORCE.

Edited September 3, 2010 by freestyle

[Black Wolf]

Even the most "peaceful" branch of Islam, the Sufi, support Hammas.

How does a branch of Islam that was split about 1000 years ago support a terrorist organization that was formed 2 decades ago?

[Maximus]

How does a branch of Islam that was split about 1000 years ago support a terrorist organization that was formed 2 decades ago?

Beats me.