Newt Gingrich on Atheists in America

Here is a statement that deserves an immediate, loud, and hostile response.

"I have two grandchildren: Maggie is 11; Robert is 9. I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."

This is from Newt Gingrich, who wants to be President of the United States.

(See: CNN: Gingrich fears 'atheist country ... dominated by radical Islamists')

One's first impression is to laugh at this statement.

A secular atheist country dominated by radical Islamists?

We really have to question the sanity of such a person - for reasons that are too obvious to mention.

But, while shaking our collective heads in mocking disbelief, we must remember that this is one of the leading contenders to become President.

We have another reason for speculating why he might have said such a thing. Recently, several Republican Presidential candidates gave speeches to a conservative gathering in Iowa.

Haley Barbour (R) and Newt Gingrich (R) were politely and well received, but it's Bachmann who really fired them up with criticisms of the administration, an artful weaving of audience response, and backing up her points with a litany of "statistics."

(See MSNBC: Bachmann: 'I am an Iowan')

A couple of days after that happened, we see Gingrich attacking atheists and linking them to Islamic fundamentalists. And, at the same time, he links atheism with being anti-American. An atheist, apparently, does not understand what it means to be an American. You simply cannot be an atheist and, at the same time, understand what it means to be an American.

And he makes a well calculated emotional appeal by attaching these sentiments to an apparent concern for the future of young children. Can you imagine these cute and innocent children growing up in a country with secular atheists? It's enough to make you gag.

It doesn't matter that it makes no sense. What matters is that it is politically useful. It is something that may persuade one highly irrational and bigoted part of the population reason to support Gingrich's campaign, but give others no reason to oppose it because they simply ignore it.

Which is a part of the problem.

Let Gingrich or any other political candidate claim that by the time their grand children are his age they will be "in a Jewish community" and the Anti-Defamation league and their allies will end that candidate's Presidential ambitions before the week was out.

Gingrich did not even qualify his contempt for atheists – the way he qualified his contempt for Islam by adding ‘fundamentalists’. Whereas Islamic fundamentalists worry him, all atheists worry him, without exception or qualification.

However, he says this about atheists and it is barely worth mentioning in the news. Those who favor this message will repeat it to their friends and associates - those who are opposed will likely not even hear about it.

Part of the reason is that the atheist community has no organization to pay attention and to tackle events such as this - have no way to send the word out to the various atheist and anti-discrimination organizations (including the Anti-Defamation League).

His success in this strategy will only encourage others while it teaches its audience a wide lesson that looking down on atheists is acceptable, right, and proper. It contributes to a hostility towards atheists by building a community in which these values are accepted, but which go unchallenged in society at large.

Whereas widespread and public objections to these types of claims will help to discourage other candidates from taking the same path, while teaching the public at large that this type of bigotry is unacceptable in the public at large, and particularly among Presidential candidates.

Overriding International Non-Interference

Imagine that a person, Agent A1, known that neighbor N1 is brutally abusing his children. However, A1 does nothing about this. She may cast disapproving glances in the direction of their home, avoid contact with members of the household, and speak in tones of condemnation when talking about them, but she takes no action.

Later, she learns that neighbor N2 is brutally abusing his children. N2 owns property that A1 would like to own. By taking action against N2, this property might become available. She decides to take action against N2. In justifying her actions, she says that she is motivated by concern for the children.

Now, Agent A2 speaks up. She asserts, quite sensibly, that A1 is not motivated by compassion. If A1 were compassionate, she would have interfered with N1’s brutal abuse of his children as well. A1 is actually motivated by a desire for the property that this interference might force N2 to sell. Because of this, A2 condemns A1.

However, A2 does not condemn A1 for failure to interfere in the first instance. A2 instead protests that A1 should never have interfered even in the household of N2. N2 should be permitted to continue to brutalize his children, even killing and maiming many of them, without any type of community involvement at all.

I'm looking for a hero in this story.

I’m not finding one.

This characterizes some of the current debate on the situation in Libya – the decision to hinder Muammar Gaddafi’s ability to brutalize citizens who are supporting a change to a more democratic form of government.

Some people argue that the United States is not motivated out of compassion. There are people in the world who are suffering greater brutality than in Libya where the administration does almost nothing. But Libya has oil. So, the United States must be more concerned with supplies of oil than the wellbeing of civilians.

Yet, these protesters argue that the Obama Administration ought to do nothing. They argue for the international equivalent of a principle that says that the head of a household shall be left alone to brutalize his children in whatever manner suits his tastes and interests, and that the rest of the community must not get interfere.

At this point, I want to add one more character to this story. A1 shares her home with A3. A3 holds that members if the household ought to do nothing unless it can be demonstrated that a “household interest” is at stake. In other words, before A3 will allow A1 to act, A3 must be convinced that the action will profit the household in some way. If A1’s actions do not advance a “household interest”, then it is to be condemned.

Because of this, if A1 had taken action against N1's abuse, A3 would have been on him in an instant, rallying other members of the household to strip A1 of any type of ability to act, taking that decision-making power for themselves.

So, while it is true that the difference between N1 and N2 is that the household will not profit from interference in the first case but might profit in the second, there is a powerful force in this country that says that this is how it should be. They will not permit any type of action without being shown that a “national interest” is at stake. Taking action (particularly with an election coming up) in the international equivalent of N1 would mean that A3 wins the next election.

Ah, but A2-type thinkers are incapable of thinking in such complexities. They like a world of black and white – one in which taking action against the brutalization of children in another household is condemned in all circumstances.

I hold that, while we certainly require a presumption of international non-interference (in the same way we have a presumption against interference in the way parents raise their children), there are cases in which there is evidence to overcome this presumption. I condemn A2-type thinkers (pacifist Democratics and isolationist Republicans) for their utter lack of compassion and their blind obedience to rules. At the same time, I condemn A3-type thinkers (most Republicans as well as many independents and Democrats) for their utter lack of concern and compassion – people whose attitudes, if applied to individuals instead of countries would clearly create a community of alternating violence and indifference.

There is a reason for applying these principles of households to nations.

That is how peaceful communities are formed.

Libya, Iraq, and Epistemic Due Process

Our discussion of the moral merits of military action in Libya versus Iraq has brought us to the issue of due process. The moral difference between the Bush Administration’s invasion of Iraq and the current attacks in Libya, I have held, does not deny that Saddam Hussein was as bad a person as Miramar Ghadafy.

I have put the difference on whether the attackers followed principles of due process.

So, why is this so important?

Because humans are notorious for blowing past evidence and reason to get to the conclusion that they like. When that conclusion involves the use of violence, we have many and strong reason to put barriers in front of the use of violence that recognizes the most common sources of error – a moral requirement to subject those beliefs to a system of due process.

I have heard a few speak as if this disposition to ignore evidence and reason is a theist fault and that atheists are superior in that they have learned to overcome this failing.

Yet, the more scientific among us recognize that this is absurd. As a matter of fact, much of the progress we have seen in science is grounded on the fact that scientists admit and respect the fact that individual scientists cannot be trusted to be rational or impartial. Because of these human faults, scientific culture is one that DEMANDS that scientists use a type of “scientific due process” in its investigations – specifically to counter these tendencies that afflict all people, including scientists.

Double-blind experiments, control groups, replicatability, peer review, all of these aspects of scientific research can be lumped together under this concept of "scientific due process." All of them recognize and seek to counter the fact that humans - even scientists - are notorious in their tendency to see what they want to see and cherry-pick evidence to support a desired conclusion.

The use of due process has nothing to do with whether a conclusion is true or false. A scientist’s theory may be correct or incorrect regardless of whether it has been subject to scientific due process. Its use has to do with whether moral agents have reason to adopt that proposition. In adopting a belief, has the responsible agent employed those safeguards that, while imperfect, at least reduce the possibility that he has ignored reason and evidence?

This is particularly true when the belief involves the use of violence.

One way to reduce this possibility of self-serving error is to present one's evidence and reasoning to an impartial third party who has no particular reason to accept one proposition to another. Because the jurist does not have a stake in the conclusion, the jurist has less of an irrational tug that would tempt her to ignore reason and evidence. If this impartial third party can be convinced we are right, we may be more confident that our reasoning is sound and our conclusions are actually justified.

The main reason we employ a right to trial by a jury of the people in this country is, again, in recognition that, where the government is a party in a case, a government judge has an inherent conflict of interest.

Now, to return to the difference between the invasion of Iraq and attacks in Libya. I hold that Bush is to be condemned for the invasion of Iraq mostly because of his contempt for the principles and institutions of “due process”.

The Bush Administration found itself incapable of convincing third parties that it had a good case against Saddam Hussein regarding weapons of mass destruction. In fact, it didn't have a good case, as events would soon show.

Instead, it had a will to believe that caused it to twist and distort evidence and reason to support a desired conclusion. Evidence and testimony was examined in the light of the conclusions the administration wanted to believe – or, at least, wanted others to believe. If the evidence supported the desired conclusion, it was deemed trustworthy. If not, it was deemed unreliable.

Yet, third parties saw through this irrationality and lack of evidence. The Bush Administration was not able to convince the United Nations. Procedural due process reached the conclusion, "You do not have a good enough case."

Instead of respecting the moral requirements of procedural due process, the Bush Administration ignored those principles and attacked Iraq anyway. In doing so, they taught the world to hold the doctrines of procedural due process in contempt, and that people and nations may act with violence whenever they are certain in their own gut that they are right.

This is not the only area where the Bush Administration’s arrogant presumption of infallibility caused it to base its evaluation on the evidence on the basis of support for its conclusions. In the area of global warming and other environmental issues, it demanded that scientific papers be rewritten, judging as “sound science” that research that supported desired conclusions and rejecting science as “unsound” on the basis of failing to support desired conclusions.

I have further commented that many members of the Bush Administration as well as the bulk of its most vocal supporters belonged to a culture that demanded this form of epistemic negligence – a culture that took the Bible as literally true, and judged all science and reasoning based on the degree to which it supported their interpretations of scripture.

Which, again, is an attitude towards truth that is virtually certain to bring about death and suffering that can otherwise be avoided where people subject their belief to a more reliable system of “due process”.

Libya vs. Iraq: A Moral Comparison

There are those who say that the moral case of interfering in Libya is the same as the moral case against interfering with Iraq.

I disagree

Case 1: A person charges into a neighbor's house, kills the head of the household, and claims that he did so in self defense. He asserts that the neighbor was going to harm him. This is in spite of the fact that the neighbor presented no clear and present danger. Further investigation shows that the neighbor did not even own a weapon and, furthermore, agents for the attacker had been in the house looking for such a weapon and finding none.

Case 2: A community, faced with clear evidence that the head of a household is engaged in the murder of his children in clear view of that community, organizes a comunity response to stop those murders.

I hold that these represent a proper analogy for examining the attacks against Iraq and Libya. The first case represents the invasion of Iraq, while the second represents the attack on Libya.

I am being told that I must not permit or endorse the Libya response because doing so endorses the actions of the agent in the Iraq case.

Ultimately, on the face of it, this is absurd.

In raising objections to Bush's attack on Iraq, I argued that Bush violated a basic principle of justice. Except in the case of an immediate act of self defense against a clear and present threat, an individual has an obligation to appeal his case to an impartial third party. The Bush Administration failed to do this.

Analogously, our attacker in Case 1 above simply asserts that his neighbor was a threat without providing any information and without any sign that the neighbor was going to launch an immediate attack.

In the case of Libya, there was an appeal to an impartial third party that endorsed the conclusion. A U.N. resolution was passed authorizing the use of force against Libya.

In the case of Iraq, no use of force was ever authorized. the Bush Administration attempted to get a resolution passed authorizing such an attack, but withdrew the attempt when it was seen that the resolution would almost certainly fail.

In fact, it appears that the only way Iraq could have avoided a US invasion would have been to turn over stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and weapons research it did not have. This would be like saying that the attacker in Case 1 was authorized to kill his neighbor unless his neighbor agreed to produce a weapon the neighbor did not have.

Granted, I am not spending all of my time studying the facts of the case in these situations and I may have missed some relevant facts. Yet, the facts that I do have - if they are true and complete - would suggest that there is a significant moral difference between these two cases, and many and strong reasons to condemn the first set of actions (the attack on Iraq) while endorsing the second (the attack on Libya).

Air Strikes in Libya

Allowing that there are a huge number of factors related to peace in and the well-being of people in the Middle East of which I am ignorant, I am tentatively in favor of the decision to attack the forces of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.

I hold that the principles and concerns that govern international relations are quite a bit like the concerns that one should have of what happens in the houses of your neighbors.

For the most part, whatever your opinions are on the best way to organize a household, you need to leave your neighbors free to pursue options you disagree with. You may debate with them, argue against them, and even rant against them with other neighbors, but you must stop short of violently interfering with the way they live their lives.

However, there are limits. There is a point at which it is time to say, "Enough. That option is not available."

The patriarch who kills and maims others who share his house has gone past those limits. At that point, it is permissible to send in the police, if necessary, and put a stop to it.

So, each nation has a right to sovereignty that restricts the use of violence against them. There is to be a strong presumption that they are to be left alone. However, when a government begins to slaughter its own citizens, the option – in fact, the moral obligation - exists for others to step in and put a stop to it. Anybody who asserts that violence may never be used and that households must enjoy complete autonomy, is like the neighbor who says that a father’s rape, beating, or murder of a child would not justify sending in the police.

Like I said, there are other factors that would also be relevant in this decision. Will a new government in Libya be a fundamentalist Muslim state harboring terrorist training camps, executing homosexuals, and stoning women who dare not to live according to the dictates of Sharia law? Will one dictator be replaced by another dictator even more violent? These are legitimate concerns, and the answer might well dictate a change in the overall policy.

However, there is at least a prima-facie moral permission, even a moral obligation, to interfere with a government’s slaughter of its own people.

Quadaffy's Miracle

It have found it difficult to turn on the news recently. I wish for things to get better, but that's not what I am finding.

Quadaffy is probably overjoyed at the earthquake. It has pushed his violence off of the front page. A person in his position can do whatever he pleases, as long as the people are properly distracted.

It is almost as if there is a God, and that God favors people like Quadaffy. He prayed for a miracle to help save his regime, and he got one, at 8.9 on the richter scale

That's one of the truly remarkable things about miracles. You can find them where you want to find them. And if it does not make sense to you that your God would provide a particular benefit, then it is " coincidence".

Then there are those being caused to suffer in ways that do not make the headlines. If you can harm people in ways that do not make good YouTube videos, you are home free. Heck, you could destroy a whole economy, throw tens of millions of people out of work, destroy savings and retirement plans, and have taxpayer money go to secure your multi-billion dollar salary and your annual merit bonus

Oh, that bonus is well deserved. Roping in those billions of dollars in government assistance and saving your failed company - that is worth a few million dollars at the end of the year.

Fortunately, it also makes lousy video. That's where Quadaffy made his mistake. He had this regime of slowly simmering tyranny that made poor video. When that changed, he was in trouble. He was at risk of being overthrown. Once the video started, what he needed more than anything was compelling video from somewhere else.

No doubt he prayed for a miracle, and he got one.

. 

The Institutions of Law and Justice

My posting on ethically breaking laws (referring specifically to the claims made by Berrett Brown, an alleged spokesperson for the group Anonymous, drew the following comment from a member of the studio audience.

Here is one difference where I have to disagree with the premise. Anonymous is defending against illegal actions by adversaries that not only are themselves overwhelmingly powerful but are also able to invoke the wrath of the state, again, illegally.

Right. This is always true, 100 percent of the time, with no possibility of error. The members of Anonymous are morally and intellectually perfect. These claims I made about the dangers of self-deception and confirmation bias do not apply to them because if their superhuman qualities.

Every villain that has ever existed has been able do describe his actions in the most noble terms, at least in his own mind. The question is, "How do you know? What institutions are in place to check for the possibility of error?"

Because these are the only three options that exist:

(1) We are incapable of error.

(2) We are capable of error but errors do not matter. The possibility of unjust harm to innocent people is simply unimportant to us.

(3) We are capable of error and errors do matter.

If you go with option 3, then this demands that institutions be put in place that reduce the possibility of error - institutions that respect the most common sources of error. These common sources include conflict of interest, insufficient information, confirmation bias, selection bias, and the like.

Where an organization lacks these institutions, we may ask, "Which is it? Are you saying that you are incapable of error, or are you saying that error does not matter?"

And what happens when one discovers that an error does do harm to innocent people? What's the plan then? Are tree methods set up to compensate those who are harmed? Or is the plan to just shrug one's collective shoulders and say, "Well, that's their problem, not mine."

One option describes the morally responsible agent. The other option describes the immoral agent.

I live in a system of law. If I do harm to others, institutions exist to determine if I am in fact guilty and, if so, what I owe the victims in terms of compensation. This system is not perfect - nothing designed by humans ever will be. But it is far superior to a system that utterly ignores or, worse, undermines the principles embodies in such a system.

Neither Anonymous nor Wikileaks can ask or expect governments to intercede on their behalf, and, operating in the international ether, both they and their adversaries are functioning in places the law has yet to tread. Like the wild west, justice can sometimes only be delivered from the barrel of a [keyboard]. To expect -or wait- for due process would be to give further license to the banksters, who have already proven themselves immune to prosecution.

Here is one of those irrationalities that people use to excuse wrongful action - the false dilemma. "I only have two options: A or B, and A is clearly unacceptable, so I must choose B." a person who wants to choose B for whatever motive merely has to pick the correct A to put it up against.

"We must condemn and seek to abolish homosexual relationships or a vengeful God will visit us with hurricanes and earthquakes. We must do whatever we can to prevent the angry God from attacking us with hurricanes and earthquakes,"

You take the conclusion that you like, put it up against a horrendous alternative, and then proclaim that you actions are necessary, given the alternative.

This does not have to be done consciously. A person with no desire to see a third option has no motivation to look for a third option - or to find some excuse for dismissing any proposed third option out of hand. In their own mind, they are stuck with the options they described

They WANT to see themselves as being stuck between those two options, so that the option they like seems necessary.

This is just one of the tricks people use to judge themselves to be innocent and virtuous - by refusing to see the options that a truly virtuous person would have seen.

For one thing, there is nothing in this argument that prevents Anonymous from creating a set of institutions designed to protect innocent people from the harm of those who would use violence through institutions that respect the most common sources of error.

The wild west was not so wild. In the absence of access to formal courts, many mining camps created their own court - their own mining law. They elected trustworthy arbitrators and systems of arbitration - institutions where people brought their evidence before an impartial judge and jury.

Of course, it did not always happen this way. However, the relevant point here is that it should have happened that way – that this is the option that good people would have strived for. When it did not happen that way it is because not-good people – corrupt, greedy, or otherwise morally bankrupt people – got in the way.

Disaster Prevention and Relief

I am going to assume that you have heard of the earthquake that hit Japan recently.

We live in a universe that is entirely indifferent to our survival and well-being as individuals, as communities, and even as a species, surrounded by massively powerful forces.

Our best hope in protecting ourselves is to understand the world around us in ways that allow us to predict, and thus to avoid, these disasters. And when those disasters strike anyway, to depend on each other for mutual support.

When it comes to giving aid, reason should prevail here as well. Irrational, careless charity may make the giver feel good with false beliefs that they have helped, but people who truly care about others will want to make sure to make reason-based contributions to disaster relief.

Disaster relief organizations state that the best help that one can provide is to provide cash. Let the professionals determine what they physically need and where they need it.

At times like these, many people make contributions that are not only worthless but counter-productive. One such form of aid is for people to rush to the area where the disaster has struck so that they can volunteer their labor. Once they arrive, they end up becomming a part of the problem. They are just one more mouth to feed and one more body to take care of.

People also tend to make entirely worthless contributions of food and clothing. The labor involved in evaluating, sorting, crating, shipping, and distributing these types of contributions can almost certainly be better spent elsewhere. Cash allows the organizations to purchase and ship food, blankets, shelter, medicines, and qualified people in bulk - much more efficiently.

Of course, those donations can be made useful because, in spite of the disaster in Japan, you will almost certainly find people in your community in need of that kind of help. And there is no need to think that the only help worth providing is help given to Japan.

That is another burden that charities suffer at times like this. Local charities see their sources of income and support dry up as people shift their contributions in ways that focus on the disaster. So, keep that in mind when making a contribution.

Then there are those for whom their contributions are entirely self-serving; who have no interest in actually helping people as can be seen through their actions. People donate high-healed shoes and fine clothes, not because they have any interest in helping others, but because it makes a nice tax deduction.

If people are making irrational contributions, it really does no good to say, "At least their heart is in the right place," and let it pass. If their heart really is in the right place, then they care not to make irrational and senseless contributions. If they are offended by the news that their contributions are irrational and senseless, then their heart is not in the right place. They are seeking only the personal pleasure that comes from thinking that they have helped, they are not seeking to help. That is not a sentiment that deserves our respect or consideration.

Anonymous and Breaking Laws Ethically

An article by MSNBC has a spokesperson for the group Anonymous, Berrett Brown, saying,

“Our people break laws, just like all people break laws,” he added. “When we break laws, we do it in the service of civil disobedience. We do so ethically. We do it against targets that have asked for it.”

(See MSNBC: Hacker group vows 'cyberwar' on US government, business.

One fact to note is that criminals generally like to think of their victims as asking for it.

The husband who beats his wife will claim that she asked - that she has done something wrong and deserves to be beaten. The same with the parent who beats her child.

The common murderer will tell you that his victim deserved to be killed for some affront or other - in some cases, for the mere crime of showing disrespect for the murderer or some group the murderer belongs to.

To the rapist, the woman asks for it by the way she dresses or the way she is alleged to treat men.

One of the differences between the criminal and the just - between those who act immorally and those who act morally - is that ethical people do not decide for themselves who deserves to be victims of violence and who does not. They subject their case to an impartial judge and jury. They create a set of rules that are posted publicly for everybody to see, they give everybody a voice in what those rules are, and, where those rules are broken, they present evidence to an impartial judge and jury who can make an unbiased decision.

Vigilantes - who claim the right to be accuser, judge, jury, and executioner on all matters - inevitably judge their enemies always to be guilty, and themselves always to be innocent. We see this in Brown's attitude. Anonymous can do no wrong. All of their enemies "have asked for it."

Brown also demonstrates that he has no understanding of the concept of civil disobedience.

We have three paradigm examples of civil disobedience in our history.

The first is Henry David Thoreau who, because he considered the American war with Mexico to be a war of aggression for the purpose of conquering territory belonging to another sovereign power, refused to pay taxes in support of such a war. He openly defied the government and peacefully went to prison.

The second was Ghandi's Salt Satyagraha. Ghandi's intention was to protest the British salt laws by breaking them. He announced to the government that he was going to break the law. He walked 240 miles (over 24 days) to the coast, and there, in full view of the public, broke the law in a way that did no harm to any person, and allowed himself to be arrested. While he sat in jail, 60,000 people followed his example.

The third example are the non-violent "sit ins" that took place during the civil rights movements. Restaurants and other facilities were divided into "white" and "colored" sections. Groups of blacks would walk into these establishments and sit in the "white" section. There, they would get arrested and be hauled off to jail.

There are two aspects of civil disobedience that Brown does not understand.

The first is that you cannot perform acts of civil disobedience behind a mask. The perpetrator of civil disobedience stands up and takes credit for his actions and announces why he is doing what he is doing. When he is arrested. He expects to be arrested. In fact, he plans to be arrested. That is a part of his message - that he cares so much for the principle he is standing for that he is willing to suffer a personal cost in defense of that principle.

The second, of course, is that acts of civil disobedience are . . . well . . . civil. The person who practices civil disobedience destroys nothing - damages nothing - and commits no acts of violence. Anonymous, on the other hand, is all about committing acts of violence against the property of other people.

Among the methods the group is vowing to use: posting personal information about the officials on the Internet, a method known as “doxing.” The group also this week issued a threat over the Internet to “harass” the staff at Quantico “to the point of frustration,” including a “complete communications shutdown” of its Internet and phone links.

These are acts that aim to destroy the usefulness of the property belonging to other people. If it was a house, we can destroy it by burning it to the ground. If it is a computer program or process, we destroy it by making code changes that make it unusable. There is no moral difference between these two acts of violence. Neither of them qualify as "civil".

Anonymous commits acts of violence. Of course, we are told, the victims of their violence "have asked for it" - and they have made themselves the accuser, judge, jury, and executioner. On this matter, please refer to the first part of this posting.

Acts of violence in defense of liberty is sometimes necessary. The Underground Railroad that helped slaves to escape into Canada provide an example.

There is more to be said on these issues than I can fit in one small post. However, one thing I can say is that Anonymous spokesperson Barrett Brown is utterly incompetent when it comes to discussing these issues. Nor do I see any sign from Anonymous itself that it is embarrassed at having such a display of incompetence in somebody claiming to be their spokesperson - suggesting that Anonymous itself, by and large, suffers the same deficiency.

Unfortunately, when a group of morally incompetent people claim the right to use violence against others, every decent person has a reason to worry what the results will be.

Representative Peter King's Anti-Islamic Hearings

Representative Peter King wants to hold hearings on the radicalization of Muslim youths in America as a major threat to American security.

This has raised some protests.

The protests have made a number of claims.

One of those claims is tactical. By focusing specifically on Muslim youths, the hearings will cause Muslim youths to feel that Islam is being unfairly singled out, which will then cause them to become radicalized and a threat to national security.

Well, this is a topic that can be brought up in the hearings. I would be interested in knowing if this is just an "intuition" that some people have, or if it has a basis in fact. I would like to hear the evidence, and these hearings would be a good opportunity to present that evidence.

If I were holding the hearings, I would be looking for people who can tell me something of the history of those Muslims who became radicalized. I would want to know who and what was causally responsible for the condition. Furthermore, I would want to know what the warning signs are and the methods of detection we can put in place to look for those warning signs. I would want to know what types of things seem to stand in the way of radicalization. And, of course, I would want to see what evidence people are using to draw these conclusions.

(See: Muslim-American Terrorism since 9/11: An Accounting)

But is this the type of information that King is looking for?

Republicans in general have had shown themselves to have a strong aversion to anything that even hints at a rational, scientific investigation of a problem. Instead, many tend to think that “sound science” is "anything that supports the unquestionable self-evidence truths that I, being the true genius that I am in perfect harmony with the wisdom of the universe, already know beyond all possible doubt."

In fact, the report cited above states that the list of invited speakers includes Zadhi Jasser:

Zudhi Jasser, an America Muslim of Syrian descent and a physician in Arizona… believes that to counter radicalization of young Muslims, Islam should be purged of Islamist politics that he says fuel anger in people like Nidal Hassan, the Fort Hood gunman. "To measure (the threat) you can't approach it scientifically," Jasser said, referring to the data on violence committed by radicalized Muslims. "It's about countering an ideology that is at odds with Western ideals."

Translation: "Bah, who needs all this science garbage? I - being the perfectly wise and wonderful person that I am - already know the truth. Evidence is for wimps."

"Peter King's hearing is a staged event that will do little to shed light on the causes of domestic terrorism . . . . Instead the hearing will be a platform for Islamophobia draped in the American flag, reinforcing ignorance, stereotypes, bigotry and intolerance in the name of national security."

The point is that it is the content of the hearing, not the fact that the hearing actually takes place, that will tell us if King's actions are motivated by a desire to save lives while maintaining a respect for the human dignity of others who are of no threat, or whether he intends to use his power and position to engage in primitive chest-thumping tribalism.

Another point of protest against King's hearings is that it is unfair to have hearings that focus specifically on the radicalization of Muslims and avoid talking about the radicalization of other groups (e.g., radical fundamentalist Christians who murder doctors who perform abortions, blow up abortion clinics, and threaten other violent activities).

While there is some reason for concern, it is also the case that focusing on a specific form of radicalization is a fair topic. Different forms of radicalization might have sufficiently different causes.

If the medical community were having a conference on "Leukemia" it would be strange to argue that this conference ought not to take place - that the only legitimate for the medical community to discuss cancers in a generic sense rather than holding a conference on a specific type of cancer.

On the other hand, there would be reason to question what was going on if medical researchers were spending huge amounts of time and money studying a form of cancer that killed an average of 4 people per year, while ignoring other forms of cancer that, combined, killed 150,000 people per year. One thing we can say with near certainty that, whatever is motivating their research topics, they are certainly not being motivated by a desire to save lives.

So, while some objections to the hearings that James King plans to host have no merit, this does not imply that we are lacking in good reasons to question his motives. We certainly have cause to look closely at whether he intends to use these hearings to acquire information useful for taking lives, or as a personal stage for performing the ape-like antic of throwing poo at members of tribes he does not like.

Academic Excellence

Actually, I have been doing a huge amount of writing recently . . . but it doesn't get posted. I have a computer littered with drafts of postings on a wide variety of topics, from the new ATLAS SHRUGGED film to civil disobedience.

But I can't seem to get them to the point where I want to post them.

Well, I suppose, one of the ways around this is to go ahead and post things even if I am not perfectly happy with the result.

A case in point: In today's news I caught an article on a documentary called THE RACE TO NOWHERE, which claims that our current devotion to testing is sacrificing other values and even threatening the healthy development of children by putting them under too much pressure.

See, MSNBC: 'Race to Nowhere' targets academic pressures.

Yet, I look at the amount of overall stupidity there is in the United States and wonder where this "academic pressure" is going to. Global warming denial, the denial of evolution, absolutely no sense of the scientific method or of the principles of logic, we are surrounded by misinformation and fallacious arguments.

So . . . somebody says we are pushing too hard for academic excellence and we need to ease up?

It is to laugh.

How about . . . we're teaching the wrong things.

Many parents actually do not want their children to be educated. They want their children to share the same foolish, unfounded idiocies they accept. Teaching children . . . actually TEACHING them . . . means that they are going to come home and say, "You say that homeopathy works because the water "remembers" the chemicals that have been placed in it. But have you ever stopped to think where that water has been?"

The educated child will come home and say things like, "Homosexuality is the result of brain and body structures that come from an interaction of genes and environment - mostly the chemical environment of the womb - are certainly not chosen and certainly not a threat to the welfare of society as a whole.

She will claim, "No, mom, dinosaurs and man did not walk the earth at the same time, and the Bible is a primative book of superstitious fairy tales no different from the ancient Greek works of Homer - a human invention that reflects human thinking in a primitive age."

There are a lot of parents do not want to hear this kind of stuff coming from their children, so they seek to make sure that our education system fails to teach. And now we have a testing system so that we can measure and make sure that the education system produces the right amount of failure.

Of course, in picking these examples above, am I not dictating that what I believe is what counts as education, and that the school system is not educating children if the school does not indoctrinate the child into my beliefs?

Actually, no, because an education does not consist in teaching any of the claims I made above as fact. It involves teaching the children how people came to these conclusions - what counts as evidence and what does not - and what the child will have to do if the child wants to challenge any of these claims. It teaches the child why current challenges fail, but also teaches the child what to look for in future challenges that have a chance of success.

THIS is the education that many parents demand that their schools fail to provide - teaching the children what to look for if the child wants to question what is currently believed (by their parents). While people adopt the slogan that the school should teach a child, not what to think, but how to think, in fact the national goal is to teach neither. Any attempt to teach the child what to think will inevitably clash with the beliefs of some parents. Any attempt to teach a child how to think will teach the child how to question what their parents say is gospel. So, the schools teach neither.

Some children get an education anyway. Yet, it seems that the education they get has to do with their own curiosity that drives them to learn outside of the public school system.

So, I find the claim that our schools are pushing too hard for academic excellence to be laughable. We are talking about a system designed by parents for the specific job of preventing children from acquiring "academic excellence" - the ability to know what to look for when they want to verify or falsify the claims of their parents and other authority features.

Gasp! Teach academic excellence? Not on your life!

Westboro Baptist Church and Freedom of Speech

In the middle of every silver lining there is a big black cloud.

The Supreme Court upheld the rights of freedom of speech for the Westboro Baptist Church to say all of the offensive, mean-spirited, hate-mongering things they are prone to say.

(See: CNN Anti-gay church's right to protest at military funerals is upheld)

That's the silver lining.

Then there's the cloud.

In Wednesday's case, 48 states and dozens of members of Congress filed an amicus brief in support of the Snyders.

Fourty-eight state governments do not understand the right to freedom of speech?Which two did understand this right, I wonder? They deserve to be recognized and honored for this fact.

Dozens of members of Congress?

Plus, we have one (fortunately, only one) Supreme Court Justice himself who does not understand the right to freedom of speech - Justice Samuel Alito, the descenting voice in the 8-1 decision.

[F]ree and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case,

Yes, it is. Vicious verbal assault is contant. Praise and condemnation - including vicious condemnation - counts as speech. It is delivering a message. Prohibiting these messages means prohibiting speech because of its content. Alito should know this.

Plus, we have the words of Mr. Snyder who lost the case:

Snyder: Well there's not much we can do about it anymore. When the government won't do anything about it, and the courts give us no remedy, then people are going to start taking matters into their own hands. And believe me someone is going to get hurt. And when the blood starts flowing, let it be on the Supreme Court Justices' hands.

(See: CBS: Dad on Westboro: Blood is on court's hands)

So, "We are going to take it upon ourselves to use violence in response to words and, rather than take responsibility for our own violence, we are going to blame those who did not yield to our threats."

So, once again we see that the right to freedom of speech is not so well loved in America as some people would like to claim. With so many people willing to see such a right shredded, there is reason to temper the celebration with a word of caution.

A Special Way of Knowing

I have a special way of knowing things.

This special way of knowing is not subject to proof of any kind. These facts exist outside of any realm touched by reason or demonstration. I simply know them. God must have planted the knowledge of these things into my head directly. Since God would not deceive me, I trust these facts beyond all reason. I can trust God because this is one of the unquestionable facts that God has placed in my head.

These facts that I know that are beyond all reason are moral facts. They are facts about who I may kill, who I may maim, who I may imprison, and who I may enslave. They are facts about what I may do to women, what I may do to homosexuals, and what I may do to those who do not believe.

When I come to kill or maim or imprison or enslave you, do not ask me to justify my actions. My actions are self-justified. They come from my special way of knowing that is beyond inquiry - beyond reason.

If you deny that I have this special way of knowing, if you deny that I may kill, maim, imprison, or enslave those that I know I may kill, maim, imprison, or enslave, then you are insulting my beliefs - and that is something I will not tolerate. I do not have to tolerate your insults because my special way of knowing tells me that I do not have to tolerate your insults.

Do not question how I treat women, because in doing so you insult my beliefs.

Do not question my attitude towards or treatment of homosexuals, because that is also an insult to my beliefs.

Do not question my distrust of those who do not believe as I do, because by their mere existence they insult my beliefs.

Do not question me in any way, because to question me is to insult me.

In case you have not figured it out, my special way of knowing also tells me who you may kill, maim, imprison, or enslave. It tells me what you may wear, who you may be alone with, what you may say, and who you may have sex with. If you disobey any of these rules that my special way of knowing gives me, then you have insulted me and my beliefs.

Of course, my special way of knowing tells me what you may say with respect to questioning the facts that I know beyond all reason through my special way of knowing. You should be clear on that matter by now. I will expect you to comply and I will respond in a way that my special way if knowing tells me is appropriate if you do not.

Everything above this point is satire. But, I hold that it represents a very common way of thinking - and a very dangerous way of thinking. While not everybody thinks this way (obviously) we clearly have a lot of people who are far too close to this way of thinking - even if they do not put it exactly this way.

Gay Marriage and Definitions

I have a question from a member of the studio audience:

I'm a naturalist and I could not answer this objection to gay marriage. I think that marriage was a social construct, but he argued that since I believe that I can't confidently define marriage one way as anyone could define it. And if I can't define marriage I am not able to say there is any specific rights for it. Now, I still believe it to be a social construct, as that is obvious in itself. But how can I define it if it is one? How is my definition any more right than his?

Definitions do not matter in any sense that is relevant here.

Every definition within a language - without exception - gets its meaning as a product of social convention. There is no way to defend any definition of any term as 'the correct definition'. The only thing you can do is argue whether a particular definition fits the way that people generally use the term.

This is true of 'marriage'. It is also true of 'god', 'atom', 'planet', 'malaria', and 'social construct'.

It is very common, and very much a mistake, to take what is true of language and claim it is true of what the word refers to (if anything). There is no 'correct' definition of 'planet' - only the definition that a group of people decide to adopt. This does not imply that those huge rocks and gas balls flying through space are radically changing their properties each time astronomers change their definitions. Definitions concern what we are going to call things. It does not determine what they are.

Philosophers call this the use-mention distinction. There is a difference between using a term the way some group of people have decided to use it, and talking about (mentioning) the term itself. Planets are big balls of rock or gas (or both) flying through space. 'Planet' is a six letter word starting with the letter 'p'. Many of the things that are true of ‘planet’ are not true of planets, and many things that are true of the word ‘planet’ are not true of planets.

Often, philosophers show the distinction (as I did above) by putting inverted commas around a term when it is mentioned, but not when it is used. So, we can write, there is a difference between planet and 'planet', and a corresponding difference between marriage and 'marriage'.

Any talk of definitions is talk about the mention of a term, not its use. We can talk about the definition of 'marriage', or we can talk about marriage. Let us talk about marriage for a bit.

Marriage, as an institution, is a social invention. This means that it is a tool - like knives, computers, and cars – something that humans designed and built because it serves particular goals. We can tell how good or bad a tool is by determining how efficiently it accomplishes the goals that were our reason for inventing it. A bread knife is a knife invented for the purpose of slicing bread. A good bread knife cuts bread cleanly without tearing and is large enough to cut a whole slice at a time.

With respect to knives, it turns out that knives are useful for a lot of things. A knife useful for slicing bread is not so useful for spreading jelly. It works, but a different design will work better. It’s also not useful for skinning a dear or for cutting tile. Slightly different designs are best for those purposes. The result is that we end up with a lot of different types of knives that serve a lot of different purposes.

It would be absurd for anybody to argue that the slicing of bread is the only legitimate use for a knife and that nobody shall be permitted to use a knife (or to invent a type of knife) that serves any purpose other than the slicing of bread.

One could argue that knives are tools invented by humans to serve human purposes. However, this fact cannot in any way call into question the fact that different types of knives serve different human purposes, and that a knife well designed for one purpose may not fit the other purposes people might have for knives.

Now, so somebody might say that the term 'knife' is still limited to that which has a blade. You wouldn't call a hammer a 'knife' because it lacks those qualities that knives have.

This is true. At the same time, I have never heard anybody try to argue that the government should take a position opposed to the invention and use of hammers because they fail to meet the strict literal definition of 'knife'. That type of argument does not even make sense.

The institution of marriage, like the knife, is a tool that humans invented to serve human purposes. The type of marriage that works well for one use might not work as well elsewhere. In this case, it makes sense to design new tools that work elsewhere.

We can then argue whether ‘marriage’ is between a man and a woman the way a ‘knife’ has an edge. We can debate whether the relationship between ‘gay marriage’ and ‘marriage’ is the same as that between ‘butter knife’ and ‘knife’ or if it is more like the difference between ‘hammer’ and ‘knife’. Yet, absolutely nothing that we say in this debate is relevant to the question of whether gay marriage is a useful tool or whether it out to be permitted or prohibited?

More importantly, that debate is already over. ‘Gay marriage’ is already a part of our language. You can use the term in any number of places and people know what you mean. Pointing to an example of same-sex marriage and saying, “That is a kind of marriage” is a lot more like pointing at a butter knife and saying ‘that is a type of knife’ then like pointing to a hammer and saying ‘that is a kind of knife.’

So, the institution of marriage is a tool like every other tool. How good of a tool it is depends on how well it serves the interests of those who would use it. The design of this tool as it currently exists can be improved by making design changes that will serve the interests of homosexual couples.

Of course, many who are opposed to gay marriage will argue that the interests served by gay marriage are not legitimate interests. However, that is a different debate. It is not a debate that one can win (or lose) by noting the fact that all definitions are, in a sense, arbitrary or that the institution of marriage is a human invention where the quality of the design can be determined by the human interests it fulfills.

Censors and Thugs

An advertisement company has pulled an anti-abortion billboard that some people found offensive.

The advertisement showed a young African-American girl and contained the statement, "The most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb."

(See: Ad company pulls NYC anti-abortion billboard)

The reason that the advertisement was pulled?

A spokesman for Louisiana-based Lamar Advertising, Hal Kilshaw, said that while the company respects the right to freedom of expression, the decision to take down the billboard Thursday night was for "public safety." He said waiters and waitresses at a restaurant in the building where the billboard was placed had been harassed.

so, here's the lesson. If you want to control what people see and hear, the thing to do is to harass innocent people who have nothing to do with the message that you object to.

Certainly, this is not the type of behavior that we should be rewarding.

Which is exactly what this does. A group of people engage in the practice of harassing innocent people, and they are rewarded with giving them that which they desire. This, in turn, promises to not only encourage them to engage in this type of behavior in the future, but will encourage others to do so as well.

That's not going to make the world a better place.

I am not saying that there was no legitimate reason for criticism of the sign. The objection to the sign was that it "demonized black women". In a sense, this is true. It made the claim that the reason that these abortions were taking place was primarily due to the race of the person having the abortion - as opposed, say, to the income levels.

But, then, a sign saying that "the most dangerous place for a child of impoverished parents is in the womb" would not likely have had the desired effect. So, those who purchased the sign focused on race instead of income.

What I am saying is that legitimate criticism does include harassing the people who are working near the place where the message was displayed. that is not a member of the set "legitimate criticism".

In fact, it is a member of the ship "censorship".

If the actual intent of these thugs was to get the sign pulled down by their behavior, then they are censors. They have taken it upon themselves to use violence to determine what it is we may read.

Another possibility is that they were just thugs, lacking a common decency with respect to how they treat others, so, when they find something to protest, take their feelings out on the nearest person, innocent or guilty. This, in turn, happened to get the sign pulled.

Either way, we should not be catering to the desires of censors or thugs by rewarding their behavior. We do not need more censors and thugs (the effect that rewards bring), we need fewer. So, the proper response is to condemn the censors and thugs, not appease them.

Psychology Today: Mommy, Don't We Love America?

Psychology Today has an posting on the Pledge that addresses factors that I have expressed concern with for quite a while.

(See Mommy, Don't We Love America?)

While many secularists have focused on the fact that it represents an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state, my argument is that a pledge of allegiance to a nation "under God" represents an act of praise of citizens of who believe in God and an act of condemnation of those who do not.

Specifically, it says that not supporting a nation "under God" is to be regarded the same as not supporting a nation "indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." It equates atheism and the like with rebellion, tyranny, and injustice.

As an act of praise for those who support a nation "under God" and condemnation of those who do not, the pledge creates in children not only a belief in God, but a desire to do so - an desire that reason alone cannot reach. It helps to generate the psychological discomfort some feel if they should start to question God, tends to give those who believe in God a sense of pride and superiority over those who do not, and tends to give those who do not a sense of shame and inferiority to those who do.

Also, as it says in the article:

Even more importantly, secular families feel that the burden of resiliency should not rest with the child, who simply comes to school expecting to be treated as an equal, but with the government, which has a duty to treat all children equally. "My child doesn't want to sit out while the rest of her class says the Pledge," argues Melissa, an Illinois mother of a junior high student. "No kid likes to be the odd one, the one who's different. She wants to participate like everyone else, but she doesn't want the government criticizing our family's religious beliefs."

It IS criticism of the parent's religious beliefs. But, more importantly as far as I am concerned, it is criticism of the child if the child should go along with the parent's religious beliefs. At the same time, it constitutes criticism of the child of religious parents who decide to question their parent's religious beliefs.

The option of participating, but secretly leaving out the words "under God" is no good either.

Most secular parents are not thrilled with such compromises, but realize that there are few better options. "By participating, even if you don't say 'under God,' you are validating the religious language, because nobody knows that you aren't saying the religious words," John says. "By standing and participating, you give the appearance of unanimity. It perpetuates the ridiculous idea that all patriotic people believe in God."

The message is still there. And those who participate, even if they leave out the words "under God" themselves, are sending a message to their classmates that they agree with the message. Their classmates see them as embracing, endorcing, and participating in the claim that all good Americans believe in God, an all Americans who do not believe in God are not good Americans.

I have argued that one of the reasons that atheists are so politically impotent in spite of their numbers is precisely because of the aversions to atheism that they learn as children, making them anxious, at best, about revealing this flaw to others. Like any blemish, they seek to cover it up - hide it as best they can - not because there is any risk of real harm (or, not solely for that reason), but just because they have learned the emotional lesson as children that atheists are lesser Americans.

Sitting through and not participating in the Pledge is no solution. It actually reinforces the message that those who do not believe in God are not good Americans, because they refuse to pledge their allegiance to the United States.

I would hope that, now that this subject has made its appearance in the public media, it will generate a more and deeper public discussion of these issues.

Scripture and Ways of Controlling Illness

Well, I've been suffering through a flu for the past few days.

It calls to mind what I consider one of the strongest pieces of evidence that religious scriptures are the work of mortal and ignorant humans, and not the word of a loving and all-knowing God.

A simple set of commandments that would have prevented huge amounts of unnecessary suffering.

Thou shalt boil a container of water for 30 minutes before drinking there from.

Thou shalt wash thy hands before preparing foods or when leaving or entering into the presence of somebody who suffers from disease.

Thou shalt thoroughly clean thy dishes and the locations on which thou prepares thy food with water that has been as hot as thou can stand.

Ah, but all of these have to do with the killing of bacteria . . . which, though an all-knowing and all-loving God may have created, no human could have known about unless the all-knowing God were to tell him about such things.

Yet, the Gods seemed to be as ignorant of these things as the people were. Perhaps, this is because a person who authors fiction cannot, in fact, create a character that is smarter than himself.

Accidentally Deleted Comments - In God We Trust

I am afraid that I accidentally deleted three comments. I hit "delete" instead of "publish" in the comments moderation screen, and I do not know how to get them back.

However, I have copies of their text, so let me post them here.

Mike Gantt

Because you infer more and different meaning in the words than most people do. Thus your outrage is fueled to some degree by meaning you have superimposed on the phrase. Others who read the words without the same inference won't have the same reaction.

Well, I at least have a theory. It takes a set of observations about the status of atheists. It explains it in part in terms of learned desires and aversions acquired through the praise and condemnation, which has it's greatest influence on young children. It identifies the Pledge and Motto as praising those who trust in God and who support a nation under God, while condemning as unAmerican those who do not.

One can question whether the Pledge and Motto can have these effects. However, that only causes me to ask where these effects are coming from. If you have a better theory, let's hear it, and decide from that theory how best to alter those effects.

Just consider what other facts would have to be true of a country where the majority of the people found a pledge of allegiance to "One white nation" to be unworthy of challenge. I suspect it would be a nation where a black person running for office would have to buck a substantial portion of the population saying, "People shouldn't be bating for you. You are not white."

Tell me why it must be considered wrongheaded to argue that a similar set of truths apply in a society that holds "one nation under God" to be unworthy of challenge.

Mike (A different Mike)

Not if accepting the fact that the motto means very little and the act of removal means a great deal. In a society in which "God" is used to describe everything from Jesus' dad, to an elephant with 6 limbs, to Eddie Van Halen, I'm not sure this is as big a deal as you seem to think. Working hard to take the motto off our currency would be a slap in the face to the majority and leaving it causes no real harm.

Obviously, adding 'In Jesus We Trust' would go down without the help of any group since it would be unconstitutional...even in a country with a HUGE Christian population...in fact, it's interesting to me that, while the self-identification as 'Christian' continues to decline (about 70-75% now) support for the motto holds steady at 90%.

That tells me that very few hold the view that its inclusion is outrageous.

I live in a deeply red state and I have no problem telling strangers in a bar that I'm atheist. I've had people say they are concerned for my soul, not in a condescending way, the way you'd tell a person that you care about them. Their intent is only kindness. It doesn't matter if I think it's silly, they're trying to be nice.

As for comparing our beliefs to the holocaust, slavery and suffrage...oh boy. This country does a lot more stuff that actually hurts people and you're freaked out over something that really hurts nobody - and many find indispensable...this is why nobody takes us seriously. I used to think this blog was about the philosophy of ethics without fear of final judgment...I'm starting to see it as the atheist Glen Beck.

I've never been labeled by anyone as unpatriotic or un-American (even in TEXAS!). Maybe there's something else about you that's bothering the people you run in to....like, perhaps, telling a black person you feel the sting of slavery since you are forced use currency featuring a choice of words you don't like.

Use a debit card. You can even put your own picture/phrase on many of them...

Yes, few hold the position that the current Pledge and Motto is outrageous. however, this is an ethics blog concerned with how things ought to be held, not a sociology blog concerned with how things are held. In fact, one of my arguments has been to note how frequently there has been a break between how various forms of discrimination are held versus how they should have been held, and to argue that attitudes testes the Pledge and the Motto represent just one more break.

As for the accusation that I am comparing "our beliefs to the Holocaust, slavery, and suffrage", this is a very common form of rhetoric, principally used to try to change the subject. If I were to say that a fusion bomb works like the sun, you can say, "comparing a fusion bomb to the sun! Oh boy! The sun is orders of magnitude more powerful than a fusion bomb!" Your statement would be true - and entirely irrelevant as it missed the point by a country mile.

As for your claim to have never been labeled unpatriotic un-American, run for public office. Polls show that a majority of people hold that Atheists least share American values - whether they have said it to your face or not.

If you want to show that these practices are socially impotent, then give me evidence. Show me a society in which the motto is to trust in God (or anything relevantly similar) where an atheist (or a member of the target group in general) has just as good a chance of getting elected into public office as a theist (or a member of the select group).

Show me a society with a pledge to one nation under God where the people do not use a willingness to say the Pledge as a defacto religious test for public office. Show me how, in spite of there being such a pledge, it is inconceivable that people will raise it as an objection to a person's candidacy that the candidate does not say the Pledge.

Gingerbaker

While I agree (very much) with your insightful comments, I resent your redirection of the thread back to an appropriate discussion of the relevant topic. How am I going to be able to successfully hijack a thread onto my favorite topic, namely me? I find this tactic of yours disrespectful and shrill. Typical atheistic ploy.

;>)

Humor aside, it is refreshing for me to find someone actually thinking seriously about the psychodynamics of atheism as a political movement - the topic seems to be anathema on other boards, with torches and pitchforks quickly assembled among cries of "Down with the framers!"

I think there is a form of Stockholm Syndrome in the atheist community, which seems in line to what you have said. I really do think we need our own beat cop on patrol much along the lines of Bill Donohue, except with integrity. And less foam. The successful strategy of cleaning up NYC by enforcing a zero tolerance policy for minor infringements comes to mind.

As I am currently unemployed, and noting that Mr. Donohue pulls in a a cool annual $300k for spearheading the efforts of a "League" that consists of himself, his laptop and a cat, I would be interested in the position as it seems I have real trouble pulling myself away from the keyboard as it is.

In God We Trust - The Outrage That It Deserves

Yes, I am going to belabor this point, because it is a point that deserves to be belabored.

Imagine the social reaction we would see to an attempt by Congress to adopt the motto, "If you are not white, you are not one of us," or even, "A person who has not accepted Jesus as his lord and savior is not a true American."

It would be considered outrageous.

And yet the motto, "If you do not trust in God, you are not one of us," has nearly universal assent, and even gets support from members of the group targeted as "not one of us".

Let's accept this one fact. "We trust in God" implies - and is meant to imply - "If you do not trust in God, then you are not one of us." It is meant to cast out - to exclude - those who do not trust in God.

With respect to the alternative proposals above, I suspect that if the Jesus alternative above were proposed (and there are some who would almost certainly propose it), we would be dependent on the Jews and the Muslims to see to its defeat. Atheists, in spite of their larger numbers, are too politically impotent to make a useful contribution.

We should ask, as a matter of intellectual curiosity if for no other reason, why this is the case.

In doing so, I would like to note that we see a number of similar cases in human history. Why did so few Jews resist the holocaust? How do you get such a large group of people to accept a status of 'slave' and obey masters they could clearly overpower? Why did women, for thousands of years (through the present, in some parts of the word), accept a position of second-class citizen?

I have heard many say, "If I had been a Jew in Nazi Germany, they would not have gotten me without a fight."

Actually, they probably would have.

If you had been a Jew, growing up in that time and having those experiences, it is quite probable that you would have, in fact, walked into the cattle car at the train station, walked into the concentration camp, and walked into the gas chamber. Perhaps you would not have. But, then, some Jews at the time did not do that either.

If you had been a black person captured in Africa and shipped to America, chances are that you would have worked you master's plantation for the rest of your life, or until the Union army had moved through and freed you.

As a black person in Birmingham in 1950 you would have almost certainly walked to the back of the bus. And, as the bus driver moved the sign that marked the line between "white" and "colored" seats to make room for more white passengers, you almost certainly would have given up your seat.

If you had been born a woman in 1700, you would not only have failed to feel burdened by your exclusion from politics, you would have likely protested any attempt to change the status quo.

If you had been born female into a conservative Muslim culture, you would likely not only accept your status as the virtual property of your husband or father, you would be outraged at your daughter if she showed any signs of rebellion.

And now, as an atheist in America, you find yourself unburdened by a nation that declares, not only as one of its principle but as its motto, "Since you do not trust in God, you are not one of us."

Because your lack of trust in God makes you "not one of us", you are virtually excluded from holding any elected office or office of public trust. Your unwillingness to say the Pledge of Allegiance to a nation "under God" is used as a de facto religious test for public office. Your status as atheist is widely equated with being "unpatriotic" or "immoral" to the degree that national polls identify atheists as the group that least shares the respondent's values as an American. Where you are denied custody of your children in custody disputes, which is only one symptom of a culture that equates "atheist" with "immoral" and "unpatriotic."

We have here an act that warrants as much outrage as a declaration that the national's motto be, "We are white people," or "You are not a true American unless you are Christian." Yet, it gets only a fraction of the outrage that it deserves.

Why is that?

SCA vs House Resolution 13 - In God We Trust

The Secular Coalition for America has designed a letter to be sent to representatives to oppose House Resolution 13, which endorses the national motto, "In God We Trust".

(See: SCA's Letter to Members of the House Judiciary Committee -- Feb. 4, 2011)

I do not think that a team of the best marketing minds in America could have designed a more impotent and ineffective communication.

Let us be honest about the intent and effect of this legislation. The people who favor it do so because it constitutes an official message from the government of the United States to the people that citizens who trust in God are more acceptable than those who do not.

The message naturally appeals to those who trust in God. They relish being officially recognized by this government as its preferred citizens.

WE trust in God. Do you want to be one of us? Then trust in God. Do you not trust in God, then you are not one of us.

A rich history of discrimination does not provide an argument in its defense. The fact that I can find quotes from the Founding Fathers defending the inferiority if women and blacks would not serve as an argument in favor of discrimination against women and blacks. A law referring to these in a list of "Whereas" clauses would not yield the conclusion that continued discrimination is legitimate. Nor is the fact that the government itself participated in these practices a legitimate defense of the claim that it continue to do so.

As you know, the phrase, "all men are created equal" was approved by a body where a substantial portion of its members owned slaves. Many who did not own slaves still approved of the practice. Only a minority disapproved.

Certainly they held to very admirable ideals. Yet, they were human, and, in practice, often fell short of their own principles.

Consequently, when we look back on their accomplishments, we sometimes find that their principles and their practices take two different routes. When they do, we are forced to make a choice. Are we going to endorse their principles and choose a more consistent set of practices? Or are we going to follow their practices and abandon their principles?

In principle . . . in principle . . . is the message that the government finds those citizens who trust in God more acceptable than those who do not a mark of good government?

Remember, the Founding Fathers adopted its principles regarding church and state from what, to them, was recent history. They had learned from bitter experience that a government that endorses one religion over others leads to a nation soaked in blood and violence.

If a government can brand citizens as unacceptable based on a lack of belief in God - if we do not accept in principle that this is a bad idea - then the government may also, in principle, brand citizens as unacceptable if they do not accept Jesus as their lord and savior, or if they fail to recognize that there is only one God and Mohammed as His prophet.

Worse, this act endorses the claim that it is legitimate for a government to divide its citizens into two classes - a superior class that trusts in God and an inferior class that does not. It endorses the practice of raising this form of discrimination to the level of national motto. This says to the world, "Of all of the things we value - of all of the things that identify us as Americans - we hold the principle of dividing citizens into classes based on their religious beliefs to be the most important."

In principle . . . In principle . . . Does this mark America as a great society?

This motto, "In God We Trust", does not come from the founding fathers. They gave us a different motto. They gave us the motto, E Pluribus Unum. From many, one. From many states, one nation. From many people, from many cultures, one nation. From those who trust in God, and from those who do not, one great nation.

The founding fathers opted for a national motto that aimes to unite Americans. The legislature today prefers a motto that divides Americans.

Nothing could be clearer. Nothing could be more obvious. The intent of "In God We Trust" is right there on its face for all to see - to cleave the nation into two parts, "we" who trust in God, and "they" who do not. "We" divided from "They". Us versus "Them".

Can you truly believe that this is what the Founding Fathers, on their best days, if they were to fully embrace in practice the principles on which they sought to build our nation - would have wanted? One nation . . . divided between 'we' and 'they' on religious grounds, officially endorsed by the government as its greatest value?

The Obligation to Obey the Majority

A member of the studio audience wrote in response to my objections to "under God" and " in God we trust" that....

Just as you see harm to children and adults if the words are kept, i see harm to children and adults if the words are dropped. Yet we live in a democracy. Are we not bound to live by the will of the majority, for good or for ill?"

I find that there are a lot of people who seem to think that living in a democracy means that it is somehow morally impermissible to say that the majority is wrong. Telling the majority, “You are acting unjustly,” or “You are making a mistake” is cast as “anti-democracy”.

Nowhere in my post did argue for violent opposition to the will of the majority. I argued for an active campaign to convince the majority that their position is both factually and morally objectionable.

Using “We live in a democracy” against these types of claims is saying, "the majority has a moral permission to ignore those arguments and practice business as usual."

Indeed, the commenter begins by noting that there is a difference of opinion, ignoring the fact that one of us has presented evidence for his opinion. The other seems to be writing from the perspective that all evidence is irrelevant and all opinion is equally well founded

Yet, if it is true that all opinion is equally well founded, then what justifies drawing any conclusion at all? Such a person says, in fact, "A is as likely as B; therefore A"

But shouldn't the inference be, "A is as likely as B; therefore, I withhold judgment?"

We live in a democracy. That means that, unless the majority gets so tyrannical that they vote the minority into slavery or death camps, we have an general obligation to peacefully obey the law. But this does not argue that the minority must not object to the law. It does not violate the principle of democracy for the minority to say to the majority, “Your rule is harmful or unjust, and you should change it.”

Nor does it argue that the majority has a moral permission to plug it's ears against such arguments and shout, "I refuse to listen to or respond directly to your objections. Our position of power gives us the right to dismiss, by that reason alone, any objections you may raise against our rules and decisions. We are the majority. We gave the power. Nothing else matters."

In fact, the answer, "Because we are the majority and we said so," not only violates the majority's obligation to provide good reason in defense of their decisions, it is condescending to the minority as well. Perhaps not intentionally condescending, but condescending nonetheless.

It is no different than a parent saying to a child, "Because I said so." The majority, even in exercising their power, still have an obligation to treat the minority with the respect due competent adults and not like children.

While some members of the majority my well adopt this attitude, among a population of generally fair and just individuals, it will be rare, this attitude will belong to a very small minority.

Real Athiest Worries

I am once again treated to the view that real atheists do not worry about such things as "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance or "In God We Trust" posters in classrooms and on the money.

If true, it shows that real atheists are not as bright as they claim to be.

The function of these acts is to use praise and condemnation to create in children not just a belief in God, but a desire to believe in God and an aversion to the alternatives. It emotionally links belief in God with acceptance, membership in the community, and the corresponding sense of security that young children have evolved dispositions to crave.

The effects of an emotional belief in God include developing a belief resistant to reason, and a great deal of psychological trauma if one should ever come to question God. It is to create people who view atheists not only as having different view of the world, but to view them as a threat - on an emotional level. Atheism and atheist ideas are to make them feel uneasy and apprehensive. The mere existence of atheists sets off emotional alarms independent of all reason. They are "other" - outside of the community. They are not one of us. They are against us.

Would you deny that "indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" is meant to promote an emotional attachment to Union, liberty, and justice - and aversions to rebellion, tyranny, and injustice?

One does not need to actually get these acts repealed to fight these effects. It is useful just to challenge them - particularly in the presence of children. Children who know that there are those who question the condemnation of those who do not support a nation 'under God' and who do not trust in God should have some effect on allowing them see that it is permissible to adopt these attitudes. The emotional link is weakened.

If, instead, you ignore these acts as trivial, you help to lock in the political and social impotence of atheists for yet another generation.

Is This a Terrorist?

Would you call this individual a "terrorist"?

This agent does not like to get his hands dirty. He does not blow things up himself. Instead, he turns on Fox News every day and waits for news that a terrorist act has taken place. An airplane blows up, a bomb goes of at a concert, a nuclear warhead goes off in a major city.

Instantly, he sends out a message claiming responsibility. "My organization's leaders ordered this attack. His followers executed it. Furthermore, if you do not meet my organization's demands we will do more of the same."

His message includes some vague threats that - that failure to meet these demands will result in some future bomb going off.

He is using terror as a political weapon. This sounds like a terrorist.

Well, what is the difference between this person and the religious leader who turns on the news, hears a report of some natural disaster, then releases a statement saying, "My boss God did this and, unless you meet our demands, he will do more of the same?"

The difference might be intent. Terrorist above knows that he is lying. But would he be less of a terrorist if he believed he served a boss who was responsible for those attacks? Would he be less of a terrorist if he really did serve such a boss?

No. He can find no escape in that direction.

Now, what if the terrorist boss gives a message to a random person saying, "I am going to cause some horrible thing to happen. When it happens, you release this message."

Well, that messenger is not, himself, a terrorist.

That is, not until the messenger declares himself a free and willing servant of the man who gave him the message. An attitude of shock and horror that somebody would use such tactics and the most reluctant cooperation would free him of the accusation. Loyal admiration and eager obedience does not.

These are the conclusions that follow if such a leader actually exists and gave a message to our agent. Nothing changes for the follower if the leader is imaginary. At best, the eager messenger can get off with a plea of "Not guilty by reason of insanity." at worst, his eagerness to serve such a boss, whether real or imaginary, leaves him, "Guilty as charged."

Remember, I am talking here of the willing and eager servant - a messenger - of a boss who would use weapons of mass destruction (earthquakes, cyclones, tsunamis, plague, floods, drought) as a political tool.

Would you call that messenger a terrorist?

Australia Prime Minister Gillard at Fault for Cyclone

Apparently, the fact that a category 5 cyclone (Australian for hurricane) has hit Australia is because the country has an atheist prime minister Julia Gillard.

(See: Cyclone no time for atheist PM)

This is not an innocent mistake. This is vicious and malicious hate-mongering. It's symptomatic of a group of people having so much hatred in them that they seek to blame others for major tragedies beyond the scope of a standard serial killer or arsonist.

Even if those who make such claims actually believe them, this provides no defense against these charges. We can still ask WHY they have decided to believe these things, particularly in the face of a total lack of evidence as support.

We can find the answer in the fact that people who make these types of claims WANT to believe them. They ACHE for these propositions to be true. So, without a shred of evidence, they adopt the position that these types of claims ARE true.

But this fact shows these people to be moved - even compelled - by deep hatred.

A person not so motivated by hate would give the accused the benefit of the doubt. He would say, "I am not going to believe this of them until driven to that conclusion by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt." Because there is no evidence, a fair and just individual would not be driven to such a conclusion. Yet, the individual who goes that direction anyway - who embraces such a conclusion - must be somebody who loves the conclusion enough to embrace it so tightly.

We also have reason to ask not only how hateful and spiteful the speaker must be to adopt such a belief, but how hateful and spiteful that person's god must be to act the way the speaker describes.

What type of person is it who would destroy whole regions of the country - kill people, including young children - and drive others into poverty and suffering - because Australia has a prime minister.

There is no God that exists but that which comes out of the imagination of their believers. When an individual invents a God, this tells us more about the inventor than it does about God.

The person who invents a God who would impose so much suffering on people for such a petty reason is, himself, somebody who would would impose as much suffering on people for such a pretty reason. When he says, "God did this for the reasons I mention," he is saying, "If I were God, then I would do this for the reasons mentioned."

Many atheists will freely draw the conclusion that the God who would do such a thing is no saint. Yet, too many will stop short of the valid implication that the individual who would invent such a God - who would call such dispicable evil "good" and "just" - is just as evil as the God he invents. The inventor is endorsing such a vicious and petty God and claiming Him to be worthy of worship, meaning that the inventor - the worshipper - must be just as vicious and petty as the God he invents.

Yet, the inventor will often throw in the claim that such a creature is perfectly benevolent and just. In this, the inventor is saying, "Even though I - if I were God - would inflict this great death and suffering for such petty reasons, I am perfectly benevolent and just." Of course the inventor of a God would like to see himself in that light. This does not prevent it from being absurd - a mockery of the very morality the inventor is claiming to uphold and defend.

Like I said, the things people say about God tell us nothing about God. However, they tell us a great deal about the person making the claims. The people blaming Australia's Prime Minister Gillard for the cyclone that hit the country are, themselves, people who would inflict that suffering on their fellow Australians - if they were only given the power to do so.

Kepler Observatory Data Release

Today, NASA will hold a press conference discussing the most recent discoveries of the Kepler Observatoty.

The Kepler space telescope is watching 156,000 stars for signs of planets. When the planet crosses in front of the star (relative to the earth) it eclipses the starr andd the star dims a bit. Kepler can sense this.

When the planet goes behind the star then the star blocks the reflected light from the planet. Kepler can sense this.

Within the next three years, if Kepler continues to function, it will almost certainly discover a number of earth-sized planets in earth-type orbits around sun-like stars.

It can even tell if the planets have large moons.

By spectoscopic analysis of starlight passing through the planet's atmosphere, we can tell it's chemical composition.

Nitrogen and oxygen - with small amounts of carbon dioxide, water, and methane - that will tell us something.

A planet with life orbiting another star.

It could very well happen in the next three years.

ADDENDUM

So, the news is that Kepler has found 54 planet candidates in the habitable zones of their respective stars. Of these, 5 are earth-size, and many of the rest are capable of having moons that are earth-sized or, at least, large enough to have an atmosphere and liquid water.

Further research is required to confirm that these are planets and to determine more specifically their properties.

PZ Myers: Types of Atheism

PZ Myers decided to get some atheists mad at him by mocking certain common atheist claims.

Why are you an atheist?

Among his criticisms.

Those who define atheism as somebody who lacks a belief in God.

Those who hold that babies can be atheists.

And, my favorite, those who hold that, for example, "Science flies you to the moon; religion flies you into buildings.

The second sentence is false. Religion does not turn you into a terrorist. The overwhelming majority of religious people have similar values to yours; my church-going grandmother would have been just as horrified at people using their faith to justify murdering people as the most hardened atheist, and there have been atheist individuals who also think they are justified in killing people for the cause. So stop saying this!

The Koch Retreat

A group of wealthy conservatives are meeting in Palm Springs to discuss how they are going to influence the next election - to put Republicans into office and the right Republicans at that.

Hundreds march outside Koch brothers' retreat .

This is the Koch Retreat, organized by David and Charles Koch, the head of Koch Enterprises - an energy company that brings in nearly $100 billion per year and which spends much of it deciding who gets elected and what they do when they get there.

It is a gathering that has a bit more significance today than in years past because the Supreme Court has ruled it an unconstitutional violation of free speech to prohibit people from spending money - even through secret contributions - promoting a cause.

For the record, there is nothing wrong with people gathering to determine how they are going to influence the course of politics, and a prohibition on people spending their money to speak about a cause is, in fact, a violation of the right of freedom of speech.

Unfortunately, in this case, these people are gathering to plot a strategy that will allow them to pursue even more money for themselves through policies that will force injury, illness, destruction of property, and death on hundreds of millions - probably billions - of other people. They want to preserve the right to disregard the interests others have in their own life, health,and property in their own pursuit of a few more dollars.

For example, according to the Los Angeles Times, Koch Industries spend $1 million against California's law on greenhouse gas emissions. (Billionaire Koch brothers back suspension of California climate law ).

Mostly, this conclusion comes from their joint opposition to any policy that suggests that people who actually use carbon fuels pay for the harms that they cause to others. They want carbon-fuel users to continue to use carbon fuels - to continue to harm the lives, health, and property of others in doing so - without compensating the victims or taking any action to mitigate those costs.

Many of them likely do not BELIEVE that their actions will cause this type of harm. Yet, the fact remains that they do not care to find out. They have every reason to suspect that they are prone to believing that they want to believe, and to look at the evidence through glasses that allow them to see what they want to see. They should recognize an obligation to take a more objective look at the data to make sure that they will not be destroying the lives, health, and property of others.

But, they are too selfish for that.

Instead, they through up rationalizations - such as the self-deception of claiming that the protest is over "billionaires spending their money to influence elections" as opposed to "billionaires spending their money to preserve the power to pursue profits through activities that kill, main, and sicken other people.

So, through their denial, they will in fact organize to pursue projects that threaten to lead to the destruction of the lives, health, and property of countless people. They will not consider the harms they risk for others because it does not profit them to do so. They do not care enough to take an honest look at the evidence. They only care enough to try to find ways to bury the evidence so that they can continue to kill, injure, and sicken others and destroy their property in the pursuit of profits with impunity.

A final note: The standard disclaimers apply. The right to freedom of speech prohibits violence as a response to words alone, and prohibits anything other than a political campaign in response to a political campaign.