Archive for the ‘Freethinking’ Category
The Essential Danger Of Religion
I will begin this by repeating one of my favorite notions… I am only one religion removed from the most fanatic believer. I say this because, inevitably, the truly fanatic are certain that every religious dogma, except their own, is fatally flawed. In a word, they are all wrong. All I do is take this idea one religion further and accept the obvious – that ALL religions are fatally flawed, ergo the one religion difference.
There are several very simple principles that convince me I am correct. The simplest of all is this: the root of all religions is nothing more or less than an attempt to explain the relationship between humanity and the unknowable. Unknowable. Think about this a moment. If something is truly unknowable, are not any and all attempts to find an explanation automatically flawed? None can be any better than wild guesses. Possibly, one or more of these wild guesses may be near some form of truth but we cannot know that with any certainty because that is the very nature of unknowable.
It follows (to my mind) that, given the absolute uncertainty of any dogma based on wild guesses, any attempt to use such dogma as justification for interfering in the free exercise of their natural rights by others can only be wrong. Very wrong. As wrong as wrong can get.
How could anything be simpler to comprehend? Yet, by the billions, we humans cling to belief systems that were not even convincing back in the dark ages when they were conceived. Belief systems that would be both silly and comical were it not for the damage they have done and continue to do.
Which brings us to marathon day in Boston. Once again, we are forced to see the result of a belief system that, by its own tenents, cannot, and will not peacefully coexist with any other system of belief or governance. Yet, we refuse to see that the problem is not a few over zealous practitioners of Islam. Instead, the problem is obviously in the core beliefs upon which the religion is based.
Why such a refusal? Simple. Once we, via our institutions, openly admit that the very tenents of a religion can be dangerous to humanity, we open the door to the next obvious question: “can this conclusion apply to all religions?â€
At some level of our being, I think all of us know the answer to that question. That is why we do not dare allow it to be asked in any meaningful forum.
Think about it.
Troy L Robinson
Who Owns a Child?
I am very comfortable with my libertarian philosophy, which propounds individual sovereignty and Liberty for freemen and women, with the natural right to live their lives as they choose to live them, as long as they do not forcefully interfere with or violate the natural rights of others. I have carefully worked out in my head, how such free individuals can live at peace with their neighbors, meeting in the commons for commerce and fraternity, as free traders giving no more than they take, in entirely voluntary value for value exchanges, which enrich each other's lives.
Thus, I regard one's home as his castle, and his real estate as his sovereign domain, where he gets to make the rules, which visitors are bound to abide. When he steps off his private property, however, he must abide by the standards, social customs, and rules of the community. If there were no social compact and universally accepted basic rules, to insure that any vehicle coming around the next bend would be on the other side of the road, it would be chaos. I am fine with that, and wouldn't have it any other way.
Where my philosophy falls completely apart, however, is when it comes to the welfare of children. Having discussed this issue with folks of all political persuasions, I can assure all that empathy for an innocent child is a sincerely held universal human trait, The question becomes, what are parental rights and responsibilities vs. any sort of societal rights and responsibilities vs. children's rights.
Ayn Rand on Johnny Carson
As an Objectivist and fan of both Ayn Rand and Johnny Carson, I was delighted to find that someone has uncovered an interview he conducted of her on his show back in '66, when her latest book, “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal” had just been published. Objectivists, libertarians, and fans of her books, will easily ignore the black & white, grainy, and flickering video for the pleasure of watching her explain her philosophy, and opine on such matters as the Vietnam War, the draft, and her prognosis for America.
Part One of Two
Younger readers, accustomed to modern TV entertainment, may be surprised at the respectful seriousness with which Johnny, the original and consumate late night comedian, conducted the half-hour long interview. Notice the cogent questions he asked, and the polite opportunity he gave her to answer them, uninterrupted. She was the focus of everyone's attention, not the host. Those were the days… how would Stewart, Colbert, or Maher have handled the interview?
Part Two of Two
Enlightenment vs Dark Ages
I had an exchange on a conservative oriented forum, somewhat over represented with intolerant fundamentalists, which is probably worth sharing here. It began with a fellow named Mark, posting a heroic story about a Marine vet, who lost his life in the process of saving a young lady in a private airplane crash, which they were both involved in. It ended with this remark:
I know that there are individuals out there, like “Thoughts Aloud Dave” who shudder at the mere mention of altruistic acts, as though they are manufactured by others. But it is clear that there are some people who are either born of this mettle, or are raised up with a commanding respect for life, no matter who’s life is at risk, and are willing to lay down their own lives in protecting others. Austin was one such Altruistic man, and I today commit to pray for his family, in honor of that sacrifice.
…which inspired me to reply with:
Morality Without Religion
Periodically in discussions here and elsewhere, I have expressed my disdain for the doctrine of altruism, which underpins the morality of both the Politically Correct activists on the Left and the Piously Correct activists on the Right, who (lamentably) manage to frame and control the debate in American politics, too often to the exclusion of far weightier issues than those that animate them. I have claimed adherence to a moral code superior to either, which I have fashioned for myself to be in accordance with my own nature, negating any need to ever feel guilty for a purposeful act.
This, of course, has elicited sputtering incredulity and rage from the ubiquitous bible thumpers, who reckon the very notion of morality can only come from their God, as recorded in their Good Book, and to suggest otherwise is evidence of the work of their Devil. To them, all human activity proscribed as sinful in their ancient scroll, is by definition immoral, even if it is benign, harmless, and/or perhaps beneficial to others.
Fairies, Witches, Fords, and Chevys
Effective communication, to exchange ideas and discuss points of view, requires that we share the meanings of the terms we use. That is a challenge in this modern Orwellian world, where key words are being redefined every few years, to connote the near opposite of their previous meaning. It is particularly difficult, when a perfectly useful term becomes so loaded with emotional baggage, that minds snap shut at its very mention.
The term ‘atheist’ simply means ‘godless,’ which itself is a somewhat loaded term, only meaning ‘without a god.’ It is not a ‘belief’ as some would have it; but rather a disbelief in the existence of deities. To move the negative’s position, by saying, “An atheist believes God does not exist,” has no more profound effect than saying, “Joey believes there is no such thing as a Tooth Fairy.”
That in no way, makes Joey’s skepticism regarding the existence of fairies, into a ‘belief system.’ Nor does it put the onus on him to prove there isn’t, even if 3/4 of his acquaintances still believe there is, and really wish he would not display such disrespect for their cherished beliefs, by publicly challenging them. After all, they have personally experienced money magically materializing under their pillow; so they ‘know for a fact’ that it is real, and this gives them great comfort.
Read the rest of this entry »
Rand to GOP
Forty-eight years later the message is more important than ever; but the GOP long ago abandoned defending capitalism, much less logic and reason. â—„Daveâ–º
Abortion and Murder
Abortion is not my issue. Indeed, I often lament the fact that the Politically Correct moralizers of the Left and the Piously Correct moralizers on the Right twist our statesmen in knots making them take a position on an issue that should have nothing to do with our secular government. My own position probably mirrors the majority of Americans at this point, on this morally tricky issue.
During the first trimester, I unequivocally support a woman’s right to choose whether to allow a zygote to become a baby in her womb. There are all manner of morally supportable reasons to terminate an unintended pregnancy; chief among them being rape, incest, known deformities, etc. The state should not have the power to force a woman to birth an unwanted child. By the second trimester, as the fetus is becoming a baby, the moral issue becomes a little more problematic in my mind; but I would still deny the state a say in the matter.
In the third trimester, and increasingly as the viability of the baby to survive outside the womb without medical heroics is developed, the notion of calling the intentional termination of the pregnancy an “abortion,” instead of infanticide, is a bit disingenuous. If one can be charged with double homicide for killing a pregnant woman bearing a viable baby, it would seem to be common sense that anyone involved in deliberately killing just the baby would be guilty of homicide too.
Thus, to my mind, absolutists in either PC camp are wrong. If one can justify a single exception to an absolute position, then other exceptions are just subjective opinions on a very slippery slope. To me, the infamous late term abortionist Dr. George Tiller was one evil SOB, and I’ll lose no sleep over the long overdue “abortion” of his own life. Just because the Politically Correct moralizers have managed to intimidate elected officials into sanctioning the horrendous activities of this serial killer, in no way absolves him of his crimes against humanity; and the world is better off without him.
This of course, brings us to the necessity of dealing with Scott Roeder, the man who aborted Tiller. He too is guilty of murder and society must do its duty and try him for the crime. One presumes that he was prepared to pay the price for his action when he chose the time, place, and manner of it. It will be easy to write him off as a kook, and we can expect the MSM to have a field day demonizing pro-life and “right-wing” extremists, even though spokesmen for all manner of groups of such have condemned Roeder for his action.
Interestingly, because I am neither pro-life nor “right-wing,” I find on reflection that I have some sympathy for Roeder, whom I know almost nothing about. I don’t know how many times in life I have asked the rhetorical question, “How do such evil SOB’s manage to stay alive?” We have all encountered unscrupulous crooks, con men, lawyers, pedophiles, politicians, bureaucrats, and other petty tyrants, etc. who just keep getting away with the most unacceptable behavior and downright harm to innocent honest citizens.
Doesn’t it sometimes seem that the criminal justice system does a better job protecting them from our retribution, than us from their nefarious activities? People have been trying for years to work within the system to stop Tiller from murdering babies moments before they would be born. One does not need to be a Piously Correct moralizer to find his medical practice morally reprehensible.
The wonder is not that some frustrated citizen finally took the law into his own hands; but why it took as long as it did for one to become fed up enough to do it. It wouldn’t do for the prosecution to allow me on his jury; chances are I would nullify it. â—„Daveâ–º
Liberty vs Faith
Frequenting the many forums spawned by Glenn Beck’s 9/12 project, It has been gratifying to see the huge number of Americans finally awakening to what has happened to the principle of Liberty in our country, and pining for a return to the minimalist government and the rule of law enshrined in our Constitution. Most of these folks would be considered moderates rather than ideologues, and come from both camps of the Incumbrepublocrat duopoly. Unfortunately, the faith-based ideologues control both of those camps. Since the oligarchy has rigged the game to make it exceedingly difficult to mount a Third Party challenge from the individual Liberty perspective, it appears that we need to take over one of theirs, if we have any hope of ending this nightmare without a bloody revolution.
I am sure my use of the term “faith-based” caused immediate heartburn with some readers; but I was not picking on one side. To me, for example, the environmentalists on the Left are every bit as irrational in their blind faith in the junk science underpinning their causes, as the religious fundamentalists on the Right are in the sanctity of their holy writs. The fundamentalists on the Left idealize Robin Hood every bit as much as the fundamentalists on the Right revere their various prophets. The socialists are just as religiously invested in their dogma as are the godly activists they so despise and/or fear.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, Beck’s 9-12 Project, Glenn made a regrettable and serious mistake to include belief in a god in his list of nine principles. It would have been infinitely better to have made Principle #2:
I cherish the original Constitution of the United States of America, and pledge to defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I recognize that some imprudent Amendments and unconstitutional statutes have been enacted in and since 1913, which need to be repealed to return our Federal government to its rightful limited role in our lives.
I mean no disrespect to anyone when I assert that the god fearing activists are part of the problem, not the solution, for what ails our body politic. Our Constitution was crafted to maximize individual Liberty by minimizing the power of the Federal government in our republic. It was never meant to regulate the behavior of citizens in any way. The Incumbrepublocrat Party has corrupted this nation into the mob rule of a democracy, which our Founders labored mightily to avoid.
These professional politicians actively encourage, and benefit from, the endless battle between the Politically Correct altruists on the Left, and the Piously Correct altruists on the Right, who are constantly struggling for control of the levers of coercive government, in order to impose their own brand of altruistic PC morality on everyone else. Everyone’s Liberty suffers from the effects of what is essentially a competition between two religious dogmas over matters of morality that have no relevance in the affairs of state, and damned little in the public affairs of freemen.
Most Americans are nominally religious, nominally compassionate for the underdog, and are nominally concerned about the environment; but they are not dogmatic about these affairs. One can generally care about clean air and water, wildlife, and pristine vistas, without abandoning man’s need to exploit the environment for fuel, food, clothing, and shelter, or lose any sleep over inconveniencing a few caribou. One can be compassionate without choosing to plunder the more productive members of society, to support one’s charities. One can worship all manner of gods, without forcing one’s beliefs and moral codes on disinterested citizens.
From the perspective of our Constitution and individual Liberty, all these PC ideologues are problematic. It is a perversion of its intent for any of them to co-opt government to enforce their PC standards on the rest of us. It is an outrage that, given the two-party system, sovereign individuals are forced to align ourselves with the less egregious of two tyrannical ideologies, to quash the agenda of the more offensive one. We need an organization solely focused on Liberty, which rejects all attempts to regulate the behavior or plunder the earnings of individuals, for whatever cause
How much more effective this 9/12 Movement could be, if those awakening and pining for a return to the Liberty afforded by our original Constitution, could firmly reject sanctimonious proselytizing by PC ideologues, while attending to political matters regarding our decidedly secular government. This would open up our ranks to independents and moderates on either side. Nominal Democrats would not then think they had to stick with the onerous socialists, just to protect themselves from the oppressive agenda of rabid fundamentalists; and nominal Republicans would not think they had to stick with the onerous fundamentalists, to protect themselves from the oppressive agenda of the rabid socialists.
Since we would be focused on changing the behavior of the Federal government and lightening its purse, rather than the behavior and purse of individual citizens, I predict our ranks would swell far beyond those of the ideologues, who heretofore have gotten away with counting us among them. Then, we could simply take over one or both of the Incumbrepublocrat wings, or force them into minority party status, in the face of our growing numbers. All that is required to pull this off, is to reject the guilt trips these PC groups use so effectively to keep us from speaking our minds openly and forthrightly. Think about it. â—„Daveâ–º
Too Late Now
I just reread my “Dark Ages II” essay, where I make the case that we are inexorably sliding into another dark and uncivilized era, and that there is absolutely nothing we can do – that we would permit ourselves to do – to prevent it. Someday I should get around to tightening it up, as it is a bit of a wide ranging rant. It was actually just a lengthy post to a Freethinker group I was engaged with over two years ago. Most were ACLU type atheists, who had unwittingly adopted anti-Christian activism as their creed, and Progressivism as their dogma. Although I am a freethinking godless heathen, I was an enigma to them as a conservative leaning libertarian, who valued traditional American principles and values, and considers Marxism and Islam to be greater threats to America and my Liberty, than their preferred fear of a Christian theocracy.
My primary antagonist was a decidedly Marxist retired college professor, who was proud of his active participation in the ZPG movement back in the ’70s, which he had never outgrown. He saw politics as a purely Left/Right duopoly and considered anyone to the right of Ted Kennedy a reactionary Troglodyte. He was always trying to bait me into an off-topic political debate, by painting me as a mindless “Ditto-Head” for challenging PC orthodoxy. “Dark Ages II,” was the point when I finally unloaded – through the muzzle.
It had the intended effect of throwing the group into dismay and even shocked disarray for a time; but they soon regrouped and typically demanded cites to peer reviewed scientific papers to back up my assertions. I simply referred them to Google and Mark Steyn’s book, “America Alone”; but I sure wish I had this video clip I stumbled across last night available at the time:
Watching it is sobering. I note with some chagrin that once again of late, I have allowed my disdain for the Progressive movement to drag me back into paying attention to politics and rather passionate if feeble efforts to combat the scourge. As I occasionally point out in my posts here and elsewhere, I am a realist and deal with the world as I find it. I engage in my duty as a Patriot, not out of any false hope that I could make a difference to posterity; but for the sheer sport of it.
I do what little I can simply for the pleasure of throwing sand in the gears, and irritating over-schooled and under-educated Progressive fools. I do it out of the utter contempt I harbor for the altruistic Utopian dreamers, who have destroyed Western civilization in general, and are feverishly engaged in the final destruction of my country. Since I don’t believe in Hell, I yearn to make the pathetic leeches as uncomfortable as possible while they live. That most of them I encounter on the net are so bitter and angry pleases me, and I love to twist their tails.
It is as good a hobby as any for my retirement years; and as sad as reality is, in a way it is easier to indulge it knowing that it won’t make a damn bit of difference in the end. At least the Progressives won’t have the place very long before the Mexicans take over. Then the Mexicans will lose it to the Muslims. Just think, our great great… grandchildren will be saying their devotions to Allah five times a day in Spanish, and the oh so righteous altruists will still be spinning… in their graves. 🙂  ◄Daveâ–º
Addendum:
Gabe’s link below in the comment section to J. R. Nyquist’s column, “The Investment Climate in 2059” is well worth the read. The concluding paragraph begs to be added here:
I am amazed by those who think the U.S. economy is going to recover, that global peace is attainable, that American liberties are going to survive American barbarism. Look at our culture today: men are no longer men, and women are no longer women; capitalists no longer uphold free market principles; constitutional government no longer adheres to the Constitution; enemies are treated as friends. Nobody reads the signs. Nobody sees what is coming. Look at the birthrate among Europeans. Look at the abandonment of European culture. Look at the Muslim birthrate. Europe will be Islamic in fifty years. Long before that, the Russians and Chinese will achieve nuclear dominance of the globe. What do you think the investment climate will be in 2059?
Paglia’s Godless Ethics
As I have shared before, I have been spending considerable time of late on Glenn Beck’s 9/12 Project website, discussing how to take our country back and return it to a constitutional republic. Far too much time and effort is being wasted debating religious issues, which I reckon have nothing to do with good governance. While I have freely acknowledge that I am godless, for the most part I have avoided those discussions for the distraction they are. My mission has been more to help them understand that those on the Secular Right are not card carrying members of the ACLU, and actually share most of their principles and values.
A frequently recurring theme there is for Christians to question the notion that morality can exist without a source, which they posit is their god. In Paglia’s latest column, she does a superb job of answering this challenge in the following exchange with a reader:
I’m confused. You say you are an atheist. It seems to me that if there is no God, then we are all simply pieces of animated dirt. To pieces of animated dirt, on what basis can something be considered right or wrong, ethical or unethical? Of what value is life except that which animated pieces of dirt place on it? What would it matter if some place absolutely no value on life?
Abortion is “murder”? That has moral connotations. What is wrong with the “murder of a child”? All pieces of animated dirt eventually become lifeless. What does it matter when or how? Morality is just an invention of animated dirt. What if humans managed to destroy all life on earth? What would it matter? Surely, some other form of animated dirt would evolve to replace us. I certainly don’t know there is a God, but I choose to believe there is, because, for one, I don’t want to believe that I am just animated dirt.
The ancient Greeks, whose art and thought deeply influenced me in my youth, created ethics as a branch of secular philosophy, detached from religion and its moral imperatives. Like artworks, codes of law and ethics are uniquely human constructs — conceptual environments that separate us from animals, who are governed by biological instinct. It is rational to debate and define the rules by which any society exists. As a cultural relativist and atheist, I believe that values change over time and that there is no transcendent God who generates and enforces them. But societies have a right to require reasonable compliance from those who enjoy their material benefits.
Your vast panorama of “animated dirt” rising and sinking is actually closer to the Buddhist view of the cosmos — which I also find inspiring for its contemplative acceptance of things as they are. The operations of the life force have inherent majesty. Human consciousness, when fully expanded, is for me the ultimate value. As Heracleitus said, “All things flow.” To demand permanence or personal survival beyond death seems to me a tragically doomed quest. But by power of imagination, we each have the right to live in our own universe. All gods exist — because thinking makes it so.
Wow! I have seen this challenge answered a thousand different ways, but never so eloquently.
BTW, the rest of her column is worth the read as usual. She has become my favorite Lefty, because she will not swallow all their Kool-Aid, and calls them like she sees them. Obama won’t enjoy this one as much as I did. 🙂 â—„Daveâ–º
Then What?
A lot of us are seriously expecting a revolution soon, as the only conceivable solution for expelling the forces of tyranny that now have a stranglehold on our body politic. At the rate they are destroying capitalism in favor of socialism, and spending future generations’ earnings pandering to the mindless victims who empower them, if we wait too much longer for the inevitable, there isn’t going to be much left of America to save.
Thus, we are sensibly preparing for it and like our Founders, are willing to pledge our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to the cause of individual Liberty; but how much thought has been given to what happens after the dust settles? Who is going to be in control of the levers of power during the transition back to our Constitutional Republic? Do we dare consider martial law? I think not.
How long would it take to elect honest representatives, and how vulnerable to foreign intrigue would we be in the interim? Would American Revolution II work out like the first one, with reasonable men focused on reestablishing the absolute minimum government necessary to secure individual Liberty; or might it be more like the French Revolution, where revenge against the establishment had unnecessary blood running in the streets? These are not trivial questions.
The American Conservative magazine had a really well written and surprisingly balanced article last month entitled, “Homeland Offense – Washington contemplates deploying the Armed Forces for domestic law enforcement”:
Americans have become so inured to the sight of federal troops fighting fires, rescuing flood victims from rooftops, and engaging in drug interdiction on the border that few eyebrows were raised when news broke that 20,000 active-duty infantry would soon be deployed on American soil for so-called homeland defense.
But critics say this development—announced by U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) in October—is unprecedented and further evidence of a military mission-creep into domestic affairs, particularly in areas for which the National Guard and Reserves are already suited.
“I don’t get it. I don’t understand why they are further encumbering active-duty brigades with this kind of mission,†says Winslow Wheeler, author of “America’s Defense Meltdown: Pentagon Reform for President Obama and the New Congress” and one of Washington’s few civilian experts on the Pentagon’s Byzantine budget. “It sounds like someone is expanding his empire.â€
Read the whole thing, because it ought to be seriously pondered, Our founders eschewed a standing army; but in today’s world one is simply unavoidable. Given that, then the Posse Comitatus Act is essential and probably should be made an actual Amendment to the Constitution. Yet, in the current paradigm, it isn’t unreasonable to consider some of the arguments for deploying military forces in a defensive posture here at home.
The southern border needs to be defended and Mexico is about to come unraveled. Islam is bent on a worldwide caliphate. China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela consider us adversaries. An invasion of our homeland is no longer out of the question. Europe is almost history, and perhaps it is time for Germany, Japan, Korea, et al, to start defending themselves. We need to consider garrisoning our warriors here at home, rather than scattered all over the world.
Yet, we must have checks in place to preclude our Federal troops from ever being used as a domestic police force, or even a coup. It occurs to me that the solution is to turn the sovereignty pyramid back over the way it ought to be, with the sovereign individuals on the top and the CinC on the very bottom. In our system, as designed, our local sheriff is the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the land. Federal alphabet soup agents are not authorized to perform their duties in our counties without the express permission of our local sheriff. If you don’t understand this, you might find my Sovereign Rights essay enlightening. I would appreciate anyone taking the time to read it.
[Note: You may choose to believe that your natural rights are a gift from a benevolent god – that is fine by me – but you will notice that that postulate is unnecessary. The essay was originally written to enlighten a passel of dense atheists, who thought rights were granted by the Constitution. With ACLU types, as soon as one says “god given,” minds snap shut.]
I would suggest that in the aftermath of ARII we should rally round reasserting the sovereignty of our local county governments. Perhaps we would need to rearrange the counties into new States, which exclude the metropolitan counties that are infested with the mindless Marxists and their ghetto dwelling sheeple. Then, these States can hold a new Constitutional Convention to reinstate the original Constitution, for a once again severely limited Federal government, including the Posse Comitatus Amendment.
Then, I would suggest that the armories of all Federal military forces garrisoned within any county be under the absolute control of the elected County Sheriff. I see little problem with troops having sidearms for personal protection when called upon to do relief work etc.; but they should have to get the Sheriff’s permission to check out their rifles or heavier ordinance. Obviously, a situation where they might need serious firepower would be exceedingly rare, and even then rather localized. The CinC and/or governors may ask nicely, but the local Sheriff, who is most answerable to local people, needs to be the one making the call.
Personally, I could care less what happens in the big cities. NYC, LA, SF, Chicago, et al can have their own little socialist police state utopias if they choose – I no longer consider the alien lifeforms residing therein as my countrymen. However, out here in flyover country we need to make sure that the civilians always outgun any Federal forces. Any discussion? â—„Daveâ–º
Fitna, Obsession, & Jihad
With all the attention on the economy, our existential struggle with Islamofascism is on the back burner. Since Europe is rapidly turning into an Islamic continent, they are not so easily distracted from that reality.
The speech that Geert Wilder was invited to give to the UK Parliament is here. Since they threw him out of the country, this passage was poignant:
Thank you very much for letting me into the country. I received a letter from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, kindly disinviting me. I would threaten community relations, and therefore public security in the UK, the letter stated.
For a moment I feared that I would be refused entrance. But I was confident the British government would never sacrifice free speech because of fear of Islam. Britannia rules the waves, and Islam will never rule Britain, so I was confident the Border Agency would let me through. And after all, you have invited stranger creatures than me. Two years ago the House of Commons welcomed Mahmoud Suliman Ahmed Abu Rideh, linked to Al Qaeda. He was invited to Westminster by Lord Ahmed, who met him at Regent’s Park mosque three weeks before. Mr. Rideh, suspected of being a money man for terror groups, was given a SECURITY sticker for his Parliamentary visit.
Well, if you let in this man, than an elected politician from a fellow EU country surely is welcome here too. By letting me speak today you show that Mr Churchill’s spirit is still very much alive. And you prove that the European Union truly is working; the free movement of persons is still one of the pillars of the European project.
It is worth the time to read the whole thing. If you have not seen Fitna, his film that he was going to screen for them, and you do not have a weak stomach, here it is:
Fitna
Personally I thought Obsession was the better documentary. If you haven’t seen it, here it is:
Obsession
I suppose it is good to remind myself occasionally just how much I despise these miscreants. Death to all Jihadists! I got your Martyr Maker right here, and the bullets are all lubricated with bacon grease. Bring your Koran with you, so I can draw cartoons of that famous pedophile and toy boy Mohamed on the pages with your miserable blood; before I shred them for bedding in the farrowing pen. Allah and Politically Correct Multiculturists be damned. Religion of peace, my ass. â—„Daveâ–º
Ayn Rand vs. Phil Donahue
Jackson Jambalaya has uncovered a Phil Donahue show featuring Ayn Rand when she was 75 years old:
JJ is posting a treat for you today as I found these clips of Ayn Rand, Objectivist philosopoher and author Atlas Shrugged, appearing on Phil Donahue’s show decades ago. Even at her advanced age, her wittiness and sharp intellect is on full display as she enjoys the give and take with Phil. She makes some statements conservatives today would do well to heed. Enjoy.
Agreed. It is broken into five clips of about ten minutes each. What a treat! Do yourself a favor and watch them. Enjoy. â—„Daveâ–º
What is a Conservative?
Here is another take on how nebulous the word “conservative” is:
I know what the Democratic Party stands for, what does the Republican Party stand for?
I know what the modern meanings of the terms “liberal” and “progressive” mean, but I have no idea what the modern meaning of the term “conservative” means. I have recently seen polls which ask the following question:
The Republicans lost the election because
a. The Republican Party is too conservative
b. The Republican Party is not conservative enoughI find this question to be impossible to answer!
If by “conservative” one means a party which appeals almost exclusively to white Christian male culture warriors whose primary agenda is using the police power of government to accomplish desired political goals, then my answer would be “a.”
If by “conservative” one means promoting the rights of life, liberty, and property then clearly, my answer would be “b.”
I do not believe the ambiguity of the term “conservative” is by accident. “Conservative” is every bit the nebulous term as we have heard ad nauseam from the Obama campaign (i.e. “hope” and “change”). Because these terms are so under defined, each person who hears these buzzwords assigns his or her own meaning to them. I seem to recall every candidate in the Republican primary refer to himself as a “conservative” or even a “Reagan conservative” at one time or another. How is it possible that candidates with philosophical differences as stark as that of Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani both claim to be conservative?
I had not considered that the ambiguity was deliberate; but thinking about it I suppose it is. It is sure convenient to the Republican Party that Reagan libertarians and the Piously Correct moralists both call themselves conservative, even though they mean very different things when they do. I loved the Reagan quote Stephen cited:
If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism […] The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. -Ronald Reagan (1975)
Now, if I can just convince Orrin… 🙂 â—„Daveâ–º
Morality and Politics
The following is slightly adapted from a comment I made at the Secular Right blog today:
I find myself reluctantly reevaluating the value to me of participating here. It held such promise; yet I suppose I expected more political discourse, and a whole lot less theological debate. I really appreciate the quality of minds and discourse found here, both from the posters and the majority of commenters. This obviously speaks well of the moderators ability to consign moonbats’ comments to the bit bucket.
I enjoy the philosophical and psychological discussions; but not the theological wrangling that so many threads devolve into. I perceive an existential need for those of us pining for maximum individual Liberty, and the minimal government necessary to secure it as envisioned by our Founders, to free ourselves from the dogmatic battle between the Politically Correct forces on the Left, and the Piously Correct forces on the Right.
If our republic is truly meant to be secular, their competing moral codes have no relevance to good government. We make a huge mistake by allowing these two factions to frame the debate in elections for our representatives, with their litmus tests for conformance to their PC dogma. Their struggle is pointless to individuals with more enlightened moral codes of their own, which they have no desire to impose on others.
We need a Secular Party that rejects the imposition of any particular moral code on individuals. Since the game is rigged against third parties, it seems more practical to hijack one of the two major ones. The Democrat Party is currently held hostage by the Marxists, who invented labor strife, socialism, environmentalism, and Political Correctness. The Republican Party is currently held hostage by the fundamentalist Christians; but at least it prefers capitalism for an economic model, even if corporatism seems to be gaining the upper hand over liassez faire.
It thus seems more practical to target the Republican Party and throw its “faith based” religious leaders under the bus, so that all the true secularists on the Left, who are not PC Marxists or environmental wackos, could also feel at home among us. I posit that today we are the silent majority, and could get this country back on track if we just stopped legitimizing the moralists’ PC issues.
I suspect that most individual Christians would be happy to let go of their need to bring their Piously Correct morality into the public square of political debate, if they were assured that the Politically Correct camp couldn’t impose theirs on us all either. The opposite may also be true, although I am less convinced of it. In any case, I would like to see more practical discussions regarding how to reverse the trend toward statism evinced by the last couple of elections.
In the meantime, I will just have to learn to discipline myself not to waste time reading the likes of the comments above, and the rebuttals they attract. I am sure she is a nice lady, and she writes of her beliefs well; but I moved past the slightest interest in what Jesus or the bible says forty years ago, and I just don’t see their relevance to practical discussions among the Secular Right.
It may not be pleasant telling such people that their faith has no standing in our quest for good government, and I take no pleasure in offending them by doing so; but sooner or later we are going to have to, if we have any hope of saving our country from the trend toward a Marxist tyranny. The effectiveness of the messianic personality cult underlying Obama’s campaign was particularly disturbing. The faithful have become a decided hindrance to the cause of Liberty, even if they think they are trying to help. â—„Daveâ–º
Then, in rebuttal to a reply from a member of the Religious Right, I said:
You cannot recover or sustain liberty without us.
I didn’t intend to. I made the point that most Christians would accept a secular government in DC, if they could get the ACLU off their backs in Peoria. The question is, what would it take to get the abortion or gay issue off the table? These morality issues are losers, for here the Religious Right is decidedly outnumbered. By forcing Republican candidates to take a public stand on them to get the nomination, other secularists are driven into the camp of the Progressives as perhaps their lesser of two evils.
Obama et al is permitted to claim to be a Christian and pro-choice/gay at the same time. Except in the North East, Republicans are not. The devout may take comfort in a President claiming to get on his knees and pray for guidance from his god; but there are a whole lot of folks that are made extremely nervous by such a notion.
They would prefer a President who took responsibility for his own actions and mistakes, rather than smugly resting assured that he was following his god’s will, and the noisy vox populi be damned. The Progressive Public School factories are churning out these Politically Correct voters, much faster than the churches are creating Piously Correct voters. Fundamentalists are losing the demographics game, and increasingly are just playing the role of spoilers.
I reckon that if there was only a Secular Party and a Progressive Party, most considering themselves among the Religious Right, would vote for the PC-neutral Secular candidate anyway. Perhaps as only the lesser of two evils; but the Secularists would get their votes by default, without any need to pander to them, which is what is inexorably killing the Republican Party.
There is plenty of common ground to be found in our shared wish to restore constitutional (limited) government and free enterprise.
Agreed. Help us devise a strategy for getting the PC morality debate off the table, and I will happily vote for you as Sarah Palin’s VP in ’12. 🙂 â—„Daveâ–º
Bah Humbug
I participated extensively today on an interesting thread at the Secular Right Blog, regarding a study that claimed Secular Conservatives were the stingiest of givers to charity. This is a topic I hold some passion for, and among several rebuttals to challenges, I made the following three posts which I repeat here for posterity:
Oh my, so many thoughts on this subject… I could write an epistle on it; but will try to break it into separate comments.
First, Secular Conservatives, who to my mind are closet libertarians, are precisely the rational folks who understand the virtue of selfishness and the evil of altruism. One would hope that a Secular Conservative would not succumb to guilt, and allow their self-worth to be judged by the role models of the altruistic Robin Hoods of the Secular Left, or the altruistic Good Samaritans of the Christian Right.
Both exalt victimhood and demonize the industrious geese that lay the golden eggs, which they so enjoy redistributing as charity. All either is peddling is guilt; and I for one, am not buying it. I am not a serf or slave in a collective, and owe no one outside my household a living.
Yes, I acknowledge that I am totally selfish and immune to guilt over it. I posit that there is no such thing as an altruistic act. Those who think so, are ignoring the personal pleasure the giver takes from the giving. When I do someone a kindness, the good feeling I received exceeded the value of my charity. Otherwise, I would not have voluntarily done it. Could it be otherwise?
That said, those I regularly encounter around me, generally benefit from my selfish industry; be they employees, customers, or neighbors. One thing is sure; as a self-sufficient member of society, I am not a drain on their resources in the slightest. â—„Daveâ–º
I wonder how much charity by the rationally selfish goes unreported. Mine certainly never is.
I rather enjoy being charitable, when I personally know the recipient, or otherwise can see for myself the positive effect of my act of charity. I never have a coin left in my pocket after walking past a Salvation Army kettle, and sometimes stuff a bill or two in one as well; but that is the only organized charity I ever contribute to.
I discovered long ago the immeasurable pleasure I could purchase for myself, by the simple act of giving a hundred dollar tip for a cup of coffee at this time of year. When I can see for myself the determination of a struggling young single mom to provide for her family, giving her a hand in making their Christmas special is incredibly satisfying. The utterly sincere gratitude I receive from another diligent human, who does not claim entitlement to my earnings, nor consider my gift coerced from me or extracted out of guilt, is just priceless.
I own a preschool, with an authentic Montessori education program second to none, and struggle to keep tuition rates affordable to average families in my community. Since we could easily double them and cater to the elite, as so many other Montessori schools do, that in itself is arguably an unreported act of charity.
Moreover, we always accept a few welfare subsidized students, for the diversity it provides in our environment, even though the paperwork this entails is onerous, and it is not uncommon for a parent to lose eligibility midyear and not be able to afford the tuition without it. Frequently when this happens, we will absorb the lost income for the sake of the child, if not the too often hopelessly screwed up parent. Since space in a classroom is all that we have to sell, this too represents thousands of dollars of unreported charity from a very selfish man.
Needless to say, I do it for the gratification of knowing I am making a difference in the life of a hapless child I personally know and have grown fond of. Color me selfish and proud of it; but at least I do it voluntarily, avoid the wasted overhead of a middleman, get to choose my own cause, and see the positive effect for myself. â—„Daveâ–º
The best thing any individual can do to alleviate poverty is start a business and create jobs.
Agreed. Those who haven’t tried this, probably have no idea how many charity schemes exist, and why business people get an unjust reputation as being greedy and/or hardhearted. There are all manner of quasi-fraudulent organizations with elaborate schemes for organizing local charity events to raise money for one obscure cause or another, which consume 90% or more of what they collect in their own overhead, and they are constantly pestering small businesses to sponsor them.
Then, there are all the well-meaning, but just as irritating, locally concocted charity drives that expect every business to jump at the chance to donate something to their oh-so-worthy cause. Besides the churches and traditional benevolent societies, it seems that every social club in town feels a need to put on at least one charity event every year, to “give back to the community.†You might be amazed at the excuses people use to form such a club, for they are legion. My own Corvette club comes to mind; but egad, some will even form among owners of Mustangs! 🙂
The guys just want to play with their toys; but the wives always include a few civic minded ladies who insist that even a car show should have a charity raffle to justify the event. Then they hit up every business in town to be a sponsor or at least donate a prize for the raffle.
Most small businesses get from several to many calls every week from these people, and simply could not donate to all of them and still make payroll. Choices have to be made, and it is usually a no-win proposition. Trying to say, “no†often elicits the guilt card, implying one is selfish or not civic minded enough. Saying, “yes†is not considered virtuous, only expected. Then, those turned down out of necessity, are likely to tell their friends about the Scrooge. Talk about the world being unfair…
As a Christmas gift to the entrepreneurs hereabouts, allow me to share a surefire, yet polite, method for cutting these calls short, before the guilt card is ever played. I stop them mid-spiel with, “I’m sorry, our charity budget is already allocated for this year, perhaps you might apply earlier for consideration in next years budget.†This always works, and in hundreds of uses, I have only ever been asked once when the window for application is. The pros from out of town hang up immediately, to move on to greener pastures with their telemarketing time. The local amateurs lose the leverage of guilt, because I have acknowledged my “civic duty†to be charitable, and implied that I am even organized about it. Stymied, they usually just politely thank me for my time and hang up too. Try it; you will love the effect. ◄Dave►
As I said, I have a bee in my bonnet over the subject, and have made myself a nuisance to the sob sisters in my Corvette club; but I reckon my reasoning is sound, and business people get a really bad rap they do not deserve over it. â—„Daveâ–º
Secular Right
I have enjoyed participating on a new blog the last few days, which is worth sharing. It is called Secular Right, and the level of discourse there is outstanding. All comments are moderated, and they regularly bat away even articulate proponents of the Piously Correct Christian Right, when they try to turn interesting secular political discussions into religious arguments. Creationists comments are perfunctorily rejected by the moderators. Thus, they earn their subtitle, “Reality & Reason.” I have added the site to my blogroll, which I intend to keep short and relevant to my own activities.
A new post there this morning sparked my interest; because of a debate I have been having with Orrin at First Principles, over the definition of “conservative.” It included a link to a document called The Sharon Statement, which was meant to be a set of conservative principles hammered out by young conservatives in 1960 at Bill Buckley’s estate. It contains none of the “social issues” considered so important by the the Religious Right today, and even the inclusion of the phrase “God-given free will” barely passed (44-40). I made the following reply to the thread:
I had not seen the Sharon Statement before. Although I am personally godless, and therefore consider it superfluous, the inclusion of “God-given†does not offend me; anymore than the religious flourishes in our founding documents do. If the one word “Communism†could be replaced with “Marxism,†to subsume all of its derivatives, I would sign it today.
Were it universally agreed to be definitional of a “conservative,†I would happily stop resisting the label, and insisting that I am instead a small (L) libertarian. This is precisely what I mean when I say the litmus tests of the Politically or Piously Correct moralists have nothing to do with good government, and those of us who value individual Liberty need to hijack one of the Parties to represent our worldview.
I didn’t leave the Democrat Party in the late ’60s; they left me. I didn’t leave the Republican Party in the late ’80s; they left me. I never joined the Libertarian Party; because they are hopeless purists arguing over minutia, and the game is rigged against third parties. Color me homeless. ◄Dave►
I reckon a lot of small (L) libertarians wish the conservative movement as defined by these folks had survived. Now, I need to make sure Orrin sees this. The whole purpose of his blog is to try to come up with a unifying principle for conservatism. â—„Daveâ–º
