More Authoritarian Pretentions
by JoyApparently frustrated by continued reluctance among the riff-raff to embrace his evolutionary metaphysic, PZ Myers cites an economist's observation that there is no real penalty for not believing-in evolution [a.k.a. Neodarwinism], and suggests we may need to impose "financial and societal disincentives" on those who resist or dissent.
PZ doesn't forward what he thinks these disincentives should be, but his fan club member "Dan" offers:
The perfect disincentive for evolution deniers: breeding bans.
The discussion quickly descends into a debate on the relative merits of socialism vs. capitalism [Communism vs. Democracy], with assertions and rebuttals having to do with whether or not the Soviets produced better science and technology through authoritarian dictatorship than the US has managed with a system that vests powers ultimately with the people.
I think this is an interesting diversion despite its apparent irrelevance to the original point of the blog, because it's actually NOT irrelevant to the only suggested punishment for not believing in evolution /Neodarwinism. My point being that all they could come up with was imposed eugenics - and not a single one of PZ's fans suggested in any way that such a policy would be unacceptable ethically, morally or legally - if only we had the autocratic form of government that would allow such pogroms to be imposed.
I have said in posts to several threads here that I have long perceived strong authoritarian tendencies in the evangelical atheist/die-hard DarwinDefender ranks, which rival or exceed anything religious creationists or ID supporters ever managed to come up with. I still think this motivational aspect of the not-really scientific debates between ID supporters and DarwinDefenders is important to keep in mind. It helps to contextualize some of the more outrageous behaviors as well as explaining why those committed to this struggle about faith-investments (and the freedom to choose) routinely ignore all other - more pressing and more damaging - threats to science.
This is their Wedge issue and they're sticking to it. The real agenda has nothing to do with science. And this also explains why they cannot accept the reality of a "Post-Wedge World" where there is no real threat to science to be manipulated.
August 18th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Joy:
Well stated. You'll note that PZ refuses to stand up and defend scientists like Dario Ringach. Why does PZ, like Dawkins, choose to ignore these real-world threats to science? Because, like you said, "The real agenda has nothing to do with science."
Comment by MikeGene — August 18, 2006 @ 1:43 pm
August 18th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
PZ Myers…Upholding the right of the left to be more fanatical than right-wing fundamentalists even dream of being.
Comment by Douglas — August 18, 2006 @ 1:53 pm
August 18th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Hi, Mike. Your most recent posts about real, actual threats to science and practicing scientists are the kicker [in the cajones] here. It so glaringly highlights the blatant hypocrisy that it very nearly spotlights the agenda that's supposed to still be hidden. Some of us have spotted tiger stripes more than once hiding in the tall grass, but haven't talked much about it - just watched the side-to-side pad-padding big cats use to prepare for the lunge.
In the PWW the grass has turned dry in anticipation of the long season of dry, and the tiger's eyes are now seen. With the increasing coverage of real violence and threats against science, the tiger's bared teeth are revealed for all to see. The prognosis isn't good, and when I see the sort of immediate sociopolitical diversions introduced in PZ's blog beneath the sole suggestion of what might be done, I know it's too late to even climb a tree.
Good thing the blunderbuss is loaded… §;o)
Comment by Joy — August 18, 2006 @ 2:00 pm
August 18th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Ah-ha! Just as we always thought: 'Darwinism' is severely misanthropic — it compels its adherents to advocate for the extinction of the human race.
Here's the reasoning: As a class, "evolution affirmers" (Darwindefensor internetensis and allied sub-species) tend to be "unfit" according to the basic tennets of 'modern evolutionary theory' (that is, as "fitness" is defined by 'modern evolutionary theory' ). Yet, not satisfied to be replaced by obviously more "fit" sub-species of the human race, they will now seek to forceably prevent the more "fit" humans from fulfilling the biological imperative that 'modern evolutionary theory' decrees is the supreme imperative incumbant upon all organisms.
Now, since, as a class, the "fitness" of 'modern evolutionary theorists' is below replacement level, and if they are able to impose a breeding ban (i.e. impose absolute "unfitness") on "evolution deniers," it's quite easy to see that in no time at all there will be no more humans.
…
More seriously, these modern-day 'modern evolutionary theorists' seem to be having as much trouble *really* understanding their quaint "theory" as typical 'Darwinists' (especially the eugenicists) of the 19th and 20th centuries did.
Comment by Ilion — August 18, 2006 @ 2:19 pm
August 18th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
Ilion:
LOL!!! Very clever wording, Ilion. And an evolutionary just-so tale of woe worthy of an illustrated tome (or at least a comic book). But to tell you the truth, I'm more interested in the ensuing discussion of relative merits in a more… shall we say… Stalinesque sociopolitical situation. In terms of what tyranny can provide for those who view multi-falsified nineteenth century 'theoretics' as Absolute Truth, that is. I mean, just look what they did for Lysenko!
Some things never change. They just trade places.
Comment by Joy — August 18, 2006 @ 3:35 pm
August 18th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Once upon a time, "liberalism" meant that you fought for the liberation of oppressed groups, giving them the same choices as everyone else. Today, to a self-avowed "godless liberal" like PZ, it's about the exact opposite: Taking away choices from a public that is too stupid to manage their own lifes, and putting into the hands of People Who Know Better - i.e. people who agree with PZ. It's funny, you never hear of people who think their lifes should be determined by someone else. I can't imagine PZ saying: "Geez, I don't know if my intense hatred for religion is a desirable trait in our society. I wish the government would set up financial and societal disincentives to make me change my ways."
Comment by Krauze — August 18, 2006 @ 4:32 pm
August 18th, 2006 at 6:25 pm
Krauze:
Well put. There is definitely an authoritarian tendency that seems to be common in many critics. To her credit, I think Karen Armstrong nails this one at Salon.com
Salon.com: Well, what do you say to the scientists, especially the Darwinists — Richard Dawkins would be the obvious case — who are quite angry about religion? They say religion is the root of much evil in the world. Wars are fought and fueled by religion. And now that we're in the 21st century, they say it's time that science replace religion.
Armstrong: I don't think it will. In the scientific age, we've seen a massive religious revival everywhere but Europe. And some of these people — not all, by any means — seem to be secular fundamentalists. They have as bigoted a view of religion as some religious fundamentalists have of secularism. We have too much dogmatism at the moment. Take Richard Dawkins, for example. He did a couple of religious programs that I was fortunate enough to miss. It was a very, very one-sided view.
Salon.com:Well, he hates religion.
Armstrong: Yeah, this is not what the Buddha would call skillful. If you're consumed by hatred — Freud was rather the same — then this is souring your personality and clouding your vision. What you need to do is to look appraisingly and calmly on other traditions. Because when you hate religion, it's also very easy to hate the people who practice it.
Comment by MikeGene — August 18, 2006 @ 6:25 pm
August 18th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
Well, this Fall will be interesting. Dawkins, who is the most popular living scientist, will be preaching his anti-religious message as he comes out in full view with his anti-religious book. In the mind of your average person, it will look like science = anti-religion. Now, pay close attention to how his book is reviewed and received. We know that PZ is going to use his #1 Science Blog to trumpet Dawkins' message and pull out the steel-toed boots on people who dare criticize Dawkins.
We've seen the critics choose silence when it comes to a scientist being forced to abandon his research.
Watch who remains silent when PZ and Dawkins begin evangelizing for atheism.
Comment by MikeGene — August 18, 2006 @ 6:32 pm
August 18th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
Same ones who have stayed silent all the while PZ and Dawkins have been evangelizing for atheism. Most scientists who actually do the work - and are targeted by those PZ and Dawkins won't condemn.
I'm rather looking forward to the fall (my favorite season, actually). Your book comes out too, and I'm saving up for it rather than Dawkins'. As I said, the blunderbuss - favored short-range tool for pirates and privateers - is loaded. I'd say "bring it on" except that we're now suffering the results of a certain padded codpiece saying the same damned thing not too long ago…
Unless Dawkins uses the same pre-appearance screening techniques Karl invented for Bush's publicly-funded so-called "town meetings," he's likely to meet the resistance up close and personal. The agenda's being revealed as we speak and it's ugly as sin. If it's too late for me to climb a tree, it's too late for the tiger to reverse his momentum. §;o)
Comment by Joy — August 18, 2006 @ 6:52 pm
August 19th, 2006 at 12:51 am
Wow! The way you guys go on, you'd think there was some sort of evil "Darwinian" conspiracy out there. Are there secret "Darwinian" conclaves and special "Darwinist" handshakes? Hey, I bet they're not doing any science at all when they close their lab doors"”I bet they're REALLY engaging in sinister "Darwinian" initiation rituals (which no doubt involve spanking)! Why? To smash religion, of course!
(By the way, I wouldn't take the "breeding ban" remark very seriously"”you don't, do you?)
Comment by takuan — August 19, 2006 @ 12:51 am
August 19th, 2006 at 9:26 am
Wow! The way you guys go on, you'd think there was some sort of evil "Darwinian" conspiracy out there.
No, just a lack of authenticity on the part of Darwinians. There is an authoritarian streak among the extremists, symbolized by PZ and Sam Harris, that is incompatible with freedom of inquiry. The pro-science canard has been aptly debunked and historical misrepresentations documented. Harris's real concern is evident. He just does not feel it judicious to state it openly.
Comment by Bradford — August 19, 2006 @ 9:26 am
August 19th, 2006 at 9:39 am
Takuan:
No. But I do think there are a significant number of people who use their "pro-science" stance as a Trojan Horse for their "anti-religion" agenda. Salon.com describes them like this: "Well, what do you say to the scientists, especially the Darwinists "” Richard Dawkins would be the obvious case "” who are quite angry about religion? They say religion is the root of much evil in the world. Wars are fought and fueled by religion. And now that we're in the 21st century, they say it's time that science replace religion." Karen Armstrong describes them like this: "And some of these people "” not all, by any means "” seem to be secular fundamentalists. They have as bigoted a view of religion as some religious fundamentalists have of secularism."
No. But I don't think this was a joke.
Comment by MikeGene — August 19, 2006 @ 9:39 am
August 19th, 2006 at 11:02 am
"But I do think there are a significant number of people who use their "pro-science" stance as a Trojan Horse for their "anti-religion" agenda."
You mean like the significant number of religious "leaders," pandering politicians, and the DI are using ID as a Trojan Horse to impose THEIR authoritarian religious agenda?
And are you seriously arguing that wars aren't fought and fueled by religion? The current war(s) throughout the Middle East are religious wars in all but name, pitting two (even three) incompatible, authoritarian "certainties" against one another. At least science is provisional (I hope most people engaged in the scientific enterprise think of it that way, anyway).
I don't remember who said the following, but it goes something like this:
"With or without religion, good people do good things, and bad people do bad things. To get good people to do bad things"”for THAT you need religion."
True enough, don't you think?
Comment by takuan — August 19, 2006 @ 11:02 am
August 19th, 2006 at 11:04 am
Sometimes jokes are funny because of the absurdity built into the joke.
Sometimes "jokes" are "funny" because they tells us something about ourselves.
Comment by Ilion — August 19, 2006 @ 11:04 am
August 19th, 2006 at 11:34 am
Taukan:
Sure. Yin-Yang. But we were supposed to believe this was a dispute between the authoritarian religious zealots and the dispassionate people of reason and science. That set-up has always been a fantasy and people like Harris and Myers help knock it down for all to see.
Some have been, some have not. Do you think WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and the Iraq War were religious wars?
I couldn't disagree more. Yes, it is true that there is a large Islamic sect that has declared jihad on Western civilization, but beyond that, your attempt to spread the blame is misguided. Look, I'm not going to get involved in this type of debate because I can become too passionate about it. So nuf'said from me.
Sure. Science is idealistically provisional, but scientists like Dawkins, Myers, and Harris are not. They have a metaphysical and sociological agenda that is masked with a "pro-science" posture. We know the posture is bogus because none of these "pro-science" big mouths appears to give a damn about people like Dario Ringach. In fact, how many "pro-science" advocates have spoken out against this group? None. Zero. Nada. Zilch.
Not at all. First, I reject the notion of there being "good people" and "bad people." Second, there are a legion of examples of people doing bad things in the name of something good. It's called "“ ends justify the means. Or what's that saying? The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Look at it this way. I am sure the people here think they are good people. But I also think they are doing bad things. And it is not because of religion, now is it?
Comment by MikeGene — August 19, 2006 @ 11:34 am
August 19th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
I don't know how to do the quote thing on this blog, so I'll just make a few comments.
Okay, you have Islamic extremists determined to bring about "Umma" on Earth. You have an American president, unique in our history, with a Manichean view of good vs. evil, and who believes he's been specially called by God to do what he does (i.e. recklessly hurling a military force against the "evildoers" without having any idea of what he's getting into). And, in Israel, you have the Orthodox faction driving Israeli policy (much as the religious right drives policy here). So I believe in calling things by their true names"”it's a religious war.
"By their deeds you shall know them." George Bush and his "base" claim what they're doing is "good," but it's only created more evil. Osama bin Laden and his followers believe what they're doing is "good," too, but it only creates more evil. Each side demonizes the other. It goes on and on, and it's getting worse every day. George Bush and Osama bin Laden might be kind to their children, but their incompatible, absolutist religious "certainties" drive both of them to work real evil in the world.
As for SOME scientists, I think Dawkins has a blind spot when it comes to religion, but he certainly doesn't have the control over others George Bush and Osama bin Laden have. So how big of a threat can he be?
Comment by takuan — August 19, 2006 @ 12:19 pm
August 19th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
takuan:
There are some fairly outrageous promotions of what they call the 'New Eugenics' out there, some of which have been discussed on this blog. As ridiculous and outrageous as the Pop-Stars are in their statements, there's likely to be quite a bit of sympathy for the ideas in the rank-and-file. Some have even argued that parents (or the state, if there's a long-term care interest) should have a year or more to decide whether or not a child should be allowed to live. Infanticide is, like euthanasia, a negative form of eugenics. Sterilization is not thought to be negative, though it seems to me that if the victim has no choice in the matter, it doesn't get much more negative (short of death).
It's all talk about things that are very likely to factor strongly in our societal choices for the future, based on socioeconomic realities and stubborn issues. Sterilizing the poor, the criminal, the insane, the mentally/physically deficient, the orphan… these were all practiced in this country in the first half of the 20th century - by law. In my state of North Carolina there were miscogenation [sp?] and forced sterilization laws on the books right through the 1970s and into the 1980s! Many people here would have them reinstated, no problem.
As a society we have not approved killing children, adults or old people who may cost us public resources. Nowadays simple attrition by lack of access to basic health care and social services threatens the "bottom end" of the demographic barrel, but it's becoming so severe it's also threatening the middle class at all levels. Insurance is a for-profit scam, and millions of hard-working people are an accident or illness away from bankruptcy - thus falling prey even more to the culling machine and probably never getting back on their feet.
It seems clear to me whenever I see PZ or Dawkins or one of their like-minded cohorts attempting in a most un-democratic fashion to focus the machine on Christians/theists - because they're Christians/theists, not because they aren't the backbone of the economy - that they are relying on public acceptance of Neodarwinian philosophical extrapolations to push their agenda. Just as the original eugenecists did.
I sure don't think it'll work, though you can call me a 'conspiracy theorist' for parsing their words to see if I can flesh-out the agenda. You can believe there isn't one. But I've been married to a poli-sci guy for 37 years, and have learned that there are agendas - and levels of agendas - behind every public campaign. Especially the Big Ones.
We're in the Post-Wedge World here at TT. The Wedge was soundly defeated by both the courts and the voters. There may be a few clean-up skirmishes yet to be dealt with, but ID isn't going to replace evolutionary theory in public high schools until and unless its inferences and deductions become part of evolutionary theory, on science's terms. That's a fact a lot of committed anti-ID critics refuse to acknowledge. Why? …could it be because they NEED the Wedge in order to justify the other, not-so obvious items on their agenda?
I mean, if you can't demonize the wannabe theocrats of the 'ID Movement' and you can't demonize theists in general (or Christian fundamentalists/ID supporters in particular) for exercising their Constitutional right to believe what they choose regardless of what you tell them to believe, how are you going to get rid of the theistic moral/ethical systems that stand in the way of your Grand Plan? §;o)
Comment by Joy — August 19, 2006 @ 1:19 pm
August 19th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
"Nowadays simple attrition by lack of access to basic health care and social services threatens the "bottom end" of the demographic barrel, but it's becoming so severe it's also threatening the middle class at all levels. Insurance is a for-profit scam, and millions of hard-working people are an accident or illness away from bankruptcy - thus falling prey even more to the culling machine and probably never getting back on their feet."
But this all seems to be part and parcel YOUR rightwingerverse agenda"”Bush and his Republicans have two power "bases""”the religious right and big business. They pander to the former and cater to the latter. And for reasons I simply cannot fathom, their agenda apparently includes destroying the American middle-class. Seems to me you're just trying to cover for your agenda by making some specious, trumped-up claim that "Darwinists" are the real culprits.
Sorry, no cigar.
Comment by takuan — August 19, 2006 @ 1:58 pm
August 19th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
takuan:
MY agenda? Au contraire, mon ami. There's no 'rule' that I have to be one thing or the other politically to think life and its evolution is teleologically organized. Nor need I be a fundamentalist Christian to be appalled at the many attempts to disenfranchise them of their rights by using the ID vs. NDE debates as a 'wedge'.
For instance, your feigned ignorance of political realities is quite humorous to me:
Do you really believe George Bush is in charge of this Grand Plan, or that it's not all about oil pipelines, oil fields, and no-bid profits for Haliburton (who pays our current Veep more than we do), et. al.? Or about arms dealing through the Carlyle Group (prices have doubled!)? He's a figurehead. A fund-raiser with the 'right' name. Religion's just the selling point. It's not the motivation.
I worked for a Florida publisher back in the '80s and early '90s specializing in coverage of the rich and famous. Had to go to the TPC tournament and all the society fund-raisers every year to cover who was screwing who and who was drinking/snorting too much and making asses of themselves. Covered all the bigwigs in business, finance and politics.
When my seriously right-wing (but a-religious) publisher told me in a meeting once that he and his cohorts across the state were planning to run Jeb for governor (Lawton Chiles was current) I thought he was joking. Jeb was absolutely notorious, a joke who only got to play with the in-crowd because he was a Bush. Yep, I was told, he had "the right name." I can pretty much guarantee his older brother got where he is by the very same sort of moving and shaking in circles he wasn't the least bit familiar with. Because he was even worse than Jeb.
The whole fundamentalist Christian thing is a CC leftover - they promise to deliver reliable votes, you promise to support their silly agenda that hasn't a chance in hell of passing Constitutional muster (but might be useful in a Constitution-abrogation sense). Just standard politics.
Honestly. I'd have thought your 'side' - given the amount of arrogant pride at your intellectual capabilities - had this figured out years and years ago. You don't look at the puppet on television to try and understand the policies that go into anybody's Grand Plans for world domination! You look at the puppeteers, their associations, their publications and their tactical history. GWB is just the front man. You strap a box to his back and feed him his lines. He can remain blissfully clueless and take a lot of vacations (that's better than letting him cuss at diplomatic meetings or inappropriately lay hands upon other world leaders)…
This particular blog entry is about a political subject, so I'm indulging you here (my fellow bloggers are not likely to agree with my politics - I'm just telling you what I know from experience). Usually we avoid the subject because we're more focused on the possibilities of teleology as an approach to biological mysteries. The Wedge has been an issue for awhile, the Post-Wedge World is a current issue, and the reluctance of the anti-ID crowd to accept the reality of a Post-Wedge World is something we're all intrigued by right now. That is all about politics, so it just can't be avoided.
Dawkins is playing politics, and he'll be playing politics in America this fall. PZ Myers is always playing politics. Peter Singer and all the other 'New Eugenicists' are playing politics. NCSE's playing politics, and you are too. It would be foolish to ignore reality on that level, because it won't help anybody on either 'side' to figure out how to resolve any issues.
A general in the State Department once told me the world situation is "desperate, as usual." Doesn't matter when you ask, because the situation is ALWAYS "desperate, as usual." It's kept that way on purpose, and the purpose is very often sheer distraction - sleight-of-mind.
The real threats to our freedom and our way of life are more subtle than that, and a lot closer to home. It has always been thus.
Comment by Joy — August 19, 2006 @ 2:22 pm
August 19th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
takuan,
You aren't "mturner" by another name, are you?
Comment by Douglas — August 19, 2006 @ 5:48 pm
August 19th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
Douglas, don't you think that was far too tame to be the rantings of that particular Canuckistani? Shoot! that wasn't even up to par with Joy's conspirorizing in this very thread.
Comment by Ilion — August 19, 2006 @ 6:38 pm
August 19th, 2006 at 6:55 pm
I have to say, some of the posts here just make me cross-eyed. Feigning "ignorance of political realities," am I? No, I really think Bush and his ilk have been reckless, and they've managed to so thoroughly screw things up that we'll be lucky to survive it.
Dawkins' "agenda," (whatever it is), is small potatoes by comparison, and isn't likely to have much impact in the U.S. But perhaps you're a Manichean yourself, Joy, and it's either gotta be "evil Darwinian" materialism" or ID (whatever THAT is). There can be no middle ground"”"Yer either with us, or agin' us!" Sure.
(No, I'm not "mturner.")
Comment by takuan — August 19, 2006 @ 6:55 pm
August 19th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
You have an American president, unique in our history, with a Manichean view of good vs. evil, and who believes he's been specially called by God to do what he does (i.e. recklessly hurling a military force against the "evildoers" without having any idea of what he's getting into). And, in Israel, you have the Orthodox faction driving Israeli policy (much as the religious right drives policy here). So I believe in calling things by their true names"”it's a religious war.
Wow! The way you carry on, you'd think there was some sort of evil right wing conspiracy out there. Are there secret right wing conclaves and special handshakes? Hey, I bet they're not doing any good at all when they pursue Islamafascists"”I bet they're REALLY engaging in sinister militaristic rituals (which no doubt involve secretly spanking of terrorists)! Why? To establish a theocratic state of course!
Comment by Bradford — August 19, 2006 @ 6:58 pm
August 19th, 2006 at 7:04 pm
This is their Wedge issue and they're sticking to it. The real agenda has nothing to do with science. And this also explains why they cannot accept the reality of a "Post-Wedge World" where there is no real threat to science to be manipulated.
The real wedge strategy unveiled! Silence religious advocates Tut. Tut. And I thought this was all about science.
Comment by Bradford — August 19, 2006 @ 7:04 pm
August 19th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
Hey, Bradford, you left off my bit about Islamic extremists"”when it comes to damnfool religious wars between any number of authoritarian, mutually exclusive "certainties," I'm an equal opportunity denouncer.
Comment by takuan — August 19, 2006 @ 7:19 pm
August 19th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
Hey, Bradford, you left off my bit about Islamic extremists"”when it comes to damnfool religious wars between any number of authoritarian, mutually exclusive "certainties," I'm an equal opportunity denouncer.
Good. Because you can denounce the likes of Sam Harris, Dawkins, PZ and their followers. They are preoccupied with religious concerns but would portray their war as one over science when it is something else entirely.
Comment by Bradford — August 19, 2006 @ 7:33 pm
August 19th, 2006 at 7:55 pm
Sure thing. As soon as they resort to using guns and bombs, I'll denounce them.
Comment by takuan — August 19, 2006 @ 7:55 pm
August 19th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
Wasn't Reagan also "unique in our history" in his desire to bring about Armageddon by starting a nuclear war?
Comment by Krauze — August 19, 2006 @ 8:12 pm
August 19th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
That was then.
Comment by Ilion — August 19, 2006 @ 8:31 pm
August 19th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
…he was just trying to get around the fail safes, Krauze. So he could launch if he wanted to. Damned programmers…
Worked, though. Soviets just plain fell apart economically - thus politically - almost overnight. They couldn't keep up. I'll certainly give Reagan's handlers that. Even though they sure seemed surprised by it when it happened… §;o)
Comment by Joy — August 19, 2006 @ 8:31 pm
August 19th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
Because, of course, Reagan was far too simple-minded to have come up with the agenda on his own — despite that he had spelled out this precise agenda for destroying the USSR years and years before he even ran for the Presidency.
Comment by Ilion — August 19, 2006 @ 9:15 pm
August 19th, 2006 at 9:45 pm
Sure thing. As soon as they resort to using guns and bombs, I'll denounce them.
The most effective forms of authoritarianism are those able to use the direct or indirect power of the state to stifle opposition. Tow the line or no tenure, funding or position are all efficient intimidators.
Comment by Bradford — August 19, 2006 @ 9:45 pm
August 19th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
Bradford,
Maybe, but there's little romance or drama in that kind of authoritarianism. Makes for mostly-boring TV movies. It would liven things up a bit if PZ Myers and Mike Behe would engage in some fisticuffs on PBS.
Comment by Douglas — August 19, 2006 @ 10:30 pm
August 19th, 2006 at 10:53 pm
"The most effective forms of authoritarianism are those able to use the direct or indirect power of the state to stifle opposition."
I agree. Karl Rove makes Machiavelli look like an ice cream salesman.
Comment by takuan — August 19, 2006 @ 10:53 pm
August 20th, 2006 at 5:05 am
Karl Rove makes Machiavelli look like an ice cream salesman.
And judges can issue edicts to further their own views without consequence. There was an extremely successful prison program in Iowa known as the InnerChange Freedom Initiative. A volunatary program whose very low recitivism rate, compared with the general prison population, has been acknowledged even by its critics, the program was shut down by judicial fiat because the program was organized and maintained by a religious group. The establishment clause being the judge's weapon of choice. There are too many who would set forth the views of religious Americans as a discrediting criteria even when their actions promote the public welfare.
Comment by Bradford — August 20, 2006 @ 5:05 am
August 20th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
Well, it seems we've covered the gamut here:
1) ID is being suppressed!
2) It's a "good" war!
2) Bush is Reagan's heir!
3 (Bradford's last post) Activist judges!
Now how are we gonna deal with that MOTHER of all THREATS"”authoritarian "Darwinists?"
Comment by takuan — August 20, 2006 @ 6:22 pm
August 21st, 2006 at 3:49 pm
Hi Takuan,
"Bush is Reagan's heir!"
Try reading my comment again; it had nothing to do with Bush being "Reagan's heir".
Comment by Krauze — August 21, 2006 @ 3:49 pm