Washington Post: Still no sign of the theocracy
by KrauzeThe Washington Post had an article the other day, "Let's Stop Stereotyping Evangelicals" (HT: Darwinian Fundamentalism).
It was in 1976 — the "year of the evangelical," according to Newsweek — that conservative Christians burst upon the political landscape. Critics have been warning about the theocratic takeover of America ever since. Thus the plaintive cry of a Cabinet member in the Carter administration: "I am beginning to fear that we could have an Ayatollah Khomeini in this country, but that he will not have a beard . . . he will have a television program."
This election season produced similar lamentations — Howard Dean's warning about Christian "extremism," Kevin Phillips's catalogue of fears in "American Theocracy" and brooding documentaries such as "Jesus Camp," to name a few. This theme is a gross caricature of the 100 million or more people who could be called evangelicals. But the real problem is that it denies the profoundly democratic ideals of Protestant Christianity, while ignoring evangelicalism's deepening social conscience.
Evangelicals led the grass-roots campaigns for religious liberty, the abolition of slavery and women's suffrage. Even the Moral Majority in its most belligerent form amounted to nothing more terrifying than churchgoers flocking peacefully to the polls on Election Day. The only people who want a biblical theocracy in America are completely outside the evangelical mainstream, their influence negligible.
It then proceeds to list a number of cases that illustrate that evangelicals are far more concerned about fighting things like AIDS and illiteracy than they are in promoting a theocracy. Though the article paints a rosy picture of evangelicals - not all causes fit so easily into the "social consience" angle - it certainly is a refreshing change from the many worries about the Coming Theocrach.
Update: I can see that people are already using the comments to discuss the election results, and I have no intention of breaking up a good discussion. So this is now officially an open thread. Feel welcome to discuss the WP article, the election, or something else entirely.
November 10th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
The theocracy concerns have been overblown and not representative of most evangelicals. Yet, in the recent past they have voted as a significant
block toward the Republicans. Two facts bode for change in the future. One, elections are amazingly close these days. Two, a moderate diversification of evangelical vote could tip the balance in close elections. This last time, you saw the Democrats put forth some conservative candidates. Combine that with their traditional concern for the poor, and you have a recipe for movement of some evangelicals in the Democratic sphere. As I mentioned, it won't take much to influence elections. I would bet that the last election demonstrates that some movement has already occurred.
The current issue of Newsweek looks at this issue.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15...
Comment by bj — November 10, 2006 @ 3:35 pm
November 10th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
bj:
Hi, bj. I participated in these campaigns and elections, and there are quite a few factors. I think you're right that there are class concerns, but I think that aspect had more to do with the lower middle classes coming to the conclusion after 6 years of outsourcing that the Republicans weren't committed to their economic interests.
What I think was more telling is that the anti-gay rights amendments passed overwhelmingly in all but one state. Obviously, the fundamentalists - Bush's so-called "base" - did in fact come out to vote their religious conscience, and that religious conscience is a lot narrower than the Republicans have believed.
They voted Democratic for House and Senate in enough numbers in every state to sweep both houses of Congress by a much bigger margin than Bush or his loyalists managed in any of the last three election cycles. While Iraq was a significant factor ("Why do they always send the poor?"), exit polling established beyond any doubt that it was corruption that motivated the swing vote.
That may be a religious issue, but it's mostly a reaction to the numerous indictments, overt sleaze and bragging by the Bush administration that their "base" is full of ignorant zombies. IOW, a reaction to condescension, and that's not religious at all. It's pride.
Not that I'm complaining, but then, pride has always been the Big Sin, hasn't it? That has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus' mission. It has to do with how "The Church" has always played upon pride to consolidate its own sociopolitical power base. The Bushies blew it and the base reacted. IMO.
Comment by Joy — November 10, 2006 @ 4:37 pm
November 10th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
Since this is an open thread, I thought folks here might be interested in the fact that notorious atheist (and "Darwinist") Daniel Dennett very nearly died of a dissecting aortic aneurism last week. Did he "find God" like Anthony Flew and A. J. Ayer? Not quite…
http://www.edge.org/3rd_cultur...
THANK GOODNESS! [11.3.06]
by Daniel C. Dennett
There are no atheists in foxholes, according to an old but dubious
saying, and there is at least a little anecdotal evidence in favor of
it in the notorious cases of famous atheists who have emerged from
near-death experiences to announce to the world that they have
changed their minds. The British philosopher Sir A. J. Ayer, who died
in 1989, is a fairly recent example. Here is another anecdote to
ponder.
Two weeks ago, I was rushed by ambulance to a hospital where it was
determined by c-t scan that I had a "dissection of the aorta" — the
lining of the main output vessel carrying blood from my heart had
been torn up, creating a two-channel pipe where there should only be
one. Fortunately for me, the fact that I'd had a coronary artery
bypass graft seven years ago probably saved my life, since the tangle
of scar tissue that had grown like ivy around my heart in the
intervening years reinforced the aorta, preventing catastrophic
leakage from the tear in the aorta itself. After a nine-hour surgery,
in which my heart was stopped entirely and my body and brain were
chilled down to about 45 degrees to prevent brain damage from lack of
oxygen until they could get the heart-lung machine pumping, I am now
the proud possessor of a new aorta and aortic arch, made of strong
Dacron fabric tubing sewn into shape on the spot by the surgeon,
attached to my heart by a carbon-fiber valve that makes a reassuring
little click every time my heart beats.
As I now enter a gentle period of recuperation, I have much to
reflect on, about the harrowing experience itself and even more about
the flood of supporting messages I've received since word got out
about my latest adventure. Friends were anxious to learn if I had had
a near-death experience, and if so, what effect it had had on my
longstanding public atheism. Had I had an epiphany? Was I going to
follow in the footsteps of Ayer (who recovered his aplomb and
insisted a few days later "what I should have said is that my
experiences have weakened, not my belief that there is no life after
death, but my inflexible attitude towards that belief"), or was my
atheism still intact and unchanged?
Yes, I did have an epiphany. I saw with greater clarity than ever
before in my life that when I say "Thank goodness!" this is not
merely a euphemism for "Thank God!" (We atheists don't believe that
there is any God to thank.) I really do mean THANK GOODNESS! There is
a lot of goodness in this world, and more goodness every day, and
this fantastic human-made fabric of excellence is genuinely
responsible for the fact that I am alive today. It is a worthy
recipient of the gratitude I feel today, and I want to celebrate that
fact here and now.
To whom, then, do I owe a debt of gratitude? To the cardiologist who
has kept me alive and ticking for years, and who swiftly and
confidently rejected the original diagnosis of nothing worse than
pneumonia. To the surgeons, neurologists, anesthesiologists, and the
perfusionist, who kept my systems going for many hours under daunting
circumstances. To the dozen or so physician assistants, and to nurses
and physical therapists and x-ray technicians and a small army of
phlebotomists so deft that you hardly know they are drawing your
blood, and the people who brought the meals, kept my room clean, did
the mountains of laundry generated by such a messy case,
wheel-chaired me to x-ray, and so forth. These people came from
Uganda, Kenya, Liberia, Haiti, the Philippines, Croatia, Russia,
China, Korea, India — and the United States, of course — and I have
never seen more impressive mutual respect, as they helped each other
out and checked each other's work. But for all their teamwork, this
local gang could not have done their jobs without the huge background
of contributions from others. I remember with gratitude my late
friend and Tufts colleague, physicist Allan Cormack, who shared the
Nobel Prize for his invention of the c-t scanner. Allan — you have
posthumously saved yet another life, but who's counting? The world is
better for the work you did. Thank goodness. Then there is the whole
system of medicine, both the science and the technology, without
which the best-intentioned efforts of individuals would be roughly
useless. So I am grateful to the editorial boards and referees, past
and present, of SCIENCE, NATURE, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL
ASSOCIATION, LANCET, and all the other institutions of science and
medicine that keep churning out improvements, detecting and
correcting flaws.
Do I WORSHIP modern medicine? Is science my RELIGION? Not at all;
there is no aspect of modern medicine or science that I would exempt
from the most rigorous scrutiny, and I can readily identify a host of
serious problems that still need to be fixed. That's easy to do, of
course, because the worlds of medicine and science are already
engaged in the most obsessive, intensive, and humble self-assessments
yet known to human institutions, and they regularly make public the
results of their self-examinations. Moreover, this open-ended
rational criticism, imperfect as it is, is the secret of the
astounding success of these human enterprises. There are measurable
improvements every day. Had I had my blasted aorta a decade ago,
there would have been no prayer of saving me. It's hardly routine
today, but the odds of my survival were actually not so bad (these
days, roughly 33 percent of aortic dissection patients die in the
first twenty-four hours after onset without treatment, and the odds
get worse by the hour thereafter).
One thing in particular struck me when I compared the medical world
on which my life now depended with the religious institutions I have
been studying so intensively in recent years. One of the gentler,
more supportive themes to be found in every religion (so far as I
know) is the idea that what really matters is what is in your heart:
if you have good intentions, and are trying to do what (God says) is
right, that is all anyone can ask. Not so in medicine! If you are
wrong — especially if you should have known better — your good
intentions count for almost nothing. And whereas taking a leap of
faith and acting without further scrutiny of one's options is often
celebrated by religions, it is considered a grave sin in medicine. A
doctor whose devout faith in his personal revelations about how to
treat aortic aneurysm led him to engage in untested trials with human
patients would be severely reprimanded if not driven out of medicine
altogether. There are exceptions, of course. A few swashbuckling,
risk-taking pioneers are tolerated and (if they prove to be right)
eventually honored, but they can exist only as rare exceptions to the
ideal of the methodical investigator who scrupulously rules out
alternative theories before putting his own into practice. Good
intentions and inspiration are simply not enough.
In other words, whereas religions may serve a benign purpose by
letting many people feel comfortable with the level of morality they
themselves can attain, no religion holds its members to the high
standards of moral responsibility that the secular world of science
and medicine does! And I'm not just talking about the standards 'at
the top' — among the surgeons and doctors who make life or death
decisions every day. I'm talking about the standards of
conscientiousness endorsed by the lab technicians and meal preparers,
too. This tradition puts its faith in the UNLIMITED application of
reason and empirical inquiry, checking and re-checking, and getting
in the habit of asking "What if I'm wrong?" Appeals to faith or
membership are never tolerated. Imagine the reception a scientist
would get if he tried to suggest that others couldn't replicate his
results because they just didn't share the faith of the people in his
lab! And, to return to my main point, it is the goodness of this
tradition of reason and open inquiry that I thank for my being alive
today.
What, though, do I say to those of my religious friends (and yes, I
have quite a few religious friends) who have had the courage and
honesty to tell me that they have been praying for me? I have gladly
forgiven them, for there are few circumstances more frustrating than
not being able to help a loved one in any more direct way. I confess
to regretting that I could not pray (sincerely) for my friends and
family in time of need, so I appreciate the urge, however clearly I
recognize its futility. I translate my religious friends' remarks
readily enough into one version or another of what my fellow brights*
have been telling me: "I've been thinking about you, and wishing with
all my heart [another ineffective but irresistible self-indulgence]
that you come through this OK." The fact that these dear friends have
been thinking of me in this way, and have taken an effort to let me
know, is in itself, without any need for a supernatural supplement, a
wonderful tonic. These messages from my family and from friends
around the world have been literally heart-warming in my case, and I
am grateful for the boost in morale (to truly manic heights, I fear!)
that it has produced in me. But I am not joking when I say that I
have had to forgive my friends who said that they were PRAYING for
me. I have resisted the temptation to respond "Thanks, I appreciate
it, but did you also sacrifice a goat?" I feel about this the same
way I would feel if one of them said "I just paid a voodoo doctor to
cast a spell for your health." What a gullible waste of money that
could have been spent on more important projects! Don't expect me to
be grateful, or even indifferent. I do appreciate the affection and
generosity of spirit that motivated you, but wish you had found a
more reasonable way of expressing it.
But isn't this awfully harsh? Surely it does the world no harm if
those who can honestly do so pray for me! No, I'm not at all sure
about that. For one thing, if they REALLY wanted to do something
useful, they could devote their prayer time and energy to some
pressing project that they CAN do something about. For another, we
now have quite solid grounds (e.g., the recently released Benson
study at Harvard) for believing that intercessory prayer simply
doesn't work. Anybody whose practice shrugs off that research is
subtly undermining respect for the very goodness I am thanking. If
you insist on keeping the myth of the effectiveness of prayer alive,
you owe the rest of us a justification in the face of the evidence.
Pending such a justification, I will excuse you for indulging in your
tradition; I know how comforting tradition can be. But I want you to
recognize that what you are doing is morally problematic at best. If
you would even CONSIDER filing a malpractice suit against a doctor
who made a mistake in treating you, or suing a pharmaceutical company
that didn't conduct all the proper control tests before selling you a
drug that harmed you, you must acknowledge your tacit appreciation of
the high standards of rational inquiry to which the medical world
holds itself, and yet you continue to indulge in a practice for which
there is no known rational justification at all, and take yourself to
be actually making a contribution. (Try to imagine your outrage if a
pharmaceutical company responded to your suit by blithely replying
"But we prayed good and hard for the success of the drug! What more
do you want?")
The best thing about saying THANK GOODNESS in place of THANK GOD is
that there really are lots of ways of repaying your debt to goodness
– by setting out to create more of it, for the benefit of those to
come. Goodness comes in many forms, not just medicine and science.
Thank goodness for the music of, say, Randy Newman, which could not
exist without all those wonderful pianos and recording studios, to
say nothing of the musical contributions of every great composer from
Bach through Wagner to Scott Joplin and the Beatles. Thank goodness
for fresh drinking water in the tap, and food on our table. Thank
goodness for fair elections and truthful journalism. If you want to
express your gratitude to goodness, you can plant a tree, feed an
orphan, buy books for schoolgirls in the Islamic world, or contribute
in thousands of other ways to the manifest improvement of life on
this planet now and in the near future.
Or you can thank God — but the very idea of repaying God is
ludicrous. What could an omniscient, omnipotent Being (the Man Who
has Everything?) do with any paltry repayments from you? (And
besides, according to the Christian tradition God has already
redeemed the debt for all time, by sacrificing his own son. Try to
repay that loan!) Yes, I know, those themes are not to be understood
LITERALLY; they are symbolic. I grant it, but then the idea that by
thanking God you are actually doing some good has got to be
understood to be just symbolic, too. I prefer real good to symbolic
good.
Still, I excuse those who pray for me. I see them as like tenacious
scientists who resist the evidence for theories they don't like long
after a graceful concession would have been the appropriate response.
I applaud you for your loyalty to your own position — but remember:
loyalty to tradition is not enough. You've got to keep asking
yourself: What if I'm wrong? In the long run, I think religious
people can be asked to live up to the same moral standards as secular
people in science and medicine.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — November 10, 2006 @ 9:06 pm
November 10th, 2006 at 10:48 pm
Huh. Didn't know he had a heart problem in the first place, or this "saved by the scar tissue" issue. So I didn't pray. Actually, I probably wouldn't have prayed for him if I had known. There are lots of people who want prayers - fwiw - and wouldn't berate or begrudge the sentiment.
Comment by Joy — November 10, 2006 @ 10:48 pm
November 10th, 2006 at 10:52 pm
LOL! The timing is remarkable. Praise Science.
Comment by MikeGene — November 10, 2006 @ 10:52 pm
November 10th, 2006 at 10:55 pm
While I have sometimes found myself disagreeing rather vehemently with Daniel Dennett, in this case I think he is absolutely right on. I had a somewhat similar experience last month - I was rushed to the hospital with my right ureter blocked by a HUGE kidney stone. It was extraordinarily painful, and was causing my right kidney to swell, and would probably have eventually caused it to die, with me following not long after. But, with the help of the ER staffs in two hospitals, an ambulance crew who drove me from the little town of Howell, Michigan to the University of Michigan Hospital, and my urologist and the surgical staff at my home hospital here in Ithaca, I am now much better. Anyway, while I lay there in a drug-induced haze (dilaudid, a morphine analog), I too mused on the question of prayer and the efficacy of religious belief versus "belief" in the protocols and practices of modern medicine (which is, of course, entirely based on the empirical sciences), and concluded just what Daniel Dennett did: that I would much rather have an atheist medical doctor, well trained in medical science, operating on me than a deeply religious person without such training.
Don't get me wrong: I don't begrudge religious believers their beliefs. But, if I had to make a choice and my life (or the life of someone I loved) were on the line, I would choose science every time. In other words, if it were a choice between a deeply religious but poorly trained doctor with a wonderful "bedside manner" who prayed for me and an atheist but highly trained doctor with the bedside manner of a Marine drill sargeant and who didn't pray for me, I would choose the latter every time.
So, would I appreciate anyone praying for me? I would of course appreciate the sentiment, but would not expect it to have any effect whatsoever on the outcome. Unlike science, prayer has no observable effect on the course of events in the real, physical world…which is, as far as I know, the only world there is.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — November 10, 2006 @ 10:55 pm
November 10th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
Professor MacNeill,
Perhaps you lay out a false dichotomy. Sure, good health is important. With that in mind, see http://www.thirdage.com/news/a...
"study by Dartmouth University researchers indicating that "deeply religious" heart patients are far less likely to die during surgery and a Yale University study showing that regular churchgoers' hospital stays are far fewer than those of individuals who never attend church."
Perhaps the misconception is viewing medicine much the way we view a fixing our automobile — a mere mechanical process. Easterners view health much as a garden, something to be nurtured. This is why focus on the body-mind-spirit connection is bearing fruit. Just as the Darwinian evolutionist views living organisms through a constrictive prism of materialism, so likewise does imagining that health is simply a matter of medical procedures. We must grow and move beyond this 19th century way of looking at the world.
Then you go on to say "You've got to keep asking
yourself: What if I'm wrong? In the long run, I think religious
people can be asked to live up to the same moral standards as secular
people in science and medicine." Wow, where do we even start with such a loaded statement?? As discussed endlessly, many of the greatest scientists and physicians in the world are and were religious. And who can judge that they do not live up to the same moral standards? What is the basis for your moral standards anyway? What you happen to believe they are? A bit presumptious, is it not?
OK, I accept your wager. I will ask myself "what if I am wrong". Under one condition — that you ask yourself the same question. If I am wrong — well, I will continue to live as I am, because to live for pleasure or ego or riches is empty, a chasing after the wind. But, if you are wrong and God exists and he rewards those who submit and believe and love him, hmmm. Where does that leave you? I am sorry to be so pointed, but, after all, you raised the challenge first, did you not?
Comment by Ekstasis — November 10, 2006 @ 10:56 pm
November 10th, 2006 at 11:02 pm
Professor MacNeill,
My apologies, my comments apply to Daniel C. Dennett, who you quoted, not yourself directly.
By the way, we miss your illustrious comments over at UD. Several people have wistfully raised your name, just sensing that something is lacking without your unique perspective.
Comment by Ekstasis — November 10, 2006 @ 11:02 pm
November 10th, 2006 at 11:31 pm
Dennett:
Did you notice that Dennett forgot to thank his insurance company? Take away their paychecks, and the surgeons, neurologists, anesthesiologists, perfusionist, the dozen or so physician assistants, nurses, physical therapists, x-ray technicians, the small army of phlebotomists, the people who brought the meals and so forth would care less about Dennett and his disease.
Think about the costs of medicine and technology, demographics, and societal trends, and I'd say that if Dennett went to the hospital with a life-threatening condition in the year 2050, there is a good chance that a scientific cost-benefit analysis would be run showing that he was too old or sick to merit access to such technology. The scientific analysis would instead mandate that he return home and access a less costly form of medical intervention and experience dignity. So yes, he should be thankful he lives in a society where the echoes of its religious past are still loud enough.
Comment by MikeGene — November 10, 2006 @ 11:31 pm
November 10th, 2006 at 11:32 pm
Ekstasis:
Pine no longer; I've posted a comment to the newest thread at UD, on the subject of "junk DNA." And surprise, it's not junk…not most of it, anyway (and maybe none of it). See:
http://www.uncommondescent.com...
and
http://evolutionlist.blogspot....
Enjoy!
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — November 10, 2006 @ 11:32 pm
November 11th, 2006 at 12:32 am
Allen MacNeill wrote:
Why the false dilemma?
As if there aren't deeply religious and HIGHLY TRAINED doctors? Or poorly trained, incompetent atheist doctors?
Comment by turandot — November 11, 2006 @ 12:32 am
November 11th, 2006 at 8:13 am
What strikes me personaly, is that atheists like Allen and Daniel take just about every opportunity to shout from the corners how "We atheists don't believe that there is any God to thank." Why is that, for you believe that God does not exist? Why don't you just get this idea of God out of your mind?
Comment by inunison — November 11, 2006 @ 8:13 am
November 11th, 2006 at 9:10 am
Because, oddly enough, I'm not an atheist. In fact, I have been a member of the Society of Friends for almost three decades, as well as a practicing Zen buddhist (rinzai; keep practicing long enough, and maybe I'll get it right ;-). Forced to choose, I would call myself an agnostic, in the way that Huxley and Russell defined that term. Anyone familiar with their definitions should know that this means I can either choose to "believe" or not…and I choose to do so, on the basis of experience.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — November 11, 2006 @ 9:10 am
November 11th, 2006 at 9:35 am
Ok Allen :grin:, you are practising Zen Buddhist and agnostic? Care to explain?
Comment by inunison — November 11, 2006 @ 9:35 am
November 11th, 2006 at 10:25 am
Professor MacNeill,
Very interesting. And what is wonderful is that you clearly genuinely pondered what to believe, and made it an individual choice, rather than blindly inheriting some cultural traditions.
Assuming that you "choose to believe" in regards to the Friends, which is presumably Christian in its beliefs, in addition to Zen, which is ambivalent in regards to whether God exists, you raise some great points.
The Christian faith contains two components. One is intellectual consent based on the evidence, e.g., nature of the cosmos, biblical archaelogy, documented prophecies and miracles in the bible that have been carefully recorded, and the changed lives of many of those who believe. This evidence is limited in the sense that it is non-repeatable and non-testable in regards to the scientific method. But then, so is our belief that Plato and Aristotle existed and said what they are credited for saying (their original manuscripts do not exist, as far as I am aware). And so is most historical records preceding photography, etc.
So, the decision whether to believe, or provide intellectual assent, is a decision and a commitment. In some sense it does not matter how we feel. Many believers have seasons of doubt, but they hang in there, and come through it stronger. I believe God does not condemn honest and sincere doubts and questions, but that is only my subjective opinion.
The second component is to live according to our beliefs, when risks abound, and we may pay a price. This component can be illustrated by the following. Imagine that a rope is suspended over Niagara Falls from one side to the other. A man claims he can ride from one side to the other, with someone riding in a basket on the front of the bicycle. He is reputed by credible witnesses to have accomplished the feat, but you have never seen it for yourself. Living your faith is like getting in that basket, with all you fears and doubts, and riding across the falls. And to make it more reflective of actual faith, many in the crowd will call you a fool.
Everyone must make a choice. Many choose intellectual consent, few actually live it fully.
Comment by Ekstasis — November 11, 2006 @ 10:25 am
November 11th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
Ekstasis:
You make some interesting points, which touch on much of what I help my students think about when helping them learn science. For example, would we believe in the teachings of Plato and Aristotle if they did not conform to what we know now, on the basis of direct experience? I think not. For example, we do not believe any longer that there is a deity named Zeus (or, if you prefer Latin, Jupiter), even though such a belief was common in Plato and Aristotle's day (and whom Plato probably believed in at some level). Why not, and why do we still agree with the principles of logic presented in Aristotle's Organon?
Because we can verify Aristotle's principles of logic today, but we have found no empirical evidence for the existence of Zeus/Jupiter, and lots of indirect evidence that such an entity cannot exist as a natural entity. I would argue that the same is true for the deity whose proper name is J*w*h (I can't get my keyboard to print Hebrew characters, but you get the idea). The same goes for miracles; no matter how carefully recorded, they constitute what in science is called "anecdotal evidence." That is, evidence that, while it may be empirical, is neither repeatable nor statistically testable. Interesting, even compelling perhaps, but not science.
In other words, if one is committed to the underlying logic of science, it is quite literally impossible to either prove or disprove anything. All we have is "best guesses" about the way nature works, where "guesses" mean hypotheses that have not yet been shown to be false on the basis of observable evidence. This means, of course, that there are huge areas of human knowledge that are entirely inaccessible to science. As just one example, it is impossible to empirically verify or falsify that the word "dog" has anything to do with the tetrapod vertebrate we classify as Canis familiaris. As Korbzybski pointed out, "the map is not the territory" and no furry, flea-scratching, stick-fetching entity is to be found in the letters d.o.g.
Or, to take another example I often use with my students, does the United States exist? Of course it does. Okay, so where does it exist? Is it a "natural entity" like a rock? And just as certainly the answer is that it exists only in the minds of people who believe in its existence (just like the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which stopped existing when its citizens stopped believing in it). Unlike a rock, the United States is not a natural entity at all, and shares no properties whatsoever with any empirically observable natural entity or process.
In my opinion, the underlying problem with "theistic science" and most forms of ID is that it confuses two incommensurable logical categories: those of natural entities, like rocks, and those of "imaginary" entities, like the United States. And (IMHO) like the law of gravity. Gravity exists, but the "law of gravity" is a human intellectual construction, similar to the "United States." And (IMHO) like J*w*h…
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — November 11, 2006 @ 12:15 pm
November 11th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
Inunison asked:
"…you are practising Zen Buddhist and agnostic? Care to explain?"
Don't mind at all. In Zen, one practices with a roshi (Japanese for "old man.") My roshi (in direct transmission from the Sixth patriarch, Hui Neng, who according to tradition was in direct transmission from Bodhidharma, and hence from Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, himself) was absolutely adimate that there is no deity in Buddhism at all. To quote just one koan-like saying, "when one has been shot with an arrow, one must remove the arrow; to speculate about the identity of the archer is pointless. My roshi was also adimate that there is no such thing as an immortal soul (a teaching in line with the basic Buddhist concept of anatman. Sanskrit for "no soul").
Zen is also empirical in practice. The roshi does not ask for explanations; the roshi says "show me the sound of one hand clapping" or (as Hui Neng demanded) "show me the face you had before your parents were born." And you must "spit forth truth" in one's actions, or the roshi will smack you upside the head. There is story after story about how a roshi sparks satori (or kensho in Japanese; what The Geijin call "enlightenment") by doing something (i.e. not saying something) and the unsui (what we incorrectly refer to as a monk) does something in return, something that indicates to the roshi that s/he has finally "received that which is transmitted" and so is ready to go on.
Or, to quote perhaps the most accurate description of the "heart" of Zen:
"A special transmission outside the scriptures
No dependence on words and letters
Direct pointing at the nature of reality
And attainment of enlightenment"
In my own practice, I received this teaching:
"The Way of Liberation is not limited
The Way of Liberation has no boundaries
Everyone and everything everywhere
Resonates within it endlessly
The Way of Liberation cannot be named
The Way of Liberation cannot even be described
It is always eternally everypresent
But it cannot be bought or stolen
The only entrance to the Way of Liberation
Is through That Which Is
Surrender yourself to That Which Is
And It shall set you free.
'Nuff said.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — November 11, 2006 @ 12:51 pm
November 11th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Turandot asked:
"Why the false dilemma?"
To illustrate that the real question is, does this person have a conception of medicine that is fully grounded in empirical science? Their beliefs about the existence of deities is completely irrelevant, as it is in science as well. It neither hinders nor helps them be a more effective practitioner of medicine. I was immensely impressed by the level of knowledge of the urologists and surgeons (and nurses and anesthesiologists, etc.) at both hospitals in which I was treated, and didn't even think to ask them if they were "good Christians" (or good Buddhists, or good pagans, or atheists for that matter). No matter what the answer, it would have been completely irrelevant to me (and to them).
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — November 11, 2006 @ 12:55 pm
November 11th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
Chuck Colson did and excellent Breakpoint regarding the election results. Some of you may find it of interest.
Comment by DonaldM — November 11, 2006 @ 1:46 pm
November 11th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
Thanks Donald M,
A good article. Colson states the problem very well, but I think he is going to be disappointed because conservatism is not only about perserving traditional morality, it's more. I believe that any group of religious people are ultimately going to be disappointed with any political party. No political party is inherently moral because of their philosophy. They are about achieving power, influencing legislation to their advantage of their patrons and enjoying the perks of winning. It's human nature. We have another example of that in the last election. Delay-Abramhoff-Foley. Evangelicals are going to have trouble with politics because it's not ultimately their mission. Some (Warren) seem to understand this. Others (Falwell, Dobson do not).
Comment by bj — November 11, 2006 @ 2:25 pm
November 11th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Allen,
"Anyway, while I lay there in a drug-induced haze (dilaudid, a morphine analog), I too mused on the question of prayer and the efficacy of religious belief versus "belief" in the protocols and practices of modern medicine (which is, of course, entirely based on the empirical sciences), and concluded just what Daniel Dennett did: that I would much rather have an atheist medical doctor, well trained in medical science, operating on me than a deeply religious person without such training."
I know someone, personally, who was bedridden for years with a progressive paralysis, but who was completely healed, apparently overnight, after she cried out to God to either "take" her (to Heaven, by dying) or to heal her (specifically, to take away an odd "tingling" or "itching" sensation that cropped up that night). When I first met her sometime around 1990, she could walk, and the primary "symptom" of her disease that was noticeable was that she had to have one of her arms in a sling. By the time I left her husband's employ roughly two years later, she was almost constantly bedridden (I'm not sure if she could walk at that point, but I don't think so).
In late 1992, after having been reading the Gospels carefully for some time, I felt convinced that God's will/desire was to have Christians, generally, be free of physical illness and affliction - I felt the Gospel accounts of Jesus' "treatment" of the sick indicated that His will for Christians was to be healthy and physically well. I also felt moved to share this "insight" with the lady I knew who was paralyzed. However, she attended a strict, fundamentalist Baptist church, which taught that the "gifts of the Spirit" (healing, prophecy, miracles, etc.) had ceased with the completion of the Bible, and which tended to view illnesses and such as opportunities for God to gain "glory" from the patient suffering of Christians so afflicted - this was how she viewed herself in relation to God and her disease. She felt God was being glorified through her "endurance" of her illness. I felt the Bible, the Gospels in particular, taught otherwise - I felt the Bible taught that God received glory through His delivering people from their illnesses and physical suffering.
Anyway, I felt so convicted of this truth that I, against my own normal desire (I felt intimidated by her and her husband [they tended to be a bit judgmental]), went to visit her at her home to talk to her about this (again, this was late 1992 [if I am remembering correctly - I could be off by a few months]). She was still bedridden, and after some non-specific conversation, I directly told her (and I quote): "You know, God would heal you if you wanted". (I had been under the distinct impression that she enjoyed, even if subconsciously, the attention her illness brought her, especially the attention of her husband, who tended to be rather cold and unemotional. I was also moved by the thought of how her being healed would alleviate what I viewed as an unnecessary burden upon a relatively young [in their early thirties] couple [who had no children]. ) I had never mentioned her husband to her, nor what I thought about how her illness affected her relationship with him, but she responded, with a hint of fear (almost): "—– and I are happy in our relationship". Shortly after, I left, and did not see, talk with, or hear from her or her husband for a number of years.
In October of 1995, though, there was an article in the front page of The Elkhart Truth newspaper (I lived, and live, in Elkhart, and she and her husband lived on the outskirts of Elkhart [Elkhart being in northern Indiana]) describing her apparently miraculous healing. Her healing had occurred roughly three weeks prior to the publishing of the article, when, one night, she began having strange sensations (like "tingling", I believe) in her arms or extremities, and those sensations got so bad, given her continuing paralysis and thus inability to scratch or alleviate the sensations, that she cried out to God for death or healing. In the morning, she found she had regained complete mobility, and began walking and moving about, without any signs of paralysis or having been paralyzed. (Note that over the years prior, she had seen numerous specialists, and that she had been under the care of a local physician for a number of years, and that her physician stated that she had a disease similar to multiple sclerosis [I believe], and that, unlike some cancer cases going into spontaneous remission, nerves do not spontaneously grow back, least of all in as short a period as overnight.)
"All the king's horses, and all the king's men, couldn't put Humpty Dumpty together again." Their PhDs didn't help, nor did their evolutionary "insights", in healing her. And they didn't pretend that they could. (I'm pretty sure they wouldn't pretend to be able to treat such diseases even today.) Note, as well, how inexpensive her healing was. In the great big, wide world, to whom should people generally look for healing? Highly educated, expensive, mostly unavailable, most often ineffective against most diseases, scientists and physicians, or the free, always available, always effective against all diseases, "services" of the Most High God? (Note that this "quandary" does not suggest or imply that God cannot or will not use highly educated scientists and physicians to alleviate at least some physical ailments - it's just meant to show that they aren't necessary, and in fact are most often quite unable to meet people's needs.)
Comment by Douglas — November 11, 2006 @ 4:22 pm
November 11th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Well, as might be expected by my shipmates around here [Aaaarrr, Matey!], I think it was a gigantic screw-up of SOP and Business-As-Usual for the smoke-filled backroom crowd. Who never once considered that the American people - as in "We The" - might not dance to their ugly, dissonant tune. Bwahahahaha!!!!!
Can you tell I think this is a major sea-change, landlubbers?
It's so darned easy to get jaded. Especially if you happen to work in politics and/or journalism. As I did until my late, great 'retirement', after I first retired from physics due to disgust at the SOP Business-As-Usual smoke-filled backrooms of science.
In this cycle We the People just went through, underneath and around The Establishment (in which both parties look and act exactly alike), we won anyway. While The Establishment was focused on their few chosen races-of-issue (one side prepared to lose by a slim margin, the other prepared to win by a slim margin and induct new members to the cigar crowd), the rest of us went with the infamous "50-State Strategy" so eschewed by Establishment types. They honestly never saw us coming… but then again, they weren't looking for us, were they?
And still, 4 days later, don't know what in the world to think/say about it. Hahahaha!!!!!
I just love it when things so uber-important to somebody's dirty, sneaky game plan go haywire! Guess I never did grow out of my rebellious stage, eh? §;o)
Comment by Joy — November 11, 2006 @ 4:59 pm
November 11th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
Yes, Joy,
The recent election demonstrates the wisdom of the founders of this country, who had a hopeful but realistic understanding of human nature. They knew things would go off the rail because of the temptations of power acting on our imperfect nature. They gave the people the ability to shake things up, which is the equivalent of knocking someone upside the head. That is what has just happened. The President looks dazed. The Democrats look careful. Just what happens when you have a blow to the governmental body. This, at least, slows the process of corruption down. And, who knows, also gives the better angels of our nature a little breathing room. Hoping for better times.
Comment by bj — November 11, 2006 @ 5:32 pm
November 11th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
Oh, not to worry, bj. The "ins" will soon be as corrupt as the "outs," as is the way of things political. It's just good to see a Big Monkey Wrench tossed into the works every once in a long while by We the People.
Things had just gone so far over-the-top-ugly. Guess I don't have to explain why when GWB or Dick Cheney (or any of their drawf minions) call me a traitor, I get PO'd. I've taken my oaths seriously. And my neighbors are NOT al Queda. In fact, this crowd invented al Queda, and empowered Osama bin Laden. Who do they think they've fooled, once we could sneak up on the election process and bypass both Diebold and the USSC?
It makes me happy. Though I'm less than hopeful for anything but the short term. Politics is always about the short term, and individual human beings' power in the material world. They die off eventually, though not as fast as the fine young men and women they use as cannon fodder in their dirty little (or big) wars…
Today is Veteran's Day. 11-11, not 9-11. We've much to thank them (us?) for. I'm making candlelight nice for my veteran. What are YOU doing for yours? §;o)
Comment by Joy — November 11, 2006 @ 6:00 pm
November 11th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
Here's my own take on the elections, courtesy only of myself, and not necessarily representative of my fellow Telicians.
It seems like the libertarian swing vote played a major factor in the election, as the Republicans were punished for their lawish spending (see the before and after analyses, with some icing here).
The Democrats will face a tough choice: Should they follow their base, who want them to do things like raising taxes as well as the minimum wage? This will serve Republicans their 2008 platform on a silver platter, as their candidate can appeal to those libertarian voters by stressing the need for a conservative president to reign in the Democrats. Or do they spend the next two years playing centrists, incurring even more anger from their grassroots about the "spineless dems" in D.C.?
Comment by Krauze — November 11, 2006 @ 6:17 pm
November 11th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
Joy,
How strangely poignant that just a few days after the election, it is Veterans Day. The great sadness of Iraq is just as you mention, our young men and women, those who have lost their lives and others whose bodies have been changed forever due to injury. You don't hear the wounded numbers mentioned so often-21,000?
I hope that wisdom can prevail and we can remove them from harm's way as soon as possible. That phrase, "in harms way." It evokes the need for such careful wisdom when we put our greatest blessing at risk-our young, the future.
Comment by bj — November 11, 2006 @ 6:42 pm
November 11th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
The veterans in my household are here, now. A couple of trifolds on the mantle, some medals on the wall, some dear friends and re-connects from more than three decades ago brought back together on Veteran's Day just a couple of years ago when it became obvious to us no-longer-reserve that something very, very wrong was afoot.
Others who are not yet veterans in our household (or their own, since they're married-with-children now) are still in harm's way. They wanted to do the "right thing," and have a chance at life they couldn't otherwise afford. I've adopted a few, but I'm no wealthier in a financial sense for it or I'd have paid their way past patriotism. Still, a little patriotism is good, even when it hurts.
One will be here for Thanksgiving with wife and son, God willing. Haven't heard if he's really home yet (it's been put off twice). They're lucky - we've generals and captains and colonels and admirals in the family, they don't have to dance on the front lines. I'm sure not sorry for that, you do what you can.
Liberals have used the term "Chicken Hawk" to describe those who send this generation's poor to war, when they got out of service themselves for everything from "too busy" to boils on their butts. I'm personally hoping a general will run in '08, junior or senior. We'll need the wisdom.
Nobody hates war more than warriors.
Comment by Joy — November 11, 2006 @ 7:43 pm
November 11th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
That's interesting, Joy. I was thinking the same thing the other day. We need someone who understands war in the White House because they have been in it, and will avoid it unless it's absolutely necessary. We live in dangerous times. We need just the right person.
Any suggestions?
Comment by bj — November 11, 2006 @ 8:01 pm
November 11th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
If you'll pardon the pun, but I think a case could be made that the democrats are in a no win situation, even though they just won the House and Senate. In politics its never good to peak too soon. By winning in '06, they've made it really difficult to win in '08. Pelosi is on a tightrope here. Her own liberalism is at great odds with the moderate to conservative mood throughout the country. Many of the new dems in the House ran as conservatives, especially those from the South. However, the entire new leadership coming into power in the House are the most liberal in D.C. Pelosi, Rangel, Conyers, Murtha, Waxman, et.al. The Senate isn't in much better shape.
But, the election was most definitely not a mandate for liberalism. The Republicans were defeated, but not conserativism. So, what will the new leadership do? Can they pull back from their inehrent liberalism and truly work together as all the post-election rhetoric would suggest? Or will they assert their power and be who they truly are?
Further complicating matters will be the desire for retribution after 12 years of exile from leadership. Commentator Dick Morris thinks supeonas are going to by flying like confetti as the dems will want to invesigate every aspect of the Bush adminstration. But is that what the voters wanted…to see 2 years of rancor and hearings? Even if there may by one or two legitmate scandels lurking in the closet, most of what turns up won't be, but the dems and the media will try to make it look that way.
That won't play very well with the voters either.
Then, there's a real possibility that new conservative leadership will assert itself (ie. Mike Spence of Indiana, Trent Lott etc) There's a good possibility that they might reach across the aisle to the new conservative dems and still get their legislative agenda passed, putting those dems in dutch with Pelosi and company.
And, you can be sure that the true conservatives in the Republican party will assert themselves and take the party back.
This could turn out to be a 2 year hic-cup for the Repulicans and they could regain their majorities in '08 with new leadership and a new vision for future. None of that would be good for the dems.
Whatever happens, the next 2 years will be fun to watch. The only thing I'm sure of in al this is that liberalism itself, except for some bluer than blue pockets here and there around the country, is pretty much a thing of the past. Americans will not abide expanding government, raising taxes, and all the rest.
All of this and $1.80 will get you a tall Starbucks.
Comment by DonaldM — November 11, 2006 @ 10:33 pm
November 12th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
Hi Donald,
"This could turn out to be a 2 year hic-cup for the Repulicans and they could regain their majorities in '08 with new leadership and a new vision for future. None of that would be good for the dems."
Nor would it be good for the country, I might add. The problem with the Republicans was that they lacked opposition and could therefore dole out as much pork as they wanted, causing those huge deficits.
The best thing would be a divided government, with two parties holding each other's reigns. Ed Brayton has a good post about it here
Interestingly, a majority of voters also support a divided government.
Comment by Krauze — November 12, 2006 @ 12:02 pm
November 12th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
Interesting how after I post my account of a miraculous healing, in response to Allen MacNeill's posts regarding science and prayer, joy and others immediately shift the topic away, to politics. (Not that doing so is off-topic for this thread, I now note - just a jarring change of course, "mid-stream".)
Comment by Douglas — November 12, 2006 @ 12:33 pm
November 12th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
Hi Douglas,
Actually, the thread starting out being about politics.
Comment by Krauze — November 12, 2006 @ 12:45 pm
November 12th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
Yes, Douglas, it was Allen who took the topic in another direction from the original topic. I was enjoying the topic and thought, "what's this got to do with it, when Allen posted?" You took it further afield. I really wasn't interested in discussing either Dennet's musings or faith healing, although both might be interesting in threads dedicated to such. But, I think it was Allen and you who took the topic in another direction. The redirection back to the original topic wasn't conspiratorial.
Comment by bj — November 12, 2006 @ 1:16 pm
November 12th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
I am in agreement with Douglas, I'm suffering from mental whiplash
here, the change was rather abrupt
Anyway, seeing as it is an open thread…breifly put, Douglas was spot on in what he said in his comment, Mr. Dennet as posted by Allen MacNeil waaaaay back at the top of the page is fairly typical imo in how he characterizes religion (bit of persecution complex here, religion seems to mean christianity to me) For christians, go read your bible, how many times does it say or even merely imply that you as christians are not to blindly accept the witness of the apostles but are to actually look for what evidence and or proof you can find for the veracity of their words…my reading and study of the bible tells me that christians who operate in blind ignorant faith as the norm, are in fact in error, aka sin…
Ok, said m'bit, shuttin up now
Comment by carbon14atom — November 12, 2006 @ 1:31 pm
November 12th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
DonaldM:
Well, given the numbers, it's more of a mandate than Bush got in 2000 or 2004, fwiw. Republicans were defeated by their own corruption and totalitarian tendencies. There's a reason for checks and balances, and nobody's been exercising those for the last 6 years. The people want it exercised.
No political party can cure everything that ails government, or even accomplish everything on its wish list. But there are things the people want done, which the new Congress must tackle asap. If things remain the same or get worse (McCain and Lieberman are calling for MORE troops, which will mean a draft), the people will just have to call the whole thing off. They don't have to hit the streets (even though there's not enough troops left to shoot 'em all) - they can just stay home with the kids for awhile and bring America to a grinding halt. General strikes work pretty well.
Comment by Joy — November 12, 2006 @ 3:00 pm
November 12th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Iraq.
Lots of things can be done about the quagmire in Iraq once everyone can be made to understand that Iraqis aren't generally as short of IQ as our current administration is. First and foremost they need to be given an ultimatum - we're leaving and we aren't going to pay their graft anymore. At that point, they'll get their act together or finish their civil war and split into three different nations. We never could have stopped their civil war anyway if they were determined to have one. We've got no real business trying.
Pull the AD troops back to Kuwait and the Navy back to Dubai to contain things, send the Guard and Reserves home. Spend some of the ~100 billion a year we've been funneling to Haliburton, et. al. to give those troops proper body armor and vehicles, replenish Guard equipment here in the states, and implement the 9-11 Commission recommendations for homeland security.
Send Bolton into retirement with Heckuva Job Rummy (and hopefully Deadeye Dick too) and appoint a decent UN ambassador - I'd suggest Bill Clinton. Appeal to the Security Council for money and peacekeepers to augment our troops remaining in the Gulf, thereby making the inevitable humanitarian crisis of Iraq's civil war a multinational concern.
Comment by Joy — November 12, 2006 @ 3:04 pm
November 12th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
Accountability, National Security, Economy, Health Care, Energy.
One of the very first orders of business will be to pass legislation outlawing Bush's "signing statements" and rolling back his abuses of power - restore Habeas Corpus and the rule of law, and the first, fourth and fourteenth amendments. Restore Geneva protections, outlaw torture, kidnapping, rendition, and provide access to the courts.
Who in the administration committed treason by shutting down the CIA's WMD counterproliferation operations in the Middle East so they could launch an illegal war of aggression? Congress should find out. Mister Death Squad (Negroponte) should be removed from duty post haste, FEMA should be taken out of HSD, and real border security (north and south and airports and ports) should be funded and implemented immediately. Pork should be trimmed to the bone and first responders should be trained and funded.
Take the country out of hock to China. If this means rolling back tax cuts (capital gains, income, estate) for the richest 1% of the population, that's fine with me. Some of you may pay less taxes now, but I'm paying MORE because I'm not rich. And if you die with more than 10 million in assets, I don't mind if your kids pay taxes on the excess. Tax corporate profits and extend tax breaks for tuition, restoration of low-interest student loans, and reinstatement of veteran's benefits. Regulate off-shore and multinational corporations and banks, make them pay for the privilege of doing business here. Make corporations pay directly for retraining and/or placement for every citizen who loses their job to outsourcing. And I don't mean placement of workforce veterans at McDonald's or Walmart. Tax businesses on a per-employee basis for health care, just as we do for unemployment, and remove the income cap on SS - tax all earned income (something the middle class has been living with all along).
Health Care. Roll back Part D and let the pharmaceutical gigacorps have to negotiate a fair price for drugs. Increase funding to Medicare, and investigate the hell out of the insurance industry for their nasty futures market in human suffering. Establish a single-payer system for basic health care.
If we're not shifting 100 billion a year to George Bush's crooked cronies, we could put that money elsewhere. Even better, we could restore the windfall profits tax on energy, reinvest in infrastructure, safety and alternatives. We could require GM to deploy its new diesel engine for passenger vehicles next year (they're already tooled-up). Then make 'em use biodiesel. Biodiesel should also be running every diesel generator, transport ship, semi truck, farm diesel, and railroad engine. Bioplastics should be fully developed immediately, along with biofiber textiles.
Investing in all this will transform agriculture, help farmers, re-employ thousands of recently outsourced textile workers, reduce greenhouse emissions, and cut petroleum consumption by at least 50% within 5 years as we increase the bio portion steadily via agricultural realignment. Instead of making ourselves obese with corn sweeteners in everything (or letting it rot in silos), we could be growing soybeans and oilseed for energy.
Enforce the law on all energy and chemical production facilities. Scrubbers for coal and charcoal filters for chemical facilities, actual security for nuclear plants. Invest now to redesign "the grid" - and put the lines underground. Contain oil and gas pipelines. Enforce OSHA, USDA requirements and mine safety laws.
Will all this get done in the next 2 years? Of course not. But a good chunk of it could be started, and the policies could be put into place. That would be a clear mandate for '08. For whoever wins the dubious honor of administrator - Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, Green or "Other."
Comment by Joy — November 12, 2006 @ 3:14 pm
November 12th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Hi Joy,
"Well, given the numbers, it's more of a mandate than Bush got in 2000 or 2004, fwiw."
It's not a question of numbers. Many voters cast their lot with the Democrats, not because they were particular fond of their politics, but simply because they were tired of how the Republicans were running things and wanted a divided government. As John Lewis wrote under the heading, "Why I Will Not Vote for Any Republican":
In particular, Democrats thinking they now have a "mandate" for repealing Bush's tax cuts should first take a look at this.
"Republicans were defeated by their own corruption and totalitarian tendencies."
Agreed. The promise to take over Washington and "clean up the swamp" turned out to be only so much hot air.
Iraq: It's not a topic I feel strongly for, either way. So I'll only make this comment: It's good to see that the critics have now been given a chance to grab the wheel, translating their many criticisms into actual policy. It'll be interesting to see the course of action they take.
Comment by Krauze — November 12, 2006 @ 3:41 pm
November 12th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
Wow, what a different kind of thread. But, it does speak to the fact that ID is interesting, but what goes on in our government affects all of our lives at a very basic level. I just finished a book about the culture of corruption between the politicians (mainly Republicans) and K street lobbyists. Pretty eye-opening. It's not as if the Democrats aren't guilty of the same things.
I am seeing a desire in the country to get away from the extremes of both right and left. I see movement to the center-a place where the basic needs of most middle-class Americans can be met-health care, education, job creation rather the job outsourcing, manufacturing and a sensible foreign policy which protects the country but doesn't think we are the saviours of the world. Strangely, these concerns were the strengths of the old Democratic Party-the one of my youth. Helping the middle class and strong on defense. Nancy Pelosi has one tough job on her hands. If she moves left, she will fail, in my opinion. Find the center.
Comment by bj — November 12, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
November 12th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
Krauze:
Well, to tell the truth, the top 1-2% of the population is only 1-2% of the population no matter how you slice it. The Republicans outspent Democrats by millions in almost every race this cycle and lost anyway, so pouring money into the process to buy more influence than a vanishing minority deserves in a democratic system won't necessarily work.
You can only redistribute the wealth so far and no further. Then there's nothing left to steal. The once-middle class majority is now universally within an accident or illness from bankruptcy. If they were allowed to declare it, which they no longer are. Still, you can't bleed money from the pennyless. The rich can still obtain indentured servants from Mexico &south to raise their children and tend their pools and lawns, as they always have. You don't really think it's rich corporate America who wants border fences, do you?
But they can't get enough money to pay the country's bills from those with no jobs and no money and no health care and no hope. It's just not there.
Donald's post set me thinking about what could be done if we had the will, but I'm not dumb enough to believe we do. Or that the new politicians aren't just as enthralled by greed and power as the old ones. Divided government is good for keeping it fairly powerless, which is the best anyone can hope for in reality.
We won't change our energy consumption habits until the oil runs out or reaches $20 a gallon (within 5 years, I predict). Even though we could change things almost overnight with current technology, while addressing several other pressing issues at the same time. Unlike every other democracy on the planet, we will not offer health care to all citizens. Ever. And as our cities rot and our home-grown population dwindles by cold-blooded genocidal attrition, nothing newer and better will be built. The grid will fail (also within 5 years by my prediction), and even the rich will freeze in the dark.
At least we won't have to worry about al Queda anymore. Not even they would consider us worth attacking.
But I can dream about restoring the once great hope of the world, can't I? §;o(
Comment by Joy — November 12, 2006 @ 4:51 pm
November 12th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
Krauze,
Agreed. I'm pretty strongly conservative, but I was rather happy to see the Republicans get spanked, truth be told. They needed a reminder that they were elected to do something, and that the same hands that put them in could take them out. They were complacent, lazy, and weak, and managed to accomplish shockingly little of merit in four straight years of holding all the cards. I would've strongly considered not voting, or even voting Democrat (depending on the situation) if I didn't happen to like the particular Republican that was running for Senate in my state (Michael Steele) so much.
As an aside, why do people keep talking about "repealing" the tax cuts, as if they were only provisional or something? It was just like any other change to our tax laws over the nation's history. I kind of resent this unspoken idea that it's somehow the natural order of things for the government to take more of our money than they do, and that any relief we get from it is just temporarily on loan.
Comment by Deuce — November 12, 2006 @ 5:25 pm
November 12th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
The cuts were temporary (sunsetted) as enacted, Deuce. Because even the Republicans understood that breaking the bank wasn't going to work long term. Just a way to cash in chips for as long as the public was willing to morgage its children's futures to China. THAT wasn't going to last forever, and they knew it.
Comment by Joy — November 12, 2006 @ 5:36 pm
November 12th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
The issue with tax cuts is that we are running deficits. Only two ways to deal with that. Increase revenues or cut spending. Everyone says, cut spending, until the programs that benefit us are on the chopping block. Then, you hear the screams. It's not as easy as it seems.
Comment by bj — November 12, 2006 @ 5:52 pm
November 12th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
bj: "It's not as if the Democrats aren't guilty of the same things."
And therein squats the toad! The appropriate reaction to the ruling party's corruption isn't to stuff government with the opposing party, since they will just turn around and do the exact same thing. Instead, work to create a balance between two parties that hate each other, making sure that none of them have the power to stuff their own pockets with the taxpayers' money.
Deuce: I had you pegged as a conservative as well, mostly due to stereotypes about WASPs. I myself belong in the libertarian camp, which means that I have common causes with both you and Joy - that, or you both hate my guts.
BTW, I also heard good things about Steele, and would probably have voted for him as well, had I had the chance. No sense in punishing someone for the stupidity of others.
Joy: Sunsetting is a perfectly reasonable measure to prevent mission creep, and should be supported whether you agree with the people in control or not.
Comment by Krauze — November 12, 2006 @ 6:07 pm
November 12th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
Well, that 15% theocratic "base" isn't exactly fond of rendering unto Caesar. All of it's just paper (like our Constitution, Bush tells us). Unless it's less than that - mere electrons, zeros and ones.
Comment by Joy — November 12, 2006 @ 6:13 pm
November 12th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
Krauze, there's never been any real reason to sunset tax laws, since those can be changed every year at the will of various House and Senate committees. These were sunsetted because they intended to keep the tax on >$10 million estates, capital gains, windfall profits, etc. They just wanted to exempt themselves for long enough to cash in their chits, then stick the next generation with the tab.
Comment by Joy — November 12, 2006 @ 6:18 pm
November 13th, 2006 at 10:41 am
Hi Krauze,
I predict that things are going to get worse in Iraq, and in 2008 the GOP will try to blame the Democrats for it, even though it is the incompetence of the current administration which created that mess and left us with no good options at this point. So for the Democrats, the politically expedient thing to do would be to go to Bush ask him what he needs to win the war in Iraq, and give it to him, so that the responsibility for the growing disaster there remains fixed firmly where it belongs, with Mr. Bush. Every indication, however, is that the Democrats will take their responsibilities seriously and try to extricate us from Iraq as quickly as possible. I think the voters will remember it was the GOP who landed us in that quagmire in the first place, and won't buy their "stab in the back" theory when they trot it out in 2008.
Comment by Aagcobb — November 13, 2006 @ 10:41 am
November 13th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
I wasn't implying there was no mandate about anything in this election, just that is wasn't a mandate for liberalism. Conservatism (as opposed to merely Repulicanism) is alive and well and still in the majority in the House, if you include the 50 or so blue dog democrats who are by and large conservative democrats. The same appaears to true in the House.
I'm not so sure I'm agreement with those who want a divided government. The checks and balances of our system do not divide along party lines but along functional lines: legislative, judicial and administrative. Our Founders thought it wise to let the voters decide whether or not one party ought to have control of both administrative and legislative function. The Judicial should always be above party politics.
One thing I would like to see is repeal of the 17th amendment. I believe we made a huge mistake in allowing direct election of Senators. That really defeats the constitutional purpose of having the Senate in the first place. Let the legislatures of each state appoint their Senators. ALso, there is some case to be made as to whether or not the 17th amendment was ever properly ratified. I haven't investigated that enough to have an opinion on it. But, I do think that our system of checks and balances would be much stronger if each State's legislature chose their Senators. It would strengthen our Federalist system, I think.
Comment by DonaldM — November 13, 2006 @ 2:52 pm
November 13th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Interesting stuff:
Comment by Krauze — November 13, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
November 13th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
Hi Krauze,
There's no doubt that the country has a conservative bend right now. And the answer to that question is instructive. But, I still wonder what will happen when real cuts to real life programs like Social Security and Medicare are suggested. I wonder if "we the people" will behave consisently with how we answer polls. Answering polls is easy, living with reduced benefits is another matter. Part of the problem is that congresspersons live in a catch 22. Everyone loves it when they cut taxes, but when they cut benefits the opposing party campaigns against them for such. So, there is a bias toward growing benefits, lowering taxes and being unable to deal with a government that is spending far more that it's taking in. Solving this problem is going to be a bear. Establish a commission and let James Baker deal with it.
Comment by bj — November 13, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
November 13th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
Spending is the primary aspect of the national budget that can be tinkered with - for better or worse. IMO, the cuts in vital social programs have been drastic and harmful, while expanded spending in highly questionable areas is plain old graft.
Vital programs generally come under two headings. National Security and infrastructure; public education, health and welfare. Public safety falls somewhere in between the two divisions, to include transportation, food, drugs, medicine and environmental regulation.
Cut the waste, stop "privatizing" the government, end corporate welfare and no-bid contracts, re-write agricultural policy, close tax loopholes, don't let lobbyists or gigacorps write legislation, rearrange priorities, stop funding pork, enforce the laws.
I've a rich friend in south Florida who has purchased a large block of land and wants to develop it in a way that will entitle him to subsidized offset as well as tax breaks on the investment and the land. He's partial to going with some form of energy production. We've been looking at available infrastructure (roads, water availability, railroads) and regulatory restrictions to decide if he should go with ethanol, biodiesel or methane (solid waste-to-energy). I'm partial to biodiesel.
When the rich are not "idle" with their wealth, they are a great asset to our nation and should be encouraged to keep it up. It's a good use of tax money to invest in such useful things. To be repaid over time from the taxes paid on net corporate profit and on income by the people who get good jobs at the facility, the success of farmers everywhere no longer on the ag dole for growing (or not growing) crops that rot in fields and silos, and the good national security and environmental results of reduced dependence on petroleum-based energy.
Tax breaks on "idle" money (hoarded offshore, willed to idle offspring or playing the futures markets in oil, war and human suffering) are counterproductive. Tax breaks for real investment in jobs and the future of our nation is a wonderful idea. It puts the money back in circulation, thus doesn't contribute to wealth redistribution to the top end. And it comes back to the government AS investment income long-term.
Comment by Joy — November 13, 2006 @ 5:42 pm
November 13th, 2006 at 7:38 pm
Joy,
This sounds like a plan.
Comment by bj — November 13, 2006 @ 7:38 pm
November 14th, 2006 at 11:42 am
Joy
I agree with you totally that tax breaks on real investment, job creation and the like is necessary for long term growth of the economy. I disagree with you in lumping inheritance in with other forms of investment. Inheritance on confiscatory from the get go. The fact is that every dollar of inherited wealth represents the remainder of ownership after taxes were already paid during the lifetime of the deceased. It makes not one whit of sense that just because a person dies, the government is suddently "entitled" to consfiscate X% of the value of that person's property. If it would be considered givernment confiscation of property before death, why would it be any different the day after death? I no of no good reason why the government is "entitled" to a person's wealth just because they've died.
You allusion to "idle" heirs doesn't mean much either. To me that sounds like saying that just because a particular heir might squander or waste their inheritance, the governement has the right to step in and confiscate a certain percent to prevent total wastage. Fortunately, there's no law against squandering wealth. People do it all the time. It might stupid, but there's no law against that either!
Now, taxing short term gains on futures trades and all that…sure. That's already treated as ordinary income anyway. The tax break occurs for long term gains representing long term investment. But I'm not sure I agree with you that futures investment is "idle" money. Without those speculators, prices on practically everything could be much more easily manipulated. They (the speculators) are a stabalizing force in the markets.
Thier capital is 100% at risk everytime they enter a trade, because there are no guarantees at all that they are on the right side of the market. Without them, for example, farmers would be the ones to take the brunt of the risk on crop prices at harvest time. Instead, they can, through judicious use of futures contracts, mitigate a lot of that risk by passing it on to the speculators, thereby locking in their profits for the season and keeping the price you pay for, say, cornflakes, at a more reasonable level then if the risk were wide open all the time.
This is why tax policy is always a tradeoff between the governments right to capture certain forms of income or wealth for the common good and leaving as much wealth in the hands of those who earned it to plow back into the economy in a myriad of ways thus stabalzing prices, creating jobs, and keeping wealth in circulation. When push comes to shove, I believe the people, rather than the government, are far better at making wise decisions about where and how to spend the people's money!
Comment by DonaldM — November 14, 2006 @ 11:42 am
November 14th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
Well, I'm not an economist (or even a CPA), so I'm sure there's gray areas all over the place that need attention. But if your kids stand to inherit 12 million dollars when you die, I have no problem whatsoever with your estate paying taxes on 2 million of it before it gets divvied. They'll all come out ahead anyway, so I won't feel the least bit sorry for them.
As for farmers, they haven't been asked or expected to take real losses on commodity prices for a long time - we have direct ag subsidies to pay them for growing (or not) what ends up rotting because nobody eats it. This is a hefty issue with me, and the huge majority of subsidies go to ADM/Monsanto's gigafarmers (what REALLY keeps prices depressed), not Mom and Pop. I live in what used to be the nation's tobacco-basket, and these farmers actually ARE Mom and Pop - the bases are very seldom more than 40 acres. The government bought their bases back (at 19th century prices), and that was that.
Many sold out to developers (gated communities for rich retiring boomers), many others have used their heads as well as their skills and gone either organic truck or pharma/industrial (quite a bit of it in tobacco, which they already know how to grow). They're making more money now than before, and NOT getting ag subsidies to grow garbage (or not). If left to themselves, farmers will grow what sells for the best price. If we don't want them growing… erm… hemp, they need alternative cash crops and the freedom to grow them.
Profits taken on long or short term investments should be taxed as capital gains and/or income. Investment is all about growing money, and there's nothing wrong with a percentage of that growth going to the public pool. You still get richer. My Florida friend very much expects his wealth to grow over the lifetime of his investment in the project I described. He's putting his wealth to work directly, not hiding it in Switzerland or Aruba or gambling it away to the Wall Street mob (he's got other money there). He will not just get the tax breaks on the land and facilities and infrastructure to amortize over a number of years, those breaks will serve to lower his general tax bill on other wealth over the same amount of time. That's great!
But when he cashes in somewhere down the road (the facility is purchased by some oil or utility conglomerate at a hefty profit), I don't mind one bit that he should pay capital gains tax on that profit. He's still a richer man for the effort.
I pay way more of a percentage of meager income in taxes - income (state and federal), SS, unemployment, Medicaid, education, property, gasoline, etc. - than rich people do. So it's a little unreasonable for people with four houses, six vehicles (uaually a Hummer among them), fancy glass buildings downtown and thousands of acres in Paraguay or Costa Rica to whine to me about paying a "fair share" to the common pool. I don't feel sorry for 'em.
That said, spend your wealth wherever you like. Just don't ask me to cry if you pay gains taxes on your profits, sales taxes on your yachts and Hummers, property and education taxes on your houses and condominiums, capital gains taxes on your market lottery winnings, income taxes on your trust fund, or estate taxes on the gold you can't take with you when you go.
The idea that the rich owe this nation at least as much as the poor and middle classes doesn't make me sad at all.
Comment by Joy — November 14, 2006 @ 1:09 pm
November 14th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
But that's really not the issue, Joy. Whether the estate in $5,000,000 or $500,000,000, any confiscation by the government in the form of inheritance taxes is flat out government theft as far as I'm concerned.
If the government has no right to that property in life, they certainly have no right to it in death. Furthermore, there are many cases where the inheritance tax causes all sorts of hardships on the hiers because the bulk of the wealth isn't in liquid assets. I know of a family that was forced to sell a long standing family business, started by their father, because nearly all the estate was the value of the business of which the father was the sole owner. But the gov't needed its pound of flesh and the sons had to sell the business and lay off employees to pay the tab. I'll admit the father might have done a better job of estate planning, but in another sense why should he have to? Why should he not be able to pass his business on to his sons to take over when he died without government interference? The answer is, of course he should be able to. I've long advocated for repeal of all inheritence taxes, period.
I seriously doubt that you pay more. That's not borne out by the numbers.
Acc