I've been in a foul mood of late. The reason is that I've been listening to secular progressive podcasts like LogicallyCritical and Point of Inquiry. In both cases, the wanks in charge of the podcasts systematically undermine the foundations of discourse and reason while repeating the mantra that they are the defenders of reason. For example, Paul Kurtz of Point of Inquiry refers several times to the "Scientific Agenda." While, Bill O'Reilly believes that he is a Sun Tzu general in the cultural war of civilization against secular progressives. Paul Kurtz has a similar delusion that he is a Sun Tzu general in the culture war of the scientific agenda against an evil Christian theocracy.
Science does not have an agenda! The second that you believe that science has an agenda, you've stopped being a scientist.
Science has the ability to tells us whether or not we will achieve our objectives. It does not tell us what our objectives should be.
Science does not have an agenda. Scientists, though, almost always have an agenda. Intentionally confusing the two corrupts science.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Friday, January 12, 2007
Stem Cells and Critical Thinking
One of the mantras on the left is that they apply critical thinking to their positions while the right is absolutist. I was listening to some of the yammering on left about Bush's decision not to spend federal dollars for research on human embryos is based on antiquated absolutists positions.
The absolutist position is that we should not do experiments that destroy human life.
Bush's position is that we should not ban stem cell research. However, we should draw a line on doing experiments on human embryos. Rather than passing a law to prevent experimentation on embryos. He wants to limit funding to programs that do experimentation on human embryos. I think this is a good and effective way of forcing groups engaged in stem cell research to guage the moral dimension of their research.
The accusation is that the fuzzy line drawn around the human embryo is an absolutist position.
It seems to me that the position that embryos are not a form of human life (making them fair game for experimentation) is more of an absolutist position than the traditional view that starts with the observation that embryos develop into people, then, through a process of critical thinking arrives at the conclusion that we cannot tell for certain that the embryo is not a human.
A person with even a casual familiarity with genetics should know that an embryo contains the complete, unique DNA (both cellular and mitochondrial) to make up a human being. Anyone familiar with the reproductive system would know that if an embryo gets implanted in the uterline lining, that it will develop into a person (without intervention). The fact that we have something on the petri dish with the complete genetic make up of a human and that would develop into a human gives rise to speculation that an embryo is an undeveloped human life form.
When applying a process of critical doubt to my actions, I would not be willing to produce the hundreds of thousands of embryo clones needed for experimentation. As a moral animal, I would want to find other ways to answer my questions about the development of life.
As for the debate surrounding stem cell research, this is one of the ugliest debates of the modern era. In typical fashion, progressives have intentionally been muddling terms, and pulling every underhanded trick of rhetoric to sensationalize the debate. For example, they project the absolutism of their views that embryos are not a form of human life onto their opponents who are, for the large part, driven by critically doubt. There is also a constant muddling of terms in the debate. Progressives will use a quote from a conservative about embryotic stem research and apply it to adult stem cell research to make the conservative sound unreasonable.
There is also, of course, the problems of definitions with embryotic stem research. The term stem cell can apply both to the embryo (the zygote is the ultimate stem cell) and to a number of cells which get produced in the early moments of life.
We are seeing the birth of a global industry. This industry will either be producing hundreds of millions of embryos for research and medical products, or it will be one with a strong moral code which tries to regulate and reduce the production of embryos for research.
The overall social debate that we have at the beginning of this research will determine the direction that the industry takes. What I find disgusting in this debate is that people who employ critical thinking and reject the absolutist secular position that an embryo is not human life get shouted down and ridiculed by the powerful, authoritarian science community.
Modern western science has been plagued with a series of missteps because we, as a society, failed to question progressive scientists. Nuclear energy was once the cause celebre of the progressive community. We threw up a large number of firts generation plants that were both unsafe and had no plans for disposing of waste. The dam industry was once the same thing. Dam construction was another cause celebre of the progessive scientific community and dams where thrown on every mountain river and stream with little thought of the consequences.
If we are to be a rational scientific society, we have to be able to discuss the ethical ramifications of our actions. Right now, it appears that Bush Administration is doing a better job of engaging in real debate than the progressives who have launched a massive disinformation campaigned set to ridicule their opponents.
The absolutist position is that we should not do experiments that destroy human life.
Bush's position is that we should not ban stem cell research. However, we should draw a line on doing experiments on human embryos. Rather than passing a law to prevent experimentation on embryos. He wants to limit funding to programs that do experimentation on human embryos. I think this is a good and effective way of forcing groups engaged in stem cell research to guage the moral dimension of their research.
The accusation is that the fuzzy line drawn around the human embryo is an absolutist position.
It seems to me that the position that embryos are not a form of human life (making them fair game for experimentation) is more of an absolutist position than the traditional view that starts with the observation that embryos develop into people, then, through a process of critical thinking arrives at the conclusion that we cannot tell for certain that the embryo is not a human.
A person with even a casual familiarity with genetics should know that an embryo contains the complete, unique DNA (both cellular and mitochondrial) to make up a human being. Anyone familiar with the reproductive system would know that if an embryo gets implanted in the uterline lining, that it will develop into a person (without intervention). The fact that we have something on the petri dish with the complete genetic make up of a human and that would develop into a human gives rise to speculation that an embryo is an undeveloped human life form.
When applying a process of critical doubt to my actions, I would not be willing to produce the hundreds of thousands of embryo clones needed for experimentation. As a moral animal, I would want to find other ways to answer my questions about the development of life.
As for the debate surrounding stem cell research, this is one of the ugliest debates of the modern era. In typical fashion, progressives have intentionally been muddling terms, and pulling every underhanded trick of rhetoric to sensationalize the debate. For example, they project the absolutism of their views that embryos are not a form of human life onto their opponents who are, for the large part, driven by critically doubt. There is also a constant muddling of terms in the debate. Progressives will use a quote from a conservative about embryotic stem research and apply it to adult stem cell research to make the conservative sound unreasonable.
There is also, of course, the problems of definitions with embryotic stem research. The term stem cell can apply both to the embryo (the zygote is the ultimate stem cell) and to a number of cells which get produced in the early moments of life.
We are seeing the birth of a global industry. This industry will either be producing hundreds of millions of embryos for research and medical products, or it will be one with a strong moral code which tries to regulate and reduce the production of embryos for research.
The overall social debate that we have at the beginning of this research will determine the direction that the industry takes. What I find disgusting in this debate is that people who employ critical thinking and reject the absolutist secular position that an embryo is not human life get shouted down and ridiculed by the powerful, authoritarian science community.
Modern western science has been plagued with a series of missteps because we, as a society, failed to question progressive scientists. Nuclear energy was once the cause celebre of the progressive community. We threw up a large number of firts generation plants that were both unsafe and had no plans for disposing of waste. The dam industry was once the same thing. Dam construction was another cause celebre of the progessive scientific community and dams where thrown on every mountain river and stream with little thought of the consequences.
If we are to be a rational scientific society, we have to be able to discuss the ethical ramifications of our actions. Right now, it appears that Bush Administration is doing a better job of engaging in real debate than the progressives who have launched a massive disinformation campaigned set to ridicule their opponents.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Escalation?
Sending more troops to Iraq is not necessarily an escalation. An escalation of war occurs when you move into a new theater of operation. In this regard, the actions taken by Ethiopia in Somalia would be labeled an escalation. We don't know if Bush is escalating the war until we see what he is doing with the troops. Bush's speech indicates that he wants to shore up the control of areas where we already have limited control. This is not technically an escalation.
If our intention are to draw down troops this year, the best way to go about the task is to precede the draw down with a temporary increase in troops. This would allow us to pass control to the Iraqis. Whereas simply removing troops would create a power vacuum that the militias would try to fill. An increase in troops followed by a draw down provides a better opportunity for the legitimate Iraqi forces to fill the vacuum.
Our really big problem is that Bush seems to have lost his credibility. This is a big problem with the Machiavellian-conservative philosophy advocated by Bill O'Reilly, Harvey Mansfield, and other thinkers. To a Machiavellian thinker, the posture and arguments you put before the American people is just a facade.
In 2003, I actually thought that Bush's war posturing against Iraq was part of a legitimate attempt to get Hussein to draw down his WMD stockpiles. For that matter, I suspect that the many of the Congressmen who approved the War in Iraq thought that the war authorization would only kick in when diplomatic efforts proved a failure. Hussein's tact was to stand on the line, leaving us to forever wonder if Bush intended to invade Iraq regardless of the outcome of the diplomatic effort.
Bush is correct in noting that the wise course of action is to precede a draw down with a temporary increase in troops. In such case, a temporary increase in troops is a shrewd move as it would counter efforts of the insurgents to escalate the war as we transferred control to Iraqi forces.
The actions being taken by Bush is technically not an escalation of the war. Bush may well intend to escalate the war. We do not know. This Machiavellian style of leadership is frustrating because the words of a the leader are always misdirections.
Ted Kennedy and friends have been making grand efforts to call the War in Iraq Bush's Vietnam. An analogy with Vietnam might be apropriate as the power vacuum left in the wake of our clumbsy retreat from Vietnam and Cambodia led to one of the worst genocides of the last century. The actions of Bush might be enough to save the Iraqis a similar fate.
Speaking of actual Iraqis, I see that Michelle Malkin is in Iraq. She has pictures of some of the people who be genocided if we simply retreated and left a power vacuum for Al Quaida or Iran to fill. I really wish Bush success in filling that vacuum with legitimate Iraqi forces before we leave, and I hope that Bush is not foolish enough to escalate the war as Democrats claim.
If our intention are to draw down troops this year, the best way to go about the task is to precede the draw down with a temporary increase in troops. This would allow us to pass control to the Iraqis. Whereas simply removing troops would create a power vacuum that the militias would try to fill. An increase in troops followed by a draw down provides a better opportunity for the legitimate Iraqi forces to fill the vacuum.
Our really big problem is that Bush seems to have lost his credibility. This is a big problem with the Machiavellian-conservative philosophy advocated by Bill O'Reilly, Harvey Mansfield, and other thinkers. To a Machiavellian thinker, the posture and arguments you put before the American people is just a facade.
In 2003, I actually thought that Bush's war posturing against Iraq was part of a legitimate attempt to get Hussein to draw down his WMD stockpiles. For that matter, I suspect that the many of the Congressmen who approved the War in Iraq thought that the war authorization would only kick in when diplomatic efforts proved a failure. Hussein's tact was to stand on the line, leaving us to forever wonder if Bush intended to invade Iraq regardless of the outcome of the diplomatic effort.
Bush is correct in noting that the wise course of action is to precede a draw down with a temporary increase in troops. In such case, a temporary increase in troops is a shrewd move as it would counter efforts of the insurgents to escalate the war as we transferred control to Iraqi forces.
The actions being taken by Bush is technically not an escalation of the war. Bush may well intend to escalate the war. We do not know. This Machiavellian style of leadership is frustrating because the words of a the leader are always misdirections.
Ted Kennedy and friends have been making grand efforts to call the War in Iraq Bush's Vietnam. An analogy with Vietnam might be apropriate as the power vacuum left in the wake of our clumbsy retreat from Vietnam and Cambodia led to one of the worst genocides of the last century. The actions of Bush might be enough to save the Iraqis a similar fate.
Speaking of actual Iraqis, I see that Michelle Malkin is in Iraq. She has pictures of some of the people who be genocided if we simply retreated and left a power vacuum for Al Quaida or Iran to fill. I really wish Bush success in filling that vacuum with legitimate Iraqi forces before we leave, and I hope that Bush is not foolish enough to escalate the war as Democrats claim.
The Culture Warrior
I listened to a Book on Tape by Mr. Bill O'Reilly of Fox News called The Culture Warrior. In this book, Mr. O'Reilly gives a short biography of his journalistic career where he saw a concerted effort on the part of the media to give traditional American culture the shaft. Seeing that the news was extremely onesided, Mr. O'Reilly realized correctly that there was a very big need for a balanced approach to news that brought out both conservative and progressive views. Mr. O'Reilly apparently remembered reading The Art of War in school (Both Machiavelli and Sun Tzu are in vogue). Anyway, Mr. O'Reilly took his career one step further. Rather than just filling a need, Mr. O'Reilly has declared himself a General Sun Tzu in the great Culture War. He further invites his readers to become Sun-Tzus in the culture war.Bill O'Reilly makes some very good points in his work and is doing a world of service in showing how overboard the secular progressive left has become. The problem I find is that by declaring himself a General Sun Tzu, Mr. O'Reilly seems to have forgotten which culture he is fighting for.
Sun Tzu was a warlord from ancient China. His wisdom is a formula for armies to follow in their domination of other armies.
The Sun Tzu warlord model for organizing a society ends up pushing the vast majority of people into a state of subserviance with just a few powerful overlords that dominate.
The real strength of the American system is that we had found ways out of the system of domination and submission that characterizes most socio-economic systems. Conservatives who've become enamored with Machiavelli and Sun Tzu have a tendency to become part of the forces which are undermining the culture they claim to be defending.
How to put it another way?
There is something really wierd with the secular progressive movement.
If you start tracing back the trends of the secular progressive movement, you will find that it went through a similar fascination with alternative philosophies Machiavelli and Sun Tzu.
Both Machiavelli and Sun Tzu said wise things. The problem is that these things are out of sync with the classical liberal tradition. The conservatives who march off to defend traditional Amerrican against the evil secular progressives end up being part of the game that erodes the classical liberal traditions that made the United States great.
BTW, have you noticed that since O'Reilly came out with the Culture Warrior that secular progressives have come out with the same idea of being generals in the culture war.
Now, the theme of the culture war is that modern American society is divided into two warring factions. These are the traditional Americans and the secular progressives.
Again the problem with this type of thinking is that it is out of character with the founders of this nation who were hoping that we could reason through issues and not let the issue carve the deep divides that they do today.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Dawkins: Crusader for Intolerance
I am feeling absolutely sick right now.
I just listened to some spittle from that subhuman Richard Dawkins. Dawkins has some form of dialectical materialism on his brain that he has deluded himself into thinking is the only correct form of reasoning. This grade A wank is now on a crusade trying to eliminate everyone who holds to the classical world. The classical world view is the thing that brought us the scientific method, American Democracy, the free market and the thing Dawkin hates with every fiber of his being: Christianity.
Dense as a stone, Dawkins has convinced himself that there is no discernible difference between the Radical Islamic Fundamentalists and mainstream Christianity. The scary thing is the large number of the adherents to the new secular progressive religion have fallen for the same propaganda.
Apparently Dawkins is now on a crusade to rally intellectuals in the cultural war to eliminate Christianity.
It appears that Dawkins basic theory is that anyone who does not hold his warmed over view of dialectical materialism is incapable of reason. Reason, after all, is the exclusive domain of the left.
NOT!!!!!!
Since people who admire the classical tradition are incapable of reasoning, Dawkins wants to see them wiped off the planet. Neither Dawkins nor Harris have gone into the details of how they want to carry out this task. I think it safe to assume that they simply want to keep up the genocides that dialectical materialists have helped engineer in the last 100 years.
The hate mongers in Dawkins camp have been extremely successful. As I recall the Black Book of Communism has the toll of their genocide around 300 million for the last decade. The toll in Sudan is getting upward to a million Christians.
Like most secular progressives. Dawkins is too stupid to understand that his clever little ideology of intolerance is exactly the same thing at the base of Communism and Marxism.
Living in Utah, I am confronted with one of the most idiotic cult that the Christian tradition has ever produced. It ain't anywhere near as bad as the idiocies being touted by Dawkins and Harris.
Personally, I wish that people would realize that these culture warriors are the biggest threat to our culture. It is intolerant wanks like Richard Dawkins that lead cultures into darkness.
I just listened to some spittle from that subhuman Richard Dawkins. Dawkins has some form of dialectical materialism on his brain that he has deluded himself into thinking is the only correct form of reasoning. This grade A wank is now on a crusade trying to eliminate everyone who holds to the classical world. The classical world view is the thing that brought us the scientific method, American Democracy, the free market and the thing Dawkin hates with every fiber of his being: Christianity.
Dense as a stone, Dawkins has convinced himself that there is no discernible difference between the Radical Islamic Fundamentalists and mainstream Christianity. The scary thing is the large number of the adherents to the new secular progressive religion have fallen for the same propaganda.
Apparently Dawkins is now on a crusade to rally intellectuals in the cultural war to eliminate Christianity.
It appears that Dawkins basic theory is that anyone who does not hold his warmed over view of dialectical materialism is incapable of reason. Reason, after all, is the exclusive domain of the left.
NOT!!!!!!
Since people who admire the classical tradition are incapable of reasoning, Dawkins wants to see them wiped off the planet. Neither Dawkins nor Harris have gone into the details of how they want to carry out this task. I think it safe to assume that they simply want to keep up the genocides that dialectical materialists have helped engineer in the last 100 years.
The hate mongers in Dawkins camp have been extremely successful. As I recall the Black Book of Communism has the toll of their genocide around 300 million for the last decade. The toll in Sudan is getting upward to a million Christians.
Like most secular progressives. Dawkins is too stupid to understand that his clever little ideology of intolerance is exactly the same thing at the base of Communism and Marxism.
Living in Utah, I am confronted with one of the most idiotic cult that the Christian tradition has ever produced. It ain't anywhere near as bad as the idiocies being touted by Dawkins and Harris.
Personally, I wish that people would realize that these culture warriors are the biggest threat to our culture. It is intolerant wanks like Richard Dawkins that lead cultures into darkness.
Minimum Wage Increases Tend to Hurt the Poor
When passing popular legislation like the minimum wage increase, I wish voters and policy makers would take a second to think about the people they hurt with their well meaning actions.
We imagine that the legislation hurts the hated enemies of our community like Walmart, the big box stores and the massive franchises that currently dominate the retail market space.
The truth of the matter is that the negative effects of the minimum wage increase will be felt by the small marginal independent business. Like most retail regulation, the minimum wage increase will give a further competitive edge to the big box store. The big box store has a lower ratio of employees to sales and inventory than the small independent store on the corner. An artificial increase in wages has a direct disproportionate affect on the small stores since employee wages make up a greater portion of the store’s costs.
Small, marginal firms depend on their ability to rapidly adjust to changes in market conditions. In a free market, marginal companies would have the ability to respond to steep drops in the market simply by adjusting their biggest costs (employee wages). Imagine a small restaurant in a resort community. If it were not for wage regulations, they could simply keep their workers on during the slow season when there is no work to be done. Instead, they have to lay them off every year.
I dislike minimum wage legislation as such legislation tends to have a disproportionate affect on the small marginal businesses that add character to the economic landscape.
It also does something else that is extremely nasty.
The minimum wage increase ends up creating obstacles for companies trying to provide goods and services to the poor.
It does not take a degree in higher finance to figure this one out. Guess which income group consistently pays the lowest wages for goods and services?
Yep. Poor people tend to pay less for goods and services than rich people. A really poor person trying to start a company ends up paying lower salaries than rich people who try to start companies. When you have an artificial minimum wage, you pretty much destroy the ability of poor people to start new businesses … which effectively keeps them in poverty.
My estimation is that the minimum wage legislation will have zero financial affect on the ultra-rich Congressmen that pass the legislation. Nancy Pelosi is from a family that is so rich and powerful that they can pay well above minimum wage for their servants. The people most hurt by the minimum wage are the people trying to start a marginal business with dreams of escaping poverty. Congress is slamming the door on this American Dream.
We imagine that the legislation hurts the hated enemies of our community like Walmart, the big box stores and the massive franchises that currently dominate the retail market space.
The truth of the matter is that the negative effects of the minimum wage increase will be felt by the small marginal independent business. Like most retail regulation, the minimum wage increase will give a further competitive edge to the big box store. The big box store has a lower ratio of employees to sales and inventory than the small independent store on the corner. An artificial increase in wages has a direct disproportionate affect on the small stores since employee wages make up a greater portion of the store’s costs.
Small, marginal firms depend on their ability to rapidly adjust to changes in market conditions. In a free market, marginal companies would have the ability to respond to steep drops in the market simply by adjusting their biggest costs (employee wages). Imagine a small restaurant in a resort community. If it were not for wage regulations, they could simply keep their workers on during the slow season when there is no work to be done. Instead, they have to lay them off every year.
I dislike minimum wage legislation as such legislation tends to have a disproportionate affect on the small marginal businesses that add character to the economic landscape.
It also does something else that is extremely nasty.
The minimum wage increase ends up creating obstacles for companies trying to provide goods and services to the poor.
It does not take a degree in higher finance to figure this one out. Guess which income group consistently pays the lowest wages for goods and services?
Yep. Poor people tend to pay less for goods and services than rich people. A really poor person trying to start a company ends up paying lower salaries than rich people who try to start companies. When you have an artificial minimum wage, you pretty much destroy the ability of poor people to start new businesses … which effectively keeps them in poverty.
My estimation is that the minimum wage legislation will have zero financial affect on the ultra-rich Congressmen that pass the legislation. Nancy Pelosi is from a family that is so rich and powerful that they can pay well above minimum wage for their servants. The people most hurt by the minimum wage are the people trying to start a marginal business with dreams of escaping poverty. Congress is slamming the door on this American Dream.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Some Issues Matter, and we have to be able to discuss them
Continuing my streak of mean posts …
The Utah LDS community has been a buzz with the presidential candidacy of Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney. This excitement is tinged with an undercurrent of sentiment that Mitt Romney is under prejudicial scrutiny because he is LDS.
Now, I have been extremely proud of the fact that one’s religious affiliation has not been a major issue in recent presidential campaigns. Unfortunately, it will be in the case of Mitt Romney. In my opinion, this is not due to prejudice against Mormons. It is due to the way that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young organized their religion.
The first reason for my belief is that democratic politics was a primary theme of The Book of Mormon. In this book, the Nephites met their untimely end because a political block rose and grabbed power, turning the kingdom to the dark side of the force. Some years after writing this book, it appears that Joseph Smith decided to use his church as a political block in his bid for high office. Joseph Smith chose the title president for the head of the Church as he was running for president, and wanted people to get used to the name.
The fact that the founder of the LDS Church used his church as a political block in a bid for the presidency makes the issue relevant for subsequent LDS candidates for president.
Brigham Young actually left the United States with the hope of establishing a new Empire of Deseret. The US Army stomped on that idea. However, Brother Brigham was able to use his position of President of the LDS Church to obtain the governorship of the State of Utah.
The history of the LDS Church working as a voting block makes Mitt Romney’s membership in the LDS Church an issue. To the extent that the LDS community behaves as a voting block, it will continue to be an important issue that needs to be debated. The existence of this debate is not prejudice against Mormons. Democracies need to worry about the undo influence of any voting block. Again, this is a primary theme of the Book of Mormon!
Personally, I think the Republican Party needs to worry about coming under the control of a voting block. In a two party system, a party is a temporary union of people of different views. The Reagan victory was largely due to a union between Classical Liberals and the Religious Right. In recent years, the Religious Right has been driving the classical liberals out of the Republican Party. I know several people who were active in Republican Politics in Colorado and California who claim to have been driven out of the Republican party by the religious right. It seems to me that the Republican Party needs to have an internal debate about whether or not they want to keep driving all of the classical liberals out of the party. That means taht there has to be talk in this election about the role religion plays in the Republican party.
Mitt Romney's run for the presidency is forcing a debate that needs to take place. I applaud people who engage in the debate in a civil manner.
The Utah LDS community has been a buzz with the presidential candidacy of Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney. This excitement is tinged with an undercurrent of sentiment that Mitt Romney is under prejudicial scrutiny because he is LDS.
Now, I have been extremely proud of the fact that one’s religious affiliation has not been a major issue in recent presidential campaigns. Unfortunately, it will be in the case of Mitt Romney. In my opinion, this is not due to prejudice against Mormons. It is due to the way that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young organized their religion.
The first reason for my belief is that democratic politics was a primary theme of The Book of Mormon. In this book, the Nephites met their untimely end because a political block rose and grabbed power, turning the kingdom to the dark side of the force. Some years after writing this book, it appears that Joseph Smith decided to use his church as a political block in his bid for high office. Joseph Smith chose the title president for the head of the Church as he was running for president, and wanted people to get used to the name.
The fact that the founder of the LDS Church used his church as a political block in a bid for the presidency makes the issue relevant for subsequent LDS candidates for president.
Brigham Young actually left the United States with the hope of establishing a new Empire of Deseret. The US Army stomped on that idea. However, Brother Brigham was able to use his position of President of the LDS Church to obtain the governorship of the State of Utah.
The history of the LDS Church working as a voting block makes Mitt Romney’s membership in the LDS Church an issue. To the extent that the LDS community behaves as a voting block, it will continue to be an important issue that needs to be debated. The existence of this debate is not prejudice against Mormons. Democracies need to worry about the undo influence of any voting block. Again, this is a primary theme of the Book of Mormon!
Personally, I think the Republican Party needs to worry about coming under the control of a voting block. In a two party system, a party is a temporary union of people of different views. The Reagan victory was largely due to a union between Classical Liberals and the Religious Right. In recent years, the Religious Right has been driving the classical liberals out of the Republican Party. I know several people who were active in Republican Politics in Colorado and California who claim to have been driven out of the Republican party by the religious right. It seems to me that the Republican Party needs to have an internal debate about whether or not they want to keep driving all of the classical liberals out of the party. That means taht there has to be talk in this election about the role religion plays in the Republican party.
Mitt Romney's run for the presidency is forcing a debate that needs to take place. I applaud people who engage in the debate in a civil manner.
Monday, January 08, 2007
Secular Temples
I realize that my last two posts make me sound like a mean, anti-religious bigot type person. While, in my mind at least, I am trying to make the subtle point that, to the extent that a temple is designed to dominate a community, it ends up creating conflict.
In the United States, there has been a concerted effort among religious communities to minimize the domination/submission games that can get started between churches.
Joseph Smith bucked this American ideal by trying to create a church set on politically dominating areas where it existed. Because he was bucking a deep authentic desire of many Americans, he stirred up authentic resistance.
For the most part, I think modern Mormons avoid the excesses of its past. Unfortunately, a little bit of the old thinking pops up again now and then. When it does, it creates divisiveness that the left and right can feed upon to tear our society apart.
It seems to me that people need to point out problems. I don’t know how to do it without feeding the divisions.
The same things I complain about this massive temple building effort undertaken by the LDS Church is true of the various secular temples that we end up building in our communities. When public work projects (like stadiums, dams and even libraries and schools) are designed to dominate a community, they end up creating controversies. Pushing any good idea to the excess ends up creating deep divisions in society and it creates a backlash.
Look at the way the big sports franchises stomp all over our sense of fair play in their efforts to spend tax dollars on massive coliseums! In some circles, anything done for the NBA or NFL team is a righteous cause, justifying the taking of shortcuts with other people’s properties.
In reading different web sites, I’ve found that Presidential Press Secretary Tony Snow has been taking a great deal of heat from the left for criticizing Kwanzaa. Mr. Snow sees this as a holiday that was designed to divide people along racial lines while promoting socialism. I believe that there is some truth to Mr. Snows. To the extent that Kwanzaa was designed to divide people along racial lines and to promote Socialism, it is a bad thing. However, to the extent that it gives an oppressed segment in our communities an outlet to celebrate their culture, it is a good thing. As for Mr. Snow’s article, I think that he a good job making a strong case against Kwanzaa (which is the way debate is supposed to work). Open discourse works by people stating their position clearly. Manipulative discourse takes place when you pull a trick like declaring an intentionally divisive holiday or building a garish temple designed to dominate a community, then label those who oppose you as racists or religious bigots.
The forces of evil in the world do their greatest damage when they mask themselves as the good. Actions that corrupt noble instincts really get my dander up. I am at a complete loss about how to address them.
In the United States, there has been a concerted effort among religious communities to minimize the domination/submission games that can get started between churches.
Joseph Smith bucked this American ideal by trying to create a church set on politically dominating areas where it existed. Because he was bucking a deep authentic desire of many Americans, he stirred up authentic resistance.
For the most part, I think modern Mormons avoid the excesses of its past. Unfortunately, a little bit of the old thinking pops up again now and then. When it does, it creates divisiveness that the left and right can feed upon to tear our society apart.
It seems to me that people need to point out problems. I don’t know how to do it without feeding the divisions.
The same things I complain about this massive temple building effort undertaken by the LDS Church is true of the various secular temples that we end up building in our communities. When public work projects (like stadiums, dams and even libraries and schools) are designed to dominate a community, they end up creating controversies. Pushing any good idea to the excess ends up creating deep divisions in society and it creates a backlash.
Look at the way the big sports franchises stomp all over our sense of fair play in their efforts to spend tax dollars on massive coliseums! In some circles, anything done for the NBA or NFL team is a righteous cause, justifying the taking of shortcuts with other people’s properties.
In reading different web sites, I’ve found that Presidential Press Secretary Tony Snow has been taking a great deal of heat from the left for criticizing Kwanzaa. Mr. Snow sees this as a holiday that was designed to divide people along racial lines while promoting socialism. I believe that there is some truth to Mr. Snows. To the extent that Kwanzaa was designed to divide people along racial lines and to promote Socialism, it is a bad thing. However, to the extent that it gives an oppressed segment in our communities an outlet to celebrate their culture, it is a good thing. As for Mr. Snow’s article, I think that he a good job making a strong case against Kwanzaa (which is the way debate is supposed to work). Open discourse works by people stating their position clearly. Manipulative discourse takes place when you pull a trick like declaring an intentionally divisive holiday or building a garish temple designed to dominate a community, then label those who oppose you as racists or religious bigots.
The forces of evil in the world do their greatest damage when they mask themselves as the good. Actions that corrupt noble instincts really get my dander up. I am at a complete loss about how to address them.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Misbehaving Peacekeepers
Wow! This is exactly the same complaint that the International Community had with Abu Ghraib. The United Nations seems to lack a good structure for punishing U.N. Peacekeepers gone bad.
I think the world of both the United States Military and the United Nations Peacekeeping forces. The problem is that when you have hundreds of thousands of young testosterone loaded soldiers in intense situations; You will have some problems. The disgrace of Abu Greib was not simply that out of control soldiers made Muslims put underwear on their head. The disgrace was that we had inadequate training on what the prison guards could and could not do. Above all, it was disgraceful that, during an invasion that was supposed to help the Iraqis re-establish the rule of law, we did not have a sufficient legal structure in place to try the inevitable crimes committed by the 300,000 armed forces in the area.
After Abu Greib, US politicians and conservative pundits fell into damage control mode. Political damage control only makes matters worse when the damage is caused by a fundamental flaw. The United States was able to able to fix the fundamental flaws that delayed bringing the perpetrators of prisoner abuse to justice. We have a strong military court system in place. Without a working ICC, the United Nations is in a much tougher situation.
I think the world of both the United States Military and the United Nations Peacekeeping forces. The problem is that when you have hundreds of thousands of young testosterone loaded soldiers in intense situations; You will have some problems. The disgrace of Abu Greib was not simply that out of control soldiers made Muslims put underwear on their head. The disgrace was that we had inadequate training on what the prison guards could and could not do. Above all, it was disgraceful that, during an invasion that was supposed to help the Iraqis re-establish the rule of law, we did not have a sufficient legal structure in place to try the inevitable crimes committed by the 300,000 armed forces in the area.
After Abu Greib, US politicians and conservative pundits fell into damage control mode. Political damage control only makes matters worse when the damage is caused by a fundamental flaw. The United States was able to able to fix the fundamental flaws that delayed bringing the perpetrators of prisoner abuse to justice. We have a strong military court system in place. Without a working ICC, the United Nations is in a much tougher situation.
Garish Temples
To begin this post, I need to point out that I love big churches. I especially love those churches which are an authentic manifestation of the desires of the people who built them. The LDS Temples in Salt Lake City, Logan, Saint George and other pioneer communities fall into this category along with the great Cathedrals of Europe, the grand mosques of the Middle East, and the many pagodas and temples of the orient.Many of the grand churches stand number among the greatest architectural achievements in the history of mankind. Historically, church and religious temples push both architectural and design barriers. Let’s face it, I were a member of the idle rich, I would have several trips under my belt to see sites such as Brunelleschi’s Dome in Florence, the Vatican and other great churches.
To the extent that churches are an authentic manifestation of the desires of a people, I love ‘em. Unfortunately, there is another unseemly side to the history of Temples. Sadly, religious structures can be used as tools to dominate and control people. For example, in ancient Rome, you would find emperors placing icons of their images and their gods in temples of their conquered subjects to emphasize their dominion.
Anyway since my last post on the speech by Robert Millet, my mind has been stuck on garish temples. Millet’s speech had the following quote:
Brother Brigham is reported to have said that every time we announce the building of a temple, all the bells in Hell begin to ring, and, oh, how I love to hear those bells.
This statement has my mind reeling with Satan celebrating the construction of LDS Temples. Unfortunately, this idea of Satan celebrating means that this post will be mean spirited.
I think of Satan as that force that corrupts the good things in life and makes them divisive. Looking at LDS Temples, we see that aren’t simply a structure among other structures. Historically, LDS Temple design has been to create a structure that dominates everything around it. There is generally very strict zoning codes in the neighborhoods around temples, etc..
Your typical temple is a massive white building larger than the county courthouse, and most state Capitol buildings and generally positioned in ways to dominate the communities around the temples. As the temples cross the line from being an authentic manifestation of the aspirations of a whole community, and become a symbolic gesture of one segment of the community to dominate others, the temples become garish eye sores.
The garishness of temples is an issue in the United States where both the religious and political community were hoping to transcend the sadomasochistic games that European kings and Mideast Empires had played with temples in the past.
Modern construction and financing techniques have made it simple to pound out massive community dominating structures. Look how quickly Walmarts and mega malls appear in our cities!
Much as I love big churches, I greatly appreciate the fact that the American religious communities have restrained themselves from using improved construction technology to undertake church wars. Instead, mainstream religions have chosen to concentrate on the more meaningful questions of what takes place within each church.
The Site LDSChurchTemple.com has a page on the chronology of Temple construction. This table shows that the LDS Church has pounded out about 100 of these community dominating temples in the last decade. I can see Satan celebrating with glee as his most faithful servants in the LDS Church pervert the authentic desires to build and worship in grand churches into a hate filled competition of on upmanship.
Brigham Young and Robert Millet are both right. Satan dances at the corruption of good. This aggressive temple construction schedule transforms the good and wholesome desire to whorship the Lord into a horrid, wicked game of political domination and submission.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)