MaxedOutMama
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Deconstructing Timothy Shortell
Timothy Shortell has been elected the Chair of the Sociology Department at Brooklyn College. Students are protesting. See this New York Daily News article:
When Christians speak of love, they are not really addressing an emotion but a cognitive awareness. "Love" in the Christian world is not desire, infatuation, or need. Loving each other requires us to be aware that every other person has the same rights and importance as we do, and in many cases more. Nor is this awareness confined to Christianity. This single axiom forms the underpinning of every philosophy and religion that has endured, because it is incredibly realistic. Our physical lives are limited and finite; our moral lives are perhaps almost infinite. The choices each of us makes reverberate down generations.
To adopt this axiom as your fundamental basis for living requires that you give up your seatedness in your own being. It requires you to accept that your life, your rights and your perceptions are not the most important thing in the world. It requires a cognitive and ethical courage, and it requires action conforming to this cognitive awareness. If I am not the most important being in the universe, then I must acknowledge that my life and my needs have logical limits. I must accept that the world should not be structured for my benefit alone. I must acknowledge that there is a greater life with a greater purpose than my own.
In some form, every vibrant society relies upon the mindset I just described. It is a strong philosophy. If the left wishes to abandon it, to reject it, to mock it as inherently harmful, the left will doom itself to societal irrelevance. Read through Shortell's article and then test it against the standard I have described, and you will see the moral and philosophical problem. Shortell is claiming that his view (and the views of others like him) are the "right" views. He fails in the fundamental duty of respectful recognition of the rights of others, and in doing so he dooms himself to weakness.
Shortell fails to recognize reality. Social and biological forces can only be changed by individuals. So individuals, who are both constrained by social and biological forces and cognitively capable of rejecting them, must be allowed to reject the primacy of social forces for society to be able to adjust itself to reality.
Ilona of True Grit asked me about my politics and I struggled to answer. I find a democratic system such as our own deeply compatible with my faith, my belief in scientific method and my philosophy. At the heart of the Abrahamic religions lies the principle of individual free will and responsibility. Whenever these religions find a temporary expression that denies this principle they become totalitarian and weak. Whenever they affirm it they become powerful forces that change society for the better.
Once liberalism stood for the same principle of individual free will. Now liberalism itself is facing this internal contradiction, and it may well be facing it because it won the day, became complacent, and adopted a mindset disrespectful of individual dissent. A society that seeks to restrain dissent which does not aim to curtail the right of others to dissent becomes weak and incapable of internal peaceful adjustments.
There can be no true faith in God without the recognition of the individual's right not to believe. There can be no democracy that demands a test of faith for participation (whether affirmation of a particular doctrine or rejection of a particular doctrine) that remains a democracy. There can be no functional society that does not continually modify its workings to cope with current conditions. Some truths really are self-evident when viewed through the lens of history.
Both my faith and my political philosophy require me to defend Timothy Shortell's right to say and write what he believes; both my faith and my political philosophy require me to defend the rights of others to contradict him. As long as Timothy Shortell confines himself to public accusation and criticism of what he believes to be an evil way of thinking, I will defend his right to do it. When he crosses the line and demands that the people he believes to be evil should be banished from the public sphere, I will oppose that proposition by exercise of all the rights afforded to me under our constitution.
Posted to BloggerNews also.
Shortell's remarks - which included lines such as "Christians claim that theirs is faith based on love, but they'll just as soon kill you" - elicited a multifaith backlash among university groups.The man's work seems interesting. He has a list of publications on his home page. Most are directly linked, but one with no link is his 2004 paper "Religion and Morality: A Contradiction Explained". But, you guessed it, I hunted it up, and here it is. I don't blame the students for being somewhat upset, and this type of scholarly endeavor goes a long way to explain the "ban all public expressions of religion" wing of the left. I found this absolutely revelatory:
"He's intolerant," fumed Alex Selsky of the school's Hillel chapter, a Jewish campus organization. "With this kind of unreasonable thinking, I don't know how he can be elected to head of a department."
Kevin Oro-Hahn, director of the school's InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, said he hopes the university can "move beyond mere rhetoric in the pursuit of truth."
For this reason, religion without fanaticism is a logical impossibility. Anyone whose mind is trapped inside such a mental prison will be susceptible to extreme forms of hatred and violence. Faith is, by its very nature, obsessive-compulsive. All religions foment their own kind of holy war. (Those whose devotion is moderate are only cowardly fanatics.)What intrigued me about this passage was that Shortell makes an assertion, recognizes that he can't back it up with evidence, and so explains the absence of evidence by announcing that religious people are failing to live up to their religious obligations of being violently hateful! He continues:
It is no wonder, then, that those who are religious are incapable of moral action, just as children are. To be moral requires that one accept full responsibility for one's self. Morality is based on scientific rationality.Here again we have a blind certainty based on ignorance. Most religions do impose a theory of personal responsibility. It is the left that tends to regard that doctrine as a social evil. But wait, there's more, and this follows only a few sentence later:
The choices that present themselves in the course of day-to-day living are influenced by social forces (which is why we need theory).So we need "theory" and, I presume, sociology professors to explicate it. Here Shortell seems to be indirectly addressing my point above. According to Shortell, the emphasis on personal responsibility contained in religious thought is blindly irrational because it refuses the primacy of social forces! Fascinating:
On a personal level, religiosity is merely annoying—like bad taste. This immaturity represents a significant social problem, however, because religious adherents fail to recognize their limitations.Yup. The problem is that religious adherents do believe in a doctrine of personal responsibility. What they don't believe in is a doctrine of social determinism. This is what Shortell considers so dangerous.
So, in the name of their faith, these moral retards are running around pointing fingers and doing real harm to others. One only has to read the newspaper to see the results of their handiwork. They discriminate, exclude and belittle. They make a virtue of closed-mindedness and virulent ignorance. They are an ugly, violent lot.We love you, Timothy. It's a religious duty, and believe it or not, religion actually allows us to perform that duty. The gospel according to Shortell continues:
In the heart of every Christian, though, is a tiny voice preaching self-righteousness, paranoia and hatred. Christians claim that theirs is a faith based on love, but they'll just as soon kill you.I haven't noticed the piles of corpses around the churches, though. I guess it's because Christians in this country are "cowardly fanatics". The professor reaches his conclusion:
Can there be any doubt that humanity would be better off without religion? Everyone who appreciates the good, the true and the beautiful has a duty to challenge this social poison at every opportunity. It is not enough to be irreligious; we must use our critique to expose religion for what it is: sanctimonious nonsense.Here I want to let The Quietist speak:
Conservative policy, then, is geared toward making sure that the rules of the game are as fair as possible, while leftists seek to dismantle the game and replace it with...with...wait, what day is it? I am a conservative not because I don't believe in left-liberal causes like equality of result, environmental protection, and minority rights, but because I believe that many of these causes inherently -- tragically -- contradict each other. Thus, the only system that could possibly deliver all of those things to everybody would be a ruthless totalitarianism that strips us all of our dignity. And freedom only means anything at all when it means freedom to screw up.True Grit directed me to The Doctor Is In. The doctor is an MD and a Christian. Here he writes on alcoholism:
The concern about labeling alcoholism, or any other behavioral disorder, as a disease is the tendency to tolerate and rationalize the resulting behavior, to use the “disease” label as an excuse for selfish, self-centered behavior destructive to one’s self, society, and those around you. The issue is not disease or no disease, but rather what drives the behavior and what can be done to change it.Of course we are all influenced by external forces. But some persons find the cognitive strength to acknowledge that influence and to seek the areas in which they can control their own behavior. The alcoholic doesn't escape the active influence of his disease by announcing that he will not desire to drink. The alcoholic escapes that burden by conceding that he will always desire to drink while also adopting a cognitive practice that recognizes the effects of drinking on himself and others. This balances the urge to drink with other drives.
The paradox about 12-step programs–which have the only reliable track record for successful recovery from addiction–is that they emphasize the disease as the problem, and honesty, integrity, and personal responsibility as the solution. They do not excuse the behavior while admitting the disease, and this blend of honesty and humility, acceptance and tough love, works like nothing else. It is, as recovering alcoholics are quick to point out, a spiritual program: the Catch-22 of a body which craves alcohol without limit and a mind which denies the resulting problems cannot be solved any other means.
But as any recovering alcoholic will tell you, the problem is not the booze; it is not even the obsessive, irrational mindset which drives the drinking. Both these problems are symptoms of an underlying decay, one of spiritual dimensions, characterized at its core by extreme self-centeredness. The pursuit of happiness by feeding this monster creates not the promised joy but rather pain and emptiness. Alcohol hides that pain for a while, until the monster, growing ever stronger by its constant feeding, kills its host spiritually, emotionally, and often physically.
When Christians speak of love, they are not really addressing an emotion but a cognitive awareness. "Love" in the Christian world is not desire, infatuation, or need. Loving each other requires us to be aware that every other person has the same rights and importance as we do, and in many cases more. Nor is this awareness confined to Christianity. This single axiom forms the underpinning of every philosophy and religion that has endured, because it is incredibly realistic. Our physical lives are limited and finite; our moral lives are perhaps almost infinite. The choices each of us makes reverberate down generations.
To adopt this axiom as your fundamental basis for living requires that you give up your seatedness in your own being. It requires you to accept that your life, your rights and your perceptions are not the most important thing in the world. It requires a cognitive and ethical courage, and it requires action conforming to this cognitive awareness. If I am not the most important being in the universe, then I must acknowledge that my life and my needs have logical limits. I must accept that the world should not be structured for my benefit alone. I must acknowledge that there is a greater life with a greater purpose than my own.
In some form, every vibrant society relies upon the mindset I just described. It is a strong philosophy. If the left wishes to abandon it, to reject it, to mock it as inherently harmful, the left will doom itself to societal irrelevance. Read through Shortell's article and then test it against the standard I have described, and you will see the moral and philosophical problem. Shortell is claiming that his view (and the views of others like him) are the "right" views. He fails in the fundamental duty of respectful recognition of the rights of others, and in doing so he dooms himself to weakness.
Shortell fails to recognize reality. Social and biological forces can only be changed by individuals. So individuals, who are both constrained by social and biological forces and cognitively capable of rejecting them, must be allowed to reject the primacy of social forces for society to be able to adjust itself to reality.
Ilona of True Grit asked me about my politics and I struggled to answer. I find a democratic system such as our own deeply compatible with my faith, my belief in scientific method and my philosophy. At the heart of the Abrahamic religions lies the principle of individual free will and responsibility. Whenever these religions find a temporary expression that denies this principle they become totalitarian and weak. Whenever they affirm it they become powerful forces that change society for the better.
Once liberalism stood for the same principle of individual free will. Now liberalism itself is facing this internal contradiction, and it may well be facing it because it won the day, became complacent, and adopted a mindset disrespectful of individual dissent. A society that seeks to restrain dissent which does not aim to curtail the right of others to dissent becomes weak and incapable of internal peaceful adjustments.
There can be no true faith in God without the recognition of the individual's right not to believe. There can be no democracy that demands a test of faith for participation (whether affirmation of a particular doctrine or rejection of a particular doctrine) that remains a democracy. There can be no functional society that does not continually modify its workings to cope with current conditions. Some truths really are self-evident when viewed through the lens of history.
Both my faith and my political philosophy require me to defend Timothy Shortell's right to say and write what he believes; both my faith and my political philosophy require me to defend the rights of others to contradict him. As long as Timothy Shortell confines himself to public accusation and criticism of what he believes to be an evil way of thinking, I will defend his right to do it. When he crosses the line and demands that the people he believes to be evil should be banished from the public sphere, I will oppose that proposition by exercise of all the rights afforded to me under our constitution.
Posted to BloggerNews also.
Comments:
<< Home
You explain in this why we must keep speaking, there must be a contradictory voice to the madness. Even when madness seems to rule the day.
I wrote an essay on this some time ago ( A Christian's Response), that faith trumps all other allegiances and why this is such a threat to the secular elitists. they know they can't conrol it, so they fear it, but what is ignored is the inner control resdent within the Christian faith.
Secularists labor under the illusion that they are better able to control -in themselves and in society- the predisposition towards violence and oppression than that Christian inner control.
But the monster is within, and that is what we will find if the restraints of our free system are thrown off in the persecution of religion as the enemy.
I appreciate that you add so much to the dialogue. We, as a society, really need to think about these things.
I wrote an essay on this some time ago ( A Christian's Response), that faith trumps all other allegiances and why this is such a threat to the secular elitists. they know they can't conrol it, so they fear it, but what is ignored is the inner control resdent within the Christian faith.
Secularists labor under the illusion that they are better able to control -in themselves and in society- the predisposition towards violence and oppression than that Christian inner control.
But the monster is within, and that is what we will find if the restraints of our free system are thrown off in the persecution of religion as the enemy.
I appreciate that you add so much to the dialogue. We, as a society, really need to think about these things.
# posted by 
: 7:58 AM
: 7:58 AM
On a lighter note, I want to applaud myself for my taste in bloggers! You, The Doctor is In, Hootsbuddy, Greg Wallace..... you are really exceptional and not well enough known.
I'll say I knew you when;)
I'll say I knew you when;)
# posted by : 8:05 AM
: 8:05 AM
For me, the problem is not with either religion or secularism. It is with the extremists. You often write about the faults of the far left, but fail to see that it is just a mirror of the far right. Fanatics are not created by religion or secularism. Fanatics are just fanatics. That is why you see it in every faith, and by faith, I mean belief in something greater than themselves. Whether it be Christians blowing up abortion clinics, Muslims blowing up themselves, ELF members destroying SUVs or spiking trees.
Fanaticism, not the faith itself, is where the voidance of responsibility comes from. Once you have given in to the all consuming belief in something, you can rationalize anything away. That is why it is so hard to argue with an extremist on either end of the spectrum. They see the world in absolutes, but yet there is no reason attached to it.
Fanaticism, not the faith itself, is where the voidance of responsibility comes from. Once you have given in to the all consuming belief in something, you can rationalize anything away. That is why it is so hard to argue with an extremist on either end of the spectrum. They see the world in absolutes, but yet there is no reason attached to it.
Ilona, you do have a wonderful ability to seek out the reflective voices. Please keep doing it. I don't think I am destined for blog stardom, but I do think that the reflective voices in blogging fill a particular vacuum in our public sphere and will slowly gain their audience.
Your observation that "faith trumps all other allegiances" is a profound one. A dedicated faith has to trump one's allegiance to one's own self. You can't lose that allegiance and not free yourself from all other secular allegiances. I am very patriotic in a sense, but it is not because I see the US as perfect, but because I see the US as offering possibilities that other societies rarely do. Whether we will continue to be that society is in question, IMO.
I know Shortell singled out Christians in his essay, but I have been wondering if the same reasoning doesn't account for the new upswell of anti-Semitism in academic circles. The Jewish influence in the western world has been one of close reasoning combined with moral responsibility. One can see how a Shortell would find that threatening.
Madness never rules the day for very long. It contains the seeds of its own destruction within it.
Your observation that "faith trumps all other allegiances" is a profound one. A dedicated faith has to trump one's allegiance to one's own self. You can't lose that allegiance and not free yourself from all other secular allegiances. I am very patriotic in a sense, but it is not because I see the US as perfect, but because I see the US as offering possibilities that other societies rarely do. Whether we will continue to be that society is in question, IMO.
I know Shortell singled out Christians in his essay, but I have been wondering if the same reasoning doesn't account for the new upswell of anti-Semitism in academic circles. The Jewish influence in the western world has been one of close reasoning combined with moral responsibility. One can see how a Shortell would find that threatening.
Madness never rules the day for very long. It contains the seeds of its own destruction within it.
Dingo, read the essay again. The criticisms you just made are an inherent part of it, I believe. We have seen the "Holy Roman Empire", "Christendom", the "Thousand Year Reich" etc all go down to destruction. The common element is the denial of the individual's right of conscience and expression of that conscience.
I am sorry to say this, but at the present time the great danger I see is emanating principally from the left. I agree totally with you that there are elements on the right which would make the same error. But they do not meet with respect within our society. We have never been further from a theocracy.
A significant portion of the left in the US, IMO, now fears competition from competing ideologies. The right largely does not. Our citizenry is fundamentally liberal in its political thinking (liberal in the old sense), and the left is losing its strength whenever it tries to tell people what to think or bypass the people's influence on politics. See the Pew poll. It does not support your thesis of theocracy.
The left is incredibly strong whenever it appeals to individual consciences among the American population. The fact that it does not see this, IMO, speaks of a certain ideological decadence.
The right does not control the media, academic circles, politics or the churches. If the Republicans won the last election, it was only because they captured more of the Independents and moderate Democrats.
You wrote:
"Once you have given in to the all consuming belief in something, you can rationalize anything away."
I dispute that. Once one has embraced the axiomatic belief that other people have rights just as important as your own, you become unable to rationalize things away. It's obvious that many who call themselves by names of various philosophies and religions don't embrace that fundamental credo.
Whenever you combine social activism with an absolute disrespect for individual conscience, you are veering toward a totalitarian system. Unfortunately, at this time many of these types are finding a home in a part of the left. I don't know what to call it, really.
The question is whether they will succeed in dominating the Democratic party. If they do, another party will be created by popular movement, because most people in the US really are liberal in the old sense of "you go my way, I'll go mine".
I am sorry to say this, but at the present time the great danger I see is emanating principally from the left. I agree totally with you that there are elements on the right which would make the same error. But they do not meet with respect within our society. We have never been further from a theocracy.
A significant portion of the left in the US, IMO, now fears competition from competing ideologies. The right largely does not. Our citizenry is fundamentally liberal in its political thinking (liberal in the old sense), and the left is losing its strength whenever it tries to tell people what to think or bypass the people's influence on politics. See the Pew poll. It does not support your thesis of theocracy.
The left is incredibly strong whenever it appeals to individual consciences among the American population. The fact that it does not see this, IMO, speaks of a certain ideological decadence.
The right does not control the media, academic circles, politics or the churches. If the Republicans won the last election, it was only because they captured more of the Independents and moderate Democrats.
You wrote:
"Once you have given in to the all consuming belief in something, you can rationalize anything away."
I dispute that. Once one has embraced the axiomatic belief that other people have rights just as important as your own, you become unable to rationalize things away. It's obvious that many who call themselves by names of various philosophies and religions don't embrace that fundamental credo.
Whenever you combine social activism with an absolute disrespect for individual conscience, you are veering toward a totalitarian system. Unfortunately, at this time many of these types are finding a home in a part of the left. I don't know what to call it, really.
The question is whether they will succeed in dominating the Democratic party. If they do, another party will be created by popular movement, because most people in the US really are liberal in the old sense of "you go my way, I'll go mine".
You just see the left as more dangerous because where you stand. The far left is directly opposite of you. The far right is directly opposite of me. Even though you and I are closer to each other than to either of the extremes, our view of the extremes is different. Think of it as a circle, not a line. There is nothing substantially different between a communist and a fascist. I have listed a bunch of quotes below. You probably won't find them as disturbing as I do, but that is just a matter of perspective.
On my comments rebutting assertions that the bible should be taught in school
[on the founding fathers and religion] They didn’t want to repeat the same thing; they wanted freedom of religion for all. Not freedom from religion for all. That’s why our laws were based on the 10 commandments.
- and - If you’re thinking of making the rounds of TWA you have stepped into a huge steaming pile of troll droppings and assorted moonbat parts that litter the comments sections of the TWA blogroll, and we will gladly add the remnants of your wrongthinking, whiny, leftist, nonsensensical head here also. Move to france you smelly coward. We know some folks that, like you, have their heads up their asses and, in fact, I will offer a dicount on glass belly buttons IF you buy in bulk.
- and - We had the Bible in public schools for around THREE HUNDRED YEARS! It is only in the past 40-50 years or so that it’s been removed — not coincidentally, a time that correlates with a massive decline in society overall.
-and -
Dingo? I never said to shut up did I???
DID I BITCH????
That’s right!!!!
I just said you were an idiot with your head in a dark, smelly place and I could arrange for your glass belly button….that is all…..go ahead…talk away……
- and - Also, there is NO way to claim that you a neutral attitude towards relgion -- you support gay marriage, you're against relgion.
Other articles on the same website.
[on newsweek] The reason Newsweek published this fictional story is because they knew it would feed hostility against the government of the United States.
[on liberals] It seems to me that the leftists might as well declare themselves Islamists since they spout the same rhetoric “free Palestine”..and that fake ‘fear of Christians and Jews’….that will bring them all to Jeruselum to pray after they’ve killed us all.
[on the courts] That’s just so that people know that the “separation of power” argument is strictly used to benefit the culture of death and doesn’t really exist in legal reality.
[on the OK city bombing] We believe that there is a Middle Eastern connection to the 171 deaths on April 19, 1995, and hearings are needed to get to the truth of the matter.
[on the environment] So although we’re looking elsewhere at the dangers that the environmentalists pose to our freedoms, the Bush administration is advancing these causes, anyway.
[on God] They simply accepted what to them was self-evident; God favored America and by extension, favored the formation of the republic.
[on the left and moderate right] The only effective opposition to these tyrants can be found on the religious right.
[on the soldier who threw the granade into an army tent] What I can’t get over is the elimination of any mention of what he wrote in his journal, and the outcry that the guy was mentally disturbed when he was plainly just acting out his new religion. He wasn’t born to Islam, he is a recent convert.
[on gun control] The subject for today is: The ACLU’s agenda against our right to bear arms. This is an important one, since all totalitarian dictatorships have started out with the citizens’ right to bear arms eliminated. Hitler’s regime was preceeded by the legalization of abortion, euthanasia and gun control, so it’s a serious thing to consider.
[on private investigative Networks] In a series of articles exclusive to the NE Intelligence Network and readers of the HQ Intel Alert, associate director and investigative Analyst Laura Mansfield has effectively pierced the veil of secrecy inside mosques, and reports the uncensored truth of what is being spread behind the walls of mosques in one small town in America–and most assuredly, in many cities across our great country.
[on liberals] In World War II, we fought two main enemies that were allied against us: Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. In the current war we again face an alliance of two enemies sworn to our destruction. Unfortunately they are harder to fight, because they are not so easily pinpointed on a map. Our two enemies are radical Islam and the Left. Few on the Left would admit, even to themselves, that they are allied with al Qaeda in a war of annihilation against Western Civilization.
[on a law allowing judges to carry guns in the courtroom but not defendants] However, I think these people may be right in their fear of the peons (that's YOU) -- there are a large number of us that are still armed and who will not give up our weapons. We may have need of them against the aristocrats one day soon.
On my comments rebutting assertions that the bible should be taught in school
[on the founding fathers and religion] They didn’t want to repeat the same thing; they wanted freedom of religion for all. Not freedom from religion for all. That’s why our laws were based on the 10 commandments.
- and - If you’re thinking of making the rounds of TWA you have stepped into a huge steaming pile of troll droppings and assorted moonbat parts that litter the comments sections of the TWA blogroll, and we will gladly add the remnants of your wrongthinking, whiny, leftist, nonsensensical head here also. Move to france you smelly coward. We know some folks that, like you, have their heads up their asses and, in fact, I will offer a dicount on glass belly buttons IF you buy in bulk.
- and - We had the Bible in public schools for around THREE HUNDRED YEARS! It is only in the past 40-50 years or so that it’s been removed — not coincidentally, a time that correlates with a massive decline in society overall.
-and -
Dingo? I never said to shut up did I???
DID I BITCH????
That’s right!!!!
I just said you were an idiot with your head in a dark, smelly place and I could arrange for your glass belly button….that is all…..go ahead…talk away……
- and - Also, there is NO way to claim that you a neutral attitude towards relgion -- you support gay marriage, you're against relgion.
Other articles on the same website.
[on newsweek] The reason Newsweek published this fictional story is because they knew it would feed hostility against the government of the United States.
[on liberals] It seems to me that the leftists might as well declare themselves Islamists since they spout the same rhetoric “free Palestine”..and that fake ‘fear of Christians and Jews’….that will bring them all to Jeruselum to pray after they’ve killed us all.
[on the courts] That’s just so that people know that the “separation of power” argument is strictly used to benefit the culture of death and doesn’t really exist in legal reality.
[on the OK city bombing] We believe that there is a Middle Eastern connection to the 171 deaths on April 19, 1995, and hearings are needed to get to the truth of the matter.
[on the environment] So although we’re looking elsewhere at the dangers that the environmentalists pose to our freedoms, the Bush administration is advancing these causes, anyway.
[on God] They simply accepted what to them was self-evident; God favored America and by extension, favored the formation of the republic.
[on the left and moderate right] The only effective opposition to these tyrants can be found on the religious right.
[on the soldier who threw the granade into an army tent] What I can’t get over is the elimination of any mention of what he wrote in his journal, and the outcry that the guy was mentally disturbed when he was plainly just acting out his new religion. He wasn’t born to Islam, he is a recent convert.
[on gun control] The subject for today is: The ACLU’s agenda against our right to bear arms. This is an important one, since all totalitarian dictatorships have started out with the citizens’ right to bear arms eliminated. Hitler’s regime was preceeded by the legalization of abortion, euthanasia and gun control, so it’s a serious thing to consider.
[on private investigative Networks] In a series of articles exclusive to the NE Intelligence Network and readers of the HQ Intel Alert, associate director and investigative Analyst Laura Mansfield has effectively pierced the veil of secrecy inside mosques, and reports the uncensored truth of what is being spread behind the walls of mosques in one small town in America–and most assuredly, in many cities across our great country.
[on liberals] In World War II, we fought two main enemies that were allied against us: Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. In the current war we again face an alliance of two enemies sworn to our destruction. Unfortunately they are harder to fight, because they are not so easily pinpointed on a map. Our two enemies are radical Islam and the Left. Few on the Left would admit, even to themselves, that they are allied with al Qaeda in a war of annihilation against Western Civilization.
[on a law allowing judges to carry guns in the courtroom but not defendants] However, I think these people may be right in their fear of the peons (that's YOU) -- there are a large number of us that are still armed and who will not give up our weapons. We may have need of them against the aristocrats one day soon.
You've whetted my appetite. What website? Come on, tell me. Because I try to make sure I don't miss your comments and unless they were much older these weren't on your blog.
Dingo, no. I might be wrong of course. It's just that I don't see the statist right as being as huge of a threat because it does not control the media and it does not control academia. I would find the idea of banning the right of an atheist to announce that there is no God just as frightening. I argued strongly that Ward Churchill had the right to speak as he did. No, I'm very consistent on this.
You see, I don't have to decide what's right for you and our society. I trust you to do that for yourself and I figure that society can do it for itself, and if it goes wildly wrong there are always the Consitutional protections.
I do not see the right as having the stranglehold on academia that the left does. I don't want just socially conservative judges on the SC, I want strict constructionists on there.
As for the gay marriage shtick, obviously the commenter kind of missed the fact that different denominations are recognizing gay couples.
I'm glad you posted the bits about gun control. It reminded me of some very interesting threads on DU recently discussing which guns are best and how much they cost, plus a debate about whether or not an armed citizenry could hold off a military attack. I'll post about them this week. If you are thinking that the only Americans who want to keep their guns are rightists you are way, way out of touch. Gun control is a dead duck. 9/11 killed it.
I have to say one thing - considering that judge who got shot in Atlanta, we probably do need to think about increasing courtroom security. Let's face it, a lot of very violent people end up in courtrooms, and quite a few of them also have severe mental problems.
As for the "private intelligence networks" I probably don't have a problem with that as long as it is purely informational. It seems to me that the FBI keeps telling us to keep our eyes open and report what we see. The Minuteman project does seem to have had some interesting side effects.
You really do think that common people are dangerous, don't you? I don't. Or, let's put it this way, I don't think they are nearly as dangerous as governments that go totalitarian tend to get. In South America various military units are still massacring villagers. An oligarchy is just as dangerous as a fascist or communistic state.
Life, Dingo, can not be absolutely secure. One can only control risks, not eliminate them. Freedom demands an acceptance of some disseminated risks in order to avoid larger, rarer but uncontrollable risks.
One thing I sure agree with the gun nuts on DU about (although I disagree with them on everything else - I think when the gov. finds it has to throw 30% of us in jail they will realize they have a problem. MLK all the way.)
I don't think the Supreme Court is really defending the Bill of Rights. I don't think it is defending the separation of powers. They should have thrown out RICO. They should have dumped McCain-Feingold. They should have ruled that Bush and Clinton don't have the right to engage in endless wars without a congressional declaration. We have a problem in this country; I have said it before and I will say it again. Many in this country do not truly believe in the form of government we have inherited.
I am waiting to see the Kelo v. New London decision. After that you and I can discuss my contention that this country is becoming an oligarchy once again. If I wanted to live in Mexico, darn it, I'd go there.
We will have more data once the Kelo decision is released. We both do better when we have data. When the Supreme Court wants to defend the right of an old black lady living in her old house on Soc. Sec. against Wal-Mart I might start trusting your judges' belief in individual rights again. In my opinion the bulk of the people in our courts are really statists. I don't trust them because they are applying sharply different standards against different constitutional provisions.
Oh - and your fine judges who are so, so supportive of individual freedoms, especially those encapsulated in the First Amendment? Check out the little tinpot dictator on the Mass. Supreme Court. She thinks complaints about "judicial activism" are "intimidation". What a twit. She may think she stands for individual rights, but she doesn't.
Dingo, no. I might be wrong of course. It's just that I don't see the statist right as being as huge of a threat because it does not control the media and it does not control academia. I would find the idea of banning the right of an atheist to announce that there is no God just as frightening. I argued strongly that Ward Churchill had the right to speak as he did. No, I'm very consistent on this.
You see, I don't have to decide what's right for you and our society. I trust you to do that for yourself and I figure that society can do it for itself, and if it goes wildly wrong there are always the Consitutional protections.
I do not see the right as having the stranglehold on academia that the left does. I don't want just socially conservative judges on the SC, I want strict constructionists on there.
As for the gay marriage shtick, obviously the commenter kind of missed the fact that different denominations are recognizing gay couples.
I'm glad you posted the bits about gun control. It reminded me of some very interesting threads on DU recently discussing which guns are best and how much they cost, plus a debate about whether or not an armed citizenry could hold off a military attack. I'll post about them this week. If you are thinking that the only Americans who want to keep their guns are rightists you are way, way out of touch. Gun control is a dead duck. 9/11 killed it.
I have to say one thing - considering that judge who got shot in Atlanta, we probably do need to think about increasing courtroom security. Let's face it, a lot of very violent people end up in courtrooms, and quite a few of them also have severe mental problems.
As for the "private intelligence networks" I probably don't have a problem with that as long as it is purely informational. It seems to me that the FBI keeps telling us to keep our eyes open and report what we see. The Minuteman project does seem to have had some interesting side effects.
You really do think that common people are dangerous, don't you? I don't. Or, let's put it this way, I don't think they are nearly as dangerous as governments that go totalitarian tend to get. In South America various military units are still massacring villagers. An oligarchy is just as dangerous as a fascist or communistic state.
Life, Dingo, can not be absolutely secure. One can only control risks, not eliminate them. Freedom demands an acceptance of some disseminated risks in order to avoid larger, rarer but uncontrollable risks.
One thing I sure agree with the gun nuts on DU about (although I disagree with them on everything else - I think when the gov. finds it has to throw 30% of us in jail they will realize they have a problem. MLK all the way.)
I don't think the Supreme Court is really defending the Bill of Rights. I don't think it is defending the separation of powers. They should have thrown out RICO. They should have dumped McCain-Feingold. They should have ruled that Bush and Clinton don't have the right to engage in endless wars without a congressional declaration. We have a problem in this country; I have said it before and I will say it again. Many in this country do not truly believe in the form of government we have inherited.
I am waiting to see the Kelo v. New London decision. After that you and I can discuss my contention that this country is becoming an oligarchy once again. If I wanted to live in Mexico, darn it, I'd go there.
We will have more data once the Kelo decision is released. We both do better when we have data. When the Supreme Court wants to defend the right of an old black lady living in her old house on Soc. Sec. against Wal-Mart I might start trusting your judges' belief in individual rights again. In my opinion the bulk of the people in our courts are really statists. I don't trust them because they are applying sharply different standards against different constitutional provisions.
Oh - and your fine judges who are so, so supportive of individual freedoms, especially those encapsulated in the First Amendment? Check out the little tinpot dictator on the Mass. Supreme Court. She thinks complaints about "judicial activism" are "intimidation". What a twit. She may think she stands for individual rights, but she doesn't.
The blog was Coa's blog.
"I don't see the statist right as being as huge of a threat because it does not control the media and it does not control academia."
But the media it does control is much more vocal and propagandistic. And controlling the white House and Congress doesn't hurt either.
"I don't want just socially conservative judges on the SC, I want strict constructionists on there."
I think this is a myth. There is no strict constructionist when it comes to 90% of the cases that come before the court because 90% of the cases could not have been envisioned by the founders. And even for the cases that relate directly to the constitution, most of them have been modified over the years by the amendments or, the constitution is so vague that there is nothing a judge can do but to interpret it under current context. I don't want judges making up law, but I do want them interpreting it in context to modern day life. Otherwise both justice and efficiency are compromised.
"If you are thinking that the only Americans who want to keep their guns are rightists you are way, way out of touch."
No, I don't. Nor do I want to take away the rights of hunters, etc. But we do have to realize that the needs of someone living in rural America is much different than someone living in Harlem. The laws that protect the rights of gun owners in other parts of the country kill children here in NY.
"Gun control is a dead duck. 9/11 killed it."
If anything, 9/11 should have revived it. Uncontrolled flow of high caliber rifles can do nothing but make us less safe.
"As for the "private intelligence networks" I probably don't have a problem with that as long as it is purely informational."
The problem is, is that they are acting as clandestine citizen operatives that are not restrained by the constitution. I don't want private citizens violating my privacy any more than I want the government doing it.
"You really do think that common people are dangerous, don't you?"
No, but I see the possibility for vigilantism which I see as dangerous.
"She thinks complaints about "judicial activism" are "intimidation"."
I disagree. I see it as an intimidation tactic. Many of the cases people cry "judicial activism" about are anything but. The leaders on the right know this, but they use it as a rallying cry anyway knowing full well that the average American dosen't understand the judicial system or can really read an opinion.
"I don't see the statist right as being as huge of a threat because it does not control the media and it does not control academia."
But the media it does control is much more vocal and propagandistic. And controlling the white House and Congress doesn't hurt either.
"I don't want just socially conservative judges on the SC, I want strict constructionists on there."
I think this is a myth. There is no strict constructionist when it comes to 90% of the cases that come before the court because 90% of the cases could not have been envisioned by the founders. And even for the cases that relate directly to the constitution, most of them have been modified over the years by the amendments or, the constitution is so vague that there is nothing a judge can do but to interpret it under current context. I don't want judges making up law, but I do want them interpreting it in context to modern day life. Otherwise both justice and efficiency are compromised.
"If you are thinking that the only Americans who want to keep their guns are rightists you are way, way out of touch."
No, I don't. Nor do I want to take away the rights of hunters, etc. But we do have to realize that the needs of someone living in rural America is much different than someone living in Harlem. The laws that protect the rights of gun owners in other parts of the country kill children here in NY.
"Gun control is a dead duck. 9/11 killed it."
If anything, 9/11 should have revived it. Uncontrolled flow of high caliber rifles can do nothing but make us less safe.
"As for the "private intelligence networks" I probably don't have a problem with that as long as it is purely informational."
The problem is, is that they are acting as clandestine citizen operatives that are not restrained by the constitution. I don't want private citizens violating my privacy any more than I want the government doing it.
"You really do think that common people are dangerous, don't you?"
No, but I see the possibility for vigilantism which I see as dangerous.
"She thinks complaints about "judicial activism" are "intimidation"."
I disagree. I see it as an intimidation tactic. Many of the cases people cry "judicial activism" about are anything but. The leaders on the right know this, but they use it as a rallying cry anyway knowing full well that the average American dosen't understand the judicial system or can really read an opinion.
Dingo - yes, the needs of people who have cougars sleeping in the back yard do differ from the needs of people who have drug dealers in the lobby of their apartment building.
The Republicans in control are hardly statists any more than the Dems. I might wish for a different choice of parties altogether, but who knows, what DU is calling the "Gang of Fourteen" might be the nucleus of a new party.
Oh, pfui on the intimidation. Judges do face real threats from nutcases, the flat-out insane, gangs and violent criminals. They deserve protection. And I am sure there are a few fringe groups somewhere, lurking in a basement, brooding about evil judges. Anyone who threatens a judge personally has committed a crime and will get in trouble for it.
People who are just saying that this has gotten out of hand are not "intimidating" judges. People have a right to discuss the workings of their own government!
The Republicans in control are hardly statists any more than the Dems. I might wish for a different choice of parties altogether, but who knows, what DU is calling the "Gang of Fourteen" might be the nucleus of a new party.
Oh, pfui on the intimidation. Judges do face real threats from nutcases, the flat-out insane, gangs and violent criminals. They deserve protection. And I am sure there are a few fringe groups somewhere, lurking in a basement, brooding about evil judges. Anyone who threatens a judge personally has committed a crime and will get in trouble for it.
People who are just saying that this has gotten out of hand are not "intimidating" judges. People have a right to discuss the workings of their own government!
"People who are just saying that this has gotten out of hand are not "intimidating" judges. People have a right to discuss the workings of their own government!"
Of course, but you also have people on the right pushing for things like the Congress to elimnate the 9th circuit (a viable and constitutional option). I don't think that would ever happen, but I do call it intimidation.
Of course, but you also have people on the right pushing for things like the Congress to elimnate the 9th circuit (a viable and constitutional option). I don't think that would ever happen, but I do call it intimidation.
Well, by that standard I guess you could say that various people's ideas of term limits are intimidation. I guess any politician facing political opposition because of an unpopular vote could claim intimidation! I'm sure they do. It doesn't mean I won't point out that they are idiots for doing so.
I want to preserve an independent judiciary, but I don't think the way to do that is to say that people can't criticize the results or possible future outcomes of our current system. That's ridiculous.
I want to preserve an independent judiciary, but I don't think the way to do that is to say that people can't criticize the results or possible future outcomes of our current system. That's ridiculous.
Anon, I couldn't agree more. The history of these philosophies is so tragic as to transcend the human ability to comprehend it.
I invite you to a theological/ philosophical writen debate, one on one. Or jus and email exchange...
The title, "Does God exist?"
My proposition is, "God's cannot exist...."
My name is Derek Sansone. You can catch me at www.infidelguy.com
My website is:
www.dereksansone.com
email:
dsansone@sbcglobal.net
I would love the exchange......I am a former Calvinist Christian (reformed covenant), and I was born a Roman Catholic....
So, I know your worldview inside out. Have plenty of biblical data that I can examine with you, and best of all, show that my position is not only superior, but I can present you the upside that could push you from such a conceptual dogmatic mess....
Sincerely,
Derek Sansone
Post a Comment
The title, "Does God exist?"
My proposition is, "God's cannot exist...."
My name is Derek Sansone. You can catch me at www.infidelguy.com
My website is:
www.dereksansone.com
email:
dsansone@sbcglobal.net
I would love the exchange......I am a former Calvinist Christian (reformed covenant), and I was born a Roman Catholic....
So, I know your worldview inside out. Have plenty of biblical data that I can examine with you, and best of all, show that my position is not only superior, but I can present you the upside that could push you from such a conceptual dogmatic mess....
Sincerely,
Derek Sansone
# posted by : 1:26 PM
: 1:26 PM << Home
