Entries Tagged as ''

Is America Founded on Christianity? (updated)

While I believe his approach is too strident to actually win over any converts, Richard Dawkins is a brilliant and resourceful genius in the effort to defend civilization against religion:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This is from a treaty that was drafted in 1796 under George Washington, signed in 1797 by John Adams, and ratified unanimously by the US Senate.

Meanwhile, here’s Conservative icon, Barry Goldwater (again from Dawkins):

On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.

I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?

And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."

Those who forget history… are often religious….

[updates to my response to Adam]

1. I meant, "with impunity"

2. You error if you pretend to quote John Adams in your defense.

Your quote of Adams says that he’s a religious person. But he’s clearly not talking about our government, but upon the principles of the men that achieved independence. It is clear, as he is quoted on that page I linked, that he separates the act from the principles on which it was achieved… like the boat being separate from the boat-builder.

What’s interesting about your quote is that, on the face of it alone, he says that the principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature - pretty absolute; but that the principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable… as the existence and attributes of God.

Hell, even I can agree to that! There ain’t no such thing as God and the principles of Christianity are just exactly that eternal and immutable…

whereIstand Tags

Candidate Clinton!

Hillary’s hat is in the ring… Let the games begin!

She’s managed to mirror Republicans in their initial support for Iraq and their subsequent rejection of it….

She’s in the mainstream with Democrats on most issues….

But… I thought Americans, as a people, were too bigoted to ignore Lieberman’s religion, and I think Americans, as a people, are too bigoted to ignore Hillary’s sex and Obama’s race.

I’d love to be proven wrong, though… I’d be happy with either of these two bringing decency and respect back to the White House….

whereIstand Tags

when all you know is frustration

I’m in my mid-30’s and I have waited (mostly patiently) most of those years to read a headline not unlike this one from today’s Washington Post:

Well… not exactly. What I’m really holding out for is a headline that reads:

U.S. President Signs Leave-Cuba-Alone Act
I’m optimistic about a change in Cuba that will restore a degree of civility to a long suffering people. Keeping generations of family members separate is something Americans like to blame on North Koreans, but any way you look at it, it’s not Cuba that keeps me from visiting (or sending money to) my relatives.

No, it’s the freedom-loving Cuban-American lobby that "managed" America into this isolation, and it’s the freedom-loving George Bush that heavily tightened the restrictions on family members’ rights.

If my aunt was in a U.S. prison I could probably go visit her more frequently than once every three years.

There’s another headline I’d like to see - and know I never will:

Castro Dies!
Cuban-American Leaders Admit Defeat and Bequeath Future Policy-Making to Others
There’s just no reasonable basis on which to claim victory if Castro dies of natural causes. When you make a list of the possible outcomes that could have occurred from the policy of the embargo, Castro dying of natural causes at the age of 80 must be on the Total Failure side of the board.

But the dunces will fill the streets of Miami in victory parades. And if the U.S. has it’s way and imposes its will on the sovereign people of Cuba, I’ll join ‘em in the streets chanting… for what it’s worth:

The Tyrant is dead! Long live the King!

whereIstand Tags

Are we over the hump yet?

One day, consumer electronics will go beyond the revolution phase and begin the evolution one. This will be a good thing.

I guess it happens to all individual products by definition, but the real benefit to man will come when consumer technology goes the way of the railroad, electricity, etc. i.e., when all of the new ideas have been tried and the smart money bets on milking all of the possible improvements out of the better candidates that survive the bloodbath.

HDTV may still be a big thing, but you just know (and I don’t follow the state of technology on this at all) that holographic TV must be just around the corner. Who cares if you have a wall-sized HDTV if I can watch the mud-wrestling scene from Stripes played out in my living room?

(The economist had an article a while back about a technology that takes 2D pictures and makes them 3D. A mash-up of this and holographs would give you the true killer gadget: all movies ever made in 3D. Too much to ask for? Something that would destroy the romantic notion of old movies - like colorizing black & whites?

I like the Washington Post article’s headline for the electronics show review: Improving instead of inventing.

That’s what it’s all about.

whereIstand Tags

On Evil-utionists and Other Angry Liberals

I’ve been trying to stay away from spamecdotes, but couldn’t resist this one.

The Right in this country - in particular, the religious right - is so angry about everything that they’ve managed to become angry about the anger of liberals.

I want to accept this challenge with my own perspective on this. ( I’ve also proposed an issue about it.)

Some anger is justified and some is not. It’s not enough to say "they’re angry and we’re not" or  "we’re right and they’re wrong", we also need to consider the underlying sources of our anger.

In an overly-simplistic description, I think the left wants public life to represent the common denominator, and private life to be left to individuals.

I don’t tell you how to live your public life, and I don’t want you telling me how to live my private life. I also don’t want things that are not "common" to contaminate public life.

I consider religion as "not common". Favoring one religion - or even people of any religion - over others results in somebody being oppressed.

We can separately debate whether a child of a religious parent is oppressed if he can’t evangelize his classmates. I have a hard time considering this to be oppression. But let’s take that offline…

"Well," the religious will still retort, "you are forcing evolution on us!".

That’s cherry-picking; it’s a line-item veto. What is taught in public schools is not precisely evolution: It’s science. And science, per se, is "common". It’s certainly not the case that all scientists are atheists or even liberals!

[When referring to science here, I'm referring to the result of the scientific process; what comes out and not what goes in. When teaching what is, we can only teach what has passed the scientific tests required to be called a theory.]

Teaching science requires teaching whatever the theories are that are currently espoused by the scientific community. The effort at getting "Intelligent Design" accepted as science is a worthy one - if the proponents didn’t keep jumping the gun and trying to bypass the scientific method. It’s as wrong to call Intelligent Design a theory as it is to use the term, "String Theory". Both of those concepts are hypotheses in the scientific teminology.

The fact is that some new piece of information could tip the balance tomorrow so that scientists will begin to favor Intelligent Design - or some other theory - over evolution. I don’t expect it to happen, of course, but it wouldn’t be the first time a theory has been superceded by another. That’s what’s supposed to happen!

And will the religious then complain that they don’t want Intelligent Design to be taught? Of course not. But the thing to notice is that the Left will not complain either. The Left wants the theories accepted by the scientific community to be taught - whatever those theories happen to be.

We want evolution to be taught because it’s an accepted theory, not because of our ideology. The Right wants Intelligent Design taught in spite of its not being accepted because it leads to their religion.

We consider legitimate alternatives to be what the scientific community considers legitimate… not what the proponents of a particular hypothesis claim.

So here we see the clear double standard. We don’t want any religion to be taught in public schools. We do want the current science to be taught in public schools. This is true without exception. Can the right state their claims in general terms without stating exceptions? Absolutely not!

Does the right have a problem with chemistry? Some of it…yes. Does it have a problem with astronomy? Well, it used to…. Whenever the right doesn’t like one aspect of science is rails against it.

When do liberals have a problem? Only when something that has not rigorously passed the scientific process (peer reviewed, etc.) is passed off as science by charlatans.

The Right only wants those things taught that coincide with their beliefs. If the country went Muslim tomorrow and started observing blankets and prayer five times a day, the "get prayer into public schools" item would quickly fall off the Christian Conservative agenda.

In conclusion, we’re angry about your ideological selectivity and the manifestation of that on our lives. You’re angry that your ideologies are not rigorously espoused by everyone.

[I'm angered by the knowledge that if Adam responds to this post he will most certainly completely ignore the "gist" and just go on the attack over some claim I made. He will not defend or try to state the conservative claims in general terms.

This entry is made in defense of attacks against liberals. If the conservative response is an attack, what does that say about the question at hand?]

whereIstand Tags

Blinded by statistics!

Here’s a beauty from today’s Washington Post:

About 25 percent of the technology and engineering companies launched in the past decade had at least one foreign-born founder, according to a study released yesterday that throws new information into the debate over foreign workers who arrive in the United States on specialty visas.

I would venture to suggest that by this argument we should immediately open up the borders entirely. After all, many more than 25% of all landscaping, construction, janitorial, etc. companies launched in the past four centuries have either foreign-born founders or are entirely made up of immigrants.

By extension, we ought to start ejecting people that were born in the United States and have lived here a reasonable amount of time in which they have neglected to launch a technology or engineering concern of their own.

If you are not yet suffiiciently impressed by the 25% number, brace yourself for the enjoyment of this nugget near the implosion point of  the article:

At least two Northern Virginia tech companies were founded by former H-1B holders.

Holy Crap! At least two!

I imagine there must be… oh, I don’t know… perhaps five tech companies in all of Northern Virginia?

Wait! One more…I swear this will be the last! The piece ends with an actual reference to exactly one of the aforementioned two or more Northern Virginia tech companies:

The company has grown rapidly and employs 1,600 people in the United States, India and Ukraine. Only a few dozen of them have H-1B visas.

Catch it? For all we know, "only a few dozen" of their 1,600 employees are in the U.S. at all!

This article was written by staff writer Krissah Williams . If you found yourself persuaded that immigrants are indeed "a driving force behind start-ups", make sure you work yourself into a frothy lather over: Being Polite Makes Everyone Feel Good.

whereIstand Tags

Reality Congress: Honesty and openness or eavesdropping and surveillance?

Here’s something that’s both in the loop and out of head:

The House of Representatives is often called "the People’s House." So wouldn’t it be nifty if the "people" could see what was going on in their own house?

This is nothing more than C-Span trying to enter the Reality TV fray. Where does honesty and openness end and gossip, eavesdropping or surveillance begin?

It’s one thing when everybody knows that you’re on camera when you’re on podium. It’s quite another when the halls are infested with button-cams.

Take as another example the investigation into Hussein’s hanging. The haphazard, unprofessional, and undignified recklessness that permeates everything "Bush" could only have resulted in the disgusting spectacle of Saddam’s video hanging.

It used to be that opponents in "civilized" warfare showed respect for the officers and political leaders of the countries with which they were at war. They did this for self-serving reasons, of course, but also for practical ones. But there are no MacArthurs in a Bush administration.

How would the Japanese have responded to a Hirohito "high-tech lynching"?

As the old line goes, you don’t want to watch law or sausage "being made". Politics too is messy enough that we’re better off not televising the chunky pieces.

whereIstand Tags