The Smallest Minority

Apparently, Lind thinks that intelligent design "can be reached via the scientific method."

That sentiment alone does irreparable damage to his personal credibility in my mind. Although, he seems pretty much on target with the rest of the piece.

Yeah, that was my take on it, too.

He's right, but the forces of traditional Western culture and liberty are the weakest of the three.

Like the Pope, it has no divisions.

The paradox is that by merely educating and mobilising its adherents to vote, Western culture could triumph.

I think he's right in terms of Western culture being squished between the NWO aspirations of the collectivoLeftists and the Medieval aspirations of the Islamists.

Where I start to choke is his implicit assumption that Christianity = Western culture, and this is an issue that needs to be dealt with at length, rather than in a comment.

Suffice it to say that the morals and virtues of the Enlightenment descends from, is compatible with, but is NOT dependent on Christianity, and as a source for cultural policy, presents us with a more tolerant, all inclusive paradigm than Christianity per se.

Careful, Geek - you're gonna get Sarah riled up!

Geek, the weight of evidence is against you. If the morals and virtues of the Enlightenment are not dependent on Christianity, why is it that we see these morals and virtues embraced only in nations with a Christian heritage and nowhere else? Do you not see a correlation between the secularization of a nation (e.g. much of Europe in the last century) and the eroding of these morals and virtues within the culture?

I highly recommend picking up Dinesh D'Souza's What's So Great About America for a good explanation of this.

Reading that, I aggreed with much, but I found much of it derivative from other things I have read.

In addition, as soon as I see someone throwing thier god into an argument, it is usually, (not always), an indication of a lack of original thought. This is not always bad, after all, Yoyo Ma is not an original composer, but his playing of others compositions is often sublime.

I prefer the phrase 'cultural McCarthyism' to 'Cultural Marxism'. It is always good to throw arguments back in the face of those making the argument. Plus it seems more accurate to me, since most of PC culture is the equivelent of accusing people of being members of evil organizations of holders or supporters of evil ideologies, much as McCarthy did.


So far as xtianity being the source of western liberalism, remember that popes had armies, and used them, until the late 1800's, the vatican becomeing a state sometime in the 20th century before FDR was president here.

In addition, it was pagan, zeus worshipping greece that was the foutain of democracy and the source of much of roman civil and political thought. Both Rome, with it's Senate, and Athens, one of the first democracies, were liberal powers centuries before the supposed existance of christ. Remember that the fall of rome occurred under christian rule, followed by a slow decline into the dark ages. While many factors caused it, one of those many was religion used as justification for the end of liberal democracy and the imposition of 'the right of kings, by the grace of god' to rule. It essentially imposed a millenia of oppression and derailed liberal values until the first English Revolution started to change that.

Correllation is not causation, and you know that.

Y'all need to stop equating Christianity with virtue and secularity as degeneracy/vice. If you look no further than that, you miss the stuff under the surface, where all the dynamics happen.

True, Judeo-Christianity has served our society as the incubator and memetic VECTOR that injects, propagates and sustains the cultural values that make our society great, but at the end of the day, I can sit here denying the divinity of Jesus all day long, laugh hysterically at {pick a sacred cow! any cow!} and still live my life according to values of honor, integrity, decency, charity, and all the other stuff that makes us what we are as Americans at the end of the day.

We can, AND MUST preserve THAT in a civic, secular context. We must RECLAIM the secular context from its state of unenlightened degeneracy, and continuing to assert the impossibility of this task absent {insert theological imperative du jour} is entirely counterproductive, unnecessarilly divisive, and alienates huge swaths of the populace who might otherwise sign up.


Sooner or later, religious and secular/libertarianesque conservative are all going to have to come to accommodation on a lot of these issues, and if we can pull that off, it will strengthen our bloc overall, and create the space to siphon off those who find themselves driven into the arms of the left.

I can see a number of ways it could and would actually work.

I warned you!;-)

Correllation is not causation, and you know that.

Correlation does not necessarily imply causation, but in my line of work a correlation is usually a good place to start when you're trying to understand something, and you need a substantial reason to dismiss it. There is a definite correlation between secularization and loss of freedom and virtue, and I'd like to know why you think it's dismissible.

...but at the end of the day, I can sit here denying the divinity of Jesus all day long, laugh hysterically at {pick a sacred cow! any cow!} and still live my life according to values of honor, integrity, decency, charity, and all the other stuff that makes us what we are as Americans at the end of the day.

That may be true for you or Kevin or the du Toits, but not for society as a whole. There is no culture, now or in history, that embraces freedom and individual rights and resists degeneracy that is not Protestant Christian at its foundation.

BTW, for whoever said it, the Greeks did not have a true democracy. It was a democracy for the elites and slavery for everyone else. Greek society serves much more as a template for modern humanist society, i.e. philosopher kings who know what's best for the poor, benighted rabble.

We can, AND MUST preserve THAT in a civic, secular context. We must RECLAIM the secular context from its state of unenlightened degeneracy, and continuing to assert the impossibility of this task absent {insert theological imperative du jour} is entirely counterproductive, unnecessarilly divisive, and alienates huge swaths of the populace who might otherwise sign up.

Well, nobody here is asserting the impossibility of the task. I simply observe the fact that it has never happened. You (and Kevin) perceive a need for morality and virtue without Christianity for reasons I don't particularly understand. History shows what works, and I see no reason to monkey with it.

There is a tendency for myopia on forums (fora?) and blogs like these. Since a large proportion of Kevin's more vocal readership seems to be of the atheist/agnostic/deist variety, it creates a sense that most of the American freedom-loving population is similarly distributed. However, the last census showed that 76% of the American population identifies itself as Christian, with approximately 40% self-identifying as evangelical (essentially the base that voted W into office twice). There is no huge swath of people who hate Christianity and otherwise love freedom. Usually, such people loathe both, and for the simple reason that they believe that they -- not God, not the individual -- know what's best for everyone else. It's hubris.

Let's consider what's going on in the real world. There are three great (as in massive) movements competing for power in the world right now: humanism, with equality as its highest value; Islam, with virtue as its highest value; and Christianity, with freedom as its highest value. The Chinese culture is emerging as another world power, and it places the highest value on obedience. If you love freedom, your only hope for the foreseeable future is Christianity. That doesn't mean you have to be a Christian, but you have to acknowledge where your freedom comes from. As far as human events are concerned, movements like secular libertarianism, Objectivism, whatever, are so small as to be completely irrelevant. It's just pointless philosophizing, an intellectual circle jerk. Far more reminiscent of the idealism and utopic fantasizing of the left than it is of rightist pragmatism.

My questions to you (and Kevin) are:

1. Why do you believe there is a need to divorce morality and virtue from theism? We already have these things with Christianity, so in your mind there must be something problematic about Christianity that is unrelated to morality and virtue. What is it exactly?

2. What, precisely, is your recipe for a moral and virtuous society without Christianity? What historical evidence exists to back it up?

When I read this article, I guessed that the promotion of religion as the basis, and salvation,(pun intended)of our civilization would get a lot of panties in a bunch. Unfortunately, I seemed to be right. What I realized from this is that the Gramscian attack on religion has been almost completely successful.

To address the Geek's point that religion isn't necessary for continuation of Western civilization, my understanding of history tells me that that is unlikely. All I see is the current decent into nihilism that is destroying traditional culture to accelerate untill we are so weak we will be easy pickins for some other system. Even though Islam is the current bogeyman, my bet would be on the Chinese.

I hope he is right about the accomodation between us libertarians and traditional conservatives, but I ain't holding my breath.

"Why do you believe there is a need to divorce morality and virtue from theism?"

Because theism results in organized religion, and organized religion tends to result in large quantities of people who don't think for themselves - they depend on scripture and authority figures to tell them how to act, what to do, and what is or isn't acceptable - without asking "Why?"

Sarah,

Your questions deserve a lengthier, more thoughtful reply than is possible given time available, so please consider this a placemarker for same.

I gotta say, though, your assertion that Christianity's "highest value" is freedom evoked an out loud "SAY WHAT?" reaction. I've been to a lot of church, in many different flavors, and I've yet to hear THAT from any pulpit anywhere.

And let me say...

"Ditto."

BTW, for whoever said it, the Greeks did not have a true democracy. It was a democracy for the elites and slavery for everyone else. Greek society serves much more as a template for modern humanist society, i.e. philosopher kings who know what's best for the poor, benighted rabble.

That is like blaming the seedling for not being an 80 foot oak.

They were, so far as we know, the fisrt major civilization that began to discard the notion of heredity kings and rule by conquest.

In addition, they DEFINED democracy. The very word itself is a greek term. To say they did not have a true democracy is to say that Bell did not invent the true telephone because it was not a cell phone, or that the Wright brothers did not invent a true powered airplane because it was not an SR-71. In other words, pure crap.

By your argument, our founders were not true and decent people because some were slave owners and thought women should not vote. They were the seed from which all else grew.

Signed 'whoever'

I gotta say, though, your assertion that Christianity's "highest value" is freedom evoked an out loud "SAY WHAT?" reaction. I've been to a lot of church, in many different flavors, and I've yet to hear THAT from any pulpit anywhere.

Freedom in the sense that Islam is not free. Enforced virture or enforced morality is worthless in Christianity. Properly, a Christian ought never to enforce morality by force of the government. Now there are morals we (almost) all agree upon and the govermnent does enforce those (murder etc.). This is only where Christianity overlaps with cultural norms. But the government is out of line enforcing chastity, charity, kindness, sobriety and the rest. Any Christian who says otherwise is dead wrong.

So now please point out to me where Christianity and political freedom are mutually exclusive.

Ben: I never said "mutex".

The NON mutual exclusivity, the 90% overlap of shared values between civic/secular virtue, Christian virtue, and political freedom is the whole thing I'm trying to hammer out here.

Because theism results in organized religion, and organized religion tends to result in large quantities of people who don't think for themselves - they depend on scripture and authority figures to tell them how to act, what to do, and what is or isn't acceptable - without asking "Why?"

Whereas humanism leads to organized religion in the form of public education and mass media, neither of which are known for encouraging free thought.

Kevin, I think your assertion lacks a firm foundation. You can always find non-thinking true-believers in any group, but you have to look at what the aggregate effect of any movement is. Whatever you may think of him as a person, it is Martin Luther who is largely responsible for the ethos of individuality. He was the first to successfully challenge the authority of the church and put forth the primacy of the relationship between the individual and God. You have to understand that this was an enormous step forward at the time -- people risked terrible things like the Inquisition and death for challenging authority. But Luther's courage and the subsequent Reformation inspired others to likewise challenge the old authorities, particularly that of the ancient Greeks, which led to true scientific inquiry. It also led to widespread literacy, as Luther believed that every individual should read and interpret scripture for himself.

I gotta say, though, your assertion that Christianity's "highest value" is freedom evoked an out loud "SAY WHAT?" reaction. I've been to a lot of church, in many different flavors, and I've yet to hear THAT from any pulpit anywhere.

How do you define "valuing freedom," Geek? Do you mean that Christians don't value freedom, because they suggest you sacrifice some worldly pleasures and devote time to helping others? Your average Objectivist would probably define this as a form of slavery. What you have from Christianity is an effective commitment to freedom, and the testament to this is the fact that Bush was voted into office twice by Christians. One qualifier here is that freedom is largely a Protestant value. My experience with the Catholic church (as a whole) is that it has a tendency towards humanism.

tom, I understand your point, but Greek society could not have functioned without slavery, and I believe the elites gave very little thought to changing that system. It was a step in the right direction, but it took Protestant Christianity to take the final, necessary step in saying that the right to self-determination extends to each and every human being. (With one small qualification, which is that I think giving women the vote was a big mistake.)

The NON mutual exclusivity, the 90% overlap of shared values between civic/secular virtue, Christian virtue, and political freedom is the whole thing I'm trying to hammer out here.

It's not an overlap. Civic virtue and political freedom are direct products of Protestant Christianity.

With respect to your response to my questions, I don't wanna be a pest, but if you believe so strongly that virtue/freedom/morality ought to be (and can be) divorced from Christianity, you should be able to give me at least a thesis statement to that effect which can be elaborated on later. In the spirit of Rutherford, I'm suspicious of any idea that requires a lengthy and detailed explanation.

"Whatever you may think of him as a person, it is Martin Luther who is largely responsible for the ethos of individuality. He was the first to successfully challenge the authority of the church and put forth the primacy of the relationship between the individual and God. You have to understand that this was an enormous step forward at the time"

I'm fully aware of that. I'm also aware that the Evangelical Christian movement - that believes in Biblical literalism, and doesn't suffer heretics lightly - is a spin-off of Luther's Protestant movement.

No inquisition - yet - but that's not unimaginable, either. The same risk exists in a resurgency of the Catholic church.

"Greek society could not have functioned without slavery, and I believe the elites gave very little thought to changing that system."

Why would they? The society could not have functioned without it - by your own admission. Slavery existed pretty much world-wide at that time. It was an economic necessity.

And if you honestly believe that giving women the vote was a "big mistake," you've got bigger issues than I ever thought.

I'm also aware that the Evangelical Christian movement - that believes in Biblical literalism, and doesn't suffer heretics lightly - is a spin-off of Luther's Protestant movement.

I belong to a large, evangelical church that does not believe in Biblical literalism. In fact, it has been quite responsive to my series of lectures on modern science and alternative interpretations of the Bible. What exactly is it that leads you to believe that evangelicals are a genuine threat?

Why would they? The society could not have functioned without it - by your own admission. Slavery existed pretty much world-wide at that time. It was an economic necessity.

So, what good is it to humanity, then? This goes straight to what bugs me about people who believe that Western Civilization owes a huge debt to the Greeks but trash Christianity. The Greeks got some stuff right, but they got a lot of stuff wrong.

And if you honestly believe that giving women the vote was a "big mistake," you've got bigger issues than I ever thought.

I see. So you thought I had issues to begin with. :)

I was being a tad glib, but Western politics took a decided turn to the left when women started voting. Studies have shown that women tend to be very uninformed about current events, have little knowledge of history and the workings of government, and tend to decide on issues from an emotionalistic rather than rational basis. As a result, women tend to vote liberal. Why do you think the media are so left-biased? Most advertising is aimed squarely at women, who control the spending of 80% of every dollar that a household earns. Networks and printed media dumb down and bias their news to the left for the simple reason that it appeals to their biggest customer-base, women.

This doesn't mean I'm in favor of revoking women's voting rights, but I do suggest some sort of qualifying exam to vote wherein a person demonstrates basic knowledge of the issues, how government works, the history of the United States, and so forth. This would automatically disqualify about 30% of men and 70% of women.

Without dealing with Christianity per se (a religion I do not practice), recall that Socrates outlined the need for some sort of religion to give additional weight to the framework of society. In the (approximate) words of Leo Strauss: "The law takes on a higher dignity when it is seen to have come from the gods. If the law is Divine, its compulsary nature fades into the background."

The truth is, it is difficult to justify killing someone else on behalf of the state (assuming no direct danger), unless the state has Divine sanction (or something functionally equivalent, such as a Marxist historical imperative). That is the crux of the problem. The Islamists and Marxists believe they have such sanction, and most of us do not.

Blargh, my cold is starting to peak, so the magnum opus on this topic will have to wait.


So as not to rile up Sarah's Rutherfordian suspicions, ;) my thesis is actually quite simple:

"The virtues/values that set America apart and make it great stand on their own merits. Appeals to theological authority for them are superfluous."

That these values incubated in the cradle of Christianity does not stamp them "Copyright (c) 0031, Jesus of Nazareth, and is the exclusive property of His followers."

I know that it is sometimes difficult for some folks to allow that virtue can arise outside one's religious belief system. People get defensive, and yes, Sarah & Ben, you're being defensive. For example, when I chuckle at the assertion that "freedom is the highest value of Christianity", you guys automatically flip the other way, and charge me with believing that Christians don't value freedom, and that it is somehow mutually exclusive with it.

I didn't say that. All I challenged was the notion that freedom was the A#1 priority of Christian theology. Oh, sure it's in there, and ranked pretty highly, but you have to work some theology to reach it. I'm reasonably certain that Redemption is the A#1 priority of Christianity. Let's face it. Freedom/liberty, had it been an explicit topic of the Sermon on the Mount would have been incendiary given the Roman occupation of Judea, and this would have worked entirely counter to Christ's mission as a spiritual, not temporal/political leader. Nonetheless, the issue of freedom does arise once you've worked the theology. Man, no longer beholden to his sinful nature thanks to the forgiveness of God, who atoned for our many(!) sins in our stead frees us to stand in our rightful place among men and in His sight.

I know y'all get a lot of bunk from people, but please believe I'm not attacking you or Christianity. I don't have any particular need to trash Christianity, and appreciate it for many reasons, including its utility as social ballast. I also don't feel threatened by true Christians, as Ben points out, " ..the government is out of line enforcing chastity, charity, kindness, sobriety and the rest. Any Christian who says otherwise is dead wrong." Hear! Hear! I most emphatically agree. I can generally tell when I'm in the presence of a true Christian. They are humble, patient and kind, ready to accept a fellow man, no matter his state of sin/apostasy/heresy/etc. Half my friends fit such a description, and I count myself lucky they do not eject my unworthy self from their company. Those guys I don't worry about.

But still, it wasn't secular political forces that destroyed the Alabamian white market in sex toys. I suspect that those voters were in that 76% Sarah mentioned.

THOSE guys, I worry about.

The other guys I worry about are the sizeable chunk of that 76% that voted for the preposterous John Kerry.

Anyway, I've got more to say, but my heads killing me, so I've no time to say it.

Suffice it to say that Freedom loving Americans find ourselves in the midst of at least a two way battle royale, and that one of the ways in which we're going to win it is to give those who've blundered into the Brave New Worlder camp less reason to reject Classical Western Values.

CWV need to be restated, updated shorn of historical baggage, and put into terms that shows current relevance in a form works for everyone.

If we lay CWV out along nontheological grounds, a la Locke + a laundry list of values like family, education, industrious dilligence in work, etc, this give no _actual_ offense to Christianity. (Sarah, take note!) At the same time, and here's the critical bit, it denies anyone a handle with which to object to them. Gays, minorities, seekers of social justice and people who like dildoes in Alabama could sign up instantly, and this would deny the forces of collectivoLeftism many of their useful fools, leaving with only their hardcore commies and Cindy Sheehan peaceniks.

Blargh. At this point, I'd pay good money to get Me, Sarah, Ben, Kevin and maybe 2 or 3 other in the same room. The medium of the 'net sometimes gets in the way, I suspect there's no points of contention here that couldn't be sorted out over a potroast and a beer.

Geek, here's the problem with disassociating Westernism from its religious underpinnings: it depends on the notion of "inalienable rights" which form the bedrock of our freedoms. I think you agree that these freedoms are what make Westernism so powerful a force for good.

But unless these rights are "endowed by our Creator," on what basis can you justify them except based on simple expediency?

Once our freedoms are justified only via doctrines of enlightened self-interest, the stage is set for their overturning. All you have to do is argue that this particular infringement is more advantageous than not…

Note that this is not exclusively a Christian argument. Non- or other-denominational theism works just fine (deism might as well, I haven't given it a whole lot of thought).

"But unless these rights are "endowed by our Creator," on what basis can you justify them except based on simple expediency?"

Read the entire "Rights" discussion I've got linked over on the left sidebar. It may not answer your question, but it should give you some food for thought.

Well, it's less of a desire to dissociate than to restate in compatible terms that works for everyone.

You see, stated in judeo-Christian terms, it seems to work for 1/2 of our society. Then there's the 48% that voted for Kerry. These are folks who, for any of a number of reasons have abandoned the CWV premise. Implicitly, they're taking the position that CWV doesn't supply their various needs. Those are the guys we gotta get back on our team, the drifters in the middle. _MOST_ of the rational people I know out here in this 50/50 front line state who got to bat for the other team have no strong affinity for leftism, but they are repelled by the effective propaganda castigating rightism.

That's the problem space I'm trying to solve.

"But unless these rights are "endowed by our Creator," on what basis can you justify them except based on simple expediency?"

Well, it cuts both ways. Once our freedoms are justified only via doctrines of organized religion, the stage is set for their overturning. All you have to do is argue that imposing "this particular doctrine of the supernatural" on everyone is proper because The Head Shaman says it is ...

I justify "inalienable rights" on the basis of common sense; that is, because they make sense, not simply because they work. The notion that I have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness has nothing to do with the supernatural, rather it is to say that no one else has any rights over me that trump my own rights over me, and that everyone else has the same such rights that I have. Sounds better every time I hear it. I have never found any attempt at justifying otherwise except on the basis of an organized religion or on the basis of simple expediency, i.e. someone who would deny me such rights does so because of the advantage it affords them.

Ahem.

"We hold these truths to be SELF EVIDENT"

For me, being a deist of no particular path, I have no objection to "endowed by our Creator", but find "inherent in our existence" to be equally satisfying, while at the same time offering the (slight) advantage of presenting no handle for overturn based on one's lack of subscription to a "Creator".

Furthermore, it seems that our society is pretty successful at overturning rights even when backed up by a Creator.

Thanks for the response, Geek. Sorry you're not feeling well.

"The virtues/values that set America apart and make it great stand on their own merits. Appeals to theological authority for them are superfluous."

OK, that's your premise, but I'm going to wait for your argument to back that up. To my knowledge, there is no supporting evidence for this. Nor have you proved that there is a need to be rid appeals to theological authority. At most, from the above statement you can claim that Christianity is unnecessary (which I disagree with), not actually detrimental.

I know that it is sometimes difficult for some folks to allow that virtue can arise outside one's religious belief system.

Because it's not true, Geek. In individuals, yes, virtue can arise outside of Christianity. In society, no. You did not arrive at your virtues/values in a vacuum, you grew up immersed in Christian traditions and institutions, and it has become instinctual. If people could just arrive at virtue/morality/freedom (VMF) independent of the culture, then you have to explain why it is only in countries with a Christian heritage that a sizable chunk of the population arrives at VMF. Why aren't there a lot more VMF people in China, Africa, the Middle East? I'm not being defensive about this. Ben and I are both scientists, and so it is in our nature to require evidence or an extremely strong argument before we're willing to accept a premise. You haven't provided it. There is no evidence to support that society as a whole can be virtuous and moral without Christianity. You haven't provided a compelling argument for why this is even desirable or necessary, let alone achievable.

Well, it's less of a desire to dissociate than to restate in compatible terms that works for everyone.

Understandable. But what if it just doesn't work? What if, by some law of human nature, it just proves impossible to motivate VMF from society at large without a theological underpinning? I believe this to be true. And, as Spock would say, not because I wish it, but because I observe it. Experiments to the contrary have not only been failures, but disastrous. Every attempt to achieve virtue and morality sans Christianity has resulted in an historical obscenity -- the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Cuban Revolution, the Cambodian Revolution, to name but a few.

...stated in judeo-Christian terms, it seems to work for 1/2 of our society. Then there's the 48% that voted for Kerry.

There was a time in this country when it worked for a lot more of our society. The drift to the left has been happening gradually, concurrently with a drift away from Christian roots. Some of that 48% that voted for Kerry were Christian, and many believe in God. Polls show that 90% of Americans believe in God. So framing VMF in generic terms is clearly unnecessary. The problem is that most of the people who voted for Kerry do not have faith in freedom. They believe that, left to their own devices, people will screw up. Despite the moonbats, most of that 48% still believe in virtue and morality, but the virtue and morality they've bought into -- equality and multi-culturalism -- are not compatible with freedom.

I really think you are wasting your time trying to appeal everyone with a generic framework for VMF. First of all, you need to convince people to trust freedom. But some just won't, no matter how you try to sell it to them. At any given time in American history you will find a distribution of the population such that 1/3 believes strongly in freedom, 1/3 does not believe in it at all, and 1/3 is ambivalent. During times of crisis, like the American Revolution, world wars, etc. the ambivalent 1/3 joins the side of freedom. If hard pressed, I honestly believe that 2/3 of the American population right now would choose freedom. The other 1/3 will not. They are a write-off. You would best spend your time trying to convince the ambivalent third that equality, multi-culturalism, etc. are not compatible with freedom, and that they should join our side.

Mastiff, right on. Kevin and I have had this argument before. The problem with absolute standards for good/evil and a source for inalienable rights is that there is no absolute standard for anything in the human frame of reference. I'm speaking as a physicist and a philosopher. The human experience is very relative. For better or worse, the only way you get absolutes is from appeals to something Supernatural -- which, if you believe the latest word in science, does exist.

Postscript...

All I challenged was the notion that freedom was the A#1 priority of Christian theology.

I forgot to address this. Sorry, I think my wording was misleading, but this was not my contention. My contention is that the net result of Protestant Christian beliefs amounts to an effective commitment to freedom. Not a perfect commitment, but the greatest commitment of all the different major movements in the world. For the record, I agree that there is a slight tendency towards enforced virtue from Christians, e.g. the temperance movement, the War on Drugs, no dildos for anyone, etc. Christians do need to be reminded from time to time to knock it off. For the most part Christians will listen and eventually let go of enforced virtue, like they did with Prohibition (as opposed to Islamists, who tend to respond by killing people). My point is that you will find no greater defenders of freedom anywhere in the world than Christians. You don't have to be Christian to be a lover of freedom, but you'd better darn well recognize who your biggest ally is.

And, yeah, the pot roast/beer thing sounds good. So long as my beer is a Framboise Lambic. :)

"You don't have to be Christian to be a lover of freedom, but you'd better darn well recognize who your biggest ally is. "

Amen. Preach it sister.

It has been very helpful to me to look at who are the most likely to attack Christianity and everything it stands for. Then ask yourself why they hate it so. Then ask yourself if you want to stand with those people.

I'm not talking about valid criticism, but blind hatred that is common today.

Sarah, I think your estimate of 1/3 supporting freedom is overly optomistic by half. Unfortunately. Otherwise I think your analysis is excellent. I wish I were half as eloquent.

Sarah, the fundamental problem with deriving morality from religion is that people can derive almost anything from religion. "Love thy neighbor as thyself", and "Kill them all, God will know his own" both come from Christianity; you and I both think that the murderous Bishop who uttered the latter got his theology wrong, but he was backed by the best thinkers of the 12th Century and by the only organized Christian Church in western Europe. Geek or I can work from a theory of natural rights, corrected by reason and by sensitivity to how things will work out in real life, and come out to something very, very similar to what you claim to be Protestant Christian morality. The difference is that we understand where this came from, and hence are less likely to dump it in favor of a new theological interpretation, or because of voices in our head.

You wouldn't kill in the name of Christ; the Reverend Jim Jones would differ, and he converted enough fanatical followers to be dangerous. You think that enforced morality is unchristian; I appreciate that, but I've been in counties where liquor is still banned, (never mind that moonshine is widely available) and they are heavily Protestant Christian. Enforced conversion might be very unchristian, but it has happened in the past, and I've met people who believe they are Christian who'd do it to me here and now if they had a little power.

For that matter, I have a bit of a problem with "Love thy neighbor as thyself". To the simple-minded as well as some Jesuit priests, it can be a justification for Communism. Natural rights theory doesn't have this problem: I can come up with a number of reasons why it is good for me to help a needy neighbor, but not one reason that I should be forced to share my property or my earnings.

Sarah:
"then you have to explain why it is only in countries with a Christian heritage that a sizable chunk of the population arrives at VMF. Why aren't there a lot more VMF people in China, Africa, the Middle East?"

This is an interesting point. I think this whole discussion is pretty illuminating.

But is it the Protestant Christianity the key part of that? Or is it a combination of more than that. (Which is my personal belief). Are there counterexamples that would show Protestant Christianity not creating such things? (I'd use pre-WWI "Germany" as an example of something highly exposed to it, but lightly influenced.)

The US isn't a good example to hold up, because there were so many things changing at the same time, that trying to isolate one variable is almost impossible.

"Every attempt to achieve virtue and morality sans Christianity has resulted in an historical obscenity -- the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Cuban Revolution, the Cambodian Revolution, to name but a few."

The FR was the only one of that bunch that wasn't post-Marx, and Marxian in name, at least, so it's not really fair to enumerate them specifically.

My belief is influenced by the fact that I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or a divine Jesus, of course.

But I see the US experiment, and the FMJ that we have as a result of far more than the influences of Protestant churches. *An* influence, sure. But also, the US was the first country to basically have _nothing_ to build upon. Build a brand new start. With wide open borders (essentially). If people didn't like it, they'd just.. move west. The system had to take into account human frailties. Without the baggage of older systems/nobles.

The biggest effect, from my lightly-studied opinion of Protestantism was the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre - which did more to ensure that the Colonies would shy away from that kind of direct control by churches.

http://www.reformation.org/bart.html

"First of all, you need to convince people to trust freedom."

In this, we agree totally.

s/FMJ/VMF.

Sorry. Muscle memory on the acronym. :)

markm,

...the fundamental problem with deriving morality from religion is that people can derive almost anything from religion.

This differs from humanism how? Absent commandments and instruction books inspired by deities, how are human beings constrained in any way from deriving anything they want?

Geek or I can work from a theory of natural rights...

There is no such thing as natural rights in the absence of God. Without God, we have nature as the sole governing force in the universe. Any biologist will tell you that the #1 rule of nature is survival of the fittest. No natural rights in there at all.

The rest of your point seems to boil down to, nobody's perfect. I cannot possibly make the claim that Christians have, and will continue to, act perfectly. But the net result of Christianity in the world has been positive, and if you compare the aggregate result -- total good vs. bad -- of all the great movements in the world, Christianity wins hands down.

Addison,

The FMJ typo made me smile. Is this a gunny blog or what?

I appreciate your objections to my premise, but they counter something I never claimed. I don't claim that exposure to Protestant Christianity guarantees VMF. I claimed that you find VMF exclusively in the presence of Protestant Christianity. If you or Geek or anyone else here believe that VMF is possible without a Christian framework, I'd really like to know what evidence exists to support it. My previous arguments with Kevin and others have convinced me that this belief is really just a faith borne of personal desire.

The FR was the only one of that bunch that wasn't post-Marx, and Marxian in name, at least, so it's not really fair to enumerate them specifically.

Why not? Marx said that he wanted to dethrone God -- Marxism is the antithesis of Christianity in that it's the extreme political expression of the humanist religion. It is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

longrifleman, thanks. I still think the 1/3 number is firm -- let's hope, in any case.

Sarah:
(FMJ) Yeah, you might can guess what I tend to type about.

"I claimed that you find VMF exclusively in the presence of Protestant Christianity."

Where else do you find it?

Part of the problem with refuting you, is there's nowhere today where there isn't an "exposure" to PC, a presence. If we launch a colonization to Mars (and said colony results in a good example of VMF), you could still assert that the VMF is a "result".

Possible without a Christian framework.... I really don't know how we could prove that one way or the other. We've all been "exposed", even those of us who don't believe.

As to the enumeration of the Marxist revolutions, the point is that we know of them, but that counting the as multiples doesn't really make the point. (Plus, all the others were a result of, and financed by, the first). So I'd say it's a fair comparison for the US revolution, and the resulting government formed, to be compared to the French, and the Russian, but repeating the "Communist"ones" really doesn't prove your point more. (Not defending Marx, or the millons of dead bodies piled up as a result of those "revolutions", mind you)

One thing that I thought of, after posting the prior - one of the biggest differnences in the US, that might be part of the reason for your VMF "aberration" - we lost our "tribes" when we came here.

Think back to say, the 15, 16, 1700s. How many people in Europe died within miles of where they were born? Within miles of where their grandparents had been born? And here, by the 1700s, that had largely evaporated to that degree. People moved from state to state, out to the frontier, without regards to the "tribe". Sure, there were some people who settled - next to other immigrants from far different tribes.

I'd like to say, that the Constitution was the first "results-based" government. Let's not forget the disaster that was the Articles of Confederation.

I think that ultimately we'll be talking past each other as to the root causes. The problem I have with talking past each other, is how *do* we define it for the *future*. If you take the Judeo-Christian path, it's much easier, there's less definition, more reliance on history. So, presuming we're going to disagree on the root causes (at least for now), how *can* we postulate a system that can be binding, without requiring a reliance on PC?

"Love thy neighbor as thyself", and "Kill them all, God will know his own" both come from Christianity; you and I both think that the murderous Bishop who uttered the latter got his theology wrong, but he was backed by the best thinkers of the 12th Century and by the only organized Christian Church in western Europe.

I OBJECT!

The first quotation comes directly from the Bible. The second does not exist anywhere in the Bible, and is, in fact, a violation of biblical principles.

Your murder quote, which you claim comes from Christianity, is not actually a Christian principle at all, and can easily be shown as a perversion of God's teachings by comparing it to the "gold standard" of—and this should not be too surprising—God's actual teachings, otherwise known as The Bible. Jim Jones' teachings can also clearly be shown to be perversions by comparing what he taught to The Bible.

Literally anyone can make claims that something is God's word. Making such a claim, however, does not mean that it actually is "God's word." Anyone can lie, or even simply be mistaken. The only way to reliably identify such lies and errors is to measure them against a fixed, external standard. In this case, the Bible is that standard.

Just think about how such a fixed, external standard affects us in everyday life. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is the body responsible for establishing the standard definitions of measurements we use every day. If I tried to sell you 3 quarts of gasoline and told you it was a gallon, you can point to the NIST standard definition of a gallon to prove that I'm wrong. If someone else had a scale that said 7 pounds of meat weighs 10 pounds, then you can point to the NIST standard to prove that the scale is wrong.

Heck, the major focus of The Smallest Minority is upholding another standard: The Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. Kevin frequently and accurately points out how liars, charlatans and useful idiots try to make the Constitution say something it does not actually say. He usually does so by pointing back to the "gold standard" of what is actually written in the Constitution as well as to other writings by the guys who actually wrote the thing. Sometimes he also brings in supporting evidence, but time and again, he accurately points out that gun grabbers and other liberals are wrong, and that they are wrong because they violate "The Standard."

Getting back to the 12th century bishop and his "supporters"…

"The Church" at that time was not guided by the Bible in any real sense. "The Church" had become a political organization giving lip service to God as a way of gaining and exercising power over people, and even governments for their own purposes.

The Bible had been translated into Latin, which was the most common language when it was translated. However, by the 12th century, most people could not read Latin. Therefore there were very few people who even realized that "The Church" was perverting the Bible, and even fewer who actually survived their attempts to point out the perversions. In short, "The Church" was doing whatever the heck they wanted because they had removed the ability for anyone to compare their actions to the "gold standard" of the Bible.

Martin Luther was instrumental in changing the situation. He was a priest when he realized that "The Church" was violating the Bible. What really surprised me was that he was a priest for many years before he even saw a Bible, let alone had an opportunity to study it. Is it any wonder that even well meaning priests where teaching things which are unbiblical?

By restarting the practice of translating the Bible into common languages, Martin Luther again made it possible for everyone to read and understand the Bible. And by doing so, he made it possible for the actions and teachings of leaders to be compared to the "gold standard" of the Bible.

Unfortunately, just because the Bible is now in English—as well as many other languages around the world—does not mean that "churches" are accurately teaching what it says. In even "mainline" churches, there are still masses of people who have absolutely no idea of what the Bible actually says. I've had debates with a guy who was raised in a Roman Catholic church. Yet even with all his years raised in "The Church" he made numerous statements about the Bible which are demonstrably false, some even so basic that they contradicted facts I already knew by the time I was 5 years old!

Sarah is absolutely correct that Christianity provides an excellent standard to measure morality against, but only if it is actually Biblical Christianity. As with your examples, there will always be those who try to pervert the standard and claim that they're speaking for God when they're actually just speaking for themselves. The cure for such perversions is to measure them against a fixed standard, much like Kevin does on 2nd Amendment issues.

And if you're going to convince me and other Biblical Christians that Christianity should not be used as a standard, then you must do so based on what The Bible actually says, not what some con artist claims it says.

Oh, and Sarah, I would also disagree with you that the primary concept of the Bible is freedom. IMHO, the primary concepts are twofold: Our relationship with God and personal responsibility. Freedom is merely the ability to exercise that responsibility.

Addison,

Where else do you find [PC]?

The United States may turn out to be the last Protestant Christian hold-out on earth, but it is still true that the only tolerable places to live right now are countries with a PC heritage -- the U.S., Britain, Germany, Scandinavia, etc. Central Europe has long had humanist tendencies, which, unfortunately, spread to the Northern PC countries. With all the Islamist crap going on they are now finally coming to terms with the utter failure of the equality/multiculturalist movement.

Part of the problem with refuting you, is there's nowhere today where there isn't an "exposure" to PC, a presence. If we launch a colonization to Mars (and said colony results in a good example of VMF), you could still assert that the VMF is a "result".

I'm not talking about societies that have simply been exposed to Protestant Christianity. I am referring to societies where PC has at one time or another been the dominant culture -- the U.S., England, Sweden, etc.

Possible without a Christian framework.... I really don't know how we could prove that one way or the other. We've all been "exposed", even those of us who don't believe.

Whatever some people might think, Christianity isn't a virus. :) You don't just catch the beliefs and values by being exposed to it. All I'm asking you to do is to look at any nation/culture that does not have an identifiably Christian foundation -- China, Africa, the Middle East, etc. -- and tell me if you observe the degree of VMF that you do in Christian nations.

So, presuming we're going to disagree on the root causes (at least for now), how *can* we postulate a system that can be binding, without requiring a reliance on PC?

Like I asked the Geek, why would you want to postulate such a system? We already have something that works.

Ed, good comments.

Oh, and Sarah, I would also disagree with you that the primary concept of the Bible is freedom. IMHO, the primary concepts are twofold: Our relationship with God and personal responsibility. Freedom is merely the ability to exercise that responsibility.

Argh! I never meant to imply that the primary concept of the Bible is freedom, and I don't believe I said as much. What I meant is that, intended or not, the net effect of Protestant Christian beliefs is freedom. These beliefs are

- each and every one of us has been endowed by God with individual worth

- each of us has a direct, personal relationship with God

- God created the universe to be governed by a consistent and knowable set of rules

Whether Martin Luther intended it or not (and it doesn't even matter), the wonderful fruit of these beliefs is FREEDOM. This is what I meant by freedom being the highest value of the Christian movement. And it should be obvious that freedom is necessarily the result of these beliefs, as they form the basis of individualism.

Hey, all this without a single mention of evolutionary psichology?

Succinctly, I think that a consistent part of our moral imperatives once upon a time constituted evolutionary advantages, when early humans lived in tribes amidst a strongly hostile environment.

/must… resist… starting religious flame-war…

Ahh, screw it.

People here seem way too fixated on Christianity, both for and against (understandibly so, but still). Christianity is not the be-all and end-all of religions.

Now, all of our freedoms logically follow from the original right to live, and the hard-won knowledge that governments tend to abridge that right if left unchecked.

I argue that once the fundamental sanctity of life is established, the other rights will take care of themselves over time. Therefore, any religion that believes in the fundamental sanctity of life is potentially valuable for the spread of freedom.

Take Judaism for example ;-)

1. Judaism abolished the principle of vicarious punishment which was prevalent in the ANE at the time, ruling that fathers could not be punished for the crimes of sons etc. The underlying principle is that each individual is independent and should be judged by the human court for his own deeds.

2. Judaism has a standing rule that in almost all cases, the law can be violated to save lives. The major exceptions are the prohibition of idolatry (which undermines the law and society in general), adultery/incest/male homosexuality (ditto), and murder. As the Talmud says, "Who is to say that your blood is redder than his?" You cannot substitute one innocent for another. (The laws of murder are different in wartime, as they would have to be, but I have not studied them in depth.)

3. Self-defense, the fundamental "human right," is explicitly mandated. "If one comes to kill you, arise and kill him."

(It is true that many nominal Jews have screwed-up notions of freedom and government power… you'd think they'd have learned something from the Holocaust and Communism… grr…)

Mastiff,

I have a lot of respect for Judaism (almost considered converting at one point!), and recognize it as a basis for the Christian faith. However, I think Judaism and Christianity ultimately serve two different purposes. Gerald Schroeder, in his book The Science of God, explains

The Hebrew word for holy is kodesh and means separate, set apart. "The modern connotation of holy misses this, relating the word to being worthy of adoration. It is no wonder the Talmud likens the translation of the Hebrew Bible into other languages to a lion being locked in a cage, comparing it to the destruction of Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem. In the language of experimental science, this "holy" people is an identifiable control group set apart against which the flow of history can be compared.

It's not the purpose of Judaism to spread freedom, prosperity, and democracy. In fact, the places where Jews, themselves, have prospered the most are Christian nations.

You say:

I argue that once the fundamental sanctity of life is established, the other rights will take care of themselves over time. Therefore, any religion that believes in the fundamental sanctity of life is potentially valuable for the spread of freedom.

Right, and you are not going to find a persuasive argument for the sanctity of all human life outside of the Judeo-Christian sphere. However... while Jewish culture is benevolent, amazingly resilient, and has produced many, many excellent individuals who have contributed to humankind, it has not been a major force in creating and spreading freedom around the world. The Jewish culture is primarily focused on the acquisition of knowledge and understanding, survival, and maintaining an identity through traditions. This is not an indictment -- these things fulfill an intended role. A role that is too often, in my opinion, ignored by my fellow Christians. Christianity needs the biblical wisdom of Judaism. I would argue that Judaism and Christianity together form the be-all and end-all of religions in the world.

Nevertheless, my point has been that, in terms of the major forces in the world competing for domination, the only one that has a commitment to freedom is Christianity.

Gov. Rounds Signs Bill Banning Most S.D. Abortions

YIKES

It's not the purpose of Judaism to spread freedom, prosperity, and democracy.

Granted, Sarah. I suppose my main issue with Christianity is the simplistic understanding of the Bible which can be found in some denominations, which goes back to your comment about the role of Judaism's biblical traditions. So I think we're in substantial agreement here.

I have a rather startling suggestion for Kevin, Geek, and friends.

Put aside your ire at whatever perceived differerences you might have with Protestant Christianity, at least for now.

We have more clearly defined enemies at the gates at this very moment, and their name is Jihadist, PoliticallyCorrect pseudoMarxist, anti-theist (as opposed to y'all respectful and respectable atheists), and the like.

As it now stands guys, we are allies in a common cause, resisting the onslaught of those pernicious elements who WOULD usurp our self-evident and unalienable rights.

In my opinion, damn near every ounce of energy we spend debating the number-of-angles-on-the-head-of-a-pin arguments, the more time and greater leeway we give to the true enemies of freedom.

Secure our security first, fail not our freedoms.

Then, after the gates are secured, we may have ample time and liberty to debate our nuances to no end, hell, even to the point of silliness.

But not before we are secure, and we are most certainly not each other's enemies.

Hell, we're not even of threat one to another.

Unless that is, we fail to stand in the breech, together.


Jim
Sloop New Dawn
Galveston, TX

Brother Jim makes an important point, and I take it y'all trust realize that at the end of the day, we've absolutely got your back. (Well, I do, anyway)

Sidebar: This creates a sort of "where else are you gonna go?" arrogance out of the GOP, which emboldens them to stray into statism, and that's bad news in the long run. This is echoed in Sarah's sentiment (approx quote) that "there aren't enough of us to matter".

Here's the thing, though. I haven't fully articulated to myself _why_ I think sorting this out is important, although I have hinted at it. I may not nail it in this comment, it might take a couple trips 'round the block.

I am trying to make an important point here, and people are missing it, instead preferring to get into theological squabbling.

Sarah asks me (essentially) "since we have something that works, why do I feel it necessary to change it?"

First, let's look at Lund's conclusion:

"survival will mean turning back, back to the old ideas, old ways of living, old morals and old faith."

To a _very_large_extent, we agree. We need to get back to some old ideas like Locke, some old values that setup the situation such that we can hoist ourselves and each other up.

That being said, the past is gone, and shall not be again. What we CAN do is take a positive hand in shaping that which shall be, and ensure the critical elements are carried forward.

I'm not trying to UNDO anything, especially Christianity. I'm trying to build some more cars on the freedom train so everyone can ride.

Sarah, I actually accept as valid most of your points concerning the nativity of freedom in Christianity's cradle, but my question is...now what?

You say that you see no need to do something else, because the PC CWV we have works.

He's what you're not hearing:

IT DOESN'T WORK FOR EVERYONE. 1/2 OF OUR OWN PEOPLE HAVE ABANDONED IT.

Let's lay aside our domestic issues for now.

What do you have to offer the freedom loving folks who don't come from PC backgrounds, or nations with PC backgrounds? India? China? The middle east? Keep in mind, our current problems are fundamentally the result of the Islamists not being able to come to grips with the modern world, and converting to Protestantism just isn't gonna fly with those folks.

How do we "export freedom" if nobody wants to buy it because of the packaging?

The only way it's ever going to work for a Hindu, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Confucian is if we strip the recipe for freedom down to its essential ingredients, cleansing it of our own cultural baggage, export the core, and let other cultures start putting their own cultural baggage on it.

These folks are NOT going away. They are NOT going to convert. The only way is to find how we can let them into the club without alienating them, or driving them into the embrace of the whole poisonous pile of "multi cultural" rubbish, because we know that leads to places undesirable.

Another point I forgot to make:

>> You would best spend your time trying to convince the ambivalent third that equality, multi-culturalism, etc. are not compatible with freedom, and that they should join our side.

YES! We must do that.

We MUST ALSO show them how joining our side WORKS FOR THEM, without offending their sensibilities, sensibilities that might not have grown up in a PC/CWV environment.

I have the BEST commenters! 8)

Kevin, you get what you give.

"Christianity is not the be-all and end-all of religions." Unless it is true, then it is. See, here's the thing I struggled with. If there is a God, and he cares about us, then you have a starting point. Now, if there is a God who created us for a 'purpose' you'd think that he'd try and tell us what to do => bible, history, religion and so forth. Now, have a gander at all the religions in the world. Which one most jives (or jives at all) with what you think God and his purpose would be? Still a judgement call, but I don't see ANY other religions coming close. They all look pretty juvenile and contrived.

That's pretty much where the search ended for me. I was an atheist/agnostic my whole life until recently.

"Blargh. At this point, I'd pay good money to get Me, Sarah, Ben, Kevin and maybe 2 or 3 other in the same room. The medium of the 'net sometimes gets in the way, I suspect there's no points of contention here that couldn't be sorted out over a potroast and a beer."

I'm there. Too bad I'm not rich, or I'd fly everyone to my place. I am doing a slow-roast BBQ prime rib this summer. And we do have some fine shooting ranges close by. If Kevin, Geek, Sarah can make it, consider yourselves invited :)

Christianity is not the be-all and end-all of religions." Unless it is true, then it is.

So long as its followers do not feel impelled to force that religion on the rest of us, I'm fine with that.

My problem, however, is that when sufficient power accumulates, people who believe they are the anointed of the Almighty tend to believe they're doing what He would do, if only He understood the situation.

Which religion is involved seems immaterial, including the secular one of Socialism.

P.S.: Where you havin' that BBQ, Ben? ;-)

"So long as its followers do not feel impelled to force that religion on the rest of us, I'm fine with that." That would be at odds with Christianity, and you would be within your rights for shooting those sorts of "christians" in the face.

Seattle Washington. Summer 2006. Exact date depending on who can show up and when. :)

"That would be at odds with Christianity"

Not historically, it wouldn't. You can protest that those who would attempt it aren't actually "Christian," but that wouldn't change the fact that a lot of people see no problem with literally forcing their beliefs on others - even those who proclaim themselves "Christian."

Like Merrill Keiser, Jr. for example.

Seattle, eh?

"Not historically, it wouldn't."

What I really meant is that it would be at odds with Christ. What they make of it is their problem.

Geek, you make good points, but I still think your quest is doomed.

My first loyalty, as a Christian, is to the teachings of Christ. But politically, my loyalty is to the concept of freedom. Anyone, regardless of faith, who believes in freedom is a friend and ally to me, so I'm sympathetic to your view. I would like for there to be something that would allow everyone to have a strong commitment to freedom, right up to the point that they would be willing to risk their lives -- not only for their freedom, but for the freedom of others. That is what Protestant Christianity has achieved. What you're talking about is a moral system, a philosophy that could somehow accomplish the same thing. If you don't want a religion, it has to be a philosophy that forms the basis for a culture of freedom. The disconcerting part of this is, there never has been such a philosophy that has grabbed hold. This is the empirical truth. We have had the best minds from all over the world philosophizing for 2500 years and nobody's come up with it. At some point you have to concede that if it hasn't happened by now, maybe it's not possible.

But let's disassemble the Christian system, see what we can do without, and decide if we still have a philosophy of freedom. Can we do without the concept of God? No -- without God, there is no eternal purpose, no eternal right and wrong, no basis for individual rights. How about eternal life? No -- one of the reasons people are willing to give up their lives for a cause is because they believe in eternity, universal love, and a reward in the next life. You don't see humanism, the next most powerful belief system in the Western world, establishing a culture of freedom. It does not believe in God or eternal life, and what it has established (nominally) is a culture of equality.

You would like Muslims and Buddhists and the Chinese and whoever else to join us in the culture of freedom. But they can't. Muslims cannot believe in freedom, because theirs is a culture built around virtue. The Chinese cannot believe in freedom, because theirs is a philosophy and culture built around obedience to authority. You must convert them wholesale. You can talk about individuals who, for personal reasons, decide that freedom is wonderful, but to convert large chunks of the population, a critical political mass would have to change their entire philosophy. These people cannot convert to a generic philosophy of freedom, because their belief systems are incompatible with it. This is why, for instance, Chinese individuals can come to America and do quite well in spite of the fact that their home country is an utter sh-thole. They possess almost every ingredient for success -- emphasis on hard work, family, and education -- but the Chinese are not capable of freedom as a culture. They lack the necessary ingredient that Protestant Christianity provides.

Again, I strongly recommend Dinesh D'Souza's What's So Great About America for a better explanation of all this.

I'm very sympathetic to your wish, Geek, and would love to have everyone join us in freedom, regardless of their religion (or lack thereof). I'm just pessimistic that it can be achieved.

And, Ben, I'll have mine medium-rare.

Did you this..

Did you this WHAT? No Fox News spamming, dammit.

Edited By Siteowner

You all may be interested to read this commentary on BNW

http://www.huxley.net/

The author of the critique seems to have missed the point, he says that Huxley just did not give the technocrats enough credit, and that utopia will be possible once we get it right, so to speak.

I find this thinking to be exactly what Huxley and Orwell were writing about, blind faith in science and social engineering by "benevolent" uber-statesmen for our own good.

Utopia is a pipe dream of the intelligencia, conceived by people with too much time on their hands and delusions of grandeur.

Sarah:
(Sorry for the late reply, I've been sick).

Basically, what you're saying, is for Freedom to work, people must be forced into conversion to Protestant Christianity.

I realise, you're not saying it quite like that. But that's what logically follows by your thought process. If you want freedom, then you MUST live by the tenents of PC.

But PC wasn't what caused the freedom we're discussing - at least in my opinion. Which is good, because otherwise, I can't stand on the "barricade" with you - I gotta get on the other side away from you. :) Yes, I might need more than one barricade from others, as well.

That's what I think Kevin, and the geek and I are trying to say. We believe in freedom, despite not agreeing with you as to the PC origins of said freedom.
Personally, I'd like to be allied with the PC freedom-seekers. But with what you're saying, I read that as "Hey, my system works, and once you agree with me, you'll see it too!". And historically as you know, there's a lot of that. It ends... badly.

Perhaps I should ask you, what's the difference between what you're saying, and the outlook of the Catholic Church in the Inquisition, when they sought to scourge heresy (And thus to bring everyone closer to a state of grace)? (Not to get into a Godwinist moment, but how I'm reading you, the thought process seems to be identical to me)

"We believe in freedom, despite not agreeing with you as to the PC origins of said freedom."

Actually, I do concur with her assertion that Protestant Christianity is largely responsible for the origin of said freedom. I just don't agree with her position on its exclusivity.

Addison, I'm not saying that you or any other individual has to convert to PC to be free. Obviously, that's not the case, as there are millions of people in America who enjoy freedom and are not PC. What I'm saying is that the only way there has ever been freedom is with a significant percentage of the population being PC.

Kevin:
I think that the exposure to PC was a *part* of it. But it was also a part of the whole historical timeline, as I mentioned, the St Bart. Massacre I think had a far bigger impact than the church doctrine. Which is *related* to Protestantism.

And even if we'll not pick nits as to the *degree* of it's participation to the origin - we'll say that fine, it *was* a/the very/most important part.

Sarah:
So it was there for the origin. We don't think it's required for the _continuation_. Once the idea is started, PC by itself, isn't a requirement.

And while you say that forced conversion isn't on your agenda - can you see where your stance (That a signifigant percentage of the population *must* be PC) could result in someone else coming to exactly that conclusion?

So it was there for the origin. We don't think it's required for the _continuation_. Once the idea is started, PC by itself, isn't a requirement.

What's your argument that it is not needed for the continuation? There is no historical evidence to back this up. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary. Look at Scandinavia, which used to be very PC and was the second place in the world to experience the enormous prosperity brought by the industrial revolution. Over the years it has become very secularized, and at the same time there has been a significant decline in freedom. Same in Britain. This isn't proof of my premise, but don't you find it compelling?

And while you say that forced conversion isn't on your agenda - can you see where your stance (That a signifigant percentage of the population *must* be PC) could result in someone else coming to exactly that conclusion?

No, I don't see that. I'll give you an analogy of what I mean. If someone wants to lose weight permanently, I would tell him that the only proven way is to convert to a lifestyle of eating right and exercising. I'd tell him that his current lifestyle of 6000 calories a day and couch-potatoism is completely at odds with being fit. Nobody chose it to be that way, it's just a law of nature. What you'd be saying is that I therefore want to force everyone to eat right and exercise. But I have absolutely zero interest in forcing anyone to do anything. I'm not an Islamist. If Africans, Chinese, and Middle Easterners want to remain the way they are, fine. I feel badly for them, but it's their problem. If they decide they genuinely want political freedom, I would tell them that their current culture is completely at odds with freedom. This is a fact. Their best hope, probably their only hope, is to convert themselves to PC. I'm simply observing what works.