The Right to Speak Out

“He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.“

Jesus

This is wrong.  America, and all other countries, have a moral right to criticize and condemn no matter their past or present. 

Before explaining why let me enumerate some of the many moral failures of the United States before someone starts writing “were you aware of this” or “were you aware of that”.  In addition to those wrongs done against Native Americans outlined in the article there are these: 

Slavery.  Followed by Jim Crow, segregation and a long, long still on -going fight to correct the economic, educational, and legal injustices suffered by minorities today.

The internment of the Japanese during World War 2. 

The treatment, abuse, bullying, and deaths of LGBTQ. 

The second class status of women throughout most of our history, and the fact that this has not been fully corrected even yet. 

The toppling of governments we don’t like – such as in Iran in 1953 when we toppled its democratically elected government to protect our oil interests.  And as we have done numerous times in South and Central America.  

Our support of many brutal despotic governments. 

And since I want to focus on why I do not think these acts or the US disqualifies the US from making moral judgements and criticisms of other countries, let me just say these are only a few of the immoral actions of the United States. 

Let me also say that nothing I say here justifies these actions of the United States. That is not my intent, nor will ever be my intent.  These actions were wrong and immoral. 

But, they do not disqualify.  They do not disqualify for several reasons. 

First, I do not believe that there is a country in the world whose past actions and many of their present actions would be “without sin”.  Especially those who were powerful enough to influence the world.  Look into the history and actions of any country and you will find similar immoral actions, some more and more horrific, some less and less horrific.  But all still morally wrong. 

Second, norms are not static.  They become better morally.  They can and have also gotten worse.  Over the long arc of time they have changed for the better, become more just and moral and inclusive.  Disqualifying a nation today from being able to morally criticize another nation based upon actions and words from their past that were considered the norm at that time is irrational. 

Rather like denying all of what Lincoln said and did,  ignoring his words critical of slavery, due to the fact that he was racist, thought blacks inferior and did not believe whites and blacks could live together and that they should be sent back to Africa.  Or to ignore Darwin’s words about racist beliefs (he was much more enlightened than Lincoln on this) due to his misogynist views of women.  Both of these views were the norms for their time.  But that does not make their other words and writings and actions invalid and worthy of being ignored, much less condemning them for making such criticisms. 

So too with nations. 

Third, this disallowing of nations speaking out on moral issues due to their current or past actions is conflating two issues.  That of hypocrisy, and that of truth.  Just because a nation might be a hypocrite for daring to criticize another nation for actions it still does does not mean that its criticism is not valid and right.  To conflate the two and dismiss the claim is itself a moral injustice, one that often allows wrongs to continue by being ignored. I often see this happening with those denying the reality of climate change.

Deal with each separately.  State that the criticism is justified, but the person or nation making it is hypocritical.  And then deal with the more important of these two – which, to my mind, is going to be the criticism.  Is the US criticizing Hamas’s terrorist actions hypocritical considering the number of right wing terrorist groups they have funded through our history?  Possibly so.  Does that make their criticism of Hamas, that Hamas attack was evil, wrong?  Definitely not. Don’t use the one to dismiss and ignore the other. 

Finally, I would like to rephrase Jesus’s words some.  As true as the message it conveys is, it does not apply to all situations.  Short statements rarely do. 

Let they who are with sin cast the first stone.  And have them cast at them too by others with sin.

I mentioned earlier that I think the moral arc of time is generally positive and progressive.  However, it is so because of the sting of accurately cast stones cast by imperfect people and imperfect nations (there are no other sorts). 

Without the sting of those stones, no matter who cast them, no matter whether worthy or unworthy, we would still be killing all those who are other and thinking calling it good, would still be enslaving others and saying it is just and right, would still be torturing and burning, and oppressing and calling it good.  Although many of those things are still on -going, it is not nearly as widespread as they once were.  And it is not called good. 

If only those without sin were allowed to cast stones, the resulting silence about moral wrongs and injustices, about atrocities, would be deafening,  And the world would be the worse for such silence. 

Read Full Post »

Questions for Hamas. Questions for Israel

Questions for Hamas:

1. You state that your goal is the eradication of Israel.  Given Israel’s economic and military power, and the international support it gets, along with the fact that it has now existed for 75 years, do you think this a realistic goal?
2. If so, how do you think this can be achieved?  Details would be good instead of just a very generalized response.
3. Either way, do you think this a moral goal?  It would involve displacing a whole people, the vast majority who had nothing to do with creating Israel and most being third or fourth generation with Israel being the only home they know.  This action would most likely wind up killing many thousands, including civilians, the old and disabled, women and children.  Do you consider that moral? 
4. Do you see Israelis as being human, on a par with yourself and your family?
5. Do you think that one atrocity justifies the committing of another atrocity?  That injustice done to a person justifies that person killing those who were not involved, including children and babies? 

Questions for Israel

1. You have either ignored the plight of the Palestinians and/or taken steps to make life worse for them.  Now you are going all out with a military attack with little to no regard to civilians in the Gaza strip.  When you “win” this, which you will because your military is too powerful and the Palestinians in Gaza too weak, not to mention you having total control of all resources into Gaza, do you really think this will solve the problem of the Palestinians and with terrorists? 
2. If so, then do you consider such actions as being moral.  It would involve killing many thousands of people, including civilians, the old and disabled, women and children.  Do you consider that moral?  
3. If you do not think the military solution will actually be a solution what do you think needs to be done in addition to the military response?  Details would be good instead of just a very generalized response. 
4. Do you see Palestinians as being human, on a par with yourself and your family? 
5. Do you think that one atrocity justifies the committing of another atrocity?  That injustices done to a person justifies that person killing those who were not involved, including children and babies? 

Let me close these questions with two thoughts.

First, despite what is said, the Hamas attack was not unprovoked.  It was provoked by the injustice of their land being forcibly taken from them in the creation of Israel 75 years ago. And since then by their treatment as second class citizens within Israel and the broken promises of inviolate land to those herded to the West Bank and Gaza. Not just once, but, despite some periods of hope and progress, over and over again.  And with the establishment of the current right wing government these actions, these violations, have become worse and worse.  The Hamas attack was definitely provoked.

But so too are Israel’s current actions.  It was not the military or government that were targeted, but civilians.  Deliberately and cruelly so.  This included the killing of children, up close and personal and not as a result of an errant missile aimed at a government or military site.  All governments have a duty to react to and protect their citizens – it is their reason for existing in the first place and their foremost responsibility. 

However, the provocations, the causes of this really do not matter right now. No cause, no provocation justifies the atrocities happening on both sides. Causes matter now only because they point towards possible ways forward. They act as a means to inform and guide actions that need to be taken to provide greater justice and peace to all, and to no longer provide anyone a cause to kill. And to commit further atrocities.  So far both sides are using causes only to justify that which will continue the hatred and violence.

Second, during part of my five hour drive to visit the grandkids the other day I was listening to an interview done on NPR with a Rabbi and an Imam.  It was very good and informative, both in their answers to the questions posed and their interactions with each other.  I was though especially struck by this comment (in my own words) that both agreed with at the end. 

The divide in this war is not between the Palestinians and the Israelis.  It is not between the Jew and the Muslim.  Instead, it is between those that think violence is the solution and those that think something other than violence is needed and necessary. 

Read Full Post »

Hamas, Israel, Palestinians, Root Causes, and MLK

“But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard.”

MLK

While the situation of the blacks during the Civil Rights movement (and continuing on to today) and that of the Palestinians have some significant differences, and while the attacks carried out by Hamas have some very significant differences with that of the riots during the Civil Rights Movement, there is one fundamental similarity – both are the language of the unheard and powerless. 

There is one critical difference too, one that makes the whole situation between Israel and the Palestinians deeply and heartachingly ironic.  That this whole situation was the result of one group of nations trying to atone for atrocities and injustices they perpetuated and allowed by creating another great injustice.  Thus setting the stage for the oppressed and persecuted to, in turn, start to become oppressors and persecutors in the name of survival. 

Let me also state at the beginning that I unequivocally condemn the actions of Hamas, especially those directed at civilians.  To target civilian families, including children and babies, personally not with missile strikes and to take hostages, again including babies and children – there is no justification for this.  No matter what was done to them, to the Palestinians, nothing justifies this.  It is immoral and wrong.  It is evil. While I can understand the causes, understanding is not the same as condoning and accepting. 

And Hamas’ actions, coupled with their goal of the complete eradication of Israel, will only make a terrible situation worse by helping the hard liners and those most wanting to use force to solve the Palestinian “problem”.  While it is hard to see a good way forward, it is all too easy to see many ways that will make things even worse.  Hamas has already started upon the path of one of those ways.  And it looks as if Israel may be too. 

Violence tends to beget violence and atrocity begets more atrocities, with the result that fear and hatred wind up ruling the hearts and minds then instead of reason and peace. 

But, instead of looking at specific solutions I am going to look at something else.  In my days as a manager, when significant problems occurred we usually tried to look beyond the most immediate cause to see what set that immediate cause up.  For example, did an employee make an expensive mistake because they were not trained correctly, were the written instructions vague, unclear, or just wrong, was there some design flaw in the machinery that lends itself to operators making those sorts of mistakes and so forth.  It is an often useful tool in pointing towards possible solutions.  And while it might not point to solutions now, it can provide illumination for preventing creating further such situations. And possibly help identify ways forward.  That is something I will deal with a bit more towards the end. 

In the case of the Hamas attack the root cause lies in anti-Semitism.  But not that of the Arabs, but within Europe.  Anti-Semitism that, after over a millennia of persecutions, discrimination, and pogroms resulted in the Holocaust and the murder of over six million Jews.  And then came the guilty almost knee jerk reaction of both America and Europe to the atrocity of the Holocaust and to the role they played in it, whether large or small.  A knee jerk reaction that did not take account of the desires and needs of the people already living on the lands that were to be gifted to make a Jewish nation. In their attempt to assuage their guilt over the injustice they had perpetuated against the Jews, they did committed an injustice against the Arabs, especially the Palestinian people.    

This was the root cause.  Over a thousand years of persecution that culminated in the Holocaust.  And also birthed the rise of Zionism as Jews tried to create their own answers to their seemingly eternal persecution.  From this history we wind up a land with two victims – Jews and the Arabic Muslims.

That is the historical root cause.  As for the more proximate causes, they are several. 

Palestinian leadership has been both corrupt and inept. This includes both the PLO and Hamas.  Neither has served their people well in finding a solution that will result in peace. 

Palestinians have continued to carry out attacks on Israelis. I acknowledge that thee are reasons for this, but they still contributed to the current situation. 

Israel has been gradually taking away land promised to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Jerusalem . Under the current right wing government in Israel this has gotten much worse.  The West Bank is now so divided and cut up that trying to make it a whole country is almost impossible without making Israel give back some of the lands the Israeli settlers have taken.

Both the West Bank and the Gaza strip have been kept impoverished by the policies of Israel.  Done in the name of security, “justified” by continued Arab attacks upon Jews in Israel, these policies nonetheless create greater and greater frustration and anger. Far from solving the problem they make it worse.    

Israeli attacks upon Palestinians. 

Land taken away by Israel, impoverished by Israel, many of their family and friends imprisoned by Israel – some justly, many not.  And an Israeli government that shows less concern and more disdain for the Palestinians than most before.  A government of right wingers, many of who believe that the West Bank and Gaza strip are Israeli lands and that the Arabs who live there have no rights and should be either evicted or made second class citizens. 

I believe that this quote from the same speech that MLK gave where he spoke the words that started this blog is relevant:

“Certain conditions continue to exist in our society, which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention.”

Until these issues in regards to the Palestinians are addressed, humanely and completely, then these atrocities, this cycle of violence will continue.  Unless Israel decides to resort to a Palestinian Holocaust.  Something that the vast majority of them do not want, but under fear and hatred, may wind up doing in  following the lead of those who do, who see this as the only way to preserve Israel. 

A final quote from MLK: 

Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. I am not unmindful of the fact that violence often brings about momentary results. Nations have frequently won their independence in battle. But in spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones. Violence is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding: it seeks to annihilate rather than convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends up defeating itself.”

I do not have a specific way forward but will make a couple of observations.  First, MLK’s observations about how effective, or rather ineffective, violence is something that needs to be heard by both sides. As should his words about achieving justice and of delivering the promises of freedom.

And now let me refer to my root cause, the injustice of Europe’s atonement for their persecution of Jews.  In their unjust solution they did not stop violence, but merely changed the form and the roles of victim and persecutor.  It solved nothing.  Something that Hamas and the other Palestinian terror groups who advocate for the total destruction of Israel should also learn from    

To my mind though, the more powerful should be the one most willing to take risks. In this case, the most powerful by far is Israel.  During these conflicts look at how many Jews were killed, and then compare that to the number of Palestinians killed.  They are almost always not even close. 

Further, Israel has the economic resources and political resources to actually make a difference.

It is up to the Israelis to engage in a credible peace process, something that would allow the Palestinians to feel hope.  Currently they and the Palestinians are in a cycle of ever increasing violence. And as I said earlier, the only sure results of such is more fear and more hate, and more lives lost and destroyed. 

Having said that let me also state that Israel not only ahs the right but the duty to use military force to protect the lives of its citizens.  But they need to be prudent in their use of that force, in their targeting.  Something I am very concerned they will not be, given the horrendous nature of the Hamas attack and the current right wing government in power. They have already totally blockaded the Gaza strip from all food, water, medical supplies, which is not a promising start to a prudent use of force. 

More importantly though is what actions should be taken afterwards.  Will it be one that heeds the words of MLK.  Or one that continues to  perpetuate hatred and fear, blood and suffering.  I hope for the former but fear it will be the latter. 

Read Full Post »

A Few Random Thoughts on Atheism

Just a few thoughts about various aspects of atheism that I don’t really have enough to say to make any of these a full blog – or at least don’t have the energy to do so.

Is Atheism a religion.  Many atheists get upset at atheism being called a religion.  They quite rightly point out that it has no dogma, no rituals, no established rites.  However, they are still wrong in saying it is not a religion.  It is a religion in the same way that Theism is, a belief about whether a god exists or not.   

Theism does not have any dogma, no rituals, no established rites. It is just the belief that there is a god of some sort.  Atheism and theism are two sides of the same religious belief.  It is the absolute broadest category when looking at religion.  From there the comparison goes to Catholicism vs Secular Humanism, or Alawite Muslims vs  Humanistic Jews. 

And yes, while not as well organized or structured as most theistic belief systems, atheism does have its own divisions and groupings. 

Atheism and Morality.  One of those divisions in atheism is the source of morality.  Some atheists believe that no standards for right and wrong actually exist.  Others that they are based solely upon society or are entirely situational.  Others believe that here is an objective basis for morality but that is it not God based or supernatural and, instead, arises from what we are.  My own belief is the last one – derived from what we are. 

Atheism and Spirituality  This can be another source of division within atheism.  While all atheists agree that there is no omnipresent, omniscient, benevolent personal being, what constitutes atheism can become a bit more murky after that. 

Many reject all forms of superstition and supernatural beings.  Even the idea of spirituality.  Some atheists though are more open to such things.  Especially spirituality, with spirituality being the idea that while God or gods do not exist there is a nebulous higher consciousness that does.  Most atheists do not believe in a higher consciousness, but many do. 

Along with this some atheists enjoy going to church and the rites of a particular religious belief.  Humanist Jews is one such example.  Some Christian ones are the same.  Another source of division. 

For myself, I am sympathetic to the spiritual atheists, and depending upon how spiritual is actually defined, might include myself among them.  Although not if it is defined solely as a belief in a higher consciousness.  In regard to attending religious services, was never much for that even when I was a Christian much less now. 

Atheism as cure for all that is wrong in the world.  I have seen some atheists claim that if it weren’t for religion the world would be much better off. That atheism by itself would make the world better.  Not paradise, but better.  However, I think this thinking flawed. 

First, it underestimates the good done by religion throughout the millennia.  In fact, I believe that overall religion has done a great deal more good than bad. 

Second, more importantly, it underestimates the amount of evil that can be done under atheism.  Much of atheism’s seemingly benign history lies in it rarely having access to the power of the state.  However, in the few times the government has embraced the belief that there is no God, evil things have and continue to happen. 

The French Revolution and the Cult or Reason.  The Khmer Rouge.  The USSR.  And today’s communist China.  You will find religious and ethnic intolerance and persecution, and massive deaths under each. This despite their embrace of atheism.  Just like the greatest damage done in the name of religion has been done when religion and state were merged.  

So, no, I’m not optimistic that atheism would be a panacea for the world’s ills.  And it could actually make things worse.  That is not to say it will, only that claiming it will only improve the world is too optimistic and ignores too much history. 

Atheism has no comfort for our coming death, for righting wrongs.  Atheism has no good comfort to give for a life after death for most. Except, maybe, for those who are in deep suffering or believed in Hell.  Atheism offers only dissolution.  And no, the idea that my wife’s atoms and molecules will continue on for eternity is no comfort.  My wife was not atoms and molecules.  She was a very specific arrangement of such, and that arrangement is now gone.  Sorry, at least for me, there is no comfort in atheism. 

Although strictly speaking there is nothing to prevent an atheist from believing in a life after death.  Just one that exists without a God. Some atheists do believe this.  For myself, I do not yet.  But I really hope I am wrong.  But, even if so, I do not see how that could wind up righting the many injustices and wrongs all of us suffer to varying degrees in life. 

And those are my few random thoughts about atheism.  Enjoy!

Read Full Post »

Thoughts on 10 Conservative Principles

Recently I came across Russell Kirk’s essay “Ten Conservative Principles”.  Since I am a liberal I thought it might be interesting and maybe even informative to comment on these.  Possibly even helpful.

Currently the United States is experiencing one of the largest and most severe gaps not only over political and social issues, but also on the world and how it works. Now many will never even modify their views and beliefs much less change them.  However, I believe that most people are open to at least modifying, and some to changing them, if provided with information and reasons. 

Being a liberal I want to modify conservatives’ views to a more liberal direction.  However, I would settle…no, actually, I would be satisfied with modifying some conservative’s views towards liberals so that they are not demonized and then ignored by virtue of a belief in a caricature. Without this no dialogue is possible and without dialogue no change or improvement is possible. 

Even though I am talking about conservatives let me state that I am also aware this is done by many liberals too.  Let me also state that there are times when instead of being a demonization of the views of others it is actually an accurate picture of those views.  However, this is, again, a minority of times.  A very loud and prominent minority, but minority, nonetheless. 

Given the times even this small goal might not be achievable. But I think it worth pursuing by people on both sides who wish reason and civility to play a larger role than they currently do. Based on past experiences I don’t think this goal impossible, having had a few reasonable and civil conversations with those who disagree.  Just extremely difficult, and rare.   

Kirk’s First Conservative Principle

“First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.”

My views:  On this one I partly agree and partly disagree.

I do agree that there exists a moral order.  And that it is made for man and man is made for it; human nature is constant.  Although here we might disagree on the exact meaning of these words.  Since he did not say where he thinks morals come in this essay I will won’t touch on that.  However, I do not believe that moral truths are permanent.  Nor constant. 

The source of morality for humans is the interaction of what we are as a species with the environment around us, including the ones we have created in the form of societies.  Our species is a very highly social and highly intelligent one.  Both of these were and are essential for our survival.  Because of our need to be in a group to both provide protection for its members but also for their children, children who take much longer to develop than any other species, traits such as empathy, a sense of fairness, reciprocity, a need for others, and so forth are innate. Any society which is created by these traits which violate too many of them will not last as long.  Those that do better at meeting the needs created by these traits will survive longer.

One thing I should mention is that this means that our moral basis is not hard wired into us.  It is not something that forces us.  Instead, these traits create tendencies and predilections.  Because of this we can build societies that violate these traits.  But such societies over time will also not last as long as those that violate fewer of them. 

This is also where our intelligence comes in.  As we became an agricultural people instead of hunters and gathers and started to live in larger and larger groups we created more varied types of cultures, governments, societies.  Each with their own strengths and weaknesses.  It is these societies that then turn our evolutionary traits mentioned above into actual morality.  One that can help support that particular society. 

This does not mean anything goes. All of these moralities derived from the same set of traits, which limits their effective variability.  And then there is the question of which ones survive better due to being better at meeting the needs of those traits, among other things. 

Let me state that, due to space considerations, while everything that I have written is true, it is also very much simplified to the point of being oversimplified.  But it does provide the basis of my disagreement with Kirk on this. 

All of this then leads me to another part of this that I disagree with.  Later under this First section Kirk writes

“It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be”

This overlooks the fact that our values, our individual morality is fostered and promoted by the sort of society, culture and government we live in – schools, laws, customs, etc. Without a proper foundation and support then moral values are going to go south in a major way.  Morality cannot exist apart from the societies we build.  If the society is flawed, then most individuals within that society will be similarly flawed to a greater or lesser degree. 

While there is an overlap here between mine and Kirk’s views, there is a crucial distinction and fundamental distinction too.  For Kirk I imagine change and improvement has to be focused on individuals.  Society is good, but not the most basic.  For me, it is the other way around – individual focus is good and needed, but without societal and governmental structural change it is not enough. 

Kirk’s Second Conservative Principle

“Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions.”

My views.  Nowhere in this section do I see a discussion of the possibility of good change. I do agree with him that continuity and custom and convention are important, often critically so.  Witness the current Supreme Court. Or all of trump’s presidency ending with his refusal to do as custom, convention, and continuity prescribed, admit that he lost.   

However, there are times when change is needed and when custom, convention and continuity, no matter its pedigree or how long it has existed needs to be changed.  In fact, many customs over time have been shown to be gravely immoral and so correctly discontinued. 

Kirk’s Third Conservative Principle

Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time. Therefore conservatives very often emphasize the importance of prescription—that is, of things established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary. There exist rights of which the chief sanction is their antiquity—including rights to property, often. Similarly, our morals are prescriptive in great part. Conservatives argue that we are unlikely, we moderns, to make any brave new discoveries in morals or politics or taste.”

My views.  Again, while there is a large core of truth to this, it is taken to extremes.  I would be interested in his thoughts about slavery.  There was an institution that has lasted many thousands of years, something most definitely established by “immemorial usage”.   Yet we quite rightly got rid of it and now consider it immoral and wrong.  What is interesting is his mentioning the rights to property.  Slavery was often defended through the use of property rights. 

And no “brave new discoveries in morals or politics or taste”?  I already mentioned one such, slavery.  Women’s rights is another such.  The list is actually quite extensive.  Not only morally, but in terms of politics. 

Kirk in this section also said,  – “ The individual is foolish, but the species is wise, Burke declared. In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for the great mysterious incorporation of the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality”

No, the species is often foolish as well.  And this seems to be an argument for not getting changing injustices and inequalities.  Based on this we were wrong to outlaw slavery. 

And that will be it for this blog.  I’ll hit the next conservative principles in my next blog.  I am not sure if it will take me one or two blogs to finish them.  And just FYI for you brave few who have read this and are interested – I won’t be posting a blog next week due to being out of town.  But it will be there the following week. 

Read Full Post »

What is the Right Side of History?

The Jan 6^th insurrection, and those opposed. 

Banning abortion , and those supporting abortion rights.

LGBTQ  being unnatural, and those supporting LGBTQ rights.

On these and on many other issues, despite their deep and fundamental differences both sides agree on one thing – they are on the “right side of history”. 

This is a phrase you see, not often, but frequently enough from both individuals and from articles written about these conflicts.      

From the Daily Signal’s “The Right Side of History: How Abortion Became a Positive Good” and Dan Fagan’s “On Abortion, Louisiana is on the Right Side of History”, to Adrian’s Brooks book “The Right Side of History: Nearly 100 Years of LGBTQ Activism” and The Courthouse News “The right side of history: Social media is clear that the Capitol rioters thought they were on it”.  And more, from individuals, articles and books.  Being on the right side of history is an important concept, goal and…conceit. 

Why conceit?  Because who is on the right and wrong side of history is a never ending process whose final resolution we will never know. 

Let’s start though with definitions.  What does being on the right side of history mean?  Does it mean whichever side eventually wins?   This is a part of it.  An important part of it too.  After all, if an idea, movement, people do not survive then it is hard to argue they are on the right side of history.  However, for the great majority of people there is more to being on the right side of history than being the survivor.  For most there is a moral aspect to being on the right side, beyond just which side wins. In fact, this survival is usually linked to a set of values or morals that led to the winning side winning.  Being on the side of good ensures that in the long term that cause will be on the right side of history.  Instead of might making right, right makes might.

Hitler and the Nazis thought they were on the right side of history not just because they were winning and had conquered Europe but also because their ideals of racial purity were more moral and true than other nations and so invested their cause with an aura of inevitability.  So too with today’s ideas of being on the right side of history.

So, there are two linked concepts involved in being on the right side of history.  Actually outlasting and surviving those who oppose.  And being moral and good.  Of course, what is moral and good differs from person to person.  Most of the time this difference is minor and minimal.  Otherwise societies and governments could not last.  But there are times when the differences are a large chasm and can create large conflicts that can tear the fabric of society and governments.

Slavery in the US.  Fascism in Germany.  And today there are several heated issues in which the chasm seems to be growing.  And in which each side sees themselves as being the moral actors, the ones guarding our lives and liberties from the other.  Each sees the other as an existential threat and immoral. And each believes they are on the right side of history and the others are on the wrong.  And wrong, no matter how overwhelming it might seems at times, always loses in the long term. 

Truth to tell, I kind of go along with this.  This idea was expressed by MLK , “We shall overcome because the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.”

Looking at the history of the world and of our country I see progress with progress being defined as improving the rights of people and making governments more accountable to its citizens.  Oh, it is a  mixed and messy bag with a great many significant setbacks.  But, at the end of the day, look at the ideas and state of the world in the 1rst century BC, in 1200 AD, in 1700 AD, at the beginning of the 20^th century, and today.  There are significant differences in ideas and values.  Ideas and values that are so widespread and strongly held that even those governments that violate them believe they have to pay lip service to them. 

However, although I believe it I also realize that there are two serious problems with the idea of being on the right side of history.  Something beyond and more fundamental than the forever shifting disagreements on which side is on the right side. 

First, it is a human conceit that the side that prevails in the long term will be the more moral one.  While, as I said, I believe this to be true I also recognize that there is nothing to ensure that it will always remain true.  There is no reason that Fascism and its evils of extreme nationalism and violent bigotry against minorities of all types, against the other, will nor resurge again and then become the normal and accepted pattern, become accepted as good, forever, and ever more.  That link though between moral and survival is an assumption only though.

Linked to this is that fact that history is still being created.  Moment by moment, minute by minute, hour by hour, day by day and year by year, more and more history is being created.  And will continue to be created until humanity is no more. 

Which then creates the question of how do you determine which side is ultimately the right side of history without history ending?   As long as history is still happening then that moral arc that we thought we saw could prove nothing more than an illusion created by a too short time scale.  We can make no  final judgment on which side is the right side and which is not until history is done. 

But will democracy and rights last or will they fall by the wayside and prove to be in the wrong side,  showing itself not to be strong enough to deal with the contradictory nature of humanity.   Until the end of homo sapiens which side is on the right side will be claims based not only upon shaky logical arguments and vastly incomplete evidence but also just as much upon emotions and faith.  Something integral to both sides. 

The take away from this?  You cannot assume that the arc of history will take care of ensuring that what is right will survive and eventually flourish.  We are the ones creating that arc and nothing is certain except that if we do not work to bend it, even no matter slightly and locally, then someone else will determine who is on the right side of history. 

Read Full Post »

Morality, Effective Action, and Hypocrisy

In this blog I plan to pose a question, one whose answer I am not totally sure of.  The question is one of long standing for me, but one which I had not thought on for awhile.  Until now, when reading the new biography of Jimmy Carter, “His Very Best”  by Jonathan Alter, reminded me of it.

In this biography Mr. Alter goes over Jimmy’s life and, more relevant here, his rise to political power in Georgia.  Throughout his life, Jimmy lived with blacks. In fact, early in his life, he live in an area that was much more black than white.  They were an integral part of his life, with him having many black friends. One black woman even became a formative influence upon him as great as his mother.  And while he was personally against racism in any form, for a long time he was quietly so, rarely speaking out or taking action.

Those engaged in racist speech and actions were often friends and family that he had grown up with.  Also, as he took over and grew his business, the continued success of that  business was dependent upon the good will of the community. A very small town one.  And then, of course, came his political ambition. An ambition that in the beginning would have died an early death had he taken an overt stand against racism and for the Civil Rights movement. 

During this time he would not join in overtly racist actions or join such groups, but he would also not speak out and denounce them either. While not condemning them, he also did not support a local mixed race community when they were being ostracized and the area refused to sell them food and necessities. His church, where he was a deacon, decided to ban all blacks and civil rights agitators from even entering and, while he voted against this policy (his business was boycotted for a short period of time for this), he did not stop attending the church when the vote when against him.  When MLK came to the area, he made no effort to attend any of the rallies or speak out in support of them. Nor any other Civil rights protests.   He was a good friend of a local sheriff whom many in the civil rights movement (Plains was one of the hotbeds of the movement) said was worse than Birmingham’s Bull Connor. 

Jimmy publicly supported George Wallace, the Alabama governor, without endorsing his racism.  In fact, when running against a former governor, Jimmy used his opponent’s decision to stop Wallace from speaking in the state against him in order to get the racist votes.  And while not explicitly endorsing racism during his campaign for Governor of Georgia he often used code words that his audience understood. 

But that changed when he was elected governor. Jimmy came out of the closet.  In his inaugural speech he let Georgia know his true beliefs. 

“The test of a leader is not how well he campaigned but how effectively he meets the challenges and responsibilities of his new office….. I say to you quite frankly that the time for racial discrimination is over. Our people have already made this major and difficult decision. No poor, rural, weak, or black person should ever have to bear the additional burden of being deprived of the opportunity of an education, a job, or simple justice.”

This took most of his racist supporters by total surprise. Many of the state senators who had supported him left during the speech.  Some called Carter “That n… loving bastard”.

Within days of being sworn Jimmy had hired Georgia’s “first-ever black woman senior state official”, “expanded the number of blacks serving on state boards and commissions from three to fifty-five”, appointed “Georgia’s first-ever black county judge” and named a black as “the first African American member of the Georgia Board of Regents”. Jimmy started meeting with and helping civil rights leaders, including the father of MLK and his wife.  He made it a point to bring black state troopers to country club events, forcing them to integrate since he would not force the troopers to eat outside.  And more.  On the environment, on ethics in office, and on many other issues he was ahead of his time. 

My question and quandary here is, does all of the good that he did and the causes he promoted since becoming governor justify all the times he was silent and did little to nothing in regards to race before becoming governor?  Does the harm created by Jimmy’s silence and actions outweigh the good done when he became governor? 

This is, of course, just a particular example of the more general question of “does the ends justify the means?” 

Many people strongly believe that abuses and wrongs should be resisted publicly and loudly whenever they are encountered.  That speaking truth to power, so to speak, is a necessity. Injustice needs to be actively resisted and opposed every time. 

However, in the context of the times and place – Georgia in the 1960s and early 70s – such people would not have been able to be elected.  Not even close. So, in that case, what would be the moral thing to do? 

To my mind this whole question is framed too simplistically.  And too short termed.

In this world there are few absolutes when it comes to human behaviors, actions, institutions, creations. In fact, other than my own statement here, I seriously doubt that there are any absolutes.  And that includes the question of whether the means justify the ends.  Which means that instead of a yes or no answer, a black and white answer, a true or false answer, you need an essay answer. An essay that looks at several factors in making a determination.  

• Do the actions or nonactions taken allow the continuance of the evil or do they actively promote and increase it?
• How evil are the evils going on? And yes, there are degrees of evilness. 
• How good are the ends? 
• Is the evil done a short term evil done in order to gain a long term good? 

Obviously this is all going to result in a large amount of grey, with each action/nonaction having to be determined individually. And with a great deal of disagreements on the conclusion of such. 

A consequence of this that is not often looked at is that we are all hypocrites.  Politicians especially so, but all of us too.  It is almost a part of the human condition in our large complex societies, and perhaps the smaller ones too.  Now, while hypocrisy is something that is wrong and should be avoided, it should not be avoided at all costs. The real question in regards to hypocrisy is are they, and us, hypocrites for the right reasons.   

One final thought here, this is not meant to imply that speaking out at all costs and every time against a perceived evil and injustice is wrong, or that those who do so are foolish or idealistic.  We very much need such in order to keep pressing ahead.  They are the motivators, the gadflies.  The calculating hypocrite LBJ needed the idealism of MLK speaking truth to power in order to pass the landmark Civil Rights laws. Without both, change would not have happened. 

Read Full Post »

Warm Hearts, Cold Reasons

The great majority of those who support trump and who deny the seriousness of our coronavirus pandemic are good and caring people in their personal lives.  They will willingly help their neighbors, family, and friends without being asked.  They volunteer in their community.  They hurt when something bad happens to a member of their community. They can be good and loving spouses and parents.  And yet…

When it comes to the current pandemic these warm and caring people become as cold as gravestones.  It is not so much that their hearts become uncaring, but that their minds come up with reasons to ignore the danger and toll of this pandemic, reasons that are cold enough to freeze their hearts.

These people say that it mainly affects the old and the sick, and those with pre-existing conditions.  They state that the conditions of most of those who died from COVID were terminal anyway.  These loving people with the grave hearts point out, with suitable commentary on how to understand it, that nursing homes with the elderly and the sick, people who are on death’s door, had a high number of deaths and account for most deaths, and even then mainly due to the poor and often criminal actions on the parts of mayors who stuffed people into nursing centers. 

Only the old.  Only the terminally ill.  Only those with health issues.  They weren’t going to live long anyway.  And their quality of life could not have been that great, so what’s the big deal about shortening it by a few days or weeks, or even months.  Not a big enough deal to cause me discomfort and bother.  It’s kind of a mercy killing really. 

These people who otherwise care, create stories about those who die so their otherwise warm hearts turn cold and unfeeling.  To do this, they overlook the reality. 

First, most of those who died with pre-existing conditions would have lived years and usually decades had they not become ill with COVID.  Many had active and wonderful lives, cut very short by COVID.  Time to spend with spouses, and children, creating fun times and good memories.  Accomplishing what they wanted from life. 

The pre-existing conditions include such things as diabetes, obesity, heart conditions, kidney illness, asthma, being over 65, liver disease, pregnancy, and more.  Almost 40%  of the population of the US has some sort of condition that makes getting COVID a serious issue. 

Second, they chose ignorance in order to maintain a warm heart made gravestone.  They recommend that those at risk should just stay home and let everyone else go about it.  This ignores the fact that:

• As I already stated, about 40% of the population has an issue that puts them at risk.  Are the other 60% of the people going to take up the slack all on their own?  And how do those 40% survive if they can’t work and make money, if they can’t go out to get groceries or see the doctor? 

• That those without any symptoms can spread the disease. This includes the young and healthy.  A husky 20 year old track star gets COVID, but is asymptomatic.  He visits his grandmother, or has a friend who is diabetic on the track team, or his older 24 year old sister has asthma and is pregnant.  All higher risk, and he can spread it to any or all of them, and not even realize it.

• Most nursing homes shut down early on and stopped allowing any visitors at all, not family, not friends. Rough on the residents doing so for over six months now.  However, it is still not able to keep them healthy and safe from COVID.  The nurses and staff who take care of the residents and keep the nursing home going go home to live their lives.  A nurse has a daughter in school who comes home with it. But they don’t know it because she is asymptomatic.  The nurse gets it, also asymptomatic, and brings it into the residents. And now there are serious health issues in the nursing home.   Or the therapist who works with the people at nursing homes goes to the grocery store and someone refuses the wear their mask. And repeat previous scenario. 

• A nursing home is not the same as hospice, which many of these people seem confused about.  Yes, on average the time lived in one is not long – one study had it about 2 years, with a great deal of variation based upon the individual condition.  But, do you think these people who die in nursing homes wanted to give up what life they had left?  Do you really think that they did not believe it worth living and were glad to die?  To me, a life unnecessarily and unwantingly shortened by any amount is a tragedy. 

• Even young and healthy people get this disease, and die of it. 

• Dying is not the only bad thing that happens.  Being ill and hospitalized for days, and, more likely, weeks is difficult and stressful.  Not only that, but hard on the finances.  Especially since many of those who survive have long recovery periods afterwards, and some have long term health problems.  

One final belief is involved in these people turning their hearts to gravestone, the mortality rate.  A common number I have seen cited is that the death rate is only 0.000279%.  And it is a number that they will stand by even when it is pointed out to them that COVID is now the third largest cause of death in the US, with us fast approaching 200,000 deaths in much less than a year.  And the bodies stilled too soon continue to stack up at a rate of over 1,000 per day. 

For these people, though, the justification for ignoring this reality is that most COVID deaths are the result of the underlying health issue and not COVID.  Which, no matter how you try to explain how ridiculous that belief is – if these people had not gotten COVID then they would have still been alive even with the underlying health issue – they persist in promoting and believing it.  Which, of course, reinforces their belief that it is only, or almost only, the weak and on deaths door people who die of this disease, and thus no cause for concern. 

The reasons for why they persist on gazing on Medusa’s face like this are varied, and not something I am going to go into here.  This is, instead, just an observation of how some people who can seem and are so caring in other areas of their lives, become cold and unfeeling on this.   How suddenly, if a person is old or has a health condition their lives are not important enough to try to protect.  This gravestone heart is why we are now projected to have over 400,000 deaths by January, over doubling where we already are at in six months in less than three months.

 

But hey!  Those lives did not matter, not at all. 

Read Full Post »

Atheism and Morality, Redux Part 1

Time to take a break from the fast moving, and frustrating, world of current events and politics.  Time to take a look at something that should be, but too often is not, related to both, morality.  Specifically, how an atheist views the source of morality.

This topic came about due to several recent discussions I have had with very conservative Christians.  In the course of those discussions I was reminded of this blog I wrote ten years ago, “Atheist, Atheist, Atheist at Last. Now What About Morality”.

I have slightly revised it, and will be adding a part two to this discussing the is/ought question, which was the standard response I received in my discussions.  But, first, the slightly revised explanation of the source of an atheist’s morality.  Or, for that matter, everyone’s morality, whether dressed up in religion or not.

The proximate source of our morality and ethics is the culture around a person.  Culture not religion.  While religion may be an important part of that culture it is not the whole of it.  And while certain religious beliefs can help promote morality, and others promote immorality, religion is not the source of morality.

The source of our morality is our evolutionary heritage.  Note that I wrote evolutionary heritage and not evolution.  There is a reason for that.

Too often, in fact most often, when people hear that evolution is the basis of our morality they immediately think about survival of the fittest and equating it with all sorts of rather brutal policies.    They use the process of evolution and try to make this process the underpinning of morality.  That is an error.

In fact, this is the same mistake that many scientists made in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries and was called Social Darwinism.  This error lasted for far too long before finally being discredited and caused much harm (and no I am not talking Nazism and the Holocaust – that would have occurred even if evolution had never been thought of).  I would also just mention that there were many scientists at the time who were against Social Darwinism.

The error lies in confusing the process with the results of that process.

Lions, elephants, lobsters, and wasps were all formed through the same evolutionary process – natural selection, survival of the fittest.  Despite this they all behave very differently because the results of the process are different.

To use a man made example, the assembly line can produce many varied types of transportation – motorcycle, train, airplane, boat, car, and so forth.  However since they were all produced through an assembly line process should we use that process to determine how we drive, ride, and fly them?

No.  The idea is ridiculous.  Yet that is the same mistake people make when they take the process of evolution instead of the results of that process as the basis of morality.

You drive a car, motorcycle, boat, fly a plane, helicopter based on what it is not on how it was made.

The same holds true for morality.  It is based on what our evolutionary heritage has created; on what we are rather than on the process that created us.  And what we are is a highly intelligent, highly social animal.  This was our species survival of the fittest strategy.   One that seems to have worked out well for us so far.

How does being highly intelligent and highly social animals translate into morality though?   First lets look at us being social animals.

There are several species that have evolved to become social animals – wolves, elephants, dolphins, and our close cousins the chimpanzees.  The evolutionary advantage here is that these animals can do as a group what an individual cannot do as well on its own.

Wolves can capture larger and more game, elephants are better able to protect their more vulnerable young, and so forth.  The same held true for our nascent human ancestors – an individual in a group has a better chance of surviving than one living on its own.

To facilitate the formation of social groups certain traits evolved:  traits such as empathy, a sense of fairness, attachment and bonding, reciprocity, and so forth.  You see these traits in most social animals and especially in our nearest relatives, the chimpanzees.

An example might be a sense of fairness that Capuchin monkeys have demonstrated in a series of experiments.   From one such experiment:

 

Individuals were drawn from two large, well-established social groups of captive brown capuchins from colonies at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center and paired with a partner. Pairs were placed next to each other and trained to exchange with human handlers a small granite rock within 60 seconds to receive a reward, in most cases, a piece of cucumber.”

“Partners of capuchins who made the swap either received the same reward (a cucumber slice), or a better reward (a grape, a more desirable food), for the same amount of work or, in some cases, for performing no work at all.

Brosnan said the response to the unequal treatment was astonishing: Capuchins who witnessed unfair treatment and failed to benefit from it often refused to conduct future exchanges with human researchers, would not eat the cucumbers they received for their labors, and in some cases, hurled food rewards at human researchers.

Those actions were significant. They confirmed that not only did capuchins expect fair treatment, but that the human desire for equity has an evolutionary basis.

 

The other traits that I mentioned as promoting the formation of societies can also be demonstrated from experiments or from observations in the wild or both.

In addition to these traits we are also highly intelligent.  The ability to solve problems, come up with new tools and ways of accomplishing tasks, language, etc were all huge survival advantages.  However it comes at a price – a prolonged childhood.  One longer than any other species.

To counter this and to also take full advantage of our intelligence our need to form societies took on even greater importance.  Now, while we evolved these traits that encouraged the formation of societies our intelligence meant that the ways in which these traits could be expressed could take on many forms.

This is especially true as we discovered farming and animal husbandry and started to form ever larger groups.  We went from small bands of related hunter gatherers to larger groups of families, to tribes, to cities, to city-state, to nations.  As the size of our groupings grew so did the ways that these evolved social traits could be manifested.

Originally we were small groups of hunter gatherers.  For most of our species existence we lived as small groups of hunter gatherers.  Imagine the problems that occurred as these groups grew larger and started taking in what once would have been considered other, the attempts to develop social structures that would accommodate this enlarged group.  This attempt to find ways to manifest our evolutionary traits within larger and larger groups led to many different societies and social structures.  Some, I feel, doing the job better than others.

Perhaps this is just me, but I see a trend in our social structures.  Today we have more democracies and more governments that work to protect individual rights than we ever have before.  Even today’s totalitarian governments pay lip service to ideals that would have seemed bizarre to our ancestors 3,000 years ago.  I believe that we are working out way to finding those societies that best fit our evolutionary heritage.  But that could just be me.

Anyway this is why I say that our ethics and morality are dependent on our culture.  And our culture, including whatever religion may dominate that culture, is dependent on our evolutionary heritage of being both highly social and highly intelligent animals.

This means that there is going to be broad agreement on most moral issues regardless of religion.  Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, Wiccan or Atheist are going to agree on most moral issues.  To not be moral is to go against what we are as homo sapiens.

Of course it is not this simple.  It is complicated by the fact that we are also individuals.   We are not ants with a set of social behaviors programmed in.  We evolved from non-social animals and many of our individual needs conflict with that of the group.  Our social traits did not replace our individual needs but rather developed on top of them or in conjunction with them.  This is why there is so often conflict between individual and group needs.  It is why we have that moral tension between the individual and society.

That is why there are laws in societies, to help regulate and control those tendencies.  That is also one of the purposes of religion.   However we have also seen that too great a control of individuals can lead to resistance and violence against that society.

Now try to imagine a society in which everyone looked out for their own interest, or at most the interest of their immediate family, and to hell with everyone else.  How well do you think such a society would work?  How long would it last?  And once it is gone how well do you think the individuals that were once a part of a society live?

Not nearly as well as those individuals in what we consider a more healthy society.  Let me say again, our ability to form societies is part of our species survival strategy.  To harm this is to harm homo sapiens survival.

Let me end this part by saying that there always seems to be two questions that believers ask atheists about morality.

1)       How do you justify helping the weak, the crippled, the helpless since to do so clearly goes against evolution?  To help these people is to allow the less fit to survive.

The answer is easy.  To not help those who are weak and in need of help hurts us more as a species than helping them would.  To not help them would weaken the society whose basis is our evolved traits of empathy, reciprocity, fairness, and altruism.  We damage the basis of our ability to form viable societies.   The damage caused by not helping them is much greater than that caused by our helping them.  The fact that this helping behavior is seen in so many other social animals – elephants, dolphins, apes, etc. – is evidence of the truth of this.

2)       Why should you behave morally if there is no life after death, no judgment day?

Again the answer is easy.  I empathize with others.  I can feel their pain, their needs.  I form emotional attachments to others both within my family and outside it.  To not respond to their needs is to damage what I am as homo sapiens.  I harm myself if I ignore their needs. This, by the way, is also part of the answer to the first question above.

It doesn’t matter if this feelings are put in there by God or by an evolutionary process.  They exist and they are a part of what makes me human.  They are a part of what makes all of us human.  It is part of our species survival strategy. Morality does not come from above or outside, but from within us.

 

As I stated earlier, in my next blog I will be discussing the most common objection to this idea that I faced, the is/ought fallacy.

Read Full Post »

On Some of the Flaws of Giorio Roversi’s “The Amorality of Atheism”

This week I thought I would blog about something other than politics: my thoughts on a book called “The Amorality of Atheism” by Giorio Roversi.  Although there is a great deal in this that I disagree with, and even on those items which he and I agree, we often have different takeaways and slants I am going to focus on just a couple of area (otherwise this would be at least a three part blog).

First, I will discuss aspects of atheism and morality that Roversi gets wrong. It is a common mistake made by many Christians with views similar to his. Then I will discuss one practical aspect of his views in regards to church and state.

There is one important thing to keep in mind, something that many do not, and that is that not all atheists think and believe alike, no more than all theists do. What follows here are just my views, and, although they are shared by many atheists, they are not shared by all.

 

Mistake Number 1: Source of Atheist Morality

Our atheist does not seem to realise that the very concept of acting freely is entirely incompatible with the atheistic-materialistic view that our actions are determined only by our genes, and nothing else but our genes.

Giorgio Roversi, “Amorality of Atheism”.

 

Our atheist contends that he is guided by his conscience. But what he calls conscience is in fact the voice of his genes…

Giorgio Roversi, “Amorality of Atheism”.

 

 

Many, and I imagine most, atheists do not believe that the source of our morality lies totally and only in our genes.  I know I don’t.  I view morality as being something generated by our own human nature, as being the result of us being both highly social and highly intelligent creatures. Our sense of empathy is innate. Our sense of justice is also largely innate, as is our sense of fairness. However, alone, they are not enough to wind up with morality.  That took large societies.

When we created societies those societies became methods for enforcing, teaching and building upon these innate tendencies, tendencies which are necessary in order to even have a society. And our creation of societies and working in groups was and is an essential method for us to survive.

Now, you may ask, why do we need to teach and pass on something that is innate? Because it is also part of our nature to be selfish and to look out for our own interests. These are not necessarily bad traits, and they too have survival value, but they do need to be controlled and managed. Those societies which managed to control the latter tendencies and promote the former are the ones that survived and grew. Religion arose with the creation of large societies as a means to do this.  These larger societies consisted of many different family groups, family groups in which other family had been the main and only loyalty. To overcome that and provide a new, larger identity, without which this larger society would fail, religion came into being.  Not the only method, but a strong one and important one.

Now, I do not mean it was a cynical calculated way to provide this new identity. But, its growth coincided with the growth of ever larger societies. Morality was a necessity to have a functioning society to begin with, it would be natural to then merge it with religious ideas and beliefs about ultimate matters and use that to support moral teachings.

This is why, as Roversi correctly stated, that all governments until recent times identified with a religion. In fact, many early civilizations there were so intertwined that it really was not possible to split them in two.

Another related mistake that Roversi makes, one that many other Christians make too, is mistaking the results of evolution with the process of evolution. Although he does not spend much time on it, he does talk about trying to logically derive morality from the evolutionary process.  However, that is a waste of time for a couple of reasons.

First, the process is not important in regards to morality.  Like the rest of the universe, the process doesn’t really care, it just is. What is important is the result of the process. And in our case, that was a highly intelligent and highly social creature, which fostered and necessitated morality, in a manner that I already discussed above.

Next, and this is the mistake he makes throughout the whole book, and it is one mistake that many make, including atheists, trying to find a way to use logic and reason to create morality.  Morality is not the result of either reason or logic.  Oh, both can be useful in working out difficult and complex moral issues. However, morality, at its base, is a result of emotions and long reason. We, humans, are not naturally logical and reasoning. We are emotional creatures first, and reasonable and logical later.

Trying to infer a moral position from this and that is a rather fruitless task if it does not start with human emotion.  I don’t rape and kill, not because I reasoned my way to not doing so.  I don’t torture and kill, or for that matter cheat others and steal, because I do not want to.  Reasoning comes in later to explain why I don’t want to, and how such emotions are the result of the interactions of our genetic traits of empathy and fairness with our society.  But, most of us come to our moral positions first and reasons why later.  Like love and beauty, and what foods we like, we experience it first, and, should we wish, reason about it afterwards.  To go against those feelings is to go against yourself.

 

Mistake Number 2: Religion and Government

 

The undermining of Christian faith, systematically pursued by Western cultural and political elites, does not lead to some sort of secular Utopia with its own “neutral” morality, but to the rise of religious beliefs other than Christianity, which will bring their own – often opposite – moral values.
On the clean slate of atheism anything can be written, even sharia law.”

Giorgio Roversi, “Amorality of Atheism”.

 

Multiculturalism is the choice not to have a culture, because choosing a culture implicitly means to choose a religion. It is the assertion that Christianity, or any religious faith, is irrelevant and can be easily and harmlessly disposed of, because a supposedly “secular set of values” is ready to take its place.”
Giorgio Roversi, “Amorality of Atheism”.

 

Roversi’s views about the proper relationship between religion and government are not only wrong, but dangerously wrong. Religious freedom only came about when government became secular.  Whenever a government identifies with a religion then all other religions become second class and suspect. Those who are of a different religion than the one the government identifies with become suspect.  And often persecuted.

For example, how do you think atheists or Muslims would fare under a government which identified itself with Christianity?  And just one version of it (reading his book it is clear he does not think much of more mainstream Christians, and even less of liberal Christians, or conservative Christians who support the separation of church and state).

Let me say that anytime a government identifies with one religion – and it doesn’t matter the religion; Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Atheism, Hinduism, Judaism, whatever – then its citizens no longer have equal rights and persecution and discrimination starts up based on a person’s religious beliefs.  Rather than detail all this, as this blog is getting long, let me just refer you to one of my earlier blogs “What Most Have Forgotten”.

Part of the problem is that Roversi conflates two different uses of secular. In one, and the one he writes against, promoting secularism in not only the government but in society at large, and using the power of the government to do so.  I agree with him that this is wrong and should not happen. The other usage though means that the government is secular and does not identify with any religion, and this includes atheism. It allows people to believe as they like and does not promote one view over another.  This is what a secular government should be if we really want our liberties protected.

I have to say this was a very frustrating blog to write – there is so much wrong here that disciplining myself to just keep on these selected topics and not talking about his idea that totalitarian governments were the natural consequence of atheistic thinking or his misrepresentation of Aldous Huxley,  Camus and Bertrand Russell’s ideas, among others, was challenging.   I would say read the book yourself and discover the joys of poor thinking and reasoning, but it really isn’t worth it.

Read Full Post »