pilgrim.not.wanderer

Isn’t it true that, according to the standard interpretation of the freedom of religion clause of the first amendment of the United States Constitution, the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional?

Am I wrong about this?

Here’s a discussion of the mentions of God in the Declaration of Independence.  His conclusion is the the document is theist, not deist.  But not Christian.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

No problem really, if by multiculturalism we mean the welcoming of the food, fashion, art and private religious practices of the many people groups immigrating into Canada which differ from the larger Canadian tradition.  

I recently attended our local multicultural festival.  It was great.

The philosophical problem with much of the talk about multiculturalism is that it goes on as if multiculturalism itself is not a substantive culture.  

Not just any culture can function as a host for multiculturalism.  Not right now.  Maybe with time, but not right now.

Multiculturalism depends for its survival on certain cultural values and institutions, right?  

Don’t we have to tend to these cultural values and institutions if we want multiculturalism to thrive?

So long as we treat these cultures as flavours to spice up our boring Western lives, aren’t we being patronizing?

When those comic strips were published, our first worry was hurting the feelings of Muslims and the hate crimes against Muslims they might inspire.

When savage protests broke out across the Muslim world (at least as seen in the news media), no one blinked an eye.  In the face of death threats, Western media were expected to refrain from publishing the comics or repent of having done so.

This happened because Muslims are the other.  

Because of they are the other, their savage religious violence wasn’t condemned.  But surely if we engaged in such savage religious violence, we would have condemned ourselves, right?

Here we uncover a bizarre form of socially acceptable bigotry.  Those savage Muslims simply cannot be held to the same standard as we Westerners.

(I’m not endorsing this.  I’m saying that this is what our actions say, whether we realize it or not.)

The extent to which this double standard exists is the extent to which Muslims are barred from being fully welcomed into our society.  

In other words, while a radical denial of absolute obligations cannot destroy the moral passions of man, it can render them homeless.  The desire for justice and brotherhood can then no more confess itself for what it is, but will seek embodiment in some theory of salvation through violence.  Thus we see arising those skeptical, hard-boiled, allegedly scientific forms of fanaticism which are so characteristic of our modern age.

{snip}

[Academic freedom] consists in certain metaphysical assumptions without which freedom is logically untenable, and without the firm profession of which freedom can be upheld only in a state of suspended logic, which threatens to collapse at any moment and which in these searching and revolutionary times cannot fail to collapse before long.

Man’s rapidly increasing destructive power will soon put the ideas of our time to crucial test.  We may be faced with the fact that only by resuming the great tradition which embodies faith in these realities can the continuance of the human race on earth, equipped with the powers of modern science, be made both possible and desirable.

Michael Polanyi, The Logic of Liberty, 58.

I keep hearing about this:

Even in Africa – where there is a serious and deadly Aids crisis in some countries – the international focus on Aids has been motivated more by pernicious moralism than straightforward charity. Diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis are bigger killers than Aids. Yet focusing on Aids allows western governments and NGOs to lecture Africans about their morality and personal behaviour. It also adds a new gloss to the misanthropic population-control arguments of western charities, which now present their promotion of condoms in “overly fecund” Africa as a means of preventing the spread of disease.

Surely malaria, tuberculosis, and diarrhea treatments would be cheaper than AIDS drugs, right?  And given that in Africa more people die from these diseases, shouldn’t it be obvious that we should be throwing our resources behind these treatments?

I’m especially interested in academic or intellectual conflict.  

It is a sign of your inexperience or immaturity if you are scandalized by the persistence of conflict even amongst seemingly trustworthy and intelligent ‘experts’.  

We used to think (we still do?) that if set we two brilliant minds (or groups of minds) into conflict with each other, the battle will eventually end with a winner and the truth will be uncovered.  

Things haven’t panned out like this.  Conflict persists and seems to be hardened by these battles.

In my experience, if you give both sides a sympathetic ear you’ll find that each is somewhat convincing.  To the partisans, however, the other side will always be wrong in some plain and obvious way.  Folks on the right-wing are simply greedy and are pandering to the corporations.  Plain and simple.  Folks on the left-wing care more about seeming nice and growing bureaucracies than in actually helpful real people.  Their economics has been proven false, plain and simple.  I can’t accept either view.

Once problem is that we can’t even agree on what the problem is or what the relevant data are.  We can’t even agree on what sorts of things would rightly confirm or disconfirm the opposing positions.

Sometimes I’m tempted to think the side you choose has more to do with constructing your identity, with deciding what kind of person you want to be, than it has to do with arguments or truth.

I’m afraid of those who are dedicated to gaining power for the purposes of implementing their version of ‘redemptive justice’.  So I’m afraid of Islamic fundamentalists, Egalitarian fundamentalists, ‘America-is-in-covenant-with-God’ Christian fundamentalists, Marxist fundamentalists, left-wing Christian social justice fundamentalists, and others of this type.

I call ‘redemptive justice’ those programs for setting everything right in a final and ultimate sense.  I’m afraid of people who want to have all the power they’d need in order to set everything right in this way.

I call ‘procedural justice’ or ‘humble justice’ or ‘justice on the way’ those systems of justice which are happy enough with a modicum of fairness in the processes and procedures of interaction between free citizens.

Maybe I merit Angelina Jolie’s wealth just as much as she does.  Maybe, in some ultimate moral sense, I have as much right to it as she does.  

But that doesn’t mean that it is right for me to steal it from her.  

She might be morally obligated to give some of it to me.  Maybe it would be praiseworthy for her to give some of it to me.  But that doesn’t make it right for me or the government to steal it from her, right?

If she acquired it in a procedurally just way, at least within the first few concentric rings of interaction, isn’t this wealth justly hers according to ‘humble justice’?

Does this mean that it is fine and dandy for the poorest to suffer in their poverty?

No.

It means that we should focus on helping the poorest to become more  wealthy, rather than trying to coercively implement some sort of abstract ideal of egalitarianism.  

“…modern totalitarianism, based on a purely materialistic conception of man, is of necessity more oppressive than an authoritarianism enforcing a spiritual creed, however rigid.  Take the medieval church even at its worst.  The authority of certain texts which it imposed remained fixed over long periods of time and their interpretation was laid down in systems of theology and philosophy, gradually developing over more than a millennium from St. Paul to Aquinas.  A good Catholic was not required to change his convictions and reverse his beliefs at frequent intervals, in deference to the secret decisions of a handful of high officials.  Moreover, since the authority of the Church was spiritual, it recognized other independent principles outside its own. Though it imposed numerous regulations on individual conduct, there were many parts of life left untouched and governed by other authorities–rivals of the Church–like kings, noblemen, guilds, corporations.  And the the power of all these was transcended by the growing force of law; while a good deal of speculative and artistic initiative was allowed to pulsate freely through this many-sided system.” 

{snip}

“It would seem to me that on the day when the modern sceptic first placed his trust in the Catholic Church to rescue his liberties against the Frankenstein monster of his own creation, a vast cycle of human thought had come full swing.  The sphere of doubt had been circumnavigated.  The critical enterprise which gave rise tot he Renaissance and the Reformation, and started the rise of our science, philosophy, and art, had matured to its conclusion and had reached its final limits.  We have thus begun to live in a new intellectual period, which I would call the post-critical age of Western civilization.  Liberalism to-day is becoming conscious of its own fiduciary foundations and is forming an alliance with other beliefs, kindred to its own.”

Michael Polanyi, The Logic of Liberty, 133.

By ‘liberalism’ I don’t mean the political left-wing.  The political left-wing is now predominately socialist, I’d say.

A liberal, in the older sense, is someone who very highly values individual freedom and who believes that coercive intrusion into the private lives of individual citizens should be avoided as much as possible.  Such an intrusion has to be justified and the intruder has the burden of proof.  They must prove that such an intrusion is justified, otherwise the maxim ‘live and let live’ must prevail.  Usually liberals advocate ‘the harm principle’: so long as an individual doesn’t harm anyone else, we ought to leave them alone to do as they please.

The trouble with liberalism is that it only survives in societies that value truth, justice, reason, fairness and such.  These values can’t be up for debate.  The are the very values which make debate possible in a liberal society.   If there aren’t enough people in a society who firmly believe in them, liberal democracy will sputter out.  

But there are many folks (so-called subversives) who want to subvert these values.  Given that these values are necessary for the success of liberal democracy, subversion of them cannot be tolerated.  The so-called subversives inevitably appeal to liberal sensibilities in order to justify their subversion of the very values which undergird liberal democracy.  

This is why the most liberal nation is at once the most religious.  American is liberal precisely because it has a strong conservative principle which hold its liberalism in place.  

This explains why contemporary liberals in America are now considered conservatives.

Wouldn’t JFK be considered a conservative if he ran for office today?

I read somewhere that America’s abortion laws are more liberal than those of any European country.

I’ve also been told that Canada has no abortion laws at all.

Unless our society undergoes some fairly major cultural changes, the introduction of abortion legislation (which apparently Canada completely lacks) will result in an increase in risk and suffering to the female population.

The reason for this is simple.  It is relatively easy for a man to run away from an unplanned pregnancy.  A woman can run if she wants, but the fetus stays with her.  Unless she gets an abortion.  This means that a man can enjoy the benefits of the sexual revolution with relative impunity.  But the sexual revolution is bad for women if abortion is off the table.

The risk and suffering would be mitigated by only banning late-term abortions and such.  

I  understand that a majority of Canadians believe there should be some limitations on abortion, particularly late-term abortion.  

So why no legislation on this?

If contraception is so cheap and accessible, how come I see so many pregnant teens and teens with babies on the bus?

Has being a “baby-mama” become an acceptable life-style?  Is it now a life that poor young women select for themselves?  Isn’t it a throughly anti-feminist and exploitative life-style?

Isn’t any publication that is true, or is at least written in good faith with a view to uncover the truth, permissible even if it causes an increase in crimes or discrimination?

If we want to reduce crime and discrimination, can’t we find better ways to achieve this than criminalizing inquiry or the publication of the truth?

I allow that speech which incites people to commit crimes should be criminal.  Though perhaps this ought to be limited to fairly serious crimes.  If I go out into the public square and incite folks to not pay their parking tickets, we should probably let that pass.  But if I incite folks to kill people or to rob the next 3 Walmarts they come across, that should be criminal, right? (more…)

I’ve been hearing rumblings all over the web that Obama is now the Democratic nominee for president.  Hooray!  I disagree with Obama on a lot of controversial issues.  But I’m still very happy that he’s the nominee.  And I hope he’ll be President come this January.  He’s not perfect.  But he’s probably the best choice overall, for a series of long term strategic reasons.

Things are changing.  Christians are finally wondering what Republicans have done for them lately.  That’s good.  Hopefully they can start to have some pull in the Democratic party.  

This from me, someone who generally is sympathetic to the right.  Sort of.  I say I’m non partisan.  Which is probably BS.

I’m in favour of Obama for president for non-traditional reasons.  We need a change.  The right needs a change.  The right needs to be out of power.  They need a crisis to prompt soul searching.  I support him based on attitude, not issues.  Does that make sense?

Obama is the Democratic Ronald Reagan.  A guy who makes Americans feel proud to be American, in way that promises to revolutionize popular political discourse.  A positive, inspiring politician.

Isn’t it true that being a good President is as much about attitude as it is about your position on specific political issues?

I’ve heard it said somewhere that if we were all pacifists war would be extinct.

But isn’t it true that if we all held to just war theory war would be extinct as well?

Given that we aren’t all pacifists, isn’t pacifism immoral?  That is, given that defense will be needed, and given that pacifism rules out this needed defense, isn’t pacifism immoral for ruling out a needed defense?

‘Pacifist’ isn’t the right label for someone who’s against a particular war, right?  You can hold to just war theory and be against nearly every war (or peace keeping mission or whatever).  What distinguishes a pacifist from the rest of us is their being against absolutely all use of violence, right?

To the pacifist anabaptist folks:

You believe in nonviolence across the board, right?  

(I believe in non-violence in the Church, but I take it that you believe in nonviolence generally.  That’s what makes your position distinct, right?  I say the Church can’t rightly use violence to advance Christian discipleship.  You say the State can’t rightly use violence either, right?)

Do you believe in social democracy and the welfare state?  

(I do, basically.)

Don’t you realize that such a system depends on taxation?

Don’t you realize that taxation depends on (or is a kind of) violence?

(After all, many folks don’t want to pay their taxes and wouldn’t pay their taxes if it weren’t for the threat of violence by the State.  Since I don’t believe in non-violence when it comes to the State, my support of taxation is consistent with my beliefs.  But aren’t you being inconsistent?)

Isn’t it more truthful to say that you believe in non-violence when it comes to right-wing projects, but that you support violence in the pursuit of left-wing projects?

(BTW - I’m NOT saying it is inconsistent to be against a war but for taxes.  That makes you anti-war.  But, as I see it, it means that you are not a believer in non-violence generally.)  

So apparently in Canada you can get brought up on charges simply for publishing or causing to publish anything which might lead to discrimination.

The complainant isn’t required to demonstrate that anyone actually suffered because of the publication. All they have to show is that it might lead to discrimination.  

Also, truth is no defense.  That is, even if what the defendant published was true, you could still be found guilty.  

Also, the intentions of the defendant are irrelevant.  That is, even if you had no intention whatsoever of bring about discrimination, you could still be found guilty.  

If this is true, this is crazy.  It is embarrassing.  

Just think about all the stuff published against the religious right that would be punishable in Canada.  You might reply that the religious right isn’t a minority.  Really?  It isn’t a minority in New York?  Sure it is.  Maybe it isn’t in Alabama, but surely it is in other places.  Doesn’t some of this stuff make you hate the religious right?  Doesn’t it make you want to systematically exclude them from positions of power?  Sure it does.  I makes me want to, and I’m a theologically conservative Christian!

According to the rules in Canada, the fact that the religious right constitutes a genuine threat is not a defense.  Neither is the fact that what is published against them is true.  (If it is true.  That’s not my point.  The point is that even if it is true, that’s no defense.)  And it doesn’t matter if the publisher didn’t intend to encourage discrimination.  That’s no defense.  

I’m embarrassed for Canada.  I hope I’ve been misinformed.  

I just noticed that the Canadian civil liberties union (I think it is the Canadian version of the ACLU) is attempting to intervene in favour of the defense in a discrimination case against a major Canadian news magazine.  Wow.  This is not a right-wing vs. left-wing thing.

“In Canada, Britain and America, we’re the heirs to so many centuries of peaceful constitutional evolution we find it hard to comprehend the thin ice on which European democracy skates. When we look back on the Seventies, it’s Pierre Trudeau, Harold Wilson and Jimmy Carter, all of whom I could have done without. But they look pretty good compared to a stroll down memory lane in Portugal, Spain and Greece, where Seventies nostalgia means Salazar, Franco and the Colonels. In most of Europe, there simply is no tradition of sustained peaceful democratic evolution. After 215 years, the U.S. Constitution is not only older than the French, German, Italian, Belgian, Spanish and Greek constitutions, it’s older than all of them put together.” 

Mark Steyn

I honestly had no idea that this kind of overt racism still existed.  Wow.

In Muncie, a factory town in the east-central part of Indiana, Ross and her cohorts were soliciting support for Obama at malls, on street corners and in a Wal-Mart parking lot, and they ran into “a horrible response,” as Ross put it, a level of anti-black sentiment that none of them had anticipated.

“The first person I encountered was like, ‘I’ll never vote for a black person,’ ” recalled Ross, who is white and just turned 20. “People just weren’t receptive.”

I’d sign this:

http://www.anevangelicalmanifesto.com/

I’d say I agree with its vision of Christian political engagement and political deliberation generally.  Read it.  The interesting political parts are near the end.  

BTW - This document was not produced by the religious right.  Read it.