Wednesday, December 10th, 2008 at
8:43 am
Well, I just started reading Mr Rawl’s Political Liberalism … just starting to break into the introduction. And so far, I’m unimpressed. His writing is sloppy and careless, not that I really should complain, but this is a book by an Academic philosopher who should be more careful than an amateur blogger. However, of interest (for tonight) is this following excerpt quoted as the beliefs belonging to “comprehensive” as opposed to “political” liberalism. Three tenents are given, the second of each is the “liberal” tenet.
Is the knowledge or awareness of how we are to act directly accessible only to some, or to a few (the clergy, say), or is it accessible to every person who is normally reasonable and conscientious?
Again, it the moral order required of us derived from an external source, say from an order of values in God’s intellect, or does it arise in some way from human nature itself (either from reason or feeling or from a union of both), together with the requirements of our living together in society?
Finally, must we be persuaded or compelled to bring ourselves in line with the requirements of our duties and obligations by some external motivation, say by divine sanctions or by those of the state; or are we to constituted that we have in our nature sufficient motives to lead us to act as we ought without the need of external threats inducements?
It seems, I am not a “comprehensive” liberal because I view the latter in all of cases as fatally flawed. Let’s consider this case by case.
- Is the upper floor of a house available to all or only to those who climb the stairs. Knowledge and awareness on a more than passing level is only available to those who practice and engage in self-examination and introspective thought on ethics and morals. That is not easy. It is not available to everyone for it is not reasonable to expect any more than a distinct minority to be conscientious. Thinking otherwise is hopelessly Utopian.
- Well, my answer to this is a little more confused. Our moral sense and the “moral order required of us” is derived from external source (God), but alas, God (and our connection to Him, e.g., “made in His image”) is in fact human nature.
- Well, as avidly and emphatically demonstrated by Charles Taylor in his book A Secular Age, one of the major pushes by Church, State, and Academia for the last 500 years has been to civilize and make polite society. 500 years ago, the medieval Emily Posts of the Europe were encouraging the masses not to take a dump in the living room. We’ve come a long way, baby … but it hasn’t been easy or a fast road. The idea that politeness and reasonableness is “in our nature” is to deny and ignore so so so much of our history (ancient and modern) it isn’t funny.
Tuesday, December 9th, 2008 at
12:58 pm
TChris on the lefty site Talk Left claims that the atheist display outside the Washington state capitol, considered "equal time" for the Christian and Jewish displays, is simply a matter of Constitutional protection. The outrage that protestors and Bill O’Reilly are expressing somehow proves that they don’t really want freedom of religion.
Except this display of atheism is not simply a display. It’s scorn and ridicule. Here’s the text:
At this season of the Winter Solstice may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.
Aside from the first sentence, the rest is a denigration of all the other displays. Indeed the sponsors say so.
"It’s not a religious display; it is an attack on religion,” Freedom From Religion co-president Dan Barker said. His group was behind the atheist display.
How "tolerant". And it points out the fact that this is decidedly not a case of equal time or freedom of/from religion, in spite of the cover that Washington state politicians are taking behind the Constitution.
Gregoire and the state’s attorney general responded to criticism by citing the First Amendment and releasing this joint statement:
“Once government admits one religious display or viewpoint onto public property, it may not discriminate against the content of other displays, including the viewpoints of non-believers."
The nativity scene is a positive expression of belief, speaking no ill to those who don’t agree with it or believe in it. The "Solstice Sign" is a protest specifically against those with different beliefs. They are completely different things. A nativity scene on government grounds does not guarantee the right to protest against it right next to it, any more than it would somehow guarantee the right for the KKK to put up its own display next to it. They are completely different things, and those in Washington state who are sponsoring the sign and defending it seem to completely miss the concept.
But it does give us insight into what organized atheism considers "tolerance" towards religion. They don’t just want equal time; they want additional rights to denigrate it. That’s not equal.
Tuesday, December 9th, 2008 at
9:04 am
After being closed to the public for more than two years, The National Museum of American History has reopened after an extensive renovation. The Weekly Standard’s Andrew Ferguson has a detailed account of how the renovation came about and how the curators view history. It sounds like from his account that the new version of the museum is a vast improvement over the old with a lot of work still to be done. If you’re ever in Washington, a few hours at the museum would be a worthwhile endeavor.
Monday, December 8th, 2008 at
1:40 pm
A few links covering much of the non-change the Obama administration is giving us.
* The Audacity of Patience on RedState, noting status quo in cabinet appointments, the Bush tax cuts, but mostly the closing (or not) of Gitmo.
* The Washington Times: "Don’t ask, don’t tell"? Don’t hold your breath.
* The New York Times (yes, that New York Times): Reality rears its ugly head regarding Iraqi forces. I like this line:
“I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with the understanding that it might be necessary — likely to be necessary — to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said this week as he introduced his national security team.
Yes, I’m sure that’s the catchy way he said it in all his speeches.
Monday, December 8th, 2008 at
1:09 pm
NewsBusters is getting the word out, even before Obama is inaugurated, that his choice for Veterans Affairs was not thrown under the bus by the Bush administration. The myth, which lingered for years, is being given new life, most recently by the Associated Press "news" organization.
Obama also spoke about his latest Cabinet selection, retired Gen. Eric Shinseki to head the Veterans Affairs Department. Shinseki was forced into retirement by the Bush administration after he said the original invasion plan for Iraq did not include enough troops.
His retirement had been announced nearly a year before his testimony. They also note that FactCheck.org debunked this when it started making the rounds over 4 years ago.
The "narrative" or the news? The AP has decided which side to err on.
Friday, December 5th, 2008 at
12:51 pm
That what the NY Times seems to think. In today’s editorial (hat tip NewsBusters), we find this sentiment.
Experts say that Detroit’s automakers could achieve 43 m.p.g. by then even without technological breakthroughs. If the companies were willing to make smaller cars, they could achieve 50 m.p.g. Congress could consider demanding that Detroit simply phase out S.U.V.’s and vans by a certain date.
Eight years ago, my family exceeded what I called "critical mass"; we no longer all fit in a sedan, legally or comfortably. So now when we drive about 1,000 miles to visit my folks or even the 10 miles to visit my wife’s, we should drive 2 sedans? That’s more economical and green…how, exactly?
Thursday, December 4th, 2008 at
12:44 pm
From Chuck Asay. Click for full-size version.
On major things like global warming and the economy, expert opinions are good to have, but if we jump to conclusions too soon we may not have the whole story. And predicting the future has been notoriously difficult, even for the experts.
Thursday, December 4th, 2008 at
12:47 am
Which movies and which individuals do I have in mind? I offer Roger Rabbit and Wall-E as a comparison and constrast between a secular and sacred (specifically Christian) Saints. I use the term ‘saint’ with a capitalized “S” normally to indicate a hero of the Christian tradition and faith. Roger Rabbit strike me for some odd reason as more a secular saint than secular hero, after all Roger represents virtues very much unlike those of Achilles, a more traditional hero. For reference, Who Framed Roger Rabbit was a 1988 movie mixing 24-frame animation directed by Roger Zemeckis featuring Bob Hoskins and a zany (a term of art) Roger Rabbit in a mystery story featuring murder, possibly adultery and of course intrigue. Wall-E is a computer animated PIXAR film which is less easily classifiable. I commend both as wonderful examples of some of the best of animated cinema.
Back in the day, in the 90s and when WFRR came out, I became convinced that Roger was saint, and at that time I was pretty much a secular fellow so it might be considered at that point that perhaps Roger is a secular not sacred version of the saint. Why did I consider Roger to be a saint. It is one of his lines in the movie, “I just want to make people laugh.” And that is indeed his (and perhaps all of “toontown’s”) mission in the movie. Bob Hoskin’s character is quite the sourpuss. Underlying the entire narrative is the “want to make people laugh” as a them. Spreading joy and enjoyment is the highest virtue, the highest calling from Roger’s (and the Toon communities) point of view. And for this, I considered Roger a candidate as a, secular, saint.
Wall-E too is a saint, but in a very different way. He is a hero of circumstance as well, but that just confuses matters. That is to say that while he is the person (or more accurately the intelligence) that is in the right place at the right time, making the right decisions which turns the human race around and saves the species. However that is not what makes him a saint in a Christian sense. What, for me, makes me consider Wall-E a portrayal of a saint is that seems to me connects more with some of the real Christian Saints. Wall-E is filled, seemingly ontologically, of a transforming grace. Characters in this movie, and while its been a while since I’ve seen it but I think this includes all of them except perhaps our villain(s), are transformed by Wall-E. You can identify (and likely they would be able as well) the change in them catalyzed by Wall-E. You can identify their character development with a watermark, identified by a ‘before-I-met Wall-E” person vs the “after-I-met Wall-E” person. An example of this might be the incendental contact he makes with one of the ship dwellers in passing who shortly thereafter finds himself noticing and interacting differently with his neighbor.
And this I think is a identifying difference between my perception of this sort of secular and sacred saint. The secular saint by effort and calling effects change in people in a conscious fashion. This particular sacred saint on the other hand, unintentionally awakens a fullness (or perhaps in a lest loaded “Eastern Christian term, a turning to their teleos or purpose) in those he contacts.
Wednesday, December 3rd, 2008 at
1:27 pm
In a blog post, the YouTube crew has set up some new rules for "mature content". They’re not banning it, but they are taking steps to ensure that folks don’t stumble into what they don’t want.
As a community, we have come to count on each other to be entertained, challenged, and moved by what we watch and share on YouTube. We’ve been thinking a lot lately about how to make the collective YouTube experience even better, particularly on our most visited pages. Our goal is to help ensure that you’re viewing content that’s relevant to you, and not inadvertently coming across content that isn’t.
I just have to give the YouTube folks a big "’atta boy" for this. Taking common sense steps to keep, not just porn (which they don’t accept anyway) but even "suggestive content" out of the limelight ought to be cheered when it happens. If you really want to find it, you can, but if you don’t, you don’t have to sift through it. This is especially true for kids; YouTube is a nice resource to have for many purposes, but it can be a minefield.
More like this please.
Wednesday, December 3rd, 2008 at
12:48 pm
CNN makes an astounding discovery. Many people are comparing Barack Obama to famous presidents of the past, but the news organization is urging caution.
But will Obama be a great one? Even a good one?
The Americans who are comparing him to those remarkable predecessors are putting a lot of faith in a man they barely know.
In the words of Warner Todd Hudson (to whom the hat tip goes):
And why do we "barely know" Barack Obama, CNN? Is it perhaps because the American media never took the time to vet this man? Is it because all we’ve gotten is hero worship from the media?
The man’s been campaigning for 2 years; the media should have made sure we had more than just bare knowledge of the candidate, but his background, his associates, and even his middle name were considered taboo topics. But now they tell us we don’t know enough about him. Thanks.
