Not everyone understands that there are two clauses regarding religious freedom embedded in the First Amendment: One which prohibits government from establishing (i.e., “favoring”) any religion, and one which prevents government from interfering with the free exercise of any religion. But too many fundamentalist Christian organizations in America are constantly pushing for a complete reversal of this cornerstone of American freedom: The establishment (legal favoring) of their religion, and the curtailment of the free exercise of at least some others.
A good example of this is the blatant hypocrisy of those religious organizations that call, for instance, for the prevention of the construction of the Muslim interfaith center in Manhattan (not, in fact “at ground zero”), while invoking a federal law which prevents the implementation of any local land use law which burdens the free-exercise of religion (resulting in the ability of religious organizations to build anything anywhere, regardless of zoning laws that would have prohibited the structure were it any other entity that were building it). In an archetypal example of this very un-American belief in the privileging of some religions over others, a leader in the conservative religious organization American Family Association, which in 2003 successfully fought to prevent Georgia from implementing a land-use law limiting the locations where a church could be constructed, is now calling for a complete moratorium on the building of mosques anywhere in the United States (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100812/pl_yblog_upshot/conservative-activist-calls-for-nationwide-mosque-moratorium).
America has always had a split personality when it comes to religion: A politically secular nation by Constitutional decree, founded by puritans and infused with an ever-present undercurrent of religious fanaticism. The reason for this, of course, is that the colonies had many who had come to practice (and proselytize) their own religion freely (all Christian denominations, originally), but not all such groups wanted to practice (and proselytize) the same religion freely. The necessary compromise was the legal institutionalization of “live and let live” when it comes to religious exercise: Government will neither favor nor disfavor any religion.
But, while this doctrine may have matured into the enlightened vision of the framers of the Constitution, it originated in religious zealotry, not tolerance. Each of those original religious sects would have gladly imposed itself on others, were it able to. And their descendants have much the same attitude.
Where such attitudes prevail, we wind up with theocracy and draconian religious laws, such as Muslim sharia law. The irony in this particular contest, between radical Islam and radical Christianity, is that the two sides, vehemently opposed to one another, are so strikingly similar.
And, of course, the radicals on both sides oppose the Moderates who seek only a peaceful, prosperous, and mutually respectful coexistence. The Muslim interfaith center in Manhattan is just such a voice of reason, and should be embraced as the epitome of what Americans stand for: Mutual tolerance and mutual goodwill, and the free exercise of religion for all.
No Comments »
Click here to buy my e-book A Conspiracy of Wizards for just $2.99!!!
Mexican Drug Violence. Many recognize that the organized crime and violence associated with the drug trade is closely analogous to the rise of organized crime and violence that occurred as a result of Prohibition in the 1920’s. But a less noted aspect of Mexican Drug Cartel Violence is that, while we bitterly complain about the illegal flow of low-wage workers from Mexico, we also rabidly defend our own laws which help foster a far more disastrous and unredeeming illegal flow of arms to Mexico (http://www.economist.com/node/17251726). The differences between this two flows across our southern border are that the flow of arms is entirely destructive (as opposed to illegal immigration, which may actually have net economic benefits), undermines Mexican sovereignty and security to a far greater degree than illegal immigration undermines U.S. sovereignty and security, and is a direct product of our own lax gun control laws rather than an organic product of economic dynamics over which governments have limited control. In this light, American indignation about illegal Mexican immigration is just that much more shallow, self-serving, and hypocritical.
An extraordinarily productive Congress. Despite the popular meme to the contrary, the 111th Congress has been one of the most productive in American history, and the impending backlash is similar to the backlash that occurred when the 89th Congress (also Democratic) passed the now extremely popular Medicare and Medicaid programs and additional still much needed civil rights protections for African Americans (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101018/ap_on_bi_ge/us_prolific_congress). We tend to punish in the moment those who do what history recognizes to have been the politically courageous and responsible thing to do. I hope enough people are wise enough today to recognize the folly of this, and motivated enough to work hard in the days and weeks to come to prevent us from replacing those who are doing the right thing, and governing responsibly, with those who are committed to undermining our economy along all relevant dimensions (robustness, sustainability, and fairness).
Americans talk about The Tea Party. I especially like the guy who said “their anger is very justified and their fear is very justified and their explanations for why we’re having the problems we’re having are almost completely wrong.” http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_askamerica/20101018/pl_yblog_askamerica/across-america-people-speak-out-on-tea-party
President Obama is going to appear on an episode of Mythbusters. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_science. Though the president is appearing on an episode addressing the question: Did Greek scientist Archimedes set fire to an invading Roman fleet using only mirrors and the reflected rays of the sun? there are plenty of myths to be busted closer to home.
Click here to buy my e-book A Conspiracy of Wizards for just $2.99!!!
No Comments »
Scott Kimball’s possible connection to the murder for which Tim Masters was wrongfully convicted and imprisoned (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_16352864) is another reminder of a simple but underrecognized fact of life: Every act has rippling repercussions throughout the fabric of our social field. Whoever murdered Peggy Hattrick didn’t commit an act whose sole consequence was to deprive an individual of her life, nor even one whose sole consequence was that plus the infliction of grief on all those who cared about her. It’s an act which also contributed to all of the consequences of that grief, and the consequences of those consequences, reverberating through our tightly intertwined and far-reaching social networks. It’s an act which also deprived Tim Masters of 18 years of his life, and which raised awareness of the problem of completely avoidable wrongful convictions.
And Tim Masters’ choice to draw disturbing teen age pictures of sex and violence, though in no way a criminal act, had consequences beyond their being seen by others and embarrassing the “artist,” consequences which converged with some of those of the murder itself. The same is true for every kind or unkind, wise or unwise, selfish or generous word or deed, of magnitudes large and small. There are many such words and deeds which contributed to the creation of Scott Kimball and others like him, ones which were considered completely innocent by those who indulged in them. Violence isn’t just a crime committed by some (though it is that as well), but also a cumulative collective phenomenon contributed to in small ways by many. It is the responsibility of each of us to absorb and transform those ripples which contribute to it, sending out instead ripples which contribute to something more positive.
Bill Clinton recommended that voters not let their anger over the sluggish economy cloud their judgment (http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_16352734). I recommend that voters allow their anger over the sluggish economy to focus their judgment on those who are responsible for it: the Republicans. People forget that when Barack Obama took office, we were teetering on the edge of the abyss of a Great-Depression-scale economic meltdown, not merely looking at years of slow-to-no growth and high unemployment. We averted that impending disaster by the bold policies that the Right has succeeded in vilifying in the minds of those who are not overly concerned with facts and logic, an impending disaster that was the direct consequence of Republican policies and priorities (particularly underregulation of the financial sector, something whose consequences had long been foreseen).
“Governor Tancredo” is a real possibility (http://www.denverpost.com/election2010/ci_16352450), and one which would be to Colorado what blunt force trauma is to a human brain: We might survive, but impaired and possibly crippled.
At a leadership panel at Arapahoe Community College a couple of days ago, one of the panelists paraphrased a Lone Tree library official regarding Colorado ballot initiatives 60, 61, and 101: They define a policy that is like slowly amputating one’s limbs to lose weight. I’ve used a similar (though less picturesque) metaphor to describe extreme anti-tax fiscal policy in general (such as that which has come to dominate Colorado, to our great harm): It’s like trying to impose weight loss by forced continual starvation.
The emphasis on transportation at the same panel of local government heads stuck a chord. Our transportation system is an economic circulatory system, moving nutrients and oxygen from where they come into the system to where they are needed (more precisely, since the economic analogue to a “digestive system” is more decentralized than the anatomical referent, the economic circulatory system moves nutrients around among particularized decentralized points of entry, helping to ensure that all parts are fully nourished). Overreliance on cars is like a high cholestoral diet, causing a clogging of the arteries (in the somewhat literal sense of gridlock, with resulting increased pollution and decreased productivity; as well as in the broader sense of the more general dysfunctionalities of overreliance on cars).
Tiny Crawford CO’s love for it’s altruistic health care provider but scorn for the legislation that will allow her to continue to practice (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_16352526) is a wonderful illustration of the disconnect between blind ideological beliefs and judgments, and real human preferences and desires. The ideal would be for us all to ask, “if I didn’t know what my own circumstances in life would be (race, ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status, sexual preference, congenital physical condition and appearance, etc.), and I had to design a set of policies based on my self-interest prior to the lottery of birth, what would it be?” Second to that in preferability would be for each to vigorously seek his or her own self-interest based on a high volume of reliable information and well-reasoned analyses. Worst of all is what the Tea Party are their fellow travelers are trying to impose on us: Vigorous pursuit of an irrational set of ideological beliefs and judgments which don’t even serve the real interests of those pursuing them.
As for the “terrible” Health Reform Act itself, it’s funneling $19 million to Colorado to expand health clinics that serve the poor, unemployed, and uninsured, in a very definitive step in the right direction for this country.
The story of the offensive Grand Junction billboard depicting President Obama as a terrorist, gangster, Mexican bandit, and gay man (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_16339916) is interesting for just one reason: It’s plausable (not probable) that it was commissioned by a Democrat. I hate to say that, because it is almost inevitable that someone will mistakenly interpret that to be either what I actually believe, or what is in fact the case. But it’s just an observation of reality: That billboard is so ridiculously beyond the pale of what any rational person would find anything other than repugnant, you have to wonder if it might have been put there to make those likely to put it there appear even more repugnant than they actually are. But here’s what I suspect is the truth: Those who put it there are precisely who you would think, and they really are that disgusting.
The Public Responsibility of Getting a Vaccination (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_16329926) is a great example of our real interdependence, and the costs and benefits our individual choices impose on others. Those who have some monolithic notion of “personal liberty,” that just knows what is an inalienable individual right and what is an infringement on the rights of others, are really trapped in assumptions made with less knowledge and less ability to measure and address our responsibilities to one another. Sure, killing someone because they annoy you is clearly an infringement on their right to life, but neglecting to get a vaccine because it’s inconvenient or uncomfortable, even though it absolutely makes a marginal contribution to the death rate (ie, is partially responsible for the deaths of others) is your personal right? Why, exactly? Explain. And be precise about it.
Ruth Marcus provides us with a glimpse of what our world would look like if our conservatives were a bit more rational (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_16329990). I’m sure there are many American Republicans as wistful as she, wishing that the insanity that has hijacked their party were just a bad dream from which they would soon awake. My advice: Get out while you can, and join the last sane party standing.
Coming Attraction: I hope to post by tomorrow morning an essay I’m working on titled The Nature-Mind-Machine Matrix, which I hope you’ll keep an eye open for. I’ve only actually worked on these posts once or twice, when I feel like something pretty cool is shaping up. The Nature-Mind-Machine Matrix is one of those. (It builds on the theme established in The Politics of Consciousness and developed a bit more in Information and Energy: Past, Present, and Future.)
Since we’re going to the Chatfield Botanic Garden pumpkin festival today, and I’ve written enough long essays in the past couple of weeks (two or three a day) to earn a break, today I’m just going to offer a few quick commentaries on some of the morning’s news stories.
There’s a little gem in today’s Denver Post “Morning Brew” column (http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_16293196). It’s a reminder of what’s valuable and what isn’t, of how distracted we become by pursuits and expenditures that don’t make us happy, while neglecting those that do. For me, it’s also one more nail in the coffin of right-wing ideology, which eschews creating a happier society with less destitution even if less obscene concentrations of wealth in favor of a blindly fractious and harsh political ideology.
Aurora, CO just opened a new water treatment facility, just downstream from a wastewater reclamation plant (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_16293590). That might sound like the beginning of an outraged diatribe on Aurora’s poor judgment and indifference to public health, but it’s just the opposite: This is a great step forward. Water scarcity is acute in this part of the country, and will be a worldwide crisis in short order. We have the purification technologies to vastly reduce waste. Though “toilet-to-tap” isn’t a good marketing slogan, it’s the right way to go.
The evolution of Beethoven (http://www.denverpost.com/entertainment/ci_16294210) is another little tid-bit of good news: Great memes (including great musical memes) deserve not just to be preserved in their pure form, but also to be catalysts and zygotes of new and interesting innovations. Kudos to Marin Alsop, for combining historical information, modern entertainment, and classical music into a new kind of presentation that can appeal to those who might otherwise never have benefited from this beautiful musical relic of our not-so-distant past.
I’ve sometimes imagined what it would be like if doctoral dissertations were multimedia events, not dry ones (i.e., typical powerpoint presentations), but rather syntheses of information and aesthetics, blending beauty and insight in imaginative ways. My own novel was an attempt to synthesize complex dynamical systems analysis, social theory, epic poetry, and the modern novel into some new, highly informative but (hopefully) highly beautiful form. The capacity of our minds to do both, to create analytical insights, on the one hand, and works of great beauty and elegance on the other, begs for more intermingling of the two.
We see again one of the great banes of our political system, that those with control of the most money have the most power to preserve the obscene degree of economic inequality in this country (http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_16293588). The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is pouring money into state elections all over the country, trying to put back in power the party more committed to bowing to the interests of those farthest removed from destitution. Campaign finance reform would be great, but what we really need is human-consciousness reform. Well-exercised and well-informed minds can’t be swayed by pithy platitudes expensively bombarded on an all-too malleable population.
The persistence of fiscal insanity as a legitimized political position bodes ill for the state and country, regardless of the fate of the “bad three” (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_16293596). Organizations such as this should be viewed with the same amused contempt that is reserved for other essentially similar glassy-eyed cults. But such cults are far less amusing when they are trying to impose their insanity on the rest of us, to our ultimate financial destruction. Even those interests most concerned with retaining wealth currently spent on public welfare for themselves oppose these measures, because they know they can’t benefit from a completely crippled economy.
An aide to California gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown was caught on tape (a phone that wasn’t hung up, an answering machine still recording) calling Republican opponent Meg Whitman a “whore”. Shame on you, Aide! Other than that, this is completely irrelevant (and I would say that even if I were a supporter of Ms. Whitman). We need to stop pretending that these things matter (except to the people involved): They don’t. All that matters in elections is: 1) What policies and methodologies best serve the public interests, and 2) which candidate is most likely to best advance those policies and methodologies? How rude an aide was in a private conversation accidentally taped rises to the level of quintessential irrelevance.
For those who missed it, Jodie Foster said in an interview a week or so ago that she would not abandon Mel Gibson, despite his anti-Semitic rant of a few years ago, or his rage-filled phone-tapes of more recent vintage (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/39293539). There’s no stock in sticking by fallen idols, nothing to be gained by not shunning the shunned. Except integrity.
Jodie Foster has risen several degrees in my book, though probably not in my Mom’s. The only reference to Mel Gibson I recall from my Jewish mom was a Tourettes-like reaction to hearing his name, quick and seething. But Jodie Foster understands what friendship is, and what loyalty is, and I tip my yarmulke to her.
Jodie says, “When you love a friend, you don’t abandon them when they are struggling”. Nor should those of us who preach that we should love our fellow human beings abandon even strangers who have become easy prey for our more vile instincts.
There will always be those who test the limits of forgiveness, the really heinous predators who feed their own dark appetites at the expense of others. But we have become (or have always been?) a people who do not wait for those limits to be tested. We revile at the drop of a hat, nurse grudges and wax with righteous indignation at the failings of others while exhibiting far more pronounced ones of our own in the process.
Ours is a history of scapegoats vented on, of lepers always found or created when one is needed, to be stoned in an orgy of self-indulgent rage. The Bacchanals are never far away, ready to tear at the flesh of the sacrificial victim.
Anger is one thing, a momentary reaction to an insult or provocation, sometimes a mere misunderstanding. It is to be avoided, perhaps, but it is not the disease to which I am referring. Nor is contempt for an odious ideology, which reasonable people of goodwill may have an affirmative responsibility to oppose, and even to try to shame those who adhere to it to rethink their own position. Nor is it even the occasional interpersonal reactions to ongoing provocations, that may not be temporary, but still are something that others have fostered with their own intentional ill-will (and that should, if not avoided altogether, at least be relinquished as soon as the provoking ill-will is relinquished). I am referring instead to something that is nursed for one’s own gratification, that was not in reality interpersonally provoked, that cannot be justified as any kind of service to any kind of ideal, that is in fact an act of sustained ritualized violence and nothing more.
I have my faults, but I have never been a fan of this time-honored public ritual, repeated periodically, a different face filling the role of object of our disgust, members of the modern lynch-mob smugly patting one another on the back for being so commendable for being so mean-spirited. It is often enough to be accused; public condemnation requires no more than that. It is one of those things almost universally accepted, certainly cathartic, but deeply unhealthy for our spirit as a people.
One of my favorite stories of all time is “A Christmas Carol.” I used to read it on Christmas Eve to my brother and sister-in-law in Boston when I lived in Connecticut and spent Christmases with them. I’ve loved it since the first time I saw my first version, starring the animated Mr. Magoo, as a small child. It is the story of a person who is eminently revilable, but of those, both living and dead, who refused to revile him. As Marley’s ghost said, when Scrooge told him he had always been a good man of business, “Business! Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, benevolence, were all my business.”
On both the left and on the right, in different ways and draped in different raiment, these values are in shorter supply today than they were even in Dickens’ Victorian England. The right has made a virtue out of indifference to the welfare of others, cultivating an ideology which eliminates the possibility of using our agent of collective action (government) to address some inequities, misfortunes, or social injustices, pretending that by removing that responsibility from the public sphere, it will magically be met in sufficient quantity through private charity, something for which there is absolutely no evidence, but plenty of historical experience to the contrary (before we briefly became a compassionate enough people to use our agent of collective action to address the problem). And, of course, those who adhere to this ideology see those who oppose it as evil purveyors of a scheme to control their lives, despite the complete absurdity of that conclusion.
The left, in contrast, is more ideologically generous, but nonetheless prone on an individual basis to indulge in the same predatory rituals, finding the right targets, feeling the same surge of moral superiority released, ironically, by acting in a particularly morally inferior way.
This is not about judging and hating the haters, engaging in the same error being critiqued, but rather about cultivating among ourselves a renewed commitment to not just fight for a kinder, gentler world, but to act as if we mean it. This does not mean that we cannot condemn acts or ideologies that are characterized by bigotry or a lack of compassion or some underlying folly, or rebuke those who adhere to such ideologies for doing so. It means that we should not indulge in orgies of individually targeted outrage when doing so.
I cannot feel toward Mel Gibson and Michael Richards what I am apparently supposed to feel. In both cases, I felt only sadness to see such self-destructive acts, and only the wish that whatever inner-demons were at play, that these two not-particularly-horrible people somehow find a way to exorcise them, something that is better fostered by the goodwill of others than by public orgies of outrage.
No Comments »
Buy my e-book A Conspiracy of Wizards
Susan Greene’s column in today’s Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/greene/ci_16114434) discusses the current CU Board of Regents, and the choices Coloradans have. Sue Sharkey, a Republican reactionary in the 4th Congressional District running for regent of our flagship university, states that “[c]ollege graduates are more likely to be liberalized than non-college graduates.” Her solution to this unacceptable result of receiving a higher education is to impose upon it her ideological agenda. Steve Bosley, a current regent, was one of four to vote no on “Preserving the Independence of the Board of Regents,” a vote on whether to appeal an appellate court decision that regents cannot ban concealed weaons on campus. At a Tea Party rally, Bosley said, “We’re the storm troopers. The storm troopers are going to take back America.”
One important measure of a civilization is how much it appreciates and cultivates the gift of human consciousness, and how sincerely it aspires to be a bastion of wisdom and compassion. The term “a liberal education” refers to our tradition of striving to ensure that as many of our young people as possible are guided through an exploration of human knowledge, learning about humanity, who we are, where we come from, and where we’re going. Our universities are indeed our temples of human knowledge and thought, where we go to learn and to create new knowledge, to investigate the complexities and subtleties of our world and universe, to improve our ability to act wisely.
Not only is America under attack by self-proclaimed “storm troopers” admittedly determined to undermine our commitment to providing a broad and comprehensive education to our young people, but they are currently the majority on the Board of Regents of Colorado’s flagship university. When a large and vocal minority, passionate, angry, militant, motivated by the desire to catalyze and assist the contraction of the human mind and the human heart, by the rejection of wisdom and compassion, by the advocacy of ignorance and belligerence, succeed in taking over our temples of wisdom, our institutions for cultivating human consciousness, it is not hyperbole to suggest that this is a threat to the very foundation of what it means to be a civilized nation.
Coloradan’s do have a choice this November. As Susan Greene wrote, “The at-large race is a statewide referendum on what we want the regency to be.” By extension, it’s about something more than that as well: It’s a statewide referendum on what kind of a people we want to be. Melissa Hart, the CU Law professor who is a Harvard Law graduate and former U.S. Supreme Court clerk, represents the choice to be a civilized people committed to wisdom and compassion. The alternative is to allow one more victory of a movement determined to force America to worship at the alter of ignorance and belligerence. Let’s not falter in the face of this truly consequential challenge.
John emailed me that he had trouble posting (anyone having difficulty that isn’t resolved by the “tips” page, please email me). He wanted to post this:
I’d have asked your readers what they thought of my idea posted as a comment on:
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_16044516?source=bb I’d also ask your readers why they thought the discussion was at such a low level on DenverPost.com. Is it because they allow anonymous posts?
Should cell phone records of public officeholders be public information? And if this is an important topic, why isn’t there more discussion on the Denver Post online edition about it do you think? See http://www.denverpost.com/haley/ci_16036523
Pete, just a couple of mostly tangential comments: 1) “Tool-making” certainly is the foundation of our more abstract search for moral and cognitive absolute truths, in more ways than one. It not only is the first and most fundamental application of our cognitive faculties, but also the evolutionary reason for the physical development of our brains; our large cerebral cortexes evolved to accommodate our complex hands and fingers, which, in combination (our brains and our hands), set in motion the continuing cognitive evolution that has produced this amazing “anthrosphere” of ours. Steve, your above statement following my post reminds me of an evolutionary term from college days that I thought had passed down the memory-hole, but some of your Dawkin’s terminology must have triggered an association. And the following may well fit in with your comments above relating tool making to human physiology as it may have been part of the same adaptive bundle in the developing gene composition: “Neotony” is a standard, but little mentioned textbook term in the study of evolution. The gist of it is, Chimpanzees, and possibly other mammals, during the first year of life are incredibly exploratory and curious, but only for about one year. Once that is past a genetic switch is thrown and they settle into the same dull round of routine behavior, eating, sleeping, food-gathering, reproduction, etc. Also, yearling chimps do not have facial hair. Facial hair begins to accumulate about the same time as their youthful curiosity begins to decline–before this, they look much more like human children. Evolutionists theorize that this trait was extended and gradually made itself permanent throughout the entire adult life in ascending lines of primates, now long extinct. As humans may be an extant manifestation of that broken chain of ascending primates the trait is used by some theorists as an explanation in how homo-sapiens remain curious even up until old age and again as a possible contributing factor in the development of human intelligence.
1 Comment »
