Understanding Christian Prejudices

One of the most irritating aspects of christians who have at least some knowledge of why they believe what they believe is the belief in the base nature of mankind. I think humans are naturally good and empathetic on the whole, and that their environments tend to damage their better and more altruistic impulses. But christianity disagrees with that position. They believe that only through god can our better natures be found. I found a well written explanation of that in the book "Reborn" by F. Paul Wilson. It is part of a multi-book sci-fi series that I am currently reading, and I thought I would share. This is a Jesuit priest speaking to a woman whose husband had just died a horrible death at the hands of others.

Priest: "A lot of adults never grow up when it comes to religion. They could never accept that Satan is just a symbolic externalization of the evil that lurks in all of us."
Widow:"But where does that evil in us come from?"
Priest: "From the merging of the spirit and the flesh. The spiritual part of us comes from God and wants to return to Him. The physical part of us is like a wild beast that wants what it wants when it wants it and doesn't care who gets hurt in its drive to get it. Life is a process of striking a balance between the two. If the spiritual part prevails, it is allowed to return to God when life is over. If the baser drives and emotions of the physical aspect taint the spirit too deeply, it is not allowed to return to God. That, Carol, is hell. Hell is not a fiery place with pitchfork-wielding demons. It's a state of being bereft of God's presence."

I found it interesting that the priest said that very few Jesuits believe in the existence of an actual Satan or Hell. It had the ring of truth to it, and I had always associated jesuit thought with a more intellectual approach to catholocism.

This crutch of needing to give yourself up to god in order to become a truly good person and to get to heaven is one of the most fundamental disagreements I have with xian thought. It leads to blaming god when things don't go well and writing problems off to "God's Will".

I find that attitude even more clearly in Islam. While xian fundamentalists have the country song "Jesus Take the Wheel" (Really? Your car starts to skid on ice as a metaphor for you life being out of control, and your best advice is to close your eyes, throw up your hand, and hope god steers your car/life away from the ditch. Really? But I digress.) muslims have the expression Insha'Allah or As God Wills.

I see that a lot in news reports and interviews on TV, and have had Muslim friends and acquaintances use it in situations where I think they would have been better off trying harder for the results they wanted. I think a touch of that attitude peeved Winston Churchill when he was talking about the muslim culture's "fearful fatalistic apathy."

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property—either as a child, a wife, or a concubine—must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proseltyzing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science—the science against which it had vainly struggled—the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

Oh well, just railing against the Nine Billion Names of God on a Wednesday.

Life on the Edge

One of the problems I have with Obamacare is the implied ability of the FedGov to control our personal life choices or reducing care options available to us, in the name of keeping costs down.  We are already seeing that in England where people who are overweight aren't allowed to get hip or knee replacements.  Big private/public employers like insurance agencies and hospitals are mandating urine tests and refusing to hire people who test positive for nicotine.  Is caffeine next?

I'm fat.  On the "Fluffy" scale I am somewhere between DAMN! and Oh Hell No!!!  Is the government going to tell me what I can and can't eat?  Will I be allowed to get that bypass that I am probably going to needs someday?  Probably not if Obamacare takes over.  It may be a few years, but our freedoms are being slowly eroded in the name of safety.

Sure I should lose weight.  I don't enjoy being fat.  But I enjoy eating bad things and choose to make the trade off.  Every life choice has its downsides, and I am generally very happy with my life.  Government, leave me the hell alone.

You know they are going to come for the easy targets first.  The smokers and the fatties.  But that is just the beginning.  What about motorcyclists?  Heck, people who drive cars instead of the much safer mass transit.  All of these can be regulated in the name of health care once we give the government that power over us.

I wonder what they are going to do about these guys.

Hairy

Leaning Toward the Newt

Been perusing the political news.  Funny thing, the pundits claim that our republic yearns for an outsider to run the country.  Then they claim that Romney and the Newt are both insiders so neither has a chance.  But I think they are wrong in both cases.

Mitt is easy.  He had a lot of business experience before he got into politics.  If a voter kinda likes Mitt (or dislikes everybody who is left) and is looking for an outsider, it is easy enough to assert that Romney's experience outside of government makes him outsider enough.

Newt is tougher.  He's been tramping around DC for a VERY long time.  But he has a couple of things going for him.  First, he really did upset the status quo in his first incarnation with the Contract With America, welfare reform, and inflicting balanced budgets on Clinton.  Second, a LOT of established politicians just HATE him.  To me, that makes him an outsider.  Anybody so disliked by so many political hacks just HAS to have something going for him.

The Pundits also assert that Newt loses focus and gets disorganized.  That is also a positive for me.  If something really important comes up, he will get focused and be the smartest guy in the room.  Until then he won't get much done.  That government governs best that governs least.

Barring some major meltdown, I am leaning in Newt's direction.  Even though I too like the idea of a political outsider to shake things up.

Hairy

A Part of the Case for Voter Photo ID

There has been a recent push to require photo ID before someone is allowed to vote.  I think it's a great idea.  Naturally the left is against it.  They want to continue to control vote outcomes through their city and state machines.  They disingenuously claim that it is a racist tactic to disenfranchise blacks and the poor.  They also claim that voter fraud is incredibly rare, and challenge ID supporters to find court cases where fraudulent voting has been found.  Of course those are virtually non-existent because the people who would investigate and prosecute such cases are the same people who are committing the fraud.  But every once in a while a liberal with a conscience comes along.

Democrat says Democratic Party bosses use voter fraud
http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/21/democrat-says-democratic-party-bosses-use-voter-fraud-video/

A Few Thoughts on Faith and Free Will

I was recently asked if humanists have an open mind about the existence of god, and what science can do to find god.  My opinion is that the answer is yes, but that humanists haven't seen anything that they would consider evidence of the existence of an anthropomorphic god.  Scientific research into the existence of god really doesn't have any good place to start.  The existence of god will need god to provide an unambiguous signature of his presence.  Measuring wavelengths, timing events, creating compounds are the kinds of things scientists do, and do very well.  Those things aren't like to produce the answer to life, the universe, and everything any time soon.

In myth and legend gods interact with humans all the time.  But generally only in private so you have to take the word of the person who suffered the divine presence.  "You saw who?  And he said what?  And he personally gave you that magic kazoo that can heal the sick.  Oh, but you can't cure my athlete's foot right now.  Uh Huh."  God needs to be less shy to overcome natural skepticism in a scientific age.

There is a common argument that god shouldn't provide proof of existence because that would rob man of freedom of choice.  That man must prove his allegiance through faith rather than evidence.  I find that argument less than compelling.  First, of course, there is the inherent unfairness of god taking that precious gift away from so many of his messengers.  Moses, anybody who got healed by Jesus, Joseph Smith, or anybody else who became a prophet of god through divine communication just got screwed.  Hardly the actions of a just god deserving of worship.  Second, and more important, just because you KNOW god exists doesn't mean that you will choose god.  Plenty of people choose to be evil.  Just ask Judas or Lucifer.  Freedom of choice is still there, it is just a more informed decision after god gets a regular talk show on Fox News.  (The other networks probably wouldn't give him a show.)

Hairy

Obama and the Deadly Drones

One of my favorite conservative blogs is Powerline. They recently posted an article discussing President Obama's program of blowing up bad guys with drones. It raises serious constitutional and ethical questions. This particular discussion noted that there aren't really clear limits or boundaries on presidential powers in some areas, and questioned whether there should be more. Here is the article:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/10/what-could-go-wrong.php

And my response:

One of the biggest problems I have with over regulation is that it enforces mediocrity and lowest common denominator outcomes. We see that with the public schools. Every move, every curriculum, every textbook, every teacher promotion or firing, must follow a rigid set of rules using written standards monitored by bureaucrats. While this may defend against really poor outcomes, it also reduces the chances for greatness and innovation. I believe that over regulation generally degrades outcomes, even if it does make them more consistent and predictable.

So yes, there are times that ambiguity of law, and the executive reaching in ways that were not considered by laws (Or that would never have gotten approval if publicly proposed.) is probably a good thing. We may not like it when that executive belongs to a party we don't approve, or if we don't like the particular action. But overall, on the balance, I believe that most Presidents of the United States make the right decision most of the time. Particularly on hard calls like whether to target a terrorist, citizen or not, with a drone.

I don't like Obama. Not as a person. Not as a politician. Not as our President. But I would not take the power to act independently away from him. Because if we take away some of his ability away to do bad things, we also take away part of his ability to achieve great things.

Hairy

A Discussion on Charity

A friend of mine recently posted on his Facebook page:

I remember once upon a time, conservatives talked about a kinder, gentler society, lit by a thousand points of light. Can we no longer afford compassion? We're becoming a meaner, harder, sharper-edged society, and those thousand points of light are dimming because we're told that we can't afford the candles.

I responded:
The question is how best to show compassion. Government handouts have proven to make people more poor and more dependent. It is a false compassion to ask for more money to hand out. Our world has become softer, not harder. The people who claim to be helping the disadvantaged are more likely to be harming them. Nationalizing charity was a bad idea.

Just because someone thinks government handouts have grown too big does not mean that person lacks compassion. Demeaning those who disagree with you detracts from the debate.

He responded, also talking to another commenter:

I don't think that I was demeaning anyone in particular. We seem to be on a trend of blaming the poor for poverty, though. I don't think that that's very constructive either. Private assistance, like food banks, only goes so far, and when there's hard times there's a lot more going out than there is coming in.

Kat - you know as well as anyone, that there's lots of people out there who want to work hard, and can work hard, but just can't find work. Gov Snyder just signed the bill limiting lifetime welfare assistance to 48 months. What happens to the 12,000 families who get kicked off the rolls in October?

And I replied:
Actually, your post was an attack on conservatives. It would be impossible to read your post without concluding that you think conservatives are meaner, harder, sharper edged, and lacking compassion. Read it again and think about how much you would like it if you were conservative and had dedicated your life to helping others, as I am and have.

As to the 12,000 people who have been on welfare for 4 years, yes they have had plenty of time to find work, move to where more jobs are available, start businesses, get help from their family, or find other means of supporting themselves. While there will always be a very few who need that kind of long term aid, 12,000? I don't think so.

Your comment on soup kitchens and private assistance was also interesting. Before The Great Society our country was filled with charitable groups working in the community. Rotary clubs, Elks, Eagles, Shriners. They have been devastated by the nationalization of charity. To the detriment of the poor. These private organizations could look at each distressed person or family individually and give them the help they needed, not letting them get away with bullshit as easily. Today it is a bureaucrat checking off boxes on a form, with the "less motivated" learning the right answers to give to maintain a low, but very easy, standard of living. Not good for them or our society.


Back to Hairy Thoughts.
I find myself in this kind of discussion fairly often. It is very frustrating to see public statements of moral superiority based on a policy disagreement. In effect, people saying that because they have a different way of solving a problem that they are a better person than I am. They might be, but not for the reasons they assert.