http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNPSGAFgF9Q
I was originally planning to make this all one video, but I’ve decided it would be wiser to break it up into smaller, more digestible increments; especially considering that it will probably be an ongoing series. I have tried to make it a point to exclude politics from the main focus of this channel, but I’m changing that. I am officially going political.
For at least two years, it has been apparent to me that the most misunderstood term in the English language is “atheist” and the second most misunderstood is “evolution.” As I investigate ever more, it becomes increasingly clear to me that the third most misunderstood is “liberal.” These terms are the three most misunderstood and stigmatized because a lot of obscenely wealthy people stand to become even more obscenely wealthy by discouraging the investigation of these terms, what they actually consist of, and the reasoning behind them.
For many years, I called myself an agnostic, avoiding the label “atheist” like the plague. This was because I saw theism and atheism both as forms of dogmatic, falsely-perceived gnosticism. But the reason I saw atheism like this was that, rather than investigating it, I accepted this stigma of it erected by well funded, dogmatic, zealous interests to the end of preventing this investigation.
But then, one day, I actually began investigating atheism, and shortly thereafter, evolution and creationism, and began acquainting myself with the arguments on both sides, and I realized that the only times the arguments against atheism and evolution ever seemed to make sense was times when they addressed arguments that were not actually being made. In my study of logic, I learned that this is what is known as a strawman fallacy. The parties trying to argue against these positions, being unable to refute the actual arguments in favor, have to pretend that the arguments in favor are something else.
Also, for many years, I called myself a moderate, likewise avoiding labels like “liberal” or “conservative” like the plague. But as I learned about atheism, evolution and logic, the differences between the two wings of the political spectrum became increasingly pronounced, coming ever more clearly into focus. In the ’08 presidential election, every time I watched part of one of the debates, I caught McCain relying on the same fallacy.
“Senator Obama, what do you have to say about issue A?”
“Oh, well on issue A, we have these facts, and using these facts as premises, I draw these conclusions, and using these conclusions as further premises, I draw these further conclusions, and on these grounds, I think this would be a good idea and I’m laying it all out there for the general public to examine, in the true spirit of democracy.”
“Hmm. Interesting. Senator McCain, what do you have to say on that subject?”
“Well look, my friends. I have experience, so just trust me.”
This was his reply over and over again. He was like a doll with a string. This is what’s called an Appeal to Authority. You know who else has plenty of experience? Gadhafi. “Don’t examine my argument. Just take the fact that I am an authority of some sort as an excuse to stop thinking.”
“Follow the example of my good friend Joe the Plumber, who isn’t actually a plumber, and whose name is not actually ‘Joe.’ Obama is elitist. I own seven mansions, but he is elitist.”
What do you call a politician with tons and tons and tons of experience? Well, there are two things you call him, or her, in the unfortunate event that calling is, indeed, necessary. First, old. Frickin’ old. But second, and more importantly, corrupt.
Public office is a position of public trust and authority. One who holds it is inevitably, invariably corrupted by it. Power corrupts. This is why the comparison is so frequently drawn between politicians and diapers. Both must be changed often, and for the same reason. This is one of the reasons the
After reading up on atheism, I found it interesting that, virtually every single time a Republican campaigning for public office made an argument on that subject, it was either an argument I knew how to refute or a refutation to an argument that wasn’t actually being made. It was an argument I had heard refuted, and seen refuted over and over again and always the same way. This was always the case with Republicans, but virtually never the case with Dems.
Then I familiarized myself to the same extent with evolution, and started noticing the same tendency. How in the world can a subject be a “controversy” if one side has not a single argument that has not been refuted? What does it mean if such a party continues to trot out those arguments over and over again?
Can I really be expected to entertain the notion that, when Bush argues that “Evolution is still only a theory,” that he has never, in all his years, had this misuse of the term “theory” explained to him?
Gravity, too, is “only a theory.” Cell theory is “only a theory.” Atomic theory is “only a theory,” but members of the general public are still being advised to maintain a distance of at least 80 km (50 miles) from the ruptured nuclear power plant in
Atomic Theory is a theory; also a fact. Cell Theory is a theory; also a fact. Gravity is a theory; also a fact. Evolution is a theory; also a fact.
In science, a theory is a school of thought. When the concept in question has so much evidence in support of it that the act of refuting it would be unavoidably revolutionary, then it is a fact, but becoming a fact does not mean that it ceases to be a theory. These two concepts (theory and fact) are not mutually exclusive.
This particular argument has been made continuously for the past 1.5 centuries and it has always had this very problem. Yet, over and over again, it is conservatives, not liberals, who trot it out as if it’s new and completely irrefutable. Either I accept that the scientific consensus about evolution is lacking (and I can’t, because I know better) or I accept that no one has ever explained the problem with this argument to the conservatives (which I find extraordinarily unlikely) or I accept that a significant percentage of the general public simply doesn’t happen to know the problem with this argument and conservatives are participating in an effort to capitalize on that. I find the third of these the most likely, but if true, it paints a tremendously unflattering image of conservatives, or at least, the ones campaigning for and holding public office.
Conservatives, over and over again, argue that evolution is “only a theory” and should therefore, not be taught as fact, since being a theory, allegedly, prevents it from being a fact. Liberals never rely on this particular canard.
Conservatives, over and over again, argue that atheism is the “belief that God does not exist,” or the “hate of God” or the “belief that everything came from nothing” or “adolescent rebellion” or “communism” or “fascism.” Conservatives (especially Christian conservatives) make the argument, over and over again, that the
It is right wing organizations from whom one hears the argument that “Well, you know the Constitution doesn’t actually say ‘Separation of Church and State.’ It doesn’t have those exact words.”
That’s true, in the same way that it doesn’t have the exact words “The people have the right to own guns.” Nonetheless, we do have this right. Why? Because of what it does say. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Do I get to spin this and say that, well, it just means that the government doesn’t get to order amputation campaigns? Of course not. Do I get to insist that by “arms,” it means those things that have a shoulder at one end and a wrist at the other? Of course not. What does it mean by “arms?” Well, it means armaments—things with which one arms oneself. Guns. Knives. Swords. Cutlasses. Tomahawks. Battle-axes. Spears. Even suits of armor, if you like.
“Well then why are the Democrats trying to take away the Second Amendment?”
Are they?
“Well of course they are.”
Can you show me any bills to that effect that they have ever actually tried to get signed into law?
“Um........”
In the mean time, what about the First Amendment? “The Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion OR restricting the free exercise thereof.” “...no law respecting an establishment of religion...” Say it with me. “...no law respecting an establishment of religion...” That’s what it says. It doesn’t make exceptions for one religion in particular. The free exercise of a religion is one thing. The establishment of one is another. If a nation has no laws respecting an establishment of religion, it has no established religion, and a separation of church and state, mosque and state, synagogue and state, temple and state, or whatever, is the unavoidable result. Sure, it doesn’t have these exact words per se, but that’s irrelevant. This is the unavoidable effect of this particular clause.
“Separation of Church and State” and “owning guns” are both examples of colloquial language; the language of the general public. “No established religion” and “keeping and bearing arms” are both examples of legal language, and since the US Constitution is, in fact, a legal document, the latter choice of words is appropriate and to be expected.
Lack of an established religion does not guarantee freedom of the people, but it is necessary to that end. On its own, this will not establish or protect freedom to the people, but such freedom is not possible without this. A legal system that protects and preserves freedom needs many essential components, of which this is one. An established religion will, unavoidably, tread on the freedom of the people. It will tread on the freedom of those who don’t practice that religion, but also the freedom of those who do. Those who don’t will automatically be relegated to second class citizen status. Those who do, on the other hand, will face the prospect of becoming second class citizens whenever doubts arise about whether the religion in question is true, and will thus be motivated not to freely, honestly consider those doubts, but to bury them instead.
If it is true, as is so often alleged, that Christianity rests on reason, then Christian authorities have no reason to discourage the honest examination of these doubts. They should be ready to address them. Every time a Christian or Christian conservative authority tries to undermine the no establishment clause and the subsequent separation of church and state, this amounts to an admission that Christianity does not, in fact, rest on reason and has to rely on force instead.
The Federalist Papers make the case for the Constitution, at least, as it was first ratified. Every single clause of it has the case for it laid out there. This invites public scrutiny of the case for the Constitution. This is done in the spirit of democracy which is predicated upon the assumption that the people are, for the most part, smart enough to decide for ourselves how we are to be governed, by whom, for what ends, and by what means. One who does not believe that does not believe in democracy. Every time someone makes the case that the many should forego our own judgment in deference to the few, this is an argument against democracy.
The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and the Federalist Papers because, among them, religious and nonreligious alike did believe in democracy. They were confident, first, that the general public was smart enough to use rational, critical scrutiny the vast majority of the time on any argument laid before it, and second, that the Constitution and the Federalist papers could withstand this scrutiny.
Presently, no part of the Constitution tries to get itself accepted by threatening the rights and freedoms of those who don’t accept it. The moment a nation has an established religion, this is no longer the case. Why would any party seek to threaten the rights of the general public with second-class citizen status in the event that problems with their shpiel are found? It can only be because there are problems with their shpiel and they don’t want the general public to realize it.
People who lend their shpiel to public scrutiny want any problems with it found. This opens the door for those problems to be corrected.
The moment a nation has an established religion, those who don’t follow that religion are unavoidably punished, and those who do are discouraged from giving it any real examination, lest they risk that punishment. Every time in history that a nation has had an established religion, this has been the case, no matter what that religion has been. Thus, the freedom of both is unavoidably infringed upon if not discarded altogether. Thus, the freedom of religion and the freedom from it are unavoidably linked. A nation cannot have the one without the other.
Personally, I would not want to live in a nation that does not defend both these freedoms vigorously. Just as it is not possible for the freedom of religion to exist separately from the freedom from it, the reverse is true as well. I am not religious, but my freedom not to be religious must coexist with the freedom of others to be religious, however obnoxious they may get about it sometimes.
Over and over again, it is conservatives, not liberals, trying to undermine the no establishment clause. Over and over again, it is conservatives, not liberals, trying to tear down this vital safeguard of basic liberties; this fundamental component of democracy. Over and over again, it is conservatives—not liberals—trying to undermine democracy allegedly in the name of democracy.
Conservatives reiterate these canards constantly; these and many others I have found. Liberals virtually never use them at all. When I noticed this particular track record, I was compelled to investigate the arguments to see what other refuted arguments conservatives are determined to rely on. My examination of those arguments and counter-arguments will follow.
No comments:
Post a Comment