Neither Doug nor Dan has responded to my last post, so I'm going to call that a victory for my thesis...which when I originally started was only as strong as "The Religious Right is bad for the country". I have no idea how I let myself get pulled into trying to argue that it's a threat to the existence of America as we know it. I mean, the case can be made, and I'm willing to try to make it, but it really wasn't my original thought.
My original thought was more on the lines of "The Religious Right promulgates ideas that are bad for America (frankly, for the very concepts of reason and rationality), and that they have become sufficiently politically strong that active steps need to be taken to resist them".
Whatever. I win until I hear different.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Friday, January 12, 2007
The Long Haul and the Arrow of Progress
For all of the no one following the comments in Religious Right: Credible Threat, it is clear that I can't skate through hoping that ballpark definitions will get us moved on to the second stage of proving or disproving my thesis - The Religious Right is a Credible threat to America - because Dan and Doug won't have it. Instead we're going to have to dig a little deeper into the premises. I am willing to do this, but let me just say, before we get into it, that, for my purposes, the ballpark definitions should suffice. We will probably spend an enormous amount of time describing and discussing minutiae about the terms I used in my original statement, eventually discarding most of those points as irrelevant until we finally agree that the mainstream, casual definitions of those terms were adequate and largely agreed upon, and that any confusion was caused by our arguing at cross-purposes.
So, on to the stickiness.
First, let me start off by admitting that I made a large mistake in the way I defined "this country". I concentrated on the founding documents hoping that the evolution of ideas, including the changing interpretation of the founding documents (Constituation, Declaration, Federalist Papers, even Common Sense, etc.) was assumed. A conversation on the evolution of American ideas of justice and its effects on American jurisprudence is exactly the kind of exercise that we could be lost in for several days, and I don't want to embark on that discussion at all, but if something like is the only way to move on, so be it.
So, Part I: The America We Live in and the America that We Want to Live In
America, as both a geographical area and as the amalgamation of the myriad currents of thought that characterize the people who live in it and who, by their actions and those thoughts, define it, is too complicated to be described in a 1,000 word blog entry.
Such a description of America is not necessary for a thoughtful evaluation of the proposition "The Religious Right is a Threat to America" to be entertaining and fruitful.
America has evolved greatly since its inception and, in its particulars, is very different from the America of 1776, which itself would be too complicated to describe in a 1,000 word blog entry.
Over its 230 year history, one current in the shifting waters of America's self-definition has dominated all others. There is an Arrow of Progress from 1776 to 2007 that has, without exception that I am aware of, expanded individual liberty. If there are exceptions, they are irrelevant, because the evidence of the Progress is evident everywhere.
So, America, for me, is defined as a coordinate on that Arrow of Progress.
I am not so concerned with the coordinate per se, but with the Arrow. America is a work-in-progress, but it has been making progress toward increased social justice, toward improving the quality of life for everyone, for 230 years.
So, my refined proposition is:
"The Religious Right would reverse the Arrow of Progress that defines America's evolution toward greater social justice."
So, on to the stickiness.
First, let me start off by admitting that I made a large mistake in the way I defined "this country". I concentrated on the founding documents hoping that the evolution of ideas, including the changing interpretation of the founding documents (Constituation, Declaration, Federalist Papers, even Common Sense, etc.) was assumed. A conversation on the evolution of American ideas of justice and its effects on American jurisprudence is exactly the kind of exercise that we could be lost in for several days, and I don't want to embark on that discussion at all, but if something like is the only way to move on, so be it.
So, Part I: The America We Live in and the America that We Want to Live In
America, as both a geographical area and as the amalgamation of the myriad currents of thought that characterize the people who live in it and who, by their actions and those thoughts, define it, is too complicated to be described in a 1,000 word blog entry.
Such a description of America is not necessary for a thoughtful evaluation of the proposition "The Religious Right is a Threat to America" to be entertaining and fruitful.
America has evolved greatly since its inception and, in its particulars, is very different from the America of 1776, which itself would be too complicated to describe in a 1,000 word blog entry.
Over its 230 year history, one current in the shifting waters of America's self-definition has dominated all others. There is an Arrow of Progress from 1776 to 2007 that has, without exception that I am aware of, expanded individual liberty. If there are exceptions, they are irrelevant, because the evidence of the Progress is evident everywhere.
So, America, for me, is defined as a coordinate on that Arrow of Progress.
I am not so concerned with the coordinate per se, but with the Arrow. America is a work-in-progress, but it has been making progress toward increased social justice, toward improving the quality of life for everyone, for 230 years.
So, my refined proposition is:
"The Religious Right would reverse the Arrow of Progress that defines America's evolution toward greater social justice."
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Religious Right: Credible Threat
Last month or so, Dan asked me to make my case that the Religious Right is a threat to the United States. His contention was not that the Religious Right was good, but rather that, while an "embarrassment" and a "nuisance", they weren't sufficiently influential to merit the epithet "threat" . While considering how to make my case (and with the help of a little cross-examination by Doug), I became overwhelmed by how much of the debate Dan and I have left undefined, so before I make any case, I'd like to refine what the case is, just so's we can have a good platform to wrestle on. Who knows, once we've done that, Dan and I may even find that we agree.
So, here is a breakdown of my thesis, "The Religious Right is a threat to this country", as I understand it.
1) When I say "the Religious Right", I am talking about a group of pundits, politicians, and political organizations - as well as the ordinary members of the electorate in their sway - who attempt to influence policy within the United States with the intention of turning their specific, Christian morality into the law of the land.
2) When I say "this country", I am referring to the set of Enlightenment ideas (as I understand them) that the founders had in mind as they declared their independence from Britain and as they debated, wrote, and signed the Constitution that was ratified by each of the United States and is accepted as the legal foundation of those United States. Chief among those beliefs is the idea of Liberty, the idea that an individual has the right to do whatever s/he wants as long as those choices don't infringe on the rights of others, that consenting adults are best at determining what behavior is best for them.
3) When I say "threat", I am saying that I think the agenda of the Religious Right - banning abortion, keeping the morning after pill off the shelves, attempting to limit sex-education to abstinence-only, banning gay marriage - is antithetical to the ideas set forth in the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, and the Constitution, not the least of which is that the strength of this country, of a Democracy, is a free, independent, well-informed citizenry.
Now, if Dan is in agreement with those premises, then I would say this:
Any national movement whose aim is to enact legislation which is fundamentally at odds with the principles on which its host nation was founded and which, if enacted, would fundamentally change the nature and character of its host nation is, by definition, a threat to its host nation.
Now, I think that's a pretty good case, and I'm not anticipating any argument with it, but let me just say at this point that I'm certainly open to debating any of what I've written above.
However, if there is no argument with what I've said above, that the agenda of the Religious Right is inherently threatening to Enlightenment Ideals and that those Enlightenment Ideals are, in my opinion, essential to the character of the US as we know it, then let me allude finally to my post title and recast the terminology of the debate: I think, for the purposes of this argument, that my position is better represented by the phrase "Credible Threat" and Dan's position is more accurately represented by the phrase "Empty Threat".
And if all of that is kosher, then I ask Dan to weigh in on what it takes to make a Credible Threat. Perhaps some examples of Credible Threats in other areas?
We await Dan's response via comment or his blog...
So, here is a breakdown of my thesis, "The Religious Right is a threat to this country", as I understand it.
1) When I say "the Religious Right", I am talking about a group of pundits, politicians, and political organizations - as well as the ordinary members of the electorate in their sway - who attempt to influence policy within the United States with the intention of turning their specific, Christian morality into the law of the land.
2) When I say "this country", I am referring to the set of Enlightenment ideas (as I understand them) that the founders had in mind as they declared their independence from Britain and as they debated, wrote, and signed the Constitution that was ratified by each of the United States and is accepted as the legal foundation of those United States. Chief among those beliefs is the idea of Liberty, the idea that an individual has the right to do whatever s/he wants as long as those choices don't infringe on the rights of others, that consenting adults are best at determining what behavior is best for them.
3) When I say "threat", I am saying that I think the agenda of the Religious Right - banning abortion, keeping the morning after pill off the shelves, attempting to limit sex-education to abstinence-only, banning gay marriage - is antithetical to the ideas set forth in the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, and the Constitution, not the least of which is that the strength of this country, of a Democracy, is a free, independent, well-informed citizenry.
Now, if Dan is in agreement with those premises, then I would say this:
Any national movement whose aim is to enact legislation which is fundamentally at odds with the principles on which its host nation was founded and which, if enacted, would fundamentally change the nature and character of its host nation is, by definition, a threat to its host nation.
Now, I think that's a pretty good case, and I'm not anticipating any argument with it, but let me just say at this point that I'm certainly open to debating any of what I've written above.
However, if there is no argument with what I've said above, that the agenda of the Religious Right is inherently threatening to Enlightenment Ideals and that those Enlightenment Ideals are, in my opinion, essential to the character of the US as we know it, then let me allude finally to my post title and recast the terminology of the debate: I think, for the purposes of this argument, that my position is better represented by the phrase "Credible Threat" and Dan's position is more accurately represented by the phrase "Empty Threat".
And if all of that is kosher, then I ask Dan to weigh in on what it takes to make a Credible Threat. Perhaps some examples of Credible Threats in other areas?
We await Dan's response via comment or his blog...
Friday, January 05, 2007
Time Magazine Should Redefine its "Man of the Year"
I realize this is way-old pre-Christmas news, but shouldn't Time Magazine redefine their criteria for choosing a Person of the Year? I have been scooped, so let me link: The Wussification of the Time "Person of the Year"
For those not interested in link-following, the crux of the article is that Time Magazine has been willfully disregarding their own criteria for "Person of the Year" for the sake of sales for a good long time. The most glaring example of this occurred in 2001. Consider their definition of the Person of the Year: The person, group, or idea who, "for better or worse, has most influenced events in the preceding year". Now think of 2001 and tell me if you were thinking of Rudy Giuliani. Exactly. Osama bin Laden was far and away the correct choice for 2001's Person of the Year, and Time copped out, because they knew it would be unpopular.
The article concentrates on the Person of the Year choices from 2001 to 2006, and perhaps that is when the cop-outs began to happen with predictability, but word on the street is that Time lost many subscribers after giving Ayatollah Khomeni the title in 1979.
I don't have a problem with Time making good business choices. They are, after all, a business. However, business or not, a news outlet should demonstrate some minimal standard of integrity. What does it say about Time when they can't even respect a definition that they themselves chose?
So, half of the blame to Time and half to the 2006 Person of the Year: You. If only you prized the truth above knee-jerk patriotism, you might have canceled your subscriptions in 2001-2 and Time might have had a reason to start making principled choices again.
For those not interested in link-following, the crux of the article is that Time Magazine has been willfully disregarding their own criteria for "Person of the Year" for the sake of sales for a good long time. The most glaring example of this occurred in 2001. Consider their definition of the Person of the Year: The person, group, or idea who, "for better or worse, has most influenced events in the preceding year". Now think of 2001 and tell me if you were thinking of Rudy Giuliani. Exactly. Osama bin Laden was far and away the correct choice for 2001's Person of the Year, and Time copped out, because they knew it would be unpopular.
The article concentrates on the Person of the Year choices from 2001 to 2006, and perhaps that is when the cop-outs began to happen with predictability, but word on the street is that Time lost many subscribers after giving Ayatollah Khomeni the title in 1979.
I don't have a problem with Time making good business choices. They are, after all, a business. However, business or not, a news outlet should demonstrate some minimal standard of integrity. What does it say about Time when they can't even respect a definition that they themselves chose?
So, half of the blame to Time and half to the 2006 Person of the Year: You. If only you prized the truth above knee-jerk patriotism, you might have canceled your subscriptions in 2001-2 and Time might have had a reason to start making principled choices again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)