cann4ing:  I have not read Hedges American Fascist and I will purchase it this evening on Amazon and I will read it with an open mind, at least I will consciously try to keep an open mind.  I haven’t offered a critical analysis of Hedges yet, but have only taken pot shots at him, I admit, from reading and thinking about the articles on these forums and in which I have had occasion to participate. 

The brief history of Wallace is fascinating and worthy to notice.  My thanks to you for that.I wonder too then if Wallace were alive today what he would suggest we do?  I have suspected for years that Prescott Bush and Family was completely involved in the oil cartels as I had heard years ago that he owned the oil trucking industry that was traveling around China and probably America too.  Now I don’t remember precisely where I read it, so I cannot really quote anything but it always stuck in my mind and I think and wonder about that when I view the oil crises that have occurred over the decades.

S--more years ago than I care to remember, one of my college profs suggested that when tackling a writer with whom you are inclined to disagree, start by reading what they have to say with a sympathetic eye “before” you undertake a critical analysis.  One needs to understand fully what the individual is seeking to convey, lest you miss it because of an inclination to reject it.

In the case of Chris Hedges, you are right about his religious background, but, if you haven’t done so, I would strongly urge reading his “American Fascists.”

One individual whom Hedges quotes in the book was former Vice President Henry Wallace, who, on April 9, 1944, while our nation was engaged in a life-and-death struggle with fascism in Europe, published an op-ed in the NY Times:

“The American fascist,” Wallace wrote, “would prefer not to use violence.  His method is to poison the channels of information.  With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money and more power.”

“They claim to be superpatriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.  They demand free enterprise but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest.  Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjugation.”

Wallace was exceedingly prescient for he appears to have anticipated the Bush regime more than 60 years ago, but then, if Wallace were alive today, I doubt he would be surprised.  George W. Bush’s paternal grandfather, Prescott Bush, was recently implicated in a fascist plot to overthrow FDR in the early 30s.

Per Joseph Trento, Prelude to Terror, Prescott and Brown Brothers Harriman were intimately linked to Nazi pre-war financier, Fritz Thyssen, via the American controlled Union Banking Corporation (UBC).  Under President Roosevelt’s directive, the Alien Property Custodian issued a Vesting Order which detailed how the Walker, Bush and Harriman families had helped the Nazi war effort.

In 2003 the New Hampshire Gazette discovered in the National Archives documents which revealed that Prescott “failed to divest himself of more than a dozen ‘enemy national’ relationships that continued until as late as 1951…Furthermore, the records show that Bush and his colleagues routinely attempted to conceal their activities from government investigators.”

I am on the edge of agreeing with you cann4ing.  A remaining question is that while there are fascistic elements within American society, doesn’t there exist a huge population that even though they seem unconcerned and uninvolved in the undercurrents of politics, are conscious and fastened with dogmatic superglue to their own local doctrinaire societies?  There are a myriad of social units that are ready to defend their lifestyles and there are competing fascistic organizations.  So I have a suspicion that a large enough fascistic order could not ever sustain itself to “take over” the country even though it may look as if for instance the conservative right and corporate America conspire to do so.

I am a fan of Chomsky, not Hedges.  One I feel thinks brilliantly, dispassionately and rightly (the former), the other I think often has reactive and clouded views influenced by deep religious teachings that, I think obvious and shown in his writings, have not been excavated out.

S--my post was intended to expand upon rather than critique the point you made to OM.  Your last observation as to my being one of those “rational atheists signing in” is accurate.

I’m not certain whether either Mao’s China or Stalin’s U.S.S.R. would qualify as “fascist” states as opposed to Marxist/Leninist totalitarian states which just happened to have rejected all religion beyond worship of “the leader.”

What I am relatively certain of is that whereas religion has often served as a vanguard of progressive and democratic movements, e.g. Quaker opposition to slavery and war, Ghandi, MLK, there is a common thread between the perverted versions of religion, such as the radical right form of Christianity which Hedges focuses upon in this article, and more extensively in “American Fascists:  The Christian Right and the War on America” and the “pseudo-religious transformation” described by Noam Chomsky and Fritz Stern with respect to Hitler’s Germany. 

Hedge’s describes a rally by Pastor Russell Johnson:

“A fusion of Christian and national symbols marks a completion for those at the rally of America’s new state religion, a Christo-fascism.  A choir sings rousing patriotic and Christian hymns while pictures of American troops fighting in Iraq....Looming above it all is a huge American flag with the Christian cross superimposed on it....

“In rallies like those...friends, neighbors, colleagues and family members who do not conform to the ideology are gradually dehumanized.  They are tainted with the despised characteristics inherent in the godless.  The attack is waged in highly abstract terms, to negate the reality of concrete, specific and unique human characteristics, to deny the possibility of goodness in those who do not conform...This new, exclusive community fosters rigidity, conformity and intolerance.”

Religion becomes a tool to create a fascist America.

Leefeller, if to be a freethinker means one does not accept nor reject ideas proposed as truth without option to knowledge and reason, then a world without religion would be one where that kind of oppression to thinking would be missing, but a totalitarian authority would still attempt to forcibly inhibit the thinking of the subjugated.  So to answer your question, there may be freethinkers, but still have brains and bodies hammered and severely assaulted to believe what is the doctrines of the state.

Oppressive regimes that do that today under the guise of atheism, bans not only religious practice, also forces other kinds of thinking that glorifies and seemingly justifies the regime.

If you hypothesize a world completely without totalitarian states or slave-masters of any kind, then seems the answer to your question is already given.

OzarkMichael

Stated:
“well said. lets both put our viewpoints (without prejudice against either atheism or Christianity) under the category, “Worldview”. Let us then allow that normal human passions can bring out good and bad in both. Let worldviews compete fairly from there as much as possible.”

“What would be the implications of this?”

“Would it contradict the original intent of US founding fathers? Or the current understandings of the Bill of Rights?”

Normal human passions, you state can bring out the good and bad of both. Me suspects one would have arguments defining in agreement the good and bad even harder or impossible without prejudice? 

People would have to be in agreement what is,the good and the bad before they could speculate on the implications.  If they do not agree on the good and bad, discussing what are the implications would never be in the ball park.

Again, intent of the founding fathers is open to debate with hypothetical conclusions, I feel you asked the question because you have an opinion?  If I am not mistaking, are you referring the separation of Church and State?

She,

“Freethinking is a more appropriate descriptive term of atheists”. 

If there were no religions in the world as if they never existed and all the people in the land were atheists but did not know it, would they still be freethinkers?

Not precisely sure what you are presenting here cann4ing.  Your point #1 that notes atheists and agnostics are adherents to the scientific method elaborates somewhat on what I said. 

And, #2 doesn’t really negate the distinction I made about fascist totalitarian regimes.  The fact that Italian Fascist and Spanish Fascists profanely exploited Christianity says nothing of that religion, nor says anything about the essence of atheism for that matter, but only amplifies the degree to which those dictatorial systems and any other similar systems of force debased anything for their own degenerate purposes. 

I did not suggest any particular manifestation of fascism that misused atheism.  If I were to do that, I would offer the Chinese and Soviet Communist states, et al, as profiting from disallowing any religion to have a place in their society since religion, any religion, would take even an iota of allegiance away from the sovereign government, hence their exploiting atheism as a concept to preserve their power.  Once again, atheism is an attitude and an attitude by definition is a mental state that is skeptical of all supernatural beings because of the lack of empirical evidence.  One further point I should like to make is that there are those other than atheists who are devoted to the scientific method.  Deists and even many theists engage in scientific proof, while atheists tend to accept scientific proofs and methods, they also remain skeptics of final conclusions.  Freethinking is a more appropriate descriptive term of atheists.

I should thank you for helping me to clarify my thoughts and expect you are one of the rational atheists signing in.

By Shenonymous, September 26 at 4:58 pm #

You also claimed that atheists exert some kind of power to force agreement using blind faith, peer pressure, and something you really unspecify, and vaguely offer as “worse” to capture agreement (capture? what could that mean?) There is not a shred of truth in that.  The fascist states that prostitute atheism are exercising that position because they do not want any competing system to their authoritarian rule, which religions by their very nature do.  They demand allegiance as much as any government.

______________

1.  Both atheists and agnostics are adherents to the scientific method.  Belief, blind or otherwise, plays no role.  There are theories, but these are subject to testing, verification, modification and, if necessary, rejection where compelled by scientific evidence.

2.  The Christian religion played a core role in both the Italian and Spanish fascist states.  In “Failed States,” Noam Chomsky observes, “Fritz Stern, a scholar of German history, noted ‘Hitler’s…appeal to his ‘divine mission’ as ‘Germany’s savior’ in a ‘pseudoreligious transfiguration of politics’ adapted to ‘traditional Christian forms’…with ‘Christianity as the foundation of our national morality and the family as the basis of national life.’ Hitler’s hostility toward the ‘liberal secular state,’ shared by much of the Protestant clergy, drove forward ‘a historic process in which resentment against a disenchanted secular world found deliverance in the ecstatic escape of unreason.’”

OM:  Not mind-altering implants, mind-enhancing and body-assist implants.  There is a huge difference.  One takes mind away, the other gives mind better thinking skills and a better working body.  It is a fait accompli for the future.  No question it will come to pass.  I would want more than some federal regulatory agency to make sure no megalomaniac commandeers humans and the technology to create such detached creatures as the Borg.  There are sure to be if private industry gets to be in charge.  No, I don’t envision humans as becoming a collective Borg.  Individuality will remain. 

Some might suggest promotion of enhanced superhumans has some inverse relation to the abortion issue and that regulating the creation of artificial life has the same vigor as regulating and even prohibiting abortion.  I would have to disagree completely.  In one case, a being already in existence could be made so bionic that their own ownership of their life can be stolen.  In the other case, there is no being other than the pregnant female who would be forced by biased and idiosyncratically religious morals to carry to term an embryo not wanted for any number of good humanistic reasons. 

I cannot keep a distance when a shallow understanding of atheism is presented as accurate and definitive without some attempt to give a distinguishing and essential characterization. The number of times this has had to be repeated on several Truthdig forums and within forums only testifies to the utter lack of common knowledge about what atheism is.  To even ask if it is a religion also testifies to a certain ignorance.  It compels those who claim it is a religion to describe or define what is a religion and to be careful that their own system of beliefs and practices are included. 

The kind of atheism prostituted by totalitarian regimes does not show the force of atheism but does show the force of a militant totalitarian system.  Atheism has no force at all!  It merely defends its right to not believe nor engage in any formal practice secular, cultist, or religious.  It has no soldiers with guns as religions do.  For want of a better word, atheism as used in these kinds of fascist states, means only that the practice of a religion is forbidden. There are not even any creeds.  This is a purely political posture that has nothing in fact to do with atheism which in fact is and only is the lack of a belief in supernatural creator of all things associated with the earth and the universe.  This is a bi-conditional description of atheism that it is the lack of belief and only is the lack of belief. Anything else ascribed to it is false and peculiar (specific) to individuals and groups who wish to add different political flavors to their forced government.  Unfortunate mistakes are made thinking one is the other by those unable to either make distinctions or wish to use such mistakes to their own doctrinal advantage. 

You also claimed that atheists exert some kind of power to force agreement using blind faith, peer pressure, and something you really unspecify, and vaguely offer as “worse” to capture agreement (capture? what could that mean?) There is not a shred of truth in that.  The fascist states that prostitute atheism are exercising that position because they do not want any competing system to their authoritarian rule, which religions by their very nature do.  They demand allegiance as much as any government.

Leefeller puts it well and succinctly.  We are indebted and give him our thanks.

Om

Believers and nonbelievers, may be more accurate, then “Worldview” which sounds like a Travel Agency. Being fair and balanced sounds like Fox news, not sure what are are suggesting?

per Leefeller: For sake of argument, atheism is not a religion, especially using the text book definition of “religion”.

Of course you are right. perhaps instead of religion we should use the more encompassing phrase, “Worldview”.

per Leefeller: Capability is not only beholding to religion or atheism, it would seem capability can be propagated by many other things.

well said. lets both put our viewpoints (without prejudice against either atheism or Christianity) under the catagory, “Worldview”. Let us then allow that normal human passions can bring out good and bad in both. Let worldviews compete fairly from there as much as possible.

What would be the implications of this? 

Would it contradict the original intent of US founding fathers? Or the current understandings of the Bill of Rights?

OzarkMichael,

You ask a question, then you answer the question and finish with a surmise, then in-conclusion atheism is a religion in your your mind. You have made your own definition of the word religion and not only a religion but now a most dangerous religion. You make it seem like a math problem with danger? 

Capability is not only beholding to religion or atheism, it would seem capability can be propagated by many other things. 

For sake of argument, atheism is not a religion, especially using the text book definition of “religion”.

per Shenonymous: When the chips get smaller and smaller into nano size and they are even embedded into the human as cyborgs which will happen because we have already thought of it, this generation of ours will be history and thought to be as ancient as we now think the Greeks were.

Maybe Star Trek the Next Generation really could happen. We get to be the Borg.

As to the rest of your post Shenonymous, it grants me a picture of your life and vocation. Which you are suited to. Your appreciation of the children is a good thing, and you have much to offer them.  The kids only need people… like you. Its not going to get better than that.

So dont allow anyone to put mind altering implants in them! Even if they are government approved. Ah, especially if they are government approved!

per Leefeller :Personal choices should be respected, though in religion some feel the need to force their ideas on others,

You do know that atheists are just as capable of such force. Does that mean that atheism is a religion?

per Leefeller :Add the fact blind faith uses fear, peer pressure and worse to capture agreement.

Yes, that describes how some atheists capture agreement too. ‘and worse’, historically via the power of the state. Having forgotten their prior fiascos, some leading atheists are already looking forward to using the state power again to capture agreement. Atheism seems to be one of the most dangerous religions.

Religion seems to propagate a feeling of resentment towards those who do not agree and follow suite, why is it so important to demand servitude or else back to the us or them mentality.

Truthdig has a massive foundation of resentment. Its thought leaders(like Gore Vidal) seem to have resentment as their principle motivation. This does lead to a heavy ‘us vs them’ mentality.  Again one can only surmise that atheism is a religion.

Personal choices should be respected, though in religion some feel the need to force their ideas on others, why is it when people believe something to be, whether proven or not, must feel that others should accept their blind faith as they do?  Add the fact blind faith uses fear, peer pressure and worse to capture agreement. 

Palin’s preacher, forced a women from her home and town by calling her a witch.  This kind of practice is what I am talking about.

Religion seems to propagate a feeling of resentment towards those who do not agree and follow suite, why is it so important to demand servitude or else back to the us or them mentality. 

Religion is fine for those who need it, but reminds me of alcoholics demanding someone drink with them.

Seems religion is about control and power add money we can add good old greed.

OzarkMichael:  I love the beating heart simile and attempt at isomorphism with processing information.  It is truly wonderful.  Well you should know better than to say I am wrong!  Nevah!  See I think that while technology is ahead of human assimilation at the moment, humans will evolve to absorb information at a faster rate.  I see evidence of it in my work.  As I watch the youngsters at their computers, I get to do that in the classroom for hours, and they are playing their games of war, their dexterity and reaction with small muscle coordination is incredible. But even more incredible than that is the speed with which they must think and react mentally for their small muscle coordination to function.  It is brain/body cooperation. This is training for the future.  The excitement that is on their faces as they play is a site to behold.  The competition is at its zenith in human development.  This new generation will be light years ahead of anything we can imagine now.  I think there is a tendency to underestimate the capacity for the human to evolve and evolve quickly.  Given the stimulus they are always making the grade.  Maybe not in huge numbers and maybe not the older folks right now, but two-year olds are on computers these days.  When the chips get smaller and smaller into nano size and they are even embedded into the human as cyborgs which will happen because we have already thought of it, this generation of ours will be history and thought to be as ancient as we now think the Greeks were.  I say there is no limit.  You are thinking about humans as they are right now.  Think ahead instead.  It maybe that the body and its heart cannot change or evolve so that speeding up the heartrate doesn’t wind up in a messy quiver, but the mind will be able to organize more and more information as its learning capacity increases.  Why I can even detect a difference in my own ability to absorb more information that I did as a kid and I was considered a bright child.  I think you are wrong and I am left keeping my heart left where it was.

per Shenonymous: humans are evolving rapidly particularly with the superspeedy transportation of information provided by technology and a factor of 10 to the minus 9 second speed and even faster instantaneously reacting instruments.

With all due respect(and much respect is due to Shenonymous) this speeding up of information is solid and useful but only externally for humans. Internally, it has a strange effect.

Imagine your heart. Each heartbeat starts with an electrical impulse. Increase the frequency of impulses and yes for awhile the heartrate and useful work done by the heart goes up. Increase the rate some more and you begin to get less output from the heart even though it is beating so fast. Why? Because the heart cannot fill during the brief pauses between beats.

Increase the rate a little more and the person faints. More speed yet and the heart begins to quiver chaotically.

per Shenonymous Humans have the first opportunity since their evolution as a species to learn introspection as a species trait

Now, forget the heart and think of a typical person, who hears news, opinions, and events at a rapid rate. Instead of thinking more they dont have time to meditate about what any of it means. And i offer my opinion that during our own generation we witnessed the tipping point where the speed of new events outpaced out ability to ‘fill’(like the heart in between beats)… where we meditate on what it means. So that paradoxically we are learning less now than before, despite(no, because of!) the frantic pace.

Yes, yes, the person ‘knows so much’ these days. But it doesnt effect him/her at all. Or if it does it is only superficially. There was a time when knowing one thing, (only one thing!) could last a person a month or two as it was pondered and it soaked deep down. One major event(just one!) was enough to meditate about for years. But now, bombarded by major events and ideas every day, I ask, is anything sinking in? Instead do you not percieve less introspection around you as the years go by, which is spiritual collapse akin to what happens in the the body if the heart beats too fast?

Shenonymous, I know it is a little dangerous to cross swords with you,(I do admire you more than I can write here) but you are wrong on this one. In your heart you know that I am right.

Nice rational post OzarkMichael...Others may joke but I take atheism seriously, (with some levity thrown in) as you well know.  Ergo your post here.  There’s no such thing as eavesdropping on Truthdig.  It is a wide-open forum.

I invite the rational atheists to sign in please.

My perspective is that Next Generation is far too much a fantasy to be the future even in a hundred years.  But my reason for thinking so is that it is hard to imagine a universe populated by the kinds of beings they run into.  Even Carl Sagan was skeptical.  If no bogeymen, no melodrama. 

The reason atheism may be the complexion of the future is that humans are evolving rapidly particularly with the superspeedy transportation of information provided by technology and a factor of 10 to the minus 9 second speed and even faster instantaneously reacting instruments. Humans have the first opportunity since their evolution as a species to learn introspection as a species trait.  This means to me that they will seek and receive adequate and sufficient answers about existence from within the human heart and soul (meaning mind) and will not need to search for extraterrestrials (supernaturals) to explain what life is all about.  And they will come to terms with their mortality.  Hopefully the one virtue of the Next Generation is that humankind will learn to stop killing each other (although on the scifi tv show they did run into bloodthirsty otherworlders. It seems every conscious species has to learn the same lessons.)

In your investigation of the contemporary atheists, what have you found is their prediction of the next evolutionary step?  Perhaps we can get some group speculation going here.

per Shenonymous: Are you saying to wildflower on one hand you shouldn’t take atheists so seriously as if they are a negligible tribe and so are not really worthy of giving the respect that seriousness would give?  But then in an odd way you are saying almost in the same breath that maybe you are taking atheists seriously.

wildflower seemed to want me to not take atheists seriously, as a joke i gave in.

In fact I have and still do take atheists seriously. I also take the people who support atheism seriously.

And I did read several comments from others such as cyrena but there is too much to respond to so i picked the wildflower. If cann4ing posted something I figured it wasnt meant to be read by me. Wouldnt want to eavesdrop.

I meant to accept as a given what atheist bestselling(and that is itself a new phenomenon) writers believe is the next step in evolution for mankind. Now I am trying to figure out what that means for the future if its true. And I suspect it might be true, there are trends.

As said before, it does no damage to my American Christian fundamentalism to at least postulate that atheism is the wave of the future.

If it is true that atheism is the wave of the future, will that result in advancements leading to Star Trek the Next Generation or instead to an ultra modern gulag? My guess: Based on the history of states that have used the same sort of rhetoric, and based on my understanding of human nature, based on the policies advocated by some of the best selling atheist authors, and based on what I have read here over the last year, we are not headed for the Next Generation.

I hope I am wrong, I keep looking for evidence that I am wrong. I find a little hope here and there. Perhaps this is a bad time to search, this being the political season. No, political rhetoric matters.

Perhaps Truthdig is a bad place to look for rational atheists? I wont touch that question, but I invite you to handle it, Shenonymous.

You are light on your feet OzarkMichael.  Are you saying to wildflower on one hand you shouldn’t take atheists so seriously as if they are a negligible tribe and so are not really worthy of giving the respect that seriousness would give?  But then in an odd way you are saying almost in the same breath that maybe you are taking atheists seriously.  Wouldn’t you be doing just that if you were to understand them better?  And if you are taking atheists seriously, what does that mean?

per wildflower: It just seems rather odd to me to be so concerned about what atheists’ authors are saying about the future

You are probably right, I shouldnt take them so seriously. It is, how shall i say it… a thought experiment. I have my reasons, one of which is to understand atheists better. Taking them seriously is also a mark of respect.

I’m not sure what you’re referencing, but if you’re talking about our founders’ intent to separate church from state, I agree with Cann4ing’s views.  I would add, however, the clergymen of that time period very much wanted to separate church from state.  According to Tocqueville, who had interviewed a lot of clergymen in that time period, they felt: “. . . allying itself with a political power, religion increases its power over some and loses the hope of reigning over all.”

my comment: Wow! those were two great quotes. The first one(not included above) seems to support what you say, the second one seems to support what i say. A neat trick. You may agree with cann4ing, but you are beginning to expose what cann4ing would rather keep hidden. If he really is so clever you might want to follow his lead and dont go there.(I am mostly kidding)

but seriously, wildflower, thanks for a very fine effort at both taking a stand yourself, but also respectfully discussing an aspect of my argument. Putting two edges on the sword by using two quotes from one author that cut opposite ways(all in one post) is just too excellent. If you want to keep discussing this I would be most pleased to do so.

Re:OzarkMichael

Per OzMich: “It isn’t my idea. I am allowing that prominent sociologist and atheist authors are correct in their predictions for the future. . .”

In all due respect, OzarkMichael, you’re thinking on this sounds like something a person of little faith might say. It just seems rather odd to me to be so concerned about what atheists’ authors are saying about the future – talk about bogeyman. 

Per OzMich: “Europe is ahead of us in the evolution away from faith and towards atheism.”

I tend to agree with an analysis that Tocqueville made early on about Europe and religion.  As you may recall, he greatly admired our founders’ wisdom for separating church from state and said: “In Europe, Christianity has permitted itself to be intimately united with the powers of the earth. . . today these powers are falling and it is almost buried under their debris.”

Per OzMich: “it is laughable when a . . . player counts the score of the game only for the last few minutes when the game has been going on for awhile(a la cann4ing, the retiring lawyer).”

I’m not sure what you’re referencing, but if you’re talking about our founders’ intent to separate church from state, I agree with Cann4ing’s views.  I would add, however, the clergymen of that time period very much wanted to separate church from state.  According to Tocqueville, who had interviewed a lot of clergymen in that time period, they felt: “. . . allying itself with a political power, religion increases its power over some and loses the hope of reigning over all.”

“Truth is not a popularity contest” Very profound and seems even pious, good job, now we know what truth is not.  Unsound assumptions of other peoples feelings and opinions, seem presumptuous to me, but of course I am not capable of understanding your verbiage as most do not understand McCains.

per wildflower: So why are you anticipating a leap among atheists?

It isnt my idea. I am allowing that prominant sociologist and atheist authors are correct in their predictions for the future, namely that the number of and political influence of Christians will decrease, and a new age is coming. I can discuss those theories if you like, but basically Europe is ahead of us in the evolution away from faith and towards atheism.

It doesnt hurt me to postulate that their theory could be correct. Truth is not a popularity contest, so the prediction does not shake my own convictions in any way. 

Accepting the atheist prediction allows me to speak to Truthdiggers here with some seriousness about their own causes and how they attain them, since what they represent will someday be in control. It makes their rhetoric most relevent and worth examining. I think they have taken on characteristics of the bogeyman they are so afraid of. That does not bode well.

per wildflower: In regard to freedom, the only sector actively working to undermine our Constitution, Bill of Rights and the principles involving separation of church & state are from the Christian sector.

one group’s ‘undermining’ is another group’s upholding. As one side ‘upholds’ and succeeds the other side pushes back for the opposite direction, what they call ‘upholding’. To percieve that there is only one side working and pressuring for an outcome is like watching a soccer game and percieving that there is only one team out there.

There are some people here who cherish our freedoms, and want to talk about how to preserve them. We can disagree about how. We can even call each other names. Its all right.

But i think its a mistake to pretend that that there is only one team out there. And it is laughable when a supposedly smart player counts the score of the game only for the last few minutes when the game has been going on for awhile(a la cann4ing, the retiring lawyer).

Re: OzarkMichael

OzM says: “I do not have confidence that population of mostly atheists will be able to support freedom.”

Are you suggesting the number of Christians in the U.S. will be declining in the near future, OzarkMichael? As I recall, only 1% of America’s citizenry are currently atheists; Christians on the other hand comprise almost 72% of our Nation’s citizenry.  So why are you anticipating a leap among atheists?

In regard to freedom, the only sector actively working to undermine our Constitution, Bill of Rights and the principles involving separation of church & state are from the Christian sector.  The other sectors appear to be satisfied with our way of government, and will most likely continue to do so in the future.

Thanks a lot for the lookout Sodium!  I have already bought American Fascists, but haven’t made time to read it yet.  I’ll take your advice and get the other book and read it first.  Thanks again!

Stolen emails are like stolen moments, so special when life and death hangs on the balance. Emails taken from a Christian of ill repute is a major crime which sould have grave consistences to the thieves. Unlike the rest of us, who can have the feds going through our garbage whenever they want, high five accepted by the same person. 

Since hearing is believing, Her, mistress of extraordinary profoundness, just happens to be a Christian, and is having her emails stolen,(how do you steal emails?) I ask of what importance are they, and how would one know if the emails were real lies or untruths?

I have a pasture which I grow hay on.

Descartes might have said something about the reliability of mathematics to emphasize the folly of making the same mistake over and over in some other system of logic (viz., tripping over the same pig), but I doubt (one of Descartes’ favorite words) he did say that one and it is, OM, one of your own creative versions of a carteseanism.  Neatly done but won’t stand even the delicates wash cycle.

Wolf killer Palin, has a pasture who believes in witch doctors, so this means my belief in the Wizard of Oz is in the running? Ronald Reagan and wifie made national decisions using astronomy or was it they cleansed their minds by having a high colonic?

Ozark Michael writes:

• “This is true. When the supreme court decided Roe vs Wade it was certainly DICTATED to the population”

OM, you’re wrong on this of course. That decision is the polar opposite of a dictation. Roe v. Wade was decided on privacy. It’s that simple. It was decided based on the recognition that any individual’s decision about their own bodies is not a political matter. In other words, the population cannot decide what is best for me or you in terms of our bodies, unless we’ve committed a crime, at which point society can decide to lock us up, or otherwise execute us. In fact, we are the only so-called civilized county on the planet that still believes in state sanctioned murder via execution, or people that are in fact already ALIVE, (as opposed to embryos which are not).

But Roe v Wade is POSITIVE law, not negative law, and jurisprudence makes a clear distinction. Consequently, Roe v. Wade is under no circumstances a dictation to the population, because it can’t be. Roe v Wade only applies to those people who happen to be pregnant who, for whatever their PRIVATE reasons might be, choose not to complete that pregnancy. It doesn’t apply to anyone else. It doesn’t say that you, or your wife, or your daughters, or your mother has to have an abortion. It simply gives them the right to decide that, based on their own needs, without being made a criminal if it is their choice. If someone doesn’t want to terminate a pregnancy there is NOTHING that can force them to terminate that pregnancy, unless of course we’re talking about God. For believers, God is the greatest abortionist. Ask the hundreds of thousands of women who suffer miscarriages and still births.

shenonymous: And Ozark where did you get the “at most 5%” for your fringe group. Throwing out such guesses is so lame in arguments.

As often happens Shenonymous, you got me red handed. But there is a method to it. To be a lunatic fringe element, I figure it must be at least 2 standard deviations out of center so i said ‘5% at most’. As happens occasionally, you are laughing at me but saying, ‘by golly the boy has a point!’ I hope.

“mathmatics is reliable even when everyone keeps tripping over the same pig.”

Descartes said that.

Outraged and I have gone over this percentage thing before. ‘Fundamentalist Christian’ is a vague term, it can expand to the many millions. But some athiests tip their hand when they fret over theocracy(a la our retiring lawyer) so we are talking about a bogeyman known as the Dominionist.

My actual opinion is that Dominionists make up about 1 part per million of the electorate, which is statistically speaking 0% of the population. Isnt there something like McCarthyism about atheist attempts to keep lists and try to identify more Christians with the Dominionist movement? They use the 0% Dominionist to denigrate(someday eliminate?) the civic participation of many millions of Christians. That will ensure freedom from religion!

I have seen here on Truthdig amongst our company of ‘enlightened’ writers, approval of a crime since it was commited against a Christian. Should I go there and tally the posts? I do not consider these writers on Truthdig to be lunatics. or a fringe. And one more thing, I called them pigs but I take that back. I am sorry I said it. We are human, all too human.

But what was the first Truthdigger response to the stolen emails? “Palin is linked to the Dominionists.” So that made the crime a virtuous act.

Unless our earnstwhile lawyer will come out of retirement and show how stealing mail wasnt breaking the law, I rest my case. 

Evolution(Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens/Dennett version) in America isnt happening fast enough for some atheists I guess. It becomes a good thing to speed the process up. ‘Lets give the poisonous Christian faith a little push to hurry its exit.’ But then follows the inevitable conclusion: ‘since its for the advancement of the human race, anything goes to make the dream finally happen.’

What restrains them? Nothing. So crime committed for the dream deserves a medal, as one Truthdigger proposed.

But how we achieve a dream is what determines its nature. The perfection within the dream does not enter the equation. Its all about how you get there.  That is the utter downfall of atheist states in the past and i do not see any evolution in human nature to reassure me it wont happen again. It predictably ruins everything for everybody, including the atheists. 

shenonymous: It takes time for things to happen, and one of my favorite physical laws is water seeks its own level.  Even that takes time.  Human ignorance disappears on a daily basis.

The physical law of flowing water suites the situation. Except the metaphor takes on a truer meaning if we remember that water always seeks the lowest level.

“Flowing water gets lifted up by a Will above its own, but otherwise the natural course of things is downhill.”

I said that.

S--your post is solid but wasted on an empty-headed religious fanatic like OM whose ignorance of the role of the U.S. Supreme Court in our federal system is exceeded only by his ignorance of the meaning of the First Amendment.

Like most uneducated and religiously indoctrinated individuals, OM uses the word “dictated” to imply that the Supreme Court acts arbitrarily like a dictator.  Nothing could be further from the truth. What the Court does is in fact a reflection of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. constitution combined with a ruling made in 1803 that the court is the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of the constitution and of our laws.  That case, Marbury vs. Madison, furnishes the cornerstone of our jurisprudence.

The U.S. Constitution provides the minimal protections that apply to all citizens regardless of the particular state in which they reside.  The Fourteenth Amendment extends rights of due process and equal protection not just as applied in federal courts but in all our courts.  The U.S. Supreme Court had the right and the responsibility to determine in Brown vs. Bd. of Education that separate was not equal, a ruling that, while it took a great deal of time, eventually led to the end of Jim Crow laws by which states discriminated against African Americans. 

You are right.  Roe did not materialize out of thin air.  It’s predecessor, Griswold, held that a state law seeking to prevent married couples from using contraceptives violated their constitutional right to privacy.  That right was derived at by examining multiple constitutional provisions, including the Fourth & Fourteenth Amendments.  The right recognized in Griswold was then extended to a woman’s decision whether to terminate a pregnancy during the first two trimesters.  It was a carefully reasoned decision that weighed individual rights against state interests--a far cry from the arbitrary actions of a dictator.

“Filthy and stinky as a pig, but looking at the bright side, the sausages smell great!”

Intruding once again, I am.  Amazing?  Yes, indeedy.  I’m always amazed at what I call ‘forced’ logic, others call it fallacy.  What religious fringe are we talking about exactly, thebeerdoctor and OzarkMichael?  Seems to me you are both talking about some fictitious excuse for ranting your own respective myopic opinion, thinking we all know what you are talking about.  Please name names and don’t assume anything.  Or would you just like to keep us ignorant for your own purpose?  And Ozark where did you get the “at most 5%” for your fringe group. Throwing out such guesses is so lame in arguments.  Isn’t it thought that using percentages makes the argument look as if based on fact, when in fact it is based on nothing?  Why couldn’t it just as likely be 4.9% or 3.8% or 12.7%?  Yes, I know your point is if that is all fringies there are, then why is McCain so close to Obama in the polls. Now that could be a good question if framed properly.  Fact is that today Gallup has Obama leading by 6%.  Why?  Well we have to take in the race factor. Obama is half black and it might be that America is blackblind, they only see white.  It might also be that although Obama clearly has better ideas, McCain’s demagoguery is better. It might also be that the conservative-slanted news media cleverly manipulates the news to sympathize with McCain.  I have started to watch the news, that is how it appears to me. I time the minutes given each candidate, and what exactly is allowed to be shown and what is said by the corporate owned news commentators.  It is truly amazing how slick it is done.  If you think Fox News is the only McCain sympathizer, think again. Given that McCain is the white guy, I’m amazed at Obama’s lead.  There’s more freethinking backbone in America than might be thought.

The problem with your argument OM against outraged is that while all of the Supreme court decisions you referenced were DICTATED laws to the states, THEY ALL HAD A LONG COURT-ARGUED HISTORY.  The decisions did not come out of thin judicial air.  Another fact you leave out is we have a federal system, and that federal system dictates that all states must conform to rulings by a Supreme Court and, AND all the states ratified the power of the Supreme Court. Half truths are just as good as lies.  The other huge fact is that the Supreme Court is a conservative-weighted court. 

While he may not have had the complete answer, we cannot dismiss Skinner’s theories.  Conditioning does happen and the advertising industry knows this in spades, especially political advertising.  Pavlovian drooling dogs rules politics.  To what political smell do you drool?  It will happen even if you are not conscious of it.  Do try some introspection to see what it is you drool at. 

The thing is, nothing happens before its time.  Things happen for a reason, not for any occult reason, but for a reasonable and explainable reason.  If we don’t know the answer now, we will.  We all live in the phenomenon known as time.  It takes time for things to happen, and one of my favorite physical laws is water seeks its own level.  Even that takes time.  Human ignorance disappears on a daily basis.  Given a healthy mental and physical condition, once we know something we cannot not know it. 

The problem that faces us humans is there are those who would prevent knowledge, keeping those ignorant who would challenge them and their authority, blaming some made up, 6,000 year-old mythological god for withholding knowledge from some mythological and fictional parents in a mythological garden.  And that the select are their descendents.  Bull crap.  The authors of those stories knew exactly what they were doing.  And all the children of Abraham, Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike are fools.

I review the flow of our chat:

per thebeerdoctor: Is it not amazing Big B, that the kind of religious fringe that has always been with us, quite often in the form of revival tents, and later, the gold mine known as religious broadcasting, was once considered an acquired taste, like wrestling or putt-putt golf. But now it has taken on this enormous mainstream significance...

It is amazing. So I attempted to explain why the fringe acquired this enormous mainstream significance: Either way, all of them expect/hope that a leader who exemplifies those old ways will supply what we lack and that will make a better America.

Then Outraged tries to show I am wrong:  They were NOT looking for leaders to “fix” a supposed “moral state of decline” as you imply.  In fact, the opposite is true..

so i will try again. The ‘fundamentalist fringe’ equals at most 5% of the population. In order for Palin’s beliefs to take on ‘enormous mainstream significance’(as thebeerdoctor says) there has to be some mechanism which expands 5% of the electorate to 50%.

With all the bad economic news, and the unpopular war, and unpopular 8 years of Bush, one must wonder why 50% of the electorate would vote against their own interests, ie for McCain.  McCain should be getting creamed right now. This is a mystery. It is ‘amazing’.

My post offered an explanation of the mystery. A reasonable explanation which does not cut into atheist beliefs at all. I do not see how Outraged’s post explains the phenomenon, except for this part-

per outraged: Remember, much of what you are claiming was DICTATED to the population, who at first were flabbergasted in their response.

This is true. When the supreme court decided Roe vs Wade it was certainly DICTATED to the population. Another example, religion was not removed from schools by the people, it was DICTATED. No matter what your views are of the issues, you must agree with the fact that they were DICTATED, since the very few elite took it upon themselves to shred the normal evolution of laws in every state in order to impose their will upon us.

Yes, people were “flabbergasted”, so it took awhile to figure out what had to be done to prevent even worse from happening in the future. And so the Reagan election, etc.  Resulting in Justices like Scalia, who is rather strict about keeping the DICTATING to a minimum.

The more lawyers like the retiring cann4ing(I mean ‘retiring’ as a technique of dealing with me) the more they tried to push the ‘fringe’ out of the public square, the more we found ordinary people voting to empower the old ‘lunatic fringe’. Again, here is my explanation- the ‘lunatic fringe’ seems to exemplify the beliefs which founded this free nation. Ordinary people who never read a page of the Bible come flocking to us as if that preserves the old ways. Whether it is wise to do this or not is another question. 

As he enters his retirement(this time I mean from the job), you can all thank Mr Canning for empowering us religious zealots. Its people like him through the long years of toil in dedication to atheistic ideals, with their imperious rulings and their ‘you dont even deserve an explanation’ silences, they are the ones who have helped the lunatic fringe acquire enormous significance. Enough to win presidential elections. Maybe, against all odds, even this one!

By Stauffer, September 20 at 8:29 am #

Heard the latest?  Sarah’s pastor believes witches exist.

_____________________

Check it out on Olbermann.  The guy doesn’t just believe witches exist, he got his start on Kenya by claiming that a woman was a witch responsible for local traffic accidents; drove her out of town.

Stauffer, maybe someone ought to make a cartoon poster of this and plaster it all over the country?  You know, like the one about Muhammad and his burning turban.  But first don’t you think it ought to be checked out for truth?  We wouldn’t want to be duped into believing rumors, right?  I mean Halloween is coming up isn’t it?  Do you think this is all true?  If so, why?

“Stay away from the pigsty if you don’t want to stink.”

Heard the latest?  Sarah’s pastor believes witches exist.  Yes indeed, he has traveled hither and yon (on one of those goofy missions they’re always taking) searching for demons (witch hunting), and yea, he hath cast them out of some hapless man in Africa.  Welcome to Salem revisited.  Then, he came back and proudly told his dewy-eyed congregation all about it, Sarah listening enraptured.  Afterwards (two months ago), he laid his hands (casting inward probably) on her head and convinced her of her mission.  Isn’t faith wonderful?  So simple (minded).  You believe and feel comforted.  You don’t believe and Satan (whoever that is, Bram Stoker’s Dracula maybe) drags you into a mythical place (deep down, maybe near the earth’s mantle, but hot anyway) and bakes you (smell the roast).  Therefore, be fearful.  Keep scared.  The Bushies understand that and will save you.  Would it be too much of a stretch to imagine that Sarah has submitted to McCain?

By OzarkMichael, September 18 at 10:20 am #

Don’t post a reply or i will tell your accountant.

__________________________

I find the time to post at TD because (1) I am semi-retired, and (2) I enjoy an intellectual exchange with intelligent posters.

If I had found anything in your post, OzarkMichael, which I deemed worthy of a repost, you can rest assured I would have provided a reply, free of charge.

I received this via email, with a bunch of really great photos, and I’m sorry there’s no way to post them. If I find a way, I’ll let you know.

“The Alaska Women Reject Palin rally was to be held outside on the lawn in front of the Loussac Library in midtown Anchorage. Home made signs were encouraged, and the idea was to make a statement that Sarah Palin does not speak for all Alaska women, or men. I had no idea what to expect.

The rally was organized by a small group of women, talking over coffee. It made me wonder what other things have started with small groups of women talking over coffee. It’s probably an impressive list. These women hatched the plan, printed up flyers, posted them around town, and sent notices to local media outlets. One of those media outlets was KBYR radio, home of Eddie Burke, a long-time uber-conservative Anchorage talk show host. Turns out that Eddie Burke not only announced the rally, but called the people who planned to attend the rally ‘a bunch of socialist baby-killing maggots,’ and read the home phone numbers of the organizers aloud over the air, urging listeners to call and tell them what they thought. The women, of course, received some nasty, harassing and threatening messages..

I felt a bit apprehensive. I’d been disappointed before by the turnout at other rallies. Basically, in Anchorage, if you can get 25 people to show up at an event, it’s a success. So, I thought to myself, if we can actually get 100 people there that aren’t sent by Eddie Burke, we’ll be doing good. A real statement will have been made. I confess, I still had a mental image of 15 demonstrators surrounded by hundreds of menacing ‘socialist baby-killing maggot’ haters.

It’s a good thing I wasn’t tailgating when I saw the crowd in front of the library or I would have ended up in somebody’s trunk. When I got there, about 20 minutes early, the line of sign wavers stretched the full length of the library grounds, along the edge of the road, 6 or 7 people deep! I could hardly find a place to park. I nabbed one of the last spots in the library lot, and as I got out of the car and started walking, people seemed to join in from every direction, carrying signs.

Never, have I seen anything like it in my 17 and a half years living in Anchorage. The organizers had someone walk the rally with a counter, and they clicked off well over 1400 people (not including the 90 counter-demonstrators). This was the biggest political rally ever, in the history of the state. I was absolutely stunned. The second most amazing thing is how many people honked and gave the thumbs up as they drove by. And even those that didn’t honk looked wide-eyed and awe-struck at the huge crowd that was growing by the minute. This just doesn’t happen here.

Then, the infamous Eddie Burke showed up. He tried to talk to the media, and was instantly surrounded by a group of 20 people who started shouting O-BA-MA so loud he coul