Archives for posts with tag: government

Just as I thought life might return to its former level of roller-coaster hijinks, a pubescent Bambi look-alike left off reading Russian literature just long enough to decide that life was no longer worth living. This paragon of quadrupedal excellence made a lightning-fast decision: death via the right-hand side of my bumper and hood was preferable to facing another post-modern deconstructionist essay on Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina. It was one short leap for Bambi, and one comparatively simple calculation involving a 1134kg of car moving at 80.5kph before braking madly for ~.5s (call it -~8kph?) resulting in a simultaneous giant headache for me and a giant leap for Bambi. To the right, off the hood of my car. (Bambi’s leap was augmented by about 5700 N for anyone curious)

All of this has given me an interesting and mandatory look into the economics of automobiles, and through that a look at some of the problems that have become systemic in the U.S. (probably elsewhere too.) I need not be a scholar of Marx to tell you that capitalism is insane. However, rather than diverging into a useless rant on how communism is a superior economic system and that the lumpen proletariat will rise up against the Imperialist oppressor and the state will wither away and we will all be borne away to paradise in the arms of our new-found communist paradise… Not only has it been taken care of already by countless other dewy-eyed students of liberal arts colleges, (UCSC represent!) but plenty of other people as well, (hi, Vladimir Iyich Ulyanov.)

This is the kind of thing that runs through my head lately. We have to be able to make the distinction between the theoretical model of a system that exists in an ideal vacuum and the reality of it as we have implemented it. So of course that means that I have to be able to make that distinction when I speak or write about the subject to avoid raising the hackles of the rabid defenders of the various economic models. Not that said rabid folks are really even that much of a problem in the grand scheme of things; they at least care about the topic, even if they have invested a comparatively small amount of time and effort into educating themselves about the subject.

No, the biggest hurdle is the mass of people who are ignorant and ignorant of their ignorance. None of these folks is necessarily stupid–but if nobody ever educated them in critical thinking, economics, and government, they start out and will likely remain easily led sheep whose fervor can be nurtured by sound bytes and directed by aesthetically pleasing and vapid talking heads to vote however is convenient for the people with the most money and the least scruples. Unfortunately it seems as though even those people who are interested in doing the right thing are generally drawn into the game, joining the arms race that they are all but guaranteed to lose.

I doubt if any amount of angry, angsty undergraduates is sufficient to change the world if the world is coasting along on its own course and constantly receiving reinforcement in the form of ignorant or apathetic people whose ability to think critically has been starved or beaten into submission by human necessities like a place to live and food to eat–and a job in the present economic system to provide them. The youth of the world sees that the sleeping mass needs waking, but what they cannot wrap their heads around is that the sleeping mass probably did not start out asleep, but more than likely gave churning through the morass of activism a shot and gave up in disgust.

My message to the young (as I am SO elderly myself) is this: do not make the assumption that all you must do is make people aware of something to suddenly trigger the same epiphany you are undergoing. That is easy, emotionally satisfying, and almost completely useless. The project that will make a real and lasting difference is going to involve hardship, discomfort, and misery. We have to push the roots of education through the artificial barriers thrown up by unscrupulous politicians, moneyed interests, and people who have given up and would rather cherish their comforting illusions–treating the symptoms and not the disease.

Even if someone could overthrow the U.S. government, completely dismantle all of the corrupt portions of it, and maintain an absolute mandate by force of arms or popular support–it would last only so long as that unifying force kept it going. The answer is not revolution and destruction but re-imagining and education. Perhaps you will attack me for being too vague. My response is that walking this Golden Path is like walking any other; it is a task that must be undertaken by many and not by only one. There surely will be trailblazers and people who will scout the ground in advance of the main body of civilization, but each individual person must learn to keep their eyes open and carry the responsibility for recognizing the blazes, checking their maps, and putting one foot in front of the other safely.

The fix is not a hero or heroine who will save us from ourselves, show us where to step and coddle us to protect our illusions. The solution to our problems, and indeed most human problems, is for individual people to educate themselves to the point where they can predict the results of small changes in their choices with a fair degree of veracity and use critical thinking and communication to combine their individual efforts to solve difficult human problems. That sort of rampant individualism that claims that everything must be done by the individual is not only nonsensical but actively retards this process, to the benefit of amoral people.


Part 2:Well then, what now?

(Read Part 1 here, a short essay on the aftermath of 9/11/01)

If I may, I would like to preempt the criticism that might be brought to bear against what I said in, “Remember, But Be Thorough” by reminding readers that the first step in solving a problem is becoming aware that it exists. Unless some form of heretofore unknown prescience lurks in the gene pool of homo sapiens and an equally unknown capacity to come to infallibly functional and comprehensible conclusions does likewise, it would seem that our particular branch of the primate tree is inextricably bound to do things the hard way. Fortunately for us, we have evolved to the point where the disinterested universe and its wasteful and bloodily meandering cycles of reproduction no longer represent the only available route.

In the absence of a proven superior method, the arduous and time-consuming work of figuring out how to move ourselves forward falls to humans. The first task that must be undertaken is figuring out what we ought to want. After that, we must ascertain the limitations reality places on our ideal. Lastly, we must apply ourselves in the task of making the two intersect, focusing our attention primarily on working to find ways to bend the latter in the direction of the former in spite if the difficulty of that path and the beguiling artlessness and ultimate futility of its antithesis.

In the end it will remain more effective to wrestle cultural and social reality into confluence with our commonly professed morality than to enlist ourselves into an endless succession of conflicts fought within the microcosm of the individual while armed only with the clumsy instruments of governance. Leave the transformation and salvation of the souls of man to those who are content to profess a belief in them, and spend our limited resources in the pursuit of those goods which are detectable and demonstrably extant in the reality we share.

It is the position of myself, and I daresay all secular humanists, that the result of spending of $100 to save the life of a child from preventable illness is superior to that of $100 spent on reassuring that child’s parents that their beloved youngster is in a better place now. Until the presence of a soul can be confirmed, I remain of the opinion that an evidentially grounded sense of responsibility for the common good of mankind’s living, breathing bodies, and active minds is superior to one based on the presupposition that the world we know is a sham.

Pursuant to this collection of notions, I have decided to label this post and the first with the category, “The Golden Path,” in allusion to the writings of Franklin Patrick Herbert, Jr. wherein the characters Paul Atreides and his son Leto Atreides II use their prescience to predict the possible future downfall of humanity. Obviously I am not possessed of the abilities of the Kwisatz Haderach and neither is anyone else at least thus far. Obviously the point of my invocation of Herbert’s work is not to say that we need to desperately begin searching the galaxy for a source of spice melange–but I think that there are definitely things which a thorough read of the Dune epic can grant us which will be of significant assistance.

So let me break out the old literary analysis toolkit and begin to sketch out a rough and ready reading of the Dune epic, at least as it relates to the topic of what humanity and more specifically America, ought to be working at. The “Golden Path” that Paul “Mua’Dib” Atreides and his son Leto II chart out is the result of prescience, or more specifically developed in response to the existence of it and their possession of it as a consequence of a multi-millennial breeding program involving the Navigator’s Guild, the Bene Gesserit Sisterhood, and the Mentats–three powerful and influential groups possessed of unique powers granted to them by the incredibly rare and precious spice mined on the planet Arrakis.

Arrakis is a profoundly harsh desert world whose lethality is matched only by the stark beauty of its sands and the relentlessly tough self-sufficiency of the planet’s human population, the Fremen. It is the single place in all the galaxy where spice can be found, and as such is a place of inconceivable value to the Human Empire. Much like the colonial South Africa and its diamonds or perhaps colonial Iraq, the planet is dominated by a powerful group granted supremacy over the land by agreement of the Emperor and the Noble Houses of the Empire, (loosely analogous to the colonial powers of Europe), and brutally segregated between marginalized Fremen and workers and the stunningly wealthy nobility.

While the setting itself could support its own interpretation, the long and the short of it is essentially that spice is a kind of ‘X factor’ that unlocks potential in humans and changes them in a manner consistent with their effort. Arrakis is therefore the hub about which the entire Human Empire turns.  It provides the Spacing Guild’s Navigators with the means to transform themselves into misshapen but potent creatures that can “fold” space with their minds and move the giant ships that allow the Empire to maintain its cohesion. It helps the Bene Gesserit Sisterhood to gain access to a kind of “genetic memory” of all past human women as well as granting them The Voice, which is a sort of quasi-mind control which can compel obedience from those who hear it, depending on the strength of the Sister and the willpower of the individual. Lastly, spice melange grants the Mentats phenomenal cognitive powers ranging from eidetic memory to rapid synthesis of huge amounts of data including lightning-fast calculations.

All of these groups benefit additionally from significantly extended life expectancy, and suffer to some degree or another from spice addiction. In light of the dark period in endogenous history during which sentient machines nearly annihilated humanity, spice addiction is a small price to pay for these sorts of replacement for various technologies. The system works. People live their lives in relative peace, the government generally functions, and trade occurs. Here is where we begin to come back to the original thrust, having done a somewhat frightfully shallow skimming of the basics–allow me if you will to enjoin you to partake of the series itself and of my future exploration of its corpus. To put it as simply as I can, humanity in the Dune universe has begun to become stagnant. The familiar primate drives for love, sex, territory, power, safety, and resources have ceased to propel the species forward.

Humans have become reliant first on spice, and second, on special and powerful groups like the three I have mentioned to take care of business. Paul and his son are the rare inheritors of both prescience and what is called the, “no-gene” which shields them from prescience. The “Golden Path” to which I refer is the end result of a determination to avoid the final destruction of humankind by an unknown enemy who might possess the same sort of prescience. The curious thing which separatesDune from most tales and Paul and his son from most heroes is that Herbert’s dystopian future narrative is decidedly ruthless in its egalitarian approach.

While Paul Atreides is lucky enough to be the scion of one of the Empire’s foremost families, in the first novel his family is thoroughly betrayed by one of their most trusted servants and the entire house sans Paul and his mother are slaughtered essentially to the last man, woman, and child. Furthermore, if one takes the time to explore beyond the initial book, we realize that Paul is in fact not the Kwisatz Haderach and is in fact only a partial success and the result of his mother’s deliberate disobedience to the Bene Gesserit Sisterhood’s orders in the face of her love for Duke Leto Atreides. Mua’Dib himself comes to his power not by being granted a special magical sword, by being the ‘chosen one’, or by inheriting a position of power and privilege that he eventually becomes worthy of during the story.

If I must summarize in brief, Paul is completely cut off from his privileged nobility and thrust into the lethally harsh landscape of Dune, and is forced to earn his way into the equally demanding company of the Fremen. He receives no special magic, makes the acquaintance of no luckily placed bearer of profundity, and has no particular advantages to start with. His prescience is the source only of confusion and fevered dreams until he puts forth the massive effort to develop it, doing so only at extreme risk from Spacer Guild Navigators, and while he is skilled in combat, he worked for years to attain that ability and did not suddenly transform from simple farmer into master at arms during of a five minute montage that takes place within two days of endogenous time.

Paul Mua’dib at least, is one of the rarest breed of heroes: the sort whose roots dig haltingly into the basest soil of human nature and grows only by dint of painful and sustained effort. Imperfect and often troubled by it, the foremost hero of Dune neither accepts nor transcends the geas of the ‘destinies’ laid upon him by the Bene Gesserit Sisterhood, the treacheous House Harkonnen, the Padishah Emperor, or even his own noble family, House Atreides. In spite of and perhaps due to his own human failings, he instead grasps the reality in front of him and accepts the destiny he writes for himself: the tortuous and agonizing path of doing what is right, no matter the price in convenience, comfort, or even life itself.

Having made what might seem a startling number of wide-reaching assertions without citation, I can almost hear the keening lamentation of my many wonderful teachers, professors, and TAs echoing through the aether to my ears. To those formidable persons I direct this brief request for forbearance: consider the previous piece my introduction and this the first portion of exposition necessitated by my choice in allegorical framework. The meat and potatoes will be attended to, and the depths of the texts rigorously plumbed for support. It is just going to take awhile to do properly.

Until next time, thanks for reading.

On this day, eleven years ago, five tragic things happened. Unless you have been residing in darkest Peru, or are of the opinion that the deliberate suicide-murder of 3000 people, (and counting,) was laudable rather than tragic, you know what three of them are. The other two are not as immediately shocking, but are most assuredly worse in their outcomes. First, Uncle Sam went from neurotically wary in the manner of a soldier fitfully battling PTSD to suffering outright psychosis mainlined into the political process by a flagpole drafted into double-duty as a needle by the amoral with the support of the oblivious. To put it more bluntly: there were and are those who saw 9/11 not as an act of terror or an agonizingly inhuman crime of almost incomprehensible evil but as a ready opportunity for the seizure of power and wealth, and they took full and ruthless advantage of that opportunity.

The last and most tragic event that happened in the wake of 9/11/01 was that the American people, the beneficiaries of the first secular constitution in the world, made a tremendous mistake. America, or at least some significant subset of her citizenry, decided that the flag itself was more important than what it represents–we bought into the delusion that expedience is its own moral good. The fact that a large majority of those fastidious “patriots” so vigorously agitating the fabric of the Stars and Stripes in the name of American purity seem to have forgotten that the blood, sweat, and tears Theodore Roosevelt spoke of stain the flag not due to the touch of tyranny but in spite of it.

The scars of war, the blood of patriots, and the tears that result from their falling indelibly mark Old Glory but they do not mar her. Far from it, they serve to evoke the words of Thomas Paine: “those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” Take up the flag then, and carry it forward, and let your hands stain those sacred folds with your blood, your sweat, and your tears as you return it again and again to the sky and the view of all who yearn for freedom and opportunity. But never forget that it is valor, liberty, courage, and unity that those stars and stripes portend, and be eternally wary of those tepid souls who wrap themselves in a flag that remains bright and clean. Their vehement zeal is for their own interests, and the cloth they bear a facsimile.

It is just this sort of person who in past eras we found gleefully coming to the assistance of Joseph McCarthy, John Hathorne, or Tomás de Torquemada. The ideologies were inspiring certainly, but the truth of the matter is that these men offered the legitimization of self-interest through a combination of nationalistic zeal and religious fervor. These men would counsel us to abandon the probity of our better natures in pursuit of a narcissistic and myopic mythology lifted more or less directly from the obdurately smug babblings which attend the notion that present privilege constitutes absolute proof of preeminence.

I say not in my America. I say that if we oblige these hucksters that the result will in time be that the stars and stripes that symbolize our nation’s character will not even receive the dignity of being rent asunder in conflict, but will be broken up and auctioned off to the highest bidder with the mindless thoroughness a cow lavishes on her cud. I refuse to believe such a wrenchingly abhorrent fate befits the legacy we have inherited from Paine, Jefferson,Franklin, Madison, and the succession of other worthies beyond my power to recall or to recount. It lies within our power to repudiate evil, but it is not a thing to be done casually or in comfort–selling our liberty wholesale in the cause of security is not an acceptable answer, no matter how small the increments it is portioned into.

Now, it is important to note that I do not mean to imply that the entire fabric of American freedom has been dissolved and replaced with the sort of Orwellian autocracy that might bring tinfoil hats into fashion. That would be unfeelingly churlish of someone who has been the recipient of a rather serviceable lifestyle quite palatial in comparison with that of many places in the world. The fabric of freedom still exists in large part, even if it is frayed and obscured in places by greed and injustice. What I intend to attack is the casual languor in the hearts of Americans toward those among us who are only too happy to wrap their own purposes in red, white, and blue camouflage and continue business as usual.

The earthly representatives of Wesley’s “gentle Jesus, meek and mild” are among those who cried out most stridently for bloody vengeance. Apparently there was some sort of misunderstanding with regard to the turning of cheeks occurring between the sermon on the mount and the present day. Equally confusing is the miscommunication regarding loving one’s neighbor regarding the exceptions for those who happen to appear vaguely Middle Eastern. Surely there are sound theological reasons for this that I, as a humble member of the ranks of the ungodly, am simply not privy to in the absence of the Holy Spirit. The important part is that these peaceful fishers of men took their mission to spread love, tolerance, and faith very seriously: love of only those like us, tolerance of any trifles like the loss of freedom, and faith that God is fully behind whatever is most convenient for us at the time.

The political leadership on whom we depend to form an utterly dedicated and relentlessly competent vanguard in the service of American citizens and the essential rights and duties that make our nation worth fighting for were struck similarly by a plague of popular expedience. Whether calling loudly for pre-emptive defense, (better known to most of us as, “attack”,) an end to the threat of terrorism or most importantly, something easily visible and emotionally palatable to their constituents, these radiant exemplars fearlessly went forth to seek contracts for their largest campaign donors and selflessly invested their own money in those businesses they knew would benefit from taxpayer largesse.

These two visionary groups of red-blooded, white, and true-blue (but not blue collar, naturally) leaders provided us the political expediency and the metaphysical sophistries we needed to elevate ourselves into the same august strata as the citizens of Oceania, heroically locked in endless and just war against a fearful chimera the likes of which the world will never see. Blood, death, and fear are acceptable, you see. When they serve the cause of justice–our justice. There are doubtless many more such groups with sardonically warranted titles such as the Religio-Industrial Complex, or the more commonly invoked and now wan specters of special interest groups and super PACs, but enough has been said to give one a sense of the sorts to whom I refer.

The sheer monstrous immensity of the mass-murders that took place eleven years ago today defy any real understanding of their eventual consequence to the families and loved ones of those who lost their lives. However, it is not only ludicrous but an actively destructive abnegation of moral responsibility to stop there. If the deaths of those persons who were killed are to have any sort of meaning, we must not let the opportunity to learn our lesson slip away by allowing the unpleasant chill of mortality to deter our rational faculties and our moral rectitude from their purposes.

I challenge you then, American or not, to engage with the horror of terrorism and stay with it in the circle until its blood stains the sand and you can look into a mirror and say with complete honesty that freedom for all humans can never be subsumed by fear, only briefly obscured. The other option is to lower your head permanently to the ground and content yourself that a life lived in acceptance of utter abjection is better than death in the defiance of it. I find this notion contemptible; so long as we are in a position to thoughtfully and responsibly support the cause of freedom, there is no reason sufficient to justify neglect of this most vital duty. At the very least, we owe it to ourselves.

It seems that even a tentative and halting nudge in the right direction was too terrifying a plunge for the Democratic Party to do more than flirt with, and crusading hero Antonio Villaraigosa was required to ride to the rescue of the beleaguered people of faith. Well, the Abrahamic monotheists who happen to be virtually entirely Christian sects, but as nobody who is white, elderly, rich, and has a penis is counting I suppose it is a matter of no significance. It is certainly very lucky for America and the causes of freedom and justice that we have such men as Villaraigosa to rescue us from the rapacious influence of the U.S. Constitution.

This does not mean I have only bad things to say about the man of course. His relentless push for the expansion of public transportation is quite laudable. So laudable, in fact, that executives from company that stands to benefit from the project made a five-thousand dollar contribution to Villaraigosa’s campaign. Our fearless crusader is so fervent in his quest to expand mass transit that the route is now projected to be tunneled under a school. None of this is intended to give credence to the popular conspiracy theory, of course, only a certain level of realpolitik.

Take the equally laudable push for cyclist rights our crusading champion spearheaded in 2010. The safety of Los Angeles’ cyclists is certainly a matter of no small import, given that the increasing population density and development is certain to make both the previously mentioned public transit and cycling better options economically, environmentally, and socially. It is somewhat curious, however, that Mr. Villaraigosa’s attention was drawn to the subject in such coincidental chronological proximity to injuries he sustained as the result of a cycling accident.

Please do not understand me to be calling the man’s policies into question, at least exclusively in terms of their apparent intended effects. Neither do I object to his personal qualifications, except insofar as they can be traced back in some respects to cultural roots that are intrinsically problematic when introduced into the machinery of a system of government intended to balance the needs of the many against the rights of the few. In short, I refer to: Latin machismo, the normativity of nepotism in the South American cultural landscape, and the assumption of privilege as a right rather than the result of and balancing response to responsibility.

The full treatment of these issues is a subject for another time, however. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to consider how they could cause problems, and continue to pursue my humbler agenda: Mr. Villaraigosa’s statements regarding the DNC’s party platform. When questioned by the media with regard to their not having heard a clear two-thirds majority, he was quoted by the L.A. Times as saying: “That’s nice to know. I was the chairman and I did, and that was the prerogative of the chair.” Although I am not saying he is necessarily mistaken, this is the sort of thing that would seem related directly to my earlier comments on Mr. Villaraigosa’s cultural milieu.

Not only do we not need the mention of “God” in the political platform of one of the nation’s two majority parties, we do not need and should as educated citizens of a democratic republic be violently opposed to this sort of casual superciliousness in the face of dissent. Villaraigosa was further quoted as saying, “I can tell you this — the president of the United States said, ‘Wow.’ The president said, ‘You showed why you were speaker of the California Assembly,’” Villaraigosa said. “The president, the vice president, Mrs. Obama, all of them acknowledged the decisive way I handled that.”

I freely concede that Mr. Villaraigosa’s handling of the situation was indeed decisive–but I would further stipulate that it was decisive in the worst of the available ways. In a party claiming such diversity and indeed in some measure possessing it, at least relative to their GOP compatriots, one would think it would be only sensible to maintain a neutral starting point that does not presuppose the existence, or at least the vested normativity, of the singular and specific God of the Abrahamic traditions. Yet the DNC’s chairman for that vote acted, in his own words, “decisively” to quash movement–however inadvertent–in that direction.

Bravo, sir. At one stroke you have alienated not only secular humanists and the “prefer not to say” sort of irreligious, but contrived to do so in a way that almost could not have been more precisely calibrated to prod the blissfully well-meaning Christians into a display of defensiveness and a publicly embarrassing and contentious search for consensus. While it is certainly in some sense factual that such consensus was present at the convention, it is considerably less so to say that it was easy to find, or that it exists within the Democratic party as a whole.

The bold decisiveness of Mr. Villaraigosa’s handling of the situation certainly can be said to have manufactured the appearance of consensus in the limited context of the predominantly religious membership of the DNC’s delegation. It remains to be proven, however, that this tenuous and putative consensus represents a genuinely inclusive position. It is perhaps unfortunate that a simple exercise in imagination is sufficient to extirpate the illusion of unanimity or at least rob it of its efficacy, given the reliance on the Democratic Party on the ideals of egalitarianism and teamwork.

If the DNC wants to capture the roughly fifteen percent of the vote represented by the non-religious, the deliberate injection of explicitly religious and moreover explicitly Judeo-Christian language into the official policy platform was at best poorly considered. Not only is it at least dancing on the line of that separation, but it seems poised to at any time step over a vent and blow the DNC’s red-white-and blue skirt up to reveal her cross-emblazoned petticoats. This sort of mawkish pandering is the very worst kind of realpolitik, managing to be both contemptibly ineffective and pointlessly infantilizing at the same time.

The Democratic Party will never accomplish anything if it spends half its time attempting to present itself as a party of variety and egalitarianism and the other half fastidiously and endlessly laboring to smuggle a single narrow-minded opinion about reality that cannot even be agreed on by the virtually innumerable sects who bogglingly join together to shovel time and money with reckless exuberance  into the ill-concealed shoehorning of their religious beliefs into an explicitly secular government which purports to represent the diverse interests of the entire American people, not simply the comfortable normativity of a creeping de facto theocracy.

Isn’t it time the DNC and America stopped laboring under the Sisyphean curse of trying to make the faithful feel that their beliefs belong in government? God can ride on the bus, but not in the driver’s seat. We tried that already.


Recently I read a number of articles by a number of secular sources that praised the DNC for removing the word “God” from their official party platform. Now, in the interest of honesty, let me say that I found these articles to be generally misguided and overenthusiastic in much the same way that we might think of someone who rewards their dog for regularly pooping in the living room as opposed to the dining room. While it is certainly improvement of a sort, it is not what I would call unqualified improvement. I would call it a miniscule and halfhearted nudge in the right direction.

As in the sister article “Let’s Get Our Mitts on Romney,” I am not aiming to support or attack President Obama’s policy decisions–only the degree to which the DNC, (and presumably the President,) have become pandering pawns of the religious in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. I quote:

Faith. Faith has always been a central part of the American story, and it has been a driving force of progress and justice throughout our history. We know that our nation, our communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and richer by faith and the countless acts of justice and mercy it inspires. Faith- based organizations will always be critical allies in meeting the challenges that face our nation and our world—from domestic and global poverty, to climate change and human trafficking. People of faith and religious organizations do amazing work in communities across this country and the world, and we believe in lifting up and valuing that good work, and finding ways to support it where possible. We believe in constitutionally sound, evidence-based partnerships with faith-based and other non-profit organizations to serve those in need and advance our shared interests. There is no conflict between supporting faith-based institutions and respecting our Constitution, and a full commitment to both principles is essential for the continued flourishing of both faith and country.”

–Official DNC Platform

Allow me to break this down a little, point by point.

  • Faith has always been a central part of the American story” — Here is some classic equivocation. Both senses of faith, first trust and fidelity in our fellow humans, and second, belief without evidence in metaphysical propositions, are valid. Now I am certain that if pressed, they would vigorously attempt to use the former to avoid claiming the latter, and even were they to be pinned down would attempt to conflate the benefits and connotation of the former with the religiosity of the latter. This is dishonest.
  • and it has been a driving force of progress and justice throughout our history.” — Ah, you see?  It begins already. Well, let us examine the rich history of religious faith in the history of the U.S.: genocide, torture, rape, slavery, and forcible conversion of aboriginal people by Christian colonial powers. The ferocious sectarian infighting in the original colonies that prompted the Baptists of Danbury Connecticut to write a letter pleading for relief form their fears that the Congregationalists of Danbury Connecticut would, to put it mildly, fail to “love their neighbors as themselves.” Furthermore, we have blue laws, the justification of African-American slavery, the Prohibition, anti-women’s suffrage movements, anti-civil rights movements, anti-LGBTQ rights movements. All of these things can be traced directly back to religious justification: to religious faith. It has been the most powerful driving force of oppression and injustice in the history of our great nation. Only human fidelity, human trust, and human caring has provided the impetus to drag the religious, kicking and screaming, out of the Bronze Age.
  • We know that our nation, our communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and richer by faith and the countless acts of justice and mercy it inspires” — Actually, no. We do not know this, and to assert it is directly counter-factual. Again, if you refer only to human fidelity this is true, but the implication that the word faith allows is that faith in God or faith in a religion is the cause of this, and this is outright untrue. Show me the justice in burning suspected witches to death in Salem. Show me the mercy in disowning a teenager whose only crime is to admit he or she is gay because the parent takes it on faith that the Bible is the perfect word of the divine. Human trust and kindness inspires acts of justice and mercy–if this was not the case then we would see no atheist charities, and, for example, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation would simply not exist. Religious faith supports tribalism and and us-vs-them mentality, and while this can strengthen bonds of community in some ways, it is directly antithetical to the project that the religious claim to care about: universal love.
  • Faith-based organizations will always be critical allies in meeting the challenges that face our nation and our world—from domestic and global poverty, to climate change and human trafficking.” — If this is true, and I have no reason to believe it is not, it proves only that there will always be credulous people who happen to be either moral enough inherently to recognize that these things are to be avoided, or whose gullibility happens to have been exploited most recently by someone who actually possesses a moral compass.
  • People of faith and religious organizations do amazing work in communities across this country and the world, and we believe in lifting up and valuing that good work, and finding ways to support it where possible.” — Now the truth comes out: “faith” has, this entire time, been being used to indicate religious faith and not the other sense of the word. I will not deny that this statement is untrue, but I would remind the reader that there are facts which make this rather less impressive than it seems at first blush. First, religious organizations often if not always do things with the implicit expectation of a reward from some supernatural being. Whether it is temporal power, wealth, or immortality in an afterlife, or even if the reward is only that they will not be consigned to an eternity of torture and hellfire, the fact remains that they are motivated to altruism by punishment and reward. Next, religious organizations almost universally spend considerable amounts of their income on proselytizing, and their help very often comes at the price of conversion or at the very least, listening to their preaching. I would ask the DNC and the President: why not support organizations whose motivations are purely humanistic and who use the entirety of their resources to improve lives, ameliorate human suffering, and build foundations for self-help instead?
  • We believe in constitutionally sound, evidence-based partnerships with faith-based and other non-profit organizations to serve those in need and advance our shared interests.” — Please recall, Mr. President and the members of the DNC, the Constitution specifically separates the state from establishing a religion. Furthermore, this means that state support for any organization that deliberately promotes a particular religion is inherently not constitutionally sound. No, DNC, you do not get a free pass for sticking: “and other non-profit organizations” into your rah-rah religion paragraph. Sorry. The religious do not share my interests: I am concerned with the improvement of human lives to the end of making people happier; the religious do it to win the adulation and conversion of the people they assist. This is not only immoral, but actively unconstitutional as well.
  • There is no conflict between supporting faith-based institutions and respecting our Constitution, and a full commitment to both principles is essential for the continued flourishing of both faith and country.” — This bit of doublethink is equal parts nonsensical and hypocritical. In short: if your political party is committed equally to religious faith and Constitutionality, it must immediately dissolve, or remove all references which can be traced back to any specific religion or group of religions from its policies, statements, and foundation. If you genuinely support faith-based institutions to the same extent as the Constitution, you must offer equal benefits and funding to any organization that is religious, no matter the religion. Any inequality represents the promotion of one religion over another, and as this support cannot possibly be extended to every single possible religion, it must be denied them all. Religion flourishes at the expense of the nation.

President Obama and the DNC, I understand that to obtain the votes of a majority of the electorate you must ruthlessly pander to as many large groups as you are able. However, doing so at the expense of the freedom and in violation of the U.S. Constitution is at best amoral and at worst heading us toward a theocracy. If nothing else, boost education sufficiently that our citzenry has the economic, political, and sociological savvy to make decisions in their interest without requiring mindless appeals to pathos.

So, I bet you’re wondering, “who won the debate last night”? Well, luckily for you I have put together a chart detailing the basic possibilities. It’s not really possible to break it down into JUST two choices, but we can string together a sequence of these tactical choices to get a better idea about the strategies and how they interacted. Have a look for yourself.

I have recently become involved in a discussion with a theist friend of mine, who made the point that he could not see the reason why I attacked people of faith rather than work together with them to build a better world and further claimed that the scientific method taught us to look at things from both sides. My response was roughly as follows:

I am all for working together to build a better world, but my vision of what constitutes a better world seems to contrast rather sharply with that of the religious. I am not interested in tearing down people of faith; it is only the irrational and unsubstantiated beliefs of religious people that I have in my sights. Theists love to argue that I need to see, “both sides of the story” to arrive at the truth. The problem is that I actually do see both sides of the story, and decline to practice doublethink and the fallacy of argument to moderation.

We have the data. Something like 200 thousand of years of superstition and religion did not get us to the moon, cure polio, or create the infrastructure of our modern technological civilization. It might be argued that say, Abrahamic Theism has ‘only’ had 2500 years to get its bearings. Even if I allow that I am referring exclusively to Christian (New Testament) Theism, we still have a rich 1700 year history and countless sects to examine.

It was not Christian Theism that preserved the philosophy of the Greeks, it was Islam. It was only after Islam’s philosophical course had been hijacked by the work of people like Abu Hāmed Mohammad ibn Mohammad al-Ghazzālī and sent careening toward mysticism and away from reason that the Islamic world fell into something of a dark age. The venerable Aquinas himself was influenced by al-Ghazzālī and similar thinkers.

At that point, Europe had been re-exposed to classical philosophy and we see a gradual increase in logic, reason, and observation in the Middle Ages, until lo–the Renaissance. It was, alas for the Christian Theist, not the influence of their faith’s antecedents but the antediluvian Mycenaean forebears of the Helladic Greeks that generated the initial impetus, and a culture built on the plagiarized plagiarism of the blood myths and superstitious mythology and justifications of Bronze Age goatherds that carried it forward through time into the hands of ‘Christendom’. Constantine may have given the empire to the Christians, but the Ottomans and Umayyad Caliphate repaired Europe’s all but severed connection to classical antiquity.

The fact that the works of Plato, Aristotle, or Epicurus spread so rapidly and so pervasively speaks volubly regarding the value of an examination of their ideas, but is almost silent on the subjects of intellectual honesty of Christian religion and its sincerity in pursuit of truth. Remember that the great majority of output during this period was devoted to the drafting of philosophy, natural or otherwise, into the service of a theology already deeply in the thrall of presupposition.

All of this is, however interesting or revealing it is, remains somewhat beside the point because the scientific method does most emphatically and assuredly not teach one to consider both sides of a story–it teaches us to look beyond stories to reproducible evidence that functions in a convergent manner. Certainly it has its own presuppositions, but I have yet to see a rational argument and pragmatic articulation for a worldview predicated on the assumption that we do not exist and the world does not exist. While we may presuppose God exists, the question it immediately raises is: which god?

By contrast, notice that we have but one method of science: the scientific method. We do not have endless schisms within the scientific community in peer reviewed literature; when someone is proven wrong and their most cherished theory has been disproved, they swear, abandon their theory, and move on with the business of pushing back the frontiers of human ignorance. Multiple people performing the same experiment get convergent results, and if they don’t they look for the reason why rather than assuming everyone else is absolutely wrong and they are absolutely right.They share information, collaborate, and converge at a conclusion that most effectively models reality given the time, resources, and knowledge that are currently available. Or they say they’re clueless, and look into the matter further.

Now look to religion. There are thousands in existence today, and even the most dogmatic or permissive is not immune to schism. There are endless varieties of the major religions, each with a slightly different view of things. As recently as 150 years ago, various forms of Christianity in America viewed each other with the poisonous hatred only family can bring muster–the religiously motivated and targeted laws of the original colonies prove this beyond any doubt. Each is utterly convinced of its own brand of absolute truth, and nothing can dissuade them from their belief, only amend their practices in the interest of evading government censure.

Yet they cannot all logically coexist–Islam claims absolute knowledge that there is but one God, and Mohammed is the final prophet. Hinduism claims a near-endless succession of gods and goddesses, sometimes allegorical and sometimes literal. The Mormon faith claims all other Abrahamic traditions are apostates and contradicts Islam with a regular stream of new prophets. Baptists contradict Mormons on their views of Heaven. Modern Jews are somewhat unconcerned with an afterlife, but do not accept Jesus, Mohammed, or Josep Smith as prophets. Not all of these faiths can be correct logically, it is inconsistent in myriad ways.

As students of history we need to learn from the errors of the past. Slavery was part of our nation’s past–justified scripturally. So were rape, torture, and genocide. The Spanish came to California and South America for God, gold, and glory, and they got what they came for with savage and mindless brutality backed by an explicitly religious mandate. Check the history of the Russians and Russian Orthodox Church in the Aleutians. Check the British treatment of the Iroquois and other tribes.

Certainly it would be unfair to lay the entirety of the blame at the feet of religion, but recall that I am not attacking belief in religion, but rather propositions held to be true without even the most cursory effort at investigation and without a single iota of evidence. Even though I grant that modern Christianity is different than that of yesteryear, the fundamental methodology of faith has not changed in the slightest: tell a child God said you are a miserable sinner and the only way out of eternal torture is complete obediencewith sufficient gravitas and so long as you have caught them young enough, and reinforce it often enough, they will hold onto it with tenacity that would make a bulldog weep. Which God(s), what precisely a sin is, and complete obedience to what seems to be largely immaterial.

In light of this, how can it possibly make sense to pick blind faith in one of thousands of religions over a universally singular, endlessly adapting but always searching mode of discerning truth from falsity that has proven itself trillions of times over the 300 years it’s existed–that is a methodical systematization of the processes we use every single day to deal with reality–and which everyone agrees on for the simple reason that it works.

Why go with the method that represents the first feeble, struggling attempt by humanity to explain reality in the distant reaches of a benighted history filled with atrocities beyond the scope of our most nightmarish imaginings? Why hold onto these things with such incredible vigor when we have other options and the luxury to find things out, make up our own minds, and talk freely with people all across the globe?

This is why we can’t get along, and build a better world together. As long as you insist that you have access to absolute truth by revelation and supply no compelling evidence of it, I will continue to object to the claim implicit in that statement: you know best, and are justified in telling me what to do–and injecting it into my government–because you have a direct line to infinite knowledge.

Sorry, no. Faith is not a path to knowledge, but functions with remarkable efficacy as a one to confidence.