Openly "Secular"?

Two conflicting Atheisti statements, just today. First is the complaint that secularism is NOT Atheist, it is just the removal of religion from government. But next is the discovery of a website called "Openly Secular", which is filled with selfie-videos of people apparently "coming out" as "secular".

It appears that Atheists are now afraid to admit to their Atheism. So they claim to be "secular", which is an absurdity on the one hand, yet is tacitly an admission that secular actually means Atheist on the other hand.

Even the first definition of secular is blatantly Atheist, purging all religious premises and artifacts from government is obviously the same as installing Atheism as the state worldview, Atheism as the state concept of reality and Atheism as the state concept of the origin of man and human rights. Secularism is a subset of Atheism and its views and principles (or lack thereof) are specifically Atheist and NOT religious. It is either intellectual confusion, intellectual malfeasance, or outright lying that claims otherwise.

I didn't watch any of the selfie videos, there are too many there to choose from. I might pick some later to check out the logic of the claimants.

OK, I did. Andrea Wilkins rejected religion because she thinks its OK to live outside of religious precepts. Her conclusion is that she and her friends are good people who want to help other people. That's completely without any information involving how she defines "good" vs. "not good", or how much she actually helps other people.

Thomas Dixon rejected religion early on in adolescence as non-falsifiable, physically (Scientism); he felt that his identity was accidental, not purposeful; he chooses humanism as a "positive" identity rather than the negative identity of Atheism. And that is dissembly at best and is ignorant of two things: what science actually consists of and what humanism is based on and derived from. Were he intellectually honest he would claim his rejection of deity, not his acceptance of fogged over totalitarianism.

Roy Bates was raised "irreligious" i.e. Atheist; was exposed to many other religions; became an Atheist/humanist Navy chaplain because "back then chaplains helped" but now they want to convert; is a member of the Military Atheist and Freethinker organization; thinks that fundamentalist supervisors punish Atheists in their performance evaluations; claims that the reason people think Atheists are bad, evil, is that they were indoctrinated from childhood.

But here's the thing: there is no document of Atheist Moral Principles, because there are no common moral principles amongst Atheists. Further, humanism is now the obscured version of the Humanist Manifest I, a blatantly totalitarian Atheist takeover of all institutions, public and private. Manifestos II and III are merely fogged up versions of the same thing, but using language of butterflies and flowers. Finally, being without moral grounding, how can he claim to be "good"? This is the common logic defect which afflicts all Atheists, no matter how they conceal their identity with other -isms: if you have denied all principles regarding "goodness" and "decency" then you have no grounding for claiming that you are good or decent. So that is what an honest Atheist chaplain has to offer: ungrounded and false claims of the "goodness" of Atheists.

Let's put it more pictorially. If you deny the foundation underlying the walls of separation between good and evil, then the walls are without meaning as they fall to the slightest challenge. So there is effectively no difference between good and evil for the Atheist, regardless of how they might protest otherwise. In fact, their protest is itself logically false, and that is understood by those who actually recognize the need for a wall of separation which is firmly set on an unmovable foundation. Atheists can and will be on both sides of the walls, and they will call that "good".

Atheists are oblivious to this, because they have invested in themselves the moral authority to determine "good" and "evil" in whatever manner is convenient for themselves. And this gives them the false self-image of moral elitism, and the arrogance to judge everyone else by their own, personal standards. Further, this is the basis which leads Atheists toward the Messiahism of Leftist political and social totalitarianism. And that effect, from that cause, is nearly universal; scratch an Atheist, reveal a Leftist and vice-versa.

So if you love liberty, then you recognize that Atheism is not about that. AtheoLeftism is about tolerating the moral anarchy of the AtheoLeftist while being so intolerant of those who love liberty that they must be silenced, legally. Therefore, Atheism is NOT good in any sense. And Atheists are lying when they make that claim.

Homosexuals, Ducks and the Culture War

A perception from Brian Preston:

"The lesson of Phil Robertson suggests that once the marriage battle is won, groups like the Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD will simply move on to a new battlefield. They will not stop. They do not exist to stop. They exist to keep on pushing. The next battlefield may well be codifying the idea they expressed last night, that quoting mainstream Christian beliefs that have been in place for a couple thousand years amounts to hate speech that should be banned.

It has been pointed out elsewhere that no officially designated oppressed minority has ever been normalized and released from that designation. It is obviously to their advantage to always be considered "victims" even as they persecute others so overtly.

The original thrust of homosexual agendas was to eliminate the mental, and then moral considerations of their behaviors. Next came legalization, and then came the new morality which equillibrated homosexuality with remaining perceptions of secular morals. Now the new morality with which the homosexual community has endowed itself trumps all preceding morals; homosexuality is the apogee of morality, and dissent is to be punished quickly and severely.

There is no doubt that the secular, AtheoLeftist new morality is anti-tolerant of all dissent, and is totalitarian. It is a direct consequence of the rejection of objective morals in order to install their own creations, which are not morals at all, but merely anti-moral, pagan turpitude which they redefine as "moral". That's exactly why they scream irrationally when objective morality is placed into the marketplace in competition with their amoral libertinism.

When amoral libertinism is declared the preeiminent social morality, and objective moral values are attacked as "immoral", then the direction of society has flipped 180 degrees; rather than consolidation of culture into a cohesive, viable structure, culture is fragmented and cohesion is destroyed. This is especially obvious since libertinism has no cohesive theory upon which it is based and upon which unity of morality can be based. The concept of total amorality except for dissent is a diktat, not a moral unification.

The morality of no-morals cannot be constructive. It is just rot at the center of a decaying society.

Marriage is Now...

...meaningless. With the US Supreme Court ruling based that "discrimination" in favor of man/woman marriage to be unconstitutional, then discrimination against any union whatsoever is also unconstitutional by that self-same logic. Discrimination, as a concept, is now evil, regardless of the necessity for discrimination against the behaviors which is outlined in tens of thousands of laws which are still on the books. If discrimination is to be eliminated, then all laws must go the way of DOMA, in favor of completely legalizing all behaviors. Otherwise discrimination still exists, only it exists as applied to other behaviors, just not to homosexuals, who are now favored in the discrimination equation.

And with Obama immediately declaring that he will not force churches to perform homosexual weddings, it is apparent that he believes that he could, in fact, do that. The First Amendment is effectively dead, except as it applies to the benefit of the Left.

With wanton killing of progeny on demand and the sodomizing of marriage, the Left has effectively de-institutionalized moral behavior and codified libertinism. Further, Congress is no longer a player in the law of the land; the Supreme Court is now the director of that. And the Supreme Court has been corrupt for at least a century now, having been stacked with Leftists who are not touchable by anything but their own deaths. Even Republicans have appointed hard Leftists to the Court. Democracy, and even representative government, cannot withstand the dictatorship of the amoral who ignore the actual ruling document called the Constitution, and who depend upon their own personal desires instead.

It seems now apparent that the recovery of a nation which is moral in nature cannot happen, that is, it cannot happen without a realignment of the government which is disruptive in nature, driven by a desire to restore constitutional respect in all the separate engines of government, from the absolutely out-of-control executive branch to the Supreme Court. If they will not respect the US Constitution, they must be eliminated from the reins of power.

Why Don’t We Trust Atheists? Well, Post Natal Abortion and Personhood, for Example.

This subject arises du temps en temps and for some reason Atheists cannot believe that they are not considered trustworthy, despite the lack of morality attached to their belief system. They actually think that by creating a personally congenial code of behavior which matches their actual daily doings, that their tautological morality should be obvious to everyone, and that not only are they moral, they are more moral than anyone else, all of whom are admittedly moral defectives, to wit: sinners. (One cannot be a sinner if one declares that there is no sin of course).

Not only are Atheists, in their own minds, more moral than their inferiors, Atheists are in possession of the moral authority to determine morality for the rest of humanity. For example, take a look at all of the Humanist Manifestos.

Some Atheists attain accreditation in moral superiority; they call themselves “ethicists”. By pondering - in ungrounded ponders of course, there being no absolute grounds - the value of other humans who are not themselves, they are able to make moral pronouncements on the value of classes of humans, again not themselves.

In a sense, all Atheists are ethicists, in that they determine at least their own personal ethical systems of behavior. So every Atheist is at least a moral authority unto himself. It is not entirely clear how it is that some, but not all, Atheists acquire the extra moral authority to declare ethics for everyone. Regardless of how that accreditation is acquired, some Atheists have it, and they become career moral authorities for the rest of humanity.

Now two of these career moral authorities have declared a new class of non-valued humans: the post-natals. Here is a summary of their new revelations:

Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

Now, since this new revelation is an intellectual understanding of some sort, we should see how it stacks up before rejecting it as the product of fools. Well, “should” is too strong, that is a moral pronouncement itself; it is not necessary to examine it before rejecting it on the basis of “who do they think they are, God?” - the product of fools... and summarily shit-canning the entire subject.

But of course, many folks will consider this Atheist revelation to be elegantly compelling, and for that reason alone it needs to be analyzed.

First off, it presumes that pre-natal abortion of a fetus is a rational and therefore moral action. It explains legally declared ethical reasons to destroy a fetus and then asks, what is the difference between a fetus and a new-born, the answer for which is merely: a breath of air.

For diseased pre-born fetuses it is presumed ethical to kill them. But some diseases, such as Down’s syndrome, are not 100% detectable prior to birth. So why not kill them post-natally? Since there is no definitive difference between pre-birth canal and post birth canal existence, the value of the critter is the same one second after as it is one second before traversing the canal. So it is not the process of birth that influences the value being placed on the critter.

Yes, it’s a critter all right. But is it a human? Who is to say? If the mother and the ethicists agree that it is not a person, why then who can disagree? In fact, at what age does this determination procedure become invalid? Well, age is not the criterion. There is no age limit for placing value on a human.

What is the criterion for personhood? According to these two career moral authorities, it is just whatever they, themselves, figure it to be. Their specific criterion is... well, it just doesn't matter; they have one today. Now we might sit down and calculate the ROI for a just birthed critter, say on the average of a large population. Or we might do a specific calculation on the ROI for a just birthed critter for the individual case, say based on class, genetic history, family prior contribution to human welfare, needs for balancing the sexual population, needs for dealing with social ills such as poverty, or other social imbalances which this individual might exacerbate, etc. (Can Social Justice be ignored at the valuation of an individual, morally?)

There is absolutely no restriction which is logically attached to the authoritative determination of the value of humanesque critters, regardless of birth status or time since traversing the birth canal. So it is incumbent upon someone to make the decision, someone with moral authority of course. And we already know who that is, the career moral authorities: the ethicists.

By measuring the value of individuals (as has already been done by the Emmanuels in the current Democrat administration) those who do not contribute significantly to the betterment of humankind (for example) can be credited with less or no value. This is a simple determination. Equations already exist toward that end.

The problem then becomes what to do with them, those who are devalued. At what point are their sources of sustenance reduced, or their sources of life maintenance removed, or maybe outright termination is required? Since the age, post natally, is not the issue, then how should the older ones be terminated? Or should they be sequestered in encampments? Perhaps some value might be extracted in terms of labor? And when they no longer can perform that, then extinguish them?

These issues will be decided by the ethicists, of course.

Why should we not trust them with our lives as they socially engineer the future for our children... Oh wait... the children, what about the children??

If social engineering and eugenics is about a better world for the children, it is definitely not for ALL children, is it? Only those finding favor with the Atheist ethicists.

Note: link fixed.

Coyne: the Good Atheist

It seems that the institutional philosophers either are stuck in institutional thinking with its attendant fallacies or they maybe have time to write books but not think things through. For whatever reason some of them just can’t rid themselves of fallacies which they use over and over for proofs. A favorite is the False Dichotomy Fallacy. A true dichotomy has one option available; either choose it or don’t – two choices are all that are available.

The False Dichotomy offers two options which are diametrically opposed and which seem to be all the choices that are available, both of which are uncomfortable. But with two options, say P and Q, there are actually four ways to choose: P and Q; P and not Q; Q and not P; not P and not Q.

The deception which philosophers and other manipulators use is to present only two of the four possible choices. For P and Q, then, only the choices P and not Q, and Q and not P are presented as the available choices.

This then is the deception in Plato’s Euthyphro Dilemma, which Jerry Coyne takes as the "logical" basis for dismissing a deity, disregarding the False Dichotomy Fallacy that his logic is based upon. Coyne is trying to make the case that Atheists are Good while God is Bad, which is the new argument being made by Atheists who are attacking the modern civilization in which they live.

Moving to Evil God, Coyne maintains that the Old Testament God did all sorts of things that he, Coyne, and the Atheists think are bad. Now God did order some things done that only a deity could justify, no argument there. But if a deity is justified in doing what ever a deity does, then Coyne has no case other than his own pique. Says Coyne:

” Now, few of us see genocide or stoning as moral, so Christians and Jews pass over those parts of the Bible with judicious silence. But that's just the point. There is something else — some other source of morality — that supersedes biblical commands. When religious people pick and choose their morality from Scripture, they clearly do so based on extrareligious notions of what's moral.”

What the Bible displays is a continuous cycling of obedience, betrayal, and correction. The correction is purposely visited upon a disobedient society by the use of an invading force which brings humility where hubris and contempt had reigned. And this after explicit warnings of what was to come. If one assumes these to be literally true, which Atheists always do, it is clearly the deity’s prerogative to handle his creation as he wishes. But this action, being that of the diety, is neither moral nor immoral in terms of human behavior. By taking on the Bible, Coyne should be obligated to at least understand its meanings and to use a meaningful model to criticize rather than his own fake model. Morality in human terms, according to the Bible, means obedience to the directives given by the deity. Now Coyne might not like the directives, and he might be tempted to compare the specific directives for action to the general directives for daily behavior and then declare his False Dichotomy. But as a declared intellectual he should act in dispassionate fairness when he passes judgment, rather than present False Dichotomies and Straw Man arguments. He does not, however, do that.

This is total blindness to the concept of a deity which is actually more powerful than Coyne is himself. Morality doesn’t come from the daily maunderings of institutional intellectuals; if it even exists it comes from an extrahuman source. The morals of intellectuals have never been consistent, and much less when put into practice have they been humane. Coyne’s argument against God and for Atheist Goodness cannot withstand the most cursory historical glance at the 20th century. Ah, say Atheists, that was coincidentally Atheists slaughtering hundreds of millions of their own countrymen, purely coincidence. In other words, excusing their own belief system for its slaughters.

But as fatally feeble as those arguments are, Coyne’s weakest argument is yet to come:

” Further, the idea that morality is divinely inspired doesn't jibe with the fact that religiously based ethics have changed profoundly over time. Slavery was once defended by churches on scriptural grounds; now it's seen as grossly immoral. Mormons barred blacks from the priesthood, also on religious grounds, until church leaders had a convenient "revelation" to the contrary in 1978. Catholics once had a list of books considered immoral to read; they did away with that in 1966. Did these adjustments occur because God changed His mind? No, they came from secular improvements in morality that forced religion to clean up its act.”

Religious people continue to improve or at least change their understanding of the deity and its wishes for them. Coyne conveniently ignores that it was the religious efforts of uberChristian William Wilberforce in Great Britain, and the Republicans in the USA that put slavery away – not the force of “secular improvements”. Taking credit for what one did not accomplish is intellectually dishonest, and none of the events he listed was forced by any secular superhero.

Coyne predictably defaults to the Atheist’s religious source, evolution:

” So where does morality come from, if not from God? Two places: evolution and secular reasoning. Despite the notion that beasts behave bestially, scientists studying our primate relatives, such as chimpanzees, see evolutionary rudiments of morality: behaviors that look for all the world like altruism, sympathy, moral disapproval, sharing — even notions of fairness. This is exactly what we'd expect if human morality, like many other behaviors, is built partly on the genes of our ancestors.”

First the absurdity of asserting that “secular reasoning” and Chimpanzee behavior are in the same category as morality is absolutely glaring. But let’s take evolution first: making up evolutionary Just So Stories just doesn’t cut it any more, but Coyne hasn’t gotten the memo. I’m sure he will some day.

But “secular reasoning” as a source of anything meaningful at all is the most absurd premise that can be made. Secular reasoning eschews any absolutes, so it has to base its premise support either on infinite regressions of subpremises, or on circular regression back to itself. Either way it cannot provide any firm grounding for… well, for any valid thought whatsoever, much less a guide for moral human behavior. This is the world in which the secular philosopher moralists live, a world which they make up and then want us to believe is real. For them maybe it is real, but I doubt it, because they do not actually live in the world they pretend is real.

And that is a true dichotomy: to make up rules and reality and then either (a) to live in it, or (b) not to live in it. If one asserts rules and reality, but chooses (b), then he might be hypocritical or maybe insane.

An example is the idea that “compassion” must become a human trait if one is to be a secular moralist. But then the real idea comes to the fore: it is not compassion but confiscation of other people’s wealth to be spread around. The compassion comes not from personal sacrifice but from sacrificing the Other on the altar of secularism. Sacrificing the Other is a large part of secular thought, so it must be moral according to the seculars.

Anyone who values “secular thought” as a way toward morality is suspect. In fact, as Massimo Pigliucci recently demonstrated quite adequately, secular thought is compartmentalized into sects, each of which condemns the other secular thought sects as dealing in “mental masturbation”. They are partly right; it’s just that ALL secular thought is mental masturbation. And Coyne is right in the middle of all that. Why is Coyne “Good”? Because he says so. What is "Good"? It's whatever he says it is... today. That’s the process of secular thought.

In fact Coyne wrote a book with a title that automatically places the entire book into the mental masturbation category: Coyne wrote: “Why Evolution Is True”. Assuming that evolution is a science complete with verifiability and falsifiability and is proven to be valid, it still is not capable of providing Truth. Science provides only contingent inductive factoids, from which deductive tests can be made, which show merely that no falsification has yet occurred. No matter how many tests are done, science never ever provides Truth. Scientists might presume a factoid to be valid for purposes of subsequent tests, but they do not declare Truth if they understand the basis for science. As both a philosopher and a scientist, Coyne flunks even the basics.

But for some reason, Atheists still respect him. Maybe it’s because he says what they want to hear.

[author's note: semantic correction, 08.07.11]

An Atheo-Leftist-Progressive Redefines “Economy”

Over at Massimo’s place, Michael DeDora gives a lesson on economics; first the definition:

”Economics is the matter of how to set up and manage the financial situation of a given society or community.”

Only a managed economy Leftist could conceive of economics in this manner.

Here is an actual definition:

” Definition of ECONOMICS 1 a: a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services b: economic theory, principles, or practices”
Merriam Webster online

No mention of “setting up” or “managing” in that definition.
DeDora:

”Morality is also present in larger economic debates. Consider the question “how can we create jobs?” At face value, there might be little in this question that concerns morality. It is simply about increasing the number of jobs available to human beings. But what if I answered that the way to create jobs is to eliminate the minimum wage? Or to loosen restrictions on workday hours and factory conditions? Or to lower the tax burden on corporations and the wealthy? Or to repeal last year’s health insurance reform package? These questions all contain a moral aspect as well. Would it be right to allow companies to pay their employees however little they can get away with? Would it be right to rescind worker safety laws? Would it be right to increase the tax burdens on the middle and lower classes and allow further disparity? Would it be right to repeal legislation that increases the availability of health care? “

The inference that "we elites can create jobs" is indicative of the arrogation that their external management expertise and morality is necessary and sufficient for performing a function that is completely outside their ability to do so: a Category Error typical to the ALP’s. Industry, services and small business create jobs, and all that the self-styled managers can do is to inhibit that function either more or less. They can destroy more jobs or destroy fewer jobs – they cannot create them.

”The public has been outraged at every aspect of these potential and actual cuts and changes. The argument: such cuts are immoral given that these are necessary programs that benefit children and the worst off -- especially when there are other options, like taxes on corporations and the ultra-rich, or cutting, for example, the defense budget.

Actually DeDora must be referring to the Greeks. American polls show a decided favoring of capping government spending, period. In the USA, Social Security entitlement derives not from morality or government decree, but from personal ownership: citizens pay their own cash into a protected fund, and have been promised their cash back. But the “managers” of the economy stole that protected money long ago, to use for other government programs (undoubtedly moral ones…). Citizens are still paying into Social Security in order to support those retirees whose funds were stolen, but now the “managers” are threatening to steal that money too. From one side of their face they falsely claim that conservatives want to throw granny over the cliff; with the other side of their face they want to reduce health care to the elderly, using the Emmanuel human value curve.

And when the ideocrats haul out the Appeal To The Children, one can tell that they have no logical argument so they must resort to emotional appeals. Victimology is always at the fore in the ALP mind. What about the children of our children who must pay for the insane spending of this generation of “compassionate” Leftist-Progressives?

Now let’s talk about taxes on corporations. Those are passed straight down to the consumer; they are de facto taxes on the citizens. Corporate hatred is a class warfare ideology staple of the Left. And taxes on the rich: total confiscation of the wealth of the rich will not pay for the Leftist/Progressive spending orgasm of Obama’s first two all-Democrat years. Taxes on the rich are an ideological class warfare tactic, and that only. Cutting the defense budget? Defense is the one legitimate function of the national government that is being discussed here. But Defense is an Icon of Hatred for the Atheo-Leftist-Progressives, except those who get defense pork spent in their state.

DeDora:

”No matter where you stand on these issues, you cannot deny there is a moral component to all of them. Take the issue of taxing the wealthy. Many urge for higher taxes on the rich because they think it is immoral for a small band of people to horde most of the nation’s wealth while the majority suffers. Others argue that the rich should not be deprived of the money they’ve earned (though it should be noted much of this money is). Someone might desire to settle the debate by asking, “what is best for the economy?" But my point is that, at bottom, the question of “what is best for the economy” is really a question of “what should we want the economy to do or accomplish?” And that is a question not of pure mathematical reasoning, but of ethical contemplation.”

Ethical contemplation? Actually it is ideological boilerplate dogma, pure and simple. The “rich” have “inherited or made [their wealth] at the expense of the lower classes through practices put in place by the rich class.” And, “A small band of people horde [horde mind you] most of the nation’s wealth while the majority suffers”.Class hatred and warfare is disguised as an “ethical contemplation” – one the outcome of which is preordained. The undeniable “moral component” is class hatred; the undeniable conclusion will be redistribution via confiscation by government policy.

And this, DeDora admits, is key:

” But my point is that, at bottom, the question of “what is best for the economy” is really a question of “what should we want the economy to do or accomplish?”

In other words: We must engineer the economy from our elite centralized stations of ethical superiority and great wealth of knowledge as attested by our credentials to teach and our self-declared compassion for certain classes, which we wear on our sleeves for everyone to admire our moral authority.

Managed economies have always failed spectacularly. Ours is doing so now, after having been managed into a housing / banking catastrophe coupled with trillions in cash give-aways to prevent the consequences of the failure. The simplistic models of what constitutes an economy which Atheo-Leftist-Progressives have in their minds has never proven to do more than reveal their ignorance of the reality of complexity in the actual world of providing and distributing goods and services in a competitive environment, of dollars chasing goods and services, of developing and providing goods and services which people actually want to spend their dollars on. So historically, the Atheo-Leftist-Progressives around the world have eliminated competition and put the means of production of goods and services into the hands of government bureaucrats, who immediately specify the output and distribution according to this ideology:

“What should we want the economy to do or accomplish?”

That’s when breadlines form. Not for the bureaucratic elite who “ethically decide” and implement these things for “the masses”, but for the masses who are now equal under their ethical economy. Occasionally there is not enough bread even for the meager portions of the breadlines, and some segments of the population die off. In actuality, some segments of the populations have been targeted, ideologically, for insufficient distribution of bread. But those segments which remain are equal. One must break eggs to make an omelet.

When the Atheo-Left-Progressives start to declare an “ethical” attack on any institution, it is legitimate to ask for the source of their moral authority and for the specifics of their “ethics”, not to mention their means of implementation. It is guaranteed that “compassion” for certain favored classes over other hated classes and social engineering / social “justice” for certain favored classes over other hated classes will be involved. And because it can’t be implemented voluntarily, then it would need to be involuntary: just breaking more eggs for more omelets. All in the name of ethics and moral authority to adjust the “moral component”.

Secular Morality Controls the Narrative

Not long ago, Obama removed the ability of health providers who object to certain procedures to be exempted form providing those procedures. At issue was the government’s power to force doctors and nurses to provide abortion, regardless of the consciences of those providers. In the past few weeks tens of thousands of signatures have been gathered on a document asking Obama to reverse that decision, and the document has been delivered to the president. Obama’s decision is one of many that seem to enable the power of the governing to force moral and/or economic decisions that are contrary to those made by individuals.

In Britain a similar battle is being waged, this one between the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and the British Humanist Association. At issue are four cases, two of which are discrimination against the wearing of the cross at work, one of a counselor who declined to advise homosexuals, and one of a “registrar” who refused to marry homosexuals.

The EHRC claims that the British legal system is biased against Christians. The BHA claims that the EHRC is biased toward Christians.

”The BHA has an ongoing complaint lodged with the EHRC over recent comments by its chair Trevor Phillips in an interview with the Sunday Telegraph, that the EHRC’s ‘business is defending the believer’. The first response by the EHRC to the complaint and request for the remedy of an apology was that Mr Phillips ‘[stood] by’ his comments and no apology would be made. The BHA is appealing that decision.”

EHRC; BHA

Back in the USA, California Governor Jerry Brown has just signed into law a dictate that all school children be taught that homosexuals are good role models. Apparently, parents are not to be consulted or given notice.

”Sacramento --
“Public schools in California will be required to teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans starting Jan. 1 after Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday signed a controversial bill to add the topic to the social sciences curriculum.

“Textbooks now must include information on the role of LGBT Americans, as well as Americans with disabilities, though California's budget crisis has delayed the purchasing of new books until at least 2015.

"History should be honest," Brown, a Democrat, said in a statement. "This bill revises existing laws that prohibit discrimination in education and ensures that the important contributions of Americans from all backgrounds and walks of life are included in our history books."

(…)

“Leno said the mandates apply broadly, though, telling reporters it would affect kindergarten through high school curriculum, "and, of course, in an age-appropriate way."

“Gay rights advocates said they will be vigilant about making sure schools across California comply.

“Carolyn Laub, the founder and executive director of the Gay-Straight Alliance Network, which works to establish gay-straight clubs in schools, said such clubs exist in 55 percent of California's high schools.

"We'll certainly be letting all of our constituents know about this bill, and when it goes into effect I can assure you there will be thousands of students" watching to see how it is implemented, she said.”

SFGate (San Francisco Chronicle)

And,

“Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, a conservative family group, said under the new law parents will have no choice but to take their children out of public school and homeschool them to avoid what he said was "immoral indoctrination." The new law applies only to public schools, not private schools or families who homeschool.

"Jerry Brown has trampled the parental rights of the overwhelming majority of California fathers and mothers who don't want their children to be sexually brainwashed at school," Thomasson said. "This new law will prohibit textbooks and teachers from telling children the facts that homosexuality is neither healthy nor biological."

“The bill was supported by gay rights organizations including Equality California and the Gay-Straight Alliance Network. Teacher groups also said the bill would help students prepare for a diverse and evolving society.

"There is no room for discrimination of any kind in our classrooms, our communities or our state," said Dean Vogel, president of the California Teachers Association. “

ABC Channel 7, San Francisco

Traditional logic does discriminate, though: 0 is not 1; false is not true; bad is not good; abnormal is not normal. Under the new logic of total nondiscrimination, there is no non-valid worldview or personal predilection, except to claim that some worldviews or personal predilections are not valid: to say that would be discrimination, a hate crime, which is discrimination against certain speech. The internal contradiction and paradox is obvious.

Moreover, the schools do discriminate. They allow no non-secular teachings, which means that Humanism and Materialism are promoted and rigidly protected as the only acceptable worldviews in the government schools. That discrimination is A-OK with Humanist Homosexual Materialists, i.e. Secularists. Unfortunately, that is a basic internal contradiction to the entire Secular theory of education, rendering it irrational at best, immoral at worst.

Homeschooled students perform better in every classification of knowledge and ability: this is proven. Check the studies for yourself.

Humanism is Benign… Right?

Well, read what the manifestos actually say:

Humanist Manifesto I, 1933:

Statements of socialism and totalitarian control of society:

(…)

”ELEVENTH: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.

(…)

THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.

FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.

Humanist Manifesto II: The socialism of Manifesto I is now concealed in more dense hyperbole for the following reasons:

Preface
”It is forty years since Humanist Manifesto I (1933) appeared. Events since then make that earlier statement seem far too optimistic. Nazism has shown the depths of brutality of which humanity is capable. Other totalitarian regimes have suppressed human rights without ending poverty. Science has sometimes brought evil as well as good. Recent decades have shown that inhuman wars can be made in the name of peace. The beginnings of police states, even in democratic societies, widespread government espionage, and other abuses of power by military, political, and industrial elites, and the continuance of unyielding racism, all present a different and difficult social outlook. In various societies, the demands of women and minority groups for equal rights effectively challenge our generation.”

Well, the ideas of "siezing control of all institutions" and "social and mental hygiene" didn’t work out so well when the real world actually did it in the 1930's and 40's, so the Manifesto needed a little cosmetic work; hence Manifesto II.

Read the Manifestos if you haven’t already, all three of them. Read between the lines in the latter ones, for the abstruse and veiled references which were blatant in Manifesto I. For example, in Manifesto II:

”TENTH: Humane societies should evaluate economic systems not by rhetoric or ideology, but by whether or not they increase economic well-being for all individuals and groups, minimize poverty and hardship, increase the sum of human satisfaction, and enhance the quality of life. Hence the door is open to alternative economic systems. We need to democratize the economy and judge it by its responsiveness to human needs, testing results in terms of the common good.

Yes, economic well-being for all individuals and groups; the common good: democratize the economy and judge it by its responsiveness to human needs, testing results in terms of the common good.

The absurdness of a democratized economy should be apparent: the voting majority decides on what products everyone gets? In a free economy every real demand gets serviced. Which is better? More to the point, what does this TENTH article actually mean? One suspects that the democracy part actually refers to socialization and government ownership: the Peoples Economy. The references to seizure made clear in Manifesto I are now stealth references.

Then there is this in the ELEVENTH:

”We are concerned for the welfare of the aged, the infirm, the disadvantaged, and also for the outcasts - the mentally retarded, abandoned, or abused children, the handicapped, prisoners, and addicts - for all who are neglected or ignored by society.”

As if no one else cares about these people and only the elites care. Here’s the truth, at least in my community. The elites don’t care one whit about those categories of people. It is the religious community that runs programs and cares for them, performing outside the extremely limited governmental programs. These are ministries taken on by individuals who care, and they are not Atheo-Humanists. In fact, try to find an Atheo-Humanist organization actually on the ground at any disaster. [note 1]

And this one, the TWELFTH;

”TWELFTH: We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government. This would appreciate cultural pluralism and diversity.”

This is one of the reasons for the next Manifesto, number III. Cultural pluralism is a fused disaster awaiting a spark. Witness the Islamic movement hoping to take over Europe and Britain merely by population size. Pluralism and diversity are not on the Islamic agenda.

FIFTEENTH:

(…)

It is the moral obligation of the developed nations to provide - through an international authority that safeguards human rights - massive technical, agricultural, medical, and economic assistance, including birth control techniques, to the developing portions of the globe. World poverty must cease. Hence extreme disproportions in wealth, income, and economic growth should be reduced on a worldwide basis.

SEVENTEENTH:

(…)

The world must be open to diverse political, ideological, and moral viewpoints and evolve a worldwide system of television and radio for information and education. We thus call for full international cooperation in culture, science, the arts, and technology across ideological borders. We must learn to live openly together or we shall perish together.

The Humanist Manifesto III is a wimpy shadow of the former Humanist positions, having replaced the dictates with “beliefs” and statements of morals according to Humanists. Here is the key phrasing:

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature's resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.

Yes, working not for oneself, for one’s own welfare, for one’s own family, but working for society. In return one gets his inequities reduced and a lot of stuff redistributed in his direction, unless he has too much stuff, then it is adios stuff. If this is not communism, then what is it?

Now let’s back up to this:

” Life's fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.”

Life’s fulfillment is for YOU GUYS to do all this stuff, while we reduce your inequities and redistribute your stuff. Read this paragraph again, and then kindly explain to me how this teleological revelation was received by the elites who are letting us in on their wisdom. We should service the humane ideals of “inequitiy reduction” and stuff “redistribution”, and then we will be fulfilled?

There is no categorical distance between the Humanist Manifestos I, II, and III. The only difference is that the original sharpness of focus has fogged somewhat, by excess verbiage in Manifesto II, and by over-simplicity and the use of joyous terms of liberationism objectives in Manifesto III.

The “Notable Signers” of Manifesto III include one (1) actual producer, a pharacologist; the remainder are academics, activists, writers, entertainers, and Unitarians. Except for that one (1) producer, not one produces a single product for satisfying the issue of ”whether or not they increase economic well-being for all individuals and groups, minimize poverty and hardship, increase the sum of human satisfaction, and enhance the quality of life.”

Humanism is the self-righteous elitist religion, to be applied to the common man: the herd. It originally even called itself the Humanist religion, and it has been declared a religion in the U.S. Federal Courts. It is the religion of self-righteous, arrogant, self-serving prototyrants.

[note 1]: One Atheist organization has recently tried to deliver stuff to disaster victims expressly because of this criticism - not because they actually care.

An Atheist Condemns Religion

The Atheo-Left is stirred to a passionate defense of Islam once again. In an article for the NYT, Religion Does Its Worst, Cohen manages to defame both Christianity and Islam. Cohen does not have an adequate comprehension of either.

What Cohen sees in Islam really is a religion of peace. To worry about Sharia being used in courts as a meta-law, is Islamaphobia, one of the Leftist phobia slurs which assign insanity to anything Leftists don’t like. Interestingly there are no equivalent terms “Christaphobia”, or “Constitutionophobia”, which are epidemic amongst the Atheo-Left.

The Religion of Peace does not mirror the horror that the Left sees in the butchery of dozens in the fits of pique that afflict the adherents of the Religion of Peace. There are no Imams issuing fatwas against those who kill innocents in barbaric tantrums. In fact, the Imams encourage such rage, issuing fatwas that result directly in butchery.

Cohen, however, is appalled that the feckless Muslims, who have no apparent free-will or consciences and are absolutely controlled by actions half a globe away, were triggered into their barbaric frenzy by the ritual burning of their book of law… by a Christian. Obviously they could do no else but slaughter the first non-Muslims they encountered. This is supported by Karzai, by American generals, and by the pansy pols in Washington D.C.: Do not incite these people because they are incapable of self-restraint. In other words, they are barbarians; we must accede or they will kill someone, maybe lots of someones. Cohen demands actions by Muslim leaders, but still it is primarily the fault of the Christian actors of hate.

The entire episode proves the point of Terry Jones, who burned the Qur’an inside his church, an action without fanfare and press coverage, and without any perceptible intent to inflame Muslims. The paleo-press didn’t even notice it; it was picked up off the internet by Muslims who are watching for ways to be incited. They were successful.

Cohen is worried for Islam in America. He cites politicians who denounce “creeping Sharia”, ignoring the legislative movement to make reference to Sharia a necessity in places like Oklahoma. Says Cohen:

”I spent time last year with Paul Blair, a pastor in small-town Oklahoma, a state where Islamophobia is rampant. He told me Muslims were “not here to coexist but to take over.” He told me there are only two possibilities in Islam — “the house of Islam or the house of war.”

That sort of message is going out in a lot of U.S. churches. It’s dangerous. Already, Muslims are victims in 14 percent of religious discrimination cases when they make up 1 percent of the population. “

Is it possible that Muslims are suing much more than other populations out of both pique and the need for the dominance of their views, which are contrary to, and at odds with, western views and laws? This is not considered by Cohen. For him, it is merely an indication that Muslims are somehow abused in the USA. The idea of a world-wide caliphate is a “grotesque caricature” in Cohen’s world.

But what if, what would the world look like, if Christians rioted in the streets and formed homicidal mobs which went looking for random Atheists to kill, just because an Atheist desecrated icons (say communion wafers or American flags)? Would the Atheist be held responsible for the incitement?

What would the world look like if Christians, based on their holy book, demanded the death or enslavement of all non-Christians?

What would the world look like if Christian leaders issued fatwas demanding the death of specific offenders of their faith?

What would the world look like if the victims of rape in the USA were stoned to death while the rapist skated away?

There is nothing in the red print of the Bible that even remotely resembles any of that.

Cohen says,

”This column is full of anger, I know. It has no heroes. I’m full of disgust, writing after a weekend when religious violence returned to Northern Ireland with the murder of a 25-year-old Catholic policeman, Ronan Kerr, by dissident republican terrorists. Religion has much to answer for, in Gainesville and Mazar and Omagh.”

Yes, Roger, the article is filled with anger and hate. And misdirection and ignorance of actual religion outside the Atheist strawman.

Atheism still has not answered for the half billion murders by the Atheists of the 20th century, Roger. And let’s see, the Northern Ireland conflict is one of English occupation of Irish territory. The religious differences in northern Ireland are epiphenomenal to the colonial issue, as anyone with a little historical knowledge would understand, Roger. (Where else in the world are Catholics and Protestants killing each other?) And I suspect, Roger, that you did not devote a single sentence to the Atheist desecrations of Christian icons and other constant Atheist provocations (free speech and all).

Roger concludes,

I see why lots of people turn to religion — fear of death, ordering principle in a mysterious universe, refuge from pain, even revelation. But surely it’s meaningless without mercy and forgiveness, and surely its very antithesis must be hatred and murder. At least that’s how it appears to a nonbeliever.”

This understanding of “religion” is hollow, an Atheist caricature. It fails to separate the man-made components from the eternal truths, ecclesiasticism from exceptionalism. And yes, for some beliefs anyway, the very antithesis is hatred and murder, those very characteristics of Atheist controlled societies which are historic and hardly deniable, as well as Islamic societies for the last 1500 years.

Christianity is hardly perfect, with populations of Pharisaical dogmatists that corrupt the meanings behind the historical document. But Christianity is a voluntary association; Islam is not. And the Atheist, secular, thrust is for positive rights and mandatory controls over a population that is inadequate to the task of caring for itself,making its own decisions. It comes down to voluntary Christianity and liberty on the one hand, and the totalitarians of Atheo-statism and the one-world caliphate on the other. The evidence for that is plain. It is historical. It is reality.

Massimo Watch 04.01.11 De Dora: And Yet He Writes.

Michael De Dora posts an attempt to define conservatism and liberalism. De Dora is sequestered in New York City along with Massimo Pigliucci, and like Pigliucci who admitted to not actually knowing any conservative, non-Atheists, De Dora proves that he has not actually encountered any either.

It is common for the sequestered Leftist to fantasize about those who don’t agree with him, and to conjure the vile qualities that it must take in order for a person to have such unthinkable opinions. As Barack said, they must hold onto their religion and guns out of fear of change. To the Leftist, the presumed irrationality of anti-statism suggests not just supreme immorality, it also suggests insanity or at least horrendous stupidity.

It is from this point of view then, that De Dora writes,

“The conservative mindset tends to value traditional institutions and values because they are traditional.”

There it is. There is no principled argument for conservatism. The conservative is merely a mindless obstruction to change. De Dora has pegged conservatives to a fantasized vile behavior. And this fabrication characterizes a category of opinion which he does not personally encounter or experience.

De Dora defines the liberal approach, on the other hand,

”… is that institutions and values are only worth following if they are correct or serve a worthwhile purpose. If they are false or outdated, they deserve to be thrown into the scrap heap and replaced with better and more worthwhile ways of doing things.”

Here De Dora is claiming the moral ability to decide for society which values it should have and follow; which institutions are false or outdated and are to be scrapped. It is an accurate statement of elitism, the arrogation of moral authority. The statement is purely Consequentialist, a rejection of moral absolutes disguised as pragmatism.

De Dora even attempts to associate modern “liberals” with the benefits derived from the French Revolution. This is either from ignorance of the actual revolution and its historical consequences for France, or maybe he thinks that bloodbaths really are a good thing, as “more worthwhile ways of doing things”. Says De Dora,

”For example, Enlightenment thinkers did not call for an end to government (anarchy). They called for a change in government.”

Yes, from tyranny A, to tyranny B which although massively bloody, failed, giving rise to tyranny C. Liberte’ was not achieved by the French Revolution: liberte' was guillotined along with all opposition members and suspected opposition including entire towns. No, the statist Left is not for liberte’. Nor is it for tolerance, free speech, and other iconic slogans, unless they apply strictly to themselves. Curse and threaten to kill Bush? Free speech. Criticize Obama’s programs? Racist.

As a matter of consistency with his previous history of writing about things of which he knows nothing, this essay appears to be a name-dropping defense of statist Leftism, based on the weighty premise that “Left is good; Right is bad.” And very little more. And he left out Hobbes, Hegel, Galton and Nietzsche as influences on the Statists.

De Dora again:

”For example, many American conservatives argue that the definition of marriage should remain the same as it has always been, thereby resisting its extension to gays. Yet, there has actually never been one universal definition of marriage. Rather, the concept has evolved and changed over the past few thousand years. As such, the “conservative” position simply reveals itself to be a mask for bigotry — a way for straight people who don’t like gays to display their abhorrence of a different lifestyle in a manner that is politically acceptable.”

There is no behavior that is wrong or abhorrent to statists, except possibly behavior that limits the behaviors of the Left, which is the only immorality. It is society which is responsible for the bad behavior of its “victims”, those who are called criminals by the bigoted conservative. Any criticism of virtually any behavior is now “bigoted”, according to the statist. So privileges such as marriage cannot be denied anyone based on behaviors. Does this apply to man-boy marriage? Well, not yet. But the logic is in place to support it as “the concept of marriage evolves”. How about woman-donkey marriage? Father-daughter marriage? Cloud marriage of huge groups of non-defined types of organisms? That would eliminate bigoted discrimination once and for all. Marriage would be meaningless as it is already becoming.

De Dora concludes,

”But, while liberals ought to be willing and able to defend the need for change on a case by case basis, it is equally unacceptable for conservatives to defend the status quo simply because tradition is important above all else. If the conservative believes in the defense of a particular custom, he or she must have reasons beyond the fact that we have always done things in a certain way. They have an obligation to make their reasons clear or they risk defending tradition for its own sake — a rather sterile position.”

De Dora seems completely ignorant of any actual principles that conservatives might have, and in fact seems unable to believe that such might exist. However, “sterility” seems most appropriately applied to the intellectual atmosphere that De Dora has chosen for himself. Actual research into conservative principles beyond the slant of the New York Times and wiki infobites are just not necessary in the De Dora’s statist world, where strawmen are made fresh daily and actual knowledge of opposing views is eschewed in favor of demonization of fabricated targets. In this regard then, De Dora is a shining example of Leftist intellectualism.

JournoList and the Progress of the Progressives

Just as opening the conversations of the AGW “scientists” [1] to the public allowed the outside world to observe the reality behind the AGW / IPCC curtain, so has the release of the JournoList conversations opened up the collusion of the Leftist “journalists” that infest and infect the dying mainstream media. As one observer noted, it will not be possible for some time to read an article by any MSM journalist without wondering just how it has been manipulated by him and the JournoList conspiracy. Even the innocent will be suspect due to the machinations of the secret membership of the anti-ethical, Consequentialist cabal.

While this reality has long been obvious by the products of these Leftists, the actual mechanism has not been known until now. Now, the products of these folks will be known as activist rags and little more. It is interesting to see that after Obama accused FOX of being an arm of the Republican party, the reality is that the entire remaining media is a swamp of activist Democrats and Leftist news-modifying liars and scoundrels.

This is in no way a new feature of journalism. The USSR set up entire villages called Potemkin Villages for the express purpose of entertaining the Leftist-socialist fantasies of the western journalist useful idiots of the time. I learned in high school – many decades ago – that Newsweek was farther Left than Time, but that neither could be trusted. The trend only worsened. Rather-gate for example. The blatant opinion manipulations of the last two decades, hardly disguised at all. The feverish rush to attack Palin's family, while totally ignoring the entire history and career of Obama: this is now known to have been a coordinated Leftist "journalist" smear attempt, in order to drive votes to the Leftist candidate. And not least, the smarmy, weepy gushing when Obama won.

It would be interesting to count the number of times that the words "attack" and "kill" are used on JournoList. Their entire focus is to attack the non-Left, and to kill all stories embarrassing [a la Rev. Wright] to the Left. The idea of attack / kill is not part of the common understanding of journalistic ethical standards. But the ethic of modern "journalists" is Consequentialism in pursuit of their Leftist political aims.

Perhaps the main difference between the Potemkin days and now is that today there are alternative paths to valid information concerning the current events in the USA and around the world. Using these paths, many of us knew more about Obama than did his fawning "journalist" acolytes, judging by their recent abandoning of The One, who is merely consistent with his earlier history. These private paths are now endangered, as the summary closing of 73,000 websites last week by a USA government “concerned with their content” shows - more websites closed, it is said, than by the Chinese communists.

When the ruling class is threatened, it will fight back by squeezing hard on the source of discontent, in this case internet paths to reality. After government seizure of massive regulatory control of health care, automotive manufacturing, and the financial industry, it would make sense to watch for two things: first, a dictated amnesty [2] and perks for illegals in order to preserve Leftist power; second, to put a choke hold on the internet information flow. Those two agenda items would serve their purposes more than any others.


[1] I scare-quote that because of their obvious breeches of scientific protocols in favor of predetermined conclusions, including controlling the peer review process and falsifying data. Science and activism are not compatible.
[2] Is it possible that today's news release claiming that amnesty won't happen in this congress is a Red Herring, designed to relax the defenses of the opposition? Why should anyone believe anything any MSM source reports? Why should we not attribute machinations to it?

The Ruling Class in the USA: Why Voters Don't Matter.

This article by Angelo M. Codevilla in the Spectator is long and very punchy. You do yourself a disservice if you do not read it. Here is an excerpt pertinent to this blog:

"At stake are the most important questions: What is the right way for human beings to live? By what standard is anything true or good? Who gets to decide what? Implicit in Wilson's words ["to make young gentlemen as unlike their fathers as possible"] and explicit in our ruling class's actions is the dismissal, as the ways of outdated "fathers," of the answers that most Americans would give to these questions. This dismissal of the American people's intellectual, spiritual, and moral substance is the very heart of what our ruling class is about. Its principal article of faith, its claim to the right to decide for others, is precisely that it knows things and operates by standards beyond others' comprehension.

While the unenlightened ones believe that man is created in the image and likeness of God and that we are subject to His and to His nature's laws, the enlightened ones know that we are products of evolution, driven by chance, the environment, and the will to primacy. While the un-enlightened are stuck with the antiquated notion that ordinary human minds can reach objective judgments about good and evil, better and worse through reason, the enlightened ones know that all such judgments are subjective and that ordinary people can no more be trusted with reason than they can with guns. Because ordinary people will pervert reason with ideology, religion, or interest, science is "science" only in the "right" hands. Consensus among the right people is the only standard of truth. Facts and logic matter only insofar as proper authority acknowledges them.

That is why the ruling class is united and adamant about nothing so much as its right to pronounce definitive, "scientific" judgment on whatever it chooses. When the government declares, and its associated press echoes that "scientists say" this or that, ordinary people -- or for that matter scientists who "don't say," or are not part of the ruling class -- lose any right to see the information that went into what "scientists say." Thus when Virginia's attorney general subpoenaed the data by which Professor Michael Mann had concluded, while paid by the state of Virginia, that the earth's temperatures are rising "like a hockey stick" from millennial stability -- a conclusion on which billions of dollars' worth of decisions were made -- to investigate the possibility of fraud, the University of Virginia's faculty senate condemned any inquiry into "scientific endeavor that has satisfied peer review standards" claiming that demands for data "send a chilling message to scientists...and indeed scholars in any discipline." The Washington Post editorialized that the attorney general's demands for data amounted to "an assault on reason." The fact that the "hockey stick" conclusion stands discredited and Mann and associates are on record manipulating peer review, the fact that science-by-secret-data is an oxymoron, the very distinction between truth and error, all matter far less to the ruling class than the distinction between itself and those they rule.

By identifying science and reason with themselves, our rulers delegitimize opposition. Though they cannot prevent Americans from worshiping God, they can make it as socially disabling as smoking -- to be done furtively and with a bad social conscience. Though they cannot make Americans wish they were Europeans, they continue to press upon this nation of refugees from the rest of the world the notion that Americans ought to live by "world standards." Each day, the ruling class produces new "studies" that show that one or another of Americans' habits is in need of reform, and that those Americans most resistant to reform are pitiably, perhaps criminally, wrong. Thus does it go about disaggregating and dispiriting the ruled.

There is much, much more to this... Read it all.

The Atheist Alliance International Declaration On Religion in Public Life

The recent Gods and Politics conference in Copenhagen adopted the following Declaration on Religion in Public Life. The conference was the first European event of Atheist Alliance International, and was co-hosted by AAI and the Danish Atheist Society.

We, at the World Atheist Conference: “Gods and Politics”, held in Copenhagen from 18 to 20 June 2010, hereby declare as follows:

1. We recognize the unlimited right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and that freedom to practice one’s religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others.

2. We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reason, not by dogma.

3. We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.

4. We assert that the only equitable system of government in a democratic society is based on secularism: state neutrality in matters of religion or belief, favoring none and discriminating against none.

5. We assert that private conduct, which respects the rights of others should not be the subject of legal sanction or government concern.

6. We affirm the right of believers and non-believers alike to participate in public life and their right to equality of treatment in the democratic process.

7. We affirm the right to freedom of expression for all, subject to limitations only as prescribed in international law – laws which all governments should respect and enforce. We reject all blasphemy laws and restrictions on the right to criticize religion or nonreligious life stances.

8. We assert the principle of one law for all, with no special treatment for minority communities, and no jurisdiction for religious courts for the settlement of civil matters or family disputes.

9. We reject all discrimination in employment (other than for religious leaders) and the provision of social services on the grounds of race, religion or belief, gender, class, caste or sexual orientation.

10. We reject any special consideration for religion in politics and public life, and oppose charitable, tax-free status and state grants for the promotion of any religion as inimical to the interests of non-believers and those of other faiths. We oppose state funding for faith schools.

11. We support the right to secular education, and assert the need for education in critical thinking and the distinction between faith and reason as a guide to knowledge, and in the diversity of religious beliefs. We support the spirit of free inquiry and the teaching of science free from religious interference, and are opposed to indoctrination, religious or otherwise.

Adopted by the conference, Copenhagen, 20 June 2010.
[Statements have been numbered for reference].

What is most interesting is the lack of any statement about the underlying philosophy driving this position paper. For example, the source of the stated “rights”. Although not explicit, these are positive rights for the most part, to be allowed by the State. Exceptions to those rights which explicitly discriminate against religion are also called out in items 8, 9, 10. The State is the source and arbiter of these rights, as allowed by the Atheists, who are explicitly solely in charge under paragraph 9. State Atheist education is the only education that can receive taxpayer funding – called “state funding” in the text. Presumably then, the state owns your funds under solely Atheist auspices, for dispersal to solely Atheist enterprises.

These stated rights are those allowed under this particular group of Atheists. Who knows what the next group will allow. History, however, (not typically a favored subject for the Atheists, who call for science education, aka evolution, but are silent on other subjects) demonstrates that once Atheists are in power (Lenin for example), the rights statements change drastically to suit the needs of the Atheist state. The state has all the rights, first; it might or might not dole them to the public, depending on the Consequentialist needs of the moment.

The idea of submission to international law [item 7] on the one hand (One Worldism), and yet invoking these “rights” on the other, is self-defeating and internally inconsistent – unless these Atheists are in charge of international law, too. That implication is built into the unstated fundamentals underlying this paper. But if the international law is Sharia, this statement is without value. So in actuality the statement is without value regardless of the international law at the moment. The intent of the statement seems to be the levelling of all nations under Atheism.

The ever present Atheist call for critical thinking, evidence and reason, contra dogma, illuminates one of the most obvious self-contradictions of Atheist “reasoning”: The Philosophical Materialism underlying Atheism cannot be demonstrated with either evidence or with reason. The Atheistic definition (de facto, never explicit) of critical thinking is a) scientism; b) rigid Materialist dogma. Never does Atheist “critical thinking” subject itself to the rigor of the First Principles, nor does it reveal its axioms despite their blatant obviousness. So the type of thinking referred to as “critical” by Atheists is actually dogmatic adherence to a religious principle: there is no non-material reality available to hold a non-material deity, despite the total lack of empirical evidence to support that claim, or the ability to falsify it. For Atheist Materialists, it is critical to seek friendly premises in order to support the conclusion. Atheism is a religious metaphysic, not a scientific result based on empirical, scientific data.

The declaration of reason as the path to knowledge is valid (item 11); yet this is not congruent with Atheistic Materialism, which is not based on reason, but on emotional rejection of unwanted reality, and hubristic intellectual rebellion. The entire basis is non-coherent, a self-contradictory, non-rational, completely religious position. Again, this paper is a statement of intended domination by a religious group: Philosophical Materialist Atheists.

Moreover, the claim that material evidence is the only path to knowledge is unsupportable, empirically, and is on its face, not valid, in light of abstract knowledge which is deduced, but not mechanically provable with empirical, experimental evidence. In fact all of evolutionary claims seem to be so based, yet are not considered problematic for Atheist Materialists, yet another non-coherence of Atheism and Materialism.

Placing faith in a group of non-absolutists that they will, once in power, accord me with any rights is a complete abandonment of rationality. Non-absolutism speaks for itself: it deserves no respect, intellectually or morally. It has been shown historically to be a fearful master, never mind what their position papers declare.

The faith placed in such a document by PZ and others seems misplaced, given that historically, secularists feed off of other secularists just as much as they do dissenters.

ADDENDUM: I should have stated at the top that item 2 is an explicit position for relativism and Consequentialism, and against virtue-type absolutist morality. These are the choices of every elitist totalitarian. It sets the tone for the rest of the "rights" statements.

And in item 3, which successful "secular democracies" are they referring to? Perhaps ours, which is now suffering under secular seizure?

Not Black Enough: Kenneth Gladney's Race is Revoked.

Remember Kenneth Gladney? He was the black man who was selling American flags at a Tea Party rally, who was beaten to the ground by white SEIU thugs. Now the NAACP explains why they didn't and don't care:

Gladney is not black enough. He is an Uncle Tom.

This has nothing to do with skin color or genetic inheritance. "Not black enough" and "Uncle Tom" mean that Gladney did the unpardonable, for which his race has been rescinded: he is no longer black. What Gladney actually did was to leave the "Democrat plantation" as one commenter put it. He left the brotherhood of perpetual victims and sops for government treasure, therefore he is no longer a brother.

To display independence of action and thought is unpardonable and therefore indefensible, especially if it threatens the cash flow into the culture. What the NAACP is defending is the right of Leftists of any color to beat senseless anyone who rises out of the Culture of Victimhood. The fact that the assailant has not been prosecuted, and the fact that there are rallies in the defense of the assailant, speaks volumes about the culture of the Left in the USA today.

These are Obama's people: SEIU thugs. They responded to his charge to "hit back twice as hard". He made no statements chastising his own people, as he did criticising the police who legitimately challenged a bellicose black professor. Obama's silence here is a racial, Victimhood statement in itself. He is quick to endorse activism, and slow-to-never condemns violence against his opposition. In fact, as in the infamous Black Panther case, the racism and endorsement of violence is overt.

Once again I recommend the book, "The Big Black Lie: How I Learned the Truth About the Democrat Party", by Kevin Jackson. Jackson is another ex-black who rejected the internal culture of victimhood (and racial hatred) in black society.

Normally blacks are accorded automatic certification of the moral certitude of their opinions due to the inherited pain of, well, being black. So when a black's opinion doesn't fit the Victimhood narrative, then that person is not black enough to be black. The Left revokes his race.

Rationality is not part of the narrative; preservation of the co-dependent benefactor-victim relationship is the narrative. And it is all on other people's money of course.

Next Crisis Please

I haven’t posted much lately about either the implosion of the IPCC-AGW-climategate, or the implosion of the Obama driven healthcare “crisis” along with the depreciation of Obama himself. Both of these are fabricated crises, created with the transfer of wealth in mind. This made them fair game for quite a while. But now it’s like kicking a downed dog, it seems a little cruel to bludgeon them any further.

What is more interesting now is to watch for signs of the next manufactured crisis that will need massive government intervention. Perhaps it will be a continuation of the bailouts, or maybe a new war, possible with Iran or North Korea, both of which seem to be spoiling for a fight.

More likely the Lefties will find some humanitarian failure that only $$ can solve. It will be an “acute moral imperative” that we spend this cash into a new arena where only the highly ethical are investing. The Soros / Gore types will have their new organizations in place to cash in on the new, highly moral, government cash flow.

Will it be energy independence? Global hunger is always available. Maybe AIDs. Or possibly something new and entertaining, like the homeless crisis was.

Keep your eyes peeled and let me know if you detect a trend.

In his book, “The Vision of the Annointed”, Thomas Sowell chronicles the crises of the 20th century that were not actually crises at all, they were trumped up to appear as crises by the self-“anointed” elites. Sowell analyzes the thought process behind the crisis generation, and the stonewall of silence that accompanies the abject failure of each moral program. A recommended read.

And I recently posted about the Cloward-Piven philosophy, one that advocates stressing the governmental system beyond the breaking point, and utilizing the chaos of the collapse to generate a more socialist system.

I remember many of these costly and doomed forays of the elitist, socialist moralizing. Along with the aforementioned homeless crisis, there have been the war on hunger, the war on poverty, the war on the population explosion, the war on pollution, the war on environmental catastrophes of one type or another, the war on DDT, the war on the unborn, the war on marriage and the family, the war on endangered species, the war on oil companies, the war on insurance companies, the war on drug companies, the war on energy companies, the war on auto companies, the war on Wall Street, the war on capitalism and corporations in general, the war on nuclear energy, the war on BT or biologically modified crops, the war on farmers, the war on beef, the war on religion, the war on wars, the war on the constitution, the war on the Boy Scouts, the war on home schools, the war on the white male, the war on drugs, the war on the death penalty, the war on McDonald’s and Wal-Mart, the war on carbon, the war on absolutes, truth and morals… just to name a few. Some of these fizzled right away while others became institutionalized.

Somehow, under the “commerce clause” in the U.S.Constitution, the federal government has expanded to cover crises in education, labor, endangered species, hate crimes, even the amount of water per flush and the carbon emissions per engine cycle.

In almost every case, there is a declared moral imperative to resolve the perceived crisis by government intervention, usually in the form of regulations that require new bureaucratic organizations that never, ever disappear, even when the “crisis” itself is found bogus and disappears. This has resulted in a government that is parasitic on the private sector to the point of near collapse, an effect that seems to have an accelerating arrival time. But that will not stop the generation of an all-new crisis, one that has a declared acute moral imperative to be resolved by more government expenditures and more bureaucrats.

I’m just not sure what that crisis is, yet.

Massimo Fixes Democracy

Massimo Pigliucci is not just an Atheist, he is also a Leftist so far over that he cannot even see that there is another side to the discussion. He has taken on the “American democracy is rotting” problem from a fairly predictable vantage point – except that this time I actually agree with a couple of things he says. Well, almost on one, anyway.

Massimo lists eight basic issues, their cause and solution. But he numbers just the first 5.

1. Corporations are not individuals and shouldn’t be treated like they are. He is particularly incensed at Republicans in the Supreme Court for this travesty.

Massimo seems to forget that news media are all corporations, and have long been so. He seems to have confused this issue with another one, lobbying. I seriously doubt that he would support not taxing corporations on their incomes just like they are individuals. Denying corporations the right to defend the issues surrounding their existence and their investors sounds like a typical generic Leftist attack on the generic “hated corporations”. Corporations are not lifeless; they are composed of groups of individuals, just as are unions and newspapers and television media – which also benefited from this Supreme Court decision.

2. Lobbying is bribery. All non-individual petitions to the government should be stopped.

Well, that should certainly put the hurt on the environmentalists, unions, rights groups, George Soros and his blizzard of shell groups, etc. Well, of course the rich individuals could spend their lives petitioning. And the lawyers would certainly be glad to sue in their behalf, over and over. And others could chip in for the effort, say corporations, unions, etc.

3. The filibuster is an idiotic and undemocratic tool.

Except a short while ago, when the minority Democrats loved it to death! And vowed their lives and fortunes to protect it. It’s sort of like free speech and dissent; they love it when they're in the minority and hate it when they're the majority. Well, soon enough they will love it again.

4. Two Senators per state is “completely absurd” and an insult to Democracy. Why should Wyoming get the same number of senators as does NY (Massimo’s home state)?

Well, that’s exactly why the House of Representatives exists, Massimo. Maybe we should eliminate the Senate altogether? That would sure help solve problem #2, and #3. (Can House members filibuster? I know they take bribes.) Wait we can solve it completely by eliminating the House of Representatives, too. OK. I'm in. No more laws. Use the ones we've got, or better yet just the Constitution.

5. Two party system: we need more parties.

Parties are created to fill a need, just like any free market. Maybe that’s why Massimo hates it. It’s not the system, it’s the public, which has been de-educated by the social engineers of the Left. The public just won’t vote for libertarians and greenies; if they would, then there would be big parties for those groups. Now if we ban ALL parties, I'm in. Just individuals, standing on their principles and records.

It’s the same market thing as Liberal radio. Liberal radio goes under because no one is listening. Conservative radio does well, so the Left wants to control it. The market should drive such things, not a bunch of Leftist elitists.

6. No personal financing for campaigns: public financing only.

Whoa. The Trial Lawyers, environmentalists, and George Soros won’t like that one – unless they can use the obvious loop hole of campaigning for issues, not for/against candidates like they already do. This one is DOA: it is meaningless in the overall scheme of reality.

7. Automatic and permanent voter registration upon reaching age.

I actually think I might agree with this, providing adequate birth certification is provided. This would help prevent voter fraud, unless the computer records get hacked and / or stuffed with fake people. But it might be just a new target for activist fraud.

Oh yes, and Republicans are “nakedly dishonest when they invoke voter fraud”.

Now that is outrageous and ignorant on its face.

8. Voting should take place over two days.

Why? Um, just …. Why?

Massimo thinks the rot he smells in his new homeland would disappear if folks would just fix numbers 1 through 5.

To me this is so superficial as to be almost laughable, if it did not come from such a person of prominence. He makes no mention of the system of entitlement that is enforced by Leftist policies of victimology, and maleducation directed from the Left, and the wild congressional spending that produces lush retirements for aging politicians as they glean corporate consulting fees as a reward for their largesse. He makes no mention of a media, corrupt and functional purely as trumpets for only the Leftist agenda. He makes no mention of open borders, hordes of illegals, and he actually claims that voter fraud is a Republican fraud.

Sometimes it appears that Massimo merely types a stream-of-consciousness post, and then doesn’t go back and think about it. At least that’s my hypothesis.

Alinsky-Cloward-Piven-Obama: Finally it has a Name

I admit to not being familiar with Cloward-Piven until recently. These contemporaries of Saul Alinsky were socialist activists with a plan. The actual objectives of the Cloward-Piven Strategy, as it is now called, were not as wide sweeping as the nation’s Leftist political strategists of today are enjoying. But the strategy has worked and it is still viable for the bigger picture under Obama. Cloward-Piven wanted a single objective: a guaranteed universal living wage. This would end poverty, and the morality of that end justified any means to get it.

In order to get such a thing, they proposed to overload the welfare system with double the number of poor people demanding their entitlement “rights”. This would overload the system, eventually crashing it. The result would bring the poverty stricken minorities together in angry, chaotic strikes at the remaining bureaucracies. The Leftist journalism outlets would generate sympathy for the poor, both in the general populace and in the government. In the chaos of the crisis caused by the deliberate system crash, politicians would suddenly see that a guaranteed universal living wage was the only solution.

The Cloward-Piven "manifesto" is reprinted at discoverthenetworks.com:

”A series of welfare drives in large cities would, we believe, impel action on a new federal program to distribute income, eliminating the present public welfare system and alleviating the abject poverty which it perpetrates. Widespread campaigns to register the eligible poor for welfare aid, and to help existing recipients obtain their full benefits, would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments. These disruptions would generate severe political strains, and deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the white working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor. To avoid a further weakening of that historic coalition, a national Democratic administration would be con-strained to advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas. By the internal disruption of local bureaucratic practices, by the furor over public welfare poverty, and by the collapse of current financing arrangements, powerful forces can be generated for major economic reforms at the national level.”


The ultimate aim of this strategy is a new program for direct income distribution. What reason is there to expect that the federal government will enact such legislation in response to a crisis in the welfare system?

We ordinarily think of major legislation as taking form only through established electoral processes We tend to overlook the force of crisis in precipitating legislative reform, partly because we lack a theoretical framework by which to understand the impact of major disruptions.

By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention. Public trouble is a political liability, it calls for action by political leaders to stabilize the situation. Because crisis usually creates or exposes conflict, it threatens to produce cleavages in a political consensus which politicians will ordinarily act to avert."

How could they have anticipated their good fortune to have an Alinsky organizer elected president – by huge minority support – as well as a Democratic congress so controlled that even filibuster was ruled out, at least for Obama’s first year. Plus the existing crisis of collapsing financing and economic systems brought on by purposeful “American Dream” legislation which seemed to be actually designed to create collapse, what more could a crisis strategist want?

With every federal move destined to exacerbate the crisis, and grabbing more means through health care “reform” to create a new crisis, Alinsky-Cloward-Pimm-Obama (ACPO) seemed destined for success.

When viewed in light of this type of strategy, a great preponderance of Democratic moves make sense. And even if the great collapse doesn’t come immediately, the momentum toward the wall has been increased considerably.

The ultimate failure of the entire nation now seems to be within the grasp of the ACPO's. Merely by drunkenly spending the nation into a completely unrecompensible debt, the nation's systems of all types will be stressed to the failing point.





According to an analysis at discoverthenetworks.com,

"Cloward and Piven recruited a militant black organizer named George Wiley to lead their new movement. In the summer of 1967, Wiley founded the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO). His tactics closely followed the recommendations set out in Cloward and Piven's article. His followers invaded welfare offices across the United States -- often violently -- bullying social workers and loudly demanding every penny to which the law "entitled" them. By 1969, NWRO claimed a dues-paying membership of 22,500 families, with 523 chapters across the nation.

Regarding Wiley's tactics, The New York Times commented on September 27, 1970, "There have been sit-ins in legislative chambers, including a United States Senate committee hearing, mass demonstrations of several thousand welfare recipients, school boycotts, picket lines, mounted police, tear gas, arrests - and, on occasion, rock-throwing, smashed glass doors, overturned desks, scattered papers and ripped-out phones."These methods proved effective. "The flooding succeeded beyond Wiley's wildest dreams," writes Sol Stern in the City Journal. "From 1965 to 1974, the number of households on welfare soared from 4.3 million to 10.8 million, despite mostly flush economic times. By the early 1970s, one person was on the welfare rolls in New York City for every two working in the city's private economy."As a direct result of its massive welfare spending, New York City was forced to declare bankruptcy in 1975. The entire state of New York nearly went down with it. The Cloward-Piven strategy had proved its effectiveness."

Within the ACPO strategy, even such things as the constant decline in public education, the erosion of national sovereignty, the ignoring of constitutional limits, the pursuit of victimology as policy, as well as purposeful fiscal irresponsibility all come into focus. The Consequentialist Left is in their heyday; perhaps they have squandered it in Massachussetts, perhaps not. They are on the move in a big way.