Noah's Ark

[PassedOut]

Isn't it astounding that Republicans accuse Obama of starting some sort of class-war by wanting to raise taxes on "rich" people?

Astounding and obnoxious. They learned to use 1984 double-speak, and now do it all the time.

[Winstonm]

It seems that you consider the Obama administration indistinguishable in many ways from the one it replaced. I expect Obama to defend the US against the republicans in this political war. Are you skeptical about that too?

 

I am of the opinion that the corruption of our country is absolute and irreversable - a sad state of affairs to leave to my progeny. I believe it totally impossible for a high-ranking official to be elected from a grassroots movement, that all are managed to a degree by the various moneyed lobbys. This is no less true of the current President, I am certain.

 

I blame this breakdown most on changes in the press. It is simply too difficult and time-consuming for most citizens to weave together the various sources that attempt to present and understand unmanipulated data when the bulk of the press simply repeats the propaganda it is sent.

 

A classic example of this illusion of truth is the Social Security propganda that came from the Reagan cabal in 1983. I bet not 1 in a 1000 US citizens have a clue as to condition of the SS funds in 1983 when Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan issued dire warnings how SS would run out of money and so payroll taxes had to be increased then to pay that future burden - when all that really happened was that the increases were used to fund the Reagan tax cuts for business and the wealthy. SS itself was not in dire straights at all - however, as a result of the Reagan tax cuts, the deficit in the general budget was enormous.

 

This type of SS payroll tax proposed by the Presidential committee hits hardest the middleclass and lower incomces. The committee who came up with this plan was headed by Alan Greenspan, later named Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

 

At the time of this conference/commitee, SS was not in any threat of imminent collapse, yet both political parties agreed to the proposed hike and gave themselves 8 additional years (from 1964 until 1992) to use (rob) the increases in payroll taxes to reduce the deficit in the general fund. (After 1992, they still did it but it was officially illegal to do, so the law was simply ignored.)

 

So to recap, Alan Greenspan's influence helped shape a payroll tax increase on middleclass and lower income Americans that was used not to bolster the SS fund as claimed but was instead used to subsidize the tax reductions for businesses and the wealthy that were critical to Reagan's agenda.

 

It was one of the greatest transferences of wealth ever to occur - from the poor to the wealthy - yet the illusion is still observed that Reagan and Greenspan were legendary enemies of higher taxes.

[PassedOut]

If a majority of Americans believed that working on the Sabbath was immoral, you'd be OK with laws that make it illegal to work on Sundays?

Don't you mean Saturdays?

[bid_em_up]

There are (obviously) any number of threads where I bash fundamentalists of one stripe or another.  I'm pretty ecumenical about this...  I can point to threads where I express my contempt for

 

Fundamentalist Christians

Fundamentalist Muslims

Fundamentalist Jews

Fundamentalists Hindus

Fundamentalist Mormons

Scientologists (in general)

I might have even pissed on Shinto's at one point or another (hard to recall)

 

I make no bones about my beliefs on this topic.  I consider religious fundamentalists down right dangerous.  I don't have much use for libertarians, conservatives, and the like.

 

I think Richard confuses Fundamentalists with fanatics and zealots.

[Lobowolf]

But it's not fine for people to impose their religious beliefs on others through law.

I think it depends what you mean by "beliefs." Certainly, beliefs themselves shouldn't be imposed on people; but laws based on those beliefs are a different thing. Laws are based on people's moral ideals. I don't see a substantive difference between murder's being illegal because atheists and/or agnostics thinking it's "wrong" (or "undesirable" on a utilitarian basis), and its being legal because Christians believe it's wrong because of the Biblical commandment. We vote our morality, whether it's from the Bible, a philosophical text, or just the Golden Rule. The source of one's moral beliefs doesn't disqualify him or her from political participation.

If a majority of Americans believed that working on the Sabbath was immoral, you'd be OK with laws that make it illegal to work on Sundays?

What do you mean by "ok with"? There are all sorts of laws I'm not "ok with" in the sense that I strongly disagree with them; on the other hand, I'm "ok with" them in the sense that I support the process by which laws come into existence, even those I disgree with. That certainly includes constitutionality checks, btw. I'm certainly very much "ok with" the First Amendment, including both it's freedom OF and FROM religion.

 

I believe it's the broader point that's important, though. You very frequently hear the catch phrase "You can't legislate morality." Of course you can. And of course you should. You're legislating morality when you set a tax structure by which money taken from a subset of people is used to fund education. Or public housing. Or the military. Other than First Amendment constraints on the establishment of religion, there's no difference in principle between supporting the leglisation of morality that derives from a religious belief, and supporting the legislation of morality that doesn't.

[helene_t]

Well said, Lobowolf.

[Winstonm]

Certainly, beliefs themselves shouldn't be imposed on people; but laws based on those beliefs are a different thing. Laws are based on people's moral ideals.

 

I don't think this entirely correct - in my view, laws are an extension of the beliefs of those who hold power. There are Jews and Christians living in Iran, but they are subject to Islamic law because Islamics are in power. The moral ideals are determined by belief in the religion, not vice-versa.

[PassedOut]

whether or not i believe that noah's ark occurred in the way the bible describes it, and for the reasons given in the bible, has absolutely no bearing on my reasoning abilities or my opinions of other matters

Such beliefs evidence a willingness to accept propositions without sufficient evidence.

[Phil]

whether or not i believe that noah's ark occurred in the way the bible describes it, and for the reasons given in the bible, has absolutely no bearing on my reasoning abilities or my opinions of other matters

Such beliefs evidence a willingness to accept propositions without sufficient evidence.

Thus the word, 'beliefs'.

[jdonn]

So to recap, Alan Greenspan's influence helped shape a payroll tax increase on middleclass and lower income Americans that was used not to bolster the SS fund as claimed but was instead used to subsidize the tax reductions for businesses and the wealthy that were critical to Reagan's agenda.

 

It was one of the greatest transferences of wealth ever to occur - from the poor to the wealthy - yet the illusion is still observed that Reagan and Greenspan were legendary enemies of higher taxes.

And therefore you are certain the current president is irreversibly and absolutely corrupt?

[Winstonm]

It comes as no surprise that the Republican party and its Straussian brethren control the Christian Right:

 

The goal of the wise is to ennoble the vulgar. But what could possibly ennoble the vulgar? Only weeping, worshipping, and sacrificing could ennoble the masses.

 

Religion and war - perpetual war - would lift the masses from the animality of bourgeois consumption and the pre-occupation with "creature comforts." Instead of personal happiness, they would live their lives in perpetual sacrifice to God and the nation

[Winstonm]

So to recap, Alan Greenspan's influence helped shape a payroll tax increase on middleclass and lower income Americans that was used not to bolster the SS fund as claimed but was instead used to subsidize the tax reductions for businesses and the wealthy that were critical to Reagan's agenda.

 

It was one of the greatest transferences of wealth ever to occur - from the poor to the wealthy - yet the illusion is still observed that Reagan and Greenspan were legendary enemies of higher taxes.

And therefore you are certain the current president is irreversibly and absolutely corrupt?

No, I believe our system and institutions are irreversibly and absolutely corrupt.

 

Btw, I am not alone in these thoughts - it appears Glenn Greenwald is fed up, as well:

 

Nonetheless, despite allegations of criminality far less extensive than those that have been made against the U.S., their political system is compelling serious investigations into these crimes.  That's because for countries that aren't completely corrupted to their core, political leaders aren't free to commit serious crimes and then simply be shielded from investigation and accountability.  Credible allegations of high-level criminality -- and only the hardest-core Bush followers deny that we have that -- compel criminal investigations

[luke warm]

Certainly, beliefs themselves shouldn't be imposed on people; but laws based on those beliefs are a different thing. Laws are based on people's moral ideals.

 

I don't think this entirely correct - in my view, laws are an extension of the beliefs of those who hold power. There are Jews and Christians living in Iran, but they are subject to Islamic law because Islamics are in power. The moral ideals are determined by belief in the religion, not vice-versa.

might makes right, winston?

whether or not i believe that noah's ark occurred in the way the bible describes it, and for the reasons given in the bible, has absolutely no bearing on my reasoning abilities or my opinions of other matters

Such beliefs evidence a willingness to accept propositions without sufficient evidence.

and that addresses the point how, exactly?

[PassedOut]

whether or not i believe that noah's ark occurred in the way the bible describes it, and for the reasons given in the bible, has absolutely no bearing on my reasoning abilities or my opinions of other matters

Such beliefs evidence a willingness to accept propositions without sufficient evidence.

and that addresses the point how, exactly?

It increases the likelyhood that your reasoning and opinions run counter to the evidence.

[Winstonm]

might makes right, winston?

 

Is Dick Cheney in prison?

 

You may view what I wrote in idealistic fashion and think I meant that might makes right; I, however, believe it is simply the pragmatist's view that might's rightness or wrongness simply goes unchallenged.

 

There is difference between what is right and what is real. We live in a world of reality.

[blackshoe]

So all those parents who, over the millenia, tried to teach their children to do the right thing were wasting their time?

 

Should the Golden Rule really read "Do unto others before they do unto you"?

[luke warm]

whether or not i believe that noah's ark occurred in the way the bible describes it, and for the reasons given in the bible, has absolutely no bearing on my reasoning abilities or my opinions of other matters

Such beliefs evidence a willingness to accept propositions without sufficient evidence.

and that addresses the point how, exactly?

It increases the likelyhood that your reasoning and opinions run counter to the evidence.

you seem to be saying that a belief in the bible's account of noah's ark is proof that a person's reasoning in other matters is more apt to be false... do you see the problem with that?

[Al_U_Card]

Evidence is not stereotyping.

[Winstonm]

So all those parents who, over the millenia, tried to teach their children to do the right thing were wasting their time?

 

Should the Golden Rule really read "Do unto others before they do unto you"?

Do you think the golden rule is universally accepted and taught? Do you think the children of Machiavelli were taught to "do unto others as" or "do unto other before"?

[PassedOut]

you seem to be saying that a belief in the bible's account of noah's ark is proof that a person's reasoning in other matters is more apt to be false... do you see the problem with that?

I'm saying that people who form conclusions based on evidence are more likely to be correct than those who do not.

[PassedOut]

So all those parents who, over the millenia, tried to teach their children to do the right thing were wasting their time?

No. People do not need to accept myths as truths in order to teach children to do the right thing. Many of the myths are good stories and teach children useful lessons. That does not make them true.

[Winstonm]

Lukewarm said:

you seem to be saying that a belief in the bible's account of noah's ark is proof that a person's reasoning in other matters is more apt to be false... do you see the problem with that?

 

 

Passed out said:

It increases the likelyhood that your reasoning and opinions run counter to the evidence. 

 

And I ask: Jimmy, could you refresh our memories about your positions on evolution and Intelligent Design?

[mikeh]

whether or not i believe that noah's ark occurred in the way the bible describes it, and for the reasons given in the bible, has absolutely no bearing on my reasoning abilities or my opinions of other matters

Such beliefs evidence a willingness to accept propositions without sufficient evidence.

and that addresses the point how, exactly?

It increases the likelyhood that your reasoning and opinions run counter to the evidence.

you seem to be saying that a belief in the bible's account of noah's ark is proof that a person's reasoning in other matters is more apt to be false... do you see the problem with that?

What's tragic and comic, at the same time, is that Jimmy actually doesn't see the connection :)

[blackshoe]

Do you think the golden rule is universally accepted and taught? Do you think the children of Machiavelli were taught to "do unto others as" or "do unto other before"?

I have no idea what Machiavelli taught his children. Or even if he had any.

 

I do know how I would wish to teach my own children.

[helene_t]

So all those parents who, over the millenia, tried to teach their children to do the right thing were wasting their time?

 

Should the Golden Rule really read "Do unto others before they do unto you"?

I don't see how you can reach that conclusion.

 

I don't know much about development psychology, but intuitively I would think that having been taught the moral norms generally accepted in the society one grows up in, increases the chance of happiness. I am sure there are examples of professions in which it is better not to be constrained by ethics, but I think those would be exceptions. ("Vice president under G.W." may or may not be such an example, I dunno).