The American Prospect

[Zeno]

I just received a great letter from Robert Reich, founder of The American Prospect, shown below:

__________________________________________________ _____


Dear Reader,

A most critical election is upon us. Radical conservatives now have wall-to-wall control of the federal government. The results? A rogue foreign policy, the wreckage of our civil liberties and a tax policy that rewards the rich and sacks the economy.

Now, more than ever, liberals need some creativity and some spine, some convictions and some courage. The magazine that I founded and help edit, The American Prospect, is a blueprint for a progressive resurgence. When the conservative experiment fails – and it will fail – the next generation of liberal leaders will look to the ideas that you can read today in The American Prospect.

I write a column in every issue of the Prospect. I’m also a faithful reader of it. I depend on the other articles in the Prospect for cutting-edge ideas, thoughtful campaign analysis and for exposés about the scoundrels who are running the country.

Magazines like ours are communities of thinkers and activists. They are often the sources of political ideas and movements that can change history and restore hope. Won’t you join our community?

Sincerely,

Robert Reich

__________________________________________________ ____


This tract has finally made me see the light. I have been praying to the wrong person all this time!!! Robert Reich is the proper person to pray to, not the amorphous noun God. Robert Reich will lead us all down to the River Jordan to be baptized with the 'blueprint for a progressive resurgence', and then the community will cross over into the Promised Land.

I have seen the error of my ways; I have been saved. Amen. Robert Reich is my Lord and Savoir and the New Messiah for the New Millennium.

Won’t you join me in this new community that will change history and restore hope? I hope so.

Now, Let Us Pray.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
This tract has finally made me see the light. I have been praying to the wrong person all this time!!! Robert Reich is the proper person to pray to, not the amorphous noun God. Robert Reich will lead us all down to the River Jordan to be baptized with the 'blueprint for a progressive resurgence', and then the community will cross over into the Promised Land.

I have seen the error of my ways; I have been saved. Amen. Robert Reich is my Lord and Savoir and the New Messiah for the New Millennium.

Won’t you join me in this new community that will change history and restore hope? I hope so.


[/ QUOTE ]

It has been my preception that people who go around making fun of the belief in a deity have unresolved issues they need to deal with.

Stu

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
It has been my preception that people who go around making fun of the belief in a deity have unresolved issues they need to deal with.


[/ QUOTE ]

First, you misunderstand the reason for the post. The interconnection of politics and religion occurs at various levels and I find it more than just a little interesting. From language use to themes and tones in speaking and writing politics and religion share a common ground that goes back deep into human history and probably deep into the human psyche.

Second, making fun of the belief in a deity is useful and does not necessarily tie into ‘unresolved issues’ whatever that is suppose to mean. It is those that proclaim that they have ALL the answers and no ‘unresolved issues’ that have, more often than not, caused much of the ills that inflict the human race. If you mean I have some personal ‘unresolved issues’ thanks for the concern but I submit that your perception is off in this case, at least for the subject at hand.

Third, Religion and the belief in a deity is not something sacrosanct. There is no reason to show any more respect to religious opinions (including the belief in a deity) than other opinions get. Indeed, there is every reason to suspect that they should get a great deal less respect, say as a belief in astrology and numerology should. One reason rational discourse is so seldom seen in the area of religion is the societal convention that one must respect every person's opinion in the field of religion. This is nonsense of course but continues on unabated and always puts the ‘non-religious’ person at an immediate disadvantage in any debate and also in trying to knock some sanity into the world. I always opt for a vigorous offense and attack. Thus, I usually elicit the kind of response that you gave; that somehow something must be wrong with me, perhaps you should switch this around and look at yourself instead.

-Zeno

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
First, you misunderstand the reason for the post. The interconnection of politics and religion occurs at various levels and I find it more than just a little interesting. From language use to themes and tones in speaking and writing politics and religion share a common ground that goes back deep into human history and probably deep into the human psyche.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now your trying to spin it. The truth is you were simply ridiculing the belief in a diety.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, making fun of the belief in a deity is useful and does not necessarily tie into ‘unresolved issues’ whatever that is suppose to mean....... I usually elicit the kind of response that you gave

[/ QUOTE ]

You get that response because you are ridiculing something that is perfectly natural to man. Go to KFC and ridicule people for eating chicken. Many of the patrons would dismiss you as nutball as they continue to order their 15 piece buckets. If you instead wrote an article making an argument that Tofu is much healthier than chicken, people might still disagree with you, but at least they would still view you with respect.

Stu

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Now your trying to spin it. The truth is you were simply ridiculing the belief in a deity.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. I have made similar post in the past with the same themes. No spin at all, I both ridicule politics and religion (this includes a belief in a deity). They are interconnected in my opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
You get that response because you are ridiculing something that is perfectly natural to man.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is your assumption not mine. It may be 'natural' but that does not necessarily mean that it is rational or good or overall makes people better human beings. In fact a perusal of history would show the opposite. We are currently living in a time when the facts speak in my favor and not yours.

[ QUOTE ]
If you instead wrote an article making an argument that Tofu is much healthier than chicken, people might still disagree with you, but at least they would still view you with respect.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am too naturally sarcastic and admit that I may come off badly sometimes but I make no more apologies in this direction. I made a post about this some months back. But, to put it succinctly morals and/or ethics are better applied through the use of intelligence and not superstition and fear. Thus, the base for right action is more civil and genuine and not driven by a credulous belief in arbitrary entities (God(s)) or imposed from above by some interpretive authority (Priest craft). In addition, when morals and ethics are driven by intelligent societal self-interest and a feeling of reciprocity humanity would be better off. Religions in general get lost in arcane theology and political and social entanglements and become more harmful than productive to this end. But this could be a very long and involved discussion and a short post simply cannot cover all the ground.


The respect issue is beside the point. It you do not respect my posts then do not response to them. I think that you fear an attack on your cherished beliefs and you take it personally. You should not. I have enjoyed many of your posts. You just have to get use to the fact that I am a misanthrope. In addition, I want to state that I am not in the conversion business. I advocate a skeptical outlook but will simple state my position and that is all.

I can start a different post if you want with a different starting point if you wish to discuss the above issues or you can start one on your own.

Le Misantrope

[Dynasty]

Although I disagree with him most of the time, I respect Robert Reich. He's a true liberal believer. That's a hell of a lot better than being a common political opportunist.

But, he's so liberal even Massachusetts wouldn't elect him to office in 2002.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
It may be 'natural' but that does not necessarily mean that it is rational or good or overall makes people better human beings. In fact a perusal of history would show the opposite. We are currently living in a time when the facts speak in my favor and not yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that the facts show that as the belief in God is removed from society, the propensity of man to commit evil increases. A perusal of the history of the 20th century speaks in my favor and not yours. I am certain that the positive effects of religion have outweighed the negatives; more so than my belief in God Himself.

Stu

[The once and future king]

As far as I can see belief in god is a major cause of the evil inflicting our world right now.

We have a conflict between secular modern civilisations and tribal religous groups.

Or did you mean belief in a certian god by a certain people.

[Zeno]

A Robert Reich article: The Politics of One America (http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=8353 )

[ QUOTE ]
But, he's so liberal even Massachusetts wouldn't elect him to office in 2002.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that is a shocker.

-Zeno

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that the facts show that as the belief in God is removed from society, the propensity of man to commit evil increases.

[/ QUOTE ]

All societies have an overwhemiling majority of people that believe in 'God' and this majority has been constant throughout time. I cannot recall exact numbers at the moment but I have seen polls that put belief in God or some deity at close to 95%. This was probably for America and the numbers vary by country but it is near this in most other countries also, or at least very high. So the belief in God is not at all 'removed from society'. I do not think this occurs on any large scale.

To use an historical example to illustrate the opposite of what you proposed, the slaughter of Jews and Gypsies by Nazi Germany was perpetrated by a predominately Christian people, with both a Protestant and Catholic background. No removal of a belief in God was necessary to accomplish this feat. In fact, the antecedent for the ease at which this was done is found in Christianity itself.

-Zeno

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
To use an historical example to illustrate the opposite of what you proposed, the slaughter of Jews and Gypsies by Nazi Germany was perpetrated by a predominately Christian people, with both a Protestant and Catholic background. No removal of a belief in God was necessary to accomplish this feat.


[/ QUOTE ]

Darwin inspired eugenics was the driving force behind the Nazis quest to exterminate the Jews not Christianity. While not a truely atheistic ideology, they Nazis were certainly moving in that direction.

The Soviet Union and Communist China committed even more horrific crimes. Their ideologies are purely atheistic.

Stu

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Darwin inspired eugenics was the driving force behind the Nazis quest to exterminate the Jews not Christianity. While not a truely atheistic ideology, they Nazis were certainly moving in that direction.



[/ QUOTE ]

I do not agree with your assessment. See The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L. Shirer.

[ QUOTE ]
The Soviet Union and Communist China committed even more horrific crimes. Their ideologies are purely atheistic.


[/ QUOTE ]

China and the former Soviet Union were a combination of Marxism/Leninism and Maoism with other socialist ideologies blended in along with the fact that the background histories of both countries contributed to how the governments evolved and played out. They were (are) also despotic regimes run by tyrants. Atheism was and is a sidebar to all of this. So I again disagree with your assessment. In addition, atheism is not a governmental ideology or a basis for governmental actions or functions. It is by definition a lack of belief in a deity.

-Zeno

[MMMMMM]

I have not read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, but some years ago I did read most of Mein Kampf, and my impression was that Hitler's ideology was based more on the notions of racial superiority/inferiority and cultural superiority/inferiority, than on religion.

Also, given the Soviets' and Red Chinese's brutal oppressions of religion, I would guess that atheism was a bit more than just a sidebar, though it was certainly by no means their central tenet.

Since vast numbers of both religious and non-religious have done great evils for various reasons, I think that existence of religious belief, or lack thereof, is not the most indicative of such propensities. I will mull over what be the most indicative (it could well be lack of reflection, or lack of a meditative sort of quietness; in other words, propensity to reaction rather than reflection. In this vein I will note that among the religious, mystics seem generally to be the most peaceful, and among the more worldy types, the "busier" and more "worldy" they are, the more likely they may be to hasty violence. In short I think that when the mind and heart and soul get little or no rest, the being itself becomes coarser, and more inclined to treat others coarsely).

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Third, Religion and the belief in a deity is not something sacrosanct. There is no reason to show any more respect to religious opinions (including the belief in a deity) than other opinions get. Indeed, there is every reason to suspect that they should get a great deal less respect, say as a belief in astrology and numerology should. One reason rational discourse is so seldom seen in the area of religion is the societal convention that one must respect every person's opinion in the field of religion. This is nonsense of course but continues on unabated and always puts the ‘non-religious’ person at an immediate disadvantage in any debate and also in trying to knock some sanity into the world. I always opt for a vigorous offense and attack. Thus, I usually elicit the kind of response that you gave; that somehow something must be wrong with me, perhaps you should switch this around and look at yourself instead.

You da man!!! /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Zeno]

Some general comments:

It is true that oppression of religion was widespread in the two largest despotic states of the twentieth century. But this, in my opinion, has more to do with the general control and subjugation of the people in all aspects of their lives. It did not stem strictly from atheism, however you wish to defined it. But arguments can be made either way on this I suppose.


Other aspects that are clearly important are the distinctions between 'the leaders' and what they believe or say they believe, what the people believe and what ’the leaders’ can ultimately ‘get from’ the population. To put it bluntly - without the widespread anti-Semitism that has a long history in Europe (and elsewhere) it would have been much harder for the Nazi leadership to accomplish what they did on such a massive scale. European Christian history, views, thinking, and theology, whether official or not, greatly contributed to this. But there are various antecedents and influences to Nazism and Hitler. Two persons memtioned by shirer that are not widely known are Count Joseph Arthur de Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain.



[ QUOTE ]
In this vein I will note that among the religious, mystics seem generally to be the most peaceful, and among the more worldy types, the "busier" and more "worldy" they are, the more likely they may be to hasty violence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of interest is Sufism. Sufism link (http://www.arches.uga.edu/~godlas/Sufism.html) This is a mystical form of islam. What would happen if there were an upsurge of this form of islamic thinking as a type of reformation within it?

It is also interesting that 'mystical sects' of different religions tend to converge in many respects. As a type of unity with 'God' by stripping away of the self.

-Zeno

[Zeno]

How do say thank you in Klingon?

-Zeno