Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

There is progress in philosophy as in everything else. Think of it in other branches of knowledge.

An average medical doctor from today is better than the best doctor from 1850. The modern doctor is not smarter or more skilled but he stands on the shoulders of his predecessors.

The greatest mathematician of the year 1300 couldn’t pass a high school math class. He would have no concept of probability or statistics, calculus would be like alchemy to him.

There are technologies of the mind and they develop. If you read Plato today - and don’t supplement him with something else - it is very primitive. In fact, you really wouldn’t want to read Plato for any but antiquarian interest.

Philosophy never finds truth, but as time goes on and more people contribute we can come closer to truth. It is a cumulative effort. The best we can do in the real world is find what is useful. Ultimate truth is the province of faith.

I have to say this is the first article I actually enjoyed under the red column.

No offense but I believe anybody who can read through the entire above article without dozing off seriously needs to do something else for a while.

Aldous,

Agreed!

I concur…

Okay granted I did have a lapse into other thought while sort of perusing it with my eyes.

IS History more useful than philosophy? Hmm okay I’ll take a whack! Now philosophy generally is a body of ideals that if made adherant changes ones perspective. Hmm okay and history if one looks he or she shall find things that they don’t want to repeat, hmm again.

Screw it, I’m gonna take a nap.

Is this why Humans live by their version of what right (philosophy) is instead of what history has proven what is right? Sorry, but Nature rules sate that you must have an action to have consequences and history by design is suppose to record the truth. Which by some in our political arena would like to rewrite if they could. Opps, like that hasn’t beeh tried before.

Hi Chris,

There is a description of a scene at a cocktail party in the book “Pnin” by Vladamir Nabokav that you might enjoy.

At this party are a professor of the History of Philosophy and a professor of the Philosophy of History who are engaged in a bitter argument.

I don’t see how or why one would seperate philosphy from history. History is, in large part, a history of ideas which is to say that History is applied philosophy.

Is it any surprise that our left-leaning friends here all find themselves suffering bouts of narcolepsy when a post consists of more than partisan talking points? I wish I could say that it WAS a surprise. The capacity for nuance and sophisticated thought may not be the sole provence of conservatives, but it sure seems so sometimes.

Chris, I don’t know what the context was for the conversation with your friend, but it sounds like the two of your were basing your debate on what the philosopher Gilbert Ryle calls a “category error.” In other words, the disagreement was really about semantics. It sounds to me like you were meaning to have a much simpler discussion about the relative merits of theory (which you were calling philosophy) or practice (which you were calling history. The problem is that history and philosophy as intellecutal pursuits don’t really stay on either side of the theory/pracice fence (unless you’re talking metaphysics or epistomology, and perhaps not even then).

History and philosophy may be separate subjects in school, but it’s not easy to untangle them once you read deeply in either. Philosophy has five generally agreed upon branches, and history has more branches than that, but all require a tremendous amount of attention to both theoretical questions and how they’ve been applied (and after they’ve been applied, they recycle themselves again as theory).

Chris, great article and I followed it with great interest. I am unclear however, of what your last 3 sentences imply.

What attacks from the outside are you referring to, and who sponsors them, specifically? Are you referring to those who hold out knowledge without every questioning its underlying premises? That would include just about everyone who has never studied philosophy or the fundamental precepts of religious thought.

Jack is wrong about Plato and the Pre-Socratics. What they offer is still of immense relevance today. What they offered was a rationale and benefit for questioning what most would consider unquestionable. And too, their context demonstrated that the origins of western philosophy is rooted in the very real endeavor of solving real world problems humans face.

I shall never forget the origins of philosophical thought of Ancient Greeks, the need to predict storms on the Aegean Sea in order to give order and profitability for shipping and insurance of that shipping on the Sea. This real world commercial need sowed the seeds of philosophical inquiry as to whether the sea and skies were in fact reflective of the emotional temperaments of the Gods, or if there were discernible physical world causes and effects which would permit risk assessment as to when to set sail or not upon the Aegean with valuable cargo. Since the God’s temperaments and tantrums were never, and could never be predictable to humans, the latter view of the physical world as cause and effect of fire, wind, and water if valid, would have immense importance of profit and risk diminishment if such relationships of cause and effect could be established.

Today, this inquiry as to what is the province of the physical world and what is the province of the God’s, is as acute with as great an import to economics, governance, and prosperity as in 600 BC Athens. If this is the relevance of your article to political thought and activity today, Chris, then I applaud and agree with the importance of your article.

“More overarching discipline?”

What should be seen is that the historian has won this bout if that is the question. Philosophy has an inanity to it’s pertainance and history is essentially the more tangible of the two with very few philosophical reverberrations throughout history if you are to look at it as a whole. Ideals present, yes, need related drives, yes, but philosophy no. But the question was as to ‘discipline’, correct? My answer would have to be need derived in it’s tangeancy that would draw the conclusion of more discipline.

But as to ‘overarching’ the historian won as that is the only place where findings can be current and thus the greater need for discipline. If a philosopher has discipline or none there is still no substance for him to have substance of, it’s an intangeant. That’s the answer it’s all based on the need.

The question was in discipline so ‘the need’ wins and that is solely with the historian.

The philosopher is useless and probably overpaid as a person would only major in philosophy to teach philosophy and it is applicable nowhere else in the known world. It’s pseudo-logistical masterbation with a degree attached.

Now back to liberal punching points.

Novenge, that comment appears to me to be the the most nonsensical use of the english language I have heard since Yogi Berra invented the art form. I shall assume the comment was intended to display an ironic humor on the subject of mental masturbation.

Questioning the premises upon which real decisions are made is of no consequence? Was the premise of Black Americans being less human than White Americans a waste of philosophical inquiry?

How about the debate over the premises which define what science is, now raging across the land in State and local government jurisdictions? No, Philosophers are desperately needed today as much or more than ever, especially in light of monumental resistance by factions to the debate to examine the underlying premises and potential consequences of those premises for the future of our nation. If belief is to be adopted as a basis for science, then curriculums which teach purity of race as humankind’s salvation can be resurrected from the Nazi ash heap of WWII.

David,
I could not agree with you more so please allow me to put it into terms that Novenge can understand. Is the study of Future and Past acts of Human Nature be studied so that reasonable predictions can be made so that it will bear profit?

Novenge,
Look back at the turn of the last century when oil was first discoveried and the questions society needed to answer to move forward. Than look around you today and ask yourself if you want to learn from the mistakes made by those individuals and Powers-to-Be at the time based on their “Thinking” as well as following what has worked. Thus, the two must be taught as a set not one vs. another for attention if Humans are to learn and not just know.

Can any of you guys explain to me the philosophical and historical significance of this and what it says about American Society?

Even though the first explorers … had been warned about the heathen savages found in the “New World”, they found the First Peoples … more than willing to teach them how to survive and live well in their new surroundings… .

At the end of their first year, the Puritans held a great feast following the harvest of food from their new farming efforts. The feast honored Squanto and their friends, the Wampanoags. The feast was followed by 3 days of “thanksgiving” celebrating their good fortune. This feast produced the image of the first Thanksgiving that we all grew up with as children. However, things were doomed to change… .

An army of over 200 settlers was formed … Because of the lack of fighting experience, and the vast numbers of the fierce Pequot warriors, Commander John Mason elected not to stage an open battle. Instead, the Pequot were attacked, one village at a time, in the hours before dawn. Each village was set on fire with its sleeping Natives burned alive. Women and children over 14 were captured to be sold as slaves; other survivors were massacred… .

In 1641, the Dutch governor of Manhattan offered the first scalp bounty; a common practice in many European countries. This was broadened by the Puritans to include a bounty for Natives fit to be sold for slavery. The Dutch and Puritans joined forces to exterminate all Natives from New England, and village after village fell. Following an especially successful raid against the Pequot in what is now Stanford, Connecticut, the churches of Manhattan announced a day of “thanksgiving” to celebrate victory over the savages. This was the 2nd Thanksgiving. During the feasting, the hacked off heads of Natives were kicked through the streets of Manhattan like soccer balls.

The killing took on a frenzy, with days of thanksgiving being held after each successful massacre. Even the friendly Wampanoag did not escape. Their chief was beheaded, and his head placed on a pole in Plymouth, Massachusetts, where it remained for 24 years. Each town held thanksgiving days to celebrate their own victories over the Natives until it became clear that there needed to be an order to these special occasions. It was George Washington who finally brought a system and a schedule to thanksgiving when he declared one day to be celebrated across the nation as Thanksgiving Day.”
Thanksgiving: Its True History (East Texas Review, 25. Nov. 04)

The point is those things weren’t acts of philosophy. The african american issue as to the curved belief that blacks were worth less was apportioned by the need basis of the south to have a lesser workforce. The Nazi’s yes that was, Nietzche and his thought about a superman but also Mysticism that was of itself a philosophy in some ways as to their assertion of aryan supremacy via Atlantis/Vril etcetera.

Oil was need derived as to how we applied it and it’s not philosophy that arcs it back but the tangible effects and our response to the negative results as well as new ideas in response.

You do have a point in terms of the genetics issue and bio-ethics but it’s also a debate based on need. And it is not philosophy that comes up with need-driven advents it is a basis unto itself.

And instead of masterbation I should have probably said brandy-swirler as perhaps that is more fitting and less disturbing an image. But you are correct in saying that it has more pertainance to the issue of ‘future’ in some cases and in alot of cases it’s a false prognosis or prognostication entirely.

You say philosphy okay, but I say history because it’s mistakes are noted there thus without it doomed to repeat it(?)

But in the scale of history it is the need drives that have MORE WEIGHT. And that isn’t philosophy that is survival. Whether it’s feudalism or Civil Rights that is not philosophy that is need driven. The subjegation of blacks was philosophical as a disguised drive to have a cheap source of labor whether a nanny in a house or a blueberry picker in a field. The philosophy was a bluff and need driven as it’s undergird.

The communist revolution was need driven as well, horrible and deleterious as it was. There was a need an answer came a philosophy was applied but it was another wrong prognostication and hardly failsafe. Is the philosophy more important? No the history of what happened to those people during that passage in our history is. And THAT IS WHERE HISTORY TELLS US MORE ABOUT PHILOSOPHY—HUMAN RELATIVITY TO IT’S APPLICATION.

Now as to whether the philosophy of a history is more important than a history of philosophy I’d rather set foot on something less MOOT a point. The need is the winner and history it’s prize.

Yogi Berra.

Novenge,
Only if one is found to be right in words and actions is history the prize. Win by cheating the laws of Human Nature and history is your eternal curse.

ALSO, history can take a look at psychology (Yogi Berra indeed)philosophy can only speculate. Sociology has more pertainance and even that is a bit removed and macro-centered or generalizations centered. History tells a great deal about that too.

Henry, Nice save!

Oh wait, what are the “laws of human nature” Henry??? NEED and WANT.

Question-is philosophy just masked (repackaged) need and want?

Aldous,

Here is another version of the “REAL” Thanksgiving. Yours doesn’t seem so real somehow.

From the web.
http://sibbyonline.blogs.com

The real reason for Thanksgiving, deleted from the official story, is: Socialism does not work; the one and only source of abundance is free markets, and we thank God we live in a country where we can have them.

This is the ending to a Richard J. Maybury piece called, “The Great Thanksgiving Hoax”. Here is the introduction:

Each year at this time school children all over America are taught the official Thanksgiving story, and newspapers, radio, TV, and magazines devote vast amounts of time and space to it. It is all very colorful and fascinating.

It is also very deceiving. This official story is nothing like what really happened. It is a fairy tale, a whitewashed and sanitized collection of half-truths which divert attention away from Thanksgiving’s real meaning.

My motivation to search for this report came from Rush Limbaugh’s mention of William Bradford. Here is what Maybury said about Bradford:

The problem with this official story is that the harvest of 1621 was not bountiful, nor were the colonists hardworking or tenacious. 1621 was a famine year and many of the colonists were lazy thieves.

In his ‘History of Plymouth Plantation,’ the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with “corruption,” and with “confusion and discontent.” The crops were small because “much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable.”

In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, “all had their hungry bellies filled,” but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death. The first “Thanksgiving” was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men.

What few of us may know is that the Pilgrims came to America and were experimenting with socialism:

This had required that “all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means” were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, “all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock.” A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.

Here is how Bradford solved the problem:

This “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that “young men that are most able and fit for labor and service” complained about being forced to “spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children.” Also, “the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak.” So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.

To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.

Today I am more thankful than ever. I am thankful for all the comforts and goods and services we have that make our life much more enjoyable verses the difficulties that faced our Pilgrims. I am thankful to the Founding Fathers who fought for freedom and set up the Constitution so that generations to come could enjoy the fruits of freedom.

I am also thankful for one development above all others today. That would be the Internet. Today I can utilize the freedom provided by the First Amendment.

I am also thankful that my message may have been a small factor in helping the truth about the socialistic beliefs of the left and their leaders.

Happy Thanksgiving to all, including those on the left. May you find the wisdom to understand the errors of socialism and that there is nothing progressive about the ideology of today’s so-called liberals.

This may sound oddly unconservative and optimistic, but, iin this sense, I am returning to my classical political philosophy training and, in a certain measure, emulating the voice of Leo Strauss.

Hey, Leo Strauss! — idol of the neo-conservative movement and father of the “Noble Lie” philosophy. The view that a political aristocracy must necessarily manipulate the masses for their own good.

Are you using circular reasoning to justify revising history?

Aldous

I know we are guilty of everything, but I really don’t care. I don’t feel guilty for anything I didn’t actually do. It is a human history thing and easy to find (or allege) sins. If you are really interested in understanding the situation, study up on King Philip’s War. You will see that it was a bloody conflict on both sides.

We have come a long way. We have reached a point in our modern countries where most people have never killed anyone or seen anyone killed. Nobody ever suffers a sustained famine. Nearly everybody has decent shelter. Back in 1620 this was not the case anywhere in the world. Ever wonder why all Native American males were warriors and why virtually all of the even generally peaceful people expected to be soldiers at some time in their lives? The noble savage is a myth. The best time to live is now and the best place is here.

BTW - I am not sure of the origin of the scalp thing (and neither are you), but I do know that Native Americans engaged in the custom with eagerness never apparent in the settler communities. And I am surprised you didn’t mention the smallpox blanket myth. During a seminar on bio-terror I asked a speaker about using smallpox as a bioweapon. He said that it could be very dangerous, but its important limitation was that it had to be passed by living or recently living hosts. People try to pass it in other ways, but it doesn’t work.

In my experience, each of us has a battle going on in our minds, between ideas that describe merely figments of our imagination and those that also somewhat describe the real world.

In order to be able to deal with the multitude of novel situations in the world, our brains had to evolved to do two things: adapt, and discern patterns in novel information.

Inevitably, because the laws that govern nature are consistent, and those that govern human beings somewhat so, we begin to form generalizable theories about the way the world works. This, though, can get in the way of adaptation. We can take philosophy (which is an attempt to discern generalized patterns in our existence and our everyday interactions) and create theories that are counterfactual, or which posit things which are impossible (at least from what we know).

Because of that, human thought can run pretty far off the rails, without grounding in reality. Weird theories can beget weird theories, and without a disciplined reliance on observations and accounts of observations in real life, we will begin to act at odds with our best interests, because we will not have dependable measurements of what those are. Anybody who’s written a check and had it bounce because of an error or neglect in dealing with one’s balance can understand how that can come to pass.

This is what disturbs me about the modern Republican party: they don’t acknowledge that there can be that big of a difference between what they believe to be true, and what actually is. Information is not flowing around the party, nor around the country that well, and because of that, people are less able to determine what their best interests are.

Our system fails on occasions even in the best of times, but there is a difference between failure that comes despite one’s best efforts, and that which comes in the absence of one’s best efforts.

The Republicans have become, over the last few generations, a party unmoderated in it’s pursuit of a few fixed ideas, one that not only engages in practices that reduce the diversity of information and the discipline of factchecking, but encourages them. Because they’ve become very skilled in the art of Demagoguery, and playing to instant gratification, they’ve been able to take much power away from the Democrats, who treat the government in a more practical, pragmatic fashion.

Unfortunately, if there is one thing that has become a staple of Republican culture, it’s winning at all costs. That presents a problem. Just as philosophical ideas can become the center of gravity for one’s behavior and interpretation of all other information, the pursuit of power can become the center of gravity for one’s behavior and philosophy, as can career, material gain, or any other abstract principle. All can influence behavior to the point that the actions that are taken only serve the person and the community’s interest in the mind of the person in question.

Whose vulnerable? Everybody, which is why I don’t insist that the solution to this problem is a permanent Democrat Majority, or a complete and utter flush-out of incumbents as some have suggested. These problems are endemic to human behavior- wealth, politics and power are just aggravating factors that enable these human flaws to affect more people than just the individual’s immediate circle of friends, family and associates.

Because these things are so endemic, a study of history with a mind to generalized pattern and crucial detail is important. More important than that, though, is humble sense of skepticism about one’s own conclusions. In excessive doses, skepticism can be a problem, but in moderate ones, it can drive us to explore the world beyond the inside of our heads and the limits of our experiences.

That’s important. Politicians, as always, try and keep people looking in one direction, seeing the same thing. If we have alternatives to their point of view, we can more easily expose the dishonesty, extremism, and incompetence of these people, when and if it does occur.

That’s the important part. There is no magic formula for dealing with human fallibility. We must instead maintain a mental and practical vigilance in how we deal with that in our lives, and in terms of those who lead us.

Hi Turkey Day,

“May you find the wisdom to understand the errors of socialism”

You seem to have us confused with your mother.

To all those who have “informed” us of the “true” story of Thanksgiving:

Americans are lying, theiving, mass-murdering, anti-social, two faced bastards who need to die. All of us. And China needs to rule the world.

Isn’t that what you’re saying?

To Aldous, JayJay Snowman and rahdigly…

Bush SUX! Bush SUX! Bush SUX! Bush SUX!

Now…did you fall asleep during that? I din’t think so.

This topic is a bit of a screwdriver with handles at both ends.

But if it comes down to republican practice this could prove quite interesting. Especially in thier theories of economics. Where within the economics of the right you have such a grand thesis of macroeconomics and none of what happens when the rubber hits the road (or variables of differing vocations and locational variation). That itself is elitism in the most academic sense.

the republican party in other places has become much more a game of tackle football than anything useful in terms of the commonwealth. I’m not a socialist in terms of policy necessarily but for a party that loathes socialism so much they do have a loving adherance to corporate welfare to the extreme. Only one percent was welfare going to mothers the other 99% was all corporate. Repubs love socialism more than I in any of my affiliations politically. They have US the tax-payer confused with their mothers actually.

We are the cash cows to them in the sense that we in the middle class should pick up the tab of all of their excesses. To live off of our backs as WE have to pay off the federal reserve and the wealthiest 5% get away tax free. Again, they have US confused with their mothers.

Let’s look at the devaluation of the dollar so they can make greater dividends at wartime. This hurts consumerism, energy prices, manufacturers in the U.S. by making the cost of parts and trucking more expensive and demolishes labor as a result. Having to cut costs there and move plants out of the U.S. to compensate for those yearly losses.

I concur that dems need to stop alot of bureaucratic red tape especially on the state level even going so far as to cut out taxation on new or used cars. But what the right is is complete usury of the people of these United States as the back upon which they can prop up their entire lifestyle.

But as they destroy consumerism as is the case now through not only pork and teh war but majoritively the tax deferrals (not cuts) the dollar will have to be paid off by us the non millionaire.

Republicans get in office to do ONE THING that is feather their own investment portfolio and as far as lobbyism is concerned they will bend over for any CEO apparently without regard for the commonwealth or common good of the people of these United States.

If you are not a millionaire and you support them you are exceedingly blind to what’s happening.

Just like with the Social security isue, if we must get into blindness, DID you republicans know that under Social Security guidelines you can already pull your money out of Social Security? That’s already a provision and been a provision since the New Deal(You could do that tomorrow). That’s an example of being led around by the nose on a dullardly wedge. And what does it get them to do that to you? A mean s to bend over for CEO’s and feather their own stock portfolios stiffing YOU with the bill as you have to pay off the Federal Reserve for the use of the dollar.

Most Republicans don’t know what money is. They know they want some they know they have to have it and it buys things. But it is a ventillation system and the more money you dump into the field without paying back the Federal Reserve the less it is worth and if the top 4-5% aren’t paying it off because of tax decreases on that level(we have to pay for the value of monetary notes)the higher the cost of everything rises whether at the grocery store or at the pump when you fill up.

Our dollar has sunk below the Euro as it stands now and you get screwed for it just as I do and it’s all based on faulty Macro Economics. John Snow’s export economy has been a disaster and it will continue to be a disaster due to a faulty economic theory that WILL and already has undermined consumerism. Look at what it has done to car manufacturers as they are heavily reliant on foreign parts. In an export economy the dollar is not suitable for overseas purchase of parts hence costing more. the whole thing falls apatr under what we are assuming is a windfall. The windfall will destroy consumerism this Christmas season and every retailer will feel the brunt and it will effect Wall Street adversely right where these politicians of the right have their money sunk.

Also during war time why do they make everything in contract more expensive. Because it will make their stocks in mil. indust. more profittable and pay no taxes for it. Meanwhile we pay down the fed FOR THEM. Plus the repubs cannot get off the tricycle/gerbilwheel of cutting taxes at the top level why because it’s all CEO supported the entire party.

Just a few quick thoughts.

First,this topic has little to do with partisan politics, but the bigger question of which discipline should assume priority with conservatives and people generally. I should think that the natural liberal disposition is more towards theory and conservatism more toward history.

Second,I stronlgy disagree that Plato is outmoded and it seems to me that it only takes a reading of him to see this. The issues he’s dealing with—how should we live, what’s the relationship between appearance and reality, what is truth—are the same now as ever, and his mode of analysis just as imporant.

Three,the caricature of Strauss is sad. It’s true many neoconservatives studied with him. I’m not a neoconservative myself. But he did not invent the notion of the “noble lie,” but Plato did. Strauss, instead, talked about how those writing under the threat of persecution may be writing in an “esoteric” way to conceal their true meaning. Some speculate that Strauss and the Straussians were nihilists, who enjoyed philosophy, and supported liberal democracy. This is hardly worse than the open anti-social nihilism of many on the left, though I also think it’s an incorrect reading of Strauss.

My only point in the last few sentences was that true conservatives should be concerned about philosophy and recognize that its enemies are not our allies, but in fact a kind of barbarian at war with our cultural patrimony.

Take the “ipse dixit” arguments above about right and wrong in relation to the treatment of the Indians. Would one not need some philosophy of right and wrong—both generally and politically—to know if it was indeed right or wrong or somewhere in between how the Puritans and other American settlers treated the Indians? And wouldn’t one likewise need a philosophy of right and wrong to know how that should affect our behavior today?

I actually enjoyed your thoughts. Myself, I was a history major. The thing I discovered is that history is colored by the interpreters. So much the better if the color painted is through the eyes of a philosopher rather than a politician or general. The logic of a philosopher may be flawed or valid, either way it can use arguments that can be accepted or refuted.

Long time ago, when I was studying for my MBA, I noticed a big difference among the professors. Those who had actually been in business, especially those who had run their own, were a lot easier to deal with than the academics. Academics often had very clever sounding programs, but they stupidly believed that these systems actually worked. Practitioners saw systems as a way to organize reality, but they knew that they were just maps, not the terriorry.

Theorists believe that map IS the country. Practitioners know that map is often wrong and leaves out some of the most important details.

One of the biggest problems with history is that practitioners rarely write it and the academics writers rarely practice. This is getting worse. There is a dispute among historians today. The academic guys don’t like those without the proper credentials. Of course, the non-credentials guys are the ones who make history.

We have rare examples of really good history written by people who really know what they are talking about. A good example is Dean Acheson’s “Present at the Creation.” Kissinger’s “Diplomacy” is good, but his other books are mostly whitewash. Clinton’s book is unreadable. Albright’s is innane. The best recent book is Robert Rubin’s “Uncertain World.”

A philosopher could be a good historian only if he understood that the philosophy was just a tool to understand the truth and not the truth.

Novenge,
“Needs & Wants” that sounds like a Child? Is that what you think of your fellow Man? No, the Laws of Human Nature still require that All Males over the age of 10 be Right regardless do they not? And yes, I am aware that a group on men would like to change that, but face it Grandma will not allow it. Play nice with others yes, yet you do what is right or else. Could you realy imagine Life any other way?

Jack,you raise a good point. There is a type of knowledge coextensive with experience. It’s the kind of knowledge, not strictly capable of being reduced to theory, that tells a chef when he’s put enough salt in a meal or it’s the kind of knowledge a genearl needs to rally his troops.

That said, it’s one thing to be an academic talking about a practical discipline. There the gulf between pure academics and practioners is noticable. A historian, on the other hand, is one who is devoted to the study of history, not necessarily a statesman or a general. The latter can write reflectively and thoughtfully, but, as one could imagine, often with their biases as a participant. Consider the whitewash histories by German Generals post-WWII. Moreover, many practioners are incredibly unthoughtful about their experiences; that is, they can do something well, but can’t necessarily reflect well. Consider Ronald Reagan’s unmemorable memoirs.

Finally, the very nature of philosophy is somewhat abstract. It’s not like there are practicing philosophers out there to be contrasted with mere academics. The nature of philosophy is theoretical knowledge. So I’m not sure your distinction is useful in this context.

Philosophy without an aim to the improvement of wisdom and practices is simply mindgames.

It must, at some point, deal with the nature of how we interact with reality. Without such bounds, Philsophy become sophistry.

I would be the last person to say, though, that philosophy is useless. It’s use, is in sharpening our ability to observe the patterns of the world, and not just the flood of information.

If we view this in terms of information, the best, most meaningful information is that which saves us trouble by showing us what the patterns among things are.

The importance of the distinction between patterns that map well to reality and those that don’t is that patterns which portray things wrongly only add to the confusion of things which we may at that point be able to understand otherwise.

Chris Roach,

Thank you for the thoughtful post. i very much enjoyed most of the discussion tonight.

LouisXIV,

History is, in large part, a history of ideas which is to say that History is applied philosophy.

Well said. :)

Now the question is, What have we learned about ethics and morals today following a single generation of enforced atheist public education in America? How does it compare to the human rights and values of China, Russia and Eastern Europe who have even more history of state enforced atheism? Is censoring philosophical thought and expression from the public square successful?

It has been said that needs and wants, or ‘nature’ rules— which rests squarely on the secular humanist foundation of our public education. The herd is now lean and mean, easily adaptable to shifting value environments. The cream of the humanist crop, those unburdened by such ethereal navel gazing chains as service, sacrifice, integrity and honor, have risen to the top ensuring the progressive evolution of American society.

Indeed, who can measure honor? It is useless to an advanced people free of myths and fairytales.

We deserve the rulers we get, for we make them. Party hats all around.

Jo:

You mention China, Russia and Eastern Europe as if they were the only countries who practice secular education thus giving the impression that only totalitarian regimes do this and its effect is directly responsible for its present society.

THIS IS A MISLEADING IF NOT OUTRIGHT LYING STATEMENT!!!

How about the secular educations given to English, Canadian, Scandinavian and other western countries? Does Secular Education damage their children?

Aldous,

i do not know about Canda; but most European countries allow for CHOICE in education according to one’s preferred ideology. Diversity is a grand thing, imo. :)

jo you said

“It has been said that needs and wants, or ‘nature’ rules— which rests squarely on the secular humanist foundation of our public education”

you’re confusing secular humanism with nihilism. secular humanism doesn’t teach that needs and wants rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
http://www.secularhumanism.org/

plese visit these websites

So, Jo, you advocate Neo-Nazi, Madrassas, Jack Jones Guiana type schools? Diversity is a good thing in some arenas and for certain goals. But blanket statements like Diversity is good, could lead to a portion of our work force raised on cause and effect relationships founded on battles between demons and angels in posession of our souls, instead of mechanics and physics. And what would that do for our globally competitive position with countries like China, India, Japan, and S. Korea where science and mechanics and physics are what give their workforces competitive edge along with lower labor costs?

Question authority, especially one’s own. Too often our unexamined premises lead us to unintended consequences with inordinately high costs, opportunity and otherwise.

Jo asked: “Now the question is, What have we learned about ethics and morals today following a single generation of enforced atheist public education in America?”

What a bullshit question. My daughter attends public school here in the heart of Texas, and she was not taught atheism, agnosticism, or theism, as part of her curriculum, thank Buddha. If they are teaching atheism in your schools, then you should be advocating for removal of religion from your schools, atheism takes the form of certain religions as well, Scientology, Naturalism, and Hedonism can all be the bases for religions, and if you admit one religion into schools, one must according to our Constitution admit them all.

Stephen you are right of course, but, even more fundamentally, philosophy must continually examine how we perceive reality and define the validity of our perceptual processes.

When, after 9/11 and the Administration’s treatment of who was responsible, the majority of Americans perceived a direct link between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, it is the philosopher’s (as well as others) role to examine and explain and expose the faulty perceptual processes which led to such gross misperception of reality.

First, in my surfing this morning, i have found that some protestant evangelical fundamentalists are also opposed to secular humanism in the public schools… in particular, the author of the “Left Behind” series. i have not read any of this series. It is not my desire to insert religion into or remove secular expressions from public schools. i advocate the inclusion, expression and tolerance of diverse worldviews within our public education system. i think we all gain from such educational freedom and all lose when the state mandates religious/philosophical censorship to one worldview.

From your wiki link:
“A perhaps less confrontational synonym is scientific humanism, which the biologist Edward O. Wilson termed “the only world-view compatible with science’s growing knowledge of the real world and the laws of nature”

From Humanist Manifesto II

We believe, however, that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species.

Tell me again how secular humanism “doesn’t teach that needs and wants rule”.
Tell me again how secular humanism is not anti-religion, anti-faith.

Humanist beliefs and practices:
A Humanist Manifesto was prepared in 1933, endorsed by 34 leading Humanists, and published in the 1933-MAY/JUN issue of The New Humanist (VI:3:1-5). 1 It was updated as the Humanist Manifesto II in 1973. 2 Some of the themes of the latter document are:

• They trace their roots to the rational philosophy first created in the West in ancient Greece. Many regard Socrates as the first and greatest of the Humanists.
  
• They value knowledge based on reason and hard evidence rather than on faith.
  
• Being secular Humanists, they reject the concept of a personal God, and regard humans as supreme. From this belief naturally follows: “the preciousness and dignity of the individual person is a central humanist value.”
  
• a rejection of a created universe in favor of the theory of evolution and a universe that obeys natural laws
  
• a rejection of divinely inspired ethical and moral codes in favor of codes derived by reason from the human condition
  
• the belief that full responsibility for the future of the world, its political systems, its ecology, etc. rests with humans. There is no God in heaven to intervene and save us from a disaster
  
• They feel that religious groups’ “promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful.”
  
• They accept democracy and reject both theocracy and secular dictatorships as political systems that are dangerous to individual freedoms.
  
• They value freedom of inquiry, expression and action. They have a history of combating bigotry, hatred, discrimination, intolerance and censorship.
  
• They are energetic supporters of the separation of church and state.
  They tend to have very liberal beliefs about controversial ethical topics, like abortion, corporal punishment of children, death penalty, enforced prayer in schools, homosexuality, physician assisted suicide, etc.
  
• They believe that “moral values derive their source from human experience.” Since most believe that an afterlife is non-existent, they regard life here on earth to be particularly precious. They are highly motivated to alleviating pain and misery around the world. Many are active in refugee, human rights, anti-death penalty, environmental groups, etc.
  
• Generally speaking, they do not believe in
  
  
  • a personal God, a Goddess or a combination of Goddesses and Gods.
    
  • supernatural beings such as angels, demons, Satan, Holy Spirit, etc.
    
  • heaven or hell or life after death.
    
  • the separation of a person into body, soul and spirit.
    
  • survival of an individual in any form after death.

The public school systems base their teaching on a secular or non-religious foundation. In most subjects, like mathematics, reading, writing, physics, chemistry etc., this does not present a problem. In human sexuality education, geology, sociology, history, etc. the secular approach conflicts greatly with some religious traditions Christian theology.
…
US Public Schools are required to base their curriculum on secularism because of the principle of separation of church and state which is stated in the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Humanism is also based on a secular view of the universe for philosophical reasons.

secular humanism
n.

secular humanism

n : the doctrine emphasizing a person’s capacity for self-realization through reason; rejects religion and the supernatural [syn: humanism]

hu·man·ism
n.

humanism

n 1: the doctrine that people’s duty is to promote human welfare [syn: humanitarianism] 2: the doctrine emphasizing a person’s capacity for self-realization through reason; rejects religion and the supernatural [syn: secular humanism] 3: the cultural movement of the Renaissance; based on classical studies.

Jo, its right in front of your face, but, you are not seeing it. What you quote above says they don’t believe in a deity WHO INTERVENES in the laws of his own creation nor one who favors some humans over other humans by intervening on behalf of some, and not others.

Intervention by a deity is what they are discussing. Most humanists will acknowledge that science potentially can prove the logical need for a creator. But, humanists look upon the world and reject the notion of a GOD who intervenes with his creation. If it was perfect upon creation, there is no need for intervention, is there?

David, “its right in front of your face, but, you are not seeing it.” Secular Humanism, which is required by the progressives to be taught exclusively in the US public schools rejects ANY Deity This is not a modified form of Humanism such as universal Unitarianism or other off-shoot sects which may allow for personal paths to those not yet ready to swallow secularism hook, line and sinker. If you choose to throw the possibility of a Deity into the mix, then you are required to acknowledge it is a religion, which of course in the progressive humanist world cannot be tolerated or allowed in the public square— especially not in public classrooms where indoctrination may be unduly hampered by such fairytales.

• They trace their roots to the rational philosophy first created in the West in ancient Greece. Many regard Socrates as the first and greatest of the Humanists.
  
• They value knowledge based on reason and hard evidence rather than on faith.
  
• Being secular Humanists, they reject the concept of a personal God, and regard humans as supreme. From this belief naturally follows: “the preciousness and dignity of the individual person is a central humanist value.‎
  
• a rejection of a created universe in favor of the theory of evolution and a universe that obeys natural laws
  
• a rejection of divinely inspired ethical and moral codes in favor of codes derived by reason from the human condition
  
• the belief that full responsibility for the future of the world, its political systems, its ecology, etc. rests with humans. There is no God in heaven to intervene and save us from a disaster
  
• They feel that religious groups’ “promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful.‎
  
• They accept democracy and reject both theocracy and secular dictatorships as political systems that are dangerous to individual freedoms.
  
• They value freedom of inquiry, expression and action. They have a history of combating bigotry, hatred, discrimination, intolerance and censorship.
  
• They are energetic supporters of the separation of church and state.
  They tend to have very liberal beliefs about controversial ethical topics, like abortion, corporal punishment of children, death penalty, enforced prayer in schools, homosexuality, physician assisted suicide, etc.
  
• They believe that “moral values derive their source from human experience.‎ Since most believe that an afterlife is non-existent, they regard life here on earth to be particularly precious. They are highly motivated to alleviating pain and misery around the world. Many are active in refugee, human rights, anti-death penalty, environmental groups, etc.
  
• Generally speaking, they do not believe in
  
  
  • a personal God, a Goddess or a combination of Goddesses and Gods.
    
  • supernatural beings such as angels, demons, Satan, Holy Spirit, etc.
    
  • heaven or hell or life after death.
    
  • the separation of a person into body, soul and spirit.
    
  • survival of an individual in any form after death.

humanism

n 2: the doctrine emphasizing a person’s capacity for self-realization through reason; REJECTS religion and the supernatural

David,
Yes, there is a need for intervention. It keeps Humans (most) from going over the edge.

Jo,
When you say that Secular Humanism is required in school, do you realize that this extends from our society becoming aware of the power we have to influence that which is around us. Now how far do we push the fabric of society with the technology found and improved on for the last 20-30 years probale is best released to the society when we show that we are adult enough to play with the new toys created by our parents. However, I do agree that Society must stay connected to the Heartbeat of America.

Henry,

i disagree and do not think that society is better off with a few elite holding power/knowledge from the whole.

Rather, i would prefer we investigate, study and explore the immeasureable moral/spiritual laws which, though not as obvious in nature as the material laws, are evident.

Mercy, service, honor and integrity in the material/strictly emperically measureable world might at first blush appear random or non-existent, yet examples of symbiotic relations within and between species are evident. Dismissing an underlying established catalyst simply because it may throw a slight kink or mildly complicate evolutionary theory is, imo, dishonest and unscientific in stance.

That said, if we explore the supernatural with passion similar to our exploration of the material, we should, imo, be better capable of managing all our discoveries with more prudent, better informed balance and repsonsibility.

Hi Jo,

“Secular Humanism, which is required by the progressives to be taught exclusively in the US public schools rejects ANY Deity”

Our Constitution is based on the philosophy of Secular Humananism. Secular Humanism is the philosophy that man can rule himself fairly.

“Being secular Humanists, they reject the concept of a personal God, and regard humans as supreme.”

That’s not really true in that many who advocate our sort Secular Humanism in government are quite religious in their personal lives.

You seem to think that it’s the business of Public Schools to promote religion. Why do you think that?

That’s not really true in that many who advocate our sort Secular Humanism in government are quite religious in their personal lives.

My quote is from a humanist site, not a religious site. Perhaps [y]our sort of humanism should be voted upon and clearly defined as the particular sort mandated by the state to be believed and taught to all Americans.

You seem to think that it’s the business of Public Schools to promote religion.

i do not. Neither do i think it is the business of public schools to promote non-religion.

Why do you think that our schools should teach against religion?

Hi Jo,

“Perhaps [y]our sort of humanism should be voted upon and clearly defined as the particular sort mandated by the state to be believed and taught to all Americans.”

The Constitutino is based on secular humanism. Perhaps you’ll state your objections to the Constitution?

“Neither do i think it is the business of public schools to promote non-religion.”

Do you have examples of that?

“Why do you think that our schools should teach against religion?”

I don’t. Public education should be secular. It’s not the business of the government to promote religion.

Humanism, according to Merriam-Webster:

1 a : devotion to the humanities : literary culture b : the revival of classical letters, individualistic and critical spirit, and emphasis on secular concerns characteristic of the Renaissance
2 : HUMANITARIANISM
3 : a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially : a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual’s dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason

The second definition leads us to:

Main Entry: hu·man·i·tar·i·an
Pronunciation: hyü-“ma-n&-‘ter-E-&n, yü-
Function: noun
: a person promoting human welfare and social reform : PHILANTHROPIST
- humanitarian adjective
- hu·man·i·tar·i·an·ism

Humanism is one of the founding principles of our country, the belief that mean through reason and rationality can forge a better nation. It wasn’t an areligious humanism, necessarily, but there was a shared belief the people could do better than the other governments, which used religion as a way to perpetuate suffering and tyranny.

This Secular Humanism thing is mostly paranoia, and it does a disservice to Christians. We don’t need to be given the continuous impression to people that being Christian is about being combative, excessively prudish, and worse, hypocrites to the message of tolerance and respect given to us in the bible.

We have God on our side. What do we have to fear? If they take away everything, from Church to bible, we still can go into a closet in our house and pray to him. We can memorize the scriptures and repeat from memory if we have to.

We have a first amendment in this country that allows us to argue constitutionally that we have the right, within reason, to worship God as we please. We should remember that this country is secular, in the sense that it is meant to advocate no-one’s religious views, and not intervene in them unless laws are being broken that are only tangentially related to it.

St. Francis of Assisi said we should preach the Gospel at all Times, and use words if necessary. In the end, our actions towards others will reveal the true virtue of His word. To the extent that they don’t it will be us and not God who should take the blame.

the arguments for the teaching of religion in the public rages now JUST AS MUCH AS IT DID WITH OUR FOUNDING FATHERS. THE ARGUMENTS RAN: taxation to support any religious activity promoted establishment of religion and was prejudicial to minority religions; we are going to tax you and you can direct your part of the taxation to whatever denomination or minister you choose; children must be taught morals and ethics to be good citizens and for the unity of the country. morals and ethics are derived from religion and since the schools job is to teach, along with the 3-r’s if i may, morals and ethics and since these are derived from religion, religion must be taught in the schools; it’s ok to tax and to teach as long as there is no preferential treatment of any religion. SO GO THE ARGUMENTS. the arguments contnue today with the no preferrential treatment, open to all, prevailing at the moment, certainly with the distribution, to a degree, of federal funds. imo funding of relgious activities or religions in general even when showing no preferences, should be prohibited on both the state and federal level for the following reasons: some groups would feel and would be excluded from full participation from such a distribution. secondly, such action would be create a divisiveness and competition in the country as the different factions fight for distribution of the funds. finally, i see the eventual establishment of a theocracy as a result. So, no funds, but whats wrong with some symbolic displays?

SECULAR HUMANISM, according to Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: secular humanism
Function: noun
: HUMANISM 3; especially : humanistic philosophy viewed as a nontheistic religion antagonistic to traditional religion

ANTAGONIST, according to Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: an·tag·o·nist
Function: noun
1 : one that contends with or opposes another : ADVERSARY, OPPONENT

ADVERSARY, according to Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: 1ad·ver·sary
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sar·ies
: one that contends with, opposes, or resists : ENEMY

ANTAGONISM, according to Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: an·tag·o·nism
Function: noun
1 a : opposition of a conflicting force, tendency, or principle b : actively expressed opposition or hostility

Bottom line: Secular Humanism is NOT by any stretch of the imagination an unbiased, neutral or tolerant worldview but one in direct OPPOSITION to ALL religion and people of faith. And this is the foundation of our federally controlled public school education. That some secular humanists may exhibit tolerance or respect of others means no more than some Jews, Christians or Muslims exhibiting the same… they are individual people practicing free will and expression, not state mandated ideologies.

EC,
You are right about children needing to be taught ethics and morals; however, how can we teach this subject without throwing Human Teachings of Ideology and/or Religion into the mix?

The answer is or I should say was quite ingenious by our Founding Fathers. For regardless of Race, Color, or Creed every Human must find a set of laws that they can live by. Thus, by seeking out that which is “Unalienable Right Regardless” by all the Laws of Society one can not only teach ethics and morals, but tolerence for oneselve and others as well.

A civil lesson in the Game of Absolution and the ability for any Human to live up to the righteousness of their own Spoken Words and Actions would quickly prove the point that all Humans can not live at the point of being “Unalienable Right Regardless” in our society. Could you see living in a society that required you to be perfect in Thought, Words, and Actions absolutely 100% of the time?

No matter how good one thinks that they are, living a “Perfect Life” and remaining Human is almost impossible. Nevertheless, we do live in a civilization of laws and like all laws there are absolutes (that which is found to be unalienable right regardless). Yet, by grace and being humbled we allow ourselves to live in a range of what is considered “Acceptable Social Behavior.” Not perfect, but close enough to the line that even one’s own judgement and that of others can not question the intent of being right. For that is the lesson that all Human Teachings try to point out for the most part.

Hi Jo,

“Bottom line: Secular Humanism is NOT by any stretch of the imagination an unbiased, neutral or tolerant worldview but one in direct OPPOSITION to ALL religion and people of faith.”

You are quite wrong about that. As I said earlier the Constitution is based on secular humanism and it is also based on an unbiased, neutral, and tolerant view of religion.

“And this is the foundation of our federally controlled public school education.”

You are quite wrong. Public education isn’t based on opposition to religion. You don’t have a clue about these matters.

Hi EC,

“So, no funds, but whats wrong with some symbolic displays?”

Why don you think it’s a good idea for the government to endorse belief in a particular God?

The Ten Commandments are a mandate to worship a particular jealous God. Why do you think it’s the government’s business to post mandates to worship a particular God?

I hope you don’t misunderstand me here. I’m a huge fan of the Decalogue. I just don’t think it’s the government’s business telling people what God they must follow.

“Humanism: 1 any system of thought based on the interest and ideals of man.
2. the intellectual movlement that stemmed from the study of Greek and latin classics during the middle ages.”-Webster’s

While the Founders did not permit an established Church the idea they were all humanists opposed to religion in public life is mistaken. Why, for example, did most states subsidize and establish churches at the state level soon after the convention of 1787. There is a kind of mythology that focuses on the Thomas Paine wing of our Independence movement to the exclusion of the John Dickensons and Edmund Morrises.

Hi Roach,

The Constitution is based on the philosophy of secular humanism…..the idea that man can rule himself fairly.

Many of the fathers were religious in their own lives but they believed in a secularist government.

“the Thomas Paine wing of our Independence”

You’re leaving out Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington.

“One day the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in the United States will tear down the artificial scaffolding of Christianity. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”

Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

“History is, in large part, a history of ideas which is to say that History is applied philosophy.” -LouisXIV

“Those who cannotremember the past are condemned to repeat it.” -George Santayana

And so with Secular Humanism mandated in our public schools we have returned to the values and ethics of humanists:

“All men are created Equal” -Thomas Jefferson, whose personal records show he owned 187 slaves.

Perhaps like blacks of the past, today’s people of faith only count as 3/5 persons.

Hi Jo,

“And so with Secular Humanism mandated in our public schools we have returned to the values and ethics of humanists”

You’re saying that our system of government, which is based in secularist philsophy, shouldn’t be taught in schools.

What sort of ethics are you proposing to teach in schools? The philosphy behind the Constitution is secularist. It would be very odd to teach otherwise don’t you think?

You seem to be advocating revisionist history here.

Hi Louix,

You seem to be advocating the prorating of persons according to secular humanist perceived evolutionary progress.

How much value does a Muslim have in your progressive America? A Christian? A Jew? Do you count Hindus even lower due to multiple ‘deficits’?

“Secularism,” which I take to mean the rigid exclusion of religion and religious ideas from politics is not the philosophy of the founders. They believed in religious freedom. They did not, however, mean to prevent religious influences on our political life. For what other reason did Jefferson—one of the more secular founders—speak of our rights as derived from the laws of “nature and nature’s God.”

Humanism is unique in that it does not recognize the transcendent, a truth apart from the human apprehension/construction of it. In this sense, by failing to recognize some subordination of man to God, it tends towards utopia and failure. In this respect, I’d contrast the happy success of the American Revolution with the tragic failures of the French.

Washington, Adams, etc., the evidence of their religiosity and the importance of religion is extensive. I recommend M. Stanton Evans book, “The Theme is Freedom.”

But a few quotes to round out the record:

Washington, “…reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle…”

John Adams, “ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.‎

Hi Jo,

“You seem to be advocating the prorating of persons according to secular humanist perceived evolutionary progress.”

I’m doing nothing of the sort. I’m merely stating that our Constitution is based on secular humanism.

“How much value does a Muslim have in your progressive America?”

What do you mean by “progressive America? (I value people based on their character and their ability to say witty things at cocktail parties).

What ethics do you advocate teaching in schools?

“Do you count Hindus even lower due to multiple ‘deficits’?”

Would you mind telling where you got that? What do you think I said that indicates I do anything of the sort?

Hi Roach,

““Secularism,‎ which I take to mean the rigid exclusion of religion and religious ideas from politics is not the philosophy of the founders.”

You’re confused about what secularism is. The Constitution is based on secularist philsophy.

Jefferson was a Diest. That doesn’t mean that our national religion is Diesm. The founding fathers believed in reason as a basis for morality and the Constitution reflects it.

“Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics and geometry”-Jefferson

“”I have ever thought religion a concern purely between our God and our consciences, for which we were accountable to Him, and not to the priests.” —Thomas Jefferson to Mrs. M. Harrison Smith, 1816.

“Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle.” —Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813

“The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man.” —Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800.

“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.” —Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813.

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.” —Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, 1814.

“The clergy, by getting themselves established by law, & ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man. They are still so in many countries & even in some of these United States. Even in 1783, we doubted the stability of our recent measures for reducing them to the footing of other useful callings. It now appears that our means were effectual.”

Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moore, August 14, 1800

“Cabalistic Christianity, which is Catholic Christianity, and which has prevailed for 1,500 years, has received a mortal wound, of which the monster must finally die. Yet so strong is his constitution, that he may endure for centuries before he expires.”

John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, July 16, 1814

The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”

John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” (1787-88)

LouisXIV,
“the governments business telling people what god they must follow…”

I guess i wasn’t clear on seperation of church and state. you are right it is not the governments business to tell people what god they should follow.
i am opposed to the government endorsing religion through funding. however, i am not particularly against symbolic displays as long as the displays are open to all, religious and non religious alike. how this would be put into practice i don’t know. it might be near impossible to do. christian, budist, hindu, atheist, agnostic, etc. ad infinitum would all have to be eligible. hopefully, this would take decades maybe even centuries to fgure out what the ground rules would be and how the program would be implemented. the time frame required might be such that the original intent would get lost or become so obscure that no one was paying any intention and the country, in the interim, could heal some of its wounds and start migrating back toward a more unified nation.

Roach,
“while the founders did not permit an established church…”

True, many states did support religion through taxation but those were generally states that had for the most part a single, homegenous religion. in those with several strong religions the government support was strongly opposed and most often ended. even in the states with tax support there was dissent on the issue, but the dissenters were not strong enough to affect a change.

FYI, Thomas Jefferson played no part in the authorship or debates over the US Constitution in 1787.

“Although Thomas Jefferson was in France serving as United States minister when the Federal Constitution was written in 1787, he was able to influence the development of the federal government through his correspondence. Later his actions as the first secretary of state, vice president, leader of the first political opposition party, and third president of the United States were crucial in shaping the look of the nation’s capital and defining the powers of the Constitution and the nature of the emerging republic”
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jefffed.html

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded project.”

James Madison, Letter to William Bradford, 1 Apr. 1774

“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”

James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1795

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?”

James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1795

” If we look back into history for the character of present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practised it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England, blamed persecution in the Roman church, but practised it against the Puritans: these found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here and in New England.”

Benjamin Franklin, The Writings of Benjamin Franklin: London, 1757 - 1775

“My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the Dissenting way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle’s Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.”

Benjamin Franklin. (1706–1790). His Autobiography.

And all the Founding Fathers recognized that there is a simple fact of life presists throughout the Spoken and Written History of the Human Race. The idea that in Thought, Words, and Actions there remains the drive to find and explain that which unalienable right in the laws of Man and Nature. You need to learn a little bit about Freemasonary to really understand our Founding Fathers. Remember Skulls and Bones? It should tell you something.

Just as in the Dark Ages, today, as Secular Humanists have insinuated themselves into government, all views contrary to their established beliefs are increasingly prevented from education (denying accreditation outside Secular Humanist approval), increasingly pushed out of careers (ID scientists and government— as in the case of the EU and Italian minister declared ‘unfit for government office’ due to non-compliance with Secular Humanist beliefs).

Today’s secular humanist society is no more tolerant or inclusive than the roman catholic society at the start of the Middle Ages. Rather than learning from past mistakes and progressing toward a better society, Secular Humanists are leading us back into another stifling narrow-minded 21st century Dark Age.

Jo,
What is really neat and offers the clearest view of The History, Philosophy, and Theological way the Human Race has, is, and must live is to super impose All Clutures, Religions, and Societies upon each other in real time.

What was happening in the Far East and America during the time of the Roman Empire? Why are we not taught to look at Humanity’s Civilization of Written Laws as a whole? Who in our society dictates what is right for the average citizen to consume? Where is it spoken or written that only a chosen few can have it all? And most important of all is how do We teach our Children the lessons that We have learned in a manner that still keeps the “Mystic” required to allow us all to be Human?

Some in today’s secular humanist society and all religions as well as Non-Believers tremble at the thought that the “Limited Sight and Thinking” of even their best scholars can not match that which has come to be known by the average Human as Right & True through “Common Knowledge.” Remember, it was only 500 years ago that The Church and State forced us to believe that the Earth was the Center of the Universe. Even about a 150 years ago, an Englishman (forgot his name) found an ancient book in India; completely had it rewrote and than ordered that the original Books of Veda written in Sanskrit Language be destoryed.

So, when is the Left and Right going to stop looking at the world through rose color glasses and as you said “learn from past mistakes and progressing toward a better society.” Maybe if their political party would take the time to teach them how our government works instead of blindly following “We the Lawyers” who says trust us to make the Law, enforce the Law, and police ourselves according to these Laws.

However, I do not think that the Conservatives and the Liberals are ready for that kind of public debate in Congress. Do you?

Henry,

And most important of all is how do We teach our Children the lessons that We have learned in a manner that still keeps the “Mystic” required to allow us all to be Human?

Live in celebration.

However, I do not think that the Conservatives and the Liberals are ready for that kind of public debate in Congress. Do you?

Few know how to celebrate.

Jo,
Without a Word being said!

Hi Jo,

“Secular Humanists have insinuated themselves into government”

Our government was founded on the notion of secular humanism…..the philosophy that man can rule himself fairly.

Our Consitution is based on secular humanism.

“Today’s secular humanist society is no more tolerant or inclusive than the roman catholic society at the start of the Middle Ages.”

You’ll provide examples of secular humanists in this country who’ve advocated slaughtering those who they disagree with as was done during that Papal Inquisition?

“Secular Humanists are leading us back into another stifling narrow-minded 21st century Dark Age.”

That’s complete nonsense. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

It’s religious fundamentalists who are trying to leading us back into another stifling narrow-minded 21st century Dark Age.

From Merriam Webster’s Online DIctionary:

secular humanism
One entry found for secular humanism.
Main Entry: secular humanism
Function: noun
: HUMANISM3; especially : humanistic philosophy viewed as a nontheistic religion antagonistic to traditional religion
————————————————————-

from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

secular humanism
n.
An outlook or philosophy that advocates human rather than religious values.
————————————————————-

From WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

secular humanism
n : the doctrine emphasizing a person’s capacity for self-realization through reason; rejects religion and the supernatural
————————————————————-

LouisXIV-

i cannot find sources which corroborate your claims.

*
—————————————————————
i am pro science.
i am pro separation of church and state.

Our public schools are mandated by our government, the state, to teach from a
Secular Humanist perspective.

• Secular Humanisn REJECTS the existence of God/gods


• Secular Humanisn REJECTS that there is soul and spirit


• Secular Humanism REJECTS spirituality


• Secular Humanist REJECTS the existence of a heaven/hell

And absolutely NONE of these out of the gate tenets of Secular Humanism can
be proven by science.

• Science DEMANDS objectivity,


• Science DEMANDS open-mindedness and


• Science DEMANDS evidence before claiming as fact.

i do not support teaching Creationism in Public Schools. i do not know about ID; but certainly not at this time to the depth and extent evolution should be. i do not support teaching religion in public schools except as a FACT of human historical experience in cultures and civilizations around the globe.

i DO SUPPORT teaching in the public schools

• the POSSIBILITY of spiritual things


• the POSSIBILITY there is a God/gods


• the FACT science has not DISproved either.

*cross posted in blue column

Hi Jo,

“Secular Humanisn REJECTS the existence of God/gods
Secular Humanisn REJECTS that there is soul and spirit
Secular Humanism REJECTS spirituality
Secular Humanist REJECTS the existence of a heaven/hell”

You are completely wrong. Secular humanism is the belief that man can rule himself fairly.

Political philosohy is often quite different than religion is. There are many spiritual people who believe in secular humanism as the best philsophy to base government on. A couple of examples that come to mind were Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.

“And absolutely NONE of these out of the gate tenets of Secular Humanism can
be proven by science.”

Secular humanism is, in this discussion, a generally political philosophy. Of course such a philosophy can’t be proven by science.

“i DO SUPPORT teaching in the public schools

“the POSSIBILITY of spiritual things
the POSSIBILITY there is a God/gods
the FACT science has not DISproved either.”

Those are historical/psychological/philosophical/sociological issues. They are not scientific issues.

Science hasn’t disproved that plagues are punishments from God. That doesn’t mean that teaching plagues are punishments from God is something that should be taught in a science class.

There are all sorts of things that can’t be disproved by science that have no place in science classes.

You are completely wrong. Secular humanism is the belief that man can rule himself fairly.

If you disagree with the definitions provided by Merriam Webster, The American Heritage® Dictionary and WordNet of Princeton University, take it up with them, not me… or publish your own dictionary.

Hi Jo,

You’re still quite confused.

Our Constitution was founded on the philosohpy of secular humanism. I believe that our Constitution is a very good one.

My belief in a philosophy of government (secularism in the case of our government) doesn’t enter into my spiritual life. When I’m doing spiritaual things secular issues such as government aren’t something I think about.

You’re unable to understand that belief in a secular document like our Constitution doesn’t make one hostile to religion.

Our laws are secular. I obey our secular laws. Just because I follow secular laws doesn’t mean I’m hostile to religion.

You’re unable or unwilling to make a distinction between political and religious philosophy.

LouisXIV,

i am not opposed to secular government, i am in favor of it.

i AM opposed to Secular Humanist governance, which imo, is not synonomous at all.

Secularism in itself, again in my own opinion, is neither pro or anti-religion, only separate and ideally neutral.

It is governmental neutrality i desire which i think is supported by our constitution.

Jo & LouisXIV,
What both of you are overlooking is the standard at which we hold our Laws to meet in our Religion & Secular World. Over and over again we hear everybody speak out about “We are a Civilization/Nation of Laws.” Yet, as a society in America do we not hold our Constitution and Laws that we govern and live by to the same exact standard that we do with the Divine Laws of all Religions? Yes, Congress may not always get a law right the first time and for that we have the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, do We, as a Society and Nation, not wish that every law was “Perfect” as not to bring harm to all sides of an issue?

Although I can understand the fear from both sides on this issue and I recognize the unwillingness of a few chosen leaders to let go of their security blanket. It amazes me that so many Americans can not see that it is both our Duty and our Right to build an unalienable Right Nation to the best of our known ability and allow ourselve to grow and learn so that future generations can even make a “More Perfect Union.”

Hi Jo,

“I AM opposed to Secular Humanist governance”

You’d do away with our Constitution. What would you replace it with?

Hi Henry,

“Yet, as a society in America do we not hold our Constitution and Laws that we govern and live by to the same exact standard that we do with the Divine Laws of all Religions?”

We don’t. Our laws are based on reason. Our laws, in theory, stand up to the constant scrutiny of reason which is in sharp contrast to divine ones.

Some thousand years of vicious sectarian slaughter in Europe convinced our founding fathers that divine laws are a bad way to go.

When governmental mental laws were based on “divine inspiration” Christians slaughtered other Christians in the name of Christ as a result.

LouisXIV,

Provide credible sources or give up your straw man.

Hi Jo,

“Provide credible sources or give up your straw man.”

What have I said that you’re calling a “straw man”?

I’m being most factual here. The Constitution is based on the philosophy of secular humanism. The Fundamentalists of the time were against it because it was a “godless document”.

It was obvious to all when it was written that it was based on secular humanism.

“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”

John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” (1787-88)

LouisXIV,

As you and secular humanists are “now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition” holding the human as supreme, you also ‘disabuse’ yourself of such superstitious gobble-dee-gook as having been endowed by some mythological “Creator” with such silly artifices as righs of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, free speech and assembly etc.

For me, i do not sneer down my nose in arrogance at those unevolved persons without such supreme humanist powers as to grant themselves existence.

Hi Jo,

I don’t sneer. I’m merely pointing out an obvious fact about the Constitution.

What straw man are you accusing me of?

“you also ‘disabuse’ yourself of such superstitious gobble-dee-gook as