tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12736961271286455842024-03-13T17:31:45.953+01:00Pickles, pickles everywhere picklesThe uncoordinated ramblings of an atheist american in sweden.Geirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08474753906238154926noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1273696127128645584.post-30162811909614307522020-10-19T22:12:00.002+02:002021-05-12T10:35:04.762+02:00Amy Coney Barrett, the Supreme Court, Policy and the Constitution<p></p><h3 dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.656; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 10pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-size: 22pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet;">Setup</span></span></h3><h3 dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 10pt;"><b id="docs-internal-guid-0451fbf2-7fff-6f4e-10b4-4bee6dbc9fcc" style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet;"><div style="line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: small;">Since the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the inevitable nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to replace her I've had a number of thoughts, reactions, and general feelings of dread. A few weeks have passed, and in that time I've seen the usual arguments raised when it comes to liberals' acceptance of conservative justices. Many of these positions simply don't make any sense to me. Real world experience and past history simply persuade me otherwise and I wanted to summarize my thoughts in a blogpost.</span></div><div style="line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div style="line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: small;">Now, I am not a lawyer, but I will try to lay out my understanding of these issues and explain why I think the positions maintained by the right are in bad faith. </span></div><div style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;">Finally, I want to make it absolutely clear that I rather like our common law system. I like the checks and balances, but if we're to have this system we have to maintain precedent and we have to maintain the original policy power of the judiciary. </span></div><div style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-size: 16.5pt; font-weight: 700; white-space: pre-wrap;">Balls and Strikes:</span></div></span></b></h3><h3 dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 10pt;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;"><div style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: left;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">One of the chief accusations from the right against liberal justices is that of legislating from the bench. It's the notion that the court is there to interpret laws (to call balls and strikes) and never to make policy. Barrett herself said as much in her opening statement:</span></div><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p></span></b></h3><div style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin: 0pt 30pt; text-align: left;"><span style="color: #666666; font-family: trebuchet;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><i>I believe Americans of all backgrounds deserve an independent Supreme Court that interprets our Constitution and laws as they are written.</i></span></span></div><h3 dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 10pt;"><div style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 10pt; padding: 0pt 0pt 10pt; text-align: left;"><span style="font-weight: 400; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;">This sounds straightforward, but the problem is that it's quite simply ahistorical. Our founding fathers absolutely thought the law evolved and did so because we come from a common law system. </span></span></div></h3><h4 dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet;">Common Law: one of several legal systems</span></span></h4><h3 dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 10pt;"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-weight: 400; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;">Our American system is a common law system. Sweden, where I currently live, has a civil law system. There are other legal systems as well: religious law, pluralistic systems (hybrid I think), and probably more, but for much of the world the wide is divided between civil and common law systems. In 1787 when our constitution was ratified we were a country that had been ruled by england and english law systems: common law systems. The reigning jurisprudence was one based on precedent and the understanding of often unwritten common laws. Judges presided and ruled on these cases setting a precedent or **policy** if you will in terms of how these decisions should be decided. This was the most natural thing in the world: it was how legal systems as they knew it had always functioned. And when there were laws that covered matters judges were expected to interpret those laws and create precedent or new **policy**. It's this system of precedent or stare decisis that underpins everything from the very beginning and it was a principle legal premise of our founding fathers.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-weight: 400; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-weight: 400; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;">In civil law systems it's a bit different. Here in Sweden a judge cannot rule on a matter lacking explicit language in the law. It's this civil system where judges truly "call balls and strikes." Also of note here is precedent. Precedent plays a much smaller role in civil law systems where judges are encouraged to look for explicit language in the law and interpret accordingly.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-weight: 400; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;">So what?</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-weight: 400; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-weight: 400; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;">This matters because given the rise of textualism and originalism we're seeing a surge of judges who intend to honor the original intentions and/or the plain reading of the text as written. The problem is that those same people wouldn't have expected this. Their whole understanding was one where legal systems evolved in this matter.</span></span></p></h3><h3 dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 10pt;"><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-weight: 400; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;">This doesn't mean that all policy should come from the bench. But we should stop pretending like this is anything other than a design feature well understood by the founding fathers. Sometimes precedent creates policy. That's how our legal system works. It's that simple.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-weight: bold; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet;"> </span></span></p></h3><h2 dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-size: 16.5pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet;">Judicial Review</span></span></h2><h3 style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 10pt; text-align: left;"><div style="line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #666666; font-family: trebuchet;"><span style="font-weight: 400; white-space: pre-wrap;">While the right seems very preoccupied with how judges might create whole new policies from the bench there's an equally powerful tool that has just as much influence on policy and that tool is judicial review. Judicial review is a process where the judiciary can invalidate laws, mandates, government actions, and, well, **policies** including those that come from congress that upon review they deem to be unconstitutional. This is "common" to all common law systems, but in the US the principle of Judicial Review comes from the 1803 case of Marbury vs Madison. I'm not going to go too deep into that case, but you can read more about it here. It was that case that decided that the US constitution is actual law. This should be obvious, but I'll point out that 1803 is not 1787. That is, it was not the expressed and original intent.</span></span><span style="color: #666666; font-family: trebuchet;"><span style="font-weight: 400; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #666666; font-family: trebuchet;"><span style="font-weight: 400; white-space: pre-wrap;">This is a precedent that's been viable for 217 years, but one which was never originally intended and one not explicitly spelled out in the constitution.</span></span><span style="color: #666666; font-family: trebuchet;"><span style="font-weight: 400; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #666666; font-family: trebuchet;"><span style="font-weight: 400; white-space: pre-wrap;">This is very powerful.</span></span><span style="color: #666666; font-family: trebuchet;"><span style="font-weight: 400; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #666666; font-family: trebuchet;"><span style="font-weight: 400; white-space: pre-wrap;">It means that if a judge interprets a law to be unconstitutional or as we'll later hear from the originalists *not explicitly referenced by the constitution* or by their originalist/textualist understanding of *the original intent of the constitution or amendment* they can just invalidate it. And poof ... Any rights enabled, protected, or crimes described are gone.</span></span><span style="color: #666666; font-family: trebuchet;"><span style="font-weight: 400; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #666666; font-family: trebuchet;"><span style="font-weight: 400; white-space: pre-wrap;">For some reason this very clear act of policy power is never disparaged by right.</span></span></span></div><p style="background-color: white; font-weight: bold; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;"> </span></span></p></h3><h2 style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet;"><span style="font-size: 16.5pt;">Powers: good, bad, unintended</span></span></span></h2><h3 dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 10pt;"><b><div style="background-color: white; font-weight: normal; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">"The constituion never mentions abortion"<br /></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> <br /></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Um, okay. That's true. And?<br /></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></span></div></b><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;">The puerile argument here is that because it's not explicitly listed in the constitution it's not a right that should be governed by the constitution. But this is a patently ridiculous assertion. Marriage is never listed in the constitution, nor the use of deadly force to defend your home, nor the police (NOTE: there was no concept of police known to our founding fathers at all. There were night watchmen and the like, but the first Police department organized and granted with authority and power we recognize was first instituted in New York City in the 1840s). There's also no explicit declaration of how congress would ever govern on such matters directly. The legislative authority comes from Article 1 section 8. I've included that text here:</span></span></div></h3><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><h3 style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 10pt;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;</span></i></span></div></h3><h3 style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 10pt;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;</span></i></span></div></h3><h3 style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 10pt;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes;</span></i></span></div></h3><h3 style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 10pt;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;</span></i></span></div></h3><h3 style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 10pt;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;</span></i></span></div></h3><h3 style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 10pt;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;</span></i></span></div></h3><h3 style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 10pt;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">To establish Post Offices and post Roads;</span></i></span></div></h3><h3 style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 10pt;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;</span></i></span></div></h3><h3 style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 10pt;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;</span></i></span></div></h3><h3 style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 10pt;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;</span></i></span></div></h3><h3 style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 10pt;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;</span></i></span></div></h3><h3 style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 10pt;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;</span></i></span></div></h3><h3 style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 10pt;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">To provide and maintain a Navy;</span></i></span></div></h3><h3 style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 10pt;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;</span></i></span></div></h3><h3 style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 10pt;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;</span></i></span></div></h3><h3 style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 10pt;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;</span></i></span></div></h3><h3 style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 10pt;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And</span></i></span></div></h3><h3 style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 10pt;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.</span></i></span></div></h3></blockquote><h3 dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 10pt;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;"></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;">That's it.</span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;">A couple of things worth mentioning directly.</span></span></div><b><span style="font-family: trebuchet;"><ol style="background-color: white; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-inline-start: 48px; text-align: left;"><li aria-level="1" style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><div style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Note the militia parts. And consider the 2nd amendment. And think about the right to self defense. Do </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">we </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">*STILL*</span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> think that Scalia's reading of the rendering of the 2nd amendment in DC vs Heller is a fair and originalist interpretation. After all, the bill of rights came afterwards, uses the same language, involved many of the same founding fathers and clearly has different understood bounds here. It's almost as if the originalism and textualism only matters if they get the outcome they want.</span></span></div></li><li aria-level="1" style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p role="presentation" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Look at the army piece above and how money is appropriated and for how long: 2 years. That's obviously something we're not honoring at all anymore. And, btw, our founding fathers had a deep seated fear of standing armies. Armies were to be raised when needed and disbanded when that need had passed.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Some things clearly change over time. And that's actually a good thing.</span></span></p></li><li aria-level="1" style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p role="presentation" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Note the commerce clause (the 3rd one). It's that clause that gives congress all it's real power. This was not a power originally intended or understood by our founders. Following the civil war this clause was used to empower congress to become the law creating and legislative body we think of them today. This interpretation was upheld by the Supreme Court (it's that judicial review bit from above. They reviewed, interpreted and confirmed these powers and others according to their charge of the law).</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">These are powers we fundamentally take for granted now.</span></span></p></li><li aria-level="1" style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p role="presentation" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-size: small;">Finally, all these policies that we seem to think should be coming from Congress aren't supposed to come from congress anyway. That we take this for granted now is because of precedent which is itself a policy decision made by SCOTUS. None of those enumerated powers indicate any kind of direct way that congress can decide on any hot-button issue</span></span></p></li></ol><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-weight: normal; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; font-weight: normal; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></p><div style="background-color: white; font-weight: normal; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Our whole body of over 200 years of JurisPrudence is predicated on this idea that we take these first principles and apply them as best as possible. It's what common law systems do and it's even what Barret herself said during her hearing when asked about the 4th amendment.<br /></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></span></div></span></b></h3><h3 dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet;">Applying the powers</span></span></h3><h3 dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 10pt;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet;"><div style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Now let's talk about some rights, powers, and defense of those rights. For all of the hubbub around right wing justices not wanting to create policy from the bench they seem to make a whole lot of policy changing decisions from that hallowed pulpit. To illustrate this point I've chosen two well known cases (one of them includes the court's decision to not hear a case on gerrymandering as well) because these effectively created brand new policy with wide implications.<br /></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> <br /></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Obviously there are cases that show liberal justices effectively doing the same but for cases with which I fundamentally and ideologically agree. The essential difference here being that I'm not denying this happens. It's a regular and expected part of our system of government.<br /></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> <br /></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So, just two examples to make the point.</span></span></div><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p></span></b></h3><h4 dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet;">The Voting Rights Act and partisan gerrymandering</span></span></h4><h3 dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 10pt;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet;"><div style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In 2013 the Supreme Court ruled that Section 4(b) was unconstitutional because 40 year old data is old. This strikes me as odd coming from originalists who seem to have no issues at all with relying on their own assumptions and interpretation of what the founding fathers meant when they wrote and opined on matters in their own time. Also, while originalists like Barrett will point out that the 4th amendment needs to be interpreted and applied to modern cases, like all originalists they're perfectly happy to completely ignore that notion in cases like this one.<br /></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> <br /></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Furthermore, SCOTUS chose not to rule in partisan gerrymandering cases concluding that those are political issues beyond the scope of the court. <br /></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> <br /></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So lets review. Disassembling the legislation and protections accorded by the Voting Rights Act is absolutely part of the purview of the court, but deciding on partisan gerrymandering isn't. Oh, and for the former they actively overturned existing law.</span></span></div><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p></span></b></h3><h4 dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet;">Citizens United</span></span></h4><h3 dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 10pt;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet;"><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-size: small;">In 2010 the court held that the free speech clause prohibits the government from restricting how companies spend money on politics. This decision is important because it did several things all at once.</span></span></p><ol style="margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0; padding-inline-start: 48px;"><li aria-level="1" dir="ltr" style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-size: small;">Overturned the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act with regard to issue advocacy ads</span></span></p></li><li aria-level="1" dir="ltr" style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-size: small;">Overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce</span></span></p></li><li aria-level="1" dir="ltr" style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-size: small;">Overturned part of McConnell v. FEC</span></span></p></li></ol><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-size: small;">I'm not going to go through all of politics here. If you're conservative you like this ruling. If you're liberal you don't. What I will bring up is the salient fact that this set new policy and it was done by a conservative court. It set said policy by overruling two previously decided court decisions and by overruling congress with regard to the issuing of advocacy ads.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-size: small;">And this was done by a very powerful court and executed along ideological lines. If that's not political and not policy then I don't know what is.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p></span></b></h3><h2 dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-size: 16.5pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet;">A bit more on Originalism and judges of this jurisprudence persuasion</span></span></h2><h3 dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 10pt;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;"><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I have already laid out the differences between our legal system (a common law system) vs a civil law system and how I think originalism would seem to pine for the latter. But it strikes me there's another couple of issues that deserve their own time in court (double entendre intended).</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Who made the judges experts on the original intents of everyone who came before them?</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Well, the short answer is no one. The supreme court justices are brilliant legal scholars, even the ones I disagree with, but they're definitely not linguistic scholars. I'm not suggesting that they have no idea what the original intention was behind laws, but read about Scalia opining on "cruel and unusual punishment." He wants to get into the head of Madison in 1789 and so takes the most restrictive reading possible and finds:</span></p><ol style="margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0; padding-inline-start: 48px;"><li aria-level="1" dir="ltr" style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">That this only applies as punishment and so torture isn't illegal by this amendment</span></p></li><li aria-level="1" dir="ltr" style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In Harmelin v. Michigan he argues against any proportionality and tries to leverage the meaning of the words at the time.</span></p></li></ol><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But the problem is that Madison was also using these words to communicate to others. It wasn't until 1791 that the bill of rights was finally ratified by all states. Had they discussed this along the way? Could there have been additional meaning and context developed through the course of debating these topics back in the late 1700s? Is this the point of language? And finally, isn't this what Madison expected?</span></p></span></b></h3><h4 dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet;"><br /></span></span></h4><h4 dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet;">When do you apply originalism?</span></span></h4><h3 dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 10pt;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet;"><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-size: small;">For my part this is the most frustrating. Sometimes the justices will look for original meaning and intent and Judges like Gorsuch will look to read and interpret based on the plain reading of the text if there is no original intent possible. But other times they'll just ignore those principles and properly apply stare decisis. I'm not sure what the reasoning is other than an outcome that they want.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-size: small;">Still other times you'll find these principles completely misapplied. I just mentioned Scalia's coverage of the 8th amendment in Harmelin v. Michigan. He dismisses the proportionality principle noting that Madison easily could have used those words and that these concepts were certainly well known. But then in DC v. Heller he decides on his own that this same system need not at all apply to the 2nd amendment. Claiming originalism he creates a whole new meaning out of it and then claims it incorporated by the 14th amendment.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-size: small;">No one is claiming that there wasn't a broad understanding of self defense, but just as with the 8th amendment Madison was certainly capable of wording the 2nd amendment differently but chose not to. Isn't this a policy change? </span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p></span></b></h3><h2 dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #666666; font-size: 16.5pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet;">Why I'm afraid of Amy Coney Barrett</span></span></h2><h3 dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 10pt;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: small;"><div style="background-color: white; line-height: 2.016; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In fact I'm not afraid of Barrett. I'm afraid of the majority her membership brings to the court. She's promised to interpret laws as they're written. She's told us not to expect the court to solve all of our problems. We know her feelings about LGBTQ+ referring as recently as last week to "sexual preference" with regard to sexual orientation. We know her stance on abortion because she's told us so over and over again in her publications.<br /></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> <br /></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I'm afraid that like many other originalist justices she'll apply it for outcomes she wants and skip that application when it doesn't.<br /></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> <br /></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I'm afraid that she'll lean on the notion the court isn't the place to decide an issue like gay marriage and then when a case comes to challenge it she'll rule with the other conservative justices to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges. Obergefell overturned the Defense of Marriage Act. Look back at the history of laws, marriage, and the Supreme Court and you'll find loads of precedent for SCOTUS effectively creating precedent with regards to marriage and fundamental rights. This is now policy.<br /></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> <br /></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Likewise I think she'll ignore precedent and rule to invalidate the ACA effectively removing protections for preexisting conditions and during a pandemic. She's publicly criticized Roberts in the past and refused to give any honest answers to how she'll regard the ACA in a future case.<br /></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> <br /></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I don't think Barrett is evil, in fact I'm quite sure that as a proud and deeply religious woman she must find Trump truly repellent. That said I'm quite sure that as a deeply religious and conservative justice she'll rule against progressive outcomes claiming that it's not the role of the judiciary to create policy. Similarly, I'm quite certain she'll have no compunction at all to use that same judicial power to overturn existing policy: from previous cases, and actual laws created by congress. <br /></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> <br /></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I simply don't trust Barrett or any of the justices when they claim to be against legislating from the bench. Nothing could be more in their interest.</span></div></span></b></h3><div><p></p><div><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i></i></span></div></div>Geirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08474753906238154926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1273696127128645584.post-85703965728584535202017-11-07T23:42:00.002+01:002017-11-07T23:43:42.653+01:00Why don't you believe in God?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: left;">
A day or two ago I received the following message on facebook from one of my cousins. Far from offended or put off I was delighted with the opportunity to really put my thoughts down somewhere ... Maybe I can refer people here in the future if questions arise regarding what exactly I believe.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
** Just did a once over and there is so much more I could go into .. I never touched on why I think agnosticism and atheism are in fact the same thing, for example....<br />
<br />
We can see this as a conversation ... but it's now so freaking long that I feel I have to end it at this point. I'm not after all trying to write a book :) And I've now managed to have a lot of beer ;) **</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Anyway .. here's what she sent me</div>
<span style="background-color: #f1f0f0; color: #4b4f56; font-family: "sf optimized" , , , , ".sfnstext-regular" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; letter-spacing: -0.12px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #f1f0f0; color: #4b4f56; font-family: "sf optimized" , , , , ".sfnstext-regular" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; letter-spacing: -0.12px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Hey Geir,</span><br />
<span style="background-color: #f1f0f0; color: #4b4f56; font-family: "sf optimized" , , , , ".sfnstext-regular" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; letter-spacing: -0.12px; white-space: pre-wrap;">How are you and the family doing? From pictures it looks like you all stay pretty busy. <img alt="🙂" class="_1ift _2560 img" src="https://www.facebook.com/images/emoji.php/v9/zeb/2/16/1f642.png" style="border: 0px; display: inline-block; height: 16px; margin: 0px 1px; pointer-events: none; vertical-align: middle; width: 16px;" /> I'm not sure if you are aware or not, but I recently moved to Dallas, Texas to attend seminary. It's crazy how warm it still is in November....I didn't realize how different it was going to be from Georgia. Although I'm sure it's already pretty cold where you are. <img alt="🙂" class="_1ift _2560 img" src="https://www.facebook.com/images/emoji.php/v9/zeb/2/16/1f642.png" style="border: 0px; display: inline-block; height: 16px; margin: 0px 1px; pointer-events: none; vertical-align: middle; width: 16px;" /> </span><br />
<span style="background-color: #f1f0f0; color: #4b4f56; font-family: "sf optimized" , , , , ".sfnstext-regular" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; letter-spacing: -0.12px; white-space: pre-wrap;">I realize that this message is coming out of the blue, so please don't feel obligated to respond. However, I would love to get your opinion on something if you felt comfortable. As you can imagine in my seminary classes I have begun doing a more in-depth study of various topics. However, if I'm honest, I am very curious as to the opinions of people from all viewpoints as it relates to God. I am not one who is afraid to learn why people believe differently than myself. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: #f1f0f0; color: #4b4f56; font-family: "sf optimized" , , , , ".sfnstext-regular" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; letter-spacing: -0.12px; white-space: pre-wrap;">In a completely non-confrontational sense, I would love to know what your view is on God and how you came to that belief. Also I would love to know what your biggest frustration is with Christians in general.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: #f1f0f0; color: #4b4f56; font-family: "sf optimized" , , , , ".sfnstext-regular" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; letter-spacing: -0.12px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Like I said, please don't feel obligated to respond; however, I am truly curious and would love to know your response if you felt comfortable to share. I hate the idea of making assumptions, so I see this as a way for me to learn from you.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: #f1f0f0; color: #4b4f56; font-family: "sf optimized" , , , , ".sfnstext-regular" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; letter-spacing: -0.12px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Well, I hope you and your family are doing well! Take care!</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: #f1f0f0; color: #4b4f56; font-family: "sf optimized" , , , , ".sfnstext-regular" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; letter-spacing: -0.12px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
I answered that I would love to answer and asked here if it would be okay with her for me to answer in the form of a blog post... She agreed and here we are:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
From her message I divined the following questions which i've outlined here (I've interpreted a bit here and there):</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>What is God? Are you an atheist or agnostic is kinda how I see this.</li>
<li>How did you come to believe this .. pretty straightforward really.</li>
<li>What is it about christians that you find so darn frustrating</li>
</ol>
<div>
I think I'll try to address these all in a series of reflections which I'll flesh out below...</div>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
The God of Abraham: In the beginning I was a christian and then after some rumination it made no sense anymore</h2>
<div>
Like most Americans in my general age group I attended church regularly, and moreover, I attended a parochial school, Good Shepherd Lutheran in Irving, TX ... and look they even have a website now: <a href="http://www.gslcirving.com/">http://www.gslcirving.com/</a>, until the 4th grade where religious instruction was a regular part of the curriculum. I constructed "I love Jesus" crafts (something Ann Sofie loves to bring up every now and then), attended church on Sundays (mostly .. I can't remember exactly how often we went, but I know that my mom is a believer and at that time I think we attended quite regularly), and even constructed my own weapons for apostle action figures (we had some kind of arts and crafts assignment in 2nd or 3rd grade where we used popsicle sticks, glue, and construction paper to make our own apostles ... probably we did more than this but this is what I can remember). </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I realize that this is crazy, but it's an indelible memory of mine. I remember combining toothpicks with tiny red straws to create what were would be swords and even constructed tiny bow and arrows for the dozen popsicle stick men I had created. I even had a running narrative where the apostles become blessed with super powers and used their weaponry to exact revenge on Pontius Pilate and his gang of rapscallions (they might've been reading Twain aloud to us around that time as well ...) I also have clear memories of Mr. Lions informing me that this vengence filled indulgence was not only wrong (and probably a bit disturbing .. but I was an eight year old boy interested in ninjas) but was really missing the point. There was a story here that had a message and altering it was not only revisionist (of course he didn't use these words to explain it to me ... but it's the general message I remember coming away with) but derided the very sacrifice that was made. Jesus died without a blood thirsty gang of ninja apostles to swoop in and defend his honor. He died alone. He suffered for my sins. Was tried for my sins. And I needed to be thankful for this.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
For my sins. My sins as an eight year old.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And god was omnipotent (and omniscient) </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This whole ninja thing was actually pretty important. I mean I gave up ninjas almost immediately, but the interest in stories and fiction was fierce. I loved it. I loved reading stories and I began to read a lot and in particular I had a penchant for fantasy novels. My father's interest in the natural sciences and let's face it the fact that he was running a nuclear pharmacy also had their impact. At home we watched Star Trek and discussed simple physics and the world seemed amazing ... Even if at the time I thought the christian god was the one behind it all.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Somewhere around this time I also had a sort of puerile philosophical monologue in my head about the nature of god's omnipotence. I remember wondering if God was so powerful that he could somehow be better at being "me" than I was. What kind of sense did it make for God to be more capable of acting out the flawed thinking and actions of an eight year old than that eight year old himself. This is hardly an argument that would convince me of anything today and i'm not sure that this line of thinking is really and truly defensible (I mean I'm not sure omnipotence needs/must be inclusive of such a definition... It's like being tolerant of intolerance ... what kinda sense does that make), but it's part of what ultimately led me to dump faith altogether.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We moved to Houston in 1984. This move meant that we lost the connection we had with our former church and were forced to build a new life in League City. We never found another church to attend really though we did try at least one if memory serves (A presbyterian church). I learned that my father in fact was an atheist (something I remember feeling a special kind of dread about). My interests in science, science fiction, and fantasy were emerging and growing... At the same time I was hearing from my another friend of mine, a baptist, that these interests of mine were injurious and that I should cease with this dalliance immediately. He was a good friend of mine for a time, Darren Strunk, and I even attended lock-ins with him at his baptist church (Lock-ins btw are creepy as fuck.... try explaining this concept to a swede ... It hadn't really occurred to me how bizarre a concept they were until I tried explaining them to people here).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Anyway .. All this came to a head when I realized one day while eating lunch with Darren and McKee that I actually wasn't sure about this whole god thing at all. Darren had again begun to condemn the books we were reading "the Xanth series by Piers Anthony: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanth">Xanth</a>) I had learned about the word "agnostic" from my dad.... He had explained that our Aunt Betty Ann was agnostic... To be honest I didn't really understand what it meant more than his simple explanation which was basically, "she wants to see to believe." As it turns out this is a terrible definition of agnostic, but it was enough of a working definition for me at the time ... So at the ripe age of 13 I decided I didn't believe this nonsense anymore.</div>
<div>
<br />
** I gather she went back to Christianity long before she finally passed (which I'll never understand, btw)... but in the 80's she claimed to be agnostic and I kinda had a special relationship with her because of it. She and I had a number of endearing conversations throughout my adolescence through to adulthood... She was the first person to recommend me to read Hume and introduced me to the concept of empiricism when I was still in Junior High.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There was no God that was going to damn me for playing Dungeons and Dragons, reading fantasy, and enjoying the wonders of science above and beyond what was in the bible. If there was any accountability in the world to be had at all then surely actually committing bad deeds would weigh heavier than enjoying stories.<br />
<br />
----<br />
I know what you're thinking... You're thinking, "But Geir, God doesn't require that at all!!!!" I realize that of course, but you're fooling yourself if you think that many a pundit circa 1988 didn't espouse such things. This was the time where the world was imprisoning people who played role playing games... I was an AVID role player during this period... I only stopped playing really when we got children of our own and really couldn't find the time to do so anymore.<br />
<br />
That whole RPG-scare has since died down, but it left its mark on society in general and on me specifically.</div>
<div>
----</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This led to a sort of freedom. It turns out my friend McKee didn't believe anyway. His parents were a part of some weird Indian sect that worshipped what they called "The Master." I never really figured out what the heck that was all about, but suffice it to say that he didn't really believe in anything anyway. We began to look at the world more skeptically. <br />
<br />
Surely if there were a god there would be some sort of accountability. <br />
<br />
What does it mean to live a "good" life?<br />
<br />
How on earth could God punish people (depending on the branch of christianity you believe in) who never even knew anything about God or Jesus?<br />
<br />
What kind of sense does it make to allow a serial-killer to repent on his deathbed but condemn an otherwise "good" (at least in a biblical sense of good works) person to hell or at least limbo (again depending on your flavor of christianity)`</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
**** This is really the biggen for me and always has been **** What kind of morality is derived from belief? Can we even control what we believe? Surely our actions and the intent behind them must weigh more heavily than what we believe.<br />
<br />
None of this God-stuff made any sense any more. The moment I let go the moment the world started to fall into place ... And it landed in such a way that was far more parsimonious with regard to cause and effect than God ever was.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
** A smallish afterword.... Look, this is just how I moved away from God. I'm not suggesting that these particular arguments are especially compelling, but this, I think, is a pretty good rundown of how I left faith behind me... </div>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
College: Studying Philosophy and rewriting God as god</h2>
<div>
This whole question of god isn't something I've taken lightly... Honestly, this has become a lifelong interest and passion of mine. Why do people believe? And, more to the point, how can I help my peers move away from what is clearly flawed thinking ... How can we as humans move from God to god and thereafter do away with this altogether.<br />
<br />
This interest grew so much that I opted to study philosophy in college. I should be clear here, that it wasn't *only* this god question that caught my interest, rather, the philosophical interest in clear thinking and pursuit/love of wisdom intrigued me. Well, that, and I had a genuine interest in existentialism. My foray there, however, isn't really of any interest here.<br />
<br />
I really began to cement my ideas on this god matter in college. There is no God, or at least no evidence of one... And this missing God certainly isn't worthy of a capital "G." We can absolutely refer to him/her with a 'g.'<br />
<br />
It was during college when I realized that there really are two different types of arguments around "God" with the capital 'G.'</div>
<div>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Is there any kind of God, or prime mover, or intelligent designer, or god of the deists, or Brahma, or any other kinda Upanishadic/vedic god that is sort of everywhere but without agency</li>
<li>Is there an [insert specificl religion here] god **OR** can we trust [insert religious text here]</li>
</ul>
<div>
The former is a harder question ... Is there a prime mover? How the hell should I know? How can anyone know? What caused the prime mover? Are there turtles the whole way down? <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down">Unmoved Mover</a><br />
<br />
This concept comes up a number of times throughout the history of philosophy: Aristotle, Aquinas (really just expanding and trying to christianize Aristotle), Spinoza, and really all the way to the Big Bang. The definitions here are, in my humble opinion, nebulous... It's really just its own formulation of the cosmological argument... The problem is that it's so generic that it can't be answered really.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Then there's the question of specific religious texts and the claims they're making based upon those texts. This second question is the far more polemical question, bizarrely. All of these religions and interpretations cannot all be simultaneously correct. As convinced as you may be of the veracity behind scripture christianity may in fact be declining. Many are speculating that populations demographics will drive more muslims into our global population and that within 100 (maybe even 50) muslims will outnumber christians. This is nothing new ... We've been aware of this development for quite some time.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But what does it mean that the definition of god will change proportionally on the globe? I dunno. Nothing?<br />
<br />
For this we have to start comparing scripture. How do we rank scripture in terms of historical and or predictive veracity? That's one question. Another question may even be what their predictive power is for our practical world.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It's this latter argument that garnered my attention in college. Why should we ascribe any meaning and power to the bible if it provides nothing to help what really is our bottom line in this life. How long do we live? How can we mitigate suffering? How can we help people live more productive and meaningful lives?<br />
<br />
The bible wants to answer these questions but it simply doesn't. Modern medicine saves lives. Go read up on humorism and decide for yourself if you think this is reasonable... And remember this was officially endorsed by the church: anything else was blasphemy.<br />
<br />
Now, perhaps you're thinking ... "Yes, but that was a long time ago. There's nothing inherently incompatible with modern medicine and Christianity." Well, the problem is that this battle has been waged for more than a millennium now this way. With Christianity begging/demanding that research claims stop here or there until the evidence becomes so overwhelming that ignoring it begins to be deemed negligence.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
The last 10 - 15 years:ish</h2>
<div>
The last decade or so has seen the rise of the "four horseman." I don't approve of or agree with everything that Dennet, Hitchens, Harris, or Dawkins have written/said but they certainly did a fantastic job of popularizing the movement. I can actually be a bit stronger than that and say that I find a lot of what Dawkins says on twitter to be repugnant. Not everything and I enjoy seeing him speak in public, but I do sort of wish he'd delete his twitter account.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
My personal favorite of these is Hitchens... I can watch his debates on youtube for hours at a time and I've read a number of his books (he died 2011). All that said .. These are just debates and to be honest debates don't really prove anything at all; they tend to turn into a sort of smack-down fest which doesn't really lend itself to finding any truth about anything.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In 2004 or 2005 I read <u>Angels and Demons</u> and then <u>The Da Vinci Code</u>. At the time I had a colleague far more well read than I in patristics .. That's an exaggeration. I didn't know bupkiss about patristics at the time. Anyway, he and I were talking and he basically laughed at me for believing the nonsense written about in Dan Brown's novels. He suggested I read up more on the subject before I started believing this kind of pop-fiction... At this point I was blissfully unaware of the aforementioned four horseman, but they were becoming more and more popular at the time. I still think the reasons I had in college for leaving faith behind me were still more than valid, but the integrity of history is important and this kindled an interest in history that's still very much alive in me today...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So after that I started reading ... I read more and more of the bible. I read Eusebius, I read Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennet, and Harris. I read Josephus (well, if I'm honest I read the jesusy parts ... which is like almost nothing. I think I read a bit more than that but not much. It was like 10 years ago too so it's been a while)... Then I read Ignatius, Tertullian, and Ambrose. I read Ehrman. Actually, i've read several of Ehrman's books now. I read Robert Price (and btw ... I think the whole mythicism thing is a bit fringe. It's interesting, but I'm not ready to take that leap yet). Just a few months ago I read Trypho by Justin Martyr .. I also read the Koran and am currently in the middle of the <u>Elder Edda</u>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Anyway ... This is hardly something i've discarded without thinking about it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
What I find frustrating with Christians</h2>
<div>
This one is a bit unfair. It's not so much that I have problems with Christians as much as I reject religions in general. I do have significant problems with Dominionism in the US, but that's really an intersection of christianity with US politics.<br />
<br />
In the US I think christianity poses the greatest risk to a progressive society, but I'm not blind to the fact that Islam in fact poses the greatest risk globally. Having said that, we should remember that no one cared about Islam 30 years ago. This has become embroiled in its own political struggle<br />
<br />
Really, I think I can list only three issues...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
1) There seems to be some bizarre notion, among US christians at least, that I just need to have god explained to me again. This is ridiculous. I've given this WAY more thought than the vast majority of people ever will. I've considered this long and hard .. and I'm simply unconvinced. To be honest I think I never would have believed had I not been indoctrinated to do so from when I was young... Like all of us btw ... Or Like Muslims, or Hindus, or Sikhs, etc.<br />
<br />
2) There's an assumed primacy among christians that I find annoying and some bizarre predilection to refer to the bible. Why on earth should I rely on the bible as authoritarian for anything at all? Christians should really read the bible more **AND** they should really read some textual criticism. It's ridiculous that most christians have never considered the differences in the accounts portrayed in the synoptic gospels .. that most christians are blissfully unaware that the adulterous woman from john 7:53 - 8:11 doesn't exist in *ANY* of our earliest manuscripts.... and so on .. and so on..<br />
<br />
3) And this last point is for me the biggest one .. And it's one that's honestly been with me since I was a teenager. Morality is either a constant or it isn't **full stop**<br />
<br />
As an atheist I live a moral life by example. I don't assume that a creator somewhere decrees things good and bad and nonetheless has wiped out entire civilizations multiple times (including children) capriciously. This is an act that if committed by anyone but god has precise wording: genocide. The bible is quite clear on slavery, on rape, and on worship. There are rules for each of these which imply an acceptance of them. Yet, to me these things are relegated to a barbaric past and hardly something I'd elevate according to today's stanards. I'm open to discussion on ethics and I admit that I'm not sure where on the consequentualism spectrum I land but I'm quite sure that you can't both allow that god did "good" by murdering children in the great flood and demand that killing children is bad. And depending on which ten commandments you choose ... why on earth should so many be devoted to how we worship god? Why aren't more people upset with this salient point? It's insane. Why isn't, "thou shalt not rape or enslave thy neighbor" in there at all? It's omission is egregious and historically obvious ... Our norms have changed.</div>
</div>
Geirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08474753906238154926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1273696127128645584.post-69266811359848699192017-09-09T12:22:00.001+02:002017-09-10T10:50:14.894+02:00Rush and fleeing hurricane Irma<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="bu42h" data-offset-key="dhma4-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: "SF Optimized", system-ui, -apple-system, system-ui, ".SFNSText-Regular", sans-serif; letter-spacing: -0.12px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="dhma4-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; letter-spacing: -0.12px;">I want to address the media and reporting and our outrage and the throwing the baby out with the bathwater that i'm often complaining about with regard to the media... Yes, media doesn't get everything right, but that doesn't mean everything they report is wrong.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="bu42h" data-offset-key="4q967-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: "SF Optimized", system-ui, -apple-system, system-ui, ".SFNSText-Regular", sans-serif; letter-spacing: -0.12px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="4q967-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;">
<span data-offset-key="4q967-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;">Anyway ..</span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="bu42h" data-offset-key="apbg8-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: "SF Optimized", system-ui, -apple-system, system-ui, ".SFNSText-Regular", sans-serif; letter-spacing: -0.12px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="apbg8-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;">
<span data-offset-key="apbg8-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;">I woke early today and read the news that Rush Limbaugh had fled after calling Irma a "liberal hoax." And so I thought i'd look into this. Looking up Rush Limbaugh and liberal hoax in google I found it widely reported.</span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="apbg8-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;">
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="bu42h" data-offset-key="dhma4-0-0" style="letter-spacing: -0.12px;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="dhma4-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;">
<span data-offset-key="apbg8-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;"><span data-offset-key="dhma4-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;">And just a quick proviso. People who know me will remember that I think Rush Limbaugh is a dangerous conservative whack job... But I don't think he's actually evil, and I certainly want to defend in any case the principle of charity ...</span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="bu42h" data-offset-key="d6o3i-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: "SF Optimized", system-ui, -apple-system, system-ui, ".SFNSText-Regular", sans-serif; letter-spacing: -0.12px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="d6o3i-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;">
<span data-offset-key="d6o3i-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;">After spending about 5 minutes I couldn't find that he had actually used the words "liberal hoax" anywhere. I did find this entry from his blog/website which I *think* is what all the hubub is about.</span><br />
<span data-offset-key="d6o3i-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="bu42h" data-offset-key="fkqh1-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: "SF Optimized", system-ui, -apple-system, system-ui, ".SFNSText-Regular", sans-serif; letter-spacing: -0.12px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="fkqh1-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;">
<span data-offset-key="fkqh1-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;">https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/09/05/my-analysis-of-the-hurricane-irma-panic/</span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="bu42h" data-offset-key="98rqo-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: "SF Optimized", system-ui, -apple-system, system-ui, ".SFNSText-Regular", sans-serif; letter-spacing: -0.12px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="98rqo-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;">
<span data-offset-key="98rqo-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="bu42h" data-offset-key="9vpah-0-0" style="background-color: white;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="9vpah-0-0" style="color: #1d2129; direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; letter-spacing: -0.12px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<span data-offset-key="9vpah-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;">And I gotta say I think that the liberal hoax narrative is lazy. I can't see that he's calling hurricane Irma a liberal hoax at all. What I see is a lengthy criticism (in editorial form) of how climate change is reported and he suggests that retailers, media, and the masses sort of feed off eachother in a vicious, hype circle. I do see that Rush Limbaugh took umbrage with the characterization and as I sort of agree with him if this is the real narrative.</span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="9vpah-0-0" style="color: #1d2129; direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; letter-spacing: -0.12px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<span data-offset-key="9vpah-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="9vpah-0-0" style="color: #1d2129; direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; letter-spacing: -0.12px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<span data-offset-key="9vpah-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;">Now... About that phrasing: "liberal hoax".... Let's look at how this was reported in some of the major papers.</span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="9vpah-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li style="color: #1d2129; font-family: inherit; letter-spacing: -0.12px; white-space: pre-wrap;">FOX: couldn't find it there</li>
<li>NPR: couldn't find it there</li>
<li>Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/09/06/rush-limbaughs-dangerous-suggestion-that-hurricane-irma-is-fake-news/?utm_term=.868358e021f2</li>
<li>Nytimes: https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/09/08/us/ap-us-hurricane-irma-limbaugh.html?mcubz=1</li>
<li>cnn: http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/08/media/rush-limbaugh-evacuates-hurricane-irma/index.html</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="9vpah-0-0" style="color: #1d2129; direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; letter-spacing: -0.12px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
For FOX and NPR it's quite possible that it was reported, but after a few minutes of searching for it I gave up, but I really can't blame them, because I honestly don't think it's very interesting news.
The Washington Post and Nytimes gave what I think were reasonable accounts. It's only CNN's headline which I think takes a lot of liberty but the article itself I think gives a reasonable rundown of Rush's rant with regard to hype and fear of hurricanes and climate change.
But what about "liberal hoax?" Where is this coming up? Googling from my home in Sweden for "liberal hoax" and Rush Limbaugh does indeed return numerous results but none of these are journals any reasonable person would describe as trustworthy. My conclusion here is that it in fact was reported reasonably by the major media outlets when it was reported at all...
Now ... What about his actual claims with regard to hurricane frequency and intensity. I do think this is important piece of this puzzle and so I looked up some real scientific analysis on the subject... This led me here:
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
</div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="9vpah-0-0" style="color: #1d2129; direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; letter-spacing: -0.12px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<br /></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="9vpah-0-0" style="color: #1d2129; direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; letter-spacing: -0.12px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
This is an excellent run down of the current conclusions. Note this quick rundown from that article:</div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="9vpah-0-0" style="color: #1d2129; direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; letter-spacing: -0.12px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="9vpah-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
<ul style="border: 0px; color: #111111; font-family: Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 1.6em; margin: 0px 0px 1em 2em; padding: 0px; white-space: normal;">
<li style="border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).</span></li>
<li style="border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.</span></li>
<li style="border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclone in some basins–an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones.</span></li>
<li style="border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 2px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day ones, with a model-projected increase of about 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center.</span></li>
</ul>
<div>
<span style="color: #111111; font-family: "verdana" , "tahoma" , "arial" , sans-serif;">So my conclusion here? Well, he's right actually with regard to the science. It's premature to conclude that climate change is causing either increased hurricane frequency or intensity. All that said, I think he goes way to far in describing what, yes, I think would amount to a conspiracy. Having said that I'm not sure why asking this question is itself worthy of criticism .. On the contrary, I looked into it and the science is focused on these questions. We shouldn't dismiss the science just because our politicians have misunderstood the conclusions from the data and current modelling ... And, honestly, i'd much rather have Bernie Sanders asking if there is a link between hurricanes and their intensity with climate change than pundits suggesting climate change is a political agenda...<br /><br />I will continue to read the major media outlets... In my humble opinion they've reported this correctly.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Geirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08474753906238154926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1273696127128645584.post-46154200832828339422015-05-07T21:51:00.001+02:002015-05-07T21:52:22.010+02:00National day of prayer ...<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Today is the National Day of prayer. A day I find misguided and utterly absurd in 2015 both in virtue of it's utter impotence and it's ridiculous exclusivity.<br />
<br />
I don't disparage people who want to pray, but a national day of prayer does irk me nonetheless...<br />
<br />
So first some history. This link gives a great rundown on a timeline behind the NDP:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/day_pray2.htm">http://www.religioustolerance.org/day_pray2.htm</a><br />
<br />
I note that notable figures like Thomas Jefferson stood against the very notion .. But I won't linger on that point, because I want to be forward thinking and besides others will simply point to other notable figures in the US's venerable past who did.<br />
<br />
I want to know what we're supposed to do with this day? What does it mean? Can we all sit together and pray away economic inequality? Crime? Dissenters on the 1st or 2nd amendment? How is this day not a national wishing day of individual vice and virtue... And by virtue here I mean the righteous virtue behind biblical sentencing...<br />
<br />
I wonder what people pray for today. Too bad we have no statistics for prayer. Would probably be most enlightening.</div>
Geirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08474753906238154926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1273696127128645584.post-39880841167198358372015-05-06T09:57:00.001+02:002015-05-06T09:57:31.206+02:00Be skeptical of hasty conclusions drawn from google search suggestions<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
There's a patheos article going around with an image of google searches beginning with "atheists should" .. I figured it must be grossly exaggerated so I decided to try it and received the same result. Shocking? I'm not surprised. See here below:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-R-vdxadGQLo/VUnGET_oaJI/AAAAAAAAICw/Z5-Ycn_fBdM/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2015-05-06%2Bat%2B9.34.06%2BAM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-R-vdxadGQLo/VUnGET_oaJI/AAAAAAAAICw/Z5-Ycn_fBdM/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2015-05-06%2Bat%2B9.34.06%2BAM.png" height="65" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
That said, it strikes me that these two words are clearly part of a negative statement and so google's algorithm is only returning those search phrases most in line with it ...<br />
<br />
But what about other phrases?<br /><br />Next I tried with Christianity:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bZL4o1u3MDk/VUnGWMuk4wI/AAAAAAAAIC4/YVLDbw4sego/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2015-05-06%2Bat%2B9.39.45%2BAM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bZL4o1u3MDk/VUnGWMuk4wI/AAAAAAAAIC4/YVLDbw4sego/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2015-05-06%2Bat%2B9.39.45%2BAM.png" height="58" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
And then Islam:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-PBxuYYPFU7w/VUnGm_28wUI/AAAAAAAAIDA/zqEBtyv0qUw/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2015-05-06%2Bat%2B9.44.56%2BAM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-PBxuYYPFU7w/VUnGm_28wUI/AAAAAAAAIDA/zqEBtyv0qUw/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2015-05-06%2Bat%2B9.44.56%2BAM.png" height="55" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
And then for good measure a couple more:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0W6OyYpuZDw/VUnH8OSSWnI/AAAAAAAAIDQ/HzmjvtxWB-w/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2015-05-06%2Bat%2B9.50.00%2BAM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0W6OyYpuZDw/VUnH8OSSWnI/AAAAAAAAIDQ/HzmjvtxWB-w/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2015-05-06%2Bat%2B9.50.00%2BAM.png" height="55" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9-10_vp25dY/VUnH8DGP-fI/AAAAAAAAIDg/2RJREPUaTRQ/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2015-05-06%2Bat%2B9.50.11%2BAM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9-10_vp25dY/VUnH8DGP-fI/AAAAAAAAIDg/2RJREPUaTRQ/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2015-05-06%2Bat%2B9.50.11%2BAM.png" height="38" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9FbNdC8fVlo/VUnH8CqehmI/AAAAAAAAIDM/l-avHBf-57E/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2015-05-06%2Bat%2B9.50.28%2BAM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9FbNdC8fVlo/VUnH8CqehmI/AAAAAAAAIDM/l-avHBf-57E/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2015-05-06%2Bat%2B9.50.28%2BAM.png" height="25" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--kPKdPyAYpM/VUnH8oOXbTI/AAAAAAAAIDU/kEaOpjnInXE/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2015-05-06%2Bat%2B9.50.44%2BAM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--kPKdPyAYpM/VUnH8oOXbTI/AAAAAAAAIDU/kEaOpjnInXE/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2015-05-06%2Bat%2B9.50.44%2BAM.png" height="56" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Note that neither children nor cute puppies resulted in any suggestion from google... My educated guess is that there simply aren't enough people inclined to form a negative search string for "children" and "cute puppies." But when I did it with spiders I think I received expected results... The bunnies list of suggestion was odd...<br /><br />I am not claiming this to be a scientific study, in fact I'm suggesting that this shows that we should be far more skeptical of any data taken from this type of sample: people aiming to look for other negative postings.</div>
Geirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08474753906238154926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1273696127128645584.post-47114872635072566692015-01-11T21:44:00.001+01:002015-01-11T21:44:54.799+01:00Je ne suis pas Charlie, mais je suis irritée<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Several things bothering me at the moment regarding the world's reaction the #CharlieHebdo attacks in Paris.<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
1) Insisting that Muslims publicly, and formally denounce the Charlie Hebdo attacks.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
What kind of since does this make? Where is the reciprocation here? Was the christian world called upon to renounce the views and actions of Westboro Baptist Church? How about the Army of God attacks on abortion clinics. What about the Lord's resistance Army</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
or...</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
How about Breivik following the Utøya massacre? He referred to himself as a Christian Crusader for Christ's sake ( pun intended ).</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
2) That we should respect all religions...</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Nonsense.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I don't respect any religions at all and consider religion a net-negative in the world. I respect implicitly individual rights to practice religion, pray, and worship. That's very different from actually respecting the religious beliefs themselves. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
3) That the recent attacks have nothing to do with Islam</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I think this one annoys me the most. When the perpetrators themselves claim religious justification for their actions then i'm inclined to listen. Any claim to the contrary requires an extraordinary explanation.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
A better explanation would be to explain that they're part of a sect. That I can live with .. But even then it's a sect clearly justifying its actions based on the same book.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Is this unique to Islam? Not at all, and I mentioned a few of the others under point one at the top.</div>
</div>
Geirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08474753906238154926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1273696127128645584.post-40839514522854869822014-05-08T21:55:00.000+02:002014-05-08T21:56:15.395+02:00My Email to the Saudi Embassy regarding Raif Badawi's sentencing<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
In an effort to show support and as a direct copy of Greta Christina's action here is my letter to the Saudi Embassy. You can read what Greta Christina had to say <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2014/05/08/my-email-to-the-saudi-embassy-about-raif-badawi/">here.</a><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #2c2b2b; font-family: Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">TO: </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2c2b2b; font-family: Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">info@saudiembassy.net</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #2c2b2b; font-family: Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">Subject: </span>Regarding the sentencing of Raif Badawi<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial; font-size: x-small;">The grotesquely harsh punishment awarded to Raif Badawi for the crime of "Insulting Islam" is in an international context "beyond the pale." That insulting Islam is a sentence carrying offense is in itself worthy of all critique, and that Saudi Arabia is effectively going to torture and exact outrageous fines for his pursuit of a more liberal and progressive Saudi Arabia is reprehensible. This is in direct violation of basic human decency and fundamental human rights. If Saudi Arabia wishes to accord international relations it should terminate all such barbaric actions immediately.</span></span><br />
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
Sincerely,</div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
/geir</div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
And I'll say as well... Send your own!!!</div>
</div>
Geirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08474753906238154926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1273696127128645584.post-64682285885737834542014-03-25T22:02:00.002+01:002014-03-26T10:45:04.998+01:00Betyg, omdömen och pisaresultat<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Ibland blir jag förvånad på riktigt....<br />
<br />
I måndags kom alliansen med förslaget att från 2017 ska betyg ges redan från fjärde klass. De hade i och för sig andra förslag också, men det var just detta förslag som fick så mycket kritik. Att man diskuterar skolan och eventuell reform är inte så konstigt: det är valår och förre årets PISA-resultat är fortfarande ett färskt minne. Reaktionerna på förslaget har varit många men i nästan alla fallen negativa och baserad på dessa tre punkter:<br />
<br />
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>Betyg är stressande för barnen och ger inget komplett svar om hur ett barn utvecklas</li>
<li>Forskningen tyder på att betyg inte är ett optimalt sätt att mäta ett barns utvecklande vad gäller kunskap och utövandet av den kunskapen</li>
<li>Det är kunskapen i sig och inte betyg som ska räknas</li>
</ol>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Att betyg är stressande och ger ett icke nyanserat omdöme...</h2>
<div>
Dagens system består av skriftliga omdömen. Men betyg är en annan sorts omdöme. De som är mest kritiska till betyg menar att det ger *ett* svar till en nyanserad verklighet. Att ge betyg betraktar ett barns kunskap i helhet utan att säga mer. Det må stämma, men varför är vi mer intresserad av den nyanserade verkligheten innan ett barn börjar i 6:an. Eller är det kanske så att man aldrig ska ha betyg? Dessutom kan man fråga sig varför man inte kan tänka ett betyg system som utgår från flera olika områden. Min dotters betyg är består av alla dessa ämnen och jag som föräldrar får ta del av hela den informationen. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Att betyg ses som mer stressande än nuvarande omdömen säger en hel del om hur luddigt formulerade de är eller kan vara. Man kan väl ana ett skriftligt omdöme som klart och tydligt förklarar var ett barn är stark och var ett barn skulle behöva extra stöd. Men funkar det idag? Lite cyniskt kan jag tycka att vi vet att det inte funkar idag annars hade barnen varit lika oroliga för dessa omdömen som de enligt twitter är för betyg.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Ja... Var våra lärare överraskade över hur Sveriges 15:åringar presterade på PISA? Antingen fungerar nuvarande systemet och levererar barn till 6:e klassen som är beredda att ta på sig den kunskapen de behöver eller så fungerar systemet inte.</div>
<div>
<h2>
Forskning säger si och så...</h2>
</div>
<div>
Här tycker jag att de kan ha en poäng. Har vi trovärdig bevis som tyder på att ett system är att föredra över ett annat så tycker jag naturligtvis att vi ska välja det bättre alternativet. Men, är det så enkelt? Använder vi betyg som varningssignal och inte som substitut för läroplanen? Poängen är att fånga upp problem så tidigt som möjligt för att kunna ta itu med det innan det blir alldeles för svårt. Vi ska inte blunda för att våra 15 åringar inte hade den kunskapsnivån vi har önskat oss. Är det läroplanen som det är fel på? Som jag sa tidigare antingen var våra lärare överraskade över resultatet eller så var de inte det. Jag utgår ifrån att de trodde ändå på kvaliten hos barnen och tycker då att betyg kanske inte är optimalt, men det ger oss i alla fall ett svart-på-vitt svar på hur våra barn presterar och redan från fjärde klassen.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<h2>
Det är kunskapen som är viktig och inte betyg...</h2>
</div>
<div>
Ja, visst. Och det är naturligtvis ingen som tycker att det är just betyg som är viktigt. Lika lite som vi tycker att just PISA-resultatet är viktig. Men vi kan rösta bort betyg och vi kan välja att ignorera PISA också men vi ska vara föga förvånade när det på sikt leder till att man ifrågasätter utbildningen på nästa generationen. </div>
</div>
Geirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08474753906238154926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1273696127128645584.post-22251965209934995862013-12-16T17:24:00.000+01:002013-12-18T09:41:38.166+01:00Agnostic vs Atheist<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Recently, I found myself involved in a lengthy twitter debate on the meanings of a few words: agnostic, theist, atheist and gnostic. At issue is the following table:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
<table border="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td border="0"></td><th>Gnostic</th><th>Agnostic</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Theist</th><td>Gnostic -- Theist</td><td>Agnostic -- Theist</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Atheist</th><td>Gnostic -- Atheist</td><td>Agnostic -- Atheist</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
You can find the same basic table listed in numerous blogs online, but for reference here's one article that tackles the same basic content:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/</blockquote>
And here's yet another in swedish:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
http://opponent.se/2010/10/ateism/</blockquote>
The table is laid out according to common assumptions about the meanings of these words. This same basic layout is found referenced in numerous places and is perhaps evidence of a misguided predilection toward order. Systems that inspire us to organize ideas in this way while we tackle the consequences and meaning behind it all appease some higher ideal, and yet I find myself immensely frustrated with the sophomoric attempt to sift these complicated words into simple boxes.<br />
<br />
My position is that being an agnostic intrinsically implies being an atheist. The notion of an agnostic theist is nonsense. Gnostic atheism is likewise ridiculous, but for a different reason.<br />
<br />
Part of what's at play is, I think, a basic misunderstanding on what these terms actually mean. That or the words truly have been co-opted in recent years and have taken on different meanings. If this is the case it is indeed problematic, because the former connotations carry a lot of weight in philosophy.<br />
<br />
So what do these words Mean?<br />
<br />
<b>Gnosis</b>: This is a greek noun and means, as expected, knowledge. This word gnosis, however, has a long history of meaning in scholasticism (and patristics) and philosophy alike. Gnosis is a kind of spiritual awareness of god's presence; a mystical insight into one's relationship with the spiritual reality. Words and meaning evolve and this is no where more true than with loaned words, however, in this case I think it remiss of us to ignore the relevance of that original meaning. It's this original meaning of the word from which its antonym is derived. Gnosis is the **reason/cause** for belief in god. Obviously, we're not going to be arguing for hard empirical evidence of god, which means that in any way we can<br />
<br />
<b>Theist</b>: Theist is, I think, a far less complicated word. A theist believes in god[s].<br />
<br />
<b>Atheist</b>: Like theist, atheist is simple. An atheist lacks belief in god[s]. Though the actions, convictions and rhetoric of many known atheists may be interpreted as manifest to the contrary, the word in fact means nothing more than the lack of this belief. This is in juxtaposition to a theist which as stated above believes in god[s].<br />
<br />
<b>Agnostic</b>: For agnosticism it's important to understand the origin of the word and where it comes from. Agnositicism was coined by Thomas Huxley and in direct response to this same gnosis described above.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain "gnosis"--had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion...</blockquote>
It's clear to me that his notion of agnostic isn't as simple as utter ignorance. It's a statement and response to the notion of gnosis. He's claiming to not have this spiritual awareness of god.<br />
<br />
Where does this leave us?<br />
<br />
There are really are only two salient positions in the table above that remain cogent: gnostic theist and agnostic atheist. The other two positions though seeminlgy reasonable are in fact incoherent. I will detail them here one by one:<br />
<br />
<b>Gnostic Theist</b>: This one is clear. A gnostic theist claims to have spiritual knowledge or understanding of god[s] and, therefore, believes in god[s].<br />
<br />
<b>Gnostic Atheist</b>: This one is, I think, absurd. Certainly, according to the definitions I laid out above it's illogical, but I maintain that it has other issues. Other sites (like the two I mentioned at the top) will maintain that gnosis is just simply knowledge, and, therefore, this simply is an expression of knowlege about the lack of gods. Atheist is a lack of belief, so what this really refers to is knowledge about ones lack of belief. This may say something about ones personal insight, but it's hardly a religious utterance. This is where the popular definition of the word atheist rears its head: denial of gods, and so we're left with definitive knowledge about the lack of gods. However, we know it's impossible to be certain of negative knowledge. My detractors will argue that it's theoretically possible to imagine a confused individual who believes that they have knowledge of the lack of god, but that's hardly a reason to keep it in the list. There are loads of bad-faith assumptions and confusions we could come up with, but that doesn't mean that they are sound and should be entered into a matrix to justify its own existence.<br />
<br />
<b>Agnostic Theist</b>: The connotation here is that someone who lacks gnosis (which is the only reason to ever believe in god) nevertheless *believes* in god. At this point, I think it's incumbent upon me to discuss the word belief. This word is tricky. Belief in this religious sense is more than the belief associated with the word trust. Do I know the sun will rise tomorrow? No, but I trust that it will based on previous experience. I do, btw, have loads of experience and evidence to corroborate my trust. The same cannot be said of religious belief. Here I have only faith. Faith is a special sort of belief: belief that specifically does *NOT* rest on testable claims or material evidence. Furthermore, the origin of the word agnostic itself is a statement about the lack of conviction behind this belief. Huxley didn't coin this word, because he hadn't seen the empirical evidence supporting god, rather the term stands extant as a repudiation of gnosis. No theist believes, because of evidence. Theism is about belief/faith in spite of the lack of evidence. It's belief because of gnosis.<br />
<br />
<b>Agnostic Atheist</b>: Finally. This combination, I think, makes sense but is redundant. An agnostic, lacking gnosis, cannot believe in god and therefore lacks the belief. It's simple.<br />
<br />
There we have it. This matrix stands as a model based on common use of the words, but misses, I think, some important background behind what these words mean. Also, I am sure that some will argue that there are loads of atheists who claim to *know* that there are no gods, but I hardly see how this matters. This position is indefensible, and whether they believe (falsely) to have knowledge about the lack of gods or not that position is completely incomprehensible.</div>
Geirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08474753906238154926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1273696127128645584.post-64423516333838544322013-09-10T15:49:00.001+02:002013-09-10T15:49:42.954+02:00Punitive attack on Assad<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I've just watched the following O'reilly video:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://video.foxnews.com/v/2660510679001/the-consequences-of-syria/">http://video.foxnews.com/v/2660510679001/the-consequences-of-syria/</a><br />
<br />
And i'm floored. He can't seriously equate war with a punitive action on Assad. The idea is nonsense and i'm convinced that O'Reilly knows this. So what on earth is the play here?<br />
<br />
Is it really more important to paint a picture that presents Obama as "weak" than it is to propose a credible solution for Syria that fulfills the following criteria?<br />
<br />
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>Action in Syria's best interest</li>
<li>Action in our best interest</li>
<li>Action in the region's best interest</li>
</ol>
<div>
Now, i'm not defending Assad nor his use regimes use of chemical weapons, but surely a scenario which removes them from his arsenal prior to any further military action is a good idea, and it absolutely doesn't need to be the end of the conversation. If we want to remove Assad from power we can still move in that direction and do so with greater authority.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I find this to be a fantastic first step toward a liberated Syria and one that offers the possibility of finding peace through diplomacy. More and more is pointing to a joint diplomatic effort between Russia and the US. Now imagine that. The US threatens with war so that Lavrov can offer to take those nasty chemical weapons off of Assad's hands. Interesting indeed. Yes, the US is now so weak that it chooses to avoid costly wars and exposing it's service men to the threat of chemical weapons.</div>
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Geirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08474753906238154926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1273696127128645584.post-87555344106591031582013-09-03T15:54:00.000+02:002013-09-03T15:54:14.933+02:00Jimmy the Greek from Lebanon...<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Today I had a few minutes of time during my normal lunch period and decided to get a haircut. My hairdresser was a roughly 30 year old bearded individual who asked me quietly in broken swedish if it would be ok for us to speak english. And off we were talking about the world.<br />
<br />
"Hi, I'm Jimmy. My father was too big a fan of Jimmy Carter and he named me Jimmy. Personally I am a big fan of George Bush."<br />
<br />
Jimmy is from Lebanon but is of half greek heritage and recently left his homeland and has moved to Sweden to escape the terrors of running a hair salon just outside of Beirut. A christian, his native language is French and though he spoke a little arabic he claimed to not speak it as fluently. Now, i'm stunned to meet someone from this part of the world who claims to love George Bush, but I suppose I shouldn't be. I explained to him my own feelings (hate is a strong word, but I am not stretching if I say that I think George Bush was the worst president in my lifetime).<br />
<br />
"George Bush makes war, because he says god told him to. He seems to me to be a righteous man" or something to that effect.<br />
<br />
ehh WHAT?<br />
<br />
I went on to explain that it's precisely this sort of piety that emboldens me to question religion. How can weigh in on your thoughts with my silly reason when you're having a personal, and hidden conversation with God about what to do. This is precisely why I am not just an atheist, but a new atheist.<br />
<br />
And why does he like George Bush? He's a christian of course. Not one of those pesky, arabic speaking muslims who are destroying his homeland. Now he's abandoned it and fled to Sweden where he can be surrounded by people who don't care about religion at all. Now he's safe to be a christian.<br />
<br />
---<br />
Honestly, I thoroughly enjoyed having my hair cut by Jimmy and i'll be going back in about 6 weeks for my next cut...</div>
Geirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08474753906238154926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1273696127128645584.post-23805133188480339432013-06-26T20:09:00.000+02:002013-06-26T20:38:41.467+02:00New Atheism: newer approaches and some questions...<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
For the past year or so I have been watching recorded debates with regular frequency. Most of this started when Christopher Hitchens died in Dec of 2011; the internet had informed me that I should care and so I googled and youtubed my way to google-university to learn a bit.<br />
<br />
I watched video after video of Hitchens and must admit was enraptured: what an eloquent, poised and provocative speaker (Honestly, I still think Hitchens is amazing). My journey continued and I learned about the New Atheists and watched countless debates featuring the "Four Horsemen" and during that time started to listen more and more critically to what I was hearing and, alas, to appreciate more and more the argument their opponents were making. NOTE: I said appreciate not stand behind.<br />
<br />
Today I find myself concerned. My self education has led me to people like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bentley_Hart">David Bentley Hart</a>. Hart has a mixed background, but part of that mixed background involves both patristics and the history of western philosophy. Yesterday, I listened to a criticism of his on Dawkins' <u>The God Delusion</u> and I must say it made sense to me. Specifically, he attacked Dawkins' use of the Aquinas' 5 ways. I am by no means an expert in philosophy but kept it as a major up until my least year in college, so I'm not wholly uninformed on the subject, and even I can remember that Aquinas' 5 ways were meant as a layman's guide on how to think about/recognize god and not a proof of theism per se. Then Hart moved on to discussing the "Four Horsemen" in general and their version of the history of the church and bible and I'm left thinking: why put yourself in this position. Listening to Dawkins debate evolution vs creationism is entirely different.<br />
<br />
Now, make no mistake, I still think religion is nonsense. I also would very much like much of modern religion to go the way of other faiths and hobble off toward Mythology where it can mutate until we think it's quaint like we do with greek mythology today. But I worry about over stating positions and without sufficient evidence.... Stated more directly: if you want to make a strong argument pick those pieces you feel the strongest about. This is particularly true when your argument is a book. And I want to make sure I've stated this. I'm not claiming I could have done better than Dawkins or Hitchens or Harris or Dennett. Moreover, I'm very much of the opinion that this group of, um, Atheist Knights are very good at provocation which incites debate and I think that's valuable for critical thinking. Why weaken your overall position (or at least the perception of it) by introducing additional pieces that are easily picked apart by someone who is an expert in that field.<br />
<br />
And we don't need to go there!!!<br />
<br />
Honestly, I don't really see why we need ever go farther than: where's the empirical evidence in direct support of god? However, assuming you want to make a play that goes after the bible why go any further than what the sectarian experts themselves recognize: the bible as constructed today is based on a mixture of fragments and complete books but these same texts differ from one another... Are most of these discrepancies trivial? Yes, but not all of them are and anyway it doesn't matter. The text we have to go on is either the inerrant word of god or it isn't.<br />
<br />
Should the atheism movement refocus its effort on evidence and shy away from debates on ethics, a priori morality and whether god is the author of evil?</div>
Geirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08474753906238154926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1273696127128645584.post-21996244302851474482013-06-20T11:00:00.000+02:002013-06-20T11:24:10.783+02:00Pain-Capable Rape Victims bear full burden...<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 12.71875px;">By now I'm sure most people have seen the news about the the house passage of the: Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. The driver behind this piece of legislation is the <a href="http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2011/04/19/scientists-send-letter-minnesota-legislators-discrediting-fetal-pain-findings/">dubious claim</a> that the fetus can already feel pain at 20 weeks. No one wants to hurt a baby, right?</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 12.71875px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 12.71875px;">I have several immediate thoughts on all of this and in no particular order:</span></span><br />
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li><span style="background-color: #edeff4; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10.909090995788574px; line-height: 12.727272033691406px;">I think that everyone who supports a bill like this should be willing to adopt and care for adopted children.</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: #edeff4; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10.909090995788574px; line-height: 12.727272033691406px;">You want less abortions? How about better birth control. Let's encourage it and be realistic instead of pushing abstinence. Abstinence as a real option is as absurd as faith in creationism; it doesn't match the data we have.</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: #edeff4; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10.909090995788574px; line-height: 12.727272033691406px;">Many republicans have told me before that I shouldn't assume that the goal is an outright ban on abortions. I beg to differ. It's listed as an official goal of the party (at least in some states) and actions like this indicate to me that this is indeed the ultimate goal.</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: #edeff4; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10.909090995788574px; line-height: 12.727272033691406px;">The fact that the rape provision was added after the fact speaks volumes, imho. If the goal is to increase real reporting of rape (and of course that's not the goal) then this is a setup that makes the victim pay for that change entirely on their own.</span></li>
</ul>
<div>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 12.71875px;">It's that last one in this particular case that really irks me. This essentially coerces rape victims to come forward and handle all of the additional emotional baggage of that ordeal on their own and puts a time limit on it at 20 weeks.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 12.71875px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 12.71875px;">I'm going to risk the slippery slope fallacy a bit and take this a bit farther. Republicans want to ban abortions outright.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 12.71875px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 12.71875px;">The <a href="http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf">Official Republican Platform</a> is quite informative. Republicans want to eliminate any state funding of abortion. Their platform also makes it indelibly clear that in their opinion abortions are not part of health care. This position is troubling given the lack of any kind of qualifying statements/exceoptions regarding the health of the mother. And as I stated above the health of the rape victim is clearly of accidental importance to the health of the fetus.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 12.71875px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 12.71875px;">What is the official position of republicans on abortion to save the life of the mother or even to mitigate the risk of health issues in general? How about the risk of future pregnancies?</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 12.71875px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 12.71875px;">This bill still needs to make it through the senate ...</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 12.71875px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 12.71875px;">UGH!</span></span></div>
</div>
Geirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08474753906238154926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1273696127128645584.post-65907869031626846082012-09-22T16:55:00.002+02:002012-09-22T16:56:33.424+02:00Satan: Keeping government secular<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
This past week Rick Perry made news when he intimated that Satan was behind the separation of Church and State. I won't quote all of it here as it's been blogged to death about and I've seen it in journals everywhere including national news papers here in Sweden....<br />
<br />
He went as far as to invoke the "Iron Curtain" in his remarks, which, actually, is worthy of its own review, but that's not what I want to bring up right now, rather this interesting bit:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: justify;">We have a biblical responsibility to be involved in the public arena proclaiming God’s truth.</span></blockquote>
This concerns me for a variety of reasons.<br />
<br />
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>He's not just "in the public arena"... He's a governor. He's one of the faces of Government... A figure of authority and one claiming that he has a biblical responsibility to be doing this.</li>
<li>Is it even true? I was once a young christian and I remember learning about evangelism, but that seemed to be about the preaching of the gospel with the aim of proselytizing. Given his position in government I rather read this as him saying that he thinks we should be involving christianity more in government... Now, the statement alone doesn't do that, but the rest of what he said absolutely does.</li>
<li>Assuming it is true, how are was a nation supposed to come to terms with a country afraid of sharia but itself driving toward what I can only read as dominionism. How am I as an atheist, or other people who are jews, muslims :), hindu or hell even pagans supposed to feel religious freedom in this type of environment... Feels an awful lot like a move toward an Muslim construct known as the Dhimmi (ok, that one was a stretch... but i invite you to challenge me on it).</li>
<li>Assuming for a second that we all like this notion... What gives Rick Perry the religious authority to be the one doing this proclamation? Do religious leaders support Rick Perry as the message bearer for what is, I assume, a qualified religious strategy around messaging? </li>
<li>And what about catholics vs protesetants and so on? How the hell is this supposed to work?</li>
</ol>
<div>
Can anyone comment on any of this? Do any of my christian friends feel like this is their "biblical responsibility?" </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Furthermore, I'm absolutely convinced that this type of language in politics is new... Or at least new since when I was growing up? Am I wrong? I just simply don't remember religion being invoked in these terms and so often in the 80's... At least not by so many popular politicians.</div>
</div>
Geirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08474753906238154926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1273696127128645584.post-28973593063994911692012-09-16T21:56:00.001+02:002012-09-17T22:26:44.679+02:00Innocence of Americans<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Finally! I was so pleased to hear that our official response to the recent attacks and deaths of Americans has been an unequivocal denial of any possible justification. In our society a movie of any kind no matter how insulting or disgusting is ever justification for the murder of anyone: not even the film maker.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It seems to me that this has to be the answer; our society doesn't encourage films of this nature but we're free to make them. And we do. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A friend of mine pointed me to the following quote by Zawahiri:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
How would Americans feel if films insulting the pope or Abraham Lincoln were produced?</blockquote>
He found it ironic that this quip comes just months after <u>Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter</u> was released, but this isn't the only film in this genre. Our media is filled with critiques of religion, religious figures and historical legends. In the marketplace of ideas that dominates the west we criticize absolutely everything and publish our critique for the whole world to see. In fact, I used to have a huge poster of <u>The life of Brian</u> in my bedroom. The poster showed Brian and several other "criminals" tied up on crosses: a scene from the movie. At one point we had a couple of exchange students from Japan stay with us for a couple of days. At the time we didn't have a lot of extra room and so my wife and I slept downstairs in our living room and gave up our bedroom. I'll never forget that morning when they came rushing down the stairs in their Sunday best and wondered why we weren't ready to go to church. I explained to them that we were atheists and they assured me I was wrong. They had seen my poster! And we tried to explain this movie to them, and they just didn't understand why I'd have a poster of a movie that was clearly making fun of another religion. What was the point? Why did I think it was funny?<br />
<br />
What about Egypt or Lybia?<br />
<br />
Given quotes like the one above it's clear that they haven't payed any attention to western media. Egypt itself is a multicultural society boasting christianity (primarily coptic), baha'i and even juddhism and all in addition to islam. My assumption is that movies are not often created there which denigrate faiths and so when something like this comes out of America and hits the interwebz there's an uproar. Now, I realize that Islam is particularly sensitive to images of Muhammed or Allah, but I'm quite certain that with tad bit of investigation they could find all kinds of prurient, depraved imagery depicting Jesus.<br />
<br />
And if not?<br />
<br />
Let's make a movie? I'd like to put together something really despicable and reach out to media all over the world. Let's show the world just how far we can take this, and when it's all said and done maybe we'll learn something about the innocence inherent in ignorant films.</div>
Geirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08474753906238154926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1273696127128645584.post-91354521824909897372012-09-12T14:19:00.001+02:002012-09-17T09:51:57.593+02:00In America, our origins matter less than our destination, and that is what democracy is all about.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The title of this blogpost is a quote from Ronald Reagan. Now, I'm not actually a Reagan fan, but I like this quote, because it inspired me to revisit several things that have been on my mind lately: what our founding fathers believed and whether it matters.<br />
<br />
It seems to me, and I must admit that I cannot corroborate this at all: it's just my opinion, that with increasing frequency we the people are questioning the political direction of the US and referencing what our founding fathers had designed. I quote Reagan, obviously, because I identify myself as a liberal and find this quote ironic given the tendency on the right to make these bizarre "appeals to tradition," but it's not just the right... We're all doing it.<br />
<br />
Now, I should say right away that I'm keenly aware of the context of this quote. This is from a speech he made at the Republican National Convention in 1992. I won't insert in it's entirety, but to put this in at least a slightly broader context I'll post a bit more of it here:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Whether we come from poverty or wealth; whether we are Afro-American or Irish-American, Christian or Jewish, from big cities or small towns, we are all equal in the eyes of God. But as Americans, that is not enough. We must be equal in the eyes of each other. We can no longer judge each other on the basis of what we are, but must, instead, start finding out who we are. In America, our origins matter less than our destinations and that is what democracy is all about.</span></blockquote>
Now, he's clearly talking more about personal backgrounds with regards to creed or ethnicity, and from the context it's obvious he wasn't talking about the ideas of the founding fathers versus the implementation in a modern day society. Still, I think given the broader context it doesn't miss the mark by much, and so I want to ask...<br />
<br />
<b>What difference does it make whether the founding fathers would concur with our current political direction?</b><br />
<br />
Now, in keeping with the full title (and I would argue that this is in closer context with the larger section I quoted above) I should probably reword the question like so:<br />
<br />
<b>It is less important whether the founding fathers would agree with our current political direction and more important that we ensure its positive impact for all and that is what democracy is all about.</b><br />
<br />
I'm quite happy with that statement, but I suspect a whole lot of my peers wouldn't be. And why is that? What is this predilection toward reverence of past figures in history. It feels an awful lot like religion to me, and indeed religion is one of the themes I very often see used in reference to the founding fathers. There is so much information on this subject that I think you can pick your sources and land in either camp, but what's indelibly obvious is that there were dissenting opinions on the matter even at the time of the founding of our great nation: just look at how Thomas Paine was largely received by his peers by the time of his death.<br />
<br />
But does it matter?<br />
<br />
I am an atheist and simply cannot identify even with the deism of Thomas Jefferson. John Adams didn't even believe in the trinity but openly criticized Paine and comes off, I think, like a christianity apologist:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard [scoundrel, rogue] Paine say what he will.</blockquote>
I'm struggling to imagine a president of the United States in today's world claiming to be a christian, but renouncing the trinity (although I think I've read that he didn't speak of it openly, still)...<br />
<br />
And i've really only scratched the surface. If we leave religion and move on to other issues such as women's suffrage and slavery then I think we end up in a very uncomfortable world if we aren't to stray from the worldview of the founding fathers.<br />
<br />
So, why can't we agree to pick those pieces of contextual worth from our founding fathers and move on. We have to apply these pieces in the modern world: a post-industrialized world with antibiotics, numerous religions, tv, internet porn and even atheists like myself.</div>
Geirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08474753906238154926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1273696127128645584.post-17354189895730406322009-06-06T11:53:00.000+02:002009-06-06T12:02:57.224+02:00Upcoming child and weddingSo one of my best Friends is getting married. I'm thrilled for him. Moreover, the bride-to-be is pregnant. All of this info I gleaned off the internet, because for some reason I haven't been able to get in touch with him for quite some time.<br /><br />I should say that this isn't that hard to believe actually. I live in Stockholm, Sweden and he lives in Austin, TX. Moreover, until recently he's been living a single, bachelor existence and I've been married for almost 13 years and have two children. Still, I was hoping to get in touch with him so that I could get all of the juicy details.... But I've got nothing but dead silence.<br /><br />Well, thanks to facebook I've now learned that he's marrying someone that I have my own history with (before I even met my wife). I'm a little worried that this is why he's been so silent. I mean that was a whole life time ago. In fact I'm thrilled for both of them, yet I have this icky-feeling that although our interactions over the last decade have been quite sparse that this recent event may mean that he's less inclined than before to reach out...<br /><br />I'm going to use the power of social computing one last time now to make a gesture. We'll see how it goes.Geirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08474753906238154926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1273696127128645584.post-81580390586864692262009-06-03T21:54:00.000+02:002009-06-03T22:06:56.347+02:00Illness and AnxietyI have a general phobia for doctors. I am pretty sure I've always been a little uncomfortable around doctors, but it got worse after my son was born. He was born 7 weeks early and so was in the hospital for 3 weeks before we could take him home. During that time he and all the babies around him would have periodic periods of bradycardia (where the heart stops beating or doesn't beat often enough) and apnia (where breathing stops or gets too slow). When this happen we, or the nurses, would just rub his feet and then everything would return to normal.<br /><br />All in all it was a trying experience what with all the beeping and equipment and fuss, but he came out of it fine and is now almost 4 years old. I am thinking about this again as I reach an age where more and more people I know are in hospitals. My Aunt was admitted into the hospital a couple of weeks ago and is, I gather, not 100% conscious. This came as a shock and when I thought about the hospital I felt uncomfortable. Now tonight I've learned that my wife's step-father has been admitted with double-sided pneumonia. His condition is severe and has apparently begun to pass out now and then.<br /><br />What I want to know is why is it when I hear about other people's health problems I immediately start worrying about my own? I have high blood pressure, but I take medication and check it often. I run a couple of times a week, am hardly ever sick and generally have more energy than most people I know... Still, when I hear about other people's ailments it makes me worry. The whole thing seems so self-indulgent and egotistical as well. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense if I were just worried *for* these other individuals instead of pointing the worry back at myself? Oh and it's not like I'm worried I have pneumonia or something...<br /><br />I really hope both of them make full recoveries. I always felt I had a special connection with my Aunt, especially during my High School years, and I just cannot imagine my Mother-in-law without her husband around.Geirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08474753906238154926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1273696127128645584.post-3186013040199883702009-02-16T05:35:00.000+01:002009-02-16T05:37:33.961+01:00At Arlanda again...I have just enjoyed a "fralle" with ham and cheese and am now waiting in earnest to climb aboard the plane to the Amsterdam. I am really hoping that this week will turn out better than the last. On my way home last week I managed crunch down into a piece of glass at the airport restaurant I always eat at. At least I didn't have to pay...Geirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08474753906238154926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1273696127128645584.post-81449248769560579592009-02-05T19:19:00.000+01:002009-02-05T19:23:57.468+01:00I am at Amsterdam's Schiphol airport again. Every Thursday I come here and have a dinner and an Affligem dubbel at the Het Paleis here. It's a nice end of my week abroad. This week, unfortunately, I will not be bringing back loads of beer. I did bring back 12 beers last week and one of them broke. I had to empty my bag in the basement and let it air out the whole weekend. Then I vacuumed the whole thing out. Apparently a shard of glass landed on the carpet, I missed it and Isolde managed to get it stuck in her hand. She called me a few minutes ago to inform me that her hand was bleeding :(<br /><br />I do feel bad, but it beats the hell out of a concussion and memory loss...Geirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08474753906238154926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1273696127128645584.post-4403018879410796922009-01-22T20:00:00.000+01:002009-01-22T22:57:32.860+01:00FIrst week in the Netherlands...Here I sit at Amsterdams Schiphol airport and I've decided to start a blog. I have had quite a week really... Let's do a quick recap...<br /><ol><li>So I am in Amsterdam, instead of Stockholm, because I have started a new contract. I should be here between 6 - 8 weeks if all goes as planned. My previous project, in Sweden, still lays some claim to my time, but that shouldn't account for more 20% (1 day/week), but I have been there full time for almost 2 years. Now, I know lots of people have worked contracts far longer than that, but this is really a long time for me. I was on this gig longer than I worked for my last two employers.</li><li>While I was here Isolde managed to fall and get a concussion. It was actually scarey because she had some memory loss. She seems to be doing a lot better now and is eager to attend the childrens' disco this Friday. Ann Sofie and I will have to decide if we think she is up to it.<br /></li><li>Some anecdotes about the netherlands....</li></ol><ul><li> Milk... So they really, really like milk. I joined a couple of the guys who work in Woerden for a lunch on Monday. We were eating in the cafeteria and they had a sort of typical drink bar with dispensers on two sides. I approached the first side and saw: milk, milk and butter milk. Then I went to the other side and saw the same thing. My colleagues saw that I seemed a bit confused and asked if somethere were awry. I answered that I just hadn't found the water yet. To this they replied, "Hrm... yeah, we crazy dutch don't do water. We just drink milk. I'll bet if you ask the kitchen personnel they can get you some water, but you won't find any water here." So... I'm drinking milk now :)</li><li>So, I already knew that the dutch were a people keen on riding bikes, but I didn't realize they had special bikes that fold up for easy transport on trains. Now, these bikes are not at all new to me actually, but the volumes. One evening on my way back to the train Utrecht Centraal I walked by where bikes were locked up. They actually had to vertical rows. Some, actually many, bikes were suspended in the air to make rom for all of them.</li><li>I have got to learn this language. It's driving me nuts. It sounds like I really should understand. I do after all speak German and Swedish, but I just don't. To be fair to myself, I am understanding a lot more now having been here a week than I did when I arrived on Monday</li></ul>Geirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08474753906238154926noreply@blogger.com0