A Godless Society, part deux

Oh, man, am I ever falling behind here or what? Very good stuff, Gozer. Btw, congratulations on your promotion in Frontier Fleet. All right, down to business.

Some time ago Gozer went on about a Godless society. He made several excellent points, but I felt that it needed to be expanded on. And so . . .

sec-u-lar (adj.) 1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things not regarded as sacred; temporal. 2. not relating to or concerned with religion (opposed to sacred) 3. concerned with nonreligious subjects. [Webster's American Family Dictionary, c. 1998, Random House]

A secular society is one that is not dominated by any system of religious belief. Which means, in real terms, there is no such thing. Society in the United States, for example, is dominated by Judeo-Christian beliefs. In contrast, Turkey is dominated by Islam and Japan, by Shintoism and Buddhism.

But all three are established as secular systems. What this means is that there is no official, state-sponsored religion. Unlike Great Britain, for instance, which has the Church of England. And even Old Blighty functions as a secular state, dealing as it is with a growing Muslim population.

The advantage of a secular system is that, in principle, no religion is banned. All are legal. As opposed to, say, Saudi Arabia where the legal penalty for conversion to Christianity is death. Of course, in this day and age they'd have a hard time enforcing that. They'd probably stop at letting the air out of your camel. But I digress.

Inevitably, people of like mind and background gather together and certain ideas tend to predominate. As in an Italian neighborhood, where most people are Catholic. And yet, legally at least, these people are prohibited from persecuting anyone who prefers to worship at a Mosque or a Synogogue.

A quick disclaimer; I am a Christian. If you're looking for a pigeonhole to stuff me into, try Evangelical Born-Again. Do a google search for the Nicene Creed and you've got my basic theology in a nutshell.

Christians, like other religious people, are often offended by what we see happening in our secular society. It's something that we religious types have to put up with. The up side is that you also have the freedom to be religious. As long as you don't hang out with a bunch of tolerant, open-minded liberals, that is.

Still, it's worth it to live in a secular society. To live in a religious one would quickly turn to oppression. Every non-christian loves to bring up the Spanish Inquisition. (NOOOObody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!) And, I suppose they're right to. It's proof that the most well-intentioned religious law can quickly turn Taliban.

On the other hand, to say that law should never reflect morality is ridiculous. Law, by its very nature, reflects morality. Even laws against things like murder and stealing reflect morality. In a secular democratic republic, the majority get to decide the moral leanings of its laws. Even so, there are people for whom killing and stealing are good things to do. Let's just hope they stay too busy killing and stealing to vote.

The thing we Christians, and other religious folk, have to remember is that freedom is risky. People who don't agree with us still get to use their freedom. For instance, the issue of gay marriage. I'm against it. I believe the bible is against it. Ya want chapter and verse? I'm dead sure that God himself is against it. And yet, I fear that it is inevitable unless we amend the constitution. Nothing in there currently, specifically, prohibits it. Back in the 1780's nobody at the Continental Congress apparently thought it was a big enough issue. At that time it was obviously immoral, like killing and stealing.

The goal is NOT a Godless society, but a secular one. One that does not discriminate. One that says, if it's all right to put the zodiac on the high school wall, it's also all right to put the ten commandments. I'm sorry, but I don't trust people who want to completely remove God from society. They would probably deny it, but the inevitable end is for them to set themselves up as god. Denying me my morality forces me to follow theirs.

Expelled, the movie!

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

So, Ben Stein is doing a documentary about how Intelligent Design proponents or even mentioners are being hounded out of the scientific and educational communities. It sounds like it'd be an interesting movie to see and I hope to catch it eventually (being in the middle of nowhere will make that less likely until it comes out on DVD or something) but let me say this:

The premise of speaking out against the "established ideas" in science sounds a lot like how those who don't buy into Man-Made global warming are being treated.

The red headed step-children of science as it were. Pay no attention to the science or theories they're putting forward just call them names and shout them down. Kick them out of "proper" science or teaching because you don't want their kind there.

Sounds a lot like what happens to Conservatives in general in the education system as I pointed out before in the Indoctinate U post.

Do I believe in ID? Do I believe in evolution? I think there's plenty of evidence for both. I've joked around before that God created the world in 7 days through evolution by putting the world in Fast Forward. Who's to say that's not right either?

Basically for me the idea issue is still open, why shut the door on oposing ideas? Hell if you think we have such highly encoded data in our DNA that we STILL can't figure out after all these years working on it with modern computers was done COMPLETELY at random. Cool. If someone else thinks aliens came down and tinkered with some stuff to get the ball rolling here that's fine as well. To me there's evidence of both and holes in all theories big enough to drive a star through.

A Quick Question

Okay, all this talk in the nation of "racial" issues brings up one of my biggest pet peve question:

If folks whose parent's, or grandparent's, or farther back were considered property or second class citizens are "owed" stuff now because of that. What are folks who were treated as LESS than property owed?

I am talking about the Chinese and other Asian immigrants of course.

I'm not excusing anything that happened in the past. I just want to know at what point in history did the two sides move apart in attitude and prominance. When did blacks start believing that instead of them creating their own opportunities and earning places on their own that they had to have the government make things "fair" for them? When did Asians become considered "people" and take off and do their own thing?

Is the differences because of culture? Upbringing? Genetics? Politcs? Religion? What causes these two minority groups to think of themselves in two different ways? Most of the blacks I've known do see themselves as minorities, verses the Asians I know scoff at the notion! (Hell some laugh even more and point out that several billion of the people on earth are "Asians.") What is it that causes this difference? When did it happen? I really want to know.

Orson Scott Card is one of my favorite writers of all time. Even though he's a Dem he's got quite a good sense of humor when it comes to Mrs. Clinton's latest exploits. I just had to share!

Hillary Under Fire

Ode on Hillary in Bosnia

by Orson Scott Card

"We landed under sniper fire!
We ran for cover, terrified!
The bullets flew around my head!
I thought for sure that I was dead!"

She told the tale in hopes it meant
We'd vote for her for president.
Instead we looked for evidence
Of Hillary's experience,
And found that not a bullet flew.
Her thrilling story wasn't true.

Because we know she never lies,
I ask, how did this tale arise?
Was it a dream, and when she woke
She thought that it was real?
Or was the story just a joke,
And no big deal?

Did drinking too much mocha make her
Fantasize this tale?
Or was it from a line of coke,
A furtive toke of the kind of smoke
That Bill did not inhale?

Oh hush, right-wing conspirators!
Your reasons suck! Now here is hers:
She just misspoke.
She meant to say
She landed on a sunny day
And a little girl read a poem aloud
And Hillary waved to the friendly crowd.

But campaign days are oh so long,
And being a woman, she isn't strong,
So the story simply came out wrong.

How could you think that Hillary lied,
When it was such a small mistake,
The kind that anyone could make?
No joke, no toke of smoke, no coke,
No dream from which she never woke --
She just misspoke.

You've heard that what goes up comes down
And where there's smoke there's fire.
Well, when you visit Hillary Town
The word "misspoke" means "liar."

(Copyright © 2008 by Orson Scott Card. Please duplicate this poem as much as you like, as long as you don't charge for it; but include this copyright notice with it.)

Indoctrinate U!

Wow we don't post often enough. Well let me help fix that by pointing you toward this very interesting independent film called Indoctrinate U.  

Indoctrinate U has a very simple premise:  are college campuses really bastions of intellectual diversity or merely Liberal thought boxes?  While for those of us who are conservatives who went to universities call that a no brainer question, everyone else will probably be surprised by this film.  

I've known about this film for quite some time thanks to Sean Hannity, but I haven't mentioned it for one simple reason: I hadn't seen it.  Thanks to the internet that has now changed because Indoctrinate U now has a download section where for the price of a movie ticket (well for you city folks. :) )  you can download the entire film and show it to all of your friends.  Heck for a bit more you can even download a DVD image and burn your own copies for your friends and family.  (I'm considering doing this myself, it's that good.)  

While I'll be the first to admit that EVERYONE has a bias, and that all forms of media are easily manipulated (especial "documentaries" *cough* Michael Moore *cough*)  I think Evan Maloney did a wonderful job of having visible cuts and edits while at the same time letting the tape run when appropriate.  The film was obviously filmed with a personal camcorder of some kind (probably a Cannon or Sony like I used to have) so the film work can be a bit shaky at times but in the end I have to say the cameraman did extremely well.  

There were also several clips of classic film, news reels, and the like that broke up the interviews and walking segments well.  So cinematically and critically I have to say the film holds up well, but how about the content?  Does it stand up to the smell test?   Are you being force fed the creator's opinion?  

Well there are several clips (for the cheap folks out there) as well as extended/unused segments that you can see for yourself the style Evan uses throughout the film.  I think I respond well to his style because it is very much like my own, where a simple question is put out there and you watch the subjects squirm.  :) 

I do believe he doesn't try and force you to believe that he's right and that colleges are merely "one opinion."  He shows several various opinions and reports of what has happened and is continuing to happen on campuses today.  While you might not believe what he's saying you have to admit that you'll be more prone to look for it next time you're on a college campus.  (Or if you are totally closed off from opposite opinions you won't.)  

In the end I highly recommend at LEAST looking at the trailer and some of the clips on the site.

Heck if you're too cheap to buy it yourself I'm sure the internet will have it floating around for free soon enough.  The sad fact of the matter is that we ALL have opinions and views that we consciously or unconsciously force on others.  In normal day to day life that's fine but when your JOB is to, as Rush says, "mold young skulls full of mush" shouldn't we demand either true neutrality (impossible) or at least more diverse opinions and ideas and not only one view? 

Requiem for a Heavyweight

Gozer, I really liked your piece on secular society, and I have some thoughts to share about it. But for now, I'm going with something I've been thinking about the last couple of weeks. It's a harsh lesson in history, that one would think had been sufficiently learned by now.

The lesson belongs to the man who was, as recently as Christmastime, the Republican frontrunner and inside favorite to be the next President of the United States. America's Mayor, Rudolph Giuliani. He had a bold strategy; he would skip the early contests, featuring small states, and bet everything on Florida. The Sunshine State's one of the famous Big 8, those eight states that hold over half the Electoral College, and their primary was a week before Soopa-Doopa Tuesday. The bump from that win would give him an edge when 24 states went to the polls, and that would carry him over the top.

He has to know this strategy's been tried before, and with the same effect. In 1988 the future Vice President, Tennessee Senator Al Gore, used the same strategy, forgoing Iowa, New Hampshire and all the early states while concentrating on the large group in the middle of the primary season. Unfortunately for him, Mike Dukakis already had the momentum on his side. In spite of doing as well as Dukakis, the Massachussetts Governor managed to win in all four corners of the country. Plus, Jesse Jackson did nearly as well as either of them, making a roughly even three-way split. With everything already leaning his way, Dukakis rode the wave all the way to the Democratic nomination while Gore faded in his rear view mirror.


Some may wonder when all this emphasis on the small early states began. It was always there, really. There's been a first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary since 1952, and until Bill Clinton in '92 nobody went to the White House without first winning the Granite State. Arguably, the first candate to make NH the cornerstone of his strategy was a former peanut farmer and one-term Georgia Governor named Jimmy Carter.

1976 was one hell of a year in American politics. It was the first election after Watergate and Nixon's resignation, and any Democrat should have been able to win the Presidency in a walk. The Republican incumbent was Jerry Ford, who had been appointed VP about a year before inheriting the big chair, and had never run a national campaign.

The big handicap for the Democrats was that their leading lights were out. Edmund Muskie, long-time Senator from Maine, had shot himself in the foot during the '72 campaign when he was the heir apparent. And, for some reason, the other biggest name, Hubert Humphry, stubbornly refused to run. No one knew at the time, but Humphrey was suffering from terminal cancer and was secretly taking experimental medications.

The biggest Democratic name after that was the sitting Governor of California, Jerry Brown. He was the son of Pat Brown, the man who kept Richard Nixon out of the California Governor's mansion in 1962. Good-looking, visionary, and dating Linda Ronstadt, the nomination was his for the asking. So he waited until he was asked.

Unfortunately for him, a large field of Dems didn't feel like waiting. The cleverest of them all, as it turned out, was Carter. He parked himself in New Hampshire a full year before the Primary. He talked to everybody who would listen to him. He covered the state like a blanket. By the time the election rolled around he had an enviable level of name recognition, coupled with a beaming smile and the plea to "trust me." Trust him, they did.

Brown stayed above the fray until a group of six states that all held their primaries on the same day; the prototype of the Super Tuesday we know today. But the Democrats didn't need Brown any more. Carter had a tsunami of momentum coming out of NH, and everybody was chasing him. On the big day, Carter took three of the six states. Brown got one, Arizona Senator Morris Udall took one, and I think Frank Church, Senator from North Dakota, got the last. Carter went to the '76 convention with more than enough delegates to clinch.

So now Rudy knows what Al and Jerry already figured out; you skip the early contests at your own peril. Who cares if they have .02 delegates each, and half of them won't be seated? They're in the news, and that's what builds momentum. On the other hand, last fall John McCain was dead in the water. His funding had dried up, he was cutting his campaign staff to the bone, and all the pundits were sticking forks in him. He was done, and everybody knew it.

Everybody but him. He hung in there, and spent a large portion of the little he had in ol' New Hampshire. He got traction where Rudy saw only ice and snow, and now their positions are reversed. Let the lesson be learned.

A godless society?

Now I for one will be the first to admit I'm not very religious. I believe in things but I don't wear it on my sleeve or throw it in people's faces. In fact, it's that very thing that I hate the most; and that goes for both believers and non-believers.

As this blog's name points out there are an infinite number of ideas and beliefs in this universe. Until something can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt how can we deny one belief over another? Even the belief of disbelief? I bring this all up because of this constant harping on the idea of a "Secular Society."

Personally the idea that anything created by man can be removed from man's ideas is silly at best and naive and foolhardy at worst. Just as there's no such thing as "Unbiased reporting" there's no such thing as a "Secular Society." Why? Because even if we're not beating the drum of our individual religions, we're all affected and influenced by them. This goes for all of our decisions, plans, laws, and ideals. This goes doubly for those who don't believe.

On the most part we can ignore and even pretend our religious leanings and tendencies don't play a role in our decision making. It's those who don't hide their religious views or actively try to change other's views that are the trouble makers.

If you wear your religion on your sleeve you're telling everyone how great you think you are and your religion is. You constantly bring up your beliefs, tell how they affect your daily life, and try to prove how great this all makes you and your religion. We all know this type, the bible thumpers, the preachers, the missionaries, the Jehovah Witnesses and the like. Are these people bad? Normally no, but when you combine them with politics LOOK OUT!

Just go one step further and you get the zealots. The crusaders. Those who want to change everyone else to their religion no matter what. In politics these folks are even worse than that nagging cousin of yours who's always asking you to go to church. These folks try to force their views on the rest of us, be it good or bad.

Luckily, these folks are the minorities. They're attempts to force things on others usually fail when we see a religion's name tagged to them. That is until recently...

Two religions have really started to try and force their way on everyone else. Islam and Atheism have really started pushing everyone else around to try and get their way heard, and may heaven help us all if they get their way!

For the moment, let's just discuss the idea of a "Secular Society." I'll post more on Atheism and Islam in my next post.