February 26th, 2010 by Justin
Close, but not quite...
One of the most brilliant characterizations I have yet heard of the American economic system was given by Stephen Bannon (director of the recent documentary “Generation Zero”), on Sean Hannity’s show: “we have socialism for the very poor, and we have socialism for the wealthy; we have capitalism for the middle class.” It is brilliant because it is succinct, straightforward and spot on. (I nevertheless find the general thrust of that documentary ridiculous, but I will address that in another post.)
The unsustainable nature of the economic system, even accounting for the sorry and incomplete state of the socialist programs for the lower class, is clear. And it is becoming clearer every day, as banks continue to lavish bonuses on their star performers even as they suckle the public teat, while through corruption, waste or fraud, many able-bodied, self-sufficient individuals take advantage of public monies intended for those truly in need.
So what has caused this state of affairs? In short, liberal success combined with conservative success. In many general respects, the socioeconomic story of the US over the last 30 or 40 years has been one of the ascendance of right wing, laissez-faire policy regimes. However, at a less general level conservatives, beginning with and including Reagan, have consistently failed to significantly roll back key socialist-inspired programs like medicare or social security. In addition, important parts of the state interventionist welfare regime have remained solidly in place, enjoying broad support, to say nothing of such thorns in the libertarian side as the Department of Education. Left-wing success.
Nonetheless, with the aforementioned rightist ascendance, public handouts aren’t just for liberals anymore. One of the main ideas independents like myself believe is that both parties favor wasteful big spending, just on different things. Sure enough, Republicans and conservatives have spent liberally (pun intended) on Big Business, the rich and foreign entanglements during their time in power.
And so we have socialism for the rich and the poor, and capitalism for the middle class. That is, while the rich have enjoyed a free lunch at the public trough, and the poor have gotten by with ill-managed, but still significant, programs of their own, the middle class has been stuck with the bill on both sides. In a normal universe, progressive taxation-and-redistribution systems would mean, by definition, that it is mostly the rich that pay for the benefits of the less well-off. But with the oligarchic character of so much of American politics (on both the Democratic (think Wall Street) and the Republican sides), we have a system in which the most productive component of society—and, many argue, the most important component of a democracy—is also the least represented when it comes to policy. And as political wisdom will tell us, if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.
February 18th, 2010 by Justin
Ascension of Jesus
Those who argue that Islam is basically incompatible with the secular and humanist values of the west, while Christianity is friendly to them, often focus on two major arguments. First, on a historical basis, they cite the supposedly “peaceful” origins of Christianity relative to the violent origins of Islam. Second, on a theological or doctrinal basis, they cite the differences between Jesus’ message and conduct and those of Muhammad. Unfortunately, neither of these two arguments is particularly effective in demonstrating their point. The fact of the matter is that the basic values of secular modernity are inherently incompatible with both of these established religions. Without realizing it, staunchly Christian Islamophobes saw away the tree branch upon which they sit.
The Historical Argument
Christianity arose as a persecuted Jewish sect, while Islam has its origins in imperial conquest. Sounds straightforward enough. Until one realizes this is not the whole story. Muhammad and his earliest followers, like Jesus and his, endured mocking, insulting and persecution from the established power structure of society. Indeed, it is not unreasonable to say that Muhammad could just as easily have been executed by the officials of Mecca as Jesus was by those of Jerusalem. Perhaps if Jesus had been as lucky as his counterpart, he too would have become more violent and fanatical over the years, changing history as we know it.
In any case, we don’t need Jesus to be violent in order for Christianity to be. We need only take a cursory glance at the history of early, middle and late Christian expansion. Christianity became the official religion of the Roman empire with Constantine, thereby ensuring that it would enjoy the backing of state power and oppression. As the centuries wore on, Christianity became the world’s largest established religion primarily through conquest, warfare and colonization. The modern Islamophobes like to point out the violence that was essential to Islam’s success in Arabia and North Africa, without noticing the much greater violence and oppression purveyed by Christians in Asia, Africa, Australia and the entire western hemisphere. When it comes to religious conquest, Muslims have got nothing on Christians.
Some have even pointed to the schism between Sunnis and Shiites as evidence of some violent tendency particular to Islam. Evidently they have never heard of Martin Luther, the Thirty Years’ War or Northern Ireland. Aside from religious violence and oppression, historical Christian activities and tendencies similarly antithetical to the modern secular world such as sexism, political tyranny or superstitious pseudoscience scarcely need mentioning.
Meanwhile, in the Muslim world, we find significant progress made in astronomy, medicine and commerce while the Christian corner of the world was languishing in superstitious backwardness during the Middle Ages. Rather than being essential to the advances of the modern era, Christianity acted largely as a hinderance to the scientific, philosophical and political achievements of the western world. Accordingly, as the west became less rigidly Christian starting with the Renaissance, and on through the Enlightenment, it became smarter, wealthier and healthier.
February 15th, 2010 by Justin
Some recent posts on secularism and religion that you might be interested in:
On the right-wing myth that America is a Christian country;
On religion, secularism and morality: here and here;
And on the relationship between religious freedom and secularism.
February 7th, 2010 by Justin
One of the more curious attributes I have encountered among very intelligent and thoughtful religious people is the tendency to give great deference to traditional beliefs, and the texts in which those beliefs are written. For devout Christians, the Bible is given de facto preference, and they will quote from it liberally to validate point after point. The great contradiction inherent in this approach, of course, is seen when they will not give any other source, any other thinker or any other piece of evidence the benefit of the doubt on any other issue. Out of all symmetry with these very smart individuals’ outlook, the Bible enjoys a special status not accorded to anything else.
Needless to say, this is an extremely dangerous and unstable situation to place oneself in. To speak only of morality, the Quran, the Bible, or any other holy text contains a significant amount of material that will clash with the overall moral framework that most people in the modern world have (including countless well-read and well-spoken religious people). We are therefore depending on them to only pay attention to or take seriously those passages and verses that conform to their peaceful subjective beliefs.
The average Christian wants to believe that God is good and just and merciful, and so she will pay closer attention to those Biblical passages that demonstrate a good God, and ignore those that point to a bad God. But, at the end of the day, it is only her emotional architecture and subjective assumptions that keep her from killing us. Those who derive their morality from religion are playing with fire.
The default position should be to not trust religions that were created centuries and millenia ago. We know that ancient people were not smart. We know they were not wise to natural processes, that they did not have a framework of empirical reason or systematic skeptical inquiry. Rather, they only had the myths of their fathers and their own interpretation of them in the context of subjective experiences. Why anyone would give the benefit of the doubt to an ideology or belief system created in such a backward intellectual climate escapes me. It’s like giving the car keys to a 3-year-old, for goodness’ sake.
February 4th, 2010 by Justin
A recent BBC survey ranks the US number 2 in the world in terms of overall sinfulness. Each country studied was ranked in each of the 7 sins, and then given an overall rank. America takes the cake (no pun intended) in the category of gluttony. Australia is ranked at number 1 in terms of overall sinfulness. Regardless of the soundness of their methodology, it is an interesting concept, and the relatively high placement of the US should come as no surprise, given my recent analysis of the issue. Of course, one must remember the anti-American stance of much of the BBC, but still—food for thought (again, no pun intended).
American theocrats and holier-than-thou moralists would be wise to take a second look at that old assumption that the US is a “Christian country.” Maybe a little—dare I say—humbleness on their part is called for?
More coverage here and here.
