Joseph de Maistre

My mind is on fire.

Ever since I watched Jonathan Miller's interviews with some atheist philosophers, I've been reading philosophy. The reason I read, whether fiction or non-fiction, is to try as best I can to get inside the great minds. I'm not really up to it, of course, but I see no reason to settle for less.

I've recently been reading "The Crooked Timber of Humanity," by Sir Isaiah Berlin. There, I happened across a very important essay for me, because it sheds light on questions that have been perplexing me for a long time. The essay is called "Joseph de Maistre and the Origins of Fascism."

If you have read any of my previous diaries, you know that certain things about the Right drive me crazy. For instance, why do so many people believe things that have no factual basis, and dismiss things that have been demonstrated to be true? And why, when the evidence shows that there is no factual basis for a certain belief, will the believer invent false evidence instead of changing his belief? The career of Joseph de Maistre strikes me as a window into the conservative mind.

Maistre was a leading reactionary voice in the face of the Protestant Reformation and the eighteenth century Enlightenment. He believed that the idea that people could govern themselves was false and dangerous. In his view, humans were driven by mysterious, dark impulses that were God-given, and that, in order for society to function, people must be ruled by God's representatives on earth: The Pope above all, and the kings whom God had also selected. Democracy would necessarily end in anarchy.

The aspect of Maistre's beliefs that struck me the most is that empirical science was evil because it caused people to question the supremacy of popes and kings. Even if the discoveries of science could be demonstrated to be true, science should not be pursued or taught. In Maistre's view, scientific facts were unimportant surface details in the big picture. The important things were God's mysteries, which science could never unravel.

Reading Berlin's essay caused me to reflect that, to many people, even today, empirical knowledge is a small thing that should not be allowed to get in the way of belief in God. There still exist many, many people for whom belief in an ultimate authority (however imaginary) is more important than things that can be demonstrated to be true.

My timing in reading Berlin's essays was just about perfect, in the sense that it coincided with the Glenn Beck rally in Washington, DC. Beck and his allies are very afraid of living in a country where (the Christian) God is not the source of governmental power. Instead of the democracy built in this country on 18th century Enlightenment principles, Beck and his compatriots want, whether they know it or not, a less democratic government, under God instead of under the rule of law.

Obama the Muslim?

Some people don't seem to be able to figure out things for themselves. You know, if you want to find out if Barack Obama is a Muslim, all you have to do is pay attention.

Remember the 2008 presidential campaign? Yes, that was a long time ago, I know, but maybe you remember the Reverend Jeremiah Wright controversy? Heck, maybe you're still mad about it. The man upset a lot of Americans, and those upset folks demanded that Barack Obama, who attended the Reverend Jeremiah wright's church, denounce some things that the reverend said.

He said those things in a church, remember? Obama went to that church, remember? It was a big scandal, remember? My point, of course, is none of this happened in a mosque. The holy man in question was called Reverend, not Imam.

Things like this are not that hard to figure out if you just pay attention and learn to think for yourself.

Yeah, I know what you're thinking. Obama is a secret Muslim! Perhaps America's first anchor baby.

Islam vs. the U.S. government?

Some Americans are sold on the idea that Islam itself (as opposed to Islamic extremists) is a danger to our democracy. Certainly, if the U.S. had a very large Islamic population, most of whom believed in Sharia law, our democracy might be in trouble. I don't pretend to know what's in the minds of America's Muslims, but I imagine the average Muslim mind isn't too different from the rest of our minds. No more or less political than yours or mine. Not particularly fanatic. Another thing I wonder is, if a foreign-born Muslim wanted to live under Sharia law, why would he bother to come to America, where he'd be unlikely to get that kind of government?

One thing Americans can do to prevent Sharia law is to protect the separation between church and state. Yes, that's what I think, and it's precisely the opposite strategy from that of some fundamentalist Christians. Their idea is to make it clear to the world that ours is a Christian nation. But I think that, besides being unconstitutional, that's a short-sighted approach. Suppose in 2010, we say, "Our nation is officially Christian, and no other faith my participate in our government." What happens to America should members of other religions begin to outnumber Christians? Assuming these others are allowed to vote (not a sure thing, once we've disposed of separation of church and state, but...), now perhaps Christianity is outlawed.

In any case, in a Christian nation, are some Christians more equal than others? Even today, some Christians are declaring that Islam is not a religion. Suppose the Catholics and protestants form a coalition and decide that Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Quakers are not true Christians?

If you want to ensure that the United States of America is never a land at peace with itself again, just end the separation of church and state and watch the various religious factions go at it. We can be just like Lebanon.

I think we'd all like to avoid that.

Sacred ground?

Here's a link that's been making the rounds on Facebook. It's a blog of photos that were taken near the proposed site of the mosque in New York. http://daryllang.com/blog/4421

The pictures suggest that the neighborhood where the mosque would be built is not currently thought of as sacred ground by the people who live and do business there.

When I saw these pictures and thought of the political storm raging around this issue, I suddenly thought of the Terri Schiavo case. The analogy I'm drawing here is not exact, since more people can be said to have "standing" in the mosque case. But to me, it's just another example of opportunistic politicians sticking their snouts where they don't belong.

Facts matter! Judge Vaughn Walker's Proposition 8 decision

I'm on a mailing list with a bunch of my high school classmates (1968), and, representing a pretty good cross-section of political philosophies, we argue a lot about politics, science, religion. The usual stuff. There's a small group of very ardent conservatives who I'd put in the Tea Party category. One of the things they often do is to pass along things that have been going around the 'net that support their point of view.

One of my classmates is (thankfully) quite anal about fact checking, and in a majority of cases, he can demonstrate that the information offered is fabricated or mistaken, or at least taken out of context. The conservatives respond by making fun of the classmate, and by deciding that they no longer believe in the source of his refutation. Never, however, do they stop passing on new bits of false information. One of them says, "I'll pass it on and believe it until it's proven false!" I point out to him, thinking I might be doing him a favor, that his constant presenting of arguments backed by misinformation is making him look bad. I point out that I try to get my information from reputable places, places that take the trouble to check facts. But he keeps passing new things along without seeming to care whether they're true or not.

One of the problems we're having in our country these days is that advocacy organizations are making things up and publishing them. If they get caught, it's not too big a deal, because some of those they've fooled will either not hear the truth, or don't really want to hear it. People are also confusing fact and opinion. One of the guys on my list says, "If I post an editorial, are ya gonna snopes the opinion?" Of course not, I say, only the facts supporting the opinion.

So I get depressed about the lack of respect for facts and scientific rigor that I see all around me.

Thank goodness facts and rigor still matter in a court of law. Thank goodness facts matter to Judge Vaughn Walker, whose decision overturned California's Proposition 8! If you get a chance to read it, do. It's a good read, and a victory for anyone who believes that even though there are "two sides to every question," one side usually carries a lot more weight than the other side.

The judge's decision shows just how poor a job the proponents of Prop. 8 did in defending it. The only two witnesses on their side who claimed expertise failed miserably because they were not actually experts, and their evidence did not stand up to scrutiny. If you want to prove that children of two heterosexual parents will be better off than those of two gays, you've got to have studies that prove your point, and your studies need peer review. It's not enough to just assert.

Here is Judge Walker, explaining it better than I can:

"Plaintiffs called nine expert witnesses. As the education and experience of each expert show, plaintiffs’ experts were amply qualified to offer opinion testimony on the subjects identified. Moreover, the experts’ demeanor and responsiveness showed their comfort with the subjects of their expertise. For those reasons, the court finds that each of plaintiffs’ proffered experts offered credible opinion testimony on the subjects identified."

And:

"Plaintiffs presented eight lay witnesses, including the four plaintiffs, and nine expert witnesses. Proponents’ evidentiary presentation was dwarfed by that of plaintiffs. Proponents presented two expert witnesses and conducted lengthy and thorough cross-examinations of plaintiffs’ expert witnesses but failed to build a credible factual record to support their claim that Proposition 8 served a legitimate government interest." (Emphasis mine.)

Facts matter.

Link to the Proposition 8 decision:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL

And may I say, finally, in this modern case of civil rights, thank you Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown for not blocking the schoolhouse door. Declining to defend Proposition 8 was a great thing to do!