A new episode of the superpodcast Ask Pudge is now online for your listening pleasure. Feel free to Ask new questions of Pudge here, for future episodes.
It's so easy to knock down straw men. Kinda fun sometimes, too.
If only I had known that that liberals are driven by "wishful thinking" and and "the notion that we can make life on Earth perfect" and "[maybe] we can all have a Star Trek like existence". Gosh, even though I've never met a single liberal who espouses such a view, clearly you, Pudge, the Champion of Truth and Light, have revealed to me the Way. Never again shall I be so shallow as to believe that differences in core values might lead people to different political viewpoints. Instead, it's mere naivité and having read too many fantasy books as a child which has driven America's liberals for so long.
For what it's worth, before I hit this bit, I thought you sounded rational. As for your character assassination of all liberals (I guess that would make it character genocide, eh?), yes there are some people who would fit your description. You can easily chum the waters by tossing them out there but I could just as easily make up my personal view of conservatives which is equally as ridiculous.
I stopped listening to the podcast after that. It was clear there wasn't much point.
Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
pudge on 2006-09-26T15:01:59
It's so easy to knock down straw men. Kinda fun sometimes, too.
Sorry, try again. Actually, YOU are the one with the straw man here.
If only I had known that that liberals are driven by "wishful thinking" and and "the notion that we can make life on Earth perfect" and "[maybe] we can all have a Star Trek like existence".
I didn't say that. Listen again. I said it is a core part of the motive of MANY liberals. Not liberals in general.
Gosh, even though I've never met a single liberal who espouses such a view
I don't believe that. But even if true, I've met many who do.
Never again shall I be so shallow as to believe that differences in core values might lead people to different political viewpoints.
I never implied that they don't. What do you think I said that would disagree with this?
For what it's worth, before I hit this bit, I thought you sounded rational. As for your character assassination of all liberals
You mean the thing I didn't do that you are accusing me of? The straw man you're attacking?
Sigh.
Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
Ovid on 2006-09-26T15:53:50
Agreed that you didn't say "all liberals". My apologies. However, you presented the viewpoint of what describe as "many liberals" and you quite failed to make it clear that this is a minority viewpoint. Instead, you presented a viewpoint that is clearly your own, you mocked it ("Star Trek like existence"?), and used a minority opinion -- one I don't hear -- as a contrast to conservative opinion. You might think it's fair to contrast a minority opinion with what you clearly view as the rational conservative opinion, but it's not. You failed to make it clear that you were trying to comparing dissimilar things. If you feel that your characterization of liberals makes for a fair comparison, you need to provide some evidence that it's true that they believe "the notion that we can make life on Earth perfect".
So far, it appears I'm not the only one who disliked your approach.
Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
pudge on 2006-09-26T16:31:01
Agreed that you didn't say "all liberals". My apologies. However, you presented the viewpoint of what describe as "many liberals" and you quite failed to make it clear that this is a minority viewpoint.
Excuse me for not being perfect. I guess my own lack of perfection is part of why I don't believe in the possibility of immanentizing the eschaton.:-) If I had gone deeply into it, I surely would have made that point, but I quickly moved on to another aspect of the topic.
Also consider the context: I just got done saying that SOME liberals and conservatives use fear to push their agenda. Clearly I wasn't saying ALL liberals and conservatives do this.
I really didn't think anyone would think that either all/most liberals do believe this, or that I was trying to imply it. Obviously, I was mistaken, and I should have further emphasized the point for those who might be confused.
And don't think I am insensitive to the issue: I've heard many liberals, many times, accuse "conservatives" or "Christian conservatives" or some variation of holding views that I don't hold, even though I am a member of those groups. Some of those are majority views (gay marriage is bad), some are not (dark-skinned people are bad). In either case, rarely do the liberal commentators discriminate even as much as I did, when I used the word "many."
Instead, you presented a viewpoint that is clearly your own
You say that as though it is a bad thing. I don't see how.
you mocked it ("Star Trek like existence"?)
I didn't even make that up. Did you listen to the very first Ask Pudge episode? You asked a question that I answered on it, about Perl 6. One of the other questions (by a liberal friend of mine) specifically asked why we, as a society, do not try to move more toward the poverty-lessness of Star Trek. I was mocking it, but I didn't make it up, and I believe it is worthy of mockery.
Again, I am not mocking liberalism there, just this one view that many liberals hold.
and used a minority opinion -- one I don't hear -- as a contrast to conservative opinion.
But that was in the context of SOME liberals. I was absolutely contrasting that to my, and conservative, opinion. There's nothing wrong with that, and in doing so it does not imply that this view is a majority view.
You might think it's fair to contrast a minority opinion with what you clearly view as the rational conservative opinion, but it's not.
Of course it is. It is only unfair if I mean to make that view out to be the dominant liberal view, which I did not do, either implicitly or explicitly. There's nothing remotely unfair or wrong about it. If I say, "many C programmers think Perl's expressiveness is harmful, but Perl programmers believe it is a good thing," I am not saying all C programmers think it is harmful, or implying it in any way. Nor am I criticizing C itself, which has less expressiveness, because it certainly may be the case that this also has its clear benefits.
You failed to make it clear that you were trying to comparing dissimilar things.
I wasn't comparing dissimilar things. I was comparing two ideas about how the world works. Only in your mind -- not in mine -- does this have anything to do with majorities or minorities of certain ideological frameworks.
If you feel that your characterization of liberals makes for a fair comparison, you need to provide some evidence that it's true that they believe "the notion that we can make life on Earth perfect".
Come on... you are attacking the strawman you just apologized for attacking.
If you want some evidence that SOME liberals believe that, well, that's not hard. From Condorcet's notion that there exists a science which can solve all of man's problems, to Lennon's statement that "All You Need Is Love," to today's Neo-Marxists (on display prominently at various antiwar demonstrations), there is simply no disputing it. But I won't pretend to try to prove that "liberals" in general believe this, because I never stated it, I never implied it, and I don't believe it.
Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
Ovid on 2006-09-26T17:12:33
So to contrast this, I could make the following statement:
Many conservatives are racist bastards who feel that non-white people are less intelligent than white people and are genetically predisposed to commit crime. Liberals, quite rightly, reject this notion.One problem with that statement is that I've now lumped all liberals in the same category. I doubt that many liberals would agree with the "many conservatives" viewpoint I present, but I'm sure that some do. However, my statement about conservatives is completely accurate -- depending on how one chooses to define "many".
That's not the point, though. If I posted that statement to my blog, I'd be ripped to shreds for it and quite rightly so. Just because a statement is technically correct does not mean that the connotation matches its literal meaning. As such, a skilled wordsmith can avoid being pinned down on just about anything ("I did not have sex with that woman!").
Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
pudge on 2006-09-26T17:38:05
So to contrast this, I could make the following statement:
Yes.
One problem with that statement is that I've now lumped all liberals in the same category. I doubt that many liberals would agree with the "many conservatives" viewpoint I present, but I'm sure that some do.
Yes, but that is not a problem with the statement I made, I believe. Racism and liberalism are not mutually exclusive (although certainly, liberalism in America tends to reject it). But the possibility of "immanentizing the eschaton" is, I believe, fundamentally opposed to what conservatism is. It'd be like saying that "I'm sure some liberals believe we should not use government to improve the lives of the people." That makes no sense; such a person isn't a liberal.
However, my statement about conservatives is completely accurate -- depending on how one chooses to define "many".
Sure.
That's not the point, though. If I posted that statement to my blog, I'd be ripped to shreds for it
Not by me, unless you tried to frame it into an attack on conservatives in general, or conservatism itself. If you left your attack -- as I believe I did -- on the racist views themselves, then I would have no problem with it.
Just because a statement is technically correct does not mean that the connotation matches its literal meaning.
Yes, and I already said I should have further emphasized the point you made. But I don't retract what I said, because I don't believe it was wrong. I still don't buy your idea that there was anything wrong with the comparison part. The problem was simply in inadvertantly leaving the impression, for some people, that I meant this was a pervasive idea among all or most liberals, when I didn't mean that at all.
Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
Aristotle on 2006-09-27T00:09:08
But why compare non-pervasive ridiculous notions in the first place? Isn’t that an excercise in futility? The fact that someone is liberal or conservative does not make them more or less likely to hold ridiculous views. What changes may be the particular form of crackpottery or the way it it is expressed. But either way, neither conservatives nor liberals (nor anarchists nor people of any other political view) are in any way protected from stupid ideas purely on account of their ideology.
This is the crux of the matter.
If you wanted to avoid such criticism, you would have compared a ridiculous liberal notion not against a reasonable conservative one, but against a reasonable liberal one. Changing multiple variables at once makes a comparison worthless unless you are trying to imply that they are correlated.
This is why people are correctly jumping at your throat for such a statement, and why they would have been correct to do so even if your statement was further qualified to point out that the liberal view you chose is not pervasive.
Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
pudge on 2006-09-27T00:56:05
But why compare non-pervasive ridiculous notions in the first place?
I was asked the question of whether liberalism is driven by wishful thinking. I said for some liberals, it is. I didn't come up with the question, and I answered it truthfully.
The fact that someone is liberal or conservative does not make them more or less likely to hold ridiculous views.
Yes... and?
But either way, neither conservatives nor liberals (nor anarchists nor people of any other political view) are in any way protected from stupid ideas purely on account of their ideology.
Yes... and?
This is the crux of the matter.
It is? How could that be, when no one even remotely implied otherwise?
If you wanted to avoid such criticism, you would have compared a ridiculous liberal notion not against a reasonable conservative one, but against a reasonable liberal one. Changing multiple variables at once makes a comparison worthless unless you are trying to imply that they are correlated.
You are extraordinarily confused. I wasn't making a comparison of ideologies. I wasn't trying to say conservatism is better than liberalism, or my views better than another. Where do you come up with this nonsense?
Again, someone asked a question about whether liberalism is driven by wishful thinking. I said, some liberals are, and I, and others who hold to my ideology, disagree with that. There is nothing remotely wrong or inappropriate with that, in any way whatsoever.
This is why people are correctly jumping at your throat for such a statement, and why they would have been correct to do so even if your statement was further qualified to point out that the liberal view you chose is not pervasive.
Then those people are stupid.
Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
Aristotle on 2006-09-27T01:36:57
Again, someone asked a question about whether liberalism is driven by wishful thinking. I said, some liberals are, and I, and others who hold to my ideology, disagree with that.
Reasonable liberals disgree with that just as much as you and others who hold to your ideology do. Your ideology is irrelevant. Failing to point this out creates the impression that you want to causally relate holding to your ideology to the rejection of wishful thinking.
Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
pudge on 2006-09-27T02:03:45
Reasonable liberals disgree with that just as much as you and others who hold to your ideology do.
Yes, and?
Your ideology is irrelevant.
Of course it's not: I am the one criticizing the belief in question, and doing it from my perspective.
Failing to point this out creates the impression that you want to causally relate holding to your ideology to the rejection of wishful thinking.
No, it does not. You obviously incorrectly infer that, but that impression was not created by me.
Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
jdavidb on 2006-09-27T15:40:42
But why compare non-pervasive ridiculous notions in the first place?
Because that's what the question asked in the first place.
Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
jdavidb on 2006-09-26T17:53:23
Perhaps a better wording would have been "a significant number of liberals" instead of "many liberals."
Instead, you presented a viewpoint that is clearly your own, you mocked it ("Star Trek like existence"?)
Have you listened to Ask Pudge episode 1? Because one of the questions was this. So in the full context of Ask Pudge, the whole "Star Trek post economy, everyone's needs could be filled if we'd just abandon capitalism/conservatism/greed" has been referenced before and is being referenced again. And no, pudge doesn't have much respect for the viewpoint that assumes this is possible without proof (though he's certainly willing to tackle questions like, "if we did such and such, is it possible that that could really lead to something fantastic like that?")
and used a minority opinion -- one I don't hear -- as a contrast to conservative opinion
"Conservatives are all motivated by fear" and "Liberals all believe Star Trek's premise that scarcity could be eliminated if we didn't have greed (and laissez-faire capitalism)" are both strawmen arguments. Neither one is true for a majority of conservatives/liberals. They compare very well together. I guess if you think that it's self-evident, rational, and relevant to say that conservatives are all motivated by fear, then maybe you wouldn't think the two assertions compare well.
Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
Ovid on 2006-09-26T18:15:58
Well, I certainly wouldn't say that many conservatives are motivated by fear. In fact, I don't think the neo-cons who've hijacked (in my opinion) the conservative party are motivated by fear. (Like many, I feel they find fear is a great tool for public manipulation). So no, I don't think the comparison is unfair for this reason.
And for the record, my general opinion of what I view as "true" conservatives tends to be people who think that smaller government works better and the government should be staying the hell out of people's lives unless absolutely necessary. That's a viewpoint I have a lot of sympathy for. It's not a viewpoint that the current administration seems to share.
Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
jdavidb on 2006-09-26T19:46:03
And for the record, my general opinion of what I view as "true" conservatives tends to be people who think that smaller government works better and the government should be staying the hell out of people's lives unless absolutely necessary. That's a viewpoint I have a lot of sympathy for. It's not a viewpoint that the current administration seems to share.
You and I are in complete agreement on that. Which is why I've basically exited the Republican Party. Of course, my belief in small government eventually caused me to become an anarcho-capitalist and repudiate politics entirely, so that may have something to do with it, too. But I still wear the name conservative, and I still use it to mean "small government."
I've definitely had a lot of strange "impedence mismatch" moments with both liberals and "conservatives" when discovering that my definition of conservatism did not match up with theirs. (When you believe that conservatism means government should not define marriage and that thus an anti-gay marriage amendment is wrong, you have a lot of these moments.)
Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
jdavidb on 2006-09-26T19:50:47
To clarify previous post, you and I are in complete definition over that definition of conservatism. I don't think we're in complete agreement in both accepting that as our own personal viewpoint, because I don't think (but could be wrong) that it's your viewpoint.
Yet.
;) Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
Ovid on 2006-09-26T20:58:10
The problem I have with some conservatives is the same problem I have with some Christians. Basically, what they preach and what they practice aren't the same thing. This is hypocricy. Frankly, I don't mind a little hypocricy now and then so long as the practitioner is willing to admit the error of their ways and tries to be better. However, when they refuse to admit they are wrong, I have strong issues with this. Unfortunately, while these might be minority positions, they seem to have had a disproportionately strong effect on the US political process.
Regarding hypocrisy, some Christian's are a case in point. The following is presented with the view of Christianity I held when I was a Christian. (Much of the following is just from memory, so my apologies if I get little bits of it wrong.)
When the Pharisees presented Jesus with a coin with Caesar's image and asked if he should pay taxes (tribute) to Caesar, they presented him with what appeared to be an insoluble dilemma. If he said "no", then the Romans could swoop down on him for advocating violating the law. If he said "yes", his followers could accuse him of putting Caesar above God since the coin suggested Caesar's divinity.
However, Jesus neatly side-stepped this with his famous "Render unto Caeasar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's" (that might be off slightly, but it's basically the same thing). What Jesus did, with that one statement, is make it clear that separation of Church and state is something which Christians's do not have to reject. A state must necessarily accept that the people in its borders often have a variety of differing views. The role of the state, in this case, is to ensure that the expression of those views does not demonstrably harm the people over whom the state has jurisdiction. While this clearly has grey areas, the state is perfectly within its rights to prohibit murder, theft, rape, and so on. At no point in reading the Bible do I remember Jesus saying that a state had to enforce religious beliefs.
Some Christians in the US want their personal views encoded into law. However, they ignore some pretty salient points of the Bible. Remember when Christ protected the adultress from being stoned? Why did he do that? I think many fail to consider this.
However, it goes back even further. If God did not want people to have the ability to choose, he wouldn't have put the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden. By putting it there, he was making it clear that Adam and Eve had the right to choose whether or not to sin. If one is to be a Christian, what hubris compels them to deny a right which God granted?
More immediately, let's say that you just lock up everyone who sins. Does physically preventing someone from physically doing something you consider sinful make them a better person? No! It merely prevents them from doing something you consider sinful. As a result, laws designed to prevent sinful behavior, while they might protect society, don't do a damned thing in the eyes of God (in my opinion, of course). Instead, people should be allowed to choose their path so long as the only people affected are consenting adults. If they go to hell, that's their choice, as given by the God of the Bible. I can tell you not to steal from me, but I have no right to tell you it's illegal to participate in consensual group sex.
Today, there are conservatives who espouse "conservative" ideals but who ignore those ideals as thoroughly as Falwell Christians ignore Christianity. If the Republican party truly followed ideals of smaller government and state's rights, it would be a wonderful thing. I wouldn't always agree with their approach, but I'd be one hell of a lot more likely to vote for them.
Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
pudge on 2006-09-26T21:26:55
The problem I have with some conservatives is the same problem I have with some Christians. Basically, what they preach and what they practice aren't the same thing. This is hypocricy.
So the problem you have with some conservatives and some Christians is the same problem you have some people.:-)
Unfortunately, while these might be minority positions, they seem to have had a disproportionately strong effect on the US political process.
On the left wing of the political process, too.
What Jesus did, with that one statement, is make it clear that separation of Church and state is something which Christians's do not have to reject. A state must necessarily accept that the people in its borders often have a variety of differing views.
That seems like a straw man to me.
At no point in reading the Bible do I remember Jesus saying that a state had to enforce religious beliefs.
And neither did he condemn the fact that the Jewish leaders enforced their religious beliefs on the community.
Some Christians in the US want their personal views encoded into law.
So do most people in the U.S. Let's take some common liberal views: no handguns; no smoking in public; no hate speech.
However, they ignore some pretty salient points of the Bible. Remember when Christ protected the adultress from being stoned? Why did he do that? I think many fail to consider this.
I don't want to take away from your point... but this isn't actually in the Bible. It was added later (and you'll note that almost every modern translation puts this in the footnote, but still leaves it in for historical reasons).
Anyway: I don't think this protection (even if we take it as a part of the Bible) had anything to do with the point you appear to be making. On the one hand, you're talking about whether we should have laws based on personal views; on the other, you're noting that we should show mercy and realize no one is perfect. I see no connection between those two things.
However, it goes back even further. If God did not want people to have the ability to choose, he wouldn't have put the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden. By putting it there, he was making it clear that Adam and Eve had the right to choose whether or not to sin. If one is to be a Christian, what hubris compels them to deny a right which God granted?
I am with you wholeheartedly there. I think one of the central messages of the Bible (and you see it again in Romans) is freedom to choose for oneself, which is why I, as a rightwing conservative Christian, support civil unions and drug legalization, as well as hate speech and job discrimination (note: I do not think we should legalize job discrimination [based on race, gender, whatever] now, because it's not the time; but I do think we should ideally move to where we can do that... let people choose for themselves to be jerks).
More immediately, let's say that you just lock up everyone who sins.
Straw man, if you are implying that anyone wants this. If just for the sake of argument, OK.
Does physically preventing someone from physically doing something you consider sinful make them a better person? No! It merely prevents them from doing something you consider sinful. As a result, laws designed to prevent sinful behavior, while they might protect society, don't do a damned thing in the eyes of God (in my opinion, of course).
True. However, I am much more likely to do Right things if I am "protected" from doing/seeing/thinking Wrong things. That said, I don't think it's a good thing to do that to society... but just bringing up the point. :-)
Instead, people should be allowed to choose their path so long as the only people affected are consenting adults.
I disagree. "Affected" is too restrictive. We should be able to do whatever we want unless we are directly causing significant harm to someone else who is not consenting. So the question is not "am I affected by ciagrette smoke?," because I clearly am. The question is whether it is causing me significant harm (and I think it is, and that is why I support some modest restrictions on public smoking).
Today, there are conservatives who espouse "conservative" ideals but who ignore those ideals as thoroughly as Falwell Christians ignore Christianity.
Yes, some of them. Flip through any issue of National Review and you'll see them slamming so-called "conservatives."
If the Republican party truly followed ideals of smaller government and state's rights, it would be a wonderful thing. I wouldn't always agree with their approach, but I'd be one hell of a lot more likely to vote for them.
And if Democrats truly followed their ideals... wait, what are their ideals? :-)
Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
Aristotle on 2006-09-26T23:57:46
And neither did he condemn the fact that the Jewish leaders enforced their religious beliefs on the community.
Oh ho. That they strain out the gnat and swallow the fly was no such criticism? He condemned them many times for aguing the letter of the law, and in niggling detail no less, while simultaneously disregarding the spirit. Rotten graves, beautiful on the outside…
Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
pudge on 2006-09-27T00:50:53
Oh ho. That they strain out the gnat and swallow the fly was no such criticism?
Correct, it was not.
He condemned them many times for aguing the letter of the law, and in niggling detail no less, while simultaneously disregarding the spirit. Rotten graves, beautiful on the outside…
Yes. None of this was criticism of the fact that they enforced their religious beliefs on the community. It was criticism of how they did it, not that they did it.
Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
jdavidb on 2006-09-27T15:36:38
I think I can find examples to contradict what pudge said, but I don't think the example you gave qualifies. Letter of the law/spirit of the law is orthogonal to the issue of whether or not you impose the law on anyone else. So is hypocrisy.
Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
jdavidb on 2006-09-27T15:31:52
Everything you just said sounds like it could've come straight out of my mouth. My wife and I talk about this all the time. We believe God specifically prohibits Christians from governing others. (And the maximum penalty church government can impose is putting people out of the church.) I use the phrase "right to sin" a lot, with the same logic you do: God gives us the right to sin. God believes in the right to sin.
Frankly, I don't mind a little hypocricy now and then so long as the practitioner is willing to admit the error of their ways and tries to be better.
You're welcome to point out any consistencies I ever express here. I try to be very consistent. Doing so, I take some pretty radical views sometimes. But I strive for consistency, perhaps above all else.
(Much of the following is just from memory, so my apologies if I get little bits of it wrong.)
As near as I can tell, everything you said accurately agrees with my understanding of Christianity.
However, Jesus neatly side-stepped this with his famous "Render unto Caeasar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's" (that might be off slightly, but it's basically the same thing). What Jesus did, with that one statement, is make it clear that separation of Church and state is something which Christians's do not have to reject.
Hmmm. Never thought about it as separation of church and state. I think of it as, "Don't you go using God as an excuse to not pay your taxes, you scoundrel!" Here and everywhere else in the New Testament, submission to human government is commanded for Jesus's people. It's well-worth noting that the government in question (Rome) was morally depraved: these taxes went to fund homosexual orgies, idolatrous worship, and immoral conquests. And the tax collectors themselves got away with intentionally overcharging the people. And in this context, Jesus says, "Pay up." Wow.
Of course, I do not accept that Jesus ever grants His people the right to tax others. In fact, the teaching for Jesus's people is "Do not steal." I submit to taxation and law and specifically disclaim any right to tax or rule others. Any official doing so and claiming to represent me is lying; I don't claim to have that authority, and haven't delegated it.
A state must necessarily accept that the people in its borders often have a variety of differing views.
As an anarcho-capitalist (and as a Christian), I accept the right of any size group of people to willingly form a state of whatever type they wish, as long as noone is compelled to participate against their will, although in a situation such as we have on earth right now, where each region is limited to only one existing state, I believe such a government is morally restricted to only protecting the rights of its citizens.
The role of the state, in this case, is to ensure that the expression of those views does not demonstrably harm the people over whom the state has jurisdiction. While this clearly has grey areas, the state is perfectly within its rights to prohibit murder, theft, rape, and so on. At no point in reading the Bible do I remember Jesus saying that a state had to enforce religious beliefs.
Here's what I believe is the foundation of morality in terms of what a state can and cannot do. (Nonreligious.) I believe a state is an extension of self-defense: you possess the right to defend yourself, so you can form an organization with a group to defend that group. Thus any compulsion a state exercises over anyone must be limited to defending rights. Of course, voluntarily people may do much more with a state.
At no point in reading the Bible do I remember Jesus saying that a state had to enforce religious beliefs.
You are correct, sir. In fact, Christians are prohibited from exercising judgment over those outside the church: see I Corinthians 5:12, and then read the entire chapter for context. I see here a judicial authority given solely to a local church, with the maximum permitted penalty being to tell a person, "Bye, we can't accept your sin in our church anymore."
Some Christians in the US want their personal views encoded into law. However, they ignore some pretty salient points of the Bible.
Yep. Like I Corinthians 5:12.
Remember when Christ protected the adultress from being stoned? Why did he do that? I think many fail to consider this.
I've been expressing this point from I Corinthians 5:12 for a long time, now, but I have to confess this implication of the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8) only hit me last week.
:) The OT law was an earthly theocracy (and like all governments, I consider it to be a private relationship between the Governing and the governed). It's necessary for all human governments to have penalties and consequences for violation of the law. But the heavenly nation Christ sets up in the New Testament works completely differently. And so in the transition period between Old and New, the time when Jesus was living on earth (because the New couldn't start until He had accomplished His death), He begins imposing these additional restrictions. And one of them is that such a penalty can't be imposed without a sinless person to initiate it. Christians thus can't engage in the kind of penalties that occurred in the OT any more. However, it goes back even further. If God did not want people to have the ability to choose, he wouldn't have put the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden. By putting it there, he was making it clear that Adam and Eve had the right to choose whether or not to sin. If one is to be a Christian, what hubris compels them to deny a right which God granted?
Nothing to say, other than I agree.
More immediately, let's say that you just lock up everyone who sins. Does physically preventing someone from physically doing something you consider sinful make them a better person? No! It merely prevents them from doing something you consider sinful. As a result, laws designed to prevent sinful behavior, while they might protect society, don't do a damned thing in the eyes of God (in my opinion, of course).
Again I agree, and have said basically exactly the same thing, often. I have a picture from Kiev, Ukraine, of the ruler Vladimir, who learned from his Bible that everybody needed to be baptized, and so he commanded the entire nation (village? I'm not sure how many people this was.) to be baptized, on pain of death. Same story with Charlemagne. Such accomplishes nothing; baptism must be united with belief (Mark 16:16). So, while you qualified that this is just your opinion -- it can be backed up with Scripture.
Instead, people should be allowed to choose their path so long as the only people affected are consenting adults. If they go to hell, that's their choice, as given by the God of the Bible. I can tell you not to steal from me, but I have no right to tell you it's illegal to participate in consensual group sex.
100% agreement. And as for your last sentence, I believe that is exactly what government is entitled to do, period, without any reference to religion. To assert that government can exert force for any cause other than to defend rights is to assert that people have rights over each other, and have delegated them to the government. As I believe in self-ownership, as an inviolable principle that cuts across all lines of belief, I can't accept a right for government to do any more than this.
Today, there are conservatives who espouse "conservative" ideals but who ignore those ideals as thoroughly as Falwell Christians ignore Christianity. If the Republican party truly followed ideals of smaller government and state's rights, it would be a wonderful thing. I wouldn't always agree with their approach, but I'd be one hell of a lot more likely to vote for them.
I will never vote for a politician again. All politicians assert their right to govern over people regardless of consent. As a Christian I can't support this, and even if I were not a Christian it would violate self-ownership.
Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
pudge on 2006-09-27T16:16:32
I will never vote for a politician again. All politicians assert their right to govern over people regardless of consent. As a Christian I can't support this, and even if I were not a Christian it would violate self-ownership.
Then do not complain. You have no right to complain if you are not participating in the process to improve it, to protect your own rights. The cost of having liberty is eternal vigilance to defend that liberty, and if you don't do that, you get what you deserve: slavery.
At least, that's what I said recently in another podcast, and I stand by it.
Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
jdavidb on 2006-09-27T18:25:39
It's not about complaining. It's about persuading people that they don't have the moral authority to rule over one another, even if they vote on it. And I will continue to say so.
Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
jdavidb on 2006-09-27T18:31:10
Incidentally, I'm still casting ballots. I'm just not voting for any politicians. I'm voting against referendum measures, and voting "none of the above," "other," or writein against every single candidate running. I'd like for a majority of people to discover they have no right to rule others, either, and join me. Elections are never won by true majorities since that many people rarely vote. I think every registered voter who doesn't show up ought to count as a "no" or "none of the above" vote, to make it obvious.
So, since I'm still voting, can I still protest when the government does some that's wrong whether I voted for it or not?
Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
pudge on 2006-09-27T18:50:28
I'd like for a majority of people to discover they have no right to rule others, either, and join me.
First you'd have to throw out the Constitution. Good luck with that.
Elections are never won by true majorities since that many people rarely vote. I think every registered voter who doesn't show up ought to count as a "no" or "none of the above" vote, to make it obvious.
Except that's not logical. Our system has never been based on the notion that a majority of citizens should support something, only that a majority of voters should. Again: you'd have to throw out the Constitution.
So, since I'm still voting, can I still protest when the government does some that's wrong whether I voted for it or not?
You can protest. Just don't expect me to care unless you actually do something. Because that is what is required. You can expect to be a slave if you don't actively protect your rights.
Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
jdavidb on 2006-09-27T20:37:12
I'd like for a majority of people to discover they have no right to rule others, either, and join me.
First you'd have to throw out the Constitution. Good luck with that.
Every good conservative agrees that the Constitution doesn't grant rights, right?
Our system has never been based on the notion that a majority of citizens should support something, only that a majority of voters should. Again: you'd have to throw out the Constitution.
It's amendable, right?
You can expect to be a slave if you don't actively protect your rights.
I have no less than seven levels of local, state, and federal government over me. At any given time, any of them could take away my rights. I cannot afford to be full-time vigilant against all of them. If I expend 100% effort (which for you seems to be defined as voting), is it still right if they make me a slave? How can our system be moral if it permits people to be made slaves solely because they don't vote? (Or because they voted the wrong way?) Isn't there something in the Constitution about that?
I'm doing something: I'm being ever vigilant and working to persuade people of the virtues and the benefits of liberty.
Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
pudge on 2006-09-27T21:00:47
Every good conservative agrees that the Constitution doesn't grant rights, right?
You're missing my point: the Constitution gives explicit authority to the government, through the people, to "rule others."
It's amendable, right?
Yes. In the way you want? No. It's antithetical to the Constitution, and logically nonsensical, since you'd never possibly get a majority of Americans to actually agree to it. Worse, in order to ever find out whether you had a majority, you would need to know everyone who is and is not an American, which means you need to force every American to submit to registration, which you would oppose.
I have no less than seven levels of local, state, and federal government over me. At any given time, any of them could take away my rights. I cannot afford to be full-time vigilant against all of them.
I never implied that. But what are you doing, apart from talking about it?
If I expend 100% effort (which for you seems to be defined as voting)
Not at all. You must not have listened to the podcast I linked to.
is it still right if they make me a slave?
It's not about right and wrong, it's about inevitability.
How can our system be moral if it permits people to be made slaves solely because they don't vote?
Because it's the only system that allows them to be something OTHER than slaves.
I'm doing something: I'm being ever vigilant and working to persuade people of the virtues and the benefits of liberty.
That's not enough.
Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
pudge on 2006-09-27T18:48:16
It's not about complaining. It's about persuading people that they don't have the moral authority to rule over one another, even if they vote on it. And I will continue to say so.
But you're not doing anything.
Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
jdavidb on 2006-09-27T20:34:23
Sure I am. I'm teaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is a far more effective way to combat every problem people want to solve with government. And as I understand that Gospel, abandoning any claims we have of the right to govern each other is essential.
From a secular point of view, persuading people to relinquish this claim is also the way to eventual success. You cannot achieve a society that doesn't believe it has a right to vote on each other's affairs by voting. I saw a comment recently from someone who believes the system will begin to collapse when around 20% of folks start to believe in freedom. I think that may be wishful thinking, but certainly by the time we hit 50% it'll start to happen.
Either way, it beats armed combat.
I'm doing something: I'm working to persuade people to accept ideas. That's the same kind of work the authors of The Federalist did.
Oh, I'm also raising my kids with these beliefs.
:) Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
pudge on 2006-09-27T21:08:00
I'm doing something: I'm working to persuade people to accept ideas. That's the same kind of work the authors of The Federalist did.
Oh come on, it's not remotely the same thing. Even if all they did was write The Federalist, they were writing things, to thousands of people, that were directly influencing the ratification of the Constitution.
Of course, they did far more than just write The Federalist. They were all intimately involved in actually shaping the government, as you well know. Madison, the primary author of the Federalist, was also one of the primary authors of the Constitution.
Not that what you're doing is unimportant. But it's not enough. You're not doing anything to actually preserve your liberty.It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.
John Philpot Curran wasn't talking about mere talking. "Indolent" and "active" were specifically chosen, rather than "quiet" and "loud." People out there are actively working to take away your liberties, and it takes more than words to stop them.
Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
jdavidb on 2006-09-28T16:11:05
You're not doing anything to actually preserve your liberty.
And as I specified from the beginning, I'm required by my faith to accept restrictions on my liberty. The armed revolutions and civil disobedience will have to be practiced by someone else.
Were I not a Christian, I guess you'd see me practicing tax evasion like crazy and who knows what all else.
What other courses of action to preserve liberty are you recommending, exactly, besides voting? What do you have in mind?
Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
jdavidb on 2006-09-28T17:39:53
I guess I could go get involved with this or something.
Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
pudge on 2006-09-29T00:01:34
What other courses of action to preserve liberty are you recommending, exactly, besides voting? What do you have in mind?
Getting involved in the political system to foster change, for one thing. As you know from my Slashdot journal, I get involved and actually have a voice in the party, which affects what issues and candidates are supported by the party, and how and to what degree they are supported. By being involved, I meet people in positions of authority, and when an issue comes up, I can bend their ear (not that the average Joe can't do that too, but it's easier for me).
That's not the only route, but it's one way to go.
Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
jdavidb on 2006-09-29T14:29:12
By being involved, I meet people in positions of authority, and when an issue comes up, I can bend their ear (not that the average Joe can't do that too, but it's easier for me).
But exercising that authority is against my morality, as is influencing someone else who possesses that authority to use it. The only thing I could morally convince them to do is to not use their authority.
Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
pudge on 2006-09-29T15:24:03
But exercising that authority is against my morality, as is influencing someone else who possesses that authority to use it.
It's against your morality to attempt to convince the Attorney General that he should sue the state teacher's union for stealing non-union teachers' fees to use for political purposes? I don't see how.
The only thing I could morally convince them to do is to not use their authority.
Even if that were true (which I don't think it is), then... so what? Do that then. As you may have seen in my Slashdot journal, we're working on a law that would disallow the government's "taking" your private property without compensation. There are lots of issues like this out there, that restrict government's authority to harm its citizens, that you could support and try to influence the outcome of.
Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
pudge on 2006-09-26T20:17:56
Well, I certainly wouldn't say that many conservatives are motivated by fear. In fact, I don't think the neo-cons who've hijacked (in my opinion) the conservative party are motivated by fear.
For what it's worth, 99 percent of the time someone says this, they are wrong. Neoconservatives are a tiny minority of the GOP, though a few of them are in positions of power. A neoconservative is a specific type of conservative, charaterized primarily by their liberalism. People like Kristol and Podhoretz, whose fathers were liberals, who later became conservatives out of disillusionment, largely out of the ineffective Democratic policies regarding the Soviet Union. Neoconservatives tend to (though not always) not have too many opinions of note on domestic social policy, and when they do, they tend to be moderate.
So I don't think neo-cons have hijacked the conservatives, since I don't think neo-cons are in control. They do, however, have significant influence. Bush is not neo-conservative, but some people in his administration are.
I think Bush is neither "true" conservative, nor neo-conservative: he's an old-school Republican, like his father, like Ford, like Nixon, like Ike. Lots of liberal tendencies (No Child Left Behind), but also a strong interest in fiscal conservatism (even if he hasn't accomplished it, and hasn't really tried very hard to do so).
Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
ask on 2006-10-03T18:20:01
What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?.:-)
Re:I'm picking my teeth with your straw man
pudge on 2006-10-03T18:29:31
Well, it's entirely false. "This is the emotional heart of conservatism: the notion that the conservative order is ordained by God and that anyone and anything that opposes the conservative order is infinitely evil." There's nothing remotely true about that statement. Maybe you should pay attention to people who actually know something about conservatism.
People like Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley embody American conservatism far more than Rush Limbaugh does, and none of that represents them at all. That whole article is bullshit.
Are pacifists ineffective and/or delusional?
Are Major General Smedley Butler's words relevant in this present conflict?
What's your favorite computer programming language, besides Perl? And why?
Re:Asking Pudge
pudge on 2006-09-27T22:08:49
Don't let jdavidb read that first question!
Re:Asking Pudge
jdavidb on 2006-09-28T16:09:31
rotfl
Re:Asking Pudge
jdavidb on 2006-09-28T16:12:28
BTW, ironically I rechallenged my pacifism yesterday (not as a result of the discussion here, in case you were wondering) in light of some new thoughts I had about some of the words of Jesus. Still a pacifist, but always reconsidering.
Well, with all this feedback, I for one am anxious for next week's installment of Ask Pudge!
Re:Again, again!
pudge on 2006-09-29T20:49:05
This has easily been the most feedback I've ever gotten so far. It's no small wonder people like Ann Coulter say terrible things; it gives them attention, fame, and money.
I am sad to say such a path is uninteresting to me.:-) Hell, if I was prone to do what I was accused of doing, I would have actually said what I was accused of saying!
Re:Again, again!
jdavidb on 2006-09-29T21:28:31
Ah, well. Maybe I can come up with a non-controversial Ask Pudge question for you, or something.
Re:Again, again!
pudge on 2006-09-29T22:12:56
No, ask any question you want. I just won't seek out anything controversial, and I won't intentionally say outrageous things to anger anyone.
Re:Again, again!
chromatic on 2006-10-01T06:29:21
I won't intentionally say outrageous things to anger anyone.Now where's the fun in that?
Re:Again, again!
pudge on 2006-10-01T11:41:26
Oh, YOU'LL see!
