RoR: Forum

I've long thought there's an exact one-to-one correspondence between a person's philosophic religiousity and his moral depravity. So too their tendency toward political tyranny.

This exceptionally well-written, stunningly well-documented article shows in convincing and depressing detail where George Bush gets his political ideology of interventionism, statism, socialism and (of course) fascism. How sad to read how dead the old Ronald Reagan style semi-libertarianism really is! Bush talks about freedom a lot but it seems to be an UTTERLY empty, contentless reference. This clown and pitiful moron essentially hates freedom; John Kerry seems like far the more libertarian candidate.

Indeed, Bush and Osama are practically the same person! It's hard to fantom why these two geeks hate each other (if they do) and where exactly these two religious freaks and tyrants fundamentally disagree.

This was a great article but I nevertheless question the following:

"The lessons of the Old and New Testaments, with their select stories of human redemption and human dignity, have had a measurable positive impact on many good and moral individuals....[Rand] readily affirmed the importance of certain religious doctrines to the evolution of the ideas of individualism and freedom..."

Everyone conservative, progressive, libertarian, and Objectiivst believes this. But I think a careful reading of history, especially of the Greeks, will show that everything good from religion (this means everything) was borrowed or stolen from rational philosophy. This isn't some polyanna pro-reason interpretation or sneaky rewrite of history...this is the way it really is.

Post 21

Friday, August 13, 2004 - 4:31am

Just wanted to thank those additional readers who have commented here. Quick points in response:

1. Yes, I do intend to stay in NYC during the GOP convention. But that's only because I live in Brooklyn, USA, far away from the "action."

2. It is quite possible, as Andre and others have suggested, that religion borrowed its more "rational" parts from nonreligious philosophies. Debating this issue would probably take us far beyond our scope here; be that as it may, however, the fact is that Bible stories go back thousands of years, and they have been passed on for generations. Many people who have had a religious upbringing had their first encounter with themes of redemption and dignity in that form. In this instance, as in most instances, we should focus more on the substance of the ideas, rather than the form in which they were delivered. (I'd say the same thing, btw, in my defense of dialectical method---which has taken many forms throughout the history of thought, but whose rational essence is traced to the Greeks, and to Aristotle, who was the first theoretician of dialectics. I have learned to appreciate that substance, regardless of the form in which it has been delivered.)

Cheers,
Chris

Post 22

Friday, August 13, 2004 - 12:05pm

My friend sent me these links the other day, and I just thought I'd pass them on because of how well they relate to the subject of Dr. DD's article: mass media "pop" Christianity. Read the salon.com review first, and then take a look at the customer reviews on amazon.com. :)

Salon.com article: http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2003/10/09/revolve/index_np.html

Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0718003586/102-3594817-2278539?v=glance

Jana

Post 23

Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 2:32am

Yes, I do intend to stay in NYC during the GOP convention. But that's only because I live in Brooklyn, USA, far away from the "action."

You could try getting the Republican Liberty Caucus to do an event or two there, if they aren't already :-)

By the way Chris, I hate to disagree with you ;-) but while I fully accept that Bush does have these pietistic influences, it is not at all clear to me that his substantive political "programme", by which I mean his policy prescriptions for the next term, are going to be influenced to any huge degree by specifically theological ideas. There seems to be a disparity between his rhetoric and his actual policies - for instance while Bush talks a lot about Christianity, I don't believe that Bush is going to try and turn the US into a Christian fundamentalism. He often sounds like an uncompromising anti-abortionist rhetorically, but judging by the last four years I don't believe that abortion rights are at serious risk in the US.

And whatever our disagreement with Lindsay over the Iraq issue - and let me make clear Chris that I still fully agree with you over Iraq - I do agree with Lindsay on one thing: Islamic fundamentalism is a far bigger threat to freedom than Bush's Republican Party, even with the pietist influence, could ever be.

(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 8/14, 3:13am)

Post 24

Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 10:44am

Just a postscript here before I move over to the Cordero Challenge (to which I've posted a response):

Please do not make the mistake of thinking that I'm alleging some kind of mass fundamentalist Christian conspiracy; I am making the point that pietist fundamentalism has become a mainstream ideological and cultural force, that Bush has been deeply influenced by it, and that he and his neoconservative advisors have a common belief in the culture- and nation-building enterprise, which can actually undermine the very real war on Islamic terrorists in which the US is currently engaged.

Bush will not succeed in turning the US into a theocracy, but that doesn't mean that the theocratic tendencies are nonexistent or unthreatening to the stability of the republic. Yes, of course, Islamic fundamentalism is a "far bigger" and certainly more immediate "threat to freedom than Bush's Republican Party, even with the pietist influence..." But that's not an argument to vote for Bush, since I firmly believe that the US policies in Iraq and in the Middle East are so entrenched that neither Kerry nor Bush is going to be able to alter that course in any fundamental way.

Post 25

Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 5:10pm

Thanks for the clarifications Chris :-) We may not be quite as far apart on this issue as I thought!

I have to say though, faced with a choice between someone with a proven record of combating terrorism (though I strongly disagree with a large aspect of how he's gone about it) and someone with a proven record of flip-flopping a number of major issues, I prefer the former.

As to foreign policy, I seem to remember during the 2000 election, Bush was talking about pulling US troops back from overseas. That all changed after September 11th of course (and up to a point, rightly so), but in the unlikely event of Al Quaida being totally crushed during the next four years, perhaps Bush may yet surprise us.

MH

Post 26

Friday, August 27, 2004 - 11:35am

Just a quick note to interested readers: You might want to tune-in to ABC's "Nightline" tonight, which will center on the issues I discussed in my recent article, "Caught Up in the Rapture." This program, "Selling the Faith," which comes on the eve of the DVD release of "The Passion of The Christ," deals with the explosion in Christian marketing.

Post 27

Saturday, August 30, 2008 - 10:08am

"Religion is being used by the representatives of government and politically constituted groups as a statist tool for the remaking of the modern world. And therein lies the danger."

Here we are 4 years down the road from Chris' article - a good time to take a second look and see how rock-solid his cultural and political observations have proven.

In post 14, Chris develops an excellent summary of the part that pop culture plays as a transmission belt for ideas that will affect the political future - that post is worthy of an article on its own and certainly should be of interest to those of us that want Objectivist ideas to take root.

Note that the Evangelist Rick Warren, who is mentioned in the article for his book that sold 15 million copies, went on to host the first 'debate' between McCain and Obama where they each vied to out-Christian one another. By itself this shows the strength and progression of the connection between the Christian pop culture becoming dominate and driving a political agenda. Altruism will never be happy as just a moral philosophy - it will insist on becoming moral COMMANDMENTS administered by the state.

It was sad to read those replies to his article that took on an unnecessary and unwarranted oppositional tone because they supported the war, hence supported Bush, and failed to see that the war could be looked at as a separate issue from Bush and the merging of religion and state. And certainly the war could be argued as a separate issue from the powerful Christian pop cultural trend and its relation to politics.

In post 24, Chris summarizes the focus of his article where he says, "...that pietist fundamentalism has become a mainstream ideological and cultural force, that Bush has been deeply influenced by it, and that he and his neoconservative advisors have a common belief in the culture- and nation-building enterprise, which can actually undermine the very real war on Islamic terrorists in which the US is currently engaged."

I disagree with Chris, where in post 24 he says, "...Islamic fundamentalism is a "far bigger" and certainly more immediate "threat to freedom than Bush's Republican Party, even with the pietist influence..." My concern is that the loss of key principles whether they are lost by religious influence on American politics, or from the left, say, by a President Obama, are a form of destruction that is worse for the long run than damage done by terrorists. Terrorists can kill people and destroy property - and they terrorize. But only we can destroy our understanding and valuing of liberty, of individual rights. We can recover, as a culture, as a society, as a nation from terrorist destruction. But there is no foundation to build upon, and no path to recovery for us to take, once we have killed that part of America that honors individual rights.

----------

p.s., It is sad that this very bright and independent thinker no longer posts at ROR.

Post 28

Saturday, August 30, 2008 - 1:20pm