RoR: Forum

Forum : Article Discussions : George Washington and the "Objectivist Center"

Monday
January 10, 2005

George Washington and the "Objectivist Center" by Adam Reed

The man, for whom the city in which they voted for this bill is named, said 215 years ago, "It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights." That two traitors to this principle should be honored and legitimized - in the name of the woman who gave us unprecedented understanding of Americanism as a body of principles, including this one - is an unspeakable obscenity. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (31 messages)

Post 20

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 11:33am

Link

Edit

Dear Adam,

Thank you for composing this refreshing article defending the individual rights of gay people. On July 4, 1986, I was sitting with my lover Jerry in the bleachers, watching the Tall Ships sail on the Hudson to celebrate the reopening of the Statue of Liberty. Jer and I had been together 18 years at that time. We had become lovers when we were both 19 years old, and we would continue until he would die in my arms in 1990.

The sun was pouring down on us in the bleachers. Thousands of us. A woman near us wore a beautiful T-shirt. It had a stylized line-drawing of the Statue of Liberty, above which was a single word: forever. Friendliness and happiness were all around us, but for me that day was forever sad. The US Supreme Court had just handed down its decision reaffirming the right of the States to criminalize homosexual relations.

Justice Blackmun had written a superb dissent, and though he spoke of a day when the Bill of Rights and equal protection under the law would be applied to the sexual relations of gay people, I did not expect to live to see it. As you know, in the summer of 2003, you and I presented papers for the Advanced Seminar of TOC. It was an exhilarating intellectual retreat. I had not heard any news from the outside world during those days. Upon reaching the gate at Logan for my flight home to Chicago, there was a newspaper staring me in the face. Its headline was announcing the new Supreme Court decision. Gay sex was legal throughout America. I sat down stone still. I remembered that sunny day in the bleachers, and I cried.

Justice Thomas complained that there was no reason to reverse the 1986 decision, which he still supported. President Bush said in an interview that he disagreed with the new decision, that he thought homosexuality should be against the law, and that the reason it should be against the law is because it is a sin. He does not have a firm grasp of the concept of individual rights.

Ayn Rand speaks pretty well for me here: "The concept of individual rights is so prodigious a feat of political thinking that few men grasp it fully---and two hundred years have not been enough for other countries to understand it. But this is the concept to which we owe our lives---the concept which makes it possible for us to bring into reality everything of value that any of us did or will achieve or experience" (A Nation's Unity).

Stephen

Post 21

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 11:33am

Link

Edit

Post 22

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 2:47pm

Link

Edit

Stephen,

Thank you. As we now know, not only have "two hundred years not been enough for other countries to understand it," but we now have Americans who don't get it. And, may they hang their heads in shame, some of those Americans who don't get it are posturing as Objectivists.

(Edited by Adam Reed on 1/12, 3:11pm)

Post 23

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 4:02pm

Link

Edit

Adam,

Most of us here do get it. One of the most awful failures of the Reagan Administration was their politicization of the early stages of the AIDS epidemic in the United States. Randy Shilts' "And the Band Played On" chronicled that horrific failure. However, that same administration prosecuted a brilliant Cold War strategy in the fight against the Communists. I doubt that Reagan will be remembered as a "troglodyte".

George Washington led a brilliant Revolutionary War campaign against the British, but failed to do anything about slavery. Lincoln abolished slavery, but also suspended habeus corpus and quartered troops in people's homes in direct violation of the Constitution. Was he also a "troglodyte"?

Most of us recognize issues of balance and proportionality in our judgments and we don't go looking for enemies under every rock.

Jim

(Edited by James Heaps-Nelson on 1/12, 6:23pm)

Post 24

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 10:47pm

Link

Edit

James,

I don't look for enemies either. I just don't legitimize them by association with Objectivism. And when TOC honors enemies of individual rights at Ayn Rand's birthday, I identify that fact, and I adjust my actions accordingly.

Post 25

Friday, January 14, 2005 - 3:28am

Link

Edit

I hate to be the one pointing it out, but Ayn Rand censured homosexuality as immoral. (One may disagree with her, but this is *her* Centenary event.) My problem with the invitation of Ryan and Royce to speak at Rand's Centenary event is their voting record in favor of banning "partial birth" abortion and in favor of other anti-abortion measures, as well as their voting record in favor of banning human cloning for medical research. Rand stated clearly her support for abortion on demand, as a private matter to be decided only by the woman and her physician. In The Ayn Rand Letter, in "A Last Survey," Nov/Dec 1975, she repudiated Reagan because of his opposition to abortion. The issue of human cloning did not emerge during her lifetime, but given her support of abortion, it can be deduced that she would have supported human cloning for medical research. Another problem is the title of Crane's talk, "The Libertarian Idea." Rand clearly stated her opposition to Libertarianism. One may disagree with her, but this is *her* Centenary event, for the purpose of commemorating her life and her achievements.

Post 26

Friday, January 14, 2005 - 10:00am

Link

Edit

Michelle,

I think that you are misrepresenting Ayn Rand's view on political discrimination against homosexuals. After one of the NBI lectures around 1962, Ayn Rand took the opportunity to answer a question about the proper use of principles. One example she gave in answering that question was that she personally found homosexuality disgusting, but on the basis of her political principles was absolutely opposed to government discrimination against homosexuals. And the principle she invoked was the one from George Washington: that all individuals must be free to exercise their rights, provided only that they respected the equal rights of others.

Ayn Rand regarded homosexuality as personally immoral, because the facts reported by science in her time, were that homosexuality was counterproductive to healthy life. Given Rand's position that all knowledge must be grounded in the relevant facts of reality, I think (with Peikoff) that in the context of the more accurate objective knowledge of homosexuality that we have today, Ayn Rand (if she were still alive) would absolutely disavow her previous evaluation of homosexuality as "immoral".
(Edited by Adam Reed on 1/14, 10:37am)

Post 27

Friday, January 14, 2005 - 10:53am

Link

Edit

Adam I sent you a PM.

George

Post 28

Friday, January 14, 2005 - 11:23am

Link

Edit

Thank you for correcting me, Adam. I confused the immoral with the illegal.

Michelle

(Edited by Michelle Cohen on 1/14, 1:57pm)

Post 29

Friday, January 14, 2005 - 11:00am

Link

Edit

Hi, Michelle!

When you say that Miss Rand censured homosexuality as immoral (she said "I think it is disgusting"), do you think that Rand therefore also thought it should be against the law? Surely Rand would not have jumped to embrace the latter proposition. Rand understood that individuals have rights to do things that are morally wrong. That is an understanding necessary to having a firm grasp of the concept of individual rights. Justice Thomas has no firm grasp of this concept, notwithstanding his affection for Rand's writings. He doesn't get it.

If there were no rights to do things morally wrong, we would not neet the concept of having a right, we could just make do with the concept of doing the right thing.

In The Objectivist Forum, October 1986, Harry Binswanger wrote an article roundly condemning the 1986 decision of the Supreme Court that ratified the States right to criminalize homosexual relations. Do you agree with Dr. Binswanger on this? I'm very sure Rand would agree with his analysis of this issue.

Here are some excerpts from Binswanger's article. "Philosophically, the decision signals a shift in the Court's view of its function. Where the Court had generally viewed itself as the protector of individual rights (however misconstrued or twisted its definition of those rights), this decision casts it in the role of protector of the predjudices of the mob. The decision is so horrendous, that many people, myself included, assumed that media reports of the decision were distorted. They were not" (p. 13).

. . . .

"In a brilliant and scathing dissent, Justice Blackmun wrote: 'This case is no more about "a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy," as the Court purports to declare . . . than Stanley V. Georgia (1969) was about a fundamental right to watch obscene movies, . . . . Rather, this case is about ''the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men,'' namely, "the right to be let alone." Olmstead v. United States (1928)'" (p.14).

. . . .

"Given the fundamentality, cogency, and moral certainty of Blackmun's dissent, and given that this is still America, there is a chance that within the next several years this decision will be reversed. Let us hope so" (p.15)

Dr Binswanger gets it.

Stephen

Post 30

Friday, January 14, 2005 - 1:56pm

Link

Edit

Stephen - see my post #28, and thanks for pointing out Binswanger's article.