RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : Daily Linz 15 - This Cheek's Not For Turning

Tuesday
October 25, 2005

Daily Linz 15 - This Cheek's Not For Turning by Lindsay Perigo

Michael wants to do his bit in ushering in the age of the soft-sell and bringing an end to religion-“bashing.” Well, if he were advocating clarity without dogmatism, KASS without hysteria, reasonableness without appeasement, I would agree with him. But as far as I can tell, he’s pitching for an Objectivism that is New-Aged to the point where it is not only unrecognisable as Objectivism, but is antithetical to it. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (122 messages)

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 3:33pm

Linz,

As I said, I thought the choice of turning the other cheek to be a poor one. His note here seemed to clarify it a bit:

One warning, though. Turning the other cheek is a very effective tactic, but only some of the time. Make sure that your enemy has a functioning rational capacity and some sense of shame. Otherwise, you might end up like I did and come across a sadistic bastard who will slap you silly for the pleasure of it.

I grant that the execution and choice of scenes from Rand's work are disjointed and not effective as they may be. What I really really like about this article is this bit:

This approach, i.e., putting a religious moral principle in another perspective—as I just did—is an excellent way to tie Objectivism to the world of a religious person without turning him off. It is very difficult for a person to think he has been a fool for years and to overthrow all he has believed to be the good. In seeing a moral principle he held as a problematic strategy work as a tactic instead, a strong barrier to understanding is lowered. This is enhanced by the fact that many such principles work well as tactics. That is why they have survived throughout the centuries.

Ethan

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 3:56pm

Linz,

You are properly disgusted with the kumbaya crowd who'll twist every Objectivist principle into a pretzel to show what nice guys we Objectivists really, really are. Heros are made of steel, not marshmallow. You are correct to denounce MSK's limp-dick perversion of Objectivism to make it fit with a touchy-feely Christianity of soccer moms, televangelists, and - so it would seem - candy bar salesmen. Finally, you are right to shame those who are so quick to go along to get along.

We don't have to make Ayn Rand stand on her head to justify being cordial with religious people. Plain ol' rational self-interest will dictate that, if for no other reason, a person's religious beliefs are irrelevant to why we are dealing with that person most of the time. So let's not round off the sharp edges of Ayn Rand's philosophy. They are there for a reason - namely to cut through the crap. Get along with your Christian neighbor because you like the guy. If you can't find a rational reason for not attacking the man because of his religion without reducing your Objectivist principles to goo, then you probably didn't have a good grasp on those principles in the first place.

So keep forging that Objectivist steel, Linz. There are plenty of backbones around here in need of it.

Andy

P.S. to everyone: As to what the true Christian teaching of turning the other cheek is, it's unimportant to this discussion. The problem isn't what Christians believe (and most of them get the tenets of their religion wrong anyway). It's the willingness of Objectivists to twist their principles out of shape to get along with others. But as an ex-Catholic who once was preparing the seminary, I'll throw out this tidbit about turning the other cheek for the curious to noodle on: Think judo.

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 3:57pm

Andre makes a couple of good points above.

Turning the other cheek is just another version of the christian ethic of unconditional love. God & sonny Jesus love all, even the genocidal butchers, pedophiles & dictators. Hitler gassed & burned passivist Jehovah's Witnesses & would have made a meal of the chanting, cross-legged Buddhists if he'd made it to the subcontinent.

It can also manifest itself as amorality. I saw some prick lawyer from Saddam Hussein's defence team on BBC World's Hardtalk show last night. He tried to obfuscate his whole despicable agenda by repeatedly referring to legal niceties & suggesting that morality had nothing to do with the proceedings. Well, nobody forced him to defend Hussein, did they?

Ross

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 4:02pm

"But if that's true, the "cheek-turning" is simply a ruse, not real cheek-turning at all; it's a prelude to long-overdue ass-kicking."

I'll buy that.

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 4:04pm

Yay Andy,

Always one to jump in with the name calling.

As one of the limp-dick marshmallow peddlers let me point you to the SOLO Credo written by Linz himself. (quoted below) Since I beleive this represents a good idea and am out to change the world, simply getting along with my Christian Neighbors and ignoring there faith that shows up in legislation all the time doesn't work for me. Ignore it? Rand ignored it? Evasion isn't a good thing Andy. Thinking of ways to get people to hear my ideas is a good thing.

We seek nothing less than to change the world.

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 10/25, 4:05pm)

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 4:06pm

Andy Postema - thank God for your post, if I may use that expression. :-) I was beginning to drown in dismay and disgust.

Linz

PS - I hope folk don't react to the Judo thing. Separate thread, please! :-)

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 4:53pm

It's true that Rand's heroes have never turned the other cheek, but it is also true that they went even farther than that; they turned their back. :)
humor people !
Ciro.

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 10/25, 4:58pm)

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 5:01pm

Andy Postema writes:

Linz, You are properly disgusted with the kumbaya crowd who'll twist every Objectivist principle into a pretzel to show what nice guys we Objectivists really, really are. Heros are made of steel, not marshmallow. You are correct to denounce MSK's limp-dick perversion of Objectivism to make it fit with a touchy-feely Christianity of soccer moms, televangelists, and - so it would seem - candy bar salesmen. Finally, you are right to shame those who are so quick to go along to get along.

Hey, Andy -- You got some attitude, pal. You seem to take a hard line on everything. I've only been aware of you here on SOLOHQ for about a week or two, but for some strange reason you seem to attack vigorously on just about every damn issue. What's your problem here? Don't you believe in cutting anybody any slack? All I can really say is: Keep up the good work! ;-)

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 5:07pm

(New member)

Like Joe, I have also read that this particular teaching was advice on how to deal with the Roman occupation. Although not a generally practical or moral course of action, there are circumstances – say, for example, residency in a concentration camp – where this advice might be quite useful for survival.

Would we conclude that the concentration camp victim was acting immorally if he followed this advice? Probably not, because of context. Taken in the broader context of life in general, however, this is neither a practical (as Michael discovered) nor a moral course of action.

I must protest, however, on the use of “appeasement” as a substitute word for “turn the other cheek”. To appease is to yield or concede to belligerent demands. In his examples, Michael did not appease, and should not be tainted with the negative judgment attached to that word.

Finally, I have to admit that I keep asking myself why we would even bother to look for common points, pulled out of context? If we find 100 of them, what does that prove? The real problem with religious believers is epistemological, and that is the most important area to address when talking to Christians or any theists about Objectivism.

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 5:26pm

Linz,

Andy Postema - thank God for your post, if I may use that expression. :-) I was beginning to drown in dismay and disgust.

Honor permitted me to do no less. I had to jump into the foxhole with you, because I'm partly responsible for this outbreak of non-judgmental it's-a-small-small-world hand-holding with our Christian neighbors. I vigorously denounced the village atheism and outright anti-Christian bigotry that some are trying to insinuate into Objectivism. Objectivism is not a grotty little hole for the small-minded to shelter in. While applying my pesticide, I failed to point out the obvious to those impressionable SOLOists who still wallow too much in the pomo, multi-culti, tolerance-is-the-highest virtue culture of our times: Opposing irrational contempt of Christians doesn't mean making nice with Christianity.

PS - I hope folk don't react to the Judo thing. Separate thread, please! :-)

Worry not. I know a great deal about Christian teachings (which most Christians, if they understand them, flinch from embracing because the lessons are more much radical, individualistic, and life-affirming in a direction 180 degrees apart from MSK's incoherent ramblings), but I have no desire to discuss them. Those who want to ponder the "judo thing" will have to put their own minds to work. ;-) I moved on a long time ago.

Andy

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 5:28pm

Andre,
Keep up the good work! ;-)
My pleasure.

Andy

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 5:36pm

Andre, this is really off the thread (since it is not MSK's viewpoint), but thank you for that nine line/nine ethical principles quote from what I assume must be the Seermon on the Mount. [#36]

I had not fully focused on it or realized until now how supremely foul, sewer-dwelling, vicious, and anti-life the Sermon on the Mount is.

1. Only two of those nine points (31 & 35) have any hint of egoism or common sense, and even the latter has to do with an egoism which would get its reward after death from a psychotic, twisted, supernatural dictator.

2. The other seven points advocate what is probably, as you suggest, the most extreme, pointless, suicidal form of altruism anyone had yet advocated in the world of ideas.

Joe M, as regards the idea that Jesus was simply advocating a Ghandi-esque passive resistance against someone stronger, the Romans, in the S.O.M., that is belied by Jesus's other anti-egoism statements which have nothing to do with the Romans, such as the one about the rich man having little chance of entering heaven, or his anti-egoist actions and advocacy of actions ... giving away every possession to the poor, living in poverty, his viewing of John the Baptist as a moral ideal and so on.

I had never fully realized what a sick and twisted little puppy, J.C. was.

And I say that with all due benevolence.

Phil

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 5:49pm

I sanctioned the post by Len Rasch because of the important point he raised regarding epistemology as a starting point when discussing Objectivism with Christians. I know many Christians who are quite rational in specialized fields like engineering but rely on faith for their morals, personal conduct, etc. However, Objectivist evangelism is not something I normally conduct unless asked, and they seldom ask. When they do ask, the first question I ask back is, "What is God?" I need to take a digital photograph of the inquiring Christian the next time that happens. "Trout Mouth" best describes the vacant stare.

As for turning the other cheek, I have noticed with dismay that many secular humanists who have left the Christian faith nevertheless retain the altruistic "love all" mentality -- often more than the Christians themselves. "Turning the other cheek" is not a mindset unique to religion. Even though these persons have a secular outlook, they still somehow think that self-sacrifice in the name of "compassion" demonstrates a form of "intrinsic" virtue. I find these people more disturbing than the Christians because they ought to know better, but for their morals rely on their remnant emotional programming more than they admit.

Both groups share a similar conundrum -- a misplacement of the root of value in some area other than one's own life.

The establishment of one's own life as one's own ultimate value needs to be the central argument in any ethical discussion with any person of any religious persuasion.

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 5:50pm

Ethan,

Since I beleive this represents a good idea and am out to change the world, simply getting along with my Christian Neighbors and ignoring there faith that shows up in legislation all the time doesn't work for me. Ignore it? Rand ignored it? Evasion isn't a good thing Andy.

What I don't recommend ignoring is logic. What is the chain of causation between a real live flesh-and-blood person who happens to your neighbor and a Christian with this amorphous thing called "their faith" that allegedly manifests itself legislation?

You evade the requisites of rational judgment when you assign responsibility for an action, such as bad piece of legislation, to a non-existent entity, such as this collective of Christian faith, and then use that as a basis for judging an individual, your Christian neighbor, as unsuitable to associate with. It is an injustice to judge a man on the basis of some group you assign him to. That is because you are impugning the words and deeds of others to him without any basis in fact. It's called prejudice, and it's irrational.

It's a rotten way to treat people. And it's poisonous to your self-interest to make adversaries out of people out of prejudice. Now I think you understand this at the gut level, Ethan. But you don't have to get onboard with MSK's pretzel-making to see how plain vanilla Objectivism already rebukes those who would make enemy of a Christian for no other reason than his religion.

Andy

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 5:53pm

Phil: "the Romans, in the S.O.M., that is belied by Jesus's other anti-egoism statements which have nothing to do with the Romans, such as the one about the rich man having little chance of entering heaven, or his anti-egoist actions and advocacy of actions ... giving away every possession to the poor, living in poverty, his viewing of John the Baptist as a moral ideal and so on."

Well, I don't know if we can hold the Romans up to Objectivist standards, either, given the whole breads and circus act, feeding people to the lions, etc.. And I am certainly not apologizing for Christianity. Just pointing out that there was another interpretation that was less than altruistic, even if it bordered on martyrdom. At best, I think Linz summed it up with his "ruse" remark.

Regarding Jesus's "anti-egoism": At the risk of hijacking the thread, I want to throw this out there, from Rand's cut portion of THE FOUNTAINHEAD where Roark "sings the praise" of Jesus:

"Jesus, like other great figures in human history, comes[s] close to the truth, even as his ideal is inverted. Christ proclaimed the untouchable integrity of Man's spirit [stating] the first rights of the Ego. He placed the salvation of one's own soul above all other concerns. But men distorted it into altruism."

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 6:01pm

Andy,

You haven't met some of my neighbors....

Some people who I truly value as friends are involved in faith driven things that are detrmimental to my life, as well as theirs. Any way I can explain things better helps. All these swipes at Michael just bore me, as do swipes at you by the way. Attack peoples ideas I say.

Michael's article isn't neat and tight and falls into some errors, but the underlying premise of tactical communication is both positive and proper. There is value in it to me, and I note that value in my posts here. There's no need for a hard-on when discussing philosophical ideas, so I'm glad to be limp dicked while doing. I'm also happy to discuss ideas with theists over some marshmallows, rather than kicking their ass and calling them names.

Just my take.

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 10/25, 6:14pm)

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 6:13pm

Linz,

Thank you. I saw MSK's article when it "came out" (I mean that literally) and thought, what a mess. You got right to the point guided by your intellect, with your Objectivist principles "on your sleave," how refreshing.

Stolyarov used to try to sneak in right wing christian ideas and call it Objectivism, Michael seems to doing it with "leftist" christian ideas.

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 6:33pm

Ethan,

Michael's article isn't neat and tight and falls into some errors, but the underlying premise of tactical communication is both positive and proper.

Oh sure. Letting a bully knock my lights out with no resistance positively does communicate that I'm properly thought of as a sap, a doormat, and a masochist.

Andy

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 6:47pm

Lindsay:
     Here it is, in the middle of (my) night, when I 1st read this 'official' response of yours to MSK's article...and I see that there are already 55 responses. I neither need to read all of them, nor have the time (at the moment) to know what my response to your official response is.

     Your response was nowhere near necessary.

     Clearly Michael is showing a personal 'take' on O'ism, and such is already clearly being dealt with in the responses (which *I* haven't yet given; I don't know where to start, yet, actually), to his arguments there and, re 'rights' in the "Coase vs Rand" article.

     Methinks you need worry not re his arguments being interpreted by others ('honest' others, anyway) as SOLO's, or even Rand's 'interpretations' of her philosophic views. An 'official' leader
in SOLO he clearly is, and, he should be. But, anyone familiar with SOLO should recognize by now that all viewpoints by any are clearly 'solo'd views not necessarily representing that of the founder/'LEADER'/Final-Arbiter.--- Methinks also, your 'argument' should definitely have been made, but, properly have been merely added to the response-threads to his article, rather than made as a separate article-announcement of...apparent 'distancing.'

      I agree mostly with what you said, and hope to show it in the thread of his article...but....so many subjects, so little time.

      I give MSK kudos, not at all for his arguments, nm 'conclusions', but that he was forthright in his views of such 'similarities,' and that he sees them as substantive (which, I don't; but, that later...on HIS thread); and, to you, for allowing such 'near-heretic' views being able to be discussed, here, as nowhere else.

LLAP
I AM... HE WHO IS -> J:D
(I just came back from...another...site, and, couldn't resist this closure; sorry)

P.S: I implied I hadn't yet dealt with Mike in "Coase vs Rand"; sorry. I meant that I hadn't FINISHED dealing with him on that subject of 'rights.' My mistake.

(Edited by John Dailey on 10/25, 6:49pm)

(Edited by John Dailey on 10/25, 6:52pm)

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 7:13pm

Andy,

Clearly you missed the whole part where Michael said that that wasn't an appropriate thing to let happen to himself:

Make sure that your enemy has a functioning rational capacity and some sense of shame. Otherwise, you might end up like I did and come across a sadistic bastard who will slap you silly for the pleasure of it.