re Diana's comment "Online?"

I cast no aspersions your way by contrasting the online availability of Christian Smith's book "Christian America?" with William Martin's book. Clearly, our reliably Leftist media grants the latter more public recognition (see my earlier post) than, arguably, deeper and more recent studies and their authors.

Therefore, I simply direct attention to the sources simply because it is available and relevant here.

lies in the fact that "conservative" evangelicals, by and large, believe that God is "big enough" to get things done on his own. (They often forget this and get suckered by the "left" progressives on moral grounds, cf. Prohibition) They view the situation in Acts Chapters 4-5 to be an act of voluntary cooperation which is not universally or trans-temporally valid for all Christians, and that ONLY voluntary giving is virtuous.

The people who take the perverted eisegesis of Acts 4-5 as being in favor of mandatory government socialism are both theologically and politically liberal. (i.e. they believe in the castrated "M" god of Kant, who merely exists to validate their statist morality) They insist on government intervention is necessary to bring about their "religio-socialism", so if you vote Democratic, you are voting with the people who really ARE theocratic in their mixture of religion and politics.

Hi, Fred.

You say: "These quotes clearly suggest an ethics of self-sacrifice which is completely absent in either Galt's Gulch or ARI."

How? Just because a person trades a piece of real estate for a body of knowledge? Is it your argument that a rational exchange can only involve physical values not mental ones?

Or is it your argument that any cooperative enterprise in which distributions are not strictly proportional to contributions is altruistic (in the self-destructive Randian sense of the word)?

Must a rational exchange of values be reducible to an economic calculus to not be altruistic? Is it possible for a rational person to desire an exchange that does not, so to speak, maximize his profit?

Or is it nothing more than because you do not find value in the teachings of Christ, you have determined that they must be worthless to everyone? Therefore, anyone who exchanges any substantial value for those teachings is self-destructive?

So let's get to concretes instead of rationalizations. How do the verses from Acts cited by Diana (who I note has nothing to say to support her assertion that started this discussion) "clearly suggest an ethics of self-sacrifice"?

Regards, Bill

I respond to Diana on the will to fight jihad thread.

Jeff

Bush's standards for success in Iraq (and by implication elsewhere), which he has articulated many times, are two-fold:

i) In the short run, not to have a failed or rogue state which can be a place for the terrorists to hide and breed and develop dirty bombs or biologicals.

ii) In the longer run, to have a successful "democratic" or freely-chosen government which can be a model for an alternative to the totalitarians, both fascist and theocratic.

He is more likely to be successful in imposing from the outside i) as opposed to ii) and the latter runs the risk of Islamo-fascists taking power. And he and his Administration may (or may not) have come or be coming to realize this. On the other hand, advocates of theocracy or sharia don't necessarily constitute a majority or win a democratic election. They did not even in the recent elections in Iraq. Let alone in Lebanon, Jordan and elsewhere. Nor are they a majority even in Iran, where the last free election resulted in an -overwhelming victory- for the non-fundamentalist, non-Islamist parties in parliament (which is why the mullahs rigged the most recent election and took the 'moderates' off the ballot.)

President Bush is a "hawk", just one who has made many mistakes -- not in being against freedom, constitutionalism, the rule of law, stability, anti-terrorism, and prosperity in the Middle East -- but in a too simple-minded view of how easy or possible it would be, or likely it is that "people everywhere want freedom" even at the expense of ancient, traditional, mystical, tribal views.

He has bought into the fuzzy, liberal idea of unlimited majority rule and has been unwilling to impose the western system of rights and proper constitutionalism and property rights the way America did on Japan and Germany after WWII.

If one wants to say Bush is no MacArthur (and Maliki, to move to the other post-WWII example, is neither Konrad Adenauer nor Ludwig Erhard), that is certainly true. (But to swing all the way over to the other extreme and say he is "not a hawk" is oversimplification not essentialization.)

Jeff said: "Even so, [Bush is] still on the hawkish side. Just as one sample piece of evidence I offer the response he made at a press conference discussing replacing Rumsfeld. A reporter asked him if, all things considered, he didn't want the troops to come home. His response -- immediate, unequivocal, and unrehearsed -- 'I want the troops to come home, too, Terry. But I want them to come home in victory.' He hasn't wavered from that since day one."

Yes, but what does "victory" mean to President Bush? It does not mean the defeat of the Islamists. That's not his standard. His standard is that established by the Forward Strategy for Freedom, namely the installation of democratic government, i.e. peaceful election of political leaders. He knows full well that such means granting political power to Islamists, yet he still advocates it. Time and time again, he has shown himself willing to sacrifice America's self-defense to voting rights for Islamists. We see the results in the Middle East today: Islamists have far more political power now than they did on 9/10.

If a "hawk" is someone who is willing to vigorously defend America with military action if necessary, that's not President Bush.

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

Bill,

No Kool-aid consumed here.

I can understand why you might get the impression I was a Bush supporter. I'm not and, for what it's worth (very little) I don't like him. (He seems to have learned public speaking from Sunday morning preachers; very irritating.)

But, I think he has, many times, pointed to Islam as the enemy; albeit he believes it's radical Islam or perverted Islam or some such thing that is the cause. As Linz so eloquently observed, paraphrasing, should we fault him for not recognizing that that perversion is Islam?

If so, to what degree? There are, after all, few Churchill's around. He recognized that socialism was evil, even in much less virulent forms than Nazism. Would I prefer that Bush be more like Churchill and less like, well, Bush? Definitely.

I do find it odd that people are willing to take his occasional mutterings about Christianity at face value, but discount any hawkish comments he makes. Mike Mazza rightly responded that his reason is his view that Bush's policies are much more consistent with the former than the latter. I'm still thinking about that.

It's been retorted that, yes, Bush has good speech writers. I.e. nothing he says is his own view but just some good sounding rhetoric cooked up by a writer. Well, maybe. But he chooses the writers and decides which speeches to give doesn't he? Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton had, I'm sure, access to a pool of talented writers and yet their speeches had very different content.

And I am definitely NOT "pro-Republican." I yet believe that the best chance reason and freedom have -- and hence the best chance I have for living in a better society -- lies with the Republicans... to the extent that politics has much to do with that.

That is the more important point. I really don't think politics is as important as others believe. It has effects, but the causes of our troubles are much deeper than political philosophy -- as just about everyone around here knows, I'm sure.

Even beyond believing that ethics lies at the base of politics, I think politics -- for the majority of people in the U.S. at any rate -- has much less effect on the daily life of individuals than all the concern around here over the daily news suggests.

Most people are right to carry on with their daily lives and ignore much of what goes on. For individuals whose profession it is to pay attention to and comment on such things, like Linz, the situation is different, of course.

"...this is hollow. What does Bush mean by victory? He doesn't mean what we mean or anything close."

Excellent post, Bill.

I've always thought of Bush as something of an empty suit, vacuous and insincere. With very rare exceptions, whenever he appears on TV I have to change the channel. I can't bear to watch him.

You are posting about Bush and victory on the wrong thread.

Ted

"His response -- immediate, unequivocal, and unrehearsed -- "I want the troops to come home, too, Terry. But I want them to come home in victory." He hasn't wavered from that since day one."

Yes but this is hollow. What does Bush mean by victory? He doesn't mean what we mean or anything close.

"He does indeed care very much about U.S. public opinion, though in many instances he has resisted that as well."

He seems to resist it for the wrong reasons. He sticks to his FSF and Iraq because its the only strategy of war he can conceive of. He could never allow himself to actually fight a ruthless war to crush Islamic Jihad wherever it exists. He wont even ackowledge the relationship of Islam to the problems we face. The only other time I can recall him resisting public opinion was for religious reasons; ie stem cell research. The man is a watered-down version of Peter Keating.

Honestly Jeff, I think you have drank too much of the Bush Kool-Aid (as have Tracinski and Wakeland). I agree with you that the Dems are worse in every way. But the difference is like falling from a 100 story window and falling from a 50 story window.

Yeah, there's a difference. But so what.

"[W]ould Bush have been prepared to withstand the outcry of public opinion..." Fred

Bush has a good record, the news junkies can correct me if I'm wrong, of not caring very much about world opinion, particularly from Europe. He does indeed care very much about U.S. public opinion, though in many instances he has resisted that as well.

In any case, the vast majority of Americans would have been perfectly fine with Fallujah going up in flames. (Though, of course, the New York Times would have complained loudly.) The American people booted the Republicans out as a proxy for booting George Bush out not because he has been too aggressive, but because he has been too limp.

The same thing happened in Vietnam, which is where the comparisons come from. Fight or get out has long been the popular American view.

The Democrats, and their drooling jackals in the media did a very good job of making the American people believe that things were going horrendously. So, eventually the tide of U.S. public opinion turned and Bush turned with it. Even so, he's still on the hawkish side.

Just as one sample piece of evidence I offer the response he made at a press conference discussing replacing Rumsfeld. A reporter asked him if, all things considered, he didn't want the troops to come home.

His response -- immediate, unequivocal, and unrehearsed -- "I want the troops to come home, too, Terry. But I want them to come home in victory." He hasn't wavered from that since day one.

Jeff, I don't know on what basis you think Bush would have pursued the war more aggressively in the absence of pressure from the Left.

If he can't withstand pressure from the Left - and he has a long history of that, e.g. his rapid capitulation on privatization of SS - what makes you think he can withstand pressure from any other source? For example, if a more aggressive policy would have required more civilian casualties as it certainly would have, e.g. the flattening of Fallujah, would Bush have been prepared to withstand the outcry of public opinion, especially in Europe and elsewhere in the world, as pictures of dead and maimed children appeared in newspapers all over the world? How about with the sardonic caption of "no child left behind"?

"Islamism would never have been a threat if we had dealt with it properly decades ago when it first reared its ugly head and if we had stopped them in their tracks at the very first attempts to nationalize the oil wells in the 1950's."

I was under the impression that it was the ideology of Arab/Persian nationalism that was behind the nationalization of the oil wells in the 50s. The Saudi Royal Family, the Baathists and Nasser while all bad were not hardcore "Islamists" or (with the possible exception of the Saudis) part of any rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the 1950s. They were all gangsters rather then religious ideologues. The exact same thing can be said of the Iranian government during this period and for the next few decades. Someone (other then Fred Weiss) is welcome to correct my understanding of the political history of the Middle East if I am incorrect about this.

- Jason

"Islamism would never have been a threat if we had dealt with it properly decades ago... Oil is about the only reason we have to be concerned about what goes on in that region." Fred Weiss

I agree. There was a more recent, and much more important incident that occurred in 1979 that more immediately and directly led to the events since that time, however. That, as you no doubt know, occurred on Carter's watch. Plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the aisle.

But tell me, how was Eisenhower's 'altruism' or belief in Christianity at work in his actions? I'm not asserting, or challenging - I'm asking. On what basis did he defend his position?

"Islam doesn't even have to be a threat now - if we were willing to unleash the full force of our military power to crush it." Fred

I agree.

"But do you really expect Bush to do that - with or without the Dems raising or reducing his supposed "resolve"?"

Very probably. Bush is far too willing to seek consensus. In the absence of pressure from the other side he very likely would have pursued the war with more vigor. That he doesn't stand up to the pressure more is a moral failing to be sure. But it's nevertheless true that he does in fact want to win. The same can not be said of his opponents.

Islamism would never have been a threat if we had dealt with it properly decades ago when it first reared its ugly head and if we had stopped them in their tracks at the very first attempts to nationalize the oil wells in the 1950's. Oil is about the only reason we have to be concerned about what goes on in that region.

Incidentally, it was the *Republican* Eisenhower who opposed the British and French when they tried to stop Nassar from taking over the Suez Canal. Nassar thus became the emblematic Arab hero who stood up to the "Western imperalists" and made them blink.

Islam doesn't even have to be a threat now - if we were willing to unleash the full force of our military power to crush it.

But do you really expect Bush to do that - with or without the Dems raising or reducing his supposed "resolve"? I don't even know how anyone can use the word "resolve" when referring in any way to Bush.

I'll tell you what resolve is. Resolve is when the Japanese sued for peace asking for certain conditions and when we responded by dropping two atom bombs on them so that they understood with perfect clarity that we demanded *unconditional* surrender, i.e. their total and unquestioning submission. That's resolve.

"But if you take away altruism and self-sacrifice what is left of Leftism and environmentalism?" The same thing at the root of religion: irrationalism, the failure of objectivity.

Leftism and environmentalism are only two of the currently more popular and destructive forms in the U.S. How is pointing out the prominence, ideological vigor, and existential damage these do 'ranting'?

Linz' 'shaking with anger' isn't the result of failing to regard these as more troublesome than some theocracy-seeking Christian groups and their ideology, as you well know.

In fact, it is Linz' position that Islamism is the greatest threat, and that recommendations of 'voting Dem across the board' are counter-productive in addressing it.

"Do you really think that the only rational form of cooperation is Galt's Gulch? Explain then the Ayn Rand Institute..."

This is utterly beside the point. It has nothing whatever to do with the issue Diana raised in her Bible quotes. These quotes clearly suggest an ethics of self-sacrifice which is completely absent in either Galt's Gulch or ARI. It is that ethics of self-sacrifice at the heart of Christianity which has been the fundamental underpinning of socialism in the West, including in its most virulent form: communism.

It is also at the root of the Leftism, including environmentalism, which the Linzinskis continually rant about it. It makes some of them literally "shake with anger" that anyone would regard them as less of a threat than Christians. But if you take away altruism and self-sacrifice what is left of Leftism and environmentalism? And what was the carrier of the virus of altruism and self-sacrifice in Western culture? Does anyone think the virus is no longer virulent?

Me: "It seems to me that Diana does not get the difference between politics and ethics. That is why she thinks a theocracy is around the corner."

You: "Not exactly. I think the mistake seems to be more in believing that Ethics *necessarily and inexorably leads* to a consistent-with-it Politics, in the short run and regardless of context and other premises."

I don't disagree with that. The rationale of a just politics is to ensure the uniform and predictable operation of law (through government) in light of the disparate ethics of individuals subject to that law. So the law should regulate as little as is necessary to ensure everyone's liberty to live his life by his ethics.

Consequently, from the individual's perspective, his politics will not strictly track with his ethics, if only because the contexts are different. But if the role of politics is kept small as it should be, then a person's politics doesn't require a compromise of a his ethics. However, if the role of politics expands, it will eventually impede upon ethics of individuals, thus giving rise to factions each battling to make the law enshrine ethical principles of its members. And so politics is corrupted.

However, I stand by my response to Diana. A free association of people must be judged within an ethical context. Absent a state, such an association is pre-political, and so political concepts such as socialism or theocracy are misapplied to it.

Regards, Bill

"Are you next going to tell us, Bill, that you see no difference between the cooperation in Galt's Gulch and the communal principles envisioned in such works as Bellamy's 'Looking Backward'?"

Obviously you are arguing for the sake of argument. Do you really think that the only rational form of cooperation is Galt's Gulch? Explain then the Ayn Rand Institute or SOLO Passion. The value of liberty is that we can cooperate with one another as we see fit, not as ideologues would force us to.

Regards, Bill

Hi, Diana.

You said: “It seems to me that Bill has paid no attention to the actual arguments I've made. That's why he thinks that I'm deducing imminent theocracy from some Bible quotes.”

Well, no, that’s not what I said. After showing an example of how you confuse politics and ethics by incorrectly applying the political concept of socialism to the ethical context of a voluntary exchanges within a free association of individuals, I said: “It seems to me that Diana does not get the difference between politics and ethics. That is why she thinks a theocracy is around the corner.”

I trusted the intelligence of SOLO Passion readers to understand from my remark that your concern of an imminent theocracy is another example of confusing politics and ethics. In short, I was drawing attention to a pattern in your thinking that is leading you astray. For your benefit, let me now flesh this out about your claim that a theocracy is just around the corner.

Again you take a political concept, theocracy, and suss out its imminence by misapplying it to the ethical context of Christians acting in accord with their first principles. To square the circle you work with a peculiar definition of theocracy: “A system of government in which the laws are justified based on their fidelity to religious principles.” Of course, for a Christian his religious principles are his first principles, and everyone acts in accord with his first principles. For example, a Christian opposes murder because it is a violation of God’s gift of life. By your lights then, a Christian legislator is a theocrat if his ethical opposition to murder, grounded in religion, is his basis for supporting a statute against it – and if fellow Christians constitute a majority in the legislator and so pass the statute, then that’s a theocracy.

The only way a Christian legislator – or a Christian voter, for that matter – can avoid being a theocrat, by your conflation of politics and ethics, Diane, is to divorce himself from his first principles and find another set of first principles by which to justify his support of a statute or public policy. In other words, he must not function as a Christian, at least not in regard to any public act. What is misbegotten in all this is your focus not on the substance of a public policy but upon a person’s fundamental beliefs regarding it. At the end of the day, that’s all a just politics can address, the substance of a policy. To do more and query into personal beliefs to ensure that no legislator or voter is supporting or opposing a policy upon religious grounds, and so is committing a “theocratic” act, is totalitarian. With this misplaced focus, you are declaring that the tyranny does not lie in a legislature’s political act of enacting a particular statute, but in the ethical act of each legislator to support the statute in accord with his conscience.

Now if you object that you want no such query into personal beliefs, then what measures are necessary to prevent these “theocrats” of yours from taking over the country? Voting them out of office? Fine, then how is your imminent “theocracy” and opposition to it any different from the normal democratic hurly-burly of rising and falling political factions? How does the charge of “theocrat” amount to anything more than an ad hominem argument – e.g., this policy or that faction is bad because Christians support it? How does the charge of “theocrat” illuminate anything?

It doesn’t.

Regards, Bill

I granted the altruism, but the sermon on the mount implicitly opposes theocracy and welfare. I was quite specific in the wording of my question.

Ted

> any similar quotes attributed to Jesus himself that parallel...Acts [Ted]

Sermon on the Mount, which is particularly virulent altruism.

I forgot step vi): They will be successful in defeating the Left and the silent majority and imposing theocracy.

Which makes the "inexorableness" of this chain even more absurd.

Diana,

Catholics tend to discount the NT books outside of the Gospels in so far as their liturgy and emphasized teachings. Protestantism (i.e., Paulism) focuses much more on those chapters. I am curious if you can provide any similar quotes attributed to Jesus himself that parallel your quotations from the Acts. Jesus is certainly an altruist mystic, but his "unto Caesar what is Caesar's" his "The poor will always be with us" and his "lilies of the field" sayings seem to contradict any concern of his with setting up a welfare state or a theocracy. Even his "through the eye of a needle" saying is more psychological than political.

Ted

It's kinda weird we're having this debate on the Positives about Diana thread...but..oh, hell just roll with it.... (hic) (burp)

> It seems to me that Diana does not get the difference between politics and ethics. That is why she thinks a theocracy is around the corner. [Bill]

Not exactly. I think the mistake seems to be more in believing that Ethics *necessarily and inexorably leads* to a consistent-with-it Politics, in the short run and regardless of context and other premises:

The mistake so many people on Peikoff's side of the IDT (Imminent Danger of Theocracy) argument tend to make can be captured in this alleged "logical progression". The arrows mean each step suggests, inexorably leads to, or necessitates the next:

i) Advocacy in the Bible of giving up worldly possessions, duty to one's fellow man, the evils of wealth (poor man and the needle), of altruism -->

ii) All or the majority or the most politically influential of Christians believe this or practice it or want to bring it -fully- about -->

iii) They are more influential and persuasive than their opponents within Christianity (such as the millions of conservative evangelicals who want LESS government, not more for both religious and political philosophy reasons)...and will therefore conclusively win that internal debate -->

iv) They want not only themselves but everyone else to practice it *now*-->

v) They want to *force* everyone to practice it, and don't believe it will be done voluntarily, therefore they want a massive government to enforce religious dictates (including the ones named in step i, above).

Can everyone see that this progression (or one slightly modified but closely related) is **deeply and profoundly rationalistic** and out of touch? That each next step requires a whole weight of factual evidence, knowledge of context, awareness of -other- theological, psychological, cultural, and historical factors? [If you don't get -that- we can stop right here...]

It has been pointed out repeatedly by Jeff, myself, and others that i) does not necessarily lead all the way to v), that altruism does not necessarily lead to force does not necessarily lead to theocracy.

This is an extremely simple logical point and I for one am tired of repeating it: the ludicrous "Imminent Danger of Theocracy" position has already been refuted and that debate has been won. The only reason I can see for not grasping this is a Platonic kind of rationalism: the disdain for the concrete, the factual, the empirical if it interferes with pure theorizing, the tendency to deduce what -has- to happen from pure philosophy along the lines of "a consistent altruist is an incipient totalitarian", while rationalistically brushing aside the messy fact that history is full of individuals and entire movements for which this was not the case.

Peikoff never completely shook rationalism...and now it is simply popping up in another fashion. Another proof of rationalism is the failure to fully deal with all the concrete points and empirical evidence that has been systematically amassed by Mr. Perren...and what I would expect to be the ignoring or failure to deal systematically (for example, Fred Weiss one-liners and 'zingers' don't constitute systematic debate) with the five steps I laid out quite clearly above.

THE ALMOST TOTAL IGNORING OF JEFF PERREN'S MASS OF EVIDENCE AND LOGIC ACROSS MANY WEEKS IS TRULY SHAMEFUL!! (Linz had an even simpler llst of questions asking for evidence and proof. It was pretty much ignored as well.)

Furthermore, that Bill chooses not to understand the distinction between men acting in concert for a common cause - such as to start and run a business *for profit* and to delay short term comfort for the purpose of investing in longterm *wealth* - versus renouncing worldly possessions *for its own sake* and on the principle of sharing with those "more needy" speaks volumes about his lack of understanding of the ethical underpinnings of socialism, regardless of whether one is doing it voluntarily or by force. There were many instances of voluntary socialist communities in America and famous tracts of fanciful socialist utopias which became the precursers of the actual socialism to which we were subjected in the 20th Cent. The fundamental ethical source of that thinking was: Christianity.

So, it is not Diana's understanding which is faulty in this instance. It is yours, Bill.

Are you next going to tell us, Bill, that you see no difference between the cooperation in Galt's Gulch and the communal principles envisioned in such works as Bellamy's "Looking Backward"?

Bill said: "It seems to me that Diana does not get the difference between politics and ethics. That is why she thinks a theocracy is around the corner."

It seems to me that Bill has paid no attention to the actual arguments I've made. That's why he thinks that I'm deducing imminent theocracy from some Bible quotes.

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

Orson said: "As for "Christian America?" Christian Smith's book, Amazon.com makes available the paperback book back blurbs, contents page, index, and yes, six pages from the book to read - which, as far as I can tell, is much more than Diana was able to access online for William Martin book."

Huh?!? I wasn't accessing the William Martin book online. I bought it. I read it. (I'm reading the afterward now.) That's why I recommended it.

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

Hi, Fred.

You said: "You're a little confused here. The Bible quotes Diana provided were not for the purpose of accusing Christians of merely giving to charity, per se, or supporting causes they believe in. Maybe you should re-read them."

Obviously Diana was not citing those verses to accuse Christians of advocating charity. She cited them to equate Christianity to socialism, an error of utter ignorance which was plainly the point of my response to her. So I think someone other than me is confused.

Diana's (and apparently your) mistake is the application of a political concept to an ethical situation. Socialism is a system of ordering society to forcibly redistribute wealth of individuals according to the dictates of the state. That's a political concept. It has no relevance to the voluntary exchanges a group of early Christians engaged in to make common cause. That activity belongs in an ethical context.

Socialism does not and cannot arise out of the voluntary acts of a free association of individuals. To think otherwise is to not grasp the evil of socialism: The state coercing the surrender of labor and wealth and the oppression by the state entailed in accruing and maintaining the power to carry out that coercion. None of that exists in the early Christian commune described in Acts. Nor are any of the principles of socialism latent in the activities of the commune.

If there were, then what free association of individuals could not be construed as socialism? Once it no longer matters that individuals are voluntarily interacting with one another (you know, the trader principle) in order to posit socialistic principles to their activities and so all cooperation is reduced to collectivism, then a hash is made of socialism, free exchange, and the distinction between politics and ethics.

For example, two men agree to start a business. They both mortgage everything they have to capitalize the venture. One man has more to mortgage than the other, so their contributions are unequal, but they agree to be equal partners because of other considerations. As the business gets started, they agree to distribute their limited earnings by the needs of each partner. One has children at home and the other doesn't, so the one needs more than the other. In time they build a successful business that has made them both wealthy.

So how is this free association of two men in which each gives according to his ability and each takes according to his needs not an example, by Diana's lights, of socialism? Of course it's not, just as the commune of the Apostles was not. To call it such mixes up polticial concepts with ethical ones. Heck, according to Diana, our host Linz is a socialist by giving all he can to Solo Passion while we all take from his efforts what we need.

It seems to me that Diana does not get the difference between politics and ethics. That is why she thinks a theocracy is around the corner.

Regards, Bill

Your post amounts to the claim that it isn't a trend if it doesn't arise from a unified effort. You mean like the rise and fall of stock prices? A trend does not require a conspiracy to explain it.

Thank you for the link but it doesn't accomplish much, unless one is willing to subscribe to The American Interest magazine. It also doesn't contribute to the current debate since no one is arguing that all Evangelicals are intent on theocracy or that they all agree on every issue or that they all constitute an equal danger. I rather doubt that anything more than a very small minority of Germans would have endorsed the extermination of the Jews either. But it didn't require more than a small minority. The others just had to be willing to "see no evil, hear no evil,...", etc.

As for Michael Medved and his "withering theses", without hearing them, it's hard to evaluate them, don't you think?

Unfortunately, in my holiday haste (it is Thanksgiving Day in the US) Thursday, it seems my link to the original article did not "take" between my Word composition and pasting a copy to solopassion.com.

”Deep and Wide: The Real American Evangelicals”

Somehow - no, my mistake: a failure of one html quote mark to find its proper place, and thus no URL appeared in my post above: sorry! - resulted in the loss of the link to what is publicly available online of the piece by Ammerman.

As for her biography, I did read her BU faculty pages, including her publications, which led me to Christian Smith's book - one of her academic reviews is on it. Her title "“professor of sociology of religion at Boston University” comes from the one provided by "The American Interest" where her piece appears ("Deep and Wide: The Real American Evangelicals," September/October 2006 - pages 25-34), as well as her biography page.

If Fred and readers taking his perspective can move beyond ad hominem, one observes that she also currently teaches at the "School of Theology" at BU, and won the "1992 Distinguished Book award from the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion" for her continuing research on religion - while remaining "active in attempting to educate a larger public audience about American religion. In 1993, she served on the panel of experts convened by the U. S. Departments of Justice and Treasury to make recommendations in light of the government's confrontation with the Branch Davidians at Waco. In 1995, she testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the same subject, and in 1997 she lectured in Israel under sponsorship of the U. S. State Department. Nancy earned the Ph.D. degree from Yale University."

I'm sure none of that bio absolves her of her questionable associations or dubious employment elsewhere, in Fred's eyes.

Finally, yes - I did happen upon the above article in a neglected pile from Barnes & Noble bookstore - I was prepping for October's University of London (external) exams during early September when I made the purchase, and only now have the luxury of catching up on reading for pleasure.

As for "Christian America?" Christian Smith's book, Amazon.com makes available the paperback book back blurbs, contents page, index, and yes, six pages from the book to read - which, as far as I can tell, is much more than Diana was able to access online for William Martin book. (Scroll down the page to "Browse Sample Pages: Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Index | Back Cover | Surprise Me!" and click to load them.) Like her, I only offer the title as informed scholarly offering of relevant interest.

As I've implied in an earlier post toward the beginning of this thread, I've been impressed to hear Michael Medved, an observant Jew, interview several politically partisan authors who attack "the Religious Right's" baleful influence upon the Republican Party; they warn us about "immanent theocracy," much as the Hsiehkovians have. He's simply withered their theses the few times I've caught them. (He is, among all nationally syndicated radio talk-show hosts in the US, simply without peer in conducting illuminating author interviews and hosting genuine debates. It is a shame these aren't available as podcasts to download from his web site.) In fact, as I write this, I recall Medved citing Christian Smith's scholarship back then too.

Mr. "Orson" Olson informs us that he "happened upon" - I like that "happened upon"- "a 10 page (double columned) introductory survey article on Evangelical religion in America published in September 2006." Orson assures that, "This balanced survey is current, informed by field study, and historically well-framed, as it ought to be, since its author is “professor of sociology of religion at Boston University” – namely, Nancy T. Ammerman."

So what else could one expect from a professor at a prestigious, mainstream university except a "balanced survey...historically well-framed"?

Well I just "happened to" do a background check on Prof. Ammerman and discovered that prior to arriving at Boston University in 2003 our Prof. Ammerman was Professor of Sociology of Religion at Hartford Seminary, in the Hartford Institute for Religion Research.

So what is Hartford Seminary? In their own words on their own website they tell us, "Academically, Hartford Seminary is centered around its three academic centers: The Center for Faith in Practice, Hartford Institute for Religion Research, and The Duncan Black Macdonald Center for the Study of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations."

And if that is not enough and should you need additional reassurance that our Prof. Ammerman can offer a "balanced survey...historically well-framed", Hartford Seminary gushes about how it has recognized, "all that is offered by those frequently marginalized" and why thus,"in 1995 the Seminary launched the Women's Leadership Institute: A Program in Applied Spirituality, WLI is a certificate program based on feminist values and designed to prepare leaders for the world of the 21st century."

But that's not all. Prior to her stint at the "balanced" Hartford Seminary, Prof Ammerman taught sociology of religion at the Candler School of Theology at Emory University.

The primary offering of The Candler School of Theology according to an interview with its Dean of Theology, Dr. Richey, is the Master of Divinity, which is for those hoping to become professional religious leaders – clergy, educators, social workers, and chaplains. Also, students will pursue a Master of Divinity degree for a number of disparate fields. Basically, the Master of Divinity is appropriate for someone who seeks to be credentialed in a religious community. Those hoping to attain ordination should pursue a Master of Divinity degree."

The Candler School is one of 13 seminaries of the United Methodist Church.

In fact, Prof. Ammerman is an example of precisely what we are most concerned about - the infiltration of mainstream universities by religionists. Our assumption is that they will be even more threatened and less sympathetic to hiring Objectivist faculty than the current leftists (who might even regard Objectivists as something of allies against this religious onslaught).

Now, none of this alone is sufficient to discredit Prof. Ammerman's study. I only bring it up because of Orson's assurances that he found us a "balanced" study which he chooses to confirm by the affiliation of the author with Boston University.

As for “Christian America?: What Evangelicals Really Want (2002) by University of North Carolina sociologist Christian Smith", we are supposed to evaluate the contents of a book from a review blurb on its back cover which is perhaps even less likely to be objective than the Amazon.com reviews which Orson also likes to cite.

So much - once again - for Orson's pontifications.

P.S.: Since Orson chose not to provide a citation or link for this "10 page (double columned) introductory survey article on Evangelical religion in America published in September 2006" written by a supposedly "balanced" Nancy Ammerman, I tried searching for it and came up empty. One thing I did discover in reviewing Prof. Ammerman's publications is a large and revealing category of "Articles and Reports for Religious Audiences" which have appeared in such "balanced" books and publications as Christian Century, The Gospel in the World: International Baptist Studies, Christian Scholars Review, Proclaiming the Baptist Vision: The Priesthood of All Believers, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

It is true that Protestantism - from the time of Calvin (see his "Insititutes of Christian Religion") - believes in God's ultimate and total sovereignty over everything. This collectivist move is chilling to Objectivists, and indeed should offend all Enlightenment rationalists. Furthermore, we are all, and Objectivists much more so, morally offended at their fundamental belief in mankind's radical depravity and unworthiness. It is the rejection of the best heritage of our Greek forebears.

The central problem Protestants have is that this gap between God and mankind is almost unbridgably mystical, in contrast to the Catholic view, which usually begins with humanity and works toward communion with God. Nevertheless, as a matter of historical fact, neither side has been immunized from the "theocratic temptation," at least before the US Constitution was devised. What remains in dispute in this thread is what are the relvant facts in the US regarding Evangelical religion? Are they bent on theocracy? OR are they too divided to ever be able to impose it? Or are they too convinced of the uniquely American competitive way towards moral improvement sometimes called "the American way"? Should Objectivists, among others, be disturbed at their political participation in our democratic process?

Therefore, in contrast to William Martin, here are two other more current and quantitatively informed findings by sociologists on these questions; my apologies in advance for the indulgent length of this post:

Yesterday, I happened upon a 10 page (double columned) introductory survey article on Evangelical religion in America published in September 2006. This balanced survey is current, informed by field study, and historically well-framed, as it ought to be, since its author is “professor of sociology of religion at Boston University” – namely, Nancy T. Ammerman.

Professor Ammerman’s conclusion about ‘any theocratic’ threat comes in the fourth from the bottom paragraph below; let me use pull-quotes to summarize the most pertinent points in the piece for the benefit of our ongoing debate on Republican theocracy:

“Every weekend, at least fifty million American adults, with at least five million children in tow, interrupt the routine of errands and soccer games and lawn mowing and laundry to go to religious services…. In addition to this dedicated core of weekly attendees, another 100 million American adults are connected enough to a religious tradition to attend a few times a year….

“While Evangelicals value the Bible and the soul-saving Jesus they find there, fundamentalists (of the Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson sort) profess a certainty about the Bible’s truths most Evangelicals are too humble (and civil) to claim. Despite the influence of ‘values voters’ loyal to George W. Bush, not every Evangelical is ready to impose Christian values on the world at large.”

” Deep and Wide: The Real American Evangelicals”

While “Evangelicals” constitute one-third of the US population, this strain of religion is far from uniform . It “is not a uniform political bloc any more than it is uniform theological community.”

“American Evangelicals would rather offer a good examples than force their beliefs on others, and they are just as committed to living civilly as are more liberal Americans. [Several books and studies are footnoted here.] Nor is this [Evangelical] country a theology in the making. There is neither an institutionalized religious establishment ready to take over nor enough agreement on an Evangelical platform to pose a credible threat to the constitutional separation of church and state. While abortion and gay rights have mobilized many Evangelicals, others are mobilized by poverty and global warming. Like their 19th-century abolitionist forebears, many Evangelicals have become morally outraged; and as in that earlier era, they are acting as citizens trying to persuade their fellow citizens to change.”

In short, professor Ammerman sees typicality, continuity, and civic participation as characterizing what others see as a religious threat. Evangelicals are proselytizers, which is a peaceful constitutionally protected activity in stark contrast to Islamic terrorism and the use of force to “make people better.” Ammerman sees no “theocratic” threat on the horizon, in contrast to the Hsiehkovians and other opportnistically motivated partisans.

In the related matter of books worth recommending on the subject, I’ve chosen “Christian America?: What Evangelicals Really Want (2002) by University of North Carolina sociologist Christian Smith, which is based on the author’s own highly quantitative team work conducted over a three-year period, published separately, also on Evangelical religion. The opening six pages of this book, explain why it is especially pertinent to our interests, are available to read online at www.amazon.com.

A review excerpted on the back of the book appears representative of its content, reading: “’Christian America?’ reveals a more diverse, conflict-ridden, freedom-loving group of individuals than that depicted by popular myths….The book forces a rethinking of myths and stereotypes that threaten greater harm to American freedoms than the alleged threat posed by evangelicals themselves.” Clearly, William Martin's opinions are not the only well-formed perspective on our debate; there are others.

Bill, I wasn't aware that ARI either expected or demanded that its supporters renounce their worldly possessions and share them equally with those "in need". But maybe you know something I don't.

You're a little confused here. The Bible quotes Diana provided were not for the purpose of accusing Christians of merely giving to charity, per se, or supporting causes they believe in. Maybe you should re-read them.

"Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse" Laplace

... for illustrating the point of my previous post. The rank ignorance of Christian teaching demonstrated in this statement is astounding:

"Meanwhile, these [serious] Christians will continue to support socialism for the simple reason that the New Testament commands it. It demands total collectivization of property and distribution according to need. In passage after passage, it inculcates vicious hostility to wealth, in part on the grounds that the wealthy exploit the poor. ... Christianity is explicitly opposed to worldy values like happiness and prosperity. It lauds the silent endurance of suffering and misery as a virtue -- and Christians will force you to be virtuous."

Little wonder your arguments fall upon deaf ears beyond the converted.

Regards, Bill

P.S. Upon reflection, I thought I should cite an example of the ignorance on display here.

The New Testament passages Diana quotes do not advocate socialism. Acts 4:32-37 describe the commune some early believers formed with the Apostles to learn and then spread the Good News of the Resurrection. This is a free association of people making common cause who valued a certain body of knowledge and its dissemination over physical possessions. To equate this to socialism, the seizure and forced distribution of wealth by the state, is ludicrous. By Diana's lights, how then is the Ayn Rand Institute not an example of socialism?

As for Acts 5:1-11, it should be evident from the verses alone that Ananias and Sapphira suffered for their deceit, not their withholding of wealth from the community. Moreover, the community did not compel them to offer any property in the first place and did not exact any penalty from them when their deceit was discovered. The verses make plain that a higher authority, God, passed judgment and sentence. Again this hardly comparable to socialism in which the state takes upon itself the power to judge and penalize those who do not conform to its demands.

Hello, Diana.

I take it from the figures you posted your point is that the Ayn Rand Institute is outspent a hundredfold by conservative Christian organizations in spreading their respective messages. Therefore far more people are exposed to, thus presumably persuaded by, the Word of God than the philosophy of Objectivism. No doubt money helps when it comes to proselytizing. But then I daresay that most Christian preaching is done on shoestring, so a big budget to promote Objectivism is not essential for success in the marketplace of ideas.

But, as I said, money doesn’t hurt. So let’s say Objectivist organizations like the Ayn Rand Institute had all the bucks they needed to get the word out. Even then Objectivism would rise among the masses like a lead balloon. Why? It is the contempt with which most Objectivists hold Christians and their beliefs whom they are trying to persuade. Gary Wolfe makes this point well in a recent Wired magazine article about the so-called New Atheists like Richard Dawkins who declare Christians and other theists evil. (I say “so-called” because there is nothing new about the shrillness of militant atheists.) Such obnoxiousness might get a New Atheist proselytizer the attention of his audience for a moment, but it will only be his contempt for them and not his message that they will remember.

Of course, an Objectivist might choose to be a little smarter and take a more politic tone than the New Atheists in his proselytizing. Even if he successfully disguises his contempt for the beliefs of the people he is preaching to, that contempt will still doom his efforts to persuade. Why? It prevents him from according the necessary respect to the beliefs he opposes. Without that respect, he will not educate himself sufficiently about those beliefs to argue effectively against them. He will persist in knocking down straw men while remaining puzzled that his audience doesn’t seem to feel the punches he is landing. A good example of this is the oddball definition Objectivists have for faith. What an Objectivist calls faith, a Christian calls fideism which most Christians reject as an error. So when an Objectivist knocks down “faith”, the Christian response is, Amen … and by the way, what does that have to do with me?

So this contempt, even if submerged, will undermine the Objectivist’s effort to convert the unconverted to the extent that it stops him from taking the beliefs he opposes seriously enough to educate himself thoroughly about them. Only by this means can the Objectivist make effective arguments against the best and strongest arguments supporting those beliefs. This is precisely what Objectivists, libertarians, and conservatives did against communism. As much as they reviled that blood-thirsty dehumanizing ideology, they respected it sufficiently to understand it and marshal the intellectual resources to assault it at its rotten foundations. Now communism is gone, at least as a credible armed threat to Western Civilization. If Objectivists want to consign Christianity to the same dustbin of history, they need to out-Jesuit the Jesuits in their knowledge of it.

That means knowing why Dawkins is a clown and Nietzsche was a genius in the argument against Christianity. It also means understanding why Nietzsche was a failed genius even at the high-tide of the intellectual respectability of deterministic naturalism and how a century of scientific discoveries and Biblical scholarship has since buried him. Finally it means acknowledging that a belief in God as fundamental to the universe is no less rational than believing Nature is. However, if Objectivists let contempt of Christianity, and religious belief in general, blinker them, they will continue to fail to persuade others of the merits of Objectivism.

Regards, Bill

Regarding the union of evangelical Christianity with socialism, I already discussed that in my essay on the election. I wrote:

Meanwhile, these [serious] Christians will continue to support socialism for the simple reason that the New Testament commands it. It demands total collectivization of property and distribution according to need. In passage after passage, it inculcates vicious hostility to wealth, in part on the grounds that the wealthy exploit the poor. Marxism collapsed as an ideological force with the Soviet Union, but Christianity can and will give socialism a new lease on life. The utter misery created by Christian socialism will not be a reason to abandon it; Christianity is explicitly opposed to worldy values like happiness and prosperity. It lauds the silent endurance of suffering and misery as a virtue -- and Christians will force you to be virtuous.

Socialism does have strong Biblical support, particularly in the Acts of the Apostles.

Acts 4

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

Acts 5

1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,

2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.

7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.

8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.

9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.

10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

It's reason and freedom versus faith and force.

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

Jeff said: "I haven't double checked, but I don't recall observing anyone on SOLO, The Forum, nor NoodleFood who denied that there are groups of fervent Evangelicals who are culturally and politically ambitious."

In fact, many people have been arguing along those lines. They deny that large numbers of Americans wish to impose Biblically-based law on the US. They deny any change in evangelical Christianity over the past decades, e.g. that it's now very politicized. They deny that rule by Biblical law would be theocracy -- or substantially impact our lives. If that's not you, that's good.

In any case, Jeff, I did want to apologize for my odd stridency in this recent exchange. I wanted to discuss just the current state of evangelical Christianity, not also (or yet) comparing it to the state of the left. (The discussion is just too wildly far-reaching if spread over the whole state of the culture, I think.) Whatever my preference, it wasn't wrong or inappropriate for you to make the comparison with the left.

Oh, and on an old topic, if you wish to know about the extremely hostile response of conservatives to Objectivists in academia, you should ask Brad Thompson, John Lewis, or John McCaskey about what happened at Ashland if/when you meet them. Or you can ask me if we meet, as I've heard most of the story. (I'd rather not post on it publicly.) Given the vicious attacks upon AR traditional at National Review, the hostility is not surprising. Smart conservatives know that Objectivism is a threat to their God-and-Country-and-Fetuses-and-Human-Vegetables worldview. And they're out to take over academia, not gain a few seats at the table.

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

It's already happening. That's what "compassionate conservatism" is designed to accomplish - the merger of supposed "conservative" values of "god, family, and country" with welfare statism. "Supply side economics" was supposed to provide the magic potion - cut taxes thereby increasing gov't revenues which enables massive increases in gov't spending.

But the broader point as it applies to cultural trends is that both left and right are increasingly going to perceive the common enemy as reason and individual rights (freedom). Whether they'll see it specifically as Objectivism (any time soon) remains to be seen. I doubt it. That's decades away in my view. But various watered-down versions will start seeping in and the cultural establishment will have to simultaneously both resist it and embrace (aspects of) it.

Whether Peikoff's thesis is correct that the religious component will put up the greatest resistance and will represent the greatest threat remains to be seen. I haven't yet heard his DIM arguments so I remain unconvinced. But even apart from DIM, it's clear that it's a highly credible concern. To use Peikoff's formulation - and I don't really give a fuck if anyone is offended by it - if you understand Objectivism then you understand that *reason* is the foundational issue and that therefore religion represents the most profound threat (nihilism is simply a reaction to religion and its perceived failure to provide the automatic answers to understanding reality - and notice that the more radical religions are simply crazed mindlessness with very little difference to hippy culture).

Note something else. The only way that the Left can claim to be the standard bearer of reason is because the Right has rejected it - and it is the Right that we are expecting to defend our freedom. On what grounds? Certainly not reason.

Phil,

It's plausible prima facie. There are some religious groups beginning to tout environmentalism on the idea that we are 'stewards of the Lord's creation.'

Frankly, I think the third alternative that is much more likely is that most of this nonsense is going to get swept away in the next 50 years or, hopefully, much sooner. I'll have more to say on that subject later.

Jeff

I suspect that -both- sides may be wrong in this "theocracy-and-the right-is-most-dangerous" vs. "the left/enviros/progressives-are-most dangerous" debate. These two choices may turn out to be a false alternative.

The danger may come from a third scenario we haven't considered -- an amalgam or synthesis, taking the worst elements from Left and Right.

Hitler was successful in part because he didn't get pegged as being on the left or the right, because "National Socialism" combined elements from the nationalist, expansionist, racist, traditional folk wisdom "right" as it stood in his country & the socialist idea of total control of the economy.

If a pure Pat Robertson type theocrat or a pure McGovern type socialist wants to seize power he would face the determined opposition of half the country. So he would have to make a determined and successful effort to blur the distinctions, blend the two ideologies to a large extent, drawing massive support from both previously irreconcilable sides.

Creating a new (bastardized, semi-plausible) ideology. As Hitler did with Nazism.

In response to Tom Rowland's comment, "A cultural trend which changes the course of history is not measured in terms of 10 years," Jeff responded with 3 points.

His first was, "The technologies of communication and transportation have radically shortened the time frame it takes ideas to spread."

It's not clear however what broader point that is supposed to make. Might it argue for our being more concerned about the speed with which Christianity could achieve dominance in the culture? However, I don't think new technology is a relevant issue one way or the other. It certainly can accelerate the speed with which ideas are circulated but I don't think it affects the speed with which those ideas are accepted or embraced. If we are discussing relatively radical new ideas with broad cultural implications, that speed is I believe governed by culturally immutable forces, i.e. they are inherent in the nature of man, and technology has nothing to do with it. Those ideas can be spread with great rapidity by printed broadsides (as in Colonial America) as much as by bloggers on the Internet. But they are of little consequence if they fall on barren soil and if the (mostly, philosophical) groundwork has not been laid for their acceptance. The Internet cannot accelerate that process. That requires that people be convinced of the merits of an idea. Once they are and it's "time has come", as Victor Hugo said, "all the armies of the world cannot stop it."

As for Jeff's second point, concerning something Tom was supposed to have said concerning the "14 year time frame you cited with respect to Nazi Germany" my guess is that this is a matter of "apples and oranges". Nazi Germany didn't spring out of nowhere in a mere 14 years (see Peikoff's, Ominous Parallels). In fact, its roots go deep into German thought going back several *hundred* years. However, in the fertile soil which that thought had created - most especially, Kant - the Nazis were able to take over fairly quickly. The culture had been thoroughly disarmed intellectually by then and the Nazis were easily able to perform the coup de grace, finishing it off totally.

Incidentally, it is instructive - and relevant to our current discussion - that many Germans were far,far more concerned with the increasing influence of the communists and saw the Nazis as their only saviors against them.

As for trends taking 150-200 years, that also is apples and oranges. That length of time applies only to ideas which are more than merely radical. It applies to ideas which shift the cultural axis of the world, e.g. Christianity in the Roman Empire which led to the Dark Ages - and then the reverse, the Renaissance ideas which broke the stranglehold of the Church.

Some of the statistics and trends being cited are somewhat irrelevant. Hitler had a relatively small following and was jailed in 1924. But a mere 10 years later the Nazis had taken over Germany. Christians were being persecuted right up to Constantine's Edict of Milan in 313*. In fact, the reign of Diocletian just prior to that was among the worst in its persecution of Christians. Even at the point of Constantine's "conversion", Christians represented a minority in the Roman Empire, even as little as 20% of the population in the Western part of the Empire. It might have been easy to dismiss the Christians then as mere troublesome fanatics but nothing more, just as one might have done the same toward the Nazis in the 1920's.

So what pushed them over the line into cultural dominance when it might have been just as possible to see them as culturally aberrant with little potential for long term influence?

Ask yourself what was put up in opposition to them. And then notice how equally ineffective our own intellectuals are in opposing the religionists -and actually to a considerable extent even accepting very many of the same premises and allying with them on many issues.

In response to all of this we get pompous, pretentious prattlers like "Orson" Olson assuring us that only a few hundred people were killed in the Spanish Inquisition. In fact, it is estimated that 2,000 Jews alone** were executed by the method of the infamous Autos de Fé and then 10's of thousands of Jews were expelled from Spain. Incidentally, Jews were not the only targets of the Inquisition. So were various Protestant groups and some of them were also subjected to Autos de Fe.

*It is instructive to note why, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Constantine is entitled to be called "Great". Why? Because he "made Christianity, which until then had suffered bloody persecution, *the religion of the State*." (emphasis mine)

**This number is even acknowledged by the Catholic Encyclopedia which it eagerly embraces to avoid having to accept some much higher estimates.

Jeff, the money spent on leftist causes is NOT the issue. Obviously, there is TONS of it. Dr. Peikoff's view -- which I share, largely thanks to my experience in academia and readings on communism -- is that the left is ideologically dead. It's no longer a fervent moral ideal, as it was in the 1930s and 1940s. It was destroyed by the utter failure of the Soviet Union. In light of that analysis, the fact that money continues to be spent on leftist causes is just not relevant. It's to be expected and still worrisome, but not of major significance in terms of long-term cultural trends.

Not only tons of it, but more than the budgets you cite for the Christian organisations you mention. I don't know what "ideologically dead" can mean in that circumstance other than a mind/body dichotomy: the body can flourish when the mind is dead. And it just doesn't accord with the facts. Is Peikoff seriously arguing that environmentalism, for example, is not an ideology? That though some variants of collectivism/altruism may have faded, others aside from Christianity are on the rampage?

In contrast to leftism, politicized Christianity has been undergoing a resurrection in the past few decades. These Christians are fevent, devoted, and working hard to inject Christian ideals and values into politics. They are training legions of Christian soldiers to fight in cultural and political battles. That's the issue -- because pro-Republican Objectivists deny any new (or substantial) political ambitions on the part of today's Christians.

This "pro-Republican Objectivist" denies no such thing. But that's a misnomer. I'm not saying vote Republican across the board, or necessarily even at all, though I would certainly vote for Bush over any Democrat I know of right now in the context of the threat to Western Civilisation itself from Islamo-Fascism. I want to know how the existence of politicised Christians justifies the belief that a theocracy is imminent which can be thwarted only by voting Dem, i.e. out-&-out evil in many cases, across the board, & that one is immoral & understanding-deficient not to do so. That's the Turandot Challenge, still unaddressed.

My post showed that these well-funded organizations are explicitly attempting to transform American culture and government to conform to their Christian ideals. They openly state their desire for theocracy -- and they are spending millions of dollars every year pursuing it. If you check the web sites, you'll find that most (if not all) were started in the last few decades. If you read _With God on Our Side_, you'll see that evangelical Christians went from being apolitical to highly politicized in the second half of the 20th century. The evidence is overwhelming.

Where's the open advocacy of theocracy—a religious dictatorship, not just a cultural transformation? Hell, we advocate cultural transformation. Doesn't make us totalitarians. Of course there are totalitarian wannabes among Christians, but are they any more of a menace than their "secular" counterparts among the Dems or the Islamo-Fascists to whom the Dems would wave the white flag? I think not.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Against all forms of tyranny—and a sense of proportion as to the respective threats they pose.

Linz

"But how is our cultural psycho-epistemelogical mix? It is here that a serious faith-based Christian political movement is the most dangerous, I believe. For a faith that purports to provide absolute, certain answers given by God to a population that no longer believes that reason provides those answers (nihilism) works the same way psychologically that Hitlers "Fuhrer" image worked. Put a population that is unsure of its rational footing from years of mind-destroying nihilism together with a strong sense in the same population that "something is wrong and getting worse" (the essense of most news reports)and add a movement that provides a non-nihilistic answer based on faith in God and, like it or not, you've got a whole population clamoring not just for economic help as in 1932, but for help across the board, in every area of their lives. You won't need violence in the streets, just a vote for the right man who wants Christian faith not to be descriminated against in the public square."

I quote this at length because Tom has correctly identified a very serious and powerful culture-mover and it behooves everyone (especially if they are not familiar with the history of Nazi Germany) to think about this.

I continue to, while I see many other positive influences in the U.S. that can counter-act this; as you allude in your post.

"The discussion at hand concerned the political power and ambitions of conservative evangelical Christians. That has been consistently denied by those in favor of voting Republican in this debate."

I'll have to take my leave of you today after this, but I beg to differ. I haven't double checked, but I don't recall observing anyone on SOLO, The Forum, nor NoodleFood who denied that there are groups of fervent Evangelicals who are culturally and politically ambitious. That fact, I should think, is obvious to all of us.

The 'entire question' to which I referred - though I admit that might be overstating it - is really a number of different, but related, questions:

1. Is the so-called Left ideologically dead or moribund?

I maintain that the group and ideology in question goes well beyond a political designation of 'left', though there are few good names for these creatures: pomo's, nihilists, PCers... I just tend to privately call them "Anti's" since they are against anything you are for, when what you are for are the values that sustain life.

One argument suggests that they are therefore weak. Their practical success belies this.

2. Are they practically dead?

Far from it. Despite the fact that Objectivists, many conservative/libertarians, and a large percentage of the American people are opposed to them, they continue to rack up victories. They have a lot of money, a lot of support from intellectuals, and a very long history (at least 40 years) of political activism. There are few signs of them going away any time soon.

3. Are the Christians more dangerous than the "Anti's"?

I have argued at length that they are not, and why. You disagree. Fine, I'm sure we can continue to find evidence and arguments to further the debate in a productive way.

Among other things, you cite your academic experience and readings on communism. I cite my real-world experience and readings on everything under the sun. (I'm sure you could, too.)

4. How much success can we expect radical Christians to have in the next 20-50 years?

Difficult to project, but 'my' side has put a lot of data and arguments on the table, not least of which is almost the entire history of the United States.

You are beginning to put forth evidence, by citing the book you mentioned. I'll continue to consider all such evidence, but 'arguing with your reading list,' as Nathan Hawking once put it, will take some time.

1. Yes, they have, so it all depends on what ideas are being transmitted and how fast But that's not all it depends on. See #2

2. My point about the 14 years from Weimar to Nazi Germany had to do with the immenance of a Christian Theocracy. Is 14 years immenent enough to count as "about to happen". If that's what you mean, there is still time (as I pointed out from the beginning) and we need not panic but we do need to take steps. If, however, you mean "if the Republicans aren't defeated at the polls in the next two election cycles we are going to have a dictatorship in the name of God before the next one in 2012," then you have not only misrepresented LP's argument, you have created a straw man. That's why I resisted the use of the word, which became a floating abstraction in the course of the argument.

And, of course, there are a whole host of factors that contributed to that relatively short specific time span in Germany, that wouldn't apply to the US. Not to put a fine point on it, our philosophical mix isn't the same. For one thing, we do have Objectivism.

But how is our cultural psycho-epistemelogical mix? It is here that a serious faith-based Christian political movement is the most dangerous, I believe. For a faith that purports to provide absolute, certain answers given by God to a population that no longer believes that reason provides those answers (nihilism) works the same way psychologically that Hitlers "Fuhrer" image worked. Put a population that is unsure of its rational footing from years of mind-destroying nihilism together with a strong sense in the same population that "something is wrong and getting worse" (the essense of most news reports)and add a movement that provides a non-nihilistic answer based on faith in God and, like it or not, you've got a whole population clamoring not just for economic help as in 1932, but for help across the board, in every area of their lives. You won't need violence in the streets, just a vote for the right man who wants Christian faith not to be descriminated against in the public square.

Prominant leaders exist on both the nihilist side and the faith-based absolute side (but, importantly, not the Objectivist side). Cultural relativism is on one side claiming that the "fact" that we can't be certain of anything is the fundamental grounds for our freedom, and all around we see the cultural effects of a freedom without rational standards. On the other side is a movement that is agressively promoting standards based on rules handed down by the Lord of the Universe. If that's the choice, and you live in a world willing to have its freedom taken away to protect people from terrorists and drugs and cigarettes and death in a car accident and the consequences of their irrationality, for which side are the most consistent among the voters going to vote -- more of the same nihilism with no answers or giving up a little freedom to prevent the next school shooting?

3. It all depends on where you think we are in that 150-200 year time frame. As for me, I don't believe a Christian Theocracy is imminent (14-20 years if nothing is done) but I do think that it is inevitable if we don't eliminate the psycho-epistemology of faith's hold on either political party. The message has to be that we will do everything possible to maintain the separation of church and state. Republicans first.

Tom

Jeff, my post didn't beg any questions. The discussion at hand concerned the political power and ambitions of conservative evangelical Christians. That has been consistently denied by those in favor of voting Republican in this debate. On the other hand, NOT ONE PERSON in favor of voting for Democrats has claimed that leftist groups are hurting for cash, let alone argued that the left is dead for that reason.

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

Diana,

I respect your viewpoint, but your entire post begs the question at issue.

Jeff

Jeff, the money spent on leftist causes is NOT the issue. Obviously, there is TONS of it. Dr. Peikoff's view -- which I share, largely thanks to my experience in academia and readings on communism -- is that the left is ideologically dead. It's no longer a fervent moral ideal, as it was in the 1930s and 1940s. It was destroyed by the utter failure of the Soviet Union. In light of that analysis, the fact that money continues to be spent on leftist causes is just not relevant. It's to be expected and still worrisome, but not of major significance in terms of long-term cultural trends.

In contrast to leftism, politicized Christianity has been undergoing a resurrection in the past few decades. These Christians are fevent, devoted, and working hard to inject Christian ideals and values into politics. They are training legions of Christian soldiers to fight in cultural and political battles. That's the issue -- because pro-Republican Objectivists deny any new (or substantial) political ambitions on the part of today's Christians.

My post showed that these well-funded organizations are explicitly attempting to transform American culture and government to conform to their Christian ideals. They openly state their desire for theocracy -- and they are spending millions of dollars every year pursuing it. If you check the web sites, you'll find that most (if not all) were started in the last few decades. If you read _With God on Our Side_, you'll see that evangelical Christians went from being apolitical to highly politicized in the second half of the 20th century. The evidence is overwhelming.

That's the issue, not any comparison of the funding of the top few leftist versus Christian organizations.

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

I'm sure Diana knows this better than most, but it bears repeating:

The enemy is, and remains, unreason in any and all its forms. I don't see Christians as any more (and probably a good deal less) of a threat than many other of the contemporary forms. In fact, most of those other forms -- viros, PC in universities, etc -- are much more entrenched and indeed often get a much more sympathetic hearing from the wider public.

Eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of Man!

(Note: despite the abstract statement, I trust no one will accuse me of Platonism here.)

Not to mention the amount of money in university endowments at faux-liberal institutions...

Jim

Those are indeed disturbing facts. Their mission statements are clearly grotesque and every rational, self-interested person should oppose them vigorously and openly.

Given the healthy economy and the resurgence of Christian activism, it isn't surprising that many of those organizations are doing well.

But when deciding where to put resources, it's helpful to take a wide view.

Care to know what the budgets of, say, the Ford Foundation, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and similar organizations are?

(The first is one of the largest contributors to environmental causes, by the way.)

Ford

Mission: Strengthen democratic values, reduce poverty and injustice, promote international cooperation, and advance human acheivement. [A mixed bag, to be sure.]

Ford budget
Ford portfolio

"The foundation’s investment portfolio was valued at $11.4 billion at the end of fiscal 2005, versus $10.5 billion at the close of fiscal 2004."

"During the past five years, the foundation has made $3.4 billion in qualifying distributions, exceeding the federally mandated payout requirement by $625 million."
--
Greenpeace:
(Note: Greepeace spent almost $53M on fundraising efforts.)
Greenpeace Annual Report

2005 Net Income: $159M (129.4M euros, at $1.20 per euro)

--
I wasn't able to find consolidated figures, but just for one very small club in British Columbia:

Sierra Club of BC
Sierra Club of BC, Canada

Budget: $1,406,914, of which $307,972 is government grants.

--
Then there is this tiny organization:

Women for the Earth
"The conference led to the founding of a new and different, environmental organization—one that would 'give a voice to women and other marginalized groups whose environmental concerns had not been addressed by existing organizations.' Thus, Women’s Voices for the Earth (WVE) was born."

Budget: $450,000

"When looking back over the past ten years, I am amazed that a small group of women with a modest budget could initiate so much change – from the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics to closing incinerators across the northern Rockies.”
Board President, Christine Kaufmann
Women Voices for the Earth

---------
Clearly Objectivists have much work ahead of them. Fortunately, reality and reason are on their side. And, with the popularity of blogs, etc much can be done on a shoestring budget to influence the culture.

Jeff,

Orson was criticizing the book I recommended -- despite his ignorance of its contents -- as a means of criticizing (or rather just dismissing) my arguments.

The purpose of the book was to survey the history of religion in politics in America, particularly the role of evangelical Christianity upon conservatism from about the mid 20th century onward. The fact that it doesn't cover the last ten years doesn't diminish the value of the decades covered -- not in the slightest. As for more recent events, the basic trend has certainly continued, despite some setbacks. (Setbacks aren't new though; they were part and parcel of the prior trend.) If you want to know the strength of the Christian political organizations today, you can check them out on Guidestar.com. For example:

• Focus on the Family had almost 138 million dollars (!!) of total revenue for 2005. It's mission is to "cooperate with the Holy Spirit in disseminating the Gospel of Jesus Christ to as many people as possible, and, specifically, to accomplish that objective by helping to preserve traditional values and the institution of the family."

• Family Research Council had just over 10.5 million dollars of total revenue for 2005. It's mission is: "The Family Research Council (FRC) champions marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society. FRC shapes public debate and formulates public policy that values human life and upholds the institutions of marriage and the family. Believing that God is the author of life, liberty, and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society."

• American Family Association had just over 17.5 million dollars of total revenue for 2005. It's mission is to "motivate and equip citizens to change the culture to reflect Biblical truth." Also, "The American Family Association believes that God has communicated absolute truth to man through the Bible, and that all men everywhere at all times are subject to the authority of God's Word. Therefore, a culture based on Biblical truth best serves the well-being of our country, in accordance with the vision of our founding fathers."

• Concerned Women for America had almost 8.5 million dollars of total revenue for 2005. It's mission is that of "helping our members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy."

• Promise Keepers had over 23.5 million dollars of total revenue for 2005. It describes itself as "a Christ-centered organization dedicated to introducing men to Jesus Christ as their Savior and Lord; and then helping them to grow as Christians." It says: "This is mainly accomplished through our Seven Promises and our men's conference ministry. Millions of men have participated since 1990 when PK first began."

• Summit Ministries had almost 2.5 million dollars of total revenue for 2005. It's mission is that of "Grounding Christians in their faith, Equipping them to defend the biblical worldview, Raising up tomorrow's servant leaders." Their ideal world is one in which "Christians make decisions based on an integrated Biblical worldview," "Christianity is seen as an intelligent and defensible position in the market place of ideas," and "Christians actively seek to engage and transform our culture."

  They describe their programs as follows: "From 1962 until 1988, what was a small series of camp-style conferences, hosting an average of 350 students each year, blossomed in 1989. After sending his own son Ryan through our program, Dr. James Dobson featured Summit on the Focus on the Family radio program. Currently, Summit hosts eight two-week conferences every summer in Manitou Springs, with an average of over 1300 students graduating each year. In 1991, the curriculum department of Summit launched a year-long program for Christian high school seniors with the same basic goals -- to teach Christians how to analyze competing worldviews and to defend their faith. Each year 3,500 high school seniors graduate from this program. Currently, Summit's conferences have expanded to offer programs to adults, parents, pastors, and educators. Our curriculum department has grown as well and now offers curriculum materials for individuals, churches, Sunday schools, Home schools, Christian middles schools, and soon Christian elementary schools. In addition, Summit has been blessed with a number of offspring programs now scattered throughout the world (e.g., Dayton, Tennessee; Canada; South Africa; New Zeeland). Today Summit is viewed as one of the foremost leaders in training Christians in apologetics, worldview analysis, and social engagement."

Those are just a few of the most prominent and influential organizations attempting to inject Christian principles into public policy. In comparison, the Ayn Rand Institute shows a total revenue of just over 4.5 million dollars for 2005.

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

"Orson, you're turning into a regular Phil Coates in your determination to criticize me no matter what, aren't you?"

Diana, how is Orson arguing (well or poorly is beside the point here) against the worth of that book criticizing you?

I found your points about not having read the book, but merely relying on Amazon quotes bear weight, though. However, if the book really is from 1996 it is definitely less relevant. The first question one would want to ask is, has what the authors point to grown, diminished, or stayed the same?

It could be that I am just overly optimistic, but the way I see things, the trend is toward liberalization, and the backlash is toward religious fundamentalism.  It seems that Peikoff sees religious fundamentalism as the trend.

Take a look at just one representative example:  reproductive rights.  I recently got a flyer from Planned Parenthood outlining the history of reproductive rights in the United States from 1914 on.  Check it out at this link: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/history.htm

It has been a fight all the way, but if you look at the overall trend, it has been one of liberalization, with backlashes from the fundamentalists along the way. 

Also, notice the importance of checks and balances.  Oftentimes, the courts protect us from the excesses of the Religious Right.  Other times, direct popular votes protect us, as in the case of the abortion ban in South Dakota that was recently struck down.  I worry that in the long run, checks and balances do less to protect us from excesses of the Left.  When it comes to property rights issues, you really can't count on much help from the courts.

"A cultural trend which changes the course of history is not measured in terms of 10 years."

Tom, that's a very good point. Three things should be kept in mind, though.

1. The technologies of communication and transportation have radically shortened the time frame it takes ideas to spread.

2. Your point argues against your earlier concern, as illustrated by the 14 year time frame you cited with respect to Nazi Germany.

3. If the trend takes 150-200 years to develop, then everyone should calm down, don't you think? First of all, we'll all be dead by then unless Marcus makes a breakthrough. More importantly, it implies there is plenty of time to take in more evidence and analyze it objectively before the trend is far enough advanced to be entrenched or do long-term damage.

Dan, I'm all a-blushin'!

Orson, you're turning into a regular Phil Coates in your determination to criticize me no matter what, aren't you? Oh wait, that's an unjust insult to Phil. Phil has the sense not to criticize a book solely based upon a few random Amazon reviews. He wouldn't regard the violation of individual rights for the sake of enforcing Christian morals as fine and dandy. And he actually knows something about Objectivism.

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

This comment is undoubtedly far too brief to be satisfying, but I want to put it on record.

A cultural trend which changes the course of history is not measured in terms of 10 years. From the publication of The Communist Manifesto (1848)to the election of Roosevelt (1932) was 84 years, during which time a great many factors were in play, often, no doubt, providing contradictory evidence regarding the trend from the Enlightenment and the founding of the US to the New Deal. And that doesn't even count the initial spade work and planting of seeds done by Kant. If we measure from Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (1781), we get a long term trend of 151 years to Roosevelt and 219 to this year's election. That's what a significant trend looks like.

In terms of that long term trend and the "imminent" danger of a Christian Theocracy, the most revealing thing you said is that the President's aides called conservative Christians 'nuts,' 'goofy,' and 'ridiculous' in private. In a culture dominated by rational values, they would have been shouting it from the housetops. That the Democrats are embracing religious rhetoric is just one more piece of evidence of the trend.

Tom

TEST TESTING

Diana writes:

"The author is neither an opponent nor a defender of the religious right in the book; as he says in the introduction, his goal was simply to write an accurate factual history."

Such an ambition is unlikely to be true in any contemporary history. This is one BIG reason why this new field is much disdained by older, more traditional historians. Only recent decades, for instance, have allowed us to see the contours of interpreting the American Civil War clearly - and that's nearly a century and a-half ago.

For about two decades, I have been an on-again off-again subscriber to "Free Inquiry," a philosophical free-thought magazine devoted to contemporary matters. When I don't subscribe, I sometimes pick it up at the newstand. People whose work I've read or even studied under often write for it. (In fact I contemplated going to Alaska on a cruise last June with them. But then I realized I would be a lonely dissenter from global warming orthodoxy - the theme of nearly all ledctures - making the journey more work for me than I had in mind to justify spending several thousand dollars for.)

"Free Inquiry's editor, Paul Kurtz" echoes the Hsiekovian line. But closer examination shows that it breaks down along partisan lines. Humanistic socialists are convinced theocracy is right around the corner, while libertarian and other more individualistic writers at "Free Inquiry" are not, "Boo, hiss" and "Nah, naw" is therefore hardly anything especially informative or decisive. After all, the Left lives for statist solutions, and it's been six years braying inthe wilderness for the power-lust deprived souls. Such partisanship hardly makes for reliable authority.

Returning back to William Martin's "With God on Our Side...." - an Amazon.com reviewer avers: "I...did not find the book as objective as other reviewers or as clear. While the depiction of events is objective, Martin's commentary is not. He does not believe that religious groups should involve themselves in politics." Such a bias is HUGE, because religion has always been political in the US. It has never not been political.

Historians appreciate this fact. Apparently Martin does not. Thus,

"...Martin's approach is at times simplistic. The groups often work together and share common causes, but they are ultimately different and have different views of America's future." Indeed, two authorities entitled their chapter of this subject in a book edited by the redoubtable sociologist Alan Wolfe "Unlikely Alliances...."

Denominational difference is fundamental to understanding American religion. State supported religion is the norm elsewhere. But in the US because of dissenters like Roger William in Rhode Island and William Penn in Pennsylvania, American religion emerged in a uniquely voluntary and self-supporting form, if the nation was going to cohere as a politically independent unit. "Denomination" means "a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices," according to Merriam-Webster. You will observe that this means that a great deal is invested in what are little differences to non-Believers.

If Martin can't reflect denominational nuances accurately, then he's going to get the relevant unit of analysis wrong. Thus, he's very unlikely to provide more than a gloss on the subject of interest.

Everywhere in US religion today, the most vital aspect in gaiing new adherents is revivalist in form. This is THE American tradition since the early 19th century. But the fact that Catholic and evengelical protestants are allying themselves together more and more is obviously unprecedented: it means Believers are being squeezed together, in defense against ongoing secularization of our culture. It's self-defense, not offense that's going on.

Despite being a life-long atheist, I believe "religion in general and the Religious Right have long been smeared and unjustly defamed". Recent examples compiled by Michael Medved are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Writing in early October, Medved has an instructive list of defeats and assaults against the Christian religion that have no historical precedent: "The most surprising aspect of the current vogue for Christian-bashing hysteria involves the timing: after many years of growth and progress, religious conservatives have suffered recent reverses. The once mighty 'Moral Majority,' 'Christian Coalition' and other influential organizations are either disbanded or irrelevant. Conservative Christians failed spectacularly in their attempts to spare the life of the stricken Terri Schiavo, fell far short of achieving the needed Congressional majorities for a Marriage Protection Amendment, have lost a series of high profile court cases on Intelligent Design, and face daunting odds in efforts to block governmental funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research. None of the GOP frontrunners for 2008 has been embraced by the Evangelical community and most of them (McCain, Giuliani, and Romney because of his Mormon faith) are anathema to many Christian conservatives. When it comes to incidents of violence or intimidation by conservative Christians (who are regularly, shamefully compared to the Taliban or Al Qaeda), the perpetrators of such universally denounced, long-ago attacks against abortion providers are currently rotting in jail (where they belong). When secularists try to insist that all religions, not just Islam, display a dangerous violent streak, it’s deeply revealing that they indict Christianity by reaching back five hundred years (to the Spanish Inquisition [involving merely hundreds of deaths]) or a thousand years (to the Crusades [which was really late-coming defense against Islamic imperialism]). It’s no exaggeration to say that Muslim extremists around the world committed many, many more violent attacks in the last week than have Christian conservatives in the last ten years."

It is the equation of "all fundamentalisms are alike" that incenses me most! Anyone with a knowledge of history knows that the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 ushured in a post-Wars of Religion Europe that came to lead the world in defending and expanding the realm of universal human rights, as enshrined in the UN Charter of Rights. In Islam, by contrast, slavery is still practiced, as is beheading and mutilation for punishment, including women's sexual capacity (not for punishment)! The equation of "fundamentalisms" is simply pig-ignorant.

Medved continues: "None of the [many recent critical] volumes decrying Christian influence suggest that religious families engage in violence more frequently than atheists, or unravel the fabric of society through criminality, selfishness or greed. When I’ve interviewed the authors on my radio show, they freely admit that they’d be pleased to live next door to an Evangelical, or even a Fundamentalist household, because such people are likely to be law-abiding, hard-working, neighborly, stable and considerate. This contradiction demonstrates the irrational essence of the hatred and fear of a group of citizens who do more than their share at feeing the hungry, housing the homeless, keeping families together, educating their children, serving in the military, giving to charity, maintaining their homes, nursing the sick, promoting adoption and building vibrant communities. What, exactly, do conservative Christians do that in any way harms or damages their non-Christian neighbors?

- - -

"In answering that question, critics of the 'Religious Right' always come back to issues of political influence and their groundless fears of some future, Orwellian, dictatorial, theocracy. These alarmists consistently ignore the actual agenda of even the most ambitious Christian conservatives who express no desire to install a new, religiously inflexible form of government, but merely wish to return to the more hospitable attitude to public expressions of faith that flourished in this nation until the 1960’s."

Surprise! The Religious Right wishes merely to conserve the past. To have a place more hospitable to their mores and manner. To not be assaulted by pornography and ill-manners. Conservatives want to conserve - why should anyone in favor of a "live and let live" America find this alarming?!?! I for one cannot, and I'm mystified at those who do.

1)  Writes extended essays on technical philosophical subjects and offers them to others for chewing.

2)  Will defend her essays on the comments of her blog and elsewhere.  Always tries to answer honest questions.

3)  Is passionate and serious about philosophy as a discipline, and is not afraid to show it.

4)  Has the ability to admit she’s wrong, change her mind, and learn from mistakes.

5)  Ranks a ‘0’ on the Bullshit Factor.  Says what she means and means what she says.

6)  Has cute smile and pinchable cheeks.

7)  When linking hands with Superhusband Paul Hsieh, their philosophical powers “activate” exponentially.

--Dan Edge

Martin's book is dated 1996, and thus is likely to be more backward looking than anything especially pertinent for the future. Bush wasn't on the radar then, and 911 was even further in the future.

Not that it will persuade anybody, but with the advantage of being a recent report, excerpts from an AP story of October 29th seems relevant to the discussion - "Evangelical-GOP Alliance Weakens":

"The number of conservative Christians with a favorable view of the party has plummeted from 74 percent to 54 percent between 2004 and this year, according to the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Evangelicals comprise more than one-third of GOP voters.
- - -
"[Recent evangelical d]isillusionment has led to a backlash. Some evangelicals are once again warning that lawmakers are using Christians for their votes and politics is corrupting the church.

"In the book 'Tempting Faith, An Inside Story of Political Seduction,' author David Kuo, a former aide in the White House faith-based office, wrote that Bush aides privately called conservative Christians 'nuts,' 'ridiculous' and 'goofy.'

"Kuo, a born-again Christian, said Republicans have failed to fulfill campaign promises to evangelicals, yet have kept Christians on their side by portraying Bush as 'pastor-in-chief.'

'So much of the support for his presidency comes purely on the basis of his Christian faith,' Kuo said in a phone interview. 'The biblical notion is to defer to your pastor. Christian political leaders have taken advantage of that - portraying themselves as spiritual leaders - but they're not. They're political leaders.'

"William Martin, author of 'With God on Our Side, The Rise of the Religious Right in America,' said Kuo's book may have an impact because it touches on the long-standing evangelical sensitivity to being marginalized by broader society. But Martin said only a small minority of evangelicals believe they should abandon politics - leaving the Republican grip on the movement intact for now.

"'The great advantage that conservatives have had within the evangelical community is that a consistent, coherent message has been repeated over and over and over to people who meet together one, two, three times a week,' Martin said. 'Liberals really have nothing comparable to that.'"

My reply to Martin: "Liberals have nothing really comparable?" Public education of almost all our children, the MSM, the universities - all this doesn't count toward promoting "secular progressivism?" Your baises are showing, straining your credibility.

Now that I've read your expanded comments on it, I'll be picking up a copy of that book at the earliest opportunity.

Jeff

Phil, if you didn't mean to aim your critical advice at me in particular, then you should not have used my totally innocuous and non-relevant book recommendation as your supposed example, let alone in a thread about me. Next time, just confess your own sins from the get-go. If you didn't look like you were just taking another pot-shot at me, people might actually consider your advice. (In this case, it's generally good advice, I think.)

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

Diana, I wasn't aiming this just at you (and your last post above shows awareness of the need to avoid this and/or that it may not apply in this particular case) but at this as a -widespread- mistake among those who have a strong interest in intellectual - political - current events controversies.

In fact, I would aim the criticism at MYSELF:

I've been guilty of only reading one side myself which is why this is such a sore spot with me. My biggest stupidity and pratfall in this regard was probably this one: A friend just instantly emailed me today after seeing my post "What about the Y2K meltdown you predicted Phil, at the end of the last millenium?' I made the mistake of reading only (or mostly) the gloom and doom, no one is fixing it side. I read maybe a dozen books and got more and more frightened...I even rented a cabin in the woods for December 31 that year...and flew to Florida to help my retired, aging mother prepare for Y2K.....

And then have had to endure her sarcasm for the next six years about all the crap I forced her to buy or stock up on.

Phil, you really are determined to criticize me no matter what, aren't you?

Of course, I recommend that people read a wide variety of sources, then come their own conclusions. (Sheesh, I attended an evangelical church service a few weeks ago, precisely so as to see it for myself.) For those interested in the issue of religion in America, I regard the book I recommended as an invaluable resource. I never said that it was the last word on the subject, nor was I writing a comprehensive bibliography. And sheesh, I hardly think I'm obliged to recommend Kant's Groundwork and Mill's Utilitarianism every time I recommend "The Objectivist Ethics" -- even though I think people interested in ethics should read all three.

Also, the book I recommended, _With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America_ by sociologist William Martin, is written without any agenda. The author is neither an opponent nor a defender of the religious right in the book; as he says in the introduction, his goal was simply to write an accurate factual history.

Moreover, he doesn't claim that religion is on the rise in America generally. (That was your ignorant assumption.) He does claim -- and with very good justification -- that evangelical Christianity has exerted an increasing influence over politics in America in recent decades, particularly over the Republican Party, thanks to the deliberate efforts of Christian leaders. He traces the gradual process by which that happened, including the requisite ideological shift in the evangelical Christian community and the gradual (and sometimes halting) progression in means of influence.

The book is valuable because it's case is based upon a wealth of indisputable primary-source facts. That's why I recommended it.

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

I just recognise a sanctimonious hypocrite in you.

> I'm reading the highly informative book With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America by sociologist William Martin. The book confirms -- in fabulous detail -- the major change wrought in the late 1970s and early 1980s by the politicization of evangelical Christianity. For those of you interested in the facts about religion in America, I think you'll find it fascinating, albeit in a scary kind of way. [Diana, NoodleFood]

Having praised the conscientiousness in being well-read and studious, I just want to note that everyone needs to be careful not to "load up" on reading ten books presenting one argument, or only those books you know going in already agree with you on certain kinds of issues where the truth is not already apparent: A VERY common mistake on complex factual matters -- such as what is happening in a current events type issue (as opposed to, say, theoretical philosophy...but even there you need to read opponents like Kant and Plato and so on if you are a scholar in the field of philosophy.)

One would need to read material on the other side of this, presenting an argument that religous infliuence has DECLINED.

And then compare and contrast the arguments. For example, I make a point not just to read NRO or Krauthammer or VDH on the Iraq war but to read those with a strong counter-argument.

> he is feeling guilty

Pscyhologizing Troll Ignored.

This is bit rich given Phil's recent attacks on Diana. It seems that he is feeling guilty. I will take this article seriously when he posts it again on Objectivist Living. I look forward to seeing the responses from Barbara Branden, Roger Bissell et al.

> integrity, her courage—I hope this signals that you now join me in that praise? [Linz]

Not really. It's only limited to the points I mentioned. All the rest of my previous criticisms stand.

Phil displays generosity of spirit and magnaminity towards Diana. However, there are two counterpoints worth considering.

First, in all Phil'ss praise of her effort and industry, I wonder if he doesn't miss the value of criticism itself. If dedication alone mattered foremost, then we wouldn't need and value an industrial revolution. Pre-industrial methods would be more ethical. Branden (in PSE) well put the point of mental making matters automatic, like typing. Once effort becomes automatic, the mind is freed to engage in other work. This is a real gain, not a loss.

Now, this isn't to imply acceptance of sloth by many regarding Objectivism's potentials. It is, rather, to put the fracturing of the Objectivist community into more realistic perspective. It happens because unity among Objectivists is sacraficed for some pure vision of "consistency" - whatever that might mean.

Second, does "a very difficult philosophy" requiring such exceptional effort really have a future? Or are there competing - possibly unacknowledged - merits in a simpler one? Objectivists hunger for mass acceptence of their ideas and ideals, but there's little reason to anticipate that such a future is "just around the corner." Certainly no more than "theocracy" is nigh.

Progress is a fundamental Enlightenment ideal, yet from Rand forward, what that ideal is and how to achieve it have gone very much underidentified and underarticulated. In Thomas Sowell's seminal book "Knowledge and Decisions," the author ventures that economizing on knowledge is more fundamental than epistemology itself. This radically non-traditional conception of the relation of epistemology to progress strikes me as "the path not taken" by Objectivism. This conception makes knowledge a coincident matter of self-interest, putting the two in closer relationship instead of the Scholasticism Piekoff adheres to.

I'll venture to speculate that when a Muslim and symbiotic post-indstrial power arises to challenge Anglo-American world dominance some 50-years hence, and when asymmetrical warfare like terrorism can be launched widely under the guise of Jihadism and Martyrdom, then an inescapable conflict will face us. Then an Objectivist Renaissance will be much more probable than today. All the various types of moral relativism will have run their course, and only a return to sound fundamentals will save the day, girdding the loins of the fully self-conscious to engage the conflict and struggle against the Dark Side.

This kind of well-circumscribed future scenario I find more plausible than many others around. But praise before the histrionic among us only makes for a longer leash for "business as usual" complaceny. A better course is realism and honest self-examination towards the movement.

You've displayed a generosity of spirit here I confess I didn't think you had. I hope it's not an aberration. Diana and I have had a ferocious disagreement over this Vote Dem rubbish, and she now regards me as "blatantly dishonest"—officially. She knows I'm not, really, but even if she doesn't, I have the highest regard for her. Diligent, conscientious, fierce, she takes her Objectivism seriously. In a world of KASSless milksops, she is a beacon of integrity. She truly is Princess Diana in my book. You, Phil, recently faulted me for praising her courage—I hope this signals that you now join me in that praise?

Linz

I must say that I thank Diana for responding promptly and courteously my my inquiries, regardless of personal issues. She does seem to be concerned at all costs with the argument.

Ted