Not at all, Phil.

> the essence of honesty -- conscientiousness about sticking to reality when using one's mind
> Your commitment to adhere to reality was never in question -- in that instance.

Yes, I picked up the thinly veiled insult in the last three words.

The Establishment clause was created to insure religious freedom. There is no greater danger to religious freedom than government sponsorship of religion.

Religion and government do not mix, not a penny's worth, and all 'organizations' receiving a penny of redistributed tax wealth ought to be completely secular (neither theist nor atheist nor addressing religious issues whatsoever).

Thomas Paine ended the incomparable "Common Sense" with this paragraph (in its original spelling and diction):

And here without anger or resentment I bid you farewel. Sincerely wishing, that as men and christians, ye may always fully and uninterruptedly enjoy every civil and religious right; and be, in your turn, the means of securing it to others; but that the example which ye have unwisely set, of mingling religion with politics, may be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of America.

Is it only me that finds irony in the currently stacked supreme court which has forgotten this essential American concept while under the watch of a commander in chief with the name of "George" ...

Casey -
I agree with much of what you say but the differences I have already identified. So I will leave it there.

That was a typo, Phil, as anyone could see, and -- quite obviously -- Peikoff would have made the same assumption. Your commitment to adhere to reality was never in question -- in that instance. And I certainly never implied that every form of "sloppiness" implies dishonesty.

Take the little green pill, and maybe a stiff drink -- and calm your self down -- you've been given no cause to start accusing folks of claiming to be "mind readers," professor. It's just soo "judgmental" of you, too, don't you think -- and "at such a distance"!

And you clearly did get Peikoff "plain wrong" in the substantive post.

I'll give you one concrete example (and then you are free to continue to disagree):

I made a mistake in the above post ( "eing" rather than "being"). But you'd have to know the context to know whether the sloppiness or laziness if in fact that was the case were due to an intent to evade or not.

You're not entitled to conclude yet that it is a "[form] of lacking "conscientiousness" -- a moral issue and a form of dishonesty" in that issue or in many of the other areas where people make mistakes that Peikoff cites.

(And for exactly the same reason - neither you nor he are mind-readers or experts in psychology or in diagnosing people you have never known or met at a distance.)

> eing "sloppy" and "lazy" in regard to hewing to reality are forms of lacking "conscientiousness" -- a moral issue and a form of dishonesty, e.g., if such "laziness" pertains to perceiving reality.

No, Jim, that's contextual not an absolute...I thought that was clear in my post and in the way I covered that issue (albeit briefly).

The activities of private individuals and institutions are voluntary. Not so for government. Government seizes tax money by force. That's why government spending on religious ideas, which includes any public advocacy of religious ideas while on the government clock by people receiving tax dollars, IS a direct violation of religious freedom -- the religious freedom of taxpayers (which INCLUDES the freedom to not be religious). How can you say that taking money by force from Person X who believes Y to give to Person A so he can promote a different belief constitutes "religious freedom"? At whose expense does this freedom come? You're forgetting the religious freedom of the person who's tax money was taken away and saying that "freedom" constitutes the right of those who take his money to spend it on THEIR religious beliefs instead. This is precisely what the Constitution was banning, IN ORDER TO PRESERVE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!!

To use a penny of my tax dollars to advocate for religion is a direct violation of my rights, sir, just as using a penny of your money to advocate for atheism would be.

If America has demonstrated anything, it is that religion does not need state support in order to thrive.

You write:

"Peikoff: 'If the conscientious attempt to perceive reality by the use of one's mind is the essence of honesty, no such rebellion can qualify as "honest.“'

"Coates: That is neither the essence not [sic] the definition of dishonesty, not even close. Someone who fails to fully do that in some area or at some time might be someone who is lazy, discouraged, sloppy, someone who is not thorough. Or he is conscientious but just WRONG. Dishonesty involves denying something that you actually know on some level is true, or (sometimes as an alternative) refusing to identify because you are afraid of what you will find."

Read that over again, Phil. Peikoff perfectly nailed the essence of honesty -- conscientiousness about sticking to reality when using one's mind -- and you just plain mischaracterized him -- saying, by way of refutation, that one might be "conscientious but just WRONG," the very case Peikoff had accounted for. In addition, being "sloppy" and "lazy" in regard to hewing to reality are forms of lacking "conscientiousness" -- a moral issue and a form of dishonesty, e.g., if such "laziness" pertains to perceiving reality.

It is your definition of dishonesty that is far too restrictive. Dishonesty is not merely denying the actually known, but the refusal to COME TO KNOW in many circumstances.

James -
I have put forward my position so that you know what it is and can consider it. I am happy for you to point out any errors or points you disagree with.

I think that my point of view allows the most freedom and does not undermine anybodies rights.

Casey -
There is no endorsing of religion issue, only contracts going to organisations (which happen to be religious).

I don't fully understand what you are saying or how it relates.

I have already answered, I think, that the advocacy of either atheism or religion on the state's dime is a violation of the 1st Amendment, in my view.

A soldier, like anyone else, is free to advocate whatever religious belief he likes -- on his own time (and this may even mean on base). And, like anyone else, he is not on duty 24/7. But he should not be able to use state resources, or any of the time and energy he should be rendering the army, to advocate for his religious beliefs, one way or another.

I don't want to compel you to finance the advocacy of atheism -- any more than I believe that you should be able to compel me to support religion.

It seems to me that you are assuming the concept of the "state" to mean everyone who resides in the state, such that if the state can not endorse religion, no one can. It's like saying if we ended the National Endowment for the Arts, we would eliminate art itself. The state has no business endorsing religion or art. That does not mean that religion or art are abolished -- quite the opposite, in fact, since it takes government force (taxation, spending, etc.) out of both fields so that free people are not limited in their pursuit of either.

James -
I can understand why you are grateful, it enforces your beliefs.

I should have said... "If I was in charge I would classify... ".

The law may prevent government employees from promoting their religion while on the job but is it justified in all cases?

Imagine two soldiers one an objectist the other a christian. If they are each trying to convince the other of their point of view have they committed a crime?
If they have, have they both committed a crime or just the christian?
Should it be a crime?

It only appears to be an issue when the government employee is in a position of power with respect to the group/individual that the promotion/opposition is targeting. Eg. A general telling the troops they can't pray on duty or making everyone wear a crucifix.

Once there is a power difference then it becomes an issue as force is involved and it violates religious freedom.

I'm pretty sure that simply on Article I, section 8, grounds, the Framers would oppose government employees engaging in the "promotion" of their religious beliefs during work hours. And I'm VERY grateful that under current U.S. law, state agents, while on the state dime, cannot "promote" their religious beliefs.

The constitution itself looks fine, it's the interpretation that is the problem.

To interpret the Establishment Clause as instructions to establish a "purely secular state" is to impose non religious values over religious values. Which is contrary IMO to the intent of the Establishment clause.

I would classify these as permitted...
1. A quiet prayer.
2. Saying a prayer out loud.
3. Shouting "Hallelujah".
4. Discussing religious beliefs.
5. Discussing scientific beliefs.
6. Discussing atheism.

... and these as not permitted by government employees while on the job (edit: depending on the job/context).
7. Promoting/opposing religious beliefs.
8. Promoting/opposing scientific beliefs.
9. Promoting/opposing atheism.

Government contracts, however, are a different story. They are paying for a service or product. They shouldn't get to dictate the behaviour of someone elses employees but they can cancel contracts if the services or products are not good enough.

Note: I was only pointing out a possible inconsistency in your POV by mentioning evolution in my earlier post. I have no problem with it being discussed in schools when the assumptions are acknowledged. Without the assumptions being acknowledged it is a number 8.

A purely secular state is the very goal of the Establishment Clause, something the Framers knew imposed a unique obligation on state agencies, as opposed to private individuals and groups. Bold, revolutionary, and... just. Incidentally, religion has, alas, thrived under such a regime, in case you hadn't heard.

Of course, much depends upon the specific context in question, but, to keep it pithy: #1. can happen unnoticed and without interfering in any work duties, so that's okay, and #2. is something I might also shout out without any religious significance, so that's cool, too. [edit: #5. does not necessarily raise the subject of the Constitutional restriction, and is necessary for national security and the like.] However, absent some context I cannot readily see, #2, #4, #6 through #9, all appear to be violations of the First Amendment -- and, as you correctly observe, Reed, only for state agents while on the state's time. Precisely.

James -
From my perspective it appears Americans have religious freedom except while they are on the government payroll.

Which of the following activities would/should be illegal for an on the job state employee in your opinion?
1. A quiet prayer.
2. Saying a prayer out loud.
3. Shouting "Hallelujah".
4. Discussing religious beliefs.
5. Discussing scientific beliefs.
6. Discussing atheism.
7. Promoting religious beliefs.
8. Promoting scientific beliefs.
9. Promoting atheism.

For the sake of the argument assume they are doing their job adequately.

Do you think the law is correct?

> I was interested more in Phil's claim, which was that Peikoff thinks all who disagree with Objectivism are dishonest.

Mike, is correct. I posted sloppily in this: "This is probably the central mistake of the Fact and Value essay: that people who are not young, have been around have had 'enough time' to see that Objectivism is correct and that they are therefore evaders if they don't."

It was indeed what he considers "inherently dishonest" ideas. Obviously if an idea is inherently dishonest one is evading by holding it (or not evading and simply lying to others). My problem with F&V is that he overextends the realm of what no one can hold honestly.

He's not a psychologist and is not allowed to simply -assume- the following and expect others to just accept his obiter dicta (and in fact is mistaken about some, though not all of them). I will number Dr. Peikoff's mistakes . . . and briefly indicate why I disagree:

1. Peikoff: “Honest errors of knowledge are possible. But such errors are not nearly so common as some people wish to think, especially in the field of philosophy."

Coates: Just the exact opposite is true; they are FAR MORE COMMON than most people, certainly most Objectivists wish to think. For all kinds of reasons, which anyone trained in psychology could tell you.

2. Peikoff: “In our century, there have been countless mass movements dedicated to inherently dishonest ideas—e.g., Nazism, Communism, non-objective art, non-Aristotelian logic, egalitarianism, nihilism, the pragmatist cult of compromise, the Shirley MacLaine types, who "channel" with ghosts and recount their previous lives; etc.”

Coates: It is sloppy and too telescoped or compressed to lump nine such things together like this without any argument as a sweeping, free-wheeling addendum in an essay which is devoted to another subject: This is a major mistake in Objectivist writing and thinking "style" - to try to compress too much in one thought (and, no, it is NOT "essentialization", but a Platonizing tendency that Rand tried to beat out of him but did not entirely succeed). Peikoff or any reader would have to argue and prove that each one of these nine - either its advocacy or its acceptance - *has to be* dishonest.

Did he attempt to do that?

3. Peikoff: “ If the conscientious attempt to perceive reality by the use of one's mind is the essence of honesty, no such rebellion can qualify as ‘honest.’ “

Coates: That is neither the essence not the definition of dishonesty, not even close. Someone who fails to fully do that in some area or at some time might be someone who is lazy, discouraged, sloppy, someone who is not thorough. Or he is conscientious but just WRONG. Dishonesty involves denying something that you actually know on some level is true, or (sometimes as an alternative) refusing to identify because you are afraid of what you will find.

Philosophy is one of the hardest areas for people – and the more fundamental the topic, often the more confused they are. This has been true for millennia.

4. Peikoff: “ The mass base of such movements are not evaders of the same kind; but most of the followers are dishonest in their own passive way. They are unthinking, intellectually irresponsible ballast, unconcerned with logic or truth.”

Coates: You are not entitled to go from “unthinking” to “intellectually irresponsible”. Someone can be unthinking because he is confused, because he is compartmentalized, stupid....or simply because he considers philosophy an area of "rational ignorance": I don't have time for it, am a practical man, busy with more important immediate survival issues, etc., etc.

Bill:

The state, qua employer, does not impair the religious liberty of its employees by telling them they can't engage in religious rituals while on the job. This is true for postmen and prosecutors. So, telling a teacher that he can't lead the class in prayer does not violate the teacher's "liberty" right at all, Bill -- any more than the state's telling the cop he can't take mass during working hours is. In the world we SHOULD have -- one with NO public schools at all -- such rules governing teachers are no violation of the teacher's "rights," either. And, of course, your teacher may always go apply for a job at a religious school.

Casey is right. It would NOT violate the Establishment Clause for a cop to chat up a girl during work hours -- although he risks his job. It would be a VIOLATION of the U.S. Constitution -- not merely the employment contract -- for him to engage in some religious ritual while on duty.

Recall that the Supremes did not address the substance of this issue -- they side-stepped it -- with respect to Bush's religion welfare program.

James brought up suppression laws regarding religious expression for government employees as an example. It may appear unrelated but this article is titled "So Much For Religious Freedom".

I was addressing James supporting arguments.

Cheers,

Reed

The "Establishment" clause that Bill cannot fathom does not address in any way, shape or form the religious beliefs of the person or group involved -- and no one is asking anyone to strip themselves of their religious beliefs. It is the nature of the financial support given by the state that matters.

Of course, what is at issue is the free exercise of religion that is presently restricted wherever the welfare state intrudes into our lives. And free exercise is precisely what the First Amendment protects.

So you evaded my primary point that the establishment clause is in service to the free exercise clause, not vice versa. Therefore, if an overlap of a government activity and the exercise of religion constitutes an establishment of religion, then the government must cease that activity.

So let's see just how much of a friend of liberty you really are. I want to know if you support more liberty, even if that means people are freer to practice their religion, or less liberty if the presence of government will restrict the practice of religion. Test question: If a teacher leading her class in prayer at a public school is an establishment of religion, does enforcement of the free exercise clause mandate the abolition of public schools or the abolition of the exercise of religion in public schools?

Which way do you go, James? More or less liberty? Do you support the free exercise of religion or the intrusion of the welfare state into our lives if that has the effect of suppressing free exercise?

Regards, Bill

Aren't you guys talking about what is constitutional under the Establishment of Religion clause? How would chatting up a girl, smoking, etc. violate the establishment clause, and the use of government funds (in wages) be used to sponsor a religion by an officer chatting up a girl, cussing or smoking?

You did see that I meant something that would take time from his other duties? Not just a quick, silent prayer that couldn't distract from other duties, or even be observed, right?

Right, so you'd view this in the same way as if the cops took extra time off to smoke, chat up some girl or do grocery shopping. That's fair. If they are being paid for their time and they aren't providing it then I agree with you there - They haven't held up their end of the contract and should be warned/disciplined/sacked if it's interfering with the job.

I don't share the same view regarding quietness and distraction. So I wouldn't oppose praying (or swearing) on grounds of possible offense or distraction and I believe the government shouldn't be imposing their morals in this situation.

I think the analogy no longer relates to the situation we are discussing unless the reason to oppose the funding is that you doubt that religious organisations will uphold their end of the contract.

Then we, here, are agreed... I think. Did you mean to say "no evolution" or no intelligent design, taught in schools?

[edit: While government schools as such are an abomination, teaching ~ science ~ is not forbidden by the Establishment Clause, right?]

I think no one here supports government funding for; faith based missiles systems, medical prayer or evolution in schools.

Not on my dime they can't -- and, fortunately, current law agrees.

[edit.: You did see that I meant something that would take time from his other duties? Not just a quick, silent prayer that couldn't distract from other duties, or even be observed, right?]

A Christian cop cannot insist on performing prayers with each arrest while on the public's dime...

The cops should be able to do what they like (within the law), as long as they're doing their jobs properly - some even like to swear while arresting people. If the arrested person feels violated by being prayed for or sworn at they can always sue for damages.

One problem with financing any medical undertaking based on faith comes from measuring its results reliably.  I mentioned earlier in this thread that Medicare has actually financed people to pray at long distances to heal the sick.  How could one possibly validate the results?  If one could produce a consistent, reliable way to make prayer heal sick people, it would amount to science and not religion and would fall under the category of reason and not faith.  No one has ever done that.

One can point to ineffective secular approaches as well.  One can at least evaluate their effectiveness based on rigorous scientific studies.  However, we know enough about the ineffectiveness of "faith healing" to rule it out of court from the outset.

Some will counter that some schools of secular psychology have even less effectiveness than religious moral instruction.  I admit that readily.  This just means financing the most measurably effective secular psychological approaches and ignoring the rest as ineffective.

While Objectivism rejects the modern welfare state, it would still finance the proper medical treatment of soldiers in combat and so forth.  So confronting this issue still applies even under a proper Objectivist government.

Luke Setzer -- Global Organizer -- PROPEL(TM)
http://www.PropelObjectivism.com

A Christian can, of course, be a cop without violating the First Amendment. A Christian cop cannot insist on performing prayers with each arrest while on the public's dime without doing so, however.

See the difference?

Is the "nature of the payment" a payment for a service (ie. contract for social programs) or a donation?

You ask:

"In your opinion which of the following are immoral for the government?
1. Contracting work to an organisation controlled by an atheist.
2. Contracting work to an organisation controlled by an agnostic.
3. Contracting work to an organisation controlled by an religious person.
4. Contracting work to an atheist organisation.
5. Contracting work to an organisation without a religious base.
6. Contracting work to a religious organisation."

None of these is immoral -- obviously. The "Establishment" clause that Bill cannot fathom does not address in any way, shape or form the religious beliefs of the person or group involved -- and no one is asking anyone to strip themselves of their religious beliefs. It is the nature of the financial support given by the state that matters.

No person or group is required to be secular by the First Amendment, just the state.

Linz, your post is SO correct, it is literally astounding.

And further, someone of the most profound contributors to philosophy and freedom were religious men themselves.  Oh, sure, I understand that great harm has come as a result of religion.  Bt religion has been a great perserver of knowledge and civilizaing force in history, as well.

As an Objectivist, it is not my business what you believe about God, unless it affects me.  And for those who believe in God "properly,"  their belief never will affect me.  For those who do not take the fundamentals of freedom seriously, ANY irrational dogma is as dangerous to my life and freedom.

[Luke wrote] "If people want to continue to entertain the possibility of truth in ancient superstitions and fairy tales, that is their business."

It amuses me to see 'modern' people discount truths discovered in centuries past (some of which have been forgotten), which are every bit as true now as then, but who want to throw the baby out with the bath water because the truths are couched in religion, allegory, or even 'fairy tales.'  Truth is truth, no matter the path you walk to reach it.

And let me state on the record, what Joe Rowlands did to SOLO and Linz is despicable, but reveals a truth as to his character via a road that was painful to some, but a path which was inevitablely to be walked, given his character.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

Hi, Reed.

Please don't construe my apology to Luke as a rap against "button-pushing" in general. I enjoy a rollicking to-and-fro as much as anyone, and especially esteem the clever jab. But I did not have the best of motives when I pushed Luke's buttons (I was trying to make Luke look bad instead of making my case with a tweak of the nose), and so an apology was in order.

Regards, Bill

It's funny, if you avoid discussing your beliefs you are an evader but if you discuss them then you are a dissenter.

I wasn't sure Bill would get time to prepare a blog regarding gods existence so I have been preparing one too (which is pretty much done) but I might delay posting mine until after SOLOists have exposed Bills foolishness.

It's a shame that Bill apologised for button pushing, it makes my stirring comment look petty (sigh). It's hard to read the tone of messages posted on the internet but I actually find these types of comments amusing, sometimes they make me laugh out loud, even if they are targeted in my direction.

Wise words from Dame Edna Everage - "Don't take yourself too seriously... you might be missing the best joke".

Ah I see what you are getting at, Luke. I was interested more in Phil's claim, which was that Peikoff thinks all who disagree with Objectivism are dishonest.

I think Peikoff's position on inherently dishonest ideas is similar to what you think about objectivity. Though I think Peikoff's IDIs would be composed of fewer cases than what you are saying about objectivity.

Mike, I will concede somewhat to your point that Peikoff limited the context of his accusations of evasion to inherently dishonest ideas.  I would, however, contend that acceptance of the central idea of religion, supernaturalism, requires well educated adults in a modern technological society to evade.  I also want to make clear the distinction between objectivity and Objectivism.  I think a person can validly make a claim to strive for the former while honestly disagreeing with minor derivative points of the latter.  The issue of evasion involves evading objectivity rather than Objectivism.  The very nature of religion as "divinely inspired" makes objectivity impossible and thus demands evasion from modern people.

Bill, I respectfully accept your apology.  Had you not "pushed my buttons," as you say, my response to you would have been correspondingly more civil.  I do suggest you post your essay as a standalone post in the Dissent forum rather than hijack an existing thread, however.  I sincerely hope your proposed essay clearly defines the exact nature of this "God" of whom you claim to speak so knowingly.

Luke Setzer -- Global Organizer -- PROPEL(TM)
http://www.PropelObjectivism.com

Linz: Yes, indeed, beauty is fundamental and is inexplicable absent God. So addressing beauty means we must first address the existence of God. Hence, I've completed my essay in response to your invitation to hijack your thread and will post it tonight.

Phil: Other than tweaking you about your hobbyhorse, I must say I don't ever recall having any discussion with you, let alone a substantive one. However "foolish" I may be, you'll find that I am a more reliable proponent of liberty than many Objectivists. For example, the topic at hand. The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion, not the government from religion. Therefore, if religion and government overlap, and that overlap constitutes an establishment of religion, then it is the government and not religion that must yield. My reading of the First Amendment ensures greater not lesser liberty of the individual, especially as the expanding welfare state continues to intrude further into our personal lives. If Objectivists here had carefully considered my argument, they would understand that even if the welfare state is not explicitly unconstitutional, the First Amendment (among other things) severely impedes it.

Luke: You believe things for which there is no evidence. For example, you declare that I hate Objectivism. Not so, though I no longer subscribe it. (Ach! That makes me an apostate!) But I cannot fix problems like that. What I can do is offer you an apology. Though you are dead wrong on this First Amendment issue, I could have explain that without deliberately pushing your buttons. For that I am sorry.

Regards, Bill

Ah but Luke, the very excerpt you quote shows Peikoff's very important qualification.

In our century, there have been countless mass movements dedicated to inherently dishonest ideas—e.g., Nazism, Communism, non-objective art, non-Aristotelian logic, egalitarianism, nihilism, the pragmatist cult of compromise, the Shirley MacLaine types, who "channel" with ghosts and recount their previous lives; etc.

So here Peikoff is discussing inherently dishonest ideas, not all non-Objectivist ideas.

Paragraph two begins: "The originators, leaders and intellectual spokesmen of all such movements..."

Which such movments? Movments advocating inherently dishonest ideas. Peikoff is not talking about all non-Objectivist ideas, but a subset of non-Objectivist ideas he terms "inherently dishonest ideas."

You wrote: I consider this passage as saying, in effect, that those who disagree with the central feature of Objectivism -- objectivity -- must necessarily evade on a small scale via willfull self-delusion.

But... all the descriptions you hilighted (willfully self-deluded, passively dishonest, etc.) refer to adherents of "inherently dishonest ideas." Not to adherents of non-Objectivist ideas. Peikoff set the context in the first paragraph you quoted (again, the context is this one subset of ideas), and doesn't change it during the following two. In fact, he reiterates the fact that he is talking about only inherently dishonest ideas in the second sentence of paragraph three. "These are the handful who become Communists, "channelers," etc..." His examples are both instances of his previously defined category "inherently dishonest ideas."

That Peikoff thinks all but the young etc. accept inherently dishonest ideas through evasion is an uncontested point. This doesn't show him claiming that all non-Objectivist ideas require dishonesty.

Now, whether or not there is such a thing as an inherently dishonest ideas is another topic, which Peikoff defends at much greater length in Understanding Objectivism. But his words are clear. If you think his position amounts to claiming that all non-Objectivist ideas involve evasion, you're going to have to make a separate argument.

We probably don't disagree, then. I oppose government spending on anything other then police, courts and military (and even those forms of government I'd like to see radically changed and reformed!). The fact that the government doles out our tax dollars on *anything else* be it religious, non-religious, 'faith based', magical, mystical or otherwise is a *travesty* to say the least.

Mike observed:

The problem with this is that Peikoff does not call those who disagree with Objectivism evaders. I officially challenge you to provide textual support for that claim.

From

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_fv

in the middle we have, with my own emphasis in bold italics:

<< Now we must note that falsehood does not necessarily imply vice; honest errors of knowledge are possible. But such errors are not nearly so common as some people wish to think, especially in the field of philosophy. In our century, there have been countless mass movements dedicated to inherently dishonest ideas—e.g., Nazism, Communism, non-objective art, non-Aristotelian logic, egalitarianism, nihilism, the pragmatist cult of compromise, the Shirley MacLaine types, who "channel" with ghosts and recount their previous lives; etc. In all such cases, the ideas are not merely false; in one form or another, they represent an explicit rebellion against reason and reality (and, therefore, against man and values). If the conscientious attempt to perceive reality by the use of one's mind is the essence of honesty, no such rebellion can qualify as "honest."

The originators, leaders and intellectual spokesmen of all such movements are necessarily evaders on a major scale; they are not merely mistaken, but are crusading irrationalists. The mass base of such movements are not evaders of the same kind; but most of the followers are dishonest in their own passive way. They are unthinking, intellectually irresponsible ballast, unconcerned with logic or truth. They go along with corrupt trend-setters because their neighbors demand it, and/or because a given notion satisfies some out-of-context desire they happen to feel. People of this kind are not the helplessly ignorant, but the willfully self-deluded.
 
EVEN IN REGARD to inherently dishonest movements, let me now add, a marginal third category of adherent is possible: the relatively small number who struggle conscientiously, but simply cannot grasp the issues and the monumental corruption involved. These are the handful who become Communists, "channelers," etc. through a truly honest error of knowledge. Leaving aside the retarded and the illiterate, who are effectively helpless in such matters, this third group consists almost exclusively of the very young—and precisely for this reason, these youngsters get out of such movements fast, on their own, without needing lectures from others; they get out as they reach maturity. Being conscientious and mentally active, they see first-hand what is going on in their movement and they identify what it means; so their initial enthusiasm turns to dismay and then to horror. (Andrei in We the Living may be taken as a fictional symbol here.) The very honesty of such individuals limits their stay in the movement; they cannot tolerate for long the massiveness of the evil with which they have become involved. Nor, when such youngsters drop out, do they say to the world belligerently: "Don't dare to judge me for my past, because my error was honest." On the contrary—and here I speak from my own personal experience of honest errors that I committed as a teenager—the best among these young people are contrite; they recognize the aid and comfort, inadvertent though it be, which they have been giving to error and evil, and they seek to make amends for it. They expect those who know of their past creeds and allegiances to regard them with suspicion; they know that it is their own responsibility to demonstrate objectively and across time that they have changed, that they will not repeat their error tomorrow in another variant, that their error was innocent.  >>

I consider this passage as saying, in effect, that those who disagree with the central feature of Objectivism -- objectivity -- must necessarily evade on a small scale via willfull self-delusion.

Luke Setzer -- Global Organizer -- PROPEL(TM)
http://www.PropelObjectivism.com

Phil:
This is probably the central mistake of the Fact and Value essay: that people who are not young, have been around have had 'enough time' to see that Objectivism is correct and that they are therefore evaders if they don't.

The problem with this is that Peikoff does not call those who disagree with Objectivism evaders. I officially challenge you to provide textual support for that claim.

Linz wrote:

There's no ambiguity or mystery about any of this, Luke, and you are being as evasive about it as Mistress Phyllis.

I am "evading" nothing.  I have seen countless "partnerships" -- marriages, business endeavors, etc. -- end in bitter acrimony the way SOLOHQ did.  In all these splits, the fallout usually includes a demand that outsiders take sides when fault actually lies with both parties.  I stay out of them because I did not create the "problem" in the first place.  I then continue to act in my own self-interest whether anyone likes it or not.

In various courses I have taken on subjects like real estate investing, a repeated theme I hear involves spelling clearly in enforceable contracts the rights and responsibilities of all involved parties.  I hope anyone who witnesses any of these clashes -- not just in Objectivism, but anywhere -- takes these lessons to heart.  If not, blame only yourself if you get "shafted" as a result.

As for dealing with the nutters, have at it.  I am through with them.  I still like the idea of confining them to the "Dissent" forum here so they do not pollute the board with ideas that only confuse newbies.  But that is your call.

Phil wrote:

It's a gratuitous assumption about what is in people's heads. Peikoff doesn't prove it. He merely states it adamantly.

It has become pretty obvious to me, Phil.  They do evade.  They also waste the time of others.

Luke Setzer -- Global Organizer -- PROPEL(TM)
http://www.PropelObjectivism.com

> I cut newcomers lots and lots of slack but not seasoned readers like Bill who have had more than enough time, knowledge and education to understand the fundamentals. [Luke]

This is probably the central mistake of the Fact and Value essay: that people who are not young, have been around have had 'enough time' to see that Objectivism is correct and that they are therefore evaders if they don't.

It's a gratuitous assumption about what is in people's heads. Peikoff doesn't prove it. He merely states it adamantly.

> Peikoff thinks Streisand is great; ...Phyllis, of course, thinks Dolly Parton was the great musical genius of the ages. [Linz]

I knew there was a reason I liked Peikoff. As for Dolly, the only song of hers that is good is "Nine to Five"

That's fine for you to consider engaging religionists a waste of time. But I come back to the point that to win our battle we must at minimum trounce religionists, eco-nutters, socialists, pomowankers and all other types of irrationalist. If they're game to come here and throw down a gauntlet, I'm game to pick it up.

And the evidence of frord was laid out on the very thread you mention. Closing a site down means just that. It doesn't mean rolling it over and shafting one of its part-owners and its chief inspiration. It doesn't mean putting its articles under a new banner without the writers' permission. There's no ambiguity or mystery about any of this, Luke, and you are being as evasive about it as Mistress Phyllis.

Yes, religion is detestable. But we Objectivists have to grow up and confront, and better understand, its enduring appeal. How else can we hope to counter it?

Linz

This is Lindsay's board and he can do what he wants with it.  I do consider further "discussions" with Bill and his ilk a complete waste of time, however.  If people want to continue to entertain the possibility of truth in ancient superstitions and fairy tales, that is their business.  I just question what business they have on the front page of an explicitly atheistic board.  There comes a time when one must simply declare a topic unworthy of further consideration and thus relegated to a place other than front page news.  I consider supernaturalism one such topic.

Phil, I have found myself over time more and more strongly sympathizing with Peikoff's "Fact and Value" as I have wasted more and more time and energy going around in circles with people who seem to go out of their way to avoid "getting" Objectivism.  I cut newcomers lots and lots of slack but not seasoned readers like Bill who have had more than enough time, knowledge and education to understand the fundamentals.  If they hate the fundamentals of Objectivism so much, why do they keep coming to Objectivist boards?  More importantly, why do we keep welcoming them as first class citizens on par with those who do appreciate the fundamentals?

Tara Smith and company quite rightly observe the absolute human need to pass moral judgment on others for one's own sake -- your own finger waggling to the contrary notwithstanding.

I grow tired of wasting precious life energy on nonsense.  Some people will call my attitude "anal retentive."  I call it "good time management."

The so-called "frord" topic belongs in another thread.  Interested parties can search the archives to learn more about that.  I have refrained from comment because much of what happened in that incident remained behind closed doors and out of my sight.  I would have handled things differently but it was not my material to handle.  If someone wants to resurrect that tired issue, please post to that thread rather than hijack this one.

Incidentally, Phil, I will have one hell of a time playing the role of an alleged "Savonarola" when my main role in PROPEL(TM) is simply to locate willing local Assistant Organizers.  The system becomes self-correcting in that only those with sufficient understanding and support of Ayn Rand will have motivation to do the work of conducting local monthly meetings.  So I "apologize" for not living up to your expectations of "unapologetic witch hunter."

James, I regret hijacking this thread but I do find religion more and more detestable as I grow older and wiser and thus more provoking of outbursts on my part.

Luke Setzer -- Global Organizer -- PROPEL(TM)
http://www.PropelObjectivism.com

I encourage the moderators of this forum to banish dishonest evader Bill Tingley to the Dissent Forum of SOLO. Despite his better knowledge that Objectivism does, in fact, advocate unyielding disbelief in the central features of religion such as a Supreme Being, a supernatural realm, and a life after death -- what he calls "militant atheism" -- he continues to pollute this board with his religious filth. His abuses of the moral generosity of SOLO go back several years.

I'm not banishing anyone anywhere. Everyone comes to Objectivism with baggage. The worst thing for newbies to encounter is a robotic, snotty, anal-retentive Binswanger-type True Believer. I can't reiterate Rand often enough—ours is a battle of ideas. That means we must engage our opponents. I want Father Bill to give us his best shot so that we can joust with and best him. And Luke, anyone who gives ongoing sanction to a gigantic exercise in frord is hardly entitled to get on a moral high horse.

Linz

Do you know you're failing to capitalise on the biggest argument in your arsenal?

It's Mario Lanza singing The Lord's Prayer and Silent Night. You could cite these and invoke ineffable Truth and Beauty. And no Objectivist here would have a clue otherwise. Only I could show that it's not "ineffable" ... but that's another story.

Newsflash—most Objectivists are musical morons. As repositories of the reason/passion dichotomy, they're all rationalists—all maths, no music ... even though music is mathematical!! —or empiricists (headbanging caterwauling—splayed-out, structureless noise in all directions for its own sake). Peikoff thinks Streisand is great; Valliant loves Kylie Minogue and heavy metal; Princess Di thinks opera is Oprah; some here think Sibelius at his least coherent is the apogee of romanticism; Phyllis, of course, thinks Dolly Parton was the great musical genius of the ages. Jesus Christ, to coin a phrase!!

Music is the most telling and important of the arts, the most direct window to the soul. To be a musical moron is to be on the lowest rung of hell, at least by SOLO standards. That's where most Objectivists are. That's partly why SOLO is here—to save their poor benighted souls. But Father Bill, Mario's singing is way more compelling than the ontological arguments for the existence of God, which have long since been debunked. I saw Sciabarra dissolve into helpless tears when hearing it—that's why I know he's not, for all his treachery, "fundamentally immoral," particularly in esthetic comparison to the philistine banality-devotees who accuse him of that.

Get with the programme, Father Bill. I'm trying to be helpful here!

Linz

> banish dishonest evader Bill Tingley

Luke, I also strongly disagree with and have had fights with Bill T and find many of his posts illogical or foolish. But have you truly learned **nothing** from your years of observing all these schisms and wars?

Nothing about what is wrong and unjust about calling someone immoral and dishonest because you disagree with him?

No matter how enraged you are? Or how much you want to "get" him?

I know you want to do Objectivist activism and have very big plans to spread Oism worldwide. But if you are going to unapologetically (people who do this sort of thin, in my experience NEVER APOLOGIZE) do the above sort of thing, you need to **stay as far as possible away from Objectivist activism.**

You are -exactly- the Savonarola type who turns new people off who are just discovering, unsure about, groping with the ideas.

Michael -
I'm not sure if we disagree or not.

If the reason to object is to oppose government spending on social programs then we are in agreement.

If the reason to object is that tax dollars might end up in the hands of religious groups then we disagree and I would see this reasoning as a kind of collectivist thinking.

Luke -
...Objectivism does, in fact, advocate unyielding disbelief in the central features of religion such as a Supreme Being, a supernatural realm, and a life after death...
Can I refer to this as "the objectivists creed"?

I'm stirring - no need to respond.

Yes, I figured in your personal example with the school you were sharing similar concern over the inherent corruption with state-funded faith, glad you made that clear.

But actually, I *do* have a problem with any atheist, agnostic, deist, theist, pagan, new age, wiccen, Maori Magic, etc. etc. or *any* organization other than police, courts and military being the recipient of a government's tax (i.e. stolen from individuals) dollars. By thinking of tax dollars as 'something you've paid into' and therefore something you should feel free to 'extract benefit' from, it's accepting the collectivism governments want us to think in terms of so we never think to challenge the government racket or even question *why* they are taking our money to begin with! It has to stop somewhere...!

But I'm kinda 'radical' like that...

Michael -
At the very least, Reed, this open door to funding leads to the kind of government 'control' over faith practices which should be disturbing to the 'faithful' in a deeper way than the experience you spoke of in the difficulties with your children's (semi) private christian school.
Yes.

And Reed, the kind of state-religion partnership the supreme court's decision allows is not a 'reclaiming of (the church's) tax money' particularly in the United States where churches and ministries are still significantly tax-exempt.
Sorry, my explanation wasn't very clear. My parallel was that I have no moral dilemma receiving money from the government and neither do you I presume - unless you oppose receiving your tax refund. It's really up to the organisation to decide whether they have a moral conflict or not.

While I oppose the government getting involved in these social programs I see no valid reason why atheist, secular or religious groups should be excluded from applying for and receiving a government contract.

Mr. Valiant, good point! You're absolutely right when it comes to the many periods of state-supported Christianity in history and the inherent, repulsive corruption that went with it. The secularization of government that you correctly point out as one of the greatest gifts the Founding Fathers gave us, is great largely because of the protection from the corruption of state sponsorship. The Jesus of the 'official' scripture, who 'resisted the temptation of Satan' when offered political rule the world if he submitted to the 'devil' is strangely missing from the attitudes of those would-be recipients of President Bush's proposed redistribution of wealth for his 'Faith Based Initiatives' and the like.

Perhaps today's Christianity is no better than the Christianity of Constantine's day when it comes to happily accepting government support. The irony being that the Jesus of scripture didn't require government assistance, or seek to have his teachings forced through the state, which only further reveals the hypocrisy of the religious right. At the very least, Reed, this open door to funding leads to the kind of government 'control' over faith practices which should be disturbing to the 'faithful' in a deeper way than the experience you spoke of in the difficulties with your children's (semi) private Christian school.

And Reed, the kind of state-religion partnership the supreme court's decision allows is not ‘reclaiming of (the churches) tax money particularly in the United States where churches and ministries are still significantly tax-exempt. It is the very thing the Founding Father's wanted to protect the government *and* the church (any church) alike from - it is a partnership that can only lead both to corruption and ruin. It doesn't take an atheist or even a historian to see state and religion shouldn't mix. Even the Bible, through prophets like Samuel, for example, warned about this mix! Thomas Paine reminded us of dear Samuel in his most brilliant 'Common Sense' - something the current supreme court majority *no longer has*!

And Objectivists, Bill, are not merely a 'pack of atheists'. I don't think there is an Objectivist on SOLO that would not allow for the peacefully held (i.e. liberty: the non-initiation of force, fraud, coercion, etc.) beliefs of those whom they disagree with (such as theists of all stripes). But the decision of the supreme court discussed here is a significant step toward an 'unholy alliance' of state and religion - as if the warnings of history and the Bible itself, let alone the Founding Fathers and reason, didn't exist.

Hi, Luke.

You say, "I do not need you."

Well, good for you! Now go out there and get 'em, tiger!

Regards, Bill

I respect my time and energy and that of others enough not to waste it on tired and tedious repetitions of past arguments.  I come here to refuel my soul, not to denigrate it with pointless clashes.  One should just as well demand that one "tolerate" poison in food so as not to make the food "totalitarian" in nature.

I have five words for Bill that spell my personal liberation:

I do not need you.

Visit http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Setzer/Five_Words_That_Spell_Liberation.shtml for the full scoop.

Luke Setzer -- Global Organizer -- PROPEL(TM)
http://www.PropelObjectivism.com

... you've gotta be pulling my leg with your hue and cry to the SOLO gendarmes to haul me away. I could not have drafted a better response from you to support my points about your tribalism and totalitarianism.

If you are serious, though, you need to get yourself out of that tribal armpit you find so cozy FAST! Your mania indicates there isn't much air left in there.

Regards, Bill

I encourage the moderators of this forum to banish dishonest evader Bill Tingley to the Dissent Forum of SOLO.  Despite his better knowledge that Objectivism does, in fact, advocate unyielding disbelief in the central features of religion such as a Supreme Being, a supernatural realm, and a life after death -- what he calls "militant atheism" -- he continues to pollute this board with his religious filth.  His abuses of the moral generosity of SOLO go back several years.

Bill, I remain unapologetically anti-theist.  I consider religion one of the biggest scams ever perpetrated on humanity.  I can excuse our ignorant ancestors who did not know better, but not any modern person such as yourself.  You have grown old enough, intelligent enough and educated enough to know better.  I can only conclude that you deliberately choose to evade reality as you have amply demonstrated in earlier discussions on this board.

As for the Supreme Court decision that originated this thread, I consider the continued condonement of government-funded religion by the court akin to its condonement of slavery in earlier centuries -- just plainly, flatly, bone-headedly immoral.  Slavery, in fact, received formal sanction in the United States Constitution and required a civil war and an amendment to end it as an institution.  That religion receives protection as a private institution does not mean it ought to receive government funding in any way, shape or form.

I could argue at length but I know that no amount of such arguing on my part will sway you.

No force in the universe can compel an evading mind to focus.

Incidentally, none of this means I support the welfare state.  However, this thread focuses on government financing of religious institutions rather than just private institutions per se.  I consider it bad enough that government funds any of them, much less those of questionable scientific merit.  But to fund faith-based institutions falls well outside anything even remotely meritorious from an objective viewpoint.

Luke Setzer -- Global Organizer -- PROPEL(TM)
http://www.PropelObjectivism.com

Hi, Luke.

I consider further discussions on this issue a complete waste of time ...

Of course you do, if you value security over liberty. You have found safety in your tribe of militant atheists. Among them you can circulate urban legends of Christian atrocities with no fear of challenge. Also, none of your tribesmen would be so impolite as to notice the white flag you have left behind as you scurried away from the topic at hand.

And you do value security over liberty, Luke, if you think that the establishment clause trumps free exercise. No friend of liberty fears the free exercise of religion by his countrymen. He would never countenance the use of the state to constrain that exercise, including the discrimination in the award of government contracts on the basis of religion.

The funny thing is, Luke, you claim to despise the welfare state. (Well, what rationally thinking person doesn't?) Yet, you are hunky-dory with letting the welfare state banish religion from whatever realm of life it chooses to invade -- in the instant case, social work. For you, it is not the welfare state that must go but religion. How is this so? Simple. Wherever religion overlaps with the state, you cry that the presence of religion is unconstitional instead of the presence of the state.

So you are happy to see the welfare state expand the public square and sanitize it of religion. If that were not so, you would argue that the involvement of the state in welfare, education, health, and any other number of intrusions into personal life is unconstitutional per the First Amendment, period, because it cannot intrude into those realms of life without restricting the free exercise of religion.

But you don't do that, do you, Luke? So long as the welfare state serves your agenda of pushing religion out of the public square, you will live with it. That's why you number among the totalitarians instead of among the friends of liberty.

Regards, Bill

American Atheists conducts a weekly cable television show called Atheist Viewpoint with recent archives at

http://atheistviewpoint.tv/

I recall watching one such video on their site that documented the "voodoo science" of prayer assistance financed by Medicare.  The government literally paid people via religious institutions to pray long distance for patients.  If I recall correctly, a 14 year old girl with cancer opted for this treatment with the "blessings" of both her parents and the faith based aspects of government health care while foregoing conventional treatment.  She either died or lost a leg as a result.

Whatever their shortcomings, American Atheists does an excellent job of serving as a watchdog for such atrocities, so I continue to support them.

We have been over and over the metaphysics of Objectivism in this forum with so-called Christian freedom fighters.  I see no resolution to overcoming their evasions.  I consider further discussions on this issue a complete waste of time -- and attempts to make common cause with them questionable at best.  Perhaps a discussion of "faith based missile defense systems" might finally break them of their evasive argumentative maneuvers, but I doubt it.

Luke Setzer -- Global Organizer -- PROPEL(TM)
http://www.PropelObjectivism.com

James -
In your opinion which of the following are immoral for the government?
1. Contracting work to an organisation controlled by an atheist.
2. Contracting work to an organisation controlled by an agnostic.
3. Contracting work to an organisation controlled by an religious person.
4. Contracting work to an atheist organisation.
5. Contracting work to an organisation without a religious base.
6. Contracting work to a religious organisation.

Michael
I dont know where you stand on recovering tax but I make an effort to recover the tax I have paid, as churches are just a bunch of tax payers I dont see why this aspect should cause them any moral dilemma.

However I do have a problem with church organisations receiving government grants for a different reason.

My kids attended a christian school for a while and a few kids there were making school unbearable for the others. The board had a solution that would have dealt with the problem immediately but because the school received government funding the government was able to dictate how the problem was dealt with, so it took over a year to resolve.

I'm pretty sure (but could be wrong) the organisation in NZ that organises abortions used to be a christian organisation but has been corrupted through receiving government funding.

There is no free lunch, even if the food was stolen from you in the first place. The government gets some control in exchange for the funding.

"So get over your totalitarian impulse to control religion and instead embrace liberty. Freedom is a wonderful thing."

Wow. puke.

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

James, James, James ...

You have a very upside-down view of things. You are right that there is no establishment clause for the press in the First Amendment. That means the government can publish a newspaper if it wants to. It can compete with private media in disseminating news and commentary to the public.

However, to provide additional protection for the free exercise of religion (because the Founding Fathers deemed freedom of religion more important than freedom of the press), the government is prohibited from establishing a church. The government cannot get into the business of setting up a competing church.

This is not difficult to understand. The prohibition of establishment is in service to protecting the free exercise of religion. Therefore, it is perverse to read the establishment clause in any manner that frustrates free exercise. That is why the government's farming out social work to religious organizations is not unconstitutional (which is not to say it is good policy). To discriminate against organizations participating in a government program because of religious beliefs would be an infringement of free exercise. That would be unconstitutional.

You guys need to deal with the fact that the Founding Fathers never ever intended anyone to strip himself of his religious beliefs and practices in dealing with the government. The First Amendment does not mandate a naked public square when it comes to faith. So get over your totalitarian impulse to control religion and instead embrace liberty. Freedom is a wonderful thing.

Regards, Bill

While there is indeed no "record" of the Roman government giving aid to the very earliest Christians, it demonstrably did so after Constantine the Great. They not only gave official subsidy, sanction and support to the early Church, the Imperial government violently eradicated other forms of worship. (That they may well have been behind the Gospels and the activity of St. Paul at an earlier stage is also a possibility not to be tossed aside lightly.) In any event, Christianity has used -- and to some extent depended upon -- state support throughout most of its history. Only in recent times has this situation changed -- in large measure, due to the secularizing efforts of the Founding Fathers. The "secularization" of the state that they achieved was almost unprecedented at the time. Secularization, in fact, is the real essence of their achievement in this context.

Government welfarism is a bad idea as it is, but add to it the effective removal of *all accountability* as to how the 'benefits' are doled out AND the fact that the welfare recipients can be religious in nature; the result is just another step toward totalitarianism in America. The precedents are being set, and the constitution is being all but ignored in favor of the new regime.

A potential recipient of religious/faith/church-based tax supported welfare, if they have the conscience their respective faith is supposedly requiring of them, should be refusing any kind of 'aid' that knowingly comes as a result of thievery (i.e. by way of government). I don't recall any historical record, Biblical or otherwise, of Jesus hitting up Caesar for handouts to support his 'faith based' ministry or receiving any proceeds from the Roman government to spread the Gospel, etc. The legislation is not only an obscene move toward totalitarianism; it additionally reveals a lack of integrity with the recipients of the welfare.

This is not a return to the intentions of the Founders -- quite the opposite. Simply on Article I, section 8 grounds, Bush's "faith-based" welfare programs are unconstitutional on their face.

Moreover, there is no "Establishment Clause" for the press. If the two issues are perfectly coextensive, why do you suppose the Framers treated the two differently in this regard?

Also, did you read Epstein's article? Scalia just made a hash out of his "originalism."

Greetings, my atheist friends. Let me clear up your confusion.

Plainly those of you upset with the Supreme Court's decision don't understand that a church and a religion are two different things. What the First Amendment prohibits is the government's establishment of a religion -- i.e., a church. The First Amendment no more prohibits the influence of religion upon government and the exercise of its powers than it does the influence of the press.

What should disturb you is not this ever-so slight return back to the original intent of the First Amendment, but the unquestioned assumption that the federal government can squander our tax dollars on social work -- no matter what sort of organization it does the squandering through.

Regards, Bill

and why it must remain sancrosanct.  There are all sorts of meta-theories which color Constitutional scholar's interpretation of the Constitution as it applies to modern conflicts and issues.  But the Founding Fathers understood what people like Scalia seem to have forgotten--the nature of man and his rights are immutable, so his protections under the Constitution must be as well.  So many on the Supreme Court seem to reach conclusions based upon their politics or political loyalties rather than starting with the Constitution and rights of man and reahing an intellectually honest opinion.  Once those sitting in our highest Court become the merest of unprincipled politian pawns, our hope for the nation becomes the dimmest of light.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

PRESS RELEASE -- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE-- JUNE 28, 2007

MICHIGAN'S FAITH-BASED INITIATIVES AND SUPREME COURT RULING

FROM:   Arlene-Marie, Michigan State Director, American Atheists

For more information, please contact:
Arlene-Marie, or Cell or Email amarie@atheists.org

We remember that on March 15, 2005, Governor Granholm issued Executive Order No.2005-6 to establish an Office for Community and Faith-based initiatives in Michigan designed to strengthen the relationship between government and religious leaders, including funding.  In the process she appropriated the use of state property to house the office and appointed Greg Roberts as a salaried Director.  

"This is old news. However, in light of the recent High Court ruling in the case of Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation stating that taxpayers don't have legal standing to challenge misuses of tax dollars I wish to revisit Granholm's faith-based initiative. If challenged, would Michigan's Supreme Court rule that Michigan's taxpayers don't have legal standing in the legislative misuse of our tax dollars, salaried time and office space?" asked Arlene-Marie.

Through so-called "faith-based initiatives" millions upon millions of federal tax dollars are annually funneled into Michigan and given to The Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, St. Vincent DePaul, New Bethel Ministries, Lutheran Services and other religious organizations and churches on the government dole.  

"Added to those federal taxpayer dollars are Michigan taxpayer dollars," said Arlene. "Beyond the misuse of tax money favoring religious activities, Granholm's Office for Community and Faith-based Initiatives creates a bond between state government and faith leaders clearly establishing preferred positions for the religious as political insiders." 

Article 1, sec. 4 of the Michigan Constitution states, No money shall be appropriated or drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious sect or society, theological or religious seminary; nor shall property belonging to the state be appropriated for any such purpose.  The civil and political rights, privileges and capacities of no person shall be diminished or enlarged on account of his religious belief.

Luke Setzer -- Global Organizer -- PROPEL(TM)
http://www.PropelObjectivism.com

1
Defense of property is paramount,
Which Thomas and Scalia never will discount.
2
Defense of property is paramount,
With Ginsburg held in asinine account.

http://theeleutherian.blogspot...

Thomas is nothing more than Scalia's man-wench. The few (VERY few) times that he's voted AGAINST Scalia, he's been wrong; see Texas v. Johnson for the most outstanding example of this. Frankly, Scalia, Roberts and Ginsburg are the only three justices I have any respect for.

Welcome aboard ... just please note we need full name supplied in your sign-in form.

In my opinion, Clarence Thomas is the only judge worth a damn on the Supreme Court.

Rudy Giuliani has pledged to appoint more justices like Roberts and Alito. I blogged a little about this. It's a big mistake to vote for or support someone who is going to appoint these kind of judges. Even if he is personally pro-choice.

But don't hold your breath for Roberts and Co. to ever find "standing" for this one. In any event, what difference does/should it make whether it's Congress or the President who orders the money spent?

Meanwhile -- and Mr. Cathcart please take notice -- this issue of "taxpayer standing" goes to the heart of Prof. Epstein's "Takings" arguments, as well.

AMERICAN ATHEISTS, INC.
http://www.atheists.org
http://www.americanatheist.org

For more information, please contact:
Ellen Johnson, President (908) 276-7300
Edwin Kagin, National Legal Director at 859-384-7000

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 25, 2007

HIGH COURT RULING ON FAITH-BASED INITIATIVE AVOIDED FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE, "NOT THE END IN DISPUTE OVER PUBLIC FUNDING OF RELIGION," SAY ATHEISTS

The 5-4 ruling in the case of Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation "is not the end in the dispute over the public funding of religion," American Atheists President Ellen Johnson said today.

"This decision was very focused on the issue of  whether taxpayers have sufficient legal right or 'standing' to bring a case against the Executive Branch, and really did not address broader constitutional questions regarding the federal faith-based initiative."

The suit focused on President Bush's  creation of a faith-based scheme using powers of executive privilege  that has re-directed billions of dollars in federal funds for use by religious organizations that operate social programs.  Five justices opined that taxpayers did not have appropriate legal standing to challenge the executive branch, but could contest spending programs approved directly by Congress.  Four of the justices, though (Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer) stated that taxpayers did have the necessary  standing.

Johnson added that the written majority opinions by Justices Scalia and Alito make it more difficult for citizens, particularly those holding unorthodox opinions in respect to religion, to have their grievances addressed.

"The court majority is more focused on expanding the powers of the Executive Branch than in dealing with the constitutionality of whether government should be providing tax money to support religious organizations," said Dave Silverman, Communications Director for American Atheists.  "On the other hand, the minority in this case, particuarly Justice Souter, was right in citing James Madison's caution that 'government in a free society may not "force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment" of religion.'"

"This is not going to be the end for this sort of legal dispute," added Silverman.  "Millions of Americans, including those who are Atheists, Freethinkers and Humanists, won't stand idly by as our money is laundered through the public treasury and used to support religion-based social programs."

MEDIA: For inquiries and further commentary, contact:

EDWIN KAGIN: National Legal Director, American Atheists: (859) 384-7000
DAVE SILVERMAN, Communications Director, American Atheists: (732) 648-9333

AMERICAN ATHEISTS is a nationwide movement that defends civil rights for Atheists; works for the total separation of church and state; and addresses issues of First Amendment public policy.

American Atheists, Inc.
P. O. Box 5733
Parsippany, NJ 07054-6733
Tel.: (908) 276-7300
Fax: (908) 276-7402