Why Typical Conservative Christians are not Ultimately Supporters of Freedom.

24 12 2009

I believe that Christian ideology and freedom/capitalism are not compatible. 

I read this article on drug prohibition by Mary Garber yesterday and I think it is a perfect example of the muddled and ultimately anti-freedom ideology of the typical Christian conservative. 

I posted this comment, but at number 163 I doubt too many people will read it. 

“What a great example of why conservative Christian right wingers are terrible defenders of freedom.
Reason and logic should be used to defend capitalism and freedom. But that is lacking this article.
eg/ The author states: “legalizing marijuana will remove the freedom employers now have to test for the judgment-impairing drug” Utter nonsense. In a free society an employer should be allowed to screen his employees for anything he wishes.
The author assumes that you can force morality onto a populace. False. You cannot force people (via legislation) to care about their health and well being. Self destructive or hedonistic tendancies in a person are indeed immoral, but as the war on drugs demonstrates, attempting to enforce morality per se is counter-productive (and anti-American). eg/ religious dictatorships like Iran.
Then the article states that “tradition” and “the bible” are proper standards for legislation. This is both false and dangerous. This is clearly not objective law based on reason. 
Incidentally, the once proud and free USA was founded by Deists, not by Puritans. The oppresive, collectivist, fear mongering, un-democratic history of Christianity is anti science, anti freedom and anti human life as the dark ages clearly demonstrated. Thankfully the ancient Greek texts were re-discovered in the west allowing the re-birth of science and the age of reason.”

Advertisements




Objectivist blogger Gus Van Horn has reviewed Adelaide based professor Ian Plimer’s book, “Heaven and Earth”

24 12 2009

Objectivist blogger Gus Van Horn has reviewed Ian Plimer’s book for The Objective Standard, see https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-winter/ian-plimer.asp

It’s certainly not a complementary review:

“Wouldn’t it be nice if a scientist wrote a book carefully documenting and explaining, in layman’s terms, the cases for and against man-made global warming?……………Unfortunately, Heaven and Earth utterly fails to deliver on its promise.”

“Plimer does say the theory is false, but he does not address the subject scientifically. His work is sloppy, inconsistent, and frequently self-contradictory.”

Gus Van Horn is certainly not impressed with the clarity of this book. 

I probably won’t read this book but I had not committed to do so.  Actually, because I have university science training, I’m more interested in evaluating pure physics and physical chemistry articles on global warming when I get the time.  Blogger Jennifer Marohasy’s blog in particular looked interesting.  She has compiled some collections of scientific articles at various times over the last few years.  I used to be pretty good with my theory on infra red electromagnetic radation inducing higher vibrational and rotational energy levels.  The types of light interactions, the molecular symmetry considerations etc.  – It would be nice to brush up on some theory. 

Incidentally, I came across an article yesterday linking CFCs to global warming!  “Study shows CFCs, cosmic rays major culprits for global warming”   http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=8012





More on Obama’s destructive, socialist health care bill

23 12 2009

This article  from the WSJ is worth it just for the title and subtitle: 
“Change Nobody Believes In – a bill so reckless it had to be rammed through on a partisan vote on Christmas eve.”

Here’s a quote: “Even in World War I there was a Christmas truce.”

And I recommend this article by John Lewis on Pajamas Media: “Arbitrary power, dictatorship and healthcare”.  John Lewis notes how dictatorships benefit from unobjective law and shows examples picked from the recent US healthcare bill:

Even a summary perusal of its 1,990 pages shows an enormous scope for arbitrary definitions, applications, and regulations according to the decisions of unelected administrators. Here are a few passages to illustrate:

To determine what constitutes the “satisfaction of health care coverage participation requirements” under the 1974 ERISA rules, “the secretary may promulgate any interim final rules as the secretary determines are appropriate to carry out this part” (Sec. 421). Readers of the bill who try to discover what constitutes an “interim final rule” will find that this is up to the secretary — i.e., the bureaucrats — to determine.

With respect to the so-called “temporary high-risk pool program,” a program to be run until the so-called health care exchanges are established: “If the secretary estimates for any fiscal year that the aggregate amounts available for payment of expenses of the high-risk pool will be less than the amount of the expenses, the secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficit, including reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting lists” (Sec. 101). Who gets care, and what it will cost, will be up to the secretary.

“The secretary shall collect such data as may be required to establish premiums and payment rates for the public health insurance option and for other purposes under this subtitle” (Sec. 321). Section 412 requires employers to submit “such information as the commissioner may require” to multiple federal agencies.The bill institutionalizes such coercions by establishing over one hundred new commissioners, boards, committees, and programs, each with its own area of control. (For a list, see here.)

Nice work John.  I certainly hope your article gets wide readership.





The disturbing details of “Obamacare”

22 12 2009

An Indianapolis doctor’s letter to Sen. Bayh about the Bill (Note: Dr. Stephen E. Frazer, MD practices as an anesthesiologist in Indianapolis, IN )

Here is a letter I sent to Senator Bayh. Feel free to copy it and send it around to all other representatives. — Stephen Fraser Read the rest of this entry »





Letter to Tony Abbott on proposed mandatory internet censorship

18 12 2009

Hi, 

Vote no on proposed mandatory internet filter:

 I am writing on the hope that your party will oppose internet censorship in this country. 
Mandatory government censorship of this kind violates an individual’s right to his freedom and ultimately therefore his right to his own life. 
There are many practical arguments against internet censorship (cost, difficulty, concerns over free speech, the total lack of necessity considering free private filters are readily available etc).  More importantly however, this is immoral legislation that would see government abdicate its proper duty to protect our freedom and instead act as a violator of our proper freedom.  I hope you will fight the good fight and seek to actively protect Australians from this unnecessary, harmful and immoral proposal,

 Thankyou for your time

H/T Thoughts on Freedom blog.

Update 22/2/2010:  “Thank you for your email to the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon Tony Abbott MP.  Your views have been brought to Mr Abbott’s attention.” 

If you want to email Mr Abbott:  Do it at least 3 months in advance!





Bad news for freedom in Australia as Government continues with internet censorship plan.

16 12 2009

http://www.smh.com.au/polls/politics/form.html

The above article contains a poll.  Currently 94% of people who have voted are against the proposed state run, compulsory internet filter.





Lightweight atheists and pop culture

14 12 2009

The Living End, an average band I have never particularly liked (but I generally hate pop music so that doesn’t mean anything) have a song out that I heard by chance on the radio while on holiday.  The song was called “raise the alarm”.  I don’t have anything against the Living End personally and I’ve actually seen them live a few times at festivals years ago when I was younger (they just happened to be playing).  To me, they’re just an old fashioned rock band with a little punk and rockabilly influence comprised of average musicians who play typically boring pop music.  Just another band that’s going to bore me to tears. 

What I found interesting however were the lyrics for the song “raise the alarm”.  I think these lyrics are a great example of a typical atheist in our society.  ie: An atheist who might as well still be a Christian.

“I may not believe in Jesus
But I believe in sacrifice”

To hold up “sacrifice” as a worthy belief is to promote altruism.  ie: Religious ethics, including the ethics of Christianity. 

Here’s another line from the same song:

“I’d rather risk my fate
Than lose my faith”

I don’t even know what this line really means (if fate does exist how can you “risk” it?) but clearly the Living End value “faith” – something that I think is bad epistemology.  Incidentally, although many song writers think it’s cool to have deliberately ambiguous lyrics so that more peole can supposedly enjoy them, personally I think that idea is both false and spineless NB/ I’m not sure if the Living End are trying to be ambiguous or not, they have simply written something that doesn’t really make sense – not uncommon in pop music lyrics. 

Typically atheists in our society effectively adopt an ethical code that largely derives from Christianity and tradition.  Pragmatist epistemology (Dewey, James and others) with it’s Kantian roots dominates our culture.  In terms of ethics, pragmatists by default end up accepting an ethical code of the masses deriving from tradition.   

There are quite a lot of atheists in a country like Australia, but in terms of ethics and epistemology, they really aren’t that different to Christians.  That is probably quite a comforting thought to them, but not to an Objectivist such as myself that sees both faith and altruism as destructive to human life.