Republican Thoughts and Prayers

Problems, problems everywhere--but after much reflection, we Republicans conclude that there is only one good solution to the multifarious evils that beset our Republic:  PRAYER.

Last week, for example, we found it necessary to defeat gun control measures proposed in the Senate (some called them "modest," but we know a slippery slope when we see one).  Of course, we expressed our deep "regret" that so many innocent lives have been snuffed out in so many episodes of gun violence, but well, no, we simply cannot accept background checks for gun buyers, and no, we cannot ban assault weapons or limit ammunition purchases (slippery slopes, remember).  What we can do, and we do so enthusiastically and lovingly from the bottom of our compassionately conservative hearts (surely that is enough) is send out to victims of gun violence our sincerest and profoundest "thoughts and PRAYERS."

Yes, indeed, fellow compassionate Americans, we invite you to join us, your deeply concerned Republican legislators, in a determined and uncompromising resolution to Pray Away Gun Violence! 

But wait!  Not merely Gun Violence!  In fact,  we hereby commit ourselves to Praying Away All Problems!  Isn't this a truly inspirational idea, fellow patriots--a perfect program for a party committed to both compassion and fiscal prudence (why must cynics call it selfishness?)?  Because prayer, as we all know, as we have all experienced, is simultaneously the most effective and the most inexpensive solution for any problem that presents itself.

For example, in 2005, there was that French nun, Sister Marie Whoziz, who prayed to be healed of Parkinson's disease and, voilà, she was healed, just like that.  Not only was the cure-by-prayer cost-free (unlike Obamacare), but now the good sister is even making money for her order by doing speaking tours in the U.S.

And remember Ted Haggard, the anti-gay evangelical minister who, in 2006, was outed for having an icky gay relationship with a masseur?  Well, deeply ashamed, Pastor Ted committed himself to "pray away the gay" therapy, and, bingo! according to others who prayed for him, he is now 100% heterosexual!  Another incredibly cheap miracle!

Then, too, there's the uplifting story of Baptist minister/politician Mike Huckabee, who by his own admission was a disgusting tub of lard when he became governor of Arkansas.  So he prayed and prayed and prayed and, lo, he eventually lost his appetite for chicken-fried steak and gravy. Praising the Lord while pedaling his bike, our Mike-boy shed both belly and behind and, in the process, managed to pen a well-selling book entitled Quit Digging Your Grave With a Knife and Fork.  Another example of simultaneously efficacious and profitable prayer!

Well, the list of "pray away" success stories goes on and on.  We haven't even mentioned Governor Rick Perry's 2011 campaign to pray away the Texas drought--as a result of which, rain arrived only four months later, immediately after the close of the Atheist Alliance's Freethought Convention (according to always-reliable Wikipedia).  Nor does this brief blog afford sufficient space to discuss the abundant historical evidence of happy outcomes brought about in the distant past by praying evils away (evils such as: Philistines, pigs, demons, angels of death, storms, wild beasts, Satan, leprosy, Egyptians, figs) and enumerated in such eloquent and incarnadine detail in The Holy Bible, The Holy Qu'ran, The Holy Bhagavad Gita and All The Other Holy Writs of Mankind.  We devoutly refer our readers to these indisputable testimonies to the power of prayer.

Suffice it, then, to summarize briefly our new platform.  The Republican Party hereby adopts what we regard as the Perfect Political Program Against All Evil:  Pray It Away!!!  (PPPAAA:PIA)


Pray Away Gun Violence
Pray Away the Gay
Pray Away Poverty
Pray Away Sickness
Pray Away Drought
Pray Away Global Warming
Pray Away Unemployment
Pray Away Fat
Pray away Dirt



Yes, even the ultimate evil--dirt!  Ladies (we assume all good homemakers are women), be assured that the Republican Party has not forgotten you, lowly as you are.  Indeed, we feel your pain this springtime, as you contemplate that filthy carpet or floor and those nasty rain-streaked windows.  And we urge you to abandon the outmoded mop, vacuum cleaner and SqueeGee:  they are only temporary, Democrat-advocated solutions--too expensive , too time-consuming for prudent and goal-oriented conservatives.  We send you our thoughts and prayers and, above all, our compassionate advice for a permanent, divinely-sanctioned solution:  just get down on your knees and PRAY THAT DIRT AWAY.

Say Yes to the Dress

Pants, trousers, leggings--whatever you call those tubular casings in which we so obligingly stuff our nether limbs--well, they're a villainously barbaric invention, as anyone who ever had a wedgie (and who hasn't?) can attest.

Why do we continue to tolerate--nay, crave and covet and cherish these wretchedly uncomfortable garments?  Are we masochists?  Do we enjoy inflicting pain upon ourselves?  Or do we relish the sense of bondage, imprisonment, voluntary servitude imposed by the tightness of trousers?

Seriously, I think pants are satanic:  waistbands and belts dig mercilessly into our bellies; inseams pull and jerk at our private junk; cuffs or hems catch on our calves or snag on our heels.  Nothing good can be said about these diabolical torture devices.

Other societies, both past and present, have authorized males to clothe themselves more sanely, more comfortably:  tunics, kilts, dashikis, kimonos, even a well-draped toga allow more intimate wiggle room than the wretched bindings foisted upon us by barbaric Gallic tribes.

It just makes no sense at all to continue to gird our loins with pain.  Gentlemen, let us just say "yes" to the DRESS.

Riddled by Guilt

It's pretty much a commonplace to observe that the source of human psychological anguish is the guilt we feel for having somehow acquired sentience--the knowledge that we are "something" but not "everything"--that we possess some godlike powers of knowledge and yet (presumably through our own "most grievous fault") must nonetheless endure very un-godlike death.


This reality finds its religious "explanation" in the myth of The Fall of Man, of which I here summarize the Catholic version.  Satan (whoever he is/was) goaded human beings into eating the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, thereby arrogating unto ourselves a self-awareness that only God "deserves" to possess, because only God is truly superior to, and not bound by, the physical laws of the universe.  The fact that we must die constitutes definitive proof that--despite our presumption--we are not gods, we are not free, we are not perfect, and that we are, in fact, evil, and selfish and sinful.  Original Sin, then, amounts to little more than the guilt we feel about "knowing" and nonetheless "deserving" to die.

The irony, of course, is that we cannot bring ourselves to want to not know, to want to reunite ourselves with unthinking, brute matter.  Far from yearning to return to a state of robotic beatitude, incapable of choice, incapable of knowing good from evil, we instead cling stubbornly, as to the most precious of gifts, our ability to know, and hence to do, evil.  We call this "la condition humaine" or "the quality which makes us human." We don't like knowing that we're "bad," but we sure prefer this awareness, and the appertaining guilt, to knowing nothing at all.

What interests me in this blog is the way(s) in which humans cope with this guilt.  It seems to me that several responses can be chosen--and it's here that I'm going to play around with American political attitudes by looking more closely at four possibilities :  A) the Religious (Save Me) Republican response; B) the Humanist (Save You) Democratic response; C) the Libertarian (Fuck You) Republican response;  D) the Persecuted (Fuck Me) Democratic response.

Unquestionably, in deeply religious America, the most popular response is Type-A--the Religious (Save Me) Republican response (espoused by a good many Democrats as well).  The person holding this belief is, essentially, puerile and lazy in his thinking.  He acknowledges that he does evil, even that he knowingly and sometimes enthusiastically does so, taking pleasure in exploiting and dominating and controlling (as if he were God) while simultaneously regretting (like a small child) the empirical evidence that his actions are not automatically "good" and that he, too, in the end, deserves punishment and must "pay."

This fearful Type-A person therefore behaves as children often do, inventing for himself an imaginary, parental, yet all-powerful friend (a god) who will rescue him from his guilt--a savior who will swoop down and make a deal with the erring child, a deal that costs the child very little and that will make it possible for the delinquent to escape the punishment (death) he richly deserves.  Jesus (but also Allah and Yahweh and Quetzacoatl) will "forgive" and/or "redeem" our puerile friend for his sin (i.e., that behavior which he most cherishes) of behaving like the God he isn't.  Convoluted, but logical--to a child.

The second most popular response is probably the Humanist (Save-You) Democratic response.  These Type-B individuals (of whom I am one) are relatively adult and responsible in their thinking. (Naturally!) Like the Type-A folks, they, too, recognize their yearning for personal knowledge and dominion, their love for experiencing the exhilaration and exaltation of godlike power.  And like the Type-As, the Type-Bs feel guilty about their selfishness--they are quite aware that much of their behavior is not "good" and, indeed, deserving of punishment.  Type-Bs, though, do not usually seek refuge from their responsibility by fabricating divine saviors and superhuman redeemers.  Rather, they rely upon their own human faculties to make compensation for their failures and excesses; they choose to "pay for" their sins, to balance their selfishness, by doing good--by being, in the original sense of the word, liberal.  Thus, by changing and/or moderating their own behaviors, by committing themselves to solidarity with others, they themselves expiate for their sin.  

(I note, in passing, that St. Paul was a Type-A--inventing a Christ to save sinful man; Jesus, himself, more closely resembled a Type-B, advocating human freedom and responsibility.)

The third and fourth types of responses can probably be considered--and dismissed-- together, since they both involve a categorical refusal to acknowledge personal guilt and/or responsibility.  These guys--at both ends of the political spectrum--are deniers of human reality and, as such, essentially dishonest, foolish, and often dangerous people.  The parallels in their bad faith are apparent.

For instance, the Libertarian Republican says, with Ayn Rand and Rand Paul, "Fuck you:  I AM God and I have no obligation to anyone but myself.  Whatever evil exists is YOUR fault.  I will do what I please and you must also do what you please, insofar as you are able; if you cannot care for yourself, then you deserve to die.  But I WILL NOT DIE. Hahaha."

The Persecuted Democrat, on the other hand, but with similar blindness, asserts--along with countless pseudo-Marxist apologists--that he is a helpless victim.  "Fuck me; you fuck me over, all the time.  But you are EVIL.  All evil is your fault.  I am entitled to be loved and cared for because, as you will one day see, I AM God.  Then you will die.  But I WILL NOT DIE.  Hahaha."

Both truly far out!

I'm not sure what legitimate (if any) conclusions I can draw from this little exercise in politicizing the riddle of guilt.  Maybe I was doing nothing more than indulging myself in seeing patterns and parallels where, in fact, none exist.

I do believe, though, that at the very least, I have shed a bit of light on Republican vs. Democratic mentalities.  Obviously, there are plenty of exceptions and plenty of overlaps.  But I still believe that Type A and Type C persons--childishly believing that selfishness and greed are either a) forgiven, and therefore allowed, by virtue of belief in a savior or b) justified up front because "that's the way it is"--these people generally vote Republican.  And the Republican platforms advocating survival of the fittest and favoring the rich few over the poor many certainly reflect this "forgiven" and/or "unrepentant" individualism.

Similarly, Type B and Type D persons tend to vote Democratic, enshrining in Democratic platforms the social activist notion that individuals do have responsibility for other human beings, either because "sharing the wealth" provides moral salvation for rational adults or because "collecting welfare" provides temporary sustenance to those who cannot (or will not) escape their economic dependency.

Perhaps this is all too neat and simplistic.  Have I presented Type B individuals too positively?  Have I been a bit unfair to the Libertarians and the Religious Right?  Oh, for heaven's sake.  Now I'm beginning to feel guilty.  And I think it's your fault.  Oh, wait.

Adam and Eve must have really enjoyed that damned apple.

The Wait Tree

Once rustling,
The cardinal flyover tree,
Pecked and gnawed,
Droops down
Accusingly,
Still,
As I, too, nod into
Despondent,
Ungreen
Bark.

Constitutional Morality: Constants and Variables

Dang!  I can't seem to get beyond this obsession with morality/constitutionality!  So I guess I'll just have to prattle on a bit more about the ideas I began to explore in yesterday's "Morality, Marriage, and Fruits."  Forgive me.  Or stop reading (is anyone reading anyway?).

In his Moral Landscape, Sam Harris makes it clear that (like Hume, Mill, Kant, etc.) he is seeking some sort of common denominator permitting rational people to transcend the moral relativism that proceeds inevitably from any serious examination of the sundry, wildly-conflicting codes of behavior known to actually exist on our tiny planet.  Amidst all of Earth's mutually-exclusive and often bitterly antagonistic moralities, amidst all this subjectivity, is there no objectivity?  Amidst all these variables, is there no constant?  Is there no definitively reliable guide for right conduct?

Well, as I mentioned in my previous post, there might, indeed, be such a constant. But it would not find expression (cannot do so, as we shall see) in a systematic, absolutely invariable body of laws.  Rather, if I am on the right track here, it would be the fundamental principle upon which laws (that vary according to time, place, and other contingencies) should be based and from which these derive their validity. Though the good philosophers I cited have all argued amongst themselves about details and exceptions, yet the majority still agree with Harris (and Pascal?) that "le principe de la morale" is a constant, viz. : "good" conduct is behavior which a) avoids harming humans  and b) advances the well-being of humans.  Likewise, "bad" conduct is behavior which harms humans and/or inhibits the overall flourishing of the species (or the society--a point to which I must return in another blog).

Little more, in short, than the Golden Rule (be charitable to others) or, at least, the Silver Rule (don't harm others).

The rub, of course, is determining how we know what is good for humankind (yet another blog?).  Harris asserts that we can and must do so via the scientific examination of evidence:  we apprehend the good by making scientific inquiry.  Many of the other pontiffs of morality would probably quibble, but for the sake of argument, let us accept Harris' assertion.

Which means that, yes, we have a constant upon which to base our morality, a reliable yardstick against which to measure the validity of our Constitution and our collateral laws.  But by the same token, the Constitution--and especially the collateral laws--are not, cannot be, constant.  (Justice Scalia speaks nonsense when he says that the Constitution is dead.)  No, the framework of our laws, together with the laws themselves, must evolve as our society evolves, else our codes of behavior risk becoming destructive of the very ends they were (ostensibly) intended to foster--i.e., the advancement of human well-being.


Let us take an example.  While the overall well-being and survival of humanity might, at one point in time, have justified--say--laws requiring women to be subordinate to men (it was advantageous for weaker, child-bearing females to be protected by physically stronger males), changes in social structures and technology have, over the centuries, made it possible for women to survive and prosper as equals, without being dependent on men.  Hence, a woman's well-being, in the 21st Century, is better served by laws guaranteeing her equality with, rather than her subordination to, a man.  Ergo, while the principle of "human well-being" remains objective and unchanged, the laws enforcing that principle must change in accordance with changes in human reality.  The "standard" is constant; the rules by which the standard is implemented are variable.

So it is that, over time, parts of an official (usually written) constitution can become--well--unconstitutional--i.e., out of sync with that which is broadly accepted, perhaps even scientifically demonstrated (a la Harris) as necessary and right for human advancement within a society whose "realities" have evolved or changed from a previous state.

And this, I think, is the situation now facing the Supreme Court, and the entire country, in terms of same-sex marriage.  Just as the Constitution and our legal system had to change in order to discard outdated (and, in modern times, oppressive) moral notions about women, so, too, our "moral judgments" and our fundamental laws must soon be updated in order to acknowledge that neither homosexual relations nor same-sex marriage inhibit the common good--and that prohibitions of either do cause emotional, economic and, sometimes, physical harm to gay citizens.

I conclude, therefore, that if Harris' "moral constant" is fairly applied to the "landscape variables" as they now exist in the United States, our Constitution must very soon "evolve" (as so many politicians have recently done) to accord complete sexual and marital equality to all consenting adults.  Dear Justices of the Supreme Court: it is time to make the Constitution moral once again.  Do your job!

Morality, Marriage, and Fruits

At some point in late spring or early summer, the Supreme Court will issue two judgments affecting the way our legal structures--and, to some extent, our society as a whole--view same-sex marriage.  Will the Court rule that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (whereby federal institutions must refuse to acknowledge and, most significantly, perhaps, accord financial privileges to, same-sex marriage partners) is unconstitutional--as the Obama administration has already determined (and therefore refrained from defending DOMA in court)?  And will this same court agree with the federal Ninth District's ruling that California's Proposition 8 (amending the state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage) is unconstitutional?  Or, alternatively, will this Republican-dominated court rule that both DOMA and Proposition 8 ARE legitimate and legally binding upon all those subject to the Constitution of the United States?

As the debate rages about whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry, what interests me most is the relationship between constitutional legality and what Justice Scalia sometimes calls "morality."  (Scalia is infamous for suggesting that judging homosexuality to be immoral is just as legitimate as judging murder to be immoral.) In short, most of the arguments--both pro and con--seem to hinge on conflicting definitions of "morality" and on the attendant question of whether or not "morality" (however it is defined) can or should be the basis of our system of laws--our Constitution.

Well, I could do a lot of quibbling here, but if by "morality" we mean "right" (i.e., "good," "useful," "productive") conduct, then it seems entirely logical that the advancement of such right-doing (and the prevention of corresponding wrong-doing) should, indeed, be enshrined as the fundamental principles of our social contract (Constitution).

The problem, obviously (as Scalia's comparison makes clear), is that "good" conduct must be measured according to some particular yardstick, standard or paradigm.  And, alas, in our diverse society, we cannot seem to agree upon what standard(s) we should use--apples or oranges or prunes.  The Christian Bible (Scalia's referent)? The Enlightenment notion of Natural Rights (the "inalienables" of the Declaration of Independence)?  The ancient conservative belief in Tradition For It's Own Sake (what we've "always" done)?  Muslim Sharia Law?  Or, ideally, some other, more universally "rational" standard?

Forgive me, but I need to do a bit of personal birdwalking here--just to help clarify my thinking about several of the possible standards of morality I have just mentioned.

Sometime about a decade ago, as I was slowly and painfully shedding my beliefs in supreme beings and universal, absolute "goodness," I also stopped clinging to the comfortable Jeffersonian illusion that certain "inalienable" human rights are built into the physical laws governing the universe.  No, it seems highly unlikely that there is some clockwinder god "out there."  There just is no almighty power beyond the universe that has shaped the universe and decreed what is good and bad for all that lives and moves within the universe; in short, no categorical authority against which every movement of the universe can be measured and judged as "right/good" or "wrong/bad." Things just are and they function in accordance with their contingent nature, coming, going, living, dying, evolving without any externally determined plan.

So I reject both of the types of morality most frequently mentioned:  Natural Law and Religious Commands. The universe doesn't care what piddly little humans do or don't do, and there is no God who has dictated holy writs telling us whether we can sell our sisters into slavery--or not; whether we can eat bacon--or not; whether we should throw our children into volcanoes--or not--whether we must have children--or not--whether we are obliged to cut off our foreskins--or not--whether we are allowed to have multiple spouses--or not--and, finally (for the present argument), whether any spouse we marry can be same-sex--or not. We are on our own!

Why am I persuaded that this is so?  Evidence.  Rational, empirical, scientifically demonstrable evidence.  Oh, I'm more than a little familiar with the anti-reason arguments:  our limited, finite minds cannot possibly grasp, let along comprehend, the infinite--and therefore possibly God-directed--universe.  Yeah, but if a God were directing anything at all, we would surely have some empirically perceivable evidence.  Whereas, in truth, our sense-guided reason can conclude only the contrary:  there is NO there there.  (This is not the place to take up the endless and fruitless arguments denying the evidence of science; those who choose to deny this evidence will, of course, do so.  But I cannot.  Not any longer.)

So, as I said earlier, I must reject any absolute morality based upon either Natural Law or Categorical Religious Commands which, as law professor Brian Leiter says, are"insulated" and "unhinged" from evidence and reason--and which cannot, therefore, be validated by any objective criteria.

This does not mean, however, that I reject the notion of a morality that is founded on evidence and reason.  Here I take my cue from Sam Harris, author of The Moral Landscape, who argues that the only moral framework worth talking about is one where "morally good" things pertain to increases in the "well-being of conscious creatures."  Such a morality could not be derived from nonexistent "natural" universal laws--but it could, and must, be anchored in the nature of our species--in what is good for us as human beings--in what will advance us, move us forward, guarantee our survival in a universe that is perfectly indifferent to us.

So that is our good, our morality--nothing decreed by a divine authority, nothing inscribed (like karma) in the very structure of the universe--but merely WHAT IS GOOD FOR HUMAN BEINGS (it might not be good for extraterrestrials or even for any of the other species with whom we compete for survival--viruses or bacteria or killer bees).

If I had my 'druthers, we would somehow agree that our Constitution (indeed, all constitutions) should be based upon this objective and scientific criterion:  morality is that which serves to advance the well-being of conscious creatures (and, concomitantly, immorality is that which serves to impede or inhibit the well-being of conscious creatures).

Consequently, were this the morality Justice Scalia espoused, he would of course be justified in condemning murder as immoral, since murder, except in very special circumstances, can be proved (by evidence) to be injurious to the well-being of sentient beings.  Of course, Scalia's morality is not evidence-based.  Instead, it is a categorical, religious morality--based on the Bible, not on evidence, not on empirically verifiable criteria.  By coincidence--and purely by coincidence, the bible-based stricture against murder dovetails with evidence-based morality.  But the same cannot be said of Scalia's judgments regarding homosexuality/gay marriage.  These hurtful and hateful "moral" imperatives--plainly intended to restrict the self-actualization of consenting homosexual adults--whose actions in no way harm the commonweal--serve no constructive purpose in a legal structure founded on "advancing the well-being of conscious creatures."

Murder and homosexuality?  Apples (subjective, Bible-based morality) and oranges (objective, evidence-based morality).  Murder is immoral for both apples and oranges.  But homosexuality and homosexual marriage are immoral only for apples.  Rotten ones.

Snow Blind

Snowblind

The cardinal at the feeder knows I’m here

Peering from behind the sliding door.

He flutters his denial that I matter--

He must eat; his voice in fact demands it

And there’s snow: cold, blank

Never mind.  The black of sunflowers cracked

And spilled, wards off all human menace

With promises of fuller green.

He is sated now and leaves me to my dream.