jimrigby.org

I always love it when remarkable minds put simply the principles by which they live. What follows is is Bertrand Russell’s 10 Commandments for living.

1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.

2. Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.

3. Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed.

4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavour to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.

5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.

6. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.

7. Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

8. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.

9. Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.

10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool’s paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness.

• “A Liberal Decalogue”, from “The Best Answer to Fanaticism: Liberalism”, New York Times Magazine (16/December/1951); later printed in The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell (1969), vol. 3: 1944-1967, pp. 71-2. (wikiquote)

When Rome fell, its citizen’s cringed in horror at what seemed like “barbarians at the gate.” The truth was, Rome had many opportunities to build the kind of world that would be guided by common principles, but chose instead to claim the benefits it could gain by the sword. When Rome was strong it chose to use its power for its own self interest. It did not protect the weak from the strong because it was strong. It should not have been surprised that others would pillage it by the same principle when it grew weak. The truth was, Rome had become the most barbarian state of all.

When I was a child, Republicans were conservative, but they did not live by the barbarian’s principle of the right of the strongest. They believed in caring for the earth and in keeping our international treaties. Bob Dole is a relic of that earlier time. This week when the Senate voted on ratifying the U.N. Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, Bob Dole was there in his wheel chair hoping his Republican collegues would realize how important is the human right of access for people with disabilities. They killed it any way.

It is stunning to think what has become of the Grand Old Party in the last decade. The treaty protecting people with disabilities was passed by “old school” Republican George H.W. Bush. It had the support of “old school” Republicans like John McCain and Dick Lugar. But the “new school” Republicans killed the treaty saying that holding America to international standards was “an assault on US soveriegnty.” All of the 38 negative votes were by Republicans.

But most Senate Republicans saw it as a threat to American “sovereignty,” even though the treaty wouldn’t have required the United States to change its laws. When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the treaty with bipartisan support in July, Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) explained the proposal simply “raises the [international] standard to our level without requiring us to go further.”

In other words, we wouldn’t actually have to do anything except say we like the treaty — and then wait for other signatories around the world to catch up to the United States’ Americans with Disabilities Act. -Steve Bennen

The word “republic” means “a thing of the people.” When our own leaders say such government is not necessary, or when they say our nation should not hold itself to any international standards, they are cutting the sinews of our republican life together.  When our own leaders are acting thus, we need not fear barbarians at the gate, they are already inside.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/12/04/15675104-senate-gop-kills-disabilities-treaty

It is hard to come up with ideas in a vacuum. Having conversation partners is so helpful. This week I am preaching on Mary’s Song in Luke. As she thinks of the tiny person who will be born out of her, she sings that he will bring justice to the lowly and weak. Jesus was born into Mary’s hopes for a better world. His life would be shaped by her vision of wholeness and her belief that no life is worth less than another.

As we discussed yesterday in the blog about the tie that binds, I felt the sermon coming together around that conversation. Some of you were asking questions or making points that really fleshed out the sermon, like: “What does it mean to be an individual?” and “What does it mean to share in the common life?”

I’m so grateful to people who come by the blog and share in our conversations here. It is wonderful to get affirmation, or to have my feet held to the fire as I grope to say things. Our agreements and disagreements are equally helpful. So I felt a wave of gratitude and just wanted to thank all of you who stop by the blog and also those who join in the conversation. As I write this week, or give my sermon this Sunday, I will be in your debt.

Earlier this week I made the following post:

The Tie that Binds

Have you ever seen birds fly in formation, or observed a group of fish turn on a dime? These animals have some tie that binds them together, some greater life they hold in common.

Is it then irrational to believe there is also a tie that binds together humankind? Is it superstitious to believe we are part of a larger life, and to consider those bonds to be sacred?

To my surprise, the post evoked a polite but intense conversation questioning whether such a view is scientific or even ethical. One responder wrote:

O dear!  Sometimes i wish i could read lovely thoughts like these without the critical scientific voice popping up.  But….
Birds and fish are highly sensitive to the “wake” of those in the lead or in front and beside them.  There is, of course some built in physical inclinations and instincts, but I have also observed on numerous occasions flocks of birds “practicing” their flight assembly and probably training the younger ones for a longer flight. In other words – the practice is in part learned. 
Also quantum mechanical is not same as metaphysical.
Thank you for putting up w the nerd in me!

Another took a different angle in critiquing my appeal to the common life:

It becomes superstitious if the claim is that non-causal, immaterial, supernatural “forces” tie us together.  If the claim is that the mind-boggling complexity of our social organization and interpersonal relationships can be subjectively experienced as “sacred,” then I can’t object.

Many of us (well, I’ll just speak for myself) are suspicious of notions that some greater collective entity than our individual selves actually exists.  This isn’t because we don’t appreciate the rich and amazing nature of social cooperation.  The objection is to do with the way that abstractions about the greater good–usually in trappings similar to those in your post–are inevitably used as an excuse for one individual (acting as an agent of the collective) to inflict harm on other individuals.  These actions, when not performed in the name of a greater entity, would be considered violations of fundamental human rights (to not be killed, to not be caged, etc.)

I lay awake last night thinking about the importance of this conversation. Some of the most important conversations moving humanity out of the Medieval mind centered around this same question of the one and the many. One of the questions could have come straight out of William of Ockham:

Jim, just to tease this out, can you relate a time that you helped the common good without helping any individual people?

Obviously it isn’t possible to help a group without helping the individuals within that group. Thus it can reasonably asked why not eliminate the notion of “group” and just deal with the individuals? Appeals to universalism have unleashed some of history’s worst nightmares. The question just asked (if I understand what he is saying) is very close to Bertrand Russell’s paradoxical question, “can there be a soccer team without any players?” Russell’s posed the paradox to imply that universals are an invention of the mind. If I remember correctly, he called his approach “punctillianism.” (I tried to Google the word and could not confirm that was his exact word.) I remember Russell somewhere questioning whether the world was a unifying element at all. His said at one point that “the universe is all spots and jumps.”

But, if that is true, why on earth would he spend his life studying mathmatics? What kept drawing back to the universals? The fact that the universe has form implies some kind of mathmatical nature to things. thus Einstein said famously:

“A human being is a part of the whole, called by us, “Universe,” a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness.

This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.

Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is in itself a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security.”

Even Bertrand Russell understood this at some level. At one point he mused:

(It is) Much better, like Archimedes, to be killed because of absorption in eternal things… There is a possibility in human minds of something mysterious as the night-wind, deep as the sea, calm as the stars, and strong as Death, a mystic contemplation, the “intellectual love of God.” Those who have known it cannot believe in wars any longer, or in any kind of hot struggle. If I could give to others what has come to me in this way, I could make them too feel the futility of fighting. But I do not know how to communicate it: when I speak, they stare, applaud, or smile, but do not understand.

In this conversation we are discussing the paradox of the universal verses the particular. It may seem like splitting hairs, but, in fact, in this discussion we are grappling with what our fundamental categories of value will be. I believe our nation is stuck on one horn of the paradox. It is called a “paradox” because either of the opposite positions seems logically unassailable from its initial assumptions. As Zeno illustrated with his image of the sand pile, if you start with a grain of sand, no one particular additional grain can rationally be said to turn it into a “pile.” But if you start with the pile and remove one grain at a time, no one grain can be rationally said to remove what you are calling the “pile.”

I agree 100% with those who say if we begin with the individual as our primary value, there is no rational reason to speak of our common life. But we can kill ourselves for perfectly logical reasons, which is why our nation of atomized individuals can find no rational reason to save our planet from climate change and finds no necessity for international standards for membership in the human race. For us to make the sacrifices necessary to save our planet we would have to believe there is a greater value than our own individuals lives. Like the ancients we now call “primitive,” we would have to feel the earth to be our mother, and to view ourselves as belonging to the web of life.

In my opinion, choosing either pole of the paradox of the universal or particular spells doom. We must learn to live in a mystery that resembles our human thought only analogically. We must learn to see the earth as our context not ourselves the context for earth. I do not need to be told that my position is illogical to the individualist. That is as obvious to me as to anyone. I only warn that, if we are not very careful, the tombstone on the grave of humankind will read, “Died of enlightened self interest.”

As Bush would say, “Mission Accomplished!” The chief architect of the Trojan Horse known as “Obamacare” after effectively killing the public option and delivered America’s health care systems into the jaws of the insurance and pharmaceutical companies, is returning to the troughs of corporate America.

It’s called the “revolving door” when people leave jobs within a certain industry to work in Washington regulating those same industries. After a time, they return to the private sector to profit from the changes they have made. Elizabeth Fowler came to work on Obamacare after being a lobbyist for WellPoint, the largest health insurance provider. Not surprising, she mandated that every American must purchase private health insurance, and provided no public alternative.

Her work in Washington done, Ms. Fowler now returns to the private sector:

The pharmaceutical giant that just hired Fowler actively supported the passage of Obamacare through its membership in the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) lobby. Indeed, PhRMA was one of the most aggressive supporters – and most lavish beneficiaries – of the health care bill drafted by Fowler. Mother Jones’ James Ridgeway proclaimed “Big Pharma” the “big winner” in the health care bill. And now, Fowler will receive ample rewards from that same industry as she peddles her influence in government and exploits her experience with its inner workings to work on that industry’s behalf, all of which has been made perfectly legal by the same insular, Versailles-like Washington culture that so lavishly benefits from all of this. -Glen Greenwald

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/05/obamacare-fowler-lobbyist-industry1

It was a great moment when I graduated from seminary and received the magic power given only to the ordained. The day before my ordination, if I had arrogantly dipped my hand in water and put it on an infant’s head, it would have had no effect. Now that I am ordained, I can prevent dear babies from being eternally scorched by merely dipping my hand in the magic bowl of water and placing it on their sweet little heads.

In the same way, only my magical powers of ordination can turn the fornication of two young infidels into into the blessed sacrament of marriage. And, though I am a humble man, I quake with anger when I hear of secularists who want to horn in on my God given monopoly. Case in point, a federal judge in Indiana has rejected a request made by atheists to preside at weddings.

A lawsuit filed by the Indiana chapter of the Center for Inquiry argued that an Indiana law that requires marriages to be “solemnized” — made official by signing a marriage license — only by clergy, judges, mayors or local government clerks — violates the Constitution.

But Judge Sarah Evans Barker of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana ruled on Friday (Nov. 30) that marriage has religious roots. Therefore, government regulation of marriage is an act of religious accommodation — not endorsement — and protected by the Constitution. (Religious News Service)

Do you get the distinction here? It’s an “accommodation,” not an “endorsement.” Why the words don’t even begin with the same letter!

“We in no way intend to question or disparage plaintiff’s opinions regarding the institution of marriage,” Barker wrote in her ruling. “But we must gently remind plaintiffs that the free exercise clause (of the Constitution) is not a guarantee against inconvenience.”

Can you see the magnificent patience of this judge? Not an ounce of sarcasm in that ruling. The judge is gently reminding these non-believers that not getting the same constitutional rights believers have is not discrimination, it’s a mere inconvenience. If atheists want to get married, they can either come to me, or to a government lackey, they just can’t perform the service themselves.

“It would be difficult to imagine a clearer way to classify nonbelievers as second-class citizens,” Lindsay said in a statement. “A wedding is one of the most important ceremonies in a person’s life, and it is just as meaningful to atheists as it is to theists. It’s disappointing that a 21st-century court refused to recognize this reality.”

Silence infidel! Before I smite thee with my magic powers!

http://www.religionnews.com/politics/law-and-court/court-upholds-indianas-ban-on-atheist-wedding-officiants

Robert Reich has recorded a primer for Democrats on understanding the fiscal cliff. Even if you are not a Democrat you may find the information useful. The link goes to his video, I pasted the transcript below:

ONE: HOLD YOUR GROUND. The wealthy have to pay their fair share of taxes. That’s what the election was all about, and we won. It’s only fair they pay more. They’re taking home record share of national income and wealth, and have lowest effective tax rate in living memory.

TWO: NO DEAL IS BETTER THAN A BAD DEAL. You’re in a strong bargaining position. If you do nothing, the Bush tax cuts automatically expire in January, and we go back to rates during Clinton administration. Which isn’t such a bad thing. As I recall we had a pretty good economy during the Clinton years.

THREE: MAKE REPUBLICANS VOTE ON EXTENDING THE TAX CUTS JUST FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS. After all the Bush tax cuts expire, have Republicans vote on an extending the Bush tax cut just for the middle-class. If they refuse and try to hold those tax cuts hostage to tax cuts for the wealthy, it will show whose side they’re on. They’ll pay the price in 2014.

FOUR: DEMAND HIGHER TAX RATES ON WEALTHY, NOT JUST LIMITS ON DEDUCTIONS. Don’t fall for Republican offers to limit some tax deductions on the wealthy. Demand we go back to higher tax rates on the wealthy and eliminate their unfair tax loopholes, so they truly start paying their fair share.

FIVE: DON’T CUT SAFETY NETS. Don’t sacrifice Medicare or Social Security, or programs for the poor. Americans depend on these safety nets and can’t afford any benefit cuts.

SIX: DON’T CUT INVESTMENTS IN OUR FUTURE PRODUCTIVITY. Education, basic R&D, and infrastructure aren’t spending; they’re investments in our future prosperity. If the return on these investments is greater than the cost, they ought to be made, period.

SEVEN: CUT SPENDING ON MILITARY AND CORPORATE WELFARE. You want to cut, cut spending on the military — which now exceeds the military spending of the next 13 largest military spenders in the world combined. And cut corporate welfare — support to agribusiness, oil and gas, Big Pharma, big insurance and Wall Street.

EIGHT: PUT JOBS BEFORE DEFICIT REDUCTION. Finally, Don’t cut the budget deficit as long as unemployment remains high. Otherwise you’ll cause the economy to contract, making the deficit even larger in proportion. That’s the austerity trap Europe has fallen into. We need to create American prosperity, not European austerity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/fiscal-cliff-video_b_2232549.html

Dorothy Day was a tireless social activist. She was closely associated with the Catholic Worker movement which advocated for the poor and homeless, and for non-violence.

There is a movement within the Catholic Church to canonize Dorothy Day, and while she certainly deserves any honor the church chooses to give her, there is a danger in being declared a saint.

As Jesus once pointed out, religious people love prophets after they are dead almost as much as they work to silence them while living. Dorothy Day was in trouble with the church much of her life. She identified herself as anarchist. She was not only against war, she was against the nation state. She was not only against poverty, she was against capitalism.

Dorothy Day was pro-choice and worked for women’s rights. Her criticisms of the church hierarchy lead the Archdiocese of New York to pressure her to change the name of her newspaper to avoid any link to the Catholic Church.

The thought of a statue of Dorothy day dangling on a rear view mirror should send shutters down the spine any who love the causes for which she lived and died. To reduce her fiery message to a beatific icon in the service of a church steadfastly opposed to many of the causes for which she stood, is the best way to turn a great prophet into a mere saint.

I’ve been looking for a video that would help Americans understand the plight of the Palestinian people without villifying Israel. I think this animated feature illustrates the fundamental unfairness of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people without ignoring Israel’s need for a safe homeland as well. The clip takes about 6 minutes. See what you think. Thanks to Bob Jensen for the find.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Y58njT2oXfE

‎“I’ll tell you what you did with atheists for about 1500 years. You outlawed them from the universities, or any teaching careers, besmirched their reputations, banned or burned their books or their writings of any kind, drove them into exile, humiliated them, seized their properties, arrested them for blasphemy. You dehumanized them with beatings and exquisite torture, gouged out their eyes, slit their tongues, stretched, crushed, or broke their limbs, tore off their breasts if they were a woman, crushed their scrotums if they were men, imprisoned them, stabbed them, disemboweled them, hung them, burnt them alive. And you have the nerve enough to complain to me that I laugh at you.” — Madalyn Murray O’Hair

When I first arrived at Austin to go to college, I ran across a force of nature named Madilyn Murray O’Hair. At the time she was probably the most famous atheist in the world. She had successfully argued at the Supreme Court that school prayer was unconstitutional. She came to speak at my dormatory, and while much of her speech consisted in insults, there was also much truth in what she had to say. Later I would watch her television show to find what I could learn from her. I would see her at a nearby Mexican food restaurant with her son and his wife, and while I was tempted to approach her and thank her as a person of faith for her defense of the separation of church and state, I never found the nerve. When I heard later that she had been murdered, I regretted my cowardice. I still do.

Obviously, as a minister, I disagree with O’Hair that religion is necessarily the same thing as superstition, but I also hear loud and clear what she said about the danger of unreflective belief. She was quite right, and I would say prophetic, in arguing against the superstitious, hierarchical and sectarian nature of much religion. I think Isaiah would have liked her very much.

(Thanks to Nathan Retelle for quote)