Category Archives: Religion

Secular Marriage. Gaussling’s 8th Epistle to the Bohemians.

9 Replies

Below is a comment that I left on the Volokh Conspiracy some time ago. Rather than squander perfectly good ramblings there, I have reproduced it here and attached a link.  Th’ Gaussling

Broadly, we have two kinds of marriage in the USA. One is before a god and the other is before the state. Marriage before a god is a supernatural arrangement that is beyond the scope of this letter.

It would seem that the states compelling interest in marriage is mostly confined to the disposition of debts, assets, and minor children during the marriage and in the event the marriage fails. Married partners have an obligation to the welfare of minor children born to them or adopted. Married partners also have a status that allows for decision-making in critical care situations. It seems to be a kind of partnership whereupon responsibility for the secular aspects of married life are defined. After all, the state is called in to make decisions as to the disposition of civil matters in the event of a divorce. Surely the state can clearly define certain basic responsibilities and privileges in advance.

The moral/spiritual aspects of marriage “can” be interpreted as being perpendicular or orthogonal (like the x and y axes in a graph) to the legal dimension of property rights and other secular aspects of married partners. The state is without supernatural powers, thankfully, so it is inherently impotent in the spiritual dimension. If that is the case, and in the absence of a uniform interpretation of supernatural governance, it should be silent on spiritual matters.

The state should have no interest in how married partners conduct their lawful affairs beyond the normal confines of civil and criminal law.

A code defining the responsibilities of married partners in a variety of configurations could be modeled easily. If you accept the premise that secular marriage is confined to the mundane matters that are already contestable in a court, then it is a simple matter to imagine same sex or plural marriages under the same constraints. What is the compelling interest of the state in barring same sex partners from having automatic authority in giving comfort to a dying partner? We already have codes regulating many other kinds of complex relationships between people- corporations, partnerships, LLC’s, government, etc. Minimally, the state should entertain the prospect of recognizing limited entry of some new definitions of marriage to adult parties wanting to be responsible members of society with the rights and responsibilities thereto appertaining.

Gaussling’s 7th Epistle to the Bohemians.

3 Replies

In private moments, when I’m not thinking about some chemistry-related train of thought, I often wander to the intellectual bog of religion.  Especially on Sunday, when friends and family are sitting in church and I’m elsewhere.

I try not to write about it too often. It takes a lot of psychic energy to defend an unpopular point of view in public.  I awaken every day with just so many kcals of enthusiasm and am increasingly unwilling to spend it extravagantly in arguments about religion.

One of the surefire ways to rile people into a vein-bursting, mouth-foaming frenzy in this country is to criticize a particular religion or the religious enterprise in general. This sensitivity relates to the nature of the concept of Sacred.  There are several variations on the definition of the word sacred, but the concept in common usage seems to include “to set apart for veneration” or “worthy of respect”.  A corollary is that sacred concepts are to be treated devotionally and are not to be subjected to scrutiny.

Sacred or not, we are starting to see some open analysis of Christian doctrine and are beginning to ask reasonable questions as to the accuracy or validity of the doctrine guiding the religious right. Consider the following analysis from Terri Murray posted at the Yurica Report-

If liberals are more sympathetic to secular humanism than to Christian doctrine it is because Christian Scripture is ambivalent in its view of human nature, and second, because Christian doctrine has over-emphasized Paul’s pessimistic construction of human nature. The latter makes nonsense of moral responsibility, because it posits a deterministic model of human nature that is inconsistent with human experience, moral exhortation and human reason. Jesus’ system of morality, which most liberals greatly admire, conflicts with the misanthropy expressed in Pauline doctrine. Jesus’ ethical teachings are more consistent with the values of enlightenment humanism than with biblical theocracy, which Jesus spent his rabbinical career assailing.

‘Christianity’ is an abstract concept badly in need of analysis and definition. The authoritarian Christian right have assumed, with little argument, that Pauline doctrine is more essential to ‘Christianity’ than the teachings and traditions about Jesus, where they conflict. And conflict they do.

To outline how and where Pauline doctrine is incompatible with the “American worldview” it is important to clarify my terms first. For the purposes of this essay a ‘Christian worldview’ is defined as the Pauline doctrine of salvation, according to which all of humankind are rendered ‘sinners’ by virtue of the past transgressions of our progenitors Adam and Eve, or by virtue of an intrinsic defect in human nature. This same Pauline doctrine also makes it a matter of Christian orthodoxy that Jesus’ sacrificial death on our behalf atoned for man’s sin and offered each of us redeeming salvation by means of the profession of the Christian faith and obedience to its rules. ‘Christianity’ in this context does not refer to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth but to the Pauline teachings about the significance of his death and resurrection for the salvation of mankind.

As Murray suggests, the strident orthodoxy of the protestant religious right in America is based in large part on a particular slant of interpretation on the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth. But rather than anchoring doctrine to his words and deeds, the American evangelical focus is on the special effects of the supernatural transition to the spirit world- part of what Murray calls the Pauline Doctrine. 

I have always been quite uneasy with many aspects of the Christian doctrine.  While I have been able to extract useful concepts by partitioning the doctrine into a) moral philosophy with historical details, b) crime and punishment, and c) an iron age form of cosmology, I have always been uneasy with the necessity of an anthropomorphic deity.  In other words, does the existence of a supernatural being actually solve the problem of how the universe works? Does God use physics, or did he have a backstage pass to do as he pleased?

What makes the universe a workable place is the fact that not everything is possible. There are boundary conditions. Objects and events in the universe exist within constraints. Not everything can happen.  God must have known this and in fact, had to have been the installer of this attribute. As Einstein would have asked, did he have any choice in the the way the universe was constructed?

In the Christian tradition, God lets loose with an occasional miracle. We know by inspection that God uses physics in the everyday conduct of things, but when “miracles” happen, are they quantifiable? Is it possible to have one miracle be twice as big as another? If you divide the number of miracles by the volume in which they occur, you come up with a miracle density. What is the average miracle density of the universe? Is God restricted by the rule that you can’t divide a number by zero?  Hmmm. Maybe He relies on this fact?

Why do we consent to adherence to an ancient religion that is constructed on iron age notions of social order, justice, and the supernatural when we have a modern understanding of democracy, history, and physics that suggests an altogether different organization to the universe?

Religious adherents will guffaw and correct my comments with an assertion that our human concepts of God are too inadequate to subject the diety to such simple analysis. Well, God holds us to standards relating to faith, love, and sin that are assumed to be within our understanding- our sins certainly get the dieties attention. Our mortal souls hang by a thread, based on our thoughts and actions relating to our knowledge of His divine plan. Why would the rest of it be so incomprehensible? Why the disconnect?

Today, the blowtorch of religious conservatism on the public stage has abated temorarily while adherents re-group. No doubt, they will be organized for the upcoming general election in the fall of 2008. I think this time around they need to be questioned a little more closely as to the basis of their doctrines.

Thumpin’ the Good Book at 5000 Watts

4 Replies

It’s Sunday and the airwaves are positively crackling with overmodulated, firebreathin’ preacher-men poundin’ the pul-pits and spreadin’ the good word. AM radio in particular is an interesting place to dial in some of the more colorful characters preachin’, witnessin’, and evangelizin’ the Gospel. 

Around these parts we have an AM station that specializes in the Messianic message that broadcasts on a low power transmitter over what they call the American Freedom Network.

Between phone-linked sermons (homilies for the survivalist, really) you’ll hear infomercials hawking colloidal silver cure-alls, dubious gold investments, nutriceuticals, and other market flotsam. For a time there was a fellow who was reading off seismic data and coordinates for earthquake enthusiasts. It appeals to that quiet voice in the back of your consciousness that urges you to move into a small cabin and become a hermit. I’m afraid that one day while driving I’ll have a deer crash through my windshield because I was distracted by this stuff.

When I hear these people talking about getting religion back into the public arena, or “bringing God back” into public life, I’m mystified.  Many of the religious talking heads are striking back at the recent popularity of skeptics like Dawkins, Shermer, or Harris. These fellows have made a cogent and thoughtful appeal to the use of analysis and reason. I doubt there are more atheists per capita today than before. But it is evident that atheists and agnostics are a bit more vocal in public today.

Despite their popularity, they represent a minority view of the physical reality of religious concepts.  Their ideas will certainly never catch hold in the USA as a majority view because our very brain architecture predisposes us to adopt a belief in the supernatural. Only a few people seem to be able to break away from this notion. They (we) will always be in a minority.

But I can’t help but conclude that when the call is made to “bring religion back” to public discourse, the intent of those making the call is perhaps not what the rest of us might conclude from their words.

Bringing back religion to the public arena is not meant to imply that we will openly examine religion. It is not a call for analysis. It is a call for devotion.  In my experience, the evangelical elite tend not to examine their belief system scientifically or analytically. Rather, they tend to approach it devotionally. This is the big difference between those who dwell under the religious magisterium and those who do not.

The call for public implementation of American-style religiosity through the framework of the public commons of the government does not simply mean that we would suddenly be free to pray in the post office. We already have that. You can stand in the post office and make a silent prayer anytime and anywhere you want. I have prayed to any supernatural being who would listen that my tax return would arrive on time. There is no consequence for uttering a tackful plea to the prime mover. Only the most clumsy, clueless authority would attempt to subdue an individual who was quietly praying.  Of course, if one were to handle serpents or chant in tongues, the constable may be summoned to quiet the commotion of those frightened by the spectacle.

What I think the evangelical impresarios really want is to hold services in the pubic commons. They want to make a show of their humility. They want expressions of devotion and ultimately alignment to their way of thinking. They want to see a universal protestant Jesus haunting that pervades every aspect of our lives. Preferably with a Southern Baptist twang.

Rendering the commons religious in some way is only a blueprint for social upheaval. It is worth recalling that the Puritans did not come to the new world for freedom of religion. They came for freedom from other peoples religion.

What could people mean when they suggest that we govern according to Gods law? If this picture looks like Deuteronomy, I’m moving to Canada.  What does Gods law say about the uniform building code or municipal zoning or the transport of hazardous goods or ten thousand other ordinances and statutes that have the most real impact on our lives?

I’m pretty sure that the bible is silent on most of the code that affects our daily lives. But you can bet that people will line up to tell us what the Almighty has to say about it.

Tom “Nuke ’em” Tancredo (R-CO)

9 Replies

Our very own representative TomTancredo (R-CO) has outlined conditions under which he would retaliate against the Muslim shrines of Mecca and Medina. A terrorist nuclear explosion in the US would be grounds for President Tancredo to authorize release of nuclear weapons against these two Holy Sites.

Now, it stands to reason that if a nuclear explosion occurs in the US, the president has to do something. According to Iowapolitics.com, Tancredo said

“If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina,” the GOP presidential candidate said. “That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent or you will find an attack. There is no other way around it. There have to be negative consequences for the actions they take. That’s the most negative I can think of.”  

To Tancredo’s credit he did come up with an actual idea – on his own – that if we get nuked by terrorists, we should do something.  The problem with his solution of nuking Muslim shrines is that it would be a localized attack on a delocalized problem. Muslim antipathy towards the US is a political viewpoint; it is a philosophy that justifies their indulgence in one of mankinds most sensuous of opiate pleasures. 

That pleasure is the near universal impulse to throw oneself down prostrate and grovel before the deity.  Muslims of a certain bent (not all of them, mind you) have refined the notion of extreme groveling through the use of explosives. They enthusiastically celebrate this peculiar form of reverence with the pious formalism of martyrdom. For millions of young angry men with no viable economic future, it has an irresistable appeal.

Ascetic leaders like bin Laden are not motivated by the physical plane. Bin Laden is very much a charismatic hero figure who has cast off attachment to the material world. This is a kind of archetype. To the satisfaction of his followers, he lives in caves and walks the covetless path. Bin Laden’s goal is an Islamic Caliphate. A nuclear retalliation against any Muslim state, much less a shrine, will polarize many millions to bin Laden’s cause of Muslim hegemony for centuries to come.   

There is some need deep within the human brain to assume an inferior posture before the deity. It cuts across all societies and religions.  It is seems somehow discordant that the diety who set the spin of galaxies and the organization of DNA in motion curiously requires that humans proclaim their regret for those very attributes that make them simply human.  It is a most peculiar and, I think, biological, proclivity.

It seems to me that the optimal response to an Islamic terrorist nuclear attack on the US can only be this- No nuclear response in kind.  We absorb it and we express our regret that this heinous act was perpetrated on us.  It would be our nuclear restraint that would cause the terrorist movement to stand out before the world as the focus of savagery.

Realistically, could a US president actually do this? It seems doubtful.  The pressure on a sitting president to release a nuclear weapon in response to nuclear attack at home would be enormous.  Our restraint and the cessation of one-sided middle eastern policies would do more to undermine bin Laden and his kind than any fancy weapons system or occupation force. It would be the one weapon that they could not counter.  Consider the examples of Christ, Ghandi, and King.

The extinction of Muslim extremism must come from internal collapse. Muslims themselves must conclude that vile and murderous behaviour is unacceptable and that the religious justification for murder is a misread of their covenant with the deity.  

Extremists amplify their effect with chemical energy- they use explosives.  A small number of terrorists become Robin Hood characters and receive encouragement and recruits from their more passive background of countrymen. You can’t destroy this with airpower and mobile infantry. 

A nuclear retalliation by the US would vitrify a few sandy locations, but it would also politically unify Muslims behind the extremist cause, irrespective of the damage done to the US in the first place. We cannot win by nuclear retalliation. We only facilitate further use of nuclear force.  The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is not valid in the conflict with suicidal terrorists. MAD is a doctrine that is only valid between nation states with armies and the desire to survive.

All of this is not to say that we wouldn’t be pursuing the perpetrators.  But nuclear demolition of Mecca would be counterproductive. Terrorism is a kind of franchise operation.  How do you nuke the 50 or 5000 scattered, clandestine operatives who did the deed? It’s a bug hunt. The destruction of Mecca would only validate core suspicions about us- that we are metaphysically corrupt and maybe bin Laden was right.

A state can’t successfully wage a military shooting war against an idea promulgated by clandestine operators with little to lose. But police investigation over 20 years in concert with intelligent and fair international policies could render the bin Laden characters obsolete. 

The Return of DDT?

5 Replies

There is serious op-ed talk mulling the return of the insectide DDT, particularly for malaria-infected parts of the world.  What is even more interesting is that this idea has caught on in the ultra-conservative media market and has become the liberal-bashing topic du jour of media darlings like Rush Limbaugh.  Since I don’t waste perfectly good heartbeats listening to that swaggering gas bag, I have missed this “discussion”.  Suddenly, Rush is concerned about the poor and destitute in Africa. 

What has escaped discussion is the possibility that modern methods of high throughput experimentation might find permutations of the DDT “pharmacophore” that would afford something with higher activity and shorter environmental half life.  Who knows, may be this has already been done?  Maybe there is a sample of a DDT analog sitting on a shelf somewhere that has less aptitude for bioconcentration and a greater aptitude for photo or hydrolytic degradation.  Then there is the potential for substantial wealth generation for Limbaugh’s wingnut paymasters.

DDT was clearly effective in suppressing mosquito-born illness for quite a long time.  Surely there are labile analogs that are effective but less objectionable? 

Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburgers

2 Replies

I suppose I have lost more frequently than I have won in my lifelong avocation of taking on sacred cows in the battle of wits.  But, truly, sacred cows make the very best hamburgers.  Pass the A1 …

Some new blogs have been given a place of honor in the blogroll.  Good writing and laser sharp insight are the keys to this ascendency. If the dear reader is conservative and prone to weeping or bed wetting, it is probably best to click along at this point.  

There is a hilarious post over at Lawyers, Guns, and Money called Birthday Girl.  Side note: A lawyer friend is fond of saying “Lawyers, guns, and money- pick any two”.  

And then, what can I say about Jesus’ General?  Read General JC’s letter to the Secret Service re Cheryl Crow.  If you are keen on some serious in-your-face-atheism, check out Hellbound Allee. Then there is one of the best Christian evangelical lampoons ever, Landover Baptist. 

The Huffington Post is a recent find and is a treasure trove of political blogging at its finest- well, if you are a liberal.  Read the open letter to Rudy Giuliani by my fellow Coloradoan, Gary Hart. 

Then there is the Proceedings of the Athanasius Kircher Society.  The post on the Do-Nothing Machine is particularly amusing.  The reader may recall Th’ Gaussing’s previous post on the Katzenklavier. 

Finally, The Agonist has some interesting insights into politics and is well written. I also like Goosing the Antithesis for its skeptical stand against belief in the supernatural.

Bush II. Sphericated or Flaticular?

2 Replies

Here along the front range of the Rocky Mountains we have a few alternative newspapers available- you know, the kind not owned by Rupert Murdoch. They tend to be a bit Bohemian and consequently are shunned by righteous Dittoheads. Other parts of the country have them as well- college towns mostly. They cater to those of us who aren’t afraid to be known as liberals.  These papers run a syndicated cartoon called This Modern World by a guy known as Tom Tomorrow. 

Because of copyright issues, I’ll have to link to the site rather than paste an image.   

Active Denial System- RF Radiation Weapons

13 Replies

It appears that some of our clever friends and neighbors at the local military/industrial complex have been busy designing millimeter-wave radio frequency weapons.  Last year the DoD announced the development of a new form of weapon billed as non-lethal to fill the “gap between shoot and shout”.  The device consists of a powerful rf source and what must be a fairly narrow beamwidth antenna for illuminating unruly people.  The website includes video clips of test subjects and their descriptions of what it feels like to be on the receiving end of this radiation weapon. 

I refer to it as a radiation weapon because that is precisely what it is.  Millimeter wave radiation is directed at a person or a crowd and in short order the recipients in the beam feel their skin temperature rise to discomfort. Whether it truly raises skin temperature or the sensation is an artifact of surface electrical currents in the skin is unclear. The fact is that it can cause instantaneous discomfort and anxiety about burning to a crisp.  Obviously, the purpose is to discourage aggressive behaviour in individuals or of crowds and do so in a non-lethal manner. 

So, really, what is wrong with this?  In a sense it is like a shock collar on a dog.  An occasional burst of juice causes the unruly dog to suspend the offensive behaviour.  The dog learns the lesson and is not physically harmed by it. 

I’ll admit to being quite uncomfortable with this “technology”.  The potential for abuse and exploitation is staggering.  If a short burst of rf energy will cause people to scatter or desist their behaviours, what will a long exposure do?  And, just what happens to someone on prolonged exposure?

What is the difference between negative reinforcement and torture?  Is it the difference between a 5 second exposure and 60 seconds?  And, when will a tin-pot dictator acquire this capability now that we have proudly trotted ours out?  Whereas ours will have controls for non-lethal operation, would a terror group or arms merchant bother to have safety protocols to guard against overexposure? Maybe a stripped down version absent interlocks will be the weapon of choice among African dictatorships.

How long will it take for civilian units to come on stream? What US city will be the first to acquire one of these things for crowd control and when?  LA?  DC?  NYC?? 2015? 2020?  Pretty soon every SWAT commander will be clamoring for one “just in case”.  Whose march on the Capital Mall in DC will trigger the first use of such a device on civilians? 

Can the energy be reflected back to the source or in some other direction?  Is a metal trash can lid or aluminized mylar blanket an effective countermeasure?  Maybe we’ll see rock throwing 12 year olds in Gaza with a stone in one hand and a trash can lid in the other after its inevitable introduction in the middle east.

Microwave/millimeter technology is ubiquitous.  No nuclear materials. No ammunition.  Just a powerful rf source and an antenna. No doubt arms merchants are already lining up buyers for this weapon of mass agony.

What a lamentable development for mankind.  Our ability and willingness to commit violence from a distance is one of our greatest downfalls.

Frequently wrong, but never in doubt

2 Replies

More and more I find myself afflicted with fellow travellers along the timeline who are never in doubt of their judgement, but they are frequently wrong nonetheless.  There has to be some archetype from literature or Greek mythology that symbolizes this. Maybe there is some character from a Greek tragedy who, as a leader, was destined for a fall as a result of such a trait. Perhaps someone out there has a nominee for this position.

One sees examples of this in business organizations not infrequently. Some openly discuss their views, but often with the presumption of making a disclosure of “what we’re going to do”.  Others sit quietly, rarely contributing to open discussions where ideas are put on the table for dissection.  These fellows might listen to others debate, but they prefer to sit quietly and observe while others reveal the content of their thinking. Rather than adopt or synthesize new concepts openly, they will tend to note commentary that aligns with their pre-existing view. This is where that most loathsome of characters, the yes-man, can gain a strong foothold in an organization. 

The Veneer of Civilization

3 Replies

It is easy to be lulled into the notion that the USA has reached a transcendent state of modernism; a place where people have come to adopt pluralism and tolerance. When you drive along the highways and fly the skyways of the USA, when you navigate the streets lined with familiar businesses and institutions there is this comforting though superficial vibe that you are in an advanced culture that is fairly progressive and forward thinking.

American culture has produced some of the most stunning changes in the history of life on earth.  Electricity, drug design, advanced materials, aerospace, computers, semiconductors, and on and on. Yet, there is this underlying ache, a subterranean twinge out there that is disturbing in it’s potential.

While I cannot accept the cosmology of supernatural beings or the physics of miracles, I have been known to attend a meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) on a social basis. It is soothing to sit in silence and meditate in a group setting with highly civilized people like the Quakers. I remember some years ago at a Friends Meeting in Boulder, CO, listening to Kenneth Boulding (now deceased) make a comment during the meeting.  It was in another context, but the thrust of it is relevant nonetheless.  He pointed out that a few miles below the serenity of the nearby mountains there exists magma that, if given the chance, will flow to the surface and erupt. He observed that below the surface people also have raw and violent forces that sometimes escape. His point was more of a lyrical acceptance of this human frailty than one of condemnation. Examples of this condition are too numerous to count.

I was reminded of this comment of Boulding when I encountered some commentary on a recent editorial from the Wall Street Journal.  I can’t afford to subscribe to the WJS- I found it in the popular blog Pharyngula. The author of this exceptional blog has added commentary and I won’t spoil it for the reader. It is worth linking over there to read it.  Beneath the surface of consciousness of many, many people is the need to strike out at those have a different view of things.

Few points of view will evoke as vigorous a negative response as atheism does from believers in the Big 3 religions that originated in the middle east.  To these people, atheism is a kind of poke in the eye. The very presence of atheism seems to be a kind of pestilence or a corrosive influence on society itself. Believers in a supernatural being are convinced that without a diety, there can be no moral frame of reference.

It is much like the number line with its positive numbers, it’s negative numbers, and, importantly, zero.  To theists, God is the zero of the moral number line. It represents the demarcation of the positive and the negative realms.  As the theists would assert, without a frame of reference anchored from a higher plane, man is hopelessly absent a moral compass.

One thing is certain. I’m not going to solve this matter tonight.  I do know that civilization is one millimeter thick and there are plenty of places on earth where it has worn off to reveal the troubled underlayment of our species. This week, in the land of Nebuchadnezzar and the gardens of Babylon, many good people have died for no good reason.