So... when is HE running for president?

[kenosarawa]

FINALLY, someone who feels much the same way that I do. I've grown sick over the past several years of people shoving two bowls of shit in my face and say, "pick one." And, if I didn't pick one, they'd pick one for me and then force-feed it to me for four years.

Reading this, I was tempted to stand up at my desk and give a standing ovation.

Comments

[kenosarawa]

You touched on one aspect that I've thought of quite a bit. We need an intelligent, reasoning electorate. The only way to fix this is to educate people. Right now, we have a bipartisan government that only seems to be concerned with its own continuance, rather than the continuance of the nation it governs, and they are supported by a rather-uncomfortably-large portion of our population that is utterly convinced, either one way or the other, that their particular brand of "saving the world" is so much better than everyone else's.

Small changes, like course corrections on a ship at sea, are the key, I think. Unfortunately, as I said before, the current state of our government is concerned with self-continuance. (Didn't we have this discussion before? About how a truly unbiased and effective government is run by people who in no way benefit by it?) I'm not looking for an ideal candidate; I'm looking for one that isn't anathema. The way I perceive the spectrum exists on many more axes than the qualitative value line stretched between ideal and anathema.

Why are you so against having faith? I understand the crusade against organized religion. On that side of things, I'd be right there with you, dragging these over-inflated, self-important people who have ruined countless lives by the forceful application of their brand of "laws of the universe" and make them answer for the things they've done (we'll put Scientology and the Catholic Church up on the block first). But, on the other side, by denying people the right (or simply decrying them, whichever) for believing in something greater than what their limited sensorium and experience pick up on, isn't that just as bad? Doesn't that do just as much harm? It is the action, the intent, that flows from those beliefs that is good or bad. This has been a major source of self-reflection and introspection in my life. If you do harm to someone, it was you who chose to do so, or by ignorance allowed it to happen. That fault lies with the person, not with the fact that they had faith. You can't say that a drunk driver accused of running over a pedestrian broke the law simply because they have a car, and then hold the car accountable for the incident. A very simplistic analogy, but it holds.

[entropius]

I think the government of the last eight years has been far, far more concerned with continuing in power than previous governments; the last president that's gone to such lengths as Bush to hold onto power was Nixon. The difference, of course, is that Nixon didn't royally cock things up as badly, and that Congress cared when he got caught.

You seem to suggest that there shouldn't be any "saving the world" going on at all, which is the Libertarian idea of "we need less government, not more". Unfortunately, at this point we need a government to save us from the sins of past governments: someone's got to repair the damage Bush did.

And, as you say, small changes are certainly the key: if you find a candidate that's better than his opponent, vote for him. Are all of the candidates running now literally so bad in your perception that they are indistinguishable? Yes, it is more complicated than saying "this guy is better than that guy", but ultimately you've got to figure out who you like best and vote for them. Saying that the spectrum exists on more than one dimension still doesn't save you from assigning a value function to each point on it: I disagree with Barr (or Obama, or Colbert) on fewer things than I disagree with McCain on, so he gets my vote over McCain.

And I didn't say *I* was so against having faith; I said Penn was. :) And he is.

"Decrying" is an interesting word. I certainly don't decry anyone for merely believing in whatever they will. If those beliefs are things that I think are likely to lead to harmful actions in the future, of course, I may try to convince them that those beliefs are not true, by presenting arguments to that effect ... but that's hardly the same as lambasting them for their belief, or denying them the ethical right to hold that belief.

But as soon as those beliefs motivate actions, those actions are subject to ethical scrutiny. If you harm someone, it's you who chose to do so. That harm, however, is subject to the same criticism whether it is motivated by faith or something else. Far too often people of faith use their faith as an excuse for the harm they cause: "It is morally acceptable, and in fact required, for me to deny my child access to knowledge about human sexuality because my faith tells me that I should do so."

[kenosarawa]

Thank you for clarifying your stance in those last three paragraphs. The violent opposition to any belief is just as bad as those who force those beliefs upon others. Now, the word "force" is used here with a grain of salt. The mere mention of one particular belief outloud with a non-believer within earshot has been classified as "force" in recent years. People who just see the presence of religious or faith-based programming on television as a personal attack on themselves are a little too convinced of their own self-importance. On the other hand, there are many of these televangelists and others that should be held responsible for the direct and harmful outcomes of their messages. Hell, we hold journalists and other media figures liable for... well... libel.

Dammit, I thought I could come up with a better word than that.

[entropius]

Religious programming on public television is something I am opposed to, and that's happening in Alabama.

Mentioning a particular belief out loud with a non-believer within earshot certainly isn't force... but that non-believer standing up and saying "I don't think that's right, and here's why" certainly isn't violent opposition, either.

Neither is "You're a loony".

One interesting tidbit: I was involved in Project Chanology (Anonymous' campaign against the Church of Scientology) for a while, and Anonymous was very careful to distinguish between scientology (the belief that L. Ron Hubbard is a demigod, xenu, thetans, all that) and the Church of Scientology... even to the point of supporting the Free Zone, the non-Church of Scientology scientologists.