PHILOSOPHY, THEOLOGY, RELATIVISM, AND GETTING LAID

It happens once every couple of years. Some bright student comes to me with his or her brain filled to the top with the teachings of his or her Philosophy Professor and I have to deprogram them. Don't get me wrong, I love philosophy. It's just that people tend to confuse it's purpose as I see it. The teachings of Socrates, Hume, Nietzsche, or Kant are great for critical thinking, but I don't think they're great for giving yourself a moral compass that will help you lead a full and satisfying life.

One of the basic philosophies that are taught here at my University is Relativism, which I refer to as Subjective Morality. Relativism is basically the belief that ethical truths and morality are relative to the individual or groups that hold them. Or in simpler terms, what you believe is wrong, may not be what I believe is wrong. While I understand that theory, the problem I have with it is, in one way or another, what you are saying is there really isn't a societal norm. If all morality or ethical truths are rooted in the individual, then why have any morality at all? I'll just reach into my basket and pick out what I think is wrong (most likely the things that other people do that I dislike) and leave my basket full of the things I think are right. (most likely things that I like to do that someone else might think is wrong). Since there is no consensus on what is in each others basket, we'll just fill each of ours with whatever makes us feel good as an individual.

For this to work, you have to empty your brain of any thought that what you do has any effect on anyone else in society. For example; I like spitting, you think it's wrong because it spreads disease and is disgusting to step in. I see no reason to care as spitting is fun and is in my basket of things that are right. Since there is no way you can put things in my basket if I don't want you to (because that is your morality and has nothing to do with me), I'll continue spitting anywhere I see fit. Despite the fact that you believe that our morality should not be relative to each other, you still step in my spit.

Theology (basically religion) is a different animal as it was created as a universal set of morals for a society of people. The idea being, if our shared morality is used to confront a problem, such as spitting, we turn to that morality to judge whether or not I should cease or you should except it. Over time people adjust their Theology to fit their society to create a society that has as little confrontation as possible. The main difference between philosophy and theology is that one (theology) is directed to the betterment of society, whether successful or not. The other is directed to the fulfilment of the individuals life and understanding of it.

Now let me take it a little further, Philosophy is corruptable for the individual if the person arguing against you is better at making their point. The important fact here is; they don't have to be right, just better at arguing. Since your morality is subjective, or debatable, all I have to do is convince you and only you that it doesn't belong there and my morality goes in. This gives considerable power to the more intelligent among us and is the reason it's so favored by academia in my opinion. Think of it this way; I'm a gray-haired, ponytailed, professor of considerable intellect teaching at your local University. I'm no longer attractive in the conventional sense and am not getting laid nearly as much as I was in the "Free Love" days of my prime. Your an impressionable young thing in my class. What do you think I would advocate to get you to sleep with me and then convince myself that it's right, philosophy or theology?

That's the basic problem that I have with the whole idea of replacing strict morals with Subjective Morality. It allows the brightest among us to pray on the most impressionable or not-as-smart. If I'm looking at what's best to protect the most vulnerable (and I do), I have to lean towards religion. Even the dimmest young girl or boy can be given a strict set of morals and the guilt that comes with it and be protected from being corrupted by Subjective Moralists. I know a lot of you think that guilt is a terrible thing, but sometimes it's all that stands between us and doing something we might later regret. I also know that not all people that study philosophy are up to no good, but I've also seen enough bad people use it to know it has it's dark side. The teachings of our great philosophers can open your mind up to new ways of thinking, but in the end the best thing to protect the weakest among us is theology, not Subjective Morality. We should think long and hard about what we're throwing away and who we're throwing under the bus when we take the path of philosophy over theology. H.C.

IT'S NOT YOUR FATHER'S RELIGION

It has millions of believers worldwide, 24 million in the U.S. alone. It made up 4% of the U.S. population in a 2000 poll and jumped to 8% in a 2006 poll, a growth rate any religion would be envious of. It's bigger in the U.S. than the Lutherns, Presbyterians, and the Mormans. It has evangelists in your schools and in your colleges and yet manages to use it's power to keep all other religions out. The majority of it's members are young, and it stands to reason that if all trends continue, it will one day be the largest religion in America. What is this all powerful, fast growing religion? Atheism.

I know what your all thinking, "Now hang on a damn minute H.C., Atheism is the complete opposite of religion. They don't have churches, they don't have a God, they don't have priests, ministers, or prophets how in the hell is it a religion?"

Well, as my mentor Bill Clinton used to say, "It depends on what your definition of "is" is." The Webster Collegiate dictionary offers this definition of a religion, "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that the Atheists of today are every bit as committed to their "faith" as any religious person you've ever met. Just try telling your college Anthropology prof. about Adam and Eve. For another definition, I went to the American Heritage Dictionary, they had this one to consider; "Any objection attended to or pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion". Again, try telling any committed Atheist that they're wrong about Evolution.

"They don't have a God." True, actually that's what makes them an Atheist. They deny the existence of God. But it's also true that a lot of the world's religions do not have a principle "God" or creator of the universe or mankind. Confuscianism, Buddhism, or Scientology are just a few examples of the world's religions that do not have a "God" as a creator of the universe or mankind.

"They don't have churches." Once again, it depends on your definition of "churches". Most every religion gives it's churches a name that is unique to it's religion, such as Synagogues, Mosques, or Temples, so I think it's fair to say "churches" are just a place where people of like faith meet in mass. By this definition, I can point out tons of websites such as Atheists.com, Atheists.org, or Blasphemychallenge.com where Atheists go to be "Baptised" into their faith by denouncing the Holy Spirit. The need of like minded people to congregate and share their views on their faith is not limited to Christians or Muslims, it is shared by Atheists as well. In fact, nearly all Universities have an Atheist student club.

"They don't have Prophets." I would argue that they have lots of them. Every Scientist that promotes their point of view is sited by them very much in the way all religions site their Prophets. I would argue further that Charles Darwin is their main Prophet as he is the father of their faith, that all things can be explained by Science, and God is just a myth designed to fill in the gaps of what we don't know yet.

"They don't have Priests or Ministers that propagate and promote their religion." While it is true that they don't go by a title, they do evangelize in your classrooms. They degrade and belittle people of religious belief in an attempt to quiet their point of view or dismiss it as myth or fantasy. While there have been studies that put the number of true Atheistic professors in our Universities as high as 40%, most of the studies show the number to be much lower. This comes from the fact that they tend to include Religious Colleges or Universities, and Colleges in general where the numbers are smaller for commited Atheists. I found one study done by Neil Gross, a Harvard Professor who after factoring in these other colleges and Universities still came up with 23.4% committed Atheists, nearly three times the general population average. Not suprisingly, most of these professors can be found in the more left-leaning fields of Sociology, Philosophy and Anthropology. Since "Separation of Church and State" is the mantra of the left, the religious point of view is not allowed while the Atheistic point of view is delivered by these Evangelists through Science. I'm not saying that they don't have a point in my eyes, just that they should be careful to not promote their "theories" as fact while refusing to even consider the religious point of view.

My main point here is that any set of beliefs adhered to by a large group of people and practiced by congregation, that evangalizes among the populace to promote it's views, should be considered a religion. As most of you know by now, I'm a huge advocate of both sides getting their say in any debate as long as their not calling for direct violence against a group. The worst thing that can happen to America in my eyes, is that one side, whether right or left, liberal, conservative, or anything inbetween should be allowed to dominate a discussion by blocking in any way the other sides views. By exempting themselves from being called a religion, Atheists have done what the Catholics or the Protestants could not do. Make their belief system the only one taught in our schools. Science is one thing, and religion another and the two should be separate. But the use of Science by our schools to directly attack religion and then denying them the chance to debate is simply indoctrining a point of view. Atheism IS a religion, and if we are not going to allow other religions to express their theology then our professors should be held to a very high standard of not promoting Atheism also. Atheism is viewed by the far left in this country as a vehicle to promote their agenda of Liberalizing this country. I'm not afraid of debate for or against any of their agenda, but they are using Atheism as a means to attack religion and it's morality and to promote their own. The proof is in the numbers. H.C.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

Posted in political on September 30th, 2006
I have a friend who reads my column regularly and he asked me recently if I’m afraid of running out of ideas. I responded, “Hell no, I haven’t even covered the First Amendment completely yet, and I’ve got 26 more to go.” There are so many things I want to tell all of you about our government, society, and the rest of the world that my only fear is that I won’t live long enough to cover everything. I see all of us as comrades traveling on a journey through dark woods, searching for truths. The hard part is, someone keeps changing the direction signs and our map isn’t completely accurate. So before I get any older, let’s get at it.
The first and most important thing you need to know about “Separation of Church and State” is, that phrase DOES NOT appear ANYWHERE in the U.S. Constitution. Not in the preamble, not in the main text, not in the Bill of Rights. No where in it, period. So you can search for it yourself I’ve connected this link for you. Every single debate I have with Secular Progressives leads to this argument. In fact, the phrase doesn’t even appear in the Federalist Papers, a collection of essays written (presumably) by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay to try to sell the idea of the Constitution and published in several New York newspapers in 1787 and 1788.
So where exactly did this phrase come from? What was the reason for it being brought into our Judicial system? What was the intent of our Founding Fathers? Should we embrace it even if it’s not in the Constitution? These questions have been pondered by better minds than mine, so what I’ll attempt to do is give you the facts as I see them, so you can better make up you own mind on where you stand.
Let’s go back to very beginning, to the very first time the phrase entered our Judicial System and started the debate that still exists today. In 1946, the case Everson vs. Board of Education was argued before the Supreme Court. At issue was a New Jersey law giving reimbursement to religious schools for busing. The question was whether the state of New Jersey was violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by giving money from the state to a school the was religious in nature. The conclusion was that it did not. The busing was seen as being equivalent to police protection, or any other service paid out to help all of it’s citizens including religious ones. But in the decision Justice Hugo Black quoted a little known Letter to the Dansbury Baptists by Thomas Jefferson stating that he believed there was a “wall of Separation of Church and State” granted by the First Amendment. From that point on secularists in this country have been pointing to it as proof positive of our Founding Fathers intent to keep God completely out of government. One does have to wonder though, if that was their intent, why did it take so long for it to become an issue?
I found it interesting that Justice Hugo Black, an ex- Ku Klux Klan member, was admonished during these arguments for asking people who were testifying if the were Catholic. Ku Klux Klan members have a hatred for Catholics (and lots of other people) as they are almost all Protestants. Could this have been an attempt by him to keep funds from traveling to Catholics who were seen as a threat to the primarily Protestant control of the U.S. government at the time? Hmmm.
Since that fateful ruling in Everson vs. Board of Education, we have seen a rise in attempts to remove God from every aspect of government. The trend has been towards a secular government that not only does not support any establishment of religion, but doesn’t support the idea of religion in any form. Shortly after Justice Black’s ruling, prayer in school was banned. Then religious symbols were removed from government buildings and proposals were launched to delete the word “God” from money and the Pledge of Allegiance. America, for better or worse, has become a far more secular place. And most disturbing to me, freedom of speech has suffered.
What do you mean H.C.? How can this affect freedom of speech? Let me explain it to you this way. Once upon a time in America, schools taught a curriculum of traditionism. No teachers taught the accepting of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle. No one taught women that they had the right to work in jobs retained for men only. No one dissented when the government told you to go to war, or said that slavery was wrong. And no one said there might not be a God. Do we really want to go back to a time where one side decides what can be discussed in our classrooms? Is it really any different to tell our teachers, our government officials, and yes even our students that any discussions of God will not be tolerated? Keeping our government free from one religion having undo influence over another, I agree with. I also respect people’s right to chose to have no religion at all, but eliminating the right of religious people to influence their government or their schools as much as those without religion is wrong.
If I’ve only learned one thing in my life, it is this. Freedom of discussion is the bedrock of this country. Removing a point of view from any discussion is far more dangerous than any discussion we could ever have. Unchallenged, any idea can be made to seem correct. Even the genocide or slavery of other human beings. I’m not afraid of free debate and you shouldn’t be either. I’m not afraid to have a right-wing wacko speak his mind, or a racist, or a liberal. I’ll defend my view, and if I can’t, maybe it shouldn’t be my view. Allow religious people to have their place at the table as long as you have yours. Having a theocracy for a government is a bad idea, but so is having a country where only one point of view is tolerated. H.C.

IS THE WORLD BECOMING MORE ANTI-SEMITIC?

Posted in political on August 15th, 2006
Working in a university setting has it’s advantages. I can get a quick sampling of how a lot of different groups view any given issue. In some instances, I can see changes in perceptions as they happen in our culture, such as the gay movement, or the squelching of free speech by advocates. Some of these changes are slow and hard to notice right away, and others are sudden and usually a response to some current event. Lately I’ve noticed a sudden rise in anti-Semitism linked directly to the current conflict between Lebanon and Israel. Is it possible the people of the U.S. are on their way to abandoning our best ally in the Middle East?
There’s always been a certain amount of what I would call anti-Israel behavior on our campuses. I don’t know if I would call all of it “anti-Semitic”. We have to be careful here, just disagreeing with the Jewish point of view doesn’t necessarily make you anti-Semitic, (although that point of view is used by our advocates). But I do think that if you feel we should abandon Israel, or that Israel should be given to the Palestians, thus displacing over 5 million Jews, you probably do qualify as anti-Semitic. (Notice I didn’t say give it “back”, some of you people need to follow history back more than 60 years).
Lately, I’ve been hearing from our faculty and a lot of students, that Israel is the real villain in the Middle East, and that we need to get out of the business of supporting them. They sympathize with Hezbollah, and do not view them as “terrorists” at all. In fact, they feel, for the most part, that any action taken by any of the “terrorist” groups in the Middle East is justified by some past action by Israel or the West. I’m not saying Israel has completely clean hands; some of the actions taken by Israel against the Palestians are not exactly conducive to getting along. But the punishment should not be the destruction of Israel, or the genocide of Jews.
In the years prior to WWII, we saw the same ugly type of prejudice against the Jewish people that we’re now seeing fermenting in the Middle East. Jews were blamed for everything from poverty to disease. A good example of how perverse this can become is the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion“. The Protocols of Zion were used all through the beginning of the 20th Century in Europe and Asia to help ferment suspicion and hatred against the Jews. With it’s protocols listing the Jew’s plan to take over the world, it gave birth to one of the earliest, and longest lasting conspiracy theories of the last century. Supposedly, Jews would follow this book and it’s protocol, handing it down secretly from father to son in an effort to rule the world. So effective was the use of this book in revealing the Jews “secret plan” that Hitler made it required reading for all of Germany’s students. Even here in America, it is regularly handed out at white supremist meetings as well as among black Muslims. Hate and fear are very powerful emotions and the principle tools that have caused violent acts against groups throughout history. What we are seeing now with sales of this book in Iran and Syria as well as here in America is the beginning of something we have seen before, prior to WWII.
Just as Hitler used propaganda to turn Germany against Jews, a new wave of anti semitism is brewing in Europe. Attacks on Jewish synagogues are on the increase as are incidents of Jews being beaten. This is even happening in countries know for their “tolerance”. While a large percentage of these incidents are being blamed on young Muslims, enough of a rise in attacks by white supremist groups is occurring to cause all of us to wonder what’s going on. Is it possible that Muslim funded organizations are taking a page out of Mein kampf and using it to turn America and Europe against the Jews? Are we all so naive to assume if the Jews were out of the way all the problems in the Middle East would just disappear?
At this point, I should point out that I am not Jewish at all that I am aware of. The only reason this concerns me is, history has a habit of repeating itself. It’s real obvious that anti-Semitism is growing in Europe and I fear it’s growing here in the U.S. also. I understand the fear that we all have about facing down the terrorism that is growing out of Islamic extremism, but abandoning the Jewish people will NOT make it all go away. There are arguments all around about whether or not a Jewish state should have ever been created, but it has. The U.S. helped stop the genocide of the Jewish people in WWII and it has always been something that made me glad and proud to be an American. If America is going to go to war over something, I would like it to be to stop the genocide of people anywhere in the world. We should not have ignored Rwanda, we should stop the killing in Sudan, and we should never tolerate countries who call for the destruction of Israel or the genocide of Jews. H.C.

IS HATING CHRISTIANS THE NEW ACCEPTED BIGOTRY?
Posted in Uncategorized on February 7th, 2006
I know a thing or two about prejudice and bigotry. Anyone who lived through the 60’s and 70’s saw their share. I’ve seen women treated as possessions only to slowly break through to find themselves in top positions in hundreds of companies. I’ve seen blacks treated as lesser citizens and fight their way towards equality. I’ve also seen what it’s like to be on the other side, to hear slurs and threats based only on the color of your skin. It is the darkest side of humanity, that need to put someone else down to make ourselves feel superior. It has always been with us and most likely always will. Bigotry, it seems, is much like matter, it is never truly destroyed, it just changes form.
When I was young, nobody thought anything of using the words; fag, hymie, nigger, honky, bitch, wetback, or any other hateful word. We knew they were unfair and stereotyping, but since society accepted them, so did we. The years that followed made us more aware of our bigotry, but since advocates only target their own specific problems, anyone left became fair game. Disrespect for weight problems, old age, religious beliefs, and anyone else we could get away with attacking replaced the prejudices of old.
An easy example showed itself to me one day at the beach. An overweight kid of about 10 years old was being tormented by two approximately 16 year old girls. The lifeguard was on duty within easy listening range. The girls repeatedly made jokes about his weight problem until the poor kid left in tears, the lifeguard joining them in their laughter. Soon afterwards, a young black kid arrived and began swimming with his friend. The girls, encouraged by their earlier success, muttered a racial epitaph to each other. The lifeguard immediately came down from his perch and ordered the two to leave, even though the kid could not hear their taunts. Why such a difference? Because instead of being taught to be kind to everyone, our youth are simply being taught who is off limits. The teachers in our schools and Universities, while very sensitive to minorities such as blacks or homosexuals, have no problem lumping white males, Christians, Republicans and wealthy people into one group, all guilty on some level for the actions of a few. I find this behavior to be very hypocritical.
At the major University where I work (the reason for my pseudonym, H.C.) this behavior is rampant. I assume this is true at most Universities from what I hear. During diversity training class, I once heard the chair of one of our departments utter, “Black people are constantly judged by the color of their skin, that’s something white people can’t understand.” Note that at the same time she’s making that statement, she puts “white people” in a group defined by their skin color. Hmmm. See how even people acutely aware of stereotyping, miss it when it’s a group their not used to defending.
No group in our University is more openly hated though, than Christians. I once watched as a Christian group had set up an information table (a practice common among our advocates) in the hall of one of our buildings. It had 2 basic messages; 1) that sex is dangerous to your health, especially homosexual sex, (these statements were backed up by Center for Disease Control statistics), and 2) that Jesus loves you and can help. No hateful statements were to be found anywhere on their table, nor were any of them anything but kind in their attempt to get their message out. Soon after setting up through, students began gathering, some yelling that they were “homophobes” and “right wing wacko’s”. Then our student groups arrived, the Students for Social Change and the Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, and Transgender Center teamed up in an effort to keep other students from seeing their literature. They formed a wall around the table. When some students forced their way through, they took all their literature, tore-up their signs and tipped over their table. No intervention was done by the University. I offered to get safety (our police) to make a complaint, but the group said they’d just as soon forget it. I felt they feared more harassment by the students. I took this issue to several of our top administrators who wrote it off as a small event. I doubt they would react the same if it were a more liberal group being attacked.
It doesn’t stop there for the newest bigots in our society. Their rants and raves appear everywhere, uncondemned except by the people they target. Student newspapers tear into them in ways they could never get away with if their target were blacks, women, or homosexuals. Professors openly attack them in their classrooms, supported by liberal administrators. “Right-wing” is the label stamped on anyone with religious beliefs no matter how moderate. Stereotyping is allowed and encouraged in their efforts to promote their secularism. The end result is people coming out of our school systems so closed minded about religious points of view they won’t even give them a chance.
By now you are probably thinking “wow, I never thought H.C. was so religious.” Well, my friends, I belong to no religious group, I haven’t set foot in a church except for funerals or weddings in 20 years. I doubt I even qualify as a Christian, though I do respect Jesus for the philosopher he was, and do believe in God. After all, your science can answer how, when, and where, but falls way short on why. What I do believe in is respect for other people’s opinions. I believe people should be judged individually for their own actions, not thrown into a group and condemned for others misdeeds. Bigotry is hateful. It serves no good purpose. I’ve seen it and done it in the past and am ashamed to have been part of it. My hope is that one day we’ll all be so enlightened that we’ll condemn anyone involved in bigotry, not because of the group they attack, but because of the hate they spread. H.C.