a refreshing look at Obama

[trish]

It's amazing how far away from this we are (at least I think). A few years ago I was talking to someone in a fairly liberal city. We got to talking about religion and I told him I'm an atheist. He paused and said, "that's so strange, you seem like such a nice person." I told him I think I am, that I still have a moral code and believe I can tell right from wrong.

He didn't say it stridently or angrily either. He said it as though he was puzzled that someone could be an atheist and not (insert description..I don't know what he expected an atheist to be). It was a big wake up call because in my own head I couldn't imagine it was a big deal that I don't believe in God.

Hi Bronco. Long time, no see. Missed you.

It does seem to be a common misconception that the behavior of atheists is unrestrained by any common notion of decency. It was cited in the Atomic Energy Commission’s report to Truman as an argument against negotiating a nuclear test ban treaty with the godless communists of the Soviet Union: being godless, they can't be trusted. (I recently read this in Building the H-Bomb by Kenneth Ford...though at the moment I can’t cite the page number).

Within the past year I had two personal experiences similar to yours. Once while having lunch with two colleagues (a Christian and a Muslim, both male, both U.S. citizens although the latter was born and raised in Iran during the Shah’s reign). Although both knew me and both trusted me on many occasions, neither felt my good behavior was compelled and expressed their belief that religion is necessary (for the general populace at least) to compel people to behave ethically and morally. On another occasion, at a garden party, an older Christian woman from Australia had expressed to me the same opinion, adding that my reasoning or any moral reasoning is unfounded if it doesn’t draw upon divine authority.

I grant that the foundation for my behavior (if I bothered to construct such an edifice) would be grounded in human empathy and shaped with reason; and I grant that human empathy pretty weak stuff. But in my opinion its the only stuff we got to work with.

[fred41]

I grant that the foundation for my behavior (if I bothered to construct such an edifice) would be grounded in human empathy and shaped with reason; and I grant that human empathy pretty weak stuff. But in my opinion its the only stuff we got to work with.

Empathy is THE most powerful reason, I believe, that a normal human being steers a (for the most part) straight course (plus most people just prefer following rules). Religion, for the majority, is just a psychologically imprinted and often, traditional set of beliefs.

...plus, when you really come down to it, isn't a true atheist more likely to try to avoid jail than a Catholic (for instance)?


empathy isn't weak stuff at all.
but you know that...

[broncofan]

I agree with both of your posts (even where you slightly disagree). And I was going to chastise the idea that people will only behave well when compelled, but isn't our penal system a secular endorsement of that principle (at least on average)?

Empathy is very powerful, but some people can be impaired in that regard, or deliberately cut themselves off from connecting with others. Ideas, particularly when they are based on incomplete information, can override our natural tendency to empathize, because they help us deny our bond with others. We don't owe any duty to anyone else if we convince ourselves they are not like us (are they communists, atheists, homosexuals, or women who wear short skirts?). I think sectarianism does a good job of enabling in-group bonding and creating rifts with everyone else.

Again, I don't deny that religion can promote optimism and a sense of community, but it comes at a serious cost because it allows for the judgment of others based on an artificial set of principles. Anyhow, I think empathy creates a good starting point for the use of logic. Empathy helps us understand the pain and joy of others by extrapolation. Logic can help us use that information to avoid the former and maximize the latter. But that makes it sound like collective happiness is the only worthwhile object?!

I miss you too Trish. I will be posting regularly in a couple of months but just reading and posting sporadically in the meantime.

[broncofan]

I realize I've strayed from the main subject out of exuberance. My point is, it would be nice if no candidate would be disqualified based on his or her religion or lack of belief. It's simply irrelevant as long as they understand the Constitution, are 35 years old, citizens and aren't related to Ron Paul.

[Stavros]

Hi Bronco. Long time, no see. Missed you.

It does seem to be a common misconception that the behavior of atheists is unrestrained by any common notion of decency. It was cited in the Atomic Energy Commission’s report to Truman as an argument against negotiating a nuclear test ban treaty with the godless communists of the Soviet Union: being godless, they can't be trusted. (I recently read this in Building the H-Bomb by Kenneth Ford...though at the moment I can’t cite the page number).

One of the interesting issues that emerges from this debate about a non-religious basis to ethics and values in society emerges when human rights are on the agenda. In the UK the new Conservative government is committed to repeal the Human Rights Act of 1998 which the Labour Government introduced as part of the Good Friday Agreement that ended the military conflict in Northern Ireland. It will not take on this challenge in this Parliament, but it may happen in the next 5 years.

Human Rights are not seen as having a foundation in Christianity but in the rational application of the law so that everyone in society can relate to rights based legislation regardless of their religious affiliation, if they have one. The law may be the closest expression 'Reason' comes to shaping modern politics in Europe and North America. And yet nothing seems to get 'the right' into a lather than Human Rights because of the troublesome fact that if human rights exist, every human has them, and that includes Al Capone, Adolf Hitler, and the assortment of al-Qaeda sympathisers in the UK who rang rings round the government because they had clever lawyers and because the law itself always contains ambiguities. A lot of people in Chicago knew what Al Capone was responsible for, but the law only caught up with him on tax evasion rather than racketeering; Hermann Goering and other top Nazi officials were prosecuted at Nuremburg, yet after 9/11 it seems the prospect of Human Rights giving mass murderers a respite from justice is being used to undermine Human Rights altogether, or runs the risk of doing so. Could Osama bin Laden have been arrested rather than assassinated? Was there enough evidence to convict him in a court of law in the state of New York, or Washington DC?

They used to say 'truth is the first casualty of war', and that may still be the case, but are we now entering a phase when 'human rights' are to be discarded because 'we' are so appalled by what 'they' are doing to us? Is this part of the reason why so many Black Americans never get to court -because they have been executed before they could state their case?

Is there a crisis in Human Rights, or were we naive to think that rights have been fundamental to our democracies?

[buttslinger]

I think I mentioned it before, I remember hearing about a social club in London made up of amateur philosophers who would meet and discuss or debate which words in red print of the New Testament were the actual words of Jesus, and which ones were added later by bored monks, or whatever.
"Give unto God what is God's...",....everybody agrees that's pure Jesus. What makes it better is that Jesus supposedly came up with it off the cuff when the guys he was talking to tried to cross him up by asking him" What about the Romans? Are we supposed to love them too?"
Here on planet Earth, the rights of Mankind change daily, but God's Heaven never changes. To me, loving your neighbor is a hurdle I'm not quite ready to jump just yet. I pretty much think God is indifferent toward the daily life of us mortals, if we can't keep up, so be it. Loving our neighbor, that is a personal step, a large step that instantly puts us a lifetime ahead of those who are preoccupied with whose rights are whose. Kind of like in the Wizard of Oz when they sing "We're out of the woods"
It has absolutely nothing to do with whether of not our neighbors are worthy of our love, it's more about if our love is worthy of God.
Lloyd's of London was formed when all the individual shipping companies decided it was good business to chip into an insurance company that could protect them all against ruinous storms. They were all equal partners. But what fueled all the shipping companies were PROFITS, that's the motivating principal that created them.
Obamacare is kind of like a Lloyds of London for American Healthcare, and the guys who make huge profits off sick people don't like it.
It is important that the LAW be in stone, clear and understandable, but that's about as far as you can go. There are lots of nice guys in jail. Nobody goes to their job to trade four quarters for a dollar, when you sell your used car it is understood you want the absolute most money you can get for it. Most people go to church on Sunday as kind of a RESET button from Saturday Night, when the Devil is at his wicked best and in control of your soul, as per your contact. Am I my brother's keeper?

[Stavros]

It seems incredible that Barack Obama is the first President to visit a Federal Prison. One wonders how close to the impact of policy making Presidents ever get, indeed, one wonders how many Senators or Congressional Representatives have seen the inside of the prisons to which so many of their fellow Americans are sent to live and die.

What is interesting perhaps, is that while many conservative critics fixated on foreign affairs see Obama has having abandoned the USA's commitments overseas -as if drone strikes and the bombing of Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan were non-events and free of charge- maybe the question for Obama, and also his successor is how to fix a 'broken America' if the reality is not just the Prison system -or Prison Business as it should probably be called- but also the crumbling physical infrastructure of the country's roads, its bridges, its tunnels, its dams and so forth.

If even this 'domestic' Presidency has made little difference to the fabric of the country, how much more will the next one have to do, but will domestic policies be given the priority they deserve? Or it could just be that as I do not live in the USA I don't see the many things that have changed for the better....

[trish]

If even this 'domestic' Presidency has made little difference to the fabric of the country, how much more will the next one have to do, but will domestic policies be given the priority they deserve? Or it could just be that as I do not live in the USA I don't see the many things that have changed for the better....

It used to be that after the elections the parties would swallow their losses, shake hands and try to do their jobs with a modicum of cooperation. The political climate changed drastically with Newt Gingrich and Hastert. The two of them reinvented obstructionist politics. Today obstructionism is honed to a fine art. It doesn’t help that the conservative party has moved so far to the right they no longer believe that government has a role to play in anything other than the blockading and bombing of foreign nations who stubbornly refuse to see things our way.

I don’t see this changing anytime soon. Scott Walker, the relatively young, current governor of Wisconsin and presidential hopeful, essentially busted the public unions and cut back funding to public services. Billionaire Governor Rauner of Illinois is doing the same thing to Illinois. Transportation has been cut, schools have been cut, health services have been cut, grants for the maintainence of infrastructure have been canceled etc. There is a greater outflux of people to the rural sectors of the State than influx. Reality has dropped in value, rural businesses and towns are dying. But the austerity measures continue on the theory that businesses will be attracted by low taxes and a labor force desperate for jobs.

And so it goes.

[Stavros]

The longer that renovations or overhauls of facilities is delayed the more it costs. I get the impression that years of neglect mean that private capital alone can not do the job, hence the 'public private' initiatives that are discussed in the Brookings paper I have linked below. There is also a link to a White House paper on the Build America Investment Initiative of 2014, not sure what happened for the six years before that when Obama was in office. But if there are political problems in Congress (which the White House paper suggests scuppered one plan), you have a real long term problem because I don't see on available evidence any real change happening, certainly not if Mrs Clinton gets both the nomination and the White House, which with the pathetic Republican candidates as they are at present looks more and more possible.

Or it could also be that private capital, which in the 19th century built the railroads, and created the modern firms we know today but which were associated closely with individuals such as Carnegie, Rockefeller and Vanderbilt, has changed so much it sees more future in the investment incest in financial products rather than in bricks and mortar?

Brookings paper:
http://www.brookings.edu/research/re...-sabol-puentes

White House Fact Sheet:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...ng-water-syste

[trish]

Maureen Dowd's most recent assessment in Sunday's NYT
http://nyti.ms/1VeSxJS