Quick Roundup 5

Dr. Hurd on Faith and Force

Michael Hurd, in an article at Capitalism Magazine, hits the nail on the head in a parsing of recent comments by Bill O'Reilly of Fox News.

While O'Reilly is not a terrorist and no doubt sincerely supports fighting terrorist nations overseas, he reveals the core contradiction of the whole conservative movement. The conservative movement favors the expansion of religion/state fusion at home while opposing the inevitable results of religion/state fusion abroad. We're supposed to kill Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan while letting Pat Robertson and his minions impose religious fundamentalism on the masses in the United States.

There are a couple of timely links at the end of the article as well.

Abramoff's Biggest Sin?

I found the following article at Jewish World Review to have an unusual take on the fall of Jack Abramoff.

The worst is that Abramoff is a Jew. Not only a Jew, but an Orthodox Jew -- someone who claims to be committed to strictly observing Jewish law and faithfully adhering to the Torah's ethical standards. But instead of upholding those ethical standards Abramoff trampled on them, and a "religious" Jew who behaves so corruptly disgraces not only himself but all religious Jews. He brings his faith into contempt.

Jeff Jacoby, I am afraid, is being paranoid. Abramoff will be widely regarded as having betrayed his faith. His religion -- and, more importantly, religion as such -- will escape blame. But does it deserve to? As I once noted, in a different context:

It is this dissociation between value and action -- and not the availability of expensive merchandise per se -- that is so bad about our fad-driven, ostentatious culture. Surrendering to this culture on the part of a parent is to abdicate the most sacred obligation of parenthood: helping one's child become an independent adult. But to advocate an intrinsicist morality in reaction to such a culture is not the answer, for there is no relationship between a simple list of commands and how one lives one's life.

While the blame for what Abramoff did lies entirely with him, it is worthwhile to ask whether the morality he professes offered him any real incentive to follow it. What kind of guidance is a moral code based on bare commands? "Thou shall not steal." But why? How does stealing harm the life of the thief? What consequences follow? (The worry about getting caught is not even the most important one.) And what should one do instead? I suspect that, like the Christian tradition with which I am familiar, the Jewish is an attempt to integrate faith and reason. There will be room to make ethical arguments using reason, but the basis for the whole moral code will be divine edict rather than man's life as the standard of value. And the important moral premise will be something like "what pleases God?" rather than "what does man's life require?"

Morality is a set of guidelines by which to lead one's life. Other than unsubstantiated threats of divine punishment, religion does not attempt to explain to its followers why they should behave morally. Abramoff is certainly in trouble, but blind faith will get off scot free, contrary to Jeff Jacoby's fears.

From the previous link, I direct the reader interested in alternatives to religion as the source moral guidance to this essay by Peter Schwartz, "Moral Values without Religion: Does Morality Depend upon Religion?"

Italian Loon Files Lawsuit on Existence of Christ

Yes. Another leftist is making secularism look ridiculous by filing an inconsequential lawsuit that is bound to annoy everyone it fails to alienate outright.

"I started this lawsuit because I wanted to deal the final blow against the Church, the bearer of obscurantism and regression," Cascioli told Reuters.

Cascioli says Righi, and by extension the whole Church, broke two Italian laws. The first is "Abuso di Credulita Popolare" (Abuse of Popular Belief) meant to protect people against being swindled or conned. The second crime, he says, is "Sostituzione di Persona", or impersonation.

"The Church constructed Christ upon the personality of John of Gamala," Cascioli claimed, referring to the 1st century Jew who fought against the Roman army.

It makes me want to roll my eyes and exclaim, "John of Gamala!"

It also reminds me of a couple of things Myrhaf said recently.

(1) The question of the historical existence of Christ has never interested me much because it's not essential to refuting religion. There is no evidence for the existence of God. Does it matter if there was a real man 2,000 years ago who claimed to be God? The religion is false either way.

(2) The people who think all this is important are usually former Christians. They have rejected the religion, but still accept the premise that religion is important. Atheism is not a philosophy or an ideology, it's just a negation of theism. People who define themselves first and foremost as atheists make theism as important as the theists think it is.

Read the whole thing.

-- CAV