Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Why Mommy Is a Democrat...
Paul Wilbert sends scarifying news of the latest--and possibly the saddest--skirmish in the Red State/Blue State culture wars: A kid's book titled Why Mommy Is a Democrat, which should be subtitled Why Republicans Run All Branches of the Federal Government and Probably Will for the Next 20 or 30 Years.
From the book's pitchpage:
Kids want to know.
Kids need to know.
It's up to you to tell them...
WHY MOMMY IS A DEMOCRAT
A different kind of children's book.
Yes, it is a different kind of children's book--a really bad kind. Here's a sample page that will almost certainly drive more young 'uns into the warm arms of such cuddly father figures as Deadeye Dick Cheney (it's been known to happen!):
More--including blurbs from such political kingmakers as the mayor of Columbus, Ohio, a Utah state senator, and the long-deposed creator of The Daily Show (who makes Craig Kilborn's post DS career look like a success) here.
Note to Democrats: A two-party duopoly only works if both parties can throw a punch. I half-suspect this of being a GOP plant job.
Xmas|2.18.06 @ 12:51PM|#
The Winstead-Kilborne drama was my favorite story from the
pre-Stewart Daily Show. Kilborne's obvious frat-boy charms were
perfect for the nascient show's mocking-of-everyone format.
Stewart is certainly a stronger anchor, but the the show would have
died in the crib without Kilborne. Comedy Central's main
demographic was stoner frat-boys. Stewart would have been too
cerebral for that crowd.
|2.18.06 @ 12:56PM|#
"Democrats make sure we all share our toys, just like Mommy
does."
I'd like to take this opportunity to invite all of the commenters
here to join me on a month-long cruise of the Caribbean on Teresa
Heinz Kerry's yacht! Thanks, Teresa!
|2.18.06 @ 1:05PM|#
Democrats make sure we all share our toys, just like Mommy
does.
Somehow I don't remember my Mommy threatening me with a long prison
term for not sharing my toys. But that was a long time ago. Perhaps
it's different now.
|2.18.06 @ 1:13PM|#
So...fucking...creepy.
joe? Care to defend this one? Or are even you disgusted by
this?
Rich Ard|2.18.06 @ 1:15PM|#
Hilarious! Maybe I'll buy a copy and keep it next to America: The Book on the shelf.
|2.18.06 @ 1:17PM|#
I feel sorry for the kids of anyone who would buy this book, or the companion volume "Help Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed!" The last thing kids need is adults actually encouraging them to see politics as good guys vs. bad guys. That comes naturally to kids -- the grownups should have given it up by now.
|2.18.06 @ 1:18PM|#
You know, given the Democrats paternalistic politics, this might not actually be a children book at all.
|2.18.06 @ 1:41PM|#
Democrats make sure children can go to school
Barf.
I mean come on, what dunce actually thinks that kids would not be
able to go to school if not for the gallant efforts of Democrats to
make that a reality?
|2.18.06 @ 1:54PM|#
Ahhh . . some of my finest work to date. Of course, now I'll have to send you all hunting with Cheney for revealing my involvement in this project. Ask not what your country can do for you, and all that.
|2.18.06 @ 1:55PM|#
I mean come on, what dunce actually thinks that kids would
not be able to go to school if not for the gallant efforts of
Democrats to make that a reality?
The average Democratic voter?
|2.18.06 @ 2:04PM|#
For the sake of curmudgeonry (and aren't we all curmudgeons when we're honest with ourselves?), do a google of the book and see all of the lame right-winger responses. At least this thing has kitsch value in its inanity. The Dems need to grow a brain and the Reps the ability to make a joke not having to do with abortion.
|2.18.06 @ 2:11PM|#
You know, given the Democrats paternalistic politics, this
might not actually be a children book at all.
Yeah, in this case the paternalistic politics is presented in a
maternalistic package, and ya gotta wonder; is part of the
motivation for this to make he authors, themselves, feel better?
-The minds of children...not so beautiful when they belong to
adults. Especially adults who want to govern us.
|2.18.06 @ 2:25PM|#
If the book also told the truth...
Unlike Mommies, the Democrats aren't fair because they make
sure that some people have an advantage over others in getting
hired to be teachers just because of their ethnicity and
gender.
|2.18.06 @ 2:37PM|#
Which Democratic strategist decided to produce literature
targeting the crucial 4-8 year voting bloc?
I said the other day that while GOP donors get shot at by Dick
Cheney, Democratic donors get to watch helplessly while the
Democrats shoot themselves in the foot.
|2.18.06 @ 2:57PM|#
coming in the spring of 2007:
Are You Sure Mommy Is Really a Democrat?:
Ten Fun Loyalty Tests to Keep Her on the Straight and
Narrow
and in the spring of 2008:
The Big Hand Is On... :
How to Know When It's Time to Tell On Mommy
|2.18.06 @ 2:58PM|#
I note that the author's cat is a life long Democrat, can you say vote fraud boys and girls.
|2.18.06 @ 3:19PM|#
I AM (mostly) a Democrat, and I'm a mother, and I wouldn't buy this book if it were the only way to preserve the English language after the apocalypse. I remember a few years ago when someone came out with a pro-life doll. A doll, marketed to four - year - olds, that said things like "I'm so glad Mommy didn't kill me." I thought owning one would be grounds for termination of parental rights. I don't think kids that age should be interested in politics much past being able to identify the name of the country, state, city, the current President, and George Washington. They'll get enough chances to argue unreasonably when they get older. I, for one, intend to stick to Legos nd "Goodnight, Moon" for a few more years.
|2.18.06 @ 3:29PM|#
I wouldn't buy this book if it were the only way to preserve
the English language after the apocalypse
I don't care who you are, that's funny!
On a more serious note, how's come all the characters are
buck-toothed?
|2.18.06 @ 3:33PM|#
Yeah, the Hackett thing has had me thinking we're facing at least a generation of one-party republican rule. God help us all.
|2.18.06 @ 3:34PM|#
I think Hillary should do the book on tape. She already talks to everybody like they're kids.
|2.18.06 @ 3:44PM|#
I'm not sure why everyone thinks creating creepy children's
propoganda is a liberal thing. The book was probably written in
response to this:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0976726904/reasonmagazineA/
|2.18.06 @ 3:47PM|#
A doll, marketed to four - year - olds, that said things
like "I'm so glad Mommy didn't kill me." I thought owning one would
be grounds for termination of parental rights.
Which is worse, exposing children to the fact that our society
would have condoned killing them before they were born...or
actually killing them before they are born? You do seem to approve
of the latter.
|2.18.06 @ 3:55PM|#
Mara, I looked at that link you provided and it is indeed
creepy. I also noted that National Review is offering a set of
conservative children's books. Now people from all political
stripes can protest the books in the children's section at the
public library!
A couple of weeks ago I filled out the application form for my son
for the gifted program at his elementary school. One of the
questioned it asked was "is your child interested in grown up
problems, like war or pollution?" I sent an email to all of my
friends complaining about what an idiotic question that was, and
they agreed with me. Apparently we're all badly out of touch. THE
new accessory for politically engaged parents is a polemic bedtime
story for toddlers. I'd better order that copy of "Heather Has Two
Mommies" before the rest of the playgroup starts teasing my younger
son for being out of fashion. Did Barry Goldwater write a
children's book? I do want to make sure he's not excluded from any
important playdates because of ideological reasons.
|2.18.06 @ 3:56PM|#
I AM (mostly) a Democrat, and I'm a mother, and I wouldn't
buy this book if it were the only way to preserve the English
language after the apocalypse.
That's hilarious. If only more party members thought this
way.
Which is worse, exposing children to the fact that our society
would have condoned killing them before they were born...or
actually killing them before they are born? You do seem to approve
of the latter.
I don't mean to speak for Karen, but I'll just point out that you
don't have to approve of something to think that it shouldn't be
illegal.
And you don't have to approve of something to believe that it's
wrongheaded (to say the least) to indoctrinate your children to
have simple opinions on deeply complex, profound (and for many
children, terrifying) issues that they can't possibly
understand.
|2.18.06 @ 4:05PM|#
Les,
She stated that giving your child the pro-life doll should be
grounds for taking the child away from you. Perhaps I'm taking her
flippant statement too seriously, but it has become fashionable
among pro-choicers to think that exposing a child to the existence
of such unpleasant things as abortion, is worse than actually doing
that unpleasant thing.
|2.18.06 @ 4:09PM|#
Is the bum shown in every picture meant to symbolize what happens when Republicans are running the show?
|2.18.06 @ 4:12PM|#
The Dems must have hired the same PR firm as Teacher's
Union.
I thought the Democratic Party is the teachers union PR firm.
|2.18.06 @ 4:13PM|#
Good for you karen. You buy your kids Legos, a product of
Denmark.
I hope you all buy my new children's books coming out soon entitled
Why Mommy is Voting to Screw Over My Generation By Voting
for Redistribution Instead of Growth and Why
Republicans Hate the 4th Amendment Which Allows Consenting Adults
to Do What They Want at Home in Peace.
|2.18.06 @ 4:18PM|#
And you don't have to approve of something to believe that
it's wrongheaded (to say the least) to indoctrinate your children
to have simple opinions on deeply complex, profound (and for many
children, terrifying) issues that they can't possibly
understand.
Giving a child this doll is hardly indoctrination. Were they aware
that our society accorded their mother the power to have them
killed at one time, they would no doubt already share the doll's
sentiments.
And if your problem is with the fact that this doll introduces them
to the harsh reality of abortion, I ask again: is informing a child
of an horrific thing that could have been done to them, worse than
doing that horrific thing?
|2.18.06 @ 4:19PM|#
The LP is falling behind the curve. Where are Baby's Very First Austrian Economics Textbook and Kermit the Frog Says "Legalize It!"?
|2.18.06 @ 4:22PM|#
crimethink,
There is an age at which you simply don't teach your kid about the
fact they could have been aborted. That will come in eventually,
but at too young an age it is morally criminal to put such scary
thoughts into a tykes head.
|2.18.06 @ 4:25PM|#
I almost forgot, thanks for the reminder phocion, my other new book is called Why Mommy is Pro-choice on Everything and Why Daddy is Against Paternalism.
|2.18.06 @ 4:26PM|#
Les, you said it as well as I could have.
Let me give another example. I was born in 1963. When I was about
5, the Dallas TV stations started running an announcement right
before the 10 p.m. news saying "It's 10 p.m. Do you know where your
children are?" (My parents made me go to bed at 8:30, which doesn't
mean that I went to sleep then.) I spent years in blind terror that
somehow my parents would lose me between bedtime and 10 o'clock. It
finally dawned on me at puberty what the ad really meant, but by
then I had spent years convinced that roving gangs of monsters
wandered around northeast Texas plucking innocent children from
their beds.
Kids see things only from their own, immediately personal,
perspective. Kids understand this kind of propaganda to say
"someone's trying to hurt me" in the case of the doll, and "someone
doesn't like Mommy" in the case of the book. Fairy tales and myths
work because they show often small and weak people succeeding where
the obvious big tough guys fail. That way, kids have a basic
feeling of security that will support them in learning about the
complexities of political problems. They'll also be better educated
in the process. As the obnoxious business books say, it's win - win
all the way 'round.
kgsam|2.18.06 @ 4:29PM|#
crimethink
I think Karen explained herself sufficiently:
I don't think kids that age should be interested in politics
much past being able to identify the name of the country, state,
city, the current President, and George Washington.
One may justifiably assume that Karen is pro-choice given her
political affiliation, but one can also imagine a pro-lifer having
problems giving sucha doll to a four year old.
|2.18.06 @ 4:39PM|#
In the interest of full disclosure, I don't think any first
trimester or most second trimester abortions should be illegal,
because I think the costs and complications of enforcing a ban far
outweigh any benefits. Obviously, however, my opinions are
complicated far beyond the ability of even a bright 8 year old to
understand.
Parents of kids in the age group for the doll and the book should
concentrate on setting a good example if they want children to
accept their opinions later. My kids will be more open to my
politics when they get older if they have spent the first 14 years
observing a walk consistent with the talk. I could read passages
from the Port Huron Statement all day long to them and it would
make no difference if they know I use racial eptithets in
private.
|2.18.06 @ 4:57PM|#
There's nothing especially new about this attitude on the Democrats' part. I'm old enough to remember the notorious Democratic Party Telethon, in which Shari Lewis put aside Lambchop for a moment to tell all the kids in the audience that the reason the telethon was necessary: The Republican Party had a "huge treasure chest" with which to pay their bills, while the poor Democrats needed everyone else to contribute what they could.
Ron Hardin|2.18.06 @ 5:08PM|#
Mommy is a Democrat because she doesn't want to have to deal
with men for support.
She's free to nag him away.
|2.18.06 @ 5:12PM|#
If I ever have kids, their books and toys will include:
Furry the Stuffed Ferret
Peter Rabbit Learns to Respect Farmer McGregor's Property
Rights
Druid figurines
Water Pistols with High Capacity Magazines
Cinderella Realizes That It's Only Fair to Earn Her
Keep
And of course I'm totally joking.
Ken Hagler|2.18.06 @ 5:24PM|#
"Democrats make sure children can go to school"
I think it shows how detached from reality the author is that he
actually thinks this will make children like Democrats. I would pay
money to see the look on his face if he ever meets a kid who's read
the book, though:
Kid: "I hate Democrats!"
Author: (in shock) "Why?"
Kid: "Because this book said they're the ones who make me go to
school!"
|2.18.06 @ 5:32PM|#
Karen,
I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on the abortion issue
per se, for the time being. However, you still haven't explained
how giving your child a pro-life doll should be grounds for taking
the child into state custody.
|2.18.06 @ 5:55PM|#
The Democrat's book is yet another example of why we shouldn't have tax-payer financed political campaigns. Imagine the outrage of being forced to pay for this assault on kid's critical thinking skills.
|2.18.06 @ 6:01PM|#
I'm looking forward to hearing what conservative talk radio does
with this...
...just kidding...actually I couldn't care less...
|2.18.06 @ 6:15PM|#
Peter Rabbit Learns to Respect Farmer McGregor's Property
Rights
Thoreau, that post reminds me of
this strip from The Perry Bible Fellowship.
|2.18.06 @ 6:25PM|#
Giving a child this doll is hardly
indoctrination.
Errrr... yes it is nothink. It is conveying an obvious political
message that is meant to be adopted by the child.
However, you still haven't explained how giving your child a
pro-life doll should be grounds for taking the child into state
custody.
Because the last thing we need are more fucking Christard willing
to help drag our civilization back into the fucking Dark Ages.
|2.18.06 @ 6:48PM|#
"I ask again: is informing a child of an horrific thing that
could have been done to them, worse than doing that horrific
thing?"
Of course it's not worse, asshole, but that doesn't mean you have
to talk to them about it. If Karen had said "It's criminal to chain
your kids to their beds for weeks at a time" you'd be asking "yeah,
but is it worse than killing them?"
|2.18.06 @ 7:21PM|#
I wonder if the typical democrat will still be referencing this book after he/she becomes old enough to vote...
|2.18.06 @ 8:22PM|#
However, you still haven't explained how giving your child a
pro-life doll should be grounds for taking the child into state
custody.
Because the last thing we need are more fucking Christard
willing to help drag our civilization back into the fucking Dark
Ages.
when did the neo-nazis start coming to reason's hit and run?
|2.18.06 @ 8:28PM|#
It is conveying an obvious political message that is meant
to be adopted by the child.
What, that they could have been aborted? It may be a political
message, but it's also a sad fact that even pro-choice people would
admit is true, if they have the courage to quit hiding behind their
precious euphemisms.
andy,
There's a huge difference between chaining a kid to a bed and
telling him or her about abortion. I'm not saying that abortion
being legal should make all sorts of child abuse legal, I'm just
pointing out that it seems strange to condemn those who tell
children about horrific things that could have been done to them,
and then turn around and defend the right to do those same horrific
things.
|2.18.06 @ 8:28PM|#
Okay,
So this is really bad. And has nothing to do with democrats, their
philosophy or their politics. It is no worse than the recent
republican Star Wars based message ... where the republicans were
depicted as the valiant rebels fighting the evil democratic empire
(daily show has excerpts).
It's not like this was put out by the Democratic Party... just some
talentless twit.
Ever see the stuff the libertarian party put together that they
call a "platform." Reads like children's lit to me.
|2.18.06 @ 8:33PM|#
And of course, what we're all forgetting here is that children
have been exposed to scary concepts since the beginning of history,
and somehow have managed to deal with it. Pick up a book of fairy
tales, and count the instances of people being eaten, dismembered,
etc, and tell me that children need to be shielded from the dirty
deeds we adults have become all too comfortable with.
Maybe Bailey had a point in that "pussification" article the other
day...
|2.18.06 @ 8:35PM|#
JK: Good question...and furthermore, why are the Democratic squirrels depicted as just as indifferent to the plight of the bum in the baseball cap as the Republicans?
|2.18.06 @ 8:44PM|#
joshua corning,
I don't think Akira's a neo-Nazi. But his irrational hatred of
Christians does make him sound like one.
|2.18.06 @ 8:46PM|#
crimethink: It's objectionable for precisely the same reason
that a Barbie doll would be objectionable if she said "Republicans
want to control my uterus." Abortion is a contentious political
issue, and it's wrong to use toys to indoctrinate kids.
BTW, how do we get through 60 comments in this thread with no one
mentioning Captain Planet?
|2.18.06 @ 9:06PM|#
FXKLM,
Because we had repressed the memory in order to continue normal
life after having lived through such a soul-destroying
experience.
Actually, Captain Planet is a perfect example of this kind of
thing; it presented complex issues in between Froot Loops ads and
with the same subtlety. There is a reason we don't let kids vote,
and it's because they aren't equipped to understand the facts and
the policy implications on any given issue we discuss in our
elections. Our ancestors designed myths and fairy tales to teach
kids how to integrate into their societies, but not to teach them
how to decide on who should be the next chief. I still love to read
fairy tales, even as an adult and not just to Andy and Aaron, but I
don't base my voting on them.
As for exposing children to harsh things, only when it's necessary.
For the same reason I don't insist that my 7 and 4 year old sons
hold a job, I don't try to involve them in political discussions.
"To each according to his ability . . ." reeked as a way of
organizing a state and an economy, but it works pretty well as
parenting advice. After Andy and Aaron have mastered the
multiplication tables, I'll start discussing politics.
|2.18.06 @ 9:08PM|#
crimethink,
I think that every parent has to make a decision about what their
child can handle based on that child's personality. Some can handle
it, some can't. Unfortunately, most parents don't think about such
things because, for some reason, most people think they know
everything they need to about child-rearing automatically, as if it
were hardwired into us. That goes for folks who are over-protective
and under-protective.
My wife and I are secularists, but I will not teach my son to be
one. I'll educate him about world religion and let him make his own
choice when he's got all the relevant information.
I despise the current administration (along with most other
administrations), but I refuse to tell my son that Bush or Clinton
are bad men (though I believe they're worse than that), because if
I do, then he would merely parrot it (the way most Democrats and
most Republicans merely parrot what their leaders say). And I hope
to teach him that the worst kind of opinion is an uninformed
one.
All that (somehow) leads to my opinion (based on my years working
with kids) that, generally speaking, it's not healthy for kids to
be exposed to simplistic opinions about something like abortion (or
sadistic fantasies like Hell), because baseless fear doesn't make
for healthy development and the formation of uninformed opinions is
a hard habit to break.
Thank you for your patience.
|2.18.06 @ 10:37PM|#
Crimethink, maybe you should apply the same logic to adoption. There's nothing wrong at all with adoption. In fact it's quite wonderful - hardly something we would judge. But, if you have a 4 year old, would you send them to bed each night saying, "You know, if things had worked out differently, we would have sent you away to live with another family. In fact, we could still do it if we felt we had to. Goodnight & sweet dreams."?
|2.18.06 @ 10:51PM|#
One of the (numerous) funny things about the website is that
there is not only a button to click to buy the book, but a "donate"
button as well. Is the writer actually losing money every time he
sells one of these things? Maybe that helps to explain why he is a
Democrat.
And not only is the cat a "life-long Democrat," but so is his
girlfriend's 6 year kid. Creepy.
R.J. Lehmann|2.19.06 @ 12:05AM|#
I'd like to see what happens when Mommy Squirrel the Democrat
meets Brasco the Liberty Bear:
http://www.jpfo.org/brasco.gif
|2.19.06 @ 12:09AM|#
As for the libertarian kid's book, the endorsement is
HILARIOUS:
"It certainly presents basic economic principles in a very simple
and intelligible form. It is an imaginative and very useful piece
of work."
Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate in economics
Good God, is this man endorsing a pamphlet on earned income tax
credits or a children's book? Very mechanistic endorsement if
ever...
Also, for the teens, try this link FOR CAPITALISM!
[url]http://www.captaincapitalism.com/[/url]
|2.19.06 @ 12:09AM|#
He went to Oberlin and is currently liveing in Madison Wi! I swear sometimes people just wake up one morning and decide to become caricatures of themselves.
Rich Ard|2.19.06 @ 12:39AM|#
...and tell me that children need to be shielded from the
dirty deeds we adults have become all too comfortable
with.
That's why I got my daughter a burglar doll that says "if you try
to break into my house, daddy's going to shoot me!"
|2.19.06 @ 12:41AM|#
when did the neo-nazis start coming to reason's hit and
run?
Given that Hitler
wasn't an atheist, you're strawman has no bearing.
I don't think Akira's a neo-Nazi. But his irrational hatred of
Christians does make him sound like one.
Irrational? Crack open a history book and look up all the wars
fought and the genocides commited in the name of religion,
especially Christianity. Go to a library and look up all the
repression of science and literature committed in the name of
religion, especially Christianity. Browse the modern news websites
and see how religion, especially Christianity, continues to attempt
to usurp human liberty and dignity EVEN IN THIS COUNTRY!
Irrational? Nonsense, nothink. My hatred of the knuckle-dragging
delusion you call "Christianity" is perfectly rational, not to
mention, perfectly justified given how it's fucked me and millions
of other people around the world.
|2.19.06 @ 12:51AM|#
Alternative titles:
Why Mommy Sucks Nuts
How Does Mommy Find All Those Nuts?
Ugh, it's late & my back hurts a little.
|2.19.06 @ 2:37AM|#
I still have my doubts that Karen and Jennifer are two
separate people.
I don't, and I'm mystified as to why anyone would think they were
the same person.
|2.19.06 @ 3:15AM|#
how do we get through 60 comments in this thread with no one
mentioning Captain Planet?
That was the first thought that popped into my head. Poor little
bastards. At least we didn't have to read our early childhood
propaganda.
|2.19.06 @ 3:17AM|#
Democrat:
Ever see the stuff the libertarian party put together that they
call a "platform." Reads like children's lit to me.
Care to back that up by citing a particular?
|2.19.06 @ 3:39AM|#
Akira MacKenzie:
My hatred of the knuckle-dragging delusion you call
"Christianity" is perfectly rational, not to mention, perfectly
justified given how it's fucked me and millions of other people
around the world.
There's no need to hold back on this forum. Feel free to tell us
what you really think, Akira.
|2.19.06 @ 3:45AM|#
When I first read the sample page, I parsed it wrong--I thought it was a right-wing hack job about how single mothers are democracts (Mommy's going to school, just like her kids).
|2.19.06 @ 5:38AM|#
how it's fucked me and millions of other people around the
world.
hitler and nazi germany had its victim politics wrapped up in
geneicide as well.
And I don't think you are bad becouse you are an athiest...I am an
athiest (though without the obvious hate running through your
veins)...I think you are fucked becouse you advicate the state
violantly taking children from thier parents becouse of thier
religious beliefs.
|2.19.06 @ 7:38AM|#
Were they aware that our society accorded their mother the
power to have them killed at one time, they would no doubt already
share the doll's sentiments.
Why? I'm aware that my mother could have aborted me, but if she
had, I wouldn't have cared, because my brain would never have
existed. And I certainly wouldn't care today, for the same
reason.
However, to make you happy, I will be the one to step out on a limb
and say that aborting a child should absolutely result in
termination of your parental rights to that child.
MP|2.19.06 @ 7:56AM|#
I think you are fucked becouse you advicate the state
violantly taking children from thier parents becouse of thier
religious beliefs.
Haven't we all learned the site's disclaimer yet?
"Comments for or against a particular position should not be
construed as advocacy for state enforcement of that position unless
explicitly stated by the author."
I'm sure Akira understood that Karen's position was a tongue in
cheek comment and not true advocacy for state control.
Les, your February 18, 2006 09:08 PM post sounded
like an extremely thoughtful way to raise a child. It sounds like a
great model to emulated, but I have no idea how I'm going to do it.
The world pisses me off so much that it will be hard not to vent in
front of my child.
VM|2.19.06 @ 10:30AM|#
this is great. godwin-ing AM???
but i'd suggest that the people dropping the "NSDAP" bombs should
read up on what they're saying and see that it makes no
sense.
steeple steeple steeple.
here: be in favor of your little war, read the leather bound copy
of "Heather Has Two Mommies" (complete with the sweaty pillow fight
scene on page 69), and try to be like an expert in
typewriters.
(and being in favor of torture that we're actually doing is a sign
of more hatred flowing through you than any internet hyperbole in a
chat room)
hokae?
hokae.
|2.19.06 @ 11:04AM|#
The only positive thing you can say about abortions is that most
of them would have become democrats.
As for making sure children can go to school, does anyone remember
the party of a governor who stood in a door denying Autherine Lucy
admittence?
|2.19.06 @ 1:17PM|#
hitler and nazi germany had its victim politics wrapped up in
geneicide as well.
Excuse me, but where the fuck did I mention genocide, other than
requesting nothink to bone-up on the history of organized religion,
particularly Christianity?
I think you are fucked becouse you advicate the state violantly
taking children from thier parents becouse of thier religious
beliefs.
It must be nice not to have a sense of humor.
|2.19.06 @ 1:33PM|#
Why Republicans Run All Branches of the Federal Government
and Probably Will for the Next 20 or 30 Years
That's a scary thought. But at this stage of the game, does anyone
think the Democrats are really going to be any better? Different
yes. Better, I sincerely doubt. Today it's a contest to see who can
pull the most outrageous stunts. [today? someone tell me how long
ago did 'today' started]
I was raised to be a good baptist and (mostly) republican.
According to my parents, it was God's will that I should one day
utterly forsake my upbringing.
Lots of atheists think they were fucked by Christianity. I did
once. But then I got too busy with other things......and somehow I
don't remember anymore.
So now I'm an atheist libertarian and this
The LP is falling behind the curve. Where are Baby's Very First
Austrian Economics Textbook and Kermit the Frog Says "Legalize
It!"?
is funny. At least there's some humor here.
Meanwhile, in Jakarta they're throwing yet another riot in the
infoontada.
And to think that on another thread, I was just arguing
(implicitly) that the West is superior to Islam which has not yet
crawled out of the Dark Ages.....
Silly me.
Is the whole freaking world coming unwrapped? Or am I just getting
too much MSM?
|2.19.06 @ 2:19PM|#
"Thanks for posting the link."
No problem. PBF is one of the most entertaining and under
appreciated strips on the web.
|2.19.06 @ 2:25PM|#
how do we get through 60 comments in this thread with no one
mentioning Captain Planet?
*singing*
Captain Planet! He's a hero! Gonna take pollution down to zero!
These are powers magnified, and he's fighting on the planet's
side!
ARRRRRRRGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH! GET OUT OF MY HEAD TED
TURNER!
|2.19.06 @ 2:31PM|#
It's a bushwackin' love fest around here. Good luck with
that.
Actually, I stopped whackin' it to Bush once I found your blog.
Seriously. That picture of you in the water with the fog all around
gets me hot.
VM|2.19.06 @ 2:43PM|#
Akira: remember, you're either a gahwd-fearin, torturin'
amerukn. or yer one-a-dem. and anytime you get godwined on being
anti religious, you've really earned the game ball for that! you're
onto something when you got the ire of the left and the
right!
good job. :)
cheerio.
|2.19.06 @ 2:58PM|#
Simple answer: "Mommy is a Democrat, because Mommy lacks
critical-thinking skills."
-jcr
Shannon|2.19.06 @ 3:12PM|#
I think Captain Planet was actually conceived of by anti-environmentalists. According to that show, pollution is created by mutated super-villains who derive sadistic glee from the act of polluting. Not oil companies or anything. Just evil mutants. Way to send kids off on the wrong track.
Shannon|2.19.06 @ 3:14PM|#
Oh, and most of the Democrats I know would point and laugh at this book. Just sayin'...
|2.19.06 @ 3:28PM|#
Shannon, I've had the same response among my friends. Everyone seems to agree that it's absurd to inculcate political opinions in kids more than a decade away from voting.
|2.19.06 @ 4:18PM|#
Akira, no surprise.
Heck, just take a look at the "amazing" drx. He wouldn't know a
libertarian from a bowl of Rice Krispies.
|2.19.06 @ 4:49PM|#
Why won't the Dems even try? Any day now, Rove will change his name to "Ming, the Merciless".
|2.19.06 @ 5:02PM|#
"Actually, I was hoping that Professor Berkman would have the
brains to differentiate between a libertarian and a conservative.
Apparently, not."
By definition, libertarians are "conservative," economically at
least. One need not be socially medieval to be "conservative." And
whatever you think of these definitions, I don't think it's worth
getting one's panties in a bunch.
|2.19.06 @ 7:06PM|#
I've often thought of doing a children's version of Atlas
Shrugged.
Hello? Hello? Who is John Galt?
Would you please share? Please pass the salt?
To put on my green ham and egg
I need your salt, for which I beg
- I do not like you looter guys!
- You are the people I despise!
Are you inhuman? Don't you care?
Would you, could you, try to share?
Would you, if you owned Fort Knox
Give half to folks living in a box?
Would you give the needy half your wages?
(This goes on for 800 pages ...)
Would you give them half your wife?
Would you give them half your life?
- No! The motor of the world I'll halt!
- Amscray, Sam! I am John Galt!
|2.19.06 @ 7:09PM|#
"To each according to his ability . . ." reeked as a way of
organizing a state and an economy, but it works pretty well as
parenting advice.
Shouldn't that be "From each according to his
ability - To each according to his need." - if you meant to quote
Marx & Engels.
'From each according to their ability, to each according to their
ability' is a fairly libertarian statement, if you ignore the
implication that society is the direct arbiter of people's 1)
choice of work, and 2) wages.
As for the book, so long as someone wants to make cute, pro-school
vermin Democratic mascots, perhaps they ought to have dramatized
the adventures of Rickey the inner-city school Rat. He stays alive
because the school superintendent is an incompetent who got his job
through political patronage. Rickey runs through the air vents and
walls all day long, visiting the children and making them sick with
his disease and parasites. (And wait until you see what he leaves
in the cafeteria's tuna casserole!)
...Say...any of you know a good illustrator?
|2.19.06 @ 7:53PM|#
Akira, was your Prof Dave Berkman @ the Metastasized Normal
School?
Yup! That's him. I had him for Editoral and Opinion writing and
History of Broadcast Media.
|2.19.06 @ 7:54PM|#
Nice Stevo, the whole poem. My favorite:
(This goes on for 800 pages ...)
In the words of Larry, the Cable Guy, "I don't care who ya are,
that's funny".
An Ayn Rand fan.
|2.19.06 @ 8:10PM|#
Stevo --
Mea maxima culpa. I hate misquoting something, especially something
that familar.
|2.19.06 @ 9:10PM|#
Damn Stevo,
Now I need to wipe down my keyboard and pour another glass of
wine.
Democrats make sure children can go to school just like Mommy
does.
If Mommy had gone to a good school, she would know that the school
the kids were going to was a vacuous, self important monopoly that
didn't get the job done.
|2.19.06 @ 10:52PM|#
Actually, I was hoping that Professor Berkman would have the
brains to differentiate between a libertarian and a conservative.
Apparently, not.
And I was hoping Akira M. would have the brains to differentiate
between modern christians and christians circa 1620.
|2.19.06 @ 11:02PM|#
"is your child interested in grown up problems, like war or
pollution?"
That's hysterical Karen.
My kid ended up in the GT program because of some test called the
Cogat, I think. All I had to do was say "ok".
Still, I'm glad to hear that there is a market out there for my
kid's book idea - The Fox and the Lion: A tale of friendship in
medieval Italy by Niccolo Machiavelli
Francois Tremblay|2.20.06 @ 12:16AM|#
What would a Christian be doing on a libertarian blog ? Silly troll. Collectivist dogma is for kids !
|2.20.06 @ 1:12AM|#
Can anyone imagine the Democrats having a kids book titled "Why
Daddy is a Democrat?"
Didn't think so.
dhex|2.20.06 @ 2:31AM|#
at this point i can imagine people making childrens' books for
almost any ready. the no, george no thing, the liberals under the
bed book, etc.
then again, thanks to the internet i can read the reviews of any of
these fine titles at amazon.com and be dismayed and entertained in
one fell swoop. sometimes that's the best you can hope for.
|2.20.06 @ 10:14AM|#
I suppose the libertarian version would be "Why Mommy and Daddy
are NOT Libertarians" -- and for an older age that would work
splendidly...
If Mommy had gone to a good school, she would know that the
school the kids were going to was a vacuous, self important
monopoly that didn't get the job done.
Schools have changed a lot in the last 20 years or so. Indeed, I
remember skipping out of "mandatory" assemblies, when I was in high
school, by simply walking out the door, though I had to make sure I
was in the middle of a group so as not to be identified by a stray
hall monitor.
That was 10 years ago, but such an escape would be impossible in my
former school today, with the constant police presence and
minimized, locked-down entrances, ostensibly to protect the
students from outsiders. Just like the bars on the window in
Nightmare on Elm Street...
|2.20.06 @ 10:15AM|#
mk --
One of the other questions was "Does your child use grown-up
words?" I was so tempted to respond "Oh, yes, and you should really
see how well he does the hand gestures!"
Seriously, the GT thing is one of the very few complaints I've got
about Andy's elementary school. Most of the Houston and Dallas
areas schools use the test you mentioned and then ask the parents
to decline admission. Apparently Austin Independent School District
is terrified that too many kids would qualify, or, worse, the
qualified kids would all be in the prosperous west and central
schools. Either that, or no one in adminstration knows how to
request copies the Cogat. I'm afraid to admit it's probably
both.
|2.20.06 @ 10:31AM|#
And the man's cat is NOT a Democrat, no matter what the man
thinks. There is no such thing as a Democratic cat.
I will guarantee you, however, that the cartoon woman carrying the
poodle and her husband (who are passing the homeless guy with
indifference) both voted for John Kerry.
|2.20.06 @ 11:05AM|#
Karen, much as I hate to admit this, when I had a little problem
on the road yesterday with a car in front of me driving
erratically, my five year old piped up from the back seat, "Hey
lady, put down your fucking phone and drive!"
I guess he's ready for G&T.
|2.20.06 @ 11:06AM|#
Wait, so Mommy, who's a squirrel, is a Democrat?
No wonder they're all for gun control.
|2.20.06 @ 11:49AM|#
And I was hoping Akira M. would have the brains to
differentiate between modern christians and christians circa
1620.
Please, you give them far too much credit. The modern christian
hasn't really changed all that much since 620 CE. Granted, there
was a Reformation (that only spawned more fanatical branches of
Christianity) and a few minor changes. However, the silly
philosophy of "God," "Devil," "sin," "soul" "Heaven," and "Hell"
really hasn't changed much and continues to drag us down. If
religion had kept pace with our scientific and philosophical
progress (rather than shunning it and trying to censor it),
Christianity would have folded long ago.
|2.20.06 @ 11:57AM|#
And the man's cat is NOT a Democrat, no matter what the man
thinks. There is no such thing as a Democratic cat.
Oh, I don't know. While it is certainly true that cats have a
strong libertarian streak in them, our cats have a strong sense of
entitlement to generous benefits and services, expect others to pay
for them and take no personal responsibility whatsoever.
|2.20.06 @ 12:02PM|#
This is creepy.
I hate how self-congratulatory some people can be.
Daddy probably left home with a six pack and a call girl because
mommy was so goddammed dull.
|2.20.06 @ 12:17PM|#
Stevo - that was fantastic!
DA - while my cats have always received generous benefits, they
have always earned them, through creating a mouse-free habitat, and
providing the general benefit of being in their presence.
|2.20.06 @ 12:20PM|#
It's just so horrible; the idea of wanting to sway anyone at so
young an age.
If these authors had the opportunity, they'd launch a programme of
democratic indoctrination involving juviniles and electrodes on
testicles.
|2.20.06 @ 1:20PM|#
"If religion had kept pace with our scientific and philosophical
progress (rather than shunning it and trying to censor it),
Christianity would have folded long ago."
The best way to test that hypothesis would be to hold an
experiment: Drain the Christianity out of a culture and see if
"scientific and philosophical progress" improves.
One experiment was Russia and nearby countries in the period
1917-1991, and we know how much scientific and philosophical
progress they made, don't we?
Mexico also tried to purge organized religion from social influence
after it had its own revolution in 1917. Did this improve the
scientific and philosophical climate?
France, starting in the 1790s, and then on and off at other
intervals, especially the early twentieth century, attacked the
influence of Christianity on the culture. Yeah, that brought about
an immediate increase in rationality, as the operators of the
French Revolutionary guillotines, not to mention all the
Deconstructionist and other idiot philosophers, could readily tell
you.
And we all know what wonderful results, in terms of rationality, we
had in the government schools once the taint of Christianity had
been carefully scrubbed away.
DaveInBigD|2.20.06 @ 1:53PM|#
He went to Oberlin and is currently liveing in Madison Wi! I
swear sometimes people just wake up one morning and decide to
become caricatures of themselves.
Democrats want to go to expensive private colleges while assuaging
their guilt by spending lots of your tax money on low-performing
public schools, just like mommy.
You know, what exactly is the difference between a college student
that takes federal student financial aid money and goes to a
private college like Oberlin, and an elementary student that takes
a voucher to a private school? I mean, aside from the fact that
there's no powerful public-university-professors' union running the
Democratic party?
|2.20.06 @ 2:15PM|#
what exactly is the difference between a college student that takes federal student financial aid money and goes to a private college like Oberlin, and an elementary student that takes a voucher to a private school?
Universities don't educate people during their early formative
years. There is a grave danger that parents using vouchers for
young children would send them to a religious school! This is very
dangerous because in addition to learning about, say, Christain
values, it's likely that childern would not be exposed the the
wholesome goodness of things like "Why Mommy is a Democrat."
It is the Democratic party's manifest interest to prevent as many
parents as it can from making that choice.
|2.20.06 @ 2:24PM|#
One little thing about teh "Sharing our toys" page - anyone
notice the blocks in the middle of the page pretty much spell
"democrat?" Not wholly surprising, to be sure. Just something I
noticed. As if the author needed to subliminally underline the
message of the book.
Hmmm.
|2.20.06 @ 2:34PM|#
Here's Why Too!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/02/19/INGLFH94P71.DTL
|2.20.06 @ 2:35PM|#
AmyLou,
Mommy is supposed to go over that with kiddie while they read
together.
"Look, here's a D and an E and ...."
One also notes that Mommy protects the children from elephants in a
non-judgmental way.
Does anyone remember those pre WWII - Stalin era textbooks they had
for reading in the USSR?
Children in America don't get hot soup for lunch.
Children in England don't get hot soup for lunch.
Only Children in the Soviet Union get hot soup for lunch.
|2.20.06 @ 2:53PM|#
Only Children in the Soviet Union get hot soup for
lunch.
Made by the Soup Communist, eh?
|2.20.06 @ 2:56PM|#
There was an episode of Family Guy where Stewie picks up The
DaVinci Code and mistakes it for fodder for �middle-aged housewife
masturbatory fantasies� or something to that effect.
I wonder if this book is less about educating kids about the
virtues of the Dem party, and more about Dems indulging in
ego-masturbatory hero fantasies of their own.
MP|2.20.06 @ 3:02PM|#
Wait, so Mommy, who's a squirrel, is a Democrat?
Are all squirrels Democrats? Maybe that would explain the Reason
server squirrel...
R C Dean|2.20.06 @ 3:41PM|#
Only Children in the Soviet Union get hot soup for
lunch.
In Russia, children don't eat soup, soup eat . . .
never mind. It was funnier in my head.
|2.20.06 @ 3:47PM|#
The best way to test that hypothesis would be to hold an
experiment: Drain the Christianity out of a culture and see if
"scientific and philosophical progress" improves. One experiment
was Russia and nearby countries in the period 1917-1991, and we
know how much scientific and philosophical progress they made,
don't we?
You do know what an "experiment" is, right? You do know that you
have to hold the other conditions equal when testing for one
difference, right? I'm thinking there were some other, nontrivial
things going on there at the same time aside from "draining
Christianity."
Nonetheless, it is worth noting that despite everything, Russia was
in fact the first country to launch orbit an artificial satellite,
the first to launch a human being into space, and the first to send
a human into orbit around the Earth.
France, starting in the 1790s, and then on and off at other
intervals, especially the early twentieth century, attacked the
influence of Christianity on the culture. Yeah, that brought about
an immediate increase in rationality, as the operators of the
French Revolutionary guillotines, not to mention all the
Deconstructionist and other idiot philosophers, could readily tell
you.
In the same period, they created the measurement system that's
still the lingua franca of science worldwide today. They
also accurately measured the size of the Earth to several
significant figures as part of that project.
|2.20.06 @ 4:04PM|#
The best way to test that hypothesis would be to hold an
experiment: Drain the Christianity out of a culture and see if
"scientific and philosophical progress" improves.
Clearly. Much like the best way to test the idea of Democracy is to
remove a dictator from power, install a Constitution and see if
quality of life improves.
|2.20.06 @ 4:13PM|#
"Nonetheless, it is worth noting that despite everything, Russia
was in fact the first country to launch orbit an artificial
satellite, the first to launch a human being into space, and the
first to send a human into orbit around the Earth. . .
"In the same period [1790 onwards, France] . . . created the
measurement system that's still the lingua franca of science
worldwide today. They also accurately measured the size of the
Earth to several significant figures as part of that
project."
OK, on one side of the scale we have Sputnik and the metric system.
On the other side we have Deconstructionism, the French
revolutionary terror (in which, to demonstrate their support of
reason, the revolutionaries cut the chemist Lavoisier's head off),
the Gulag, Lysenkoism, the Ukrainian famine, and of course Yakov
Smirnov.
Was it worth it?
|2.20.06 @ 4:42PM|#
...Say...any of you know a good illustrator?
I always wanted to be a cartoonist...
...unfortunately, any comic strips I'd make would have to be a
collaborative effort (I wouldn't have the time to make any
interesting commentaries myself, no doubt, but I could probably
pull off some crappy illustrations. I'd need the ideas of at least
one conceptualist behind me, though).
DaveInBigD|2.20.06 @ 4:43PM|#
Hey, Lavoisier's day job was as a tax collector. That's grounds for a little head-chopping in this neighborhood isn't it?
|2.20.06 @ 4:57PM|#
"Hey, Lavoisier's day job was as a tax collector. That's grounds
for a little head-chopping in this neighborhood isn't it?"
Maybe if he was executed by a libertarian regime which was opposed
to taxes. Instead, the regime which whacked him was just as
committed to fleecing the people as the royal regime which preceded
it. Lavoisier was considered particularly objectionable because of
the *method* of taxation he was involved with, known as tax
farming. An unpleasant method, of course, but worse than the
revolutionary regime's taxes, confiscations and inflated currency?
Hardly.
A libertarian revolution might have punished Lavoisier by forcing
him to put his scientific skills to the service of the public.
Killing him was kind of, uh, overkill.
|2.20.06 @ 5:06PM|#
I'm not sure what your point is, Milton. Are you implying that the fact that irrationality exists in the absence of Christianity means that Christianity is not irrational? Or are you just saying that lots of things besides religion contribute to reason or the lack thereof (in which case I agree)?
|2.20.06 @ 5:08PM|#
OK, on one side of the scale we have Sputnik and the metric
system. On the other side we have Deconstructionism, the French
revolutionary terror (in which, to demonstrate their support of
reason, the revolutionaries cut the chemist Lavoisier's head off),
the Gulag, Lysenkoism, the Ukrainian famine, and of course Yakov
Smirnov.
Was it worth it?
What kind of dilemma is this?
|2.20.06 @ 5:09PM|#
This is a burglar. He tried to break in and steal Daddy's stuff.
But it's Daddy's stuff, not the burglar's. Now the burglar is
pushing up daisies. Good-bye, Mr. Burglar!
This is an ATF agent. He wants to steal Daddy's guns. But the ATF
agent knows better than to come inside Daddy's shack and get shot.
So he tries to trick Daddy into coming out. But Daddy is staying
inside his shack. Fuck off, Mr. ATF agent!
This is a SWAT team. They want to steal Daddy's special medicine.
Daddy uses his special medicine to relax. Without his special
medicine, Daddy gets grouchy. Do you feel lucky, punks?
|2.20.06 @ 5:16PM|#
"Or are you just saying that lots of things besides religion
contribute to reason or the lack thereof (in which case I
agree)?"
There was some suggestion that Christiany *prevents* societies from
being more rational. If that were so, one would expect to see more
rational societies where Christianity has been removed from the
equation.
"You do know what an 'experiment' is, right? You do know that you
have to hold the other conditions equal when testing for one
difference, right? I'm thinking there were some other, nontrivial
things going on there at the same time aside from 'draining
Christianity.'"
I'm sorry I can't create laboratory conditions in which to conduct
a *perfect* controlled experiment taking all factors into account
-- all I have to work with is history, which I described
(metaphorically, if you will) as an experiment because it's the
closest thing to a laboratory we are likely to get.
|2.20.06 @ 5:41PM|#
Milton, the statement, "If [Christianity prevents societies
from being more rational], one would expect to see more rational
societies where Christianity has been removed from the
equation", is (drum roll please) irrational, in that it
assumes that all other factors are constant, a condition which you
admit is not the case in history. You're lending experimental
weight to a conclusion you admit is not drawn from valid
experimentation, but rather "the closest thing... we are likely to
get".
And, it goes (rather, should go) without saying that if a thought
is indeed irrational then it runs contrary to rational thought, and
thus prevents socieites from being more rational, if adhered
to.
|2.20.06 @ 5:57PM|#
On further reflection: Since, from your other posts, I gather that you believe (as do I) that the forcible removal of religion from a society is by its very nature unreasonable, for you to point out societies that have done this (and not simply "grown out" of religion, which of course none have yet done), and then say "look at all this other unreasonable stuff they did", is intellectually dishonest. All you're proving is something all of us on this board already agree on, that is, that forcing someone to believe something is wrong and bad for society, and is usually accompanied by other wrongs. This doesn't speak to the rationality of any belief that was discriminated against. You're basically saying, "the enemy of my enemy is reasonable".
|2.20.06 @ 7:26PM|#
Wrote the author to tell him how inappropriate it is to try to
brainwash little kids. Here's his response:
Thanks for the comment, Andrew. I'll forward it to the
next person I overhear telling their young children
that George Bush is a good man who only wants what's
best for America.
Best of luck,
Jeremy
Tool.
|2.20.06 @ 9:36PM|#
Thanks for the comment, Andrew. I'll forward it to the next
person I overhear telling their young children that George Bush is
a good man who only wants what's best for America.
In other words, two wrongs make a right, kids...
|2.20.06 @ 9:43PM|#
Stevo: your "Atlas Seussed" is brilliant, except you need to work in "A is A" somwehere...
|2.20.06 @ 10:07PM|#
"Democrats make sure we are always safe, just like Mommy
does."
Ok, but don't blame the kids when they vote Republican in 20 years
though. They're quite good at pushing peoples fear buttons
too.
Ugh. The book is just barf-a-rama. But I don't doubt many parents
do indoctrinate their kids like this.
"Democrats expect you to believe things based on propaganda, just
like Mommy does".
|2.20.06 @ 10:57PM|#
Akira,
I'm a Christian, my parents are Christians, and the majority of my
entire family are Christians. While I do not appreciate your
viscious attacks on my religion, my (Christian) parents raised me
to be accepting of other people's religions (or lack thereof). If
you don't want to believe in God, you don't have to. Nobody is
forcing you to be a Christian. But do not think you're better than
me because you don't hold the same beliefs. I know what I believe
and you know what you believe and that should be good enough.
Attacking people for their beliefs only makes you look bad in
everyone's eyes, whether they agree with you or not. In this great
country, everyone is free to have their own opinions, but try
having some respect for the opinions of others. If you do, you'll
find they're more willing to respect yours. Success in an arguement
starts with an open mind.
|2.20.06 @ 11:24PM|#
zach,
It was Akira, not Milton, who first waded into the murky waters of
speculating what our society would be like were it not for
Christianity. If Milton's conclusions don't follow from his
"experiment", how much more do Akira's not follow?
|2.21.06 @ 1:48AM|#
"Red squirrels have tufted ears:"
Wait.
So we can assume that the author based his Democrat-voting
protagonists on red squirrels?
That's some rich irony.
Well, maybe it isn't rich, per se, but it's at least middle-class
irony.
|2.21.06 @ 11:32AM|#
It was Akira, not Milton, who first waded into the murky
waters of speculating what our society would be like were it not
for Christianity. If Milton's conclusions don't follow from his
"experiment", how much more do Akira's not follow?
My purpose wasn't to defend something said by Akira, but simply to
respond to Milton. I came into the thread late, and besides, I
don't really feel the need to respond to, for instance, the
statement "The modern christian hasn't really changed all that
much since 620 CE."
|2.21.06 @ 3:23PM|#
If I come back to reread this item several times a day, does that mean I have bulimia?
|2.21.06 @ 3:55PM|#
�. . . for you to
point out societies that have done this (and not simply "grown out"
of religion, which of course none have yet done), and then say
"look at all this other unreasonable stuff they did",
is intellectually dishonest . . . You're basically saying, 'the
enemy of my enemy is reasonable'.�
As a matter of fact, I haven't said that the enemy of my enemy is
reasonable. I certainly think it is *mistaken* for you to
paraphrase my remarks as you have done, but I am not in a position
to say that you're being dishonest, because I don't know you well
enough to speak with such assurance about your motives.
I was originally responding to some posts which said that
Christianity has had a deleterious effect on society because of its
alleged irrationality, and implying that we can make our society
more rational by removing Christianity from it. I pointed out that,
while we haven't done experiments in laboratory conditions, those
societies which *have* removed Christianity suffered adverse
consequences, incurring lots of irrational results.
Of course, social experimenters who wish to remove Christianity
from American society would be quite correct to say that historical
experience doesn't *prove* that their ideas for rationalizing
society by removing Christianity would necessarily fail. If the
burden of proof was on those who *opposed* the social
experimenters, perhaps they couldn't meet that burden.
But the burden of proof is actually on the social experimenters
themselves. It is up to them to prove that deChristianizing the
country would in fact have the beneficial effects they claim,
without the side-effects which we have noticed in other countries.
They have this burden of proof in part because President George
Washington, without whom there may not have been a United States in
the first place, made certain warnings against precisely the sort
of social experiment we are discussing here. If the father of his
country was wrong, then that wrongness should be made to appear
from clear evidence. The evidence of other countries' experience is
at least inconclusive on the benefits of deChristianization.
Let me quote President Washington's warning from his Farewell
Address:
�Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political
prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In
vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should
labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these
firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere
politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to
cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with
private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the
security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of
religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of
investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution
indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without
religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined
education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience
both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in
exclusion of religious principle.�
|2.21.06 @ 4:18PM|#
That's all well and good. I never advocated nor defended the
"social experiment" you refer to, so I'm not sure why you went to
such lengths to attack it in your 3:55 post, unless it was meant
for someone else. I was simply responding to your irrational
counter-argument:
There was some suggestion that Christiany *prevents* societies
from being more rational. If that were so, one would expect to see
more rational societies where Christianity has been removed from
the equation.
|2.21.06 @ 4:41PM|#
By the way, I sincerely hope you're not trying to back up that irrational argument with the argument that George Washington said something on the subject, and thus must be assumed to be correct until proven otherwise, since he had a hand in founding our country.
|2.21.06 @ 4:56PM|#
Before the server cuts me off again, let me reply to zach's
comments.
"so I'm not sure why you went to such lengths to attack it in your
3:55 post, unless it was meant for someone else."
It was. Check out akira's comments above.
"your irrational counter-argument"
I *would* expect the "removal of Christianity from the equation" to
produce more rational societies in places where Christianity was
the main barrier to rationality. Ideally, we would have laboratory
conditions in which only Christianity were removed from the
equation, and nothing else. Unfortunately, we don't have laboratory
conditions, so to test akira's propositions, all we have to go on
are the lessons of experience. If akira has the burden of proof (as
I've demonstrated), he would then need to show that the gulags, the
guillotine, Derrida, etc. would all have happened *even if* the
Christianity had stayed in.
For another example of this sort of "irrational" argument, consult
William Ellery Channing, whom the Unitarian Universalists
claim as one of their founders (The UUs are a militantly
"post-Christian" group). Let's see what Channing had to say about
Christian persecution in a remark rarely quoted by the Unitarian
Universalists, curiously enough:
"To those who are fond of exaggerating the wars and persecutions,
which Christianity has kindled, we would say, go and witness the
blessings of infidel philosophy, where it has been permitted to
triumph! Behold the heart hardened into stone, and all tender
feelings of our nature giving place to the ferocity of beasts of
prey. Behold murder, and perfidy, and rapine let loose, and
scattering ruin and dismay. Behold the best blood flowing in
torrents, and observe the secret tears of the widow and fatherless,
who dare not utter the anguish which consumes them! God has given
to all nations an awful monument to the nature and influence of
infidel philosophies, and I trust he has not admonished in
vain."
("Two Sermons on Infidelity delivered October 24, 1813," in William
Ellery Channing, *People's Edition of the Entire Works of W. E.
Channing, D. D.*, Volume II. London: Simms and M'Intire, 1851, pp.
536-552, at 537.)
|2.21.06 @ 5:31PM|#
I *would* expect the "removal of Christianity from the
equation" to produce more rational societies in places where
Christianity was the main barrier to rationality.
This isn't good enough. You still need to establish stable and
favorable economic, political and social conditions. I'm aware that
I'm asking the impossible; this is why history simply can't speak
to the question in as definitive a way as you want it to.
Mike Andreyakovich|2.22.06 @ 1:44PM|#
Forcing anything on the minds of the populace is a bad thing. I would argue that it is equally coercive and pointless for the government to push institutionalized belief or institutionalized disbelief. States that have tried to enforce a homogeneity of opinion on religious issues have generally not been liberal with other freedoms - see the Islamic 'republics' for an example, or the Communist nations other posters have mentioned.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245