The Rule of Reason

Post election soul-searching—and the rise of censorship

Edward Cline — 2006-11-13T14:16:00Z

The midterm elections are passed us, and the Democrats have swept back with an unbecoming vengeance into Congress and power over the U.S. They give one the sense that they are barbarian hordes riding into Rome with every intention of sacking it. They remind us why drooling and gloating are unsightly and repulsive. Objectivists and non-Objectivists alike know they are up to no good.

Many of them voted Democratic chiefly as protest against the failure of Republicans to properly prosecute a war against a dedicated enemy, for having waged a kind of fruitless "phony war" that is costing incalculable blood and treasure. It is doubtful that the Republicans will learn anything from the rejection. In search of an answer to why they lost, they will agonize over polls, demographics, income and gender brackets, but will never address fundamental ideas or principles.

And many Objectivists and non-Objectivists voted Republican in protest of the obvious agenda of the Democrats to renew its sacking of the country, and also because they believe that President Bush had the right "war-fighting" principles but was not competent enough to apply them.

Not an issue with them was that the Bush Administration has done just as thorough a job of sacking the country, in terms of the national debt and the expansion of the federal welfare state, as any Democrat. By some estimates, Bush in his six years in office has outdone Bill Clinton in his eight, and many commentators are beginning to realize that, even though they pose as defenders of freedom and capitalism, the Republicans subscribe to every tenet of the Progressive Party manifesto of top-to-bottom socialism, with a twist of religion to give it a moral flavor.

The Democrats offer socialism straight up, no ice, no lemon. Examine the agenda of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, whose prime movers include Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman of the People's State of California. The only difference between it and the Republican reactive "platform" is the speed with which the Democrats wish to impose top-to-bottom socialism.

Well, not so much "top" as "bottom." The elective oligarchies of both parties usually ensure that they are insulated from the consequences of legislation intended for the rest of the country. The salaries, perks, medical and other fringe benefits, exemptions and privileges all together rival the best compensation packages and golden parachutes of CEOs in the private sector. There isn't a Senator or Representative who isn't a millionaire - at taxpayer expense - but who has produced nothing but law and paper.

One favorite accusation of the Democrats is that Bush and Company are incompetent. Parenthetically, I find the charge of incompetence by either Party absurdly disingenuous, considering that it is made by career politicians who have never in their adult lives held a job that required competence or a fig of measured productive skill. So, one must contest that charge. In terms of abiding by and applying his moral beliefs, Bush has been eminently successful.

As Dr. John Lewis remarked to me recently, "Words mean what they refer to in reality. What the 'defense of freedom' means to Bush is the slaughter of our soldiers for the toilet needs of foreigners throwing bombs." Jesus is Bush's favorite philosopher, and he is as committed to Jesus' morality as the jihadists are to Mohammad's. Sacrifice has been the operating principle of Bush's military philosophy, in order to protect the "innocent" as an aspect of "humanitarian" war-fighting.

Ellsworth Toohey put it brilliantly and succinctly in The Fountainhead: "Fight the doctrine which slaughters the individual with a doctrine which slaughters the individual." That has been the sum of the conflict between the Republicans and Democrats at home and abroad.

All else is deliberate obfuscation.

The "British disease" is insinuating itself into American politics. The "disease" is a blinkered estimate of the influence of Islam. Bush regularly invites Islamic leaders to the White House for dinner, most recently to celebrate the end of Ramadan.

Now it is the Democrats' turn to buddy up to Muslims. Minnesotans elected Congress's first Muslim representative, Keith Ellison, whose close ties to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Louis Farrakhan's racist and anti-Semitic Nation of Islam were not closely scrutinized or questioned by the news media, most likely because no journalist wants to be accused of bigotry. What is forgotten is that when criticisms are leveled against Islam, it is leading Muslim spokesmen who play the race card. Ellison celebrated his victory Tuesday night before a crowd that chanted "Allahu Akbar" ("God is great"), which is what the 9/11 hijackers and killers yelled as they crashed their planes. Ellison will be a keynote speaker at CAIR's annual banquet on November 18th.

And, in Michigan, David Turfe, a supporter of Hezbollah and also a Muslim, was elected district court judge in Dearborn Heights' 20th district. (For details on his career, see debbieschlussel.com.) This is not the same as a Presbyterian or a Methodist donning robes to administer justice in a secular courtroom. If Turfe is a faithful, consistent Muslim, how can he reconcile Sharia law with infidel law? Fundamentally, he can't, but one supposes that his "spiritual" leaders will grant him dispensation (the colloquial term in Christendom would be "slack").

Turfe, founding chairman of a Muslim "cultural" center (surely an oxymoron), proclaimed to an enthusiastic crowd that "only a few thousand Jews will survive Armageddon." Armageddon is what Ahmadinejad of Iran is promising Israel and the West once he has an arsenal of nuclear weapons.

It is almost a certainty that both Ellison and Turfe will seek to expand the meaning of "hate crime" to include anything untoward said about Islam or Muslims. Which, of course, will sneak censorship into law under the cloak of "civility."

Yes, the "British disease." The British are trying to find an antidote to it and to counter decades of tolerance of harboring, under the cloak of multiculturalism, the growth of Islamic jihadism. MI5 chief Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller warned recently (the Daily Telegraph, November 11) that thousands of young Muslims are being recruited and trained by Al-Qada and other terrorist organizations in Britain's schools. But, even she doesn't get it. Terrorists are "extremists" who have little to do with "peaceful" Muslims. Never mind that the Koran advocates jihad. This fallacy has been discussed before.

In response to the recent acquittal of two British National Party members accused of stirring up racial hatred (the Daily Telegraph, November 12), Gordon Brown, Chancellor, stated that new race hatred legislation was needed. I do not know what else the BNP stands for, but all the two defendants were charged with was saying, in private party meetings (secretly filmed by the BBC and then broadcast), that Islam was a "wicked, vicious faith" - certainly not an exaggeration, but then, one could just as easily say that about Christianity - and that Muslims were turning Britain into a "multi-racial hell hole." The latter statement probably indicates an unsavory political premise, which I would not endorse.

Still, British speech law is nearing the state of outright censorship. The BNP episode reminded me of the trial of the Pippins in Book Two of Sparrowhawk, when a club of freethinkers in London is charged with and tried for "blasphemous libel," that is, over things the members said in a private meeting on private property about King George II, Parliament and religion.

There is no reason to think that British censorship by edict or by lawsuit won't infect American jurisprudence and further emasculate the First Amendment. The Saudis are particularly active in bringing suits against writers who dare expose their role in jihad. For example, American writer Rachel Ehrenfeld, author of an unpublished book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It, faced a ruinous lawsuit in Britain by a Saudi because a chapter of her book appeared on the Internet and was downloaded by Britons.

"Writers are now subject to intimidation by libel tourists," reports Samuel A. Abady and Harvey Silverglate in The Boston Globe (November 7). "Little wonder that the American Society of Newspaper Editors, the Association of American Publishers, and 14 other media groups have filed a 'friend of the court' brief to support Ehrenfeld's quest to raise her First Amendment defense now. Until she is able to do so, she will have problems finding American publishers willing to risk publishing her research and writing."

A judge of the Southern District Court in Manhattan dismissed Ehrenfeld's case, claiming he had no jurisdiction over it. "Ehrenfeld is filing an appeal and faces a daunting challenge of raising enough money to support a case that she believes will help determine whether or not American writers will be able to continue to expose America's enemies."

One of my unpublished novels, We Three Kings, features an American entrepreneur whose Constitutional protection against the murderous depredations of a Saudi prince is stripped from him by the State Department. In the current multicultural climate, it is not likely it will ever be published here. In the land of the free and the home of the brave, neither the brave nor the free are much valued anymore, in fact or in fiction.

Propagandizing religion

Nicholas Provenzo — 2006-11-11T16:48:00Z

This has been an exceptionally good week for bloging at Noodlefood. Diana Hsieh posts an essay by Allen Farris chronicling his experiences growing up in a fundamentalist Christian household. To add to the discussion, I offer a different take, not of my childhood as a Catholic, but of one of my experiences as an adult Objectivist.

My ex-wife is an opera singer who grew up a fundamentalist Christian. Because churches are one of the few places where a classical singer at her level can make some money, she sang for several church choirs. I supported this choice as the extra income paid for continued voice lessons, which were the obvious priority.

At the same time, I detested having to play the role of the dutiful husband and listen to her solo in church, lending her voice to those whose goal is to make mysticism more palatable to the unthinking. In fact, I could do little to squelch my displeasure, even if I hardly spoke a word. I suppose if my ex-wife had been a lousy singer I wouldn't have minded so much, but as a good one, it was tough to endure.

Why? Because it was things like uplifting music, serene architecture and beautiful stained glass that kept me with that moldy faith far more than any doctrinal agreement. That's the vicious bait and switch with mysticism.

At least I had exposure to enough science as a young boy to eventually snap myself out of the trance (with a little help from the GW Objectivist Club). How many others fail—and rely on their "faith" to guide them when it counts? Are we not currently waging a faith-based, compassionate war for our very existence—and failing miserably?

When we were married, my ex-wife certainly could not see what all the hubbub was about. I have no idea what she thinks now, but at the time I knew her, she had rejected her religious upbringing for atheism. Nevertheless, she simply could not see how anyone could have an ax to grind with the church. Most of the religious people she knew were far from monsters; they worked hard, raised their families, showed concern for morality (even if their concern led them to do things like vote to outlaw abortion, or turn the other cheek to jihadists)—and they loved beautiful music. Who were we rude and overbearing Objectivists to damn their creed as immoral—after all, it clearly works for them? Which is easier for the intellectually uncurious—navigating though the pitfalls of pragmatism and a mixed premise, or simply accepting the Golden Rule? Live and let live, or wage an outspoken fight for your values because that's what's most important to you?

I obviously chose my path, and as far as I know, she still continues to propagandize for religious congregations. And in the end, I'm not surprised. Faith does promise certainly in uncertain times, and it offers magnificent alleluia choruses to help close the sale.

Veterans Day Pride

Nicholas Provenzo — 2006-11-11T05:01:00Z

According to this report, Secretary of Veterans Affairs R. James Nicholson has asked veterans to wear their medals today in honor of Veterans Day. This is an excellent idea, and below are mine. I enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1988 and served until 1993, obtaining the rank of Corporal. I served at sea in the Mediterranean during Operations Desert Shield, Desert Storm and Provide Comfort, and I also served aboard the American embassy in Monrovia, Liberia during the Liberian civil war.

My medals, ribbons and badges are (left to right, top to bottom):

Joint Meritorious Unit Award (A unit award given to 26 MEU for its work in Liberia)
Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal (Awarded to me for not getting busted for 3 years)
Marine Corps Expeditionary Medal (Awarded to all who served with 26 MEU in Liberia)
National Defense Service Medal (Awarded to all who served in the armed forces during the first Gulf War)
Southwest Asia Service Medal with Star (Awarded to all who served in the area around Iraq, Kuwait, Turkey and Israel during the first Gulf War.)
Navy Sea Service Deployment (x2) (Awarded for 2 six months+ sea duty.)
Marine Corps Rifle Expert Badge (x2)
Marine Corps Pistol Expert Badge

I am proud of time with the Marines. I saw the world, learned a bit about how to be a leader from some of the best, and stood arm-in-arm with those who love their freedom and will not stand to see it sacrificed. And I have always loved Veterans Day, especially now that it is my day. To all my fellow veterans, may you also enjoy your day.

Coercion and torture in time of war

Nicholas Provenzo — 2006-11-10T11:51:00Z

Blogger Paul Hsieh contemplates the ethics of torturing enemy prisoners at Noodlefood, sparked by a recent video in which Fox News reporter Steve Harrigan volunteered to undergo the controversial water-boarding interrogation procedure.

My view is that any form of coercion is not pretty, but is nevertheless often justified and necessary. I remember when I was in the Marines and had to play hostage in an abandoned jail cell for an exercise. Being locked up in a claustrophobic cage with nothing to do for several hours but count the seconds was seriously un-fun. I personally have spent untold hours in confined spaces without ever suffering any worrisome effect, but once that element of personal freedom is removed, even a short stint can be a trial.

In other Marine training, I had to endure several days of play as a captured prisoner of war where cold, damp, hunger and being commanded to sing a bizarre bar song were each used as a means of inflicting discomfort. At 3 AM when you are violently shivering from hypothermia and have to sing the same #$%% song that you've sang for the last 24 hours, life can feel pretty miserable. While I saw the exercise though to its end, I was shocked by the number of men in my unit who didn't. Even relatively mild discomfort can break down a man’s resistance.

Yet ultimately, if making the enemy feel scared, miserable, or even horrified for his life saves American lives and achieves victory, I say let the deed be done. There is only one thing that an enemy can do to save himself from our wrath, and that is surrender completely and totally. If he fails to yield in any way, he continues to wage war against us, and in my view, remains fair game for war to be waged back upon him.

Happy 231st, US Marines

Nicholas Provenzo — 2006-11-10T05:00:00Z

From Tun Tavern to today, Happy Birthday, U. S. Marine Corps—Semper Fi!

Allen concedes, Democrats control Senate

Nicholas Provenzo — 2006-11-09T23:46:00Z

It's official: the Democrats now control the Congress. And If ever there was an idiot in politics, it would now have to be George Allen.

Why? First, some back-story. When I was a student at George Washington in the mid-'90s, I worked for a man who would interview political figures for TV with a method of using syllogistic reasoning to more or less corner his subject into accepting his premise. (Unfortunately, it did not help that the host was simply one of the least telegenic people I have ever known, even for public access TV, where most of his shows ended up).

Nevertheless, since most politicians are utterly unfamiliar with their rational faculty, the results of the these interviews were usually quite amusing. (In fact, the host got one congressman to physically assault him and the camera crew, and got an utterly exasperated Nancy Pelosi to continuously repeat "Yes can mean no-and so what?!" over the many contradictions inherent in the minimum wage).

Perhaps one of the sole exceptions to the normal outcome of these episodes was when the show interviewed George Allen, then serving as governor of Virginia. Allen totally understood what was going on—and he totally embraced it. Here was a man who was unafraid to go were reason, logical and principled consistency led him. In the end of the interview, Allen evoked Jefferson, clearly denoting the proper aims of government, and it was simply one of the most fantastic moments I have ever seen in modern politics.

So years later, when I heard Allen was running for Senate, I thought excellent-we will finally have our voice. Somewhere along the way however, Allen allowed himself to get intellectually waylaid by the conservatives. Reason soon proved an alien friend, and Allen spend more time electioneering for a concrete-bound, myopic party that developing a legacy of thoughtful legislative achievement. Instead being a man of rational moral principles, Allen became a power-luster.

Add the fact that Allen at least appeared to harbor racial animus (who keeps a noose in his office and waves the confederate flag as a young man and calls a person "macaca" on the campaign trail and still expects to have the credibility to govern a people), and his whole advocacy of the gay-bashing "marriage amendment," and Allen become the A1 master-grade idiot of the election cycle.

I read tonight that Allen is just shocked that he lost his election, but I must say, I'm not. I think it's tragic given the hope he offered earlier in his career, but in the end, Allen got exactly what he deserved. I have no love for his successor, but as far as Allen is concerned, I'm not the least bit sad to see him go.

Andrew Sullivan takes both sides of a bad coin

Nicholas Provenzo — 2006-11-09T00:29:00Z

Amit Ghate offers a probing examination a recent article by Andrew Sullivan in Time Magazine. Amit notes:

[A]ll I see is the same worn-out subjectivism and skepticism that has driven people towards religion, indeed in some ways it's worse than the standard fare because by operating under the mealy-mouthed guise of a moderate, Sullivan actually manages to combine the worst elements of the subjectivist and the (religious) intrinsicist.

This is dead-on analysis of the mind of a typical 'moderate'--be sure to read the whole thing.

The GOP's Just Desserts

Nicholas Provenzo — 2006-11-08T20:29:00Z

Gus Van Horn offers ROR readers his guest analysis on the election:

In the first two elections since 2001, when thousands of my countrymen were murdered in the name of Islam, the war was the central issue. This year, thanks to an insufficiently aggressive, morally uncertain approach to this war, the Republicans, incredibly, succeeded in taking it off the table. This election marked the first time since those unholy atrocities I have felt almost indifferent to the outcome.

This last sentence speaks volumes coming from me. I am still outraged by these atrocities and would like to see relentless devastation visited upon the Islamic world until its inhabitants either give up on the notion of spreading their religion by the sword or they are exterminated.

Another fellow blogger, Noumenal Self, recently put into words what my gut was telling me today: "The war should be the essential issue in this election. It should be, but it isn't, because the choice between Democrats and Republicans will make little difference for the outcome...." Even granting the increasingly improbable premise that Bush has another move up his sleeve, he failed to campaign on the war other than to remind us that the Democrats stood for surrender. One party promised to bark loudly, the other to whimper; but we knew that neither would bite.

With Iran about to arm itself with nuclear weapons, there was no talk of toppling its fanatical regime or destroying its nuclear facilities. There was just talk -- the tyrant-enabling talk of European style diplomacy. And the precedent of North Korea. We were in Iraq, in a position to denazify that nation and to use it as a launching pad to knock out Syria and Iran, and thus Lebanon's Party of God in the process. Instead, we encouraged the formation of a regime there that had no separation of state and religion. And we had no discernible plans whatsoever to move against Iran or Syria, either.

As I write, the handful of projections I have checked generally show the Democrats gaining control of the House with the GOP possibly retaining the Senate. This is in the middle of a war which the Republicans failed to declare, failed to prosecute vigorously, and hoped would save them from having to differentiate themselves by their actions from the "Party of Defeat." They have only themselves to blame for this election loss.

And the war is only their most obvious sin. Recall that we are fighting a foe whose essential characteristic is that he takes religion more seriously than the requirements for man's life on this earth. This is why the Jihadits piloted planes into buildings. They were more concerned with what an allegedly holy text said than with the pursuit of happiness here on this earth.

And what did the Republicans do during this war against these religious fanatics?

They introduced "faith-based" initiatives, injecting religion into welfare instead of abolishing welfare. (I believe in 1992 they'd spoken of dismantling the welfare state "brick by brick." Converting it into a cheesy store-front church is not the same thing.)

The fanatics, all the way from the time of Salman Rushdie, to the Mohammed Cartoon Riots, to now, wanted to curtail our freedom of speech. The Republicans cooperated with the Democrats to pass McCain-Feingold, a huge step towards regulating American freedom of speech.

When Michael Schiavo attempted to allow his wife's body to die -- after medical evidence showed that she was brain-dead, in accordance to her wishes, and in accordance with the law -- the Republicans tried their best to trample over that evidence, her wishes, and worst of all, the law they swore to uphold. All in the name of imposing their religious dictates onto fellow Americans by misusing government force.

In short, the Republicans acted like a wimpy version of our enemies during a time in which they (ambiguity intended) waged war upon the American people. We wanted the Republicans to fight these bastards off, not growl at them for awhile and then turn on us.

One of the lingering doubts I had before going to the polls today was that an electoral defeat today might teach the Republicans the wrong lesson on the war. But the more I think about it, the more unfounded this fear is. The Republicans were already wrong. How else is Iran still playing with uranium enrichment? Why have we relented in cutting off aid to the "Palestinians," who elected terrorists as leaders? Why are we fighting in the name of "democracy" -- the alleged right of barbarians in the Middle East to impose unlimited majority rule -- rather than protecting our own freedom? If the GOP walks away from this defeat sounding more like the Democrats, well, at least they've become more honest. The Republicans began acting like them long before.

We, the American people want to win this war and get on with our lives. We want government-imposed religion out of our lives -- as the defeat of an anti-abortion measure in conservative South Dakota attests. We are not interested in being forced to improve the lot of willfully ignorant savages abroad or the lazy at home. The Republicans thought they could get away with mouthing empty homage to national security, personal freedom, and capitalism -- while acting like Democrats. They did not get away with it. That is what this election means to me, an American man with no fondness for either major party.

What it means to the Republicans is their business. I am no fan of the Democrats and dread the next two years. I still think that many of my fellow Objectivists are way too optimistic about what the Democrats will be like in power. But if, as a result of this defeat, the Republicans get serious about what they claim to defend and abandon the contradiction of injecting faith into politics, this will ultimately prove to be a good thing.

Rumsfeld out

Nicholas Provenzo — 2006-11-08T18:34:00Z

This according to the AP. My first thought is that Donald Rumsfeld is now the new Robert McNamara of our era; intelligent, bold, willing to demand sweeping practical reforms of the services, but philosophically incapable of waging war in a way that secured an American victory. I doubt that history will judge him less harshly.

Our long national nightmare is over . . .

Nicholas Provenzo — 2006-11-08T10:46:00Z

. . . to be replaced by our new national nightmare. Nevertheless, we are presented with a substantial opportunity to communicate our message given that the religious and pragmatic Republicans have been trumped, and the Democrats have no principled message, save for "not George Bush."

But before that can begin, we Objectivists need to examine our own house. The causes of our deep divisions must be addressed. This is not a debating game we are playing here; the choices we make and the public stands we take directly impact the health of our movement to change our culture and our ability to be persuasive beyond our own private voices.

Needless to say, I will have more to offer on this topic the coming days, but in the interim, it is time for some serious soul-searching among Objectivists.

So I voted . . .

Nicholas Provenzo — 2006-11-07T20:02:00Z

My polling place was practically deserted, which surprised me, given all the interest in this election. There was a light rain, and we all know how even a minor impediment can turn people away from the polls.

My jurisdiction gave voters the option of voting electronically or casting a paper ballot (an electronic scanner form). Despite the ease of electronic voting, I opted for the paper ballot after I saw a report on how easy it was to reprogram an electronic voting machine. I looked over my ballot once, twice and a third time to ensure I didn’t make any errant marks, and put it in the machine. In a technological age, there simply needs to be a better means of lodging one’s vote and confirming its proper execution.

So there you have it. I have exercised my franchise. We'll see how it all ends tonight . . .

Update: I went back to the polls to stand outside for a few hours with a "Yes to Equal Protection, No the Marriage Amendment" sign that I printed up with Illustrator. It was an illuminating experience, for it yet again underscored just how much the right is animated by mystical faith. While chatting with the other activists standing outside the polls who supported the amendment, I put the question to them: "Why do you take your stand?" I got a very quick answer: "The Bible."

"The Bible?," I asked. "Oh yes," they said, all of them nodding vociferously in agreement. "We believe in what the Bible says, and the Bible says homosexuality is immoral."

I simply replied in answer that as much as they had a right to their own private mystical beliefs, they had absolutely no right to negate the judgment of others who disagree with their faith and seek to avail themselves of the law's protection, and that I stood for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" instead. Privately, I looked forward to the fact that their view would no longer control the majority in Congress.

Theocracy 'Lite'

Nicholas Provenzo — 2006-11-07T16:45:00Z

In an excellent post, Noumenalself examines the arguments of the pro-Bush Objectivists, and finds their definitions and logic wanting. At root is a concrete-bound definition of theocracy, which one pro-Republican Objectivist argued is a "a totalitarian government enforcing religious rules of conduct and not merely a government with some religion-inspired laws."

I think this and similar definitions lets the theocrats off too easy. By enshrining faith and sacrifice, theocrats weaken the moral foundation our leaders need in order to properly limit government and protect our freedoms, and that is outrage enough not to support any party that includes them in its coalition. After all, why is it that the ostensive pro-war president refuses to wage a ruthless and uncompromising war against jihad? Because Jesus is his favorite philosopher—and the culture backs him up on it.

The theocrats need not create a totalitarian government to attack gays, outlaw abortion, preach creationism in the classroom, remake welfare into a faith-based initiative, or sacrifice our armed force to the liberty-hating people of the world. They can do damage enough with the power they enjoy now.

Jesus: Wrong for America

Nicholas Provenzo — 2006-11-07T11:09:00Z

If only the Republicans were smart (and bold) enough to take the stand shown below.

The Revolution will be Philosophic

Nicholas Provenzo — 2006-11-06T21:52:00Z

I wrote this article in 2004 after the presidential election. It applies today just as much as it did then.

There are two competing theories of morality that dominate America today. The moral code that dominates the left is one of subjectivism. According to the left, no lifestyle (and no country) is better or worse than any other; there is no absolute right or wrong, save for one-the American people must defer their interests to the considerations and interests of others.

Contrast the left's view with the religious code that dominates the right. Under this morality, the subjectivism of the left is repudiated and replaced with the certainty that comes from mysticism and adherence to God's revealed word. Under this view, the American people must defer their interests to the considerations and interests of the Judeo-Christian God.

Of the two moral codes, it is the religious one that is gaining ground in America. It's not hard to see why. Rather than treat morality like a free-for-all, religion purports to take morality seriously. One would be hard pressed to find a person willing to tell a recovering drug addict that he needs more subjectivism in his life, but one could easily find a host of people willing to tell the addict that he needs to get right with Jesus. In the absence of a rational code, religion provides its adherents with a moral confidence that subjectivism can not provide.

Yet religion is nonsense on stilts. Instead of relying on rational principles, religion turns morality into an article of faith. After all, gays seeking the right to codify their relationships under the law is not a coercive threat to anyone, let alone an institution as old as marriage. Yet if the success of the anti-gay initiatives in the states is any indication, the religious think otherwise.

Religious nonsense also infects other realms. How many times have we heard President Bush make the moral case for freedom in the Middle East on the grounds that freedom is a gift from the Almighty, rather than a necessary (and rationally provable) requirement of human survival and prosperity?

And how does the president reconcile his argument with a Muslim whose own faith leads him to believe in submission to Allah, adherence to the Shari`ah, and global Islamic jihad? Rather than offer a compelling alternative, the president calls the philosophy that animates the murder of our people a religion of peace. President Bush is leader who makes faith-based arguments against a faith-based enemy. Such a strategy cannot hope to win.

We are locked in a contest between ourselves and the proponents of a new dark age-both foreign and domestic. If the left's subjectivist morality is impotent and will lead to our downfall, the right's religious morality is not far behind it. Yet choosing between the two was our only option this election day.

We need better. The answer is not to say all things are equal or all things are in the hands of God. The answer is to reject the past and embrace a new, pro-reason philosophy. The founders did as much when they rejected the divine right of kings and proclaimed that they had a fundamental right to their life, liberty and property. You say you want a revolution? Study philosophy from those who say it is in your power to perceive reality objectively, act according to the evidence before you and form a rational moral code and you will have it.

Today, after two additional years of experience living under a conservative governing majority, there is no doubt that the right is not only "not far behind" the left as I had orginaly put it, it is in fact the worse force, for while the left can only offer fear and uncertainty, the right attempts a promise of hope and certainty—albeit of the mystical (and utterly worthless) kind.

The Saga of Ted Haggard's Anti-Gay Bigotry

Nicholas Provenzo — 2006-11-06T16:16:00Z

In watching evangelical preacher Ted Haggard's life implode amid his admission that he popped methamphetamines and had repeated homosexual sex with a prostitute, it suddenly dawned on me how the twisted logic in his mind must have worked. Prior to his public humiliation, Haggard was a key advocate for a Colorado constitutional amendment that seeks to deny homosexual relationships equal protection under the law (we in Virginia are also considering a similar "pro-marriage" amendment). As Haggard is a self-loathing homosexual who kept is true sexual identity under wraps, I wager he thought that the more legal prohibitions against gays there were, the easier it would be for him to reject his is "repulsive" and "dark" nature and remain faithful to his fundamentalist Christian creed.

After all, evangelicals argue that protecting homosexual marriage under the law threatens non-gay marriage; the implication being that if homosexuals are free to marry, men and women will suddenly quit their heterosexual marriages and abandon their children. Given the depths of Haggard's dishonesty and hypocrisy, perhaps that would be true for him. Yet it still remains that Haggard has no moral right to control what other consenting adults do with any aspect of their lives, let alone their sexual natures. Furthermore, the anti-gay marriage bigots forget the true purpose of marriage law, which is not to protect married relationships (most people do that well enough on their own), but to provide a means for establishing order when one of the marriage partners is incapacitated, or the marriage dissolves, be it by death or divorce.

Yet as a Republican and a Christian evangelist, no moral principle checks a man like Haggard from entering in the bedrooms of his fellow Americans in order to regulate their private and consensual behavior. Haggard could hardly control his own life, yet he actively sought to control the lives of others (in fact, he has not made any statement whatsoever renouncing his Christian anti-gay political agenda). I almost feel for his wife and children, who now must face the shock of knowing that their husband and father practices a despicable evil according to their chosen creed—were it not for the fact that their creed is irrational and morally repugnant.

At root, protecting homosexual relationships under the law is the natural progression of the principle of individual rights first codified by the founders. There is no rational reason to oppose this progression, just as there was no rational reason to oppose freedom for blacks, or equality for women. Yet the religiously-inspired Republican party has become so enthralled with lording over people's lives that on a road trip yesterday to enjoy Virginia's fall countryside, I could hardly escape being reminded by the myriad of campaign signs that it is the Republicans who are pushing the anti-homosexual agenda with all the political power they can muster.

It is wicked; it is immoral, and it deserves to be defeated.