Download MP3 · RSS · Subscribe via iTunes · Discuss

Digg · Facebook · del.icio.us · reddit · StumbleUpon

Excellent, I was looking forward to this. Will definitely check it out when I’m back stateside.

First: Thanks for another great podcast!

Second: The link to hear the podcast didn’t work. The following link does work though:

http://media.libsyn.com/media/pointofinquiry/POI_2008_03_21_Austin_Dacey.mp3

Is this guy kidding or what?

Isn’t the U.S. government currently conducting bloody and illegal wars and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan? What about the thousands of innocent Muslim victims of the U.S. sponsored abduction and torture network, the detainees of - the vast majority of which are innocent by the governments own admission - or the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian victims (‘collateral damage’) claimed so far in the bogus ‘war on terror’ (which is not a war at all)? What about his own government’s role in propping up the worst Islamist theocrats, dictators and butchers who lord it over the populations of many Muslim countries. Given the sheer scale and currency of these crimes, which are going on even as he speaks, one can only conclude that Dacey’s silence expresses agreement.

Especially revealing is his ‘support’ for internal reformers of Islam and secularist forces in the Muslim world:

The young people of Iran are mostly secular humanists trapped in a theocratic nightmare. One would expect secular liberals to be in the forefront of this struggle.

I guess this means sitting silently, like Dacey,  as Iran’s theocrats and reformers alike are threatened with nuclear anihilation by Cheney and Bush - not to mention Hillary, Obama and Mclean - all of whom ‘refuse to take any option off the table’.

When I hear someone say ‘american Taliban’ it’s all I can do to keep from throwing a book at them. Yes, America has a noisy minority of christian fundamentalists, but get back to me when they start killing their sisters and daughters with impunity for the crime of dishonoring the family.Get back to me when they send gays to the gallows in the streets of American cities. 

“Honor” killings and the execution of gays are certainly abominable crimes - and not specific to Islam, but the fundamentalist christian/zionists in the US are too busy advocating the onging slaughter of Muslims, and the ultimate victory of Christianity over Islam as arrangements for the second coming of Christ are being contracted to Boeing, KBR and Blackwater… (They’ll get around to stoning women and hanging gays later)...

Until then stand with the Muslims and non-Muslims who are working to reinvent their faith.

Or as the marines say, “kill ‘em all - let God sort ‘em out.”

People like Hirsi Ali… should be the chief allies of secular liberals
this means giving up the private concience for the open conscience.

Riiiiight. Nothing like cluster bombs to “open the conscience of iIslam”!

The secular open society has met its antithesis. We are being tested in a confrontation with radical Islamism.

Every serious observer can see that it is the U.S. and other Western imperialists whose ongoing wars, occupations and other crimes in Muslim countries make the best recruitment posters for Islamic reaction.

Here’s some good advice for Dacey and the other ‘secular’ auxiliaries to the the new ‘Crusade’ as Bush calls it:

“Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”

Balak,

I don’t see where you disagree with Austin.  Where did you get the idea that “Dacey’s silence expresses agreement” about the abduction and torture of muslims, or that he supports the “propping up” of dictators in islamic countries?

You express contention with his views, but he speaks both critically of christian fundamentalism within the US and speaks in support of the human worth of persons in islamic countries.  Did you listen to the entire podcast?  I am extremely confused by your statements.

Fascinating ep. I’m listening to it on my iPod right now.  While I’m not sure how much of what he’s saying I agree with,  it’s far and away the most riveting ep in a long time. I’ve long believed that secularists had taken the easy way out and refused to get in there and tussle over the big moral issues of the time, using the old “science is ‘value-free’” as an alibi and copout. It’s good to see someone calling the secularists on it and acknowledging that, on the big moral issues, the fundies are eating our lunch because we just flat-out refuse to engage on these issues.

This quote is from the podcast, provided by Balak above and I have added the final sentence.

When I hear someone say ‘American Taliban’, it’s all I can do to keep from throwing a book at them (a big book). Yes, America has a noisy minority of Christian fundamentalists, but get back to me when they start killing their sisters and daughters with impunity for the crime of dishonoring the family. Get back to me when they send gays to the gallows in the streets of American cities. Until then stand with the Muslim’s and non-Muslim who are working to reinvent their faith.

D.J. follow the above statement by saying, “What you just said, Austin, I can sink my teeth into. But, a lot of secular liberals…..”

This jumped out at me only because I had been reading the latest issue of Skeptical Inquirer just prior to listening to the show. In the news and comment section of SI, a story on a Texas educator dismissed for her pro-evolution actions has a quote from the Center for Inquiry’s director of research and legal affairs, Ronald A. Lindsay, where he states:

“It appears that the Texas Taliban now controls education in that state.”

There is nothing in the entire quote from Lindsay that would tell me the above is a joke. I would advise not throwing a big book at him since he’s in the legal department.

Of course, creationists degenerating Texas’ educational system is a horrible thing.  Christian assertion of nonsensical creationist dogma is parallel to certain actions of the Taliban’s in many regards, and it is a powerful metaphor to refer to such folks in Texas as the “Texas Taliban.”  However, there are also several important differences between such christian nuts in Texas and such Taliban nuts in Afghanistan.  For example, the cases of “killing their sisters and daughters with impunity for the crime of dishonoring the family” and sending “gays to the gallows in the streets of American cities.”  Christian folks in Texas don’t do these specific things.  And this does illustrate a meaningful contrast in the severity of said religious dogmas.

No religious group is deserving of being inconsistently singled out for unreasoned emotional attack or prejudicial persecution of its members.  Similarly, no religious group (christian, muslim, jewish, hindu, jain, etc.) is deserving of any special sort of privileged respect in America or the Middle East or anywhere else.  Religious matters desperately need to be talked about in America and they need to be talked about publicly.  Without such dialog, there can be no constructive criticism of religion.  Indeed, no progress.  These are not private matters.  Dacey’s appeal to secular conscience is exactly what secular liberals need.

Balak,

I don’t see where you disagree with Austin.  Where did you get the idea that “Dacey’s silence expresses agreement” about the abduction and torture of muslims, or that he supports the “propping up” of dictators in islamic countries?

You express contention with his views, but he speaks both critically of christian fundamentalism within the US and speaks in support of the human worth of persons in islamic countries.  Did you listen to the entire podcast?  I am extremely confused by your statements.

When it comes to the question of Islam and ‘the secular conscience’, how can Dacey and CFI ‘ignore the 500 pound gorilla in the room’, i.e. pass over in silence the issue of U.S. military aggression in Muslim countries?  How can one speak of ‘human worth of persons in Islamic countries’ without mentioning that these persons are, by the way, being threatened with nuclear incineration by the commentator’s own government? What kind of ‘solidarity’ is it that demands nothing from the giver but everything from the (ostensible) recipient?

Dacey & Co. should spare the self-righteous hyperventilating over clerical backwardness, the Danish cartoon controversy, etc.,  in the Muslim world until any such criticism has been clearly prefaced by a statement in DEFENSE of Muslims against the criminal acts, past, current and future, of the U.S. and other imperialist powers, including under the pretext of the phony ‘War on Terror’.

Once again, Dacey’s silence threatenes to reduce the notion of ‘secular conscience’ to a sterile platitude at best, and at worst a grotesque ideological cover for bloody colonial state terror against innocents. Despicable.

erasmusinfinity,

I agree it is a powerful metaphor, and one that is used by the religious right as well.  Are you saying the metaphor used is an appropriate one, or that you agree with Lindsay’s statement?

It reminds me of an article on the Daily Kos - How the Islamic crazies are like the Right. Amusingly, as the last entry in the list he has: “Liberals: Reality-based community.”

I just noticed how Kos starts the above listings by saying: “Funny how the wingers try to claim American liberals are in league with crazy fundamentalist Muslims.”

I think that it could be a meaningful metaphor in a specified context.  Perhaps Lindsays “Texas Taliban” scenario, although I’m not sure.  I don’t know enough about that particular situation.  But I don’t think that it is meaningful in the context that Austin was referring to in the podcast when distinguishing between the behavior of the actual Taliban and generalized statements of some sort of “American Taliban,” as if there were no differences at all.  The differences that he was illuminating were valid and important ones.

I also think that it is straw man argument and a distraction from the essential message of “secular conscience” that Dacey is promoting, which is that of a need for open discussion of religion in the public sphere.

Non-religious folk have ethical and cosmological beliefs, and aesthetic and social interests.  We are not lost souls nor apathetics.  Secularist liberals need to stop pandering to the idea that it is impolite or improper to speak critically of religion.  They are not just liberal, in the sense of being either loose or open-minded about something, but are also progressive in the sense that they have assertions about the way in which society can move forward positively.

Religious views and views that are critical of religion both belong in the public sphere and in open dialog.  So let’s get the dialog rolling.

I think that it could be a meaningful metaphor in a specified context.  Perhaps Lindsays “Texas Taliban” scenario, although I’m not sure.  I don’t know enough about that particular situation.  But I don’t think that it is meaningful in the context that Austin was referring to in the podcast when distinguishing between the behavior of the actual Taliban and generalized statements of some sort of “American Taliban,” as if there were no differences at all.  The differences that he was illuminating were valid and important ones.

Yes, I do understand the differences that Dacey was highlighting. He made them quite clear in my opinion. I have to admit to being a little confused by your full response to me and it appears you are making a statement instead of this being any sort of dialogue. It all seems that you are only forwarding a partial understanding of what Dacey is advocating, that of criticism towards religious beliefs. It appears to me he is also calling for a more proactive approach in opening discussions of morality in public discourse. I also must say that there were many times in the podcast that I found Dacey to be overly vague which is unhelpful. Perhaps I am wrong about my interpretation of what is said and what is going on. If this is yet another call for religious criticism with little else, as you portray it as being, then I’ll listen again and accept it for what it is…

Let me quickly add to my above comment. This is where I sometimes felt Dacey was being to vague and it is something you have brought up when you say: “are also progressive in the sense that they have assertions about the way in which society can move forward positively.”

If I look at some of the topics discussed, such as abortion or stem cell research, I can’t help but react by saying that it is liberals that are advocating for both in large numbers and these arguments are based on moral understandings. Most liberals reject George Bush’s approach to stem cell research and his reasoning for it by advocating there is a higher moral principle at play. It is here I need to ask, which liberals are we talking about. With abortion and stem cell research the moral liberal argument is based on empiricism on many levels. In many ways I think Dacey advocates something that Stephen Gould’s wanted to get across which was it is the moral dialogue that is important here.

I suppose I should add here that the “secular liberals”, in my opinion, worry little about pandering to an idea that you must not be impolite or speak critically about religion. This is another area that appears to vague to me to be helpful in any real way. Are we talking about the beliefs, as in the beliefs that should be allowed in public discourse by the religious, or the religion itself. If it is the beliefs, then I have to say that the beliefs and actions of the religious are often criticized by the “secular liberals” (here now I’m being general). We know why George Bush holds the opinion he does on abortion and stem cell research, he has made no hesitation in making clear his religious views on these matters. These views are widely criticized and often condemned by both religious and secular liberals for being less than morally adequate.

I have to admit to being a little confused by your full response to me and it appears you are making a statement instead of this being any sort of dialogue. It all seems that you are only forwarding a partial understanding of what Dacey is advocating, that of criticism towards religious beliefs.

I interjected this point because I felt that this thread was off track in analyzing a false dichotomy that did not pertain to Dacey’s statements, and that it was better to say something about what I thought Dacey actually was talking about rather than just criticizing the criticism.  Of course, I did choose a particular theme from the podcast that I identified with, but I also think that the theme I chose, that of “secular conscience,” was something of a central theme to the podcast.  No doubt there were many other themes that were touched upon.

It agree with you that, as a self-identified secular liberal, Dacey is calling for a more proactive approach in opening discussions of morality in public discourse.

I should add here that the “secular liberals”, in my opinion, worry little about pandering to an idea that you must not be impolite or speak critically about religion.

In my experience, many secular liberals do.  Most non-religious persons that I know are uncomfortable expressing their views about religious matters openly in public.  In fact, as a life long secular liberal (I still prefer the label “progressive”) I spent most of my life believing that it was impolite and improper to speak critically about religion in the public sphere.

It seems to me that the case of abortion is a perfect example of this matter.  Most commonly, the debate is framed between the “life” of the fetus and the “choice” of the mother.  I have never heard it boldly asserted in public debate that a fetus does not have a soul because there is no such thing as a soul.  Such a statement would be considered a denial of a fundamental belief to which a religious person is considered in society to be “entitled.”  And to argue from such a scientifically accurate angle, one involving a reasonable assessment of a being’s capacity for suffering and/or sentience, would be regarded by the status quo in America as an intolerant imposition upon a religious view.

Those are interesting points, erasmusinfinity. Perhaps I’ll address them at another time, for I don’t want to bring this thread off track.

Having listened to the podcast again, there was something else that jumped out at me. It was the quote Dacey used by Barack Obama and the following statements.

It is of course from Barack Obama’s - ‘Call to Renewal’ speech.

I would strongly suggest a reading of the complete speech because he is in fact making many of the same points Dacey does.

I am not suggesting that every progressive suddenly latch on to religious terminology - that can be dangerous. Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith. As Jim has mentioned, some politicians come and clap—off rhythm—to the choir. We don’t need that.

In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they’re something they’re not. They don’t need to do that. None of us need to do that.

After giving this some further thought along with a conversation with my sister, I felt like posting.

My sister, who is a Christian and leans toward liberalism, has worked for the state of N.Y. for the past 25 years. I decided to run some of the ideas expressed in the podcast by her. She unflinchingly was excited about the ideas. After an initial back and forth she told how in her environment she not only feels, but is told that expressing the basis of her beliefs is off limits. She recounted story after story of incidences of expressing her beliefs and the reasons for them only to be shunted and shown complete intolerance.  She says that the real intolerance is not to be told her beliefs are wrong or crazy, but to be told she can not express them in the first place. So, we ran through some scenarios of me telling her that her beliefs are unfounded with the idea we are in the “public square”. In every instance, even when we agreed on the basic moral questions, we ended up debating the existence of God.

This morning while going over this in my mind I was reminded of two ideas forwarded by Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris (I realize there are others, but I am assuming that on this forum these authors/scientist/freethinkers will be quite familiar).

The first thought was of Richard Dawkins idea that indeed there is a culture war but this war extends to naturalism vs. supernaturalism. I think it’s obvious why this thought came to mind after the conversation with my sister.

Here is an example of Richard expressing this idea:

[I] think the real war is between supernaturalism and naturalism, between science and religion. If you think the war is between supernaturalism and naturalism, then the war over the teaching of evolution is just one skirmish, just one battle, in the war. So what the scientists you’ve been talking to are asking me to do is to shut my mouth. Because for the sake of what I see as the war, I’m in danger of losing this particular battle. And that’s a worthwhile political point for them to make.

I think he’s right. That the course of action that leads to getting past the skirmishes in the isolated instances will be a war between naturalism and supernaturalism. I do think from what I’ve witnessed of late that this war will be long while the battles still take place (here I am thinking of the fact that many religious people do accept the scientific basis for evolution). The battles over stem cell research, abortion, evolution etc. will continue and if we decide that it’s the core beliefs that need to be dismantled then we must accept some of these battles will be lost in the short term with the hopes that in the future the religious beliefs will become obsolete. In other words, in it to win it and religion is done.

I say this because it’s a big “public square” and there are a lot of religionist chomping at the bit to open it up and expose what is viewed by many on both sides as a false tolerance. 

These thoughts naturally lead to the next idea offered by Sam Harris. It is the idea that we should now put away any labels that identify us. I first became aware of this idea through Richard Dawkins web site. On the forum at RD.net, the issue that Sam brought up in a speech called, “The trouble with atheism” is the most discussed issue. It is often at the top of the list of topics and last I checked was at 56 pages. Sam’s idea does make a lot of sense when we are considering opening up the public square and having the “secular conscience” engage in an open war. Sam says we should do away with labels such as atheist, skeptic, humanist because these will invariably lessen our contingency.

I think he’s right also. It does not make sense to speak from a stand point of a beleaguered minority when this war transcends the skirmishes. I put this idea together with something else Sam Harris has put forth. I’m just going to give my interpretation here, but it’s part of Sam’s ‘science must destroy religion’ essay. It is the understanding that the scientific approach can and will win out, in fact, must. Again, if viewed as a war between naturalism vs. supernaturalism or science vs. religion,  the labels are meaningless. The “secular conscience” is not bound to any ideology, that’s the point, the moral debates can also be viewed as skirmishes as long as the focus stays on creating an environment where religion (or religious beliefs or the like) are vanquished.

One more quick note…

I did eventually get around to asking my sister about respecting her beliefs. It went something like this; “You do know I am openly calling for not respecting your beliefs, right?” She replied by turning the question back on me, she said; “Don’t you feel your beliefs and morals are disrespected on a regular basis in our society?” She went on; “You gave your reasons why my belief in God is wrong, at least you want to debate them openly, I don’t care if you don’t respect my belief, just let me express them when ever and where ever I want.”

It’s time to open the “public square”.

Are we supposed to bring relgion & politics back to the dinner table and the workplace?  This could get ugly, and maybe that is the point.  Lets stop bandaging the thorn in our foot and get out the tweezers.  Cognitive dissonance has festered for too long.

The only way to dismantle supernaturalism is to allow it into the cold light of day. It must be allowed that people of faith be given the freedom to express their beliefs openly without threat of some sort of litigation. In a war between naturalism and supernaturalism and science vs. religion, we can’t really get to freedom from religion until the religious are free to express their beliefs. It is here they can be openly criticized, and given that the naturalistic arguments are better, then victory in the war will eventually be ours. We may lose some ground in the short term, but as Dawkins and Harris make clear, the battles are just part of the larger war. This is the importance of Harris’ message that identifying ourselves by useless labels can only hinter the effort, because the number of people who may be willing to join the war may initially hesitate if they see the arguments coming from beleaguered minorities filled with ideological curmudgeons. There’s no reason to defend “atheism” when it is naturalism we are fighting for. The “secular conscience” must continuously offer the strong and reason based moral arguments as better than the superstitiously based moral dogma.

It’s time to open the “public square”.

This whole line of discussion is abstracted not just from the U.S. government’s criminal wars against Iraq and Afghanistan (which is bad enough) but from reality altogether. Are you people seriously arguing against the fight to maintain Church/State separation? Dacey also manages to avoid this basic point altogether.

I’m sorry to break this to you folks, but if the levees holding back the political influence of reactionary religious bigots break down even a tiny bit further, atheists (not to mention women, leftists, gays, buddhists, Muslims etc.) will surely find themselves - sooner rather than later - in a much worse position than we are in today.

Defend the Wall of Church/State Separation!

Balak,

No one I have seen who is advocating what I am putting forth is ignorant of the risk involved. That there will be loses in the short term is nearly predictable, but the larger war must be waged in order for the skirmishes to dissolve . I think the fear of what will happen must be kept in check for several reasons. For starters there is a vast supply of reasonable people who when confronted with a war between supernaturalism and naturalism will accept the more reasoned arguments. Here we can take Daniel Dennett’s masterfully thought out theory of “belief in belief” as a sound ballast. “Belief in belief” as laid out by Dennett tells us that there are more people then we realize that do not actually believe in God, but only believe in the belief of God. In short, they just don’t know better and by opening the “public square” they will be confronted with choices and science must win out over religion.

Where the separation of church and state must play it’s part is in the state simply not allowing for a favoritism in the war. That’s the crux of the matter, the political battles will undoubtedly become more pronounced, but we can not abstain from keeping our eyes on the ball. I would argue, from seeing your other post here, that you may agree that to topple an unjust political system is to allow absolute free inquiry.  We simply can not allow the religious moral values to control the debate, we must decide that the “secular conscience” is not being tolerant in stifling a debate that needs to happen. A war between supernaturalism and naturalism is happening whether we like or not, the best we can advocate for now is to open the “public square” and engage.

No one I have seen who is advocating what I am putting forth is ignorant of the risk involved.

On the contrary. I see no sign whatsoever that you are aware of the risks involved in abandoning the fight for separation of church and state, a precious - and highly endangered - legacy of Enlightenment Rationalism and the bourgeois democratic revolutions. Nor does the discussion above about dinner table chit-chat with family members show any grasp whatsoever of what is really at stake.

I have now listened to the Dacey interview several times. His head is either in the clouds, or perhaps some other place (rarely illuminated by daylight).

Perhaps you remember the case of Matthew Sheppard, the gay kid who was beaten, strangled and left to die on a barbed-wire fence in Colorado a couple of years ago. Perhaps you recall the dozen or so abortion providers, nurses and clinic workers who have risked and lost their lives to ensure womens access to safe and legal (for the moment) medical proceedures. The time when women sought to bring about abortions with coat-hangers or by throwning themselves down flights of stairs is still within the living memory of millions of people.

The the right of privacy in matters of conscience is a precious beachhead won through generations of struggle by ordinary working people, behind which are protected many other rights. Your and Dacey’s arguments simply revert to abstractions based on what? - the superior explanatory power of science and reason? - as if the world was some vacuum tube in which the ‘best idea’ will always win out (Dacey actually says this - what touching naivete!). The ‘free marketplace’ of ideas is not free (any more than ‘free market’ economics)... it is a battleground of competing material interests in which outcomes are decided not by competing ‘memes’ or other such nonsense, but the heavy artillery of political and economic power, backed up by cops, prisons - and death squads when push comes to shove.

The cornerstone of bourgeois democratic legal tradition is the right to private property. This is where I’m seeing a thread of continuity. To be sure, when you have your way and the wall protecting equal rights of minority and oppositional views is swept aside, only the poor and workers will be subject to compulsory religious, ideological and sexual regimentation in every aspect of their daily lives.  The rich will continue, in their gated communities, to enjoy their privileged access to reproductive health, education, media - hey, even ‘secularism’ as long as they keep it strictly a private matter, of course.

Gradually the pieces are starting to fall together here (- apologies, I’m a slow learner). Dacey (and many others like him) raises the bullhorn to denounce Islam on the other side of the world as “the main enemy”... while with the other hand quietly hands over the keys to the legal protections of working people to the unholy alliance of religious bigots, neocons and robber barons who are busy trying to finish off what remains of the people’s liberty at home. No wonder the priests see him as their ally!

If Dacey wants to find a perfect example of what he calls “the moral bankruptcy of secular liberals” - he should go and take a good look in the mirror.

This whole line of discussion is abstracted not just from the U.S. government’s criminal wars against Iraq and Afghanistan (which is bad enough) but from reality altogether. Are you people seriously arguing against the fight to maintain Church/State separation? Dacey also manages to avoid this basic point altogether.

I must support you, Balak, in stating that I allso regard the US led slaughters in Iraq and Afghanistan as immoral.  And I think that is a good topic for discussion.  But I do not think that is at all the topic or substance of what this podcast is talking about.  In addition, and speaking entirely for myself, I most certainly do not argue against the fight to maintain church/state separation.  Religion has no legitimate place in government and it should be kept out.

I advocate bringing religious matters “into the public square” in the sense that religious and non-religious persons ought speak freely about matters of conscience.  That means free of the common American social taboo about making cosmological and moral assertions.  More importantly, it means being expected to substantiate assertions, in public conversation and debate, with good reasons.  It means opening them up public scrutiny and to ridicule.

Let us not forget that the religious ideas that most of us have problems with are not rationally indefensible.  The surest way to destroy the social influence of those ideas is to expose them to public discussion, which will force all sides to actually consider one anothers criticism.  Shucks… as non-religious persons, some of us might even find ourselves fortunate enough to learn a few good things from religious persons over the course of the dialog.  Otherwise, religious and non-religious persons can be expected to just remain in our own separate corners of America, and continue to allow the most proficient breeders (who will most certainly belong to one religious cult or another) to hold unchecked and unbalanced sway over America’s political machinery.

His new book is The Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life.
http://www.pointofinquiry.org

Thanks for a great interview and an introduction to an interesting book.

Here is a 2006 article about Dacey exploring what atheists “believe in”
[NY Times Opinion piece 2/3/2006]

Here is the Neuhaus review D.J. refers to in the interview (a Catholic critique):
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=989

Here is Dacey’s thesis: “Secularists have the moral high ground, if they will only claim it, and in so doing break the religious monopoly on the language of ethics and values. . . . 

Thanks for those links Jackson.  Dacey’s voice strikes me as somewhat unique in our times in its ability to open dialog between non-religious and religious persons, as is startlingly evidenced by the second link that you provided.  I admire his ability to establish the sort of constructive tone that I wish many of us, and in particular myself, could better produce.

It is more important at this point to make clear there is a war between naturalism and supernaturalism, a war between science and religion. Richard Dawkins has made this point time and time again and the battles can in most cases be put aside. On another thread here, American Atheist conference critique, Richard is said to put forth the idea that, “Dawkins made his new point that we should put on hold more trivial issues such as fighting against the “In God We Trust” on our money, which trivializes our position, and focus on the more detrimental and larger issues.”  That’s the point here, there is a larger war we need to fight, Richard knows his position has placed him outside the debates over evolution in any type of political sense. He has made the sacrifice and I don’t think it’s to much to ask that the rest of us make sacrifices, which means taken this to important areas of our own lives. People like Sam Harris do not title his papers with such provocative statements such as “Science Must Destroy Religion” for nothing.

That is the message to send, imagining no religion means religion be destroyed. Richard Dawkins also doesn’t say this is a war without realizing what is at stake. Sure we can talk to the religionist about certain issues, but like erasmusinfinity has pointed out, lets argue these points right down to their preposterous conclusions, such as with abortion, “souls do not exist”. It’s ok to dance around the edges here, but it is the core beliefs we are being called out to criticize and ridicule with increased vigor, as I said, this means taken this to the important areas of our lives, if we wish to open the “public square” then just talking about matters such as creationism in a political sense is not recognizing the greater war, go the step further and say as Sam Harris has advised, tell them it’s bullshit, not because of their tactics, but because their core beliefs are bullshit.

These brave individuals who put out the message that “religion poisons everything”, that “science must destroy religion” and “there is a greater war, it is a war between supernaturalism and naturalism” shouldn’t be minimized with casual talk of “working together.” Richard Dawkins made that clear at a conference when he said to a Christian apologist and evolutionary biologist who is trying to persuade creationist by using the language of the bible (what their feeble beliefs understand) that the message should be “why bother”. He didn’t mince words in denouncing her efforts or her Christian beliefs, and neither should we.

I also want to say that the sacrifice that Richard Dawkins has made has propelled him to a leadership position in perhaps the most important movement humans have faced. The war between supernaturalism and supernaturalism that brave individuals such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, and Sam Harris have forced us to face has in a short period of time has made more progress then decades of playing nice. This is recognized by Richard himself. Playing nice, as someone else has pointed out, has been an utter failure. It has failed us on many levels and as we watch the insane religious beliefs causing people to fly planes into building to start wars to kill all the infidels, I can’t help but to question the apologetic approach.

Richard Dawkins made that clear at a conference when he said to a Christian apologist and evolutionary biologist who is trying to persuade creationist by using the language of the bible (what their feeble beliefs understand) that the message should be “why bother”. He didn’t mince words in denouncing her efforts or her Christian beliefs, and neither should we.

I want to add to this by saying, Richard didn’t say, hey that approach may make inroads into the creationist movement, no he deftly used criticism and ridicule to denounce the effort. That is the power of ridicule, it works to humiliate such an approach and reminds us that there is in fact a larger war at hand. It is a war between science and religion, supernaturalism and naturalism, so such an attempt only works to allow the poison of religion to survive. That is not what is wanted, it is the religious beliefs that keep such insanity going, it is the religious beliefs that need to be criticized and ridiculed. If Richard can do this with such great effect at public events, surely it’s not asking much to do this in our personal lives.

I appreciated the links provided by Erasmus above. Reading them gives more depth to my concerns about what Dacey is promoting, partcularly on the relationship between the assault on separation of church and state and the colonial wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Neuhaus review especially deserves careful reading!

Dacey ... is strikingly on target in calling fellow liberals to account for their pusillanimity in the face of the radically illiberal challenge of Islamic Jihadism.

Notice the shared viewpoint, which turns everything on its head: “liberal pusillanimity”, we are told, is not about grovelling at the feet of the War Party, not about accepting the FoxNews framing of every foreign policy issue, not about Democrats in congress voting time and time again for war funding, untrammeled executive privilege, tax breaks for the rich, trashing constitutional rights etc. No: ‘liberal pusillanimity’ according to both Neuhaus and Dacey is expressed in one thing only: the failure to sufficiently denounce… Islamic Jihadism (i.e. to show properly full-throated enthusiasm for Washington’s colonial wars). So Dacey’s ‘liberalism’ is pretty close to that of McCain advisor Joe Lieberman: i.e. the Neocon/Likud worldview now hegemonic throughout the mainstream media, and (with slight differences in emphasis) in both of the property parties.

Dacey’s tacit support for imperialist war thus sets the scene for his touching reconciliation with right-wing extremism on the church/state issue.  At the heart of the"naked public square” argument, shared with Neuhaus, is a sleight of hand:

(Neuhaus approvingly quoting Dacey:) “The first idea is that matters of conscience—religion, ethics, and values—are private matters. . . . By making conscience private, secular liberals had hoped to prevent believers from introducing sectarian beliefs into politics. But of course they couldn’t, since freedom of belief means believers are free to speak their minds in public.”

Notice the cheap rhetorical trick: i.e. recasting the democratic fight for church/state separation as a supposed (futile) effort by secular liberals to ‘gag’ the voice of believers in public life. This not only buys into the rightwing mythology depicting christians in the U.S. as a persecuted, hounded minority, but sets up a smokescreen for Neuhaus/Dacey to insert their argument for privileging of religion and its sanction by the state. Let’s just ‘level’ the playing field, ‘remove the gag’ so that the religion and the absence of religion are treated equally. May the best idea win… the battle of public opinion!. (Notice the other rightwing religious cant underlying the Neuhaus/Dacey argument i.e., ‘secularism is its own religion, unfairly privileged by the state.’)

Now how does that look in practice? Dacey and Neuhaus exchange a nod and a wink here - wouldn’t want give the game away. How will the outcome of our “respectful exchange of ideas” determine public policy?

If the power of its ideas were all religion had, there wouldn’t be much left of it by now. But religious ideas have always been closely tied with the church’s political function - cultivating and tapping into deep-seated ignorance, fears, racial and sexual hatreds, and mobilizing believers in large numbers for ideological goals essential to maintaining a social order based on extremes of economic inequality.

Ten Commandments over the judge’s bench? (Why not?). Strike down laws against religious campaigning for political candidates? (What’s the fuss, nobody enforces them). Teacher-led prayer in public schools? (Hey, who needs ‘public’ schools anyway!). Evolution in the science class? (Teach the controversy!). Crosses raised here there and everywhere on public lands? (a victimless crime if ever there was one!). Roe v Wade, gay rights, equality before the law? (Forget it!). What capitalism needs right now is a population of stupifed, credulous and fearful workers dutifully producing cannon fodder for imperialist wars.

Once again - and no one has yet addressed this point - the defense of democratic rights is not a product of the ‘secular liberal’s’ reflections as he explores his nose with this finger, but depend on the outcome of struggles between classes with conflicting social interests.  The “Wall of separation” has always been an imperfect, vulnerable and porous barrier to open tyranny by the religious majority, and it has been upheld in the courts only in periods where capitalism’s stability was threatened by massive class and other social struggles (the mass strikes of the 1930s, the Civil Rights Movement etc.). These struggles are for the moment pretty moribund, but will inevitably rise again. In the meantime, those ‘liberals’ who jump at the chance to further rubbish the democratic protections won by the blood, sweat and tears of others are operating in something other than ‘good faith’.

Defend the Wall of Church/State Separation!
All U.S. Troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq Now!

As it has been pointed out in the podcast, by Sam Harris, and by others on this forum, of course there are parallels between what certain secularist and religious fundamentalist (nearly fascist as pointed out by Sam Harris) want in that they share a common goal. Islamic religious fanaticism has shaken us awake, the time to become proactive and allow beliefs to go to war in the “public square” is now. We can no longer sit quietly by while “secular liberals” pronounce the public square off limits when a war between science and religion must take place. Religious dogmatic morality has become unchecked in the name of tolerance. But, even the most religious fundamentalist amongst us know that it’s a smoke screen, and threats of over stepping the lines leaves them pushing political inroads. Now the quest for a tolerant “multicultural” society has left gapping scars on the intellectual landscape. You don’t see Sam Harris, Dacey, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens shying away from a fight, nor should we. We know the risk and it’s a risk that needs to be taken even in our private lives. How many amongst us let religious beliefs go unchecked because it is coming from someone in our lives. Richard Dawkins is putting his reputation on the line, Sam Harris has said time and again his life has been threaten, is it really to much to ask to push a little harder when we know our criticisms and ridicule may work. We must take the message into our lives because it is one thing to say liberal and moderate religionist allow the madness to continue but leave those in our lives go unscathed. Imagine no religion, remember it is a war between naturalism and supernaturalism. Richard Dawkins doesn’t call it a war for nothing, the language of war is powerful, just as declaring science must destroy religion. The little skirmishes will go on, the larger war is at hand.

Wow, I really like this topic.  I find myself being persuaded by the rhetoric from both sides, thus forced to read deeper.  Thanks Jackson for the extra links on this topic. 

A major problem when defenders of logic and reason “eat their own”, is that we are so good at making everything black and white.  We sort of walk right into false dichotomies.  This is understandable; carving up new ideas with metaphors is an effective and efficient means of internalizing information.  So, correct my false dichotomies if I make them, but this is how I see it.

I agree that we should bring the religious ideas to the table and I also agree that we should continue to defend the separation of “state and church” (please note that putting state before church instead of the more common reversal is a subtle method of bringing religion to the table, it is the same as referring to God as a she, it raises consciousness).

Where is the public square?  How do we bring ideas to this public square or in other words how do we put ideas or interests on trial?  Bringing or allowing ideas to sit at the table shouldn’t and doesn’t mean permitting bigotry or infringing upon our freedoms or liberties.  When and if those infringements happen all sides should be quick to make an example.  This is why both religious and non-religious should rally together against the bigotry and hate crimes committed in the Middle East, the same way blacks and whites rallied against the same issues not that long ago.

The principle behind this “bringing ideas to the public square” is the same concept that brought concepts such as freedom and liberty to full fruit.  There is a problem with this.  Progress was made on freedom & liberty because everyone at the table and in the public square agreed to follow the rules of logic and reason.  This is not true today.  Rational thought and even the things our nation made famous, freedom & liberty, are under attack by faith.  I have seen a number of debates involving William Lane Craig, be downgraded to a contest of who can close their eyes, put their hand in the air and get a dopamine overload on demand.  This is a clear violation of the rules of the public square that has been repeated countless times in countless ways.  If the system can’t recognize this injustice, how do we hold these actions in contempt of court?

Dacey says remind them of the rules and focus on the issues every american can easily recognize as a sort of “training wheels for consciousness raising”.  Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins say if parliamentary procedure is incapable of raising consciousness, maybe ridicule in the form of humor can work.  Bring back Stork Theory!

I love all approaches.

Just because someone bold fonts proclamations about defending the wall of church and state separation means nothing and is used only as a scare tactic. The arguments presented are in no way advocating anything near chipping away at the wall. What they are is a recognition that the hyper sensitive approach that is mired in political correctness in the name of tolerance has failed us. This approach tells all of us, the religious and secular alike that we must be careful how far we can express our beliefs which stifles any way to have an open and honest debate. Because of this idea which hides behind rhetoric such a “multiculturalism”, it now shields the religious beliefs from full scrutiny. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves and start believing the scare rhetoric or that the religious will back away from the fight. I have seen on Richard Dawkins web site almost daily the responses from the religious, they are answering to the call of war. It is beyond fair now to allow the debate to proceed as open as possible. We can begrudge the liberal and moderate religionist all we wish, but what they deserve is nothing less than the most dogmatic in terms of open criticism. Ayaan Ali and Sam Harris have been bringing this message out into the public conscious for all of us, and if they refuse to join the secular fight, then they must be held responsible in no uncertain terms. The battles will continue, including those of church/state separation, evolution etc., but what must no be forgotten is the beliefs behind the madness, that the war goes to the supernatural beliefs themselves. We must be willing to take risk, and perhaps lose or forfeit a minor battle, for the sake of the larger war. The ones who want an apologist approach are asking nothing less than that Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris just shut their mouths.

I don’t believe Dawkins has followed Harris in endorsing torture, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, or threatening Iran with nukes. (Someone please correct me if I’m wrong on this).

That said, I also disagree with all the ‘new atheists’ to the degree that they seem unable to address in any kind of scientific manner the material bases for religious backwardness in human societies, instead they present the fight against religion strictly in idealist terms (correct vs mistaken ways of thinking). This is one significant failing they all have in common.

As I mentioned above. If religions had only their ideas to support them, they would be long gone… religions serve social and political functions in stabilizing class societies while answering (with illusory comfort) to the felt needs of believers. From this they also derive their considerable political power and influence.

Approaching religion bereft of this understanding is to disarm reason and science before they even enter the battle.

I don’t believe Dawkins has followed Harris in endorsing torture, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, or threatening Iran with nukes. (Someone please correct me if I’m wrong on this).

You need to get your facts straight. This is the tired old rhetoric which works to try and undermine Sam Harris.

The addition of Afghanistan is rather new, it’s also rather meaningless since the ones who did not support the invasion in Afghanistan were few and far between for many good reasons. Not supporting the military invasion of Afghanistan is a questionable position to take.

Here is Sam Harris’, Responce to Controversy page which answers the questions of torture and Iraq.

Supply your evidence that Sam Harris endorses threatening Iran with nukes.

Here is a reminder of the effectiveness of using criticism and ridicule in the public domain. I do not think we can ask any less of ourselves. By the way, Richard is speaking off the cuff.

If you have already seen Joan’s lecture (not worth it anyway, and not the point) just skip to Dawkins’ response starting at 29 - 38 minutes. It buffers quickly. Lets not forget that what the “new atheist” have done in just a short period of time is much greater then decades of niceness. There’s simply no reason to be “nice” when we are talking about the truth.

http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief/watch/watch.php?Video=Session 3

Here is Sam Harris’, Responce to Controversy page which answers the questions of torture and Iraq.

Thanks, the despicable Sam Harris really makes my arguments for me. ‘State Department Secularism’ on the march.

It’s true that Harris has only supplied the arguments for nuking Iran, without actually coming out (so far) in support of the specific threats now being brandished by Washington (which is worse?), so I accept this correction.

I strongly believe in Austin Dacey’s choice of direction for the secular movement.  I know that atheists believe that people can have morality without belief in God, but most deeply religious people I’ve known are unable to make a distinction between the two.  This is most exemplified in the statement “God is Love”.  God is supernatural, exists outside of the Universe, and cannot be proven to exist.  Love is a value system which is real and can be proven to exist.  The secular movement needs to separate the two belief systems so that people won’t feel like they have to be religious to have values.  Dawkins claims that God is a delusion.  Belief in God may be lumped together with beliefs that aren’t delusional thereby making belief in God stronger.  The person believes God is real and the person has a relationship with it when in reality the person is having a relationship with their value system.  In which case getting rid of a belief in God will take many worthwhile beliefs with it.  A vacuum will be created which will have negative consequences.  This is why I believe so strongly in Dacey’s choice of direction.  At the same time irrational beliefs are being attacked, rational worthwhile beliefs need to be encouraged.  The most important beliefs that get lumped together with a belief in God are values and morality.

I don’t believe Dawkins has followed Harris in endorsing torture, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, or threatening Iran with nukes. (Someone please correct me if I’m wrong on this).

You need to get your facts straight. This is the tired old rhetoric which works to try and undermine Sam Harris.

Hate to interject here, but I think Balak may have meant to refer to Christopher Hitchens rather than Sam Harris.  It was Hitchens, if I recall, who vehemently supported the Bush administration’s policy to use the military to cleanse the Middle East of Islamic fundamentalism and fascisism.

I don’t know, PN.

I’ve had about four different nicks on this forum, including.. zarcus, Mano and this one. After about my third post on this thread the rest is just B.S. There’s so many holes in what I wrote that it’s nothing more intellectual swiss cheese. There’s little doubt I offered up a personal attack against inthegobi, but I added that it wasn’t.

Zarcus… er, Bob!  It’s nice to see you again.

Here is a reminder of the effectiveness of using criticism and ridicule in the public domain. I do not think we can ask any less of ourselves. By the way, Richard is speaking off the cuff.

If you have already seen Joan’s lecture (not worth it anyway, and not the point) just skip to Dawkins’ response starting at 29 - 38 minutes. It buffers quickly. Lets not forget that what the “new atheist” have done in just a short period of time is much greater then decades of niceness. There’s simply no reason to be “nice” when we are talking about the truth.

http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief/watch/watch.php?Video=Session 3

Thanks for this link.  I know you are skeptical of some of Sam Harris’ stuff but I think he was on track to rephrase the slogan to “The Audacity of Reason”—I think spraying the light of truth on a lot of this stuff is exactly what is needed.

Great points and I find myself making arguments on both sides here as well…  I can empathize in favor of Dacey every time a theist stone walls me in debate (especially debating with my religious family, who usually begin arguing with some notion of objectivity, but then always end up slipping into some postmodernist “everyone is right” position).  It’s really frustrating being shut down time and again.  Also, calling for the application of empirical standards of consistency to religiously based legislation does seem like a good idea on the surface (e.g. the reference to Mr. Reagan highlighting the inconsistency over stem cells vs. in vitro).  To what other types of legislation could secularists apply this type of reasoning?  How would we apply it to Faith Based Initiatives, for example?  BUT, my fear is that even if we could win some battles by decrying inconsistency that it will be turned on its head by theists with the impossible standards which Retrospy (“If the system can’t recognize this injustice, how do we hold these actions in contempt of court?”) and Balak spoke of (“Approaching religion bereft of this understanding is to disarm reason and science before they even enter the battle”) because we don’t even have legislators with Enlightenment thinking like we used to, let alone the general public.  The dark side of social Darwinism: might wants to make right.  It may just not be a good time for this move politically and we may need to take some more baby steps before “opening the floodgates” as DJ put it.  The interview also made me think of the Dover trial and the ruling against ID/creationism that was at least partially, if not mostly based on ID/creationism not having falsifiability (in fact, I wish DJ’s question to Dacey regarding “subjectivity” would have been re-framed to inquire about “falsifiability” instead- there is a subtle difference in those arguments).  If the “flood gates” were opened- what’s to uphold the Dover ruling in Dacey’s model?  Isn’t the falsifiability issue in supernatural ethical systems analogous to the Dover ruling, because the repercussions of supernatural ethical systems are claimed to be, at least partially, post mortal and not empirically verifiable?  The discussion can go nowhere at that point (as Bob James noted talking to his sister and we have all experienced).  It also seems, for that reason, that the “Catholic Natural Law Tradition” Dacey referred to, in order to lend more credence to theistic morality claims, is ironically, untenable in that context.  If the effects of morality were empirically evident, heaven and hell would be superfluous.  But THEN (back and forth…), although privacy have won us some great liberal victories, I think Roe V Wade SHOULD stand on more objective grounds than privacy issues, it does have the evidence for that… and only breaking down that wall would open the way… It’s a pretty difficult situation.  I’m still on the fence I guess…

...although privacy have won us some great liberal victories, I think Roe V Wade SHOULD stand on more objective grounds than privacy issues, it does have the evidence for that… and only breaking down that wall would open the way… It’s a pretty difficult situation.  I’m still on the fence I guess…

For me the question is one one of materialism or idealism. Do you believe that the best idea eventually ‘wins out’ by virtue of its innate superiority? This is plain old idealism (and Dawkins lame-ass ‘memetics’ hypothesis). Do you see ideas as, in the final analysis, serving to defend/legitimise the material interests of social classes? This is materialism. What other explanation is there for the persistence of ideas, like religious beliefs, that have no ‘rational’ basis to support them.

For me the question is one one of materialism or idealism. Do you believe that the best idea eventually ‘wins out’ by virtue of its innate superiority? This is plain old idealism (and Dawkins lame-ass ‘memetics’ hypothesis). Do you see ideas as, in the final analysis, serving to defend/legitimise the material interests of social classes? This is materialism. What other explanation is there for the persistence of ideas, like religious beliefs, that have no ‘rational’ basis to support them.

Well, if we’re talking about memetics, as I understand it (forgive me if I’m remiss), that depends on what you mean by “superiority” (survival fitness?).  Though not a perfect analogy, apparently memes, like genes, are not necessarily partial to idealism or materialism exclusively.  And as you know, an “is” is not necessarily an “ought.”  Ideas are subject to randomness/poor distribution/poor explication/aesthetic appeal (e.g. a catchy rhyme/phrasing), blahblahblah/ artificial selection- and anything that “wins out” may still be temporary, regardless of its “innate superiority.”  Isn’t this really the egoism vs. altruism battle?  Why ideas appeal to materialism is obvious.  Idealism is more difficult to defend, though ideas that appeal to idealism do have survival value, in the least, however genuine or disingenuous (e.g. self-promotion, social control).  Why?  Because even when idealistic notions are perpetuated out of self interest/egoistic/base motivation (materialism), their effects can and do still become institutionalised. 

I appreciate your thoughtful commentary, as well as the other posters here.

Great debate, and interesting podcast. I may have missed it in the details, but I think only gatogreensleeves has so far raised what I thought of as a big flaw in Dacey’s argument. Namely, if religious justifications for public policy are considered even more legitimate and acceptable to make in public debate, what in the world makes anyone think that the secular moral alternatives would stand a chance in America? If we make pro-choice arguments or arguments in favor of gay marriage on the basis of secular moral values (namely that God’s commandments regarding these things are idiotic, immoral, and irrelevant), we’ll lose big time. As much as I disagree with Balak about many things, he is right to point out the pragmatic question of where power lies in politics. The majority of Americans likely believe the revealed Christian moral truths that conservative political policies are founded on, and if we give up the notion of a public arena in which one must argue one’s case without relying on a particular sect’s revealed truth, secularism isn’t likely to fare well. It is the best basis for a rational, sound morality, but that doesn’t mean it will win a war with the Goliath of religious belief.

I’m all for opening up religion to criticism, and for stating the secular alternatives to religious moral justifications publically. But I don’t think that requires encouraging the idea that public policy should best be formulated by a direct contention of fundamental moral positions regardless of their source. Dacey says that even if a policy position is founded on faith and revelation, one can still argue against it. What he seems to fail to understand, is that such arguments are meaningless to the person who is basing their position of faith and revelation. And the public observing the debate and judging the “winner” is likely to be far more swayed by moral convictions based in religion than by arguments from reason, logic, or evidence. That’s just the state of the culture right now. Creationism has had to turn to ID, which is itself failing in the courts, precisely because the society seems willing to accept the idea that basing policy on religious belief is essentially forcing that belief on others. If arguing for policy on the basis of religious belief is considered fair game in mainstream politics, then we will be left with arguing against creationism on the basis that the bible is in fact not the true word of God and that science is right and the entire history of Christianity is a myth. Good luck with that!

Yeah, the Dover victory had a very tangible practical issue going for it as a sticking point: well trained students=well trained scientists=better jobs and more practical science for America and the world. 

    The first question is: do we really have a one- two punch that can show the practicality of default secular ethics that will be perceived as tenable enough to topple the faith based epistemology of supernatural Goliath, with its inability to offer a consistent method for determining truth, and thereby create legal precedent, let alone a new paradigm (are the old naturalistic arguments, which have not worked well enough to avoid dismissal in the past, enough?)?  Of course, practicality and the Dover ruling are arguments for secular ethics, and we should constantly highlight the links, but these inroads are gained by the deliberation of the issues themselves, one by one, and not by opening up a huge Pandora’s Box of apologetics and metaphysical abstractions that overwhelm academics, let alone the general public, with rhetorical smoke screens.  The current idealistic legislators/judges we must appeal to will appropriate and capitalize on such metaphysical language for their own aims and the general public will be too overwhelmed to do anything but hop on board- they will not find their way through it. 

    I think we should ask: how much are theists willing to cede to naturalism in their obvious internal struggle between their supernatural ideology and the empirically practical naturalistic benefits they are willing to adopt in society currently?... and work from there.  Secular minded people should continue to do what we have been doing: ardently spotlighting the benefits of empirically based evidence for naturalistic positions in ethics and science (showing that naturalism is in their best interests and that they apply these benefits every day), chipping away at the current zeitgeist, until the secular position is overwhelmingly realized practically (when the hand goes in the fire, what heals the hand?). 

    Dacey’s position seems to overcompensate for the empirical evidence that yes, there have been some good things done in the name of religious ideology.  But much of the general public can’t even reconcile “my good deeds validate my religious claims” with “someone else’s good deeds validate their religious claims.”  Obviously, morality is appropriated for all manner of reasons and opening up the public square may serve, at worst, to legally establish some bizarre subjective parameters concerning a post-consequential morality as being fundamentally valid considerations.  That is a scary thought.  Who knows what they are capable of. 

    Really, this is all a huge gamble- too precarious right now anyway, in light of the current legal/legislative arena (one only need review the ideologically driven wormhole rulings laid down by the Vatican Five last year… Hein vs. FFRF comes to mind…).  Historians have noted that if the Constitution was implemented a decade or so before or after it was, it may not have had the secular basis that it does.  That’s something to consider.

I always liked Carl Sagan’s appreciation, summed up in the sub-title of “Demon-Haunted World”, of “Science as a Candle in the Dark”.

“Whenever our ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us - then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls. The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir.”

To Gato’s point above (about the odds against which the Enlightenment rationalists squeeked through with the notion of a secular state in the U.S. constitution) should be added the howling disproportion of forces against which the scientific materialist worldview ever gained as much ground as it did!  In light of the developments even over the few years since Sagan’s death, one must certainly part company with the social democratic school of Marxism, or vulgarized Darwinism, which presented, human progress as some inevitable and unstoppable force of history.

Sagan’s paragraph above is amazingly prescient about the whole current period. I can’t imagine a Sagan or a Stephen J. Gould (how sorely their voices are missed!) discussing skepticism and secularism, as Dacey does, as though the criminal U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan weren’t happening, let alone advocating tearing down the wall of separation.

Nothing is more foreign to a truly scientific approach, in my view, than the kind of effete intellectualism that ‘plays with concepts’ as if they had no relationship with the real world…

(A ps to Gato: Your posts are interesting, but they would be easier to read if you threw in the odd paragraph break!)

  Nothing is more foreign to a truly scientific approach, in my view, than the kind of effete intellectualism that ‘plays with concepts’ as if they had no relationship with the real world…

(A ps to Gato: Your posts are interesting, but they would be easier to read if you threw in the odd paragraph break!)

Yes, that is exactly what I was thinking.  I think Dacey and Harris would try to argue that their ‘playing with concepts’ is not as abstract as religious arguments are, because they are empirically based arguments, but it still does seem to me like they’re playing a grand game of Rhetorical Risk, doesn’t it?  At the end of the day, they will allow any and all religious ethical concepts with non-empirical parameters to have a seat at the table.  It’s analogous to the scientists inviting all the ghost hunters, astrologers, flat-earthers, etc. to the table and expecting them to all give up.  It’s not realistic.  What will happen is, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” idea will go into play even more than it has already (remember Romney’s dreadful speech courting the Fundies?) and when the dark side of social Darwinism goes into play, all the theists get together to vote naturalism off of Survivor island… legally.  There’s too much bias against materialism to cede any moral victories- as Dacey himself said, they have appropriated it all, the language, etc.  Theists are stubborn folk.  Look at Madeline Neumann’s parents after she died… they STILL BELIEVE IN GOD AND THAT SHE DIED BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T HAVE ENOUGH FAITH!!!

Yeah, it seems to me that these hypotheses, when proposed in that kind of ‘effete intellectualism’ you mentioned, just don’t get the same support that they get when issues like the Dover trial are happening in real time with specific tangible results either.  We must be patient and chug along and work hard and fight for each bite.  Secularism is on the rise.  Someday, our stats might look like England and Europe, which are fantastic.  Focusing on those short burst real time events and their practical naturalistic benefits (e.g. medicine, agriculture, etc.) is something that we can all agree on in the short term anyway, without having to open the apologist’s box of rhetorical plutonium.  It’s not that their arguments are any good, it’s that the public is undereducated.

Sorry about the run-on paragraphs- I’m horrible with that…

His new book is The Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life.
http://www.pointofinquiry.org

Thanks for a great interview and an introduction to an interesting book.

Here is a 2006 article about Dacey exploring what atheists “believe in”
[NY Times Opinion piece 2/3/2006]

Here is the Neuhaus review D.J. refers to in the interview (a Catholic critique):
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=989

Here is Dacey’s thesis: “Secularists have the moral high ground, if they will only claim it, and in so doing break the religious monopoly on the language of ethics and values. . . . 

First Chapter of the book is on-line at richarddawkins.net:

http://richarddawkins.net/firstChapter,40

In his superb new book, The Secular Conscience, my friend Austin Dacey writes: “This is the story of a good idea gone bad. The good idea is that matters of conscience – religion, ethics, and values – are to be left to individuals to decide, free from interference or coercion by government. The idea helped make possible the open, secular society. Here’s how it goes bad. Matters of conscience are up to us, so they can amount to no more than subjective preferences. As such, they cannot be critically discussed by others who do not share them. Conscience is personal, so politeness and civility forbid bringing it up in public. Call this the Privacy Fallacy. Conscience is free, so it must be liberated from shared objective standards of rightness and truth. Call this the Liberty Fallacy. The result of these misconceptions about privacy and freedom is a culture unwilling or unable to sustain a real public conversation about religion, ethics, and values. What culture can survive without that conversation?”
(http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1591026040/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link, emphasis added)

Like me, Prof. Dacey believes that an advanced culture cannot remain free and is not likely to thrive under those conditions. One interesting point (among many) about Dacey’s argument is that although the religious and political right have been arguing for an identifiable set of concrete values for as long as I can remember, they refuse to put certain aspects of their own orthodoxy on the table for discussion. “How dare you criticize, or even question, my belief in Jesus” or “How dare you question what the American flag represents or reciting a pledge of allegiance signifies?” A similar point could be made about many communities on the left.

Also like Prof. Dacey, I believe that the human person is what merits respect. For us, not discussing a point of disagreement is not respect. Respect is holding each of our fellows to the same standard to which we hold ourselves, and discussing disagreements openly, honestly and as intelligently as our abilities will allow. (Listen to the brief segment from Dr. Dacey’s interview under customer Len Nobs’ customer review at http://www.amazon.com/review/product/1591026040/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?_encoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1).

More than a generation of right-wing talk show hosts and the progressive deterioration of the media into a delivery system for entertainment and other forms of instant gratification have further debased our ability as a nation and a people to function as a democracy. We have become a nation of people who worship our own immediate wants instead of the long-term common good, polarized by the rise of political parties and interest groups that have lined up on both sides and virtually unable to think clearly, let alone carry on a reasoned discussion about matters of common concern. This is a sure formula for the undoing of democracy and the decline of our culture. 

So I post here to open Dr. Dacey’s thesis for discussion. I invite all participants to seek out a balanced, reasoned and nuanced position, in keeping with Dr. Dacey’s thesis. I wonder whether we can.

I am posting this on another forum, and will be fascinated to see what course it takes there, as compared to here.

“If you’re living in a free society and you’re not offended at least once a day, there must be something wrong with you.” (Wendy Kaminer)

The cultural freedom to choose a particular right or wrong action is based on the overall freedom set forth by the government. Humans, for the most part are dependent on others for their mere subsidence therefore must recognize common values for survival. The American democratic experiment is predicated and enforce by the acceptance of the Declaration of Independence “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” To say that this statement is impossible to prove and is dependant solely on the objective reality of the adherent destroys the culture in which it is held. So, who is the destroyer? If one allows for the fact that, the human exist in an actual plan of being and is dependant as a being on the existence of other like beings then there must be a common truth that allows each to be with another. If humans are simply just a random thing with no more purpose then to simply “be” then of course no truth can be known. Again, I ask who is destroying our culture, the one who allows for a truth to explain existence or the one who denies any and all truths.

We’ve had a bit of a discussion of Dacey in the thread about his POI interview, and I’m afraid it turned largely into another debate about moral relativism, of which there are plenty here already. I haven’t gotten to Dacey’s book yet, so I’m not sure I have a real understanding of what he’s getting at, but based on the POI interview I get the impression that he supports a brand of moral realism, allowing the claim that moral standards can be objectively true, and giving a lot of weight to the “evidence” of our intuitions about moral questions in determining what is true and what is false. I’m as skeptical of a secular version of this as of a religious version. I never seem to here a clear and ogent explanation of where moral truths are located, if not in subjective human beliefs and desires, and I never here such an explanation of how a secular form of moral realism avoids all the pitfalls of the religious form-self-rigteousness, condemnation of other opinions, “evidence” that consists really just of cultural traditions or personal feelings, etc.

As for the specific points you’ve highlighted, I certainly don’t agree that cosncience is personal in the sense that it’s dictates shouldn’t be the subject of public debate. I think it’s appropriate to say waht you believe and why in a public setting. The problem for the secularist is that if the why doesn’t include a supernatural authority, it is considered irrelevant by most Americal voters, so I’m not sure how secularists benefit from allowing personal conscience, as opposed to reason and evidence, to be brought into public policy debates.

Anyway, I probably will try to avoid the temptation to participate in yet another debate about moral relativism. I’d be interested in the pragmatic specifics about how you and Dacey envision the invocation of conscience and morality in public policy debates working without compromising the freedom that you acknowledge separating religion and govewrnment has allowed.

Anyway, I probably will try to avoid the temptation to participate in yet another debate about moral relativism.

Good job, I think you pretty much proved his point.

Brennen, you know I like you and agree with you on plenty of issues, but here I agree with Entity. I think your response both misses and proves the point. As a suggestion, think of it in practical and functional terms - what works is the final test for the soundness of theories, just as it is in science.

I’m afraid I am missing the point since I don’t know what you and entity are talking about. My reluctance to engage in a prolonged debate about moral relativism is simply that I’ve written dozens of posts on the topic here which are available for others to read and I don’t feel like re-writing them all.
HERE and HERE are two threads in which I have explained my position at length and in detail.

If there are specific points you want to explore in more detail, I’m happy to do that. Otherwise, what point exactly have I missed or have I proven? I have to say that despite the kind caveat you open with, there is a certain patronizing tone to the remark , though I know you well enough to understand you did not intend to be provocative. But since you initiated the thread and put forward the theory for discussion, I’m inclined to think that you bear the burden of promoting and defending the position you seem to favor. I did include in my response a couple of opening for further discussion, in the form of gaps I have seen in Dacey’s and others’ arguments, so perhaps responding to that would be more productive in moving this discussion forward?

I haven’t gotten to Dacey’s book yet, so I’m not sure I have a real understanding of what he’s getting at,
...

There is a featured article by Dacey on the Secular Conscience   in the June/July issue of Free Inquiry (that particular article is not yet available online)
http://secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=index&section=fi

Thanks, Jackson. It’s sitting in my briefcase now, so I’ll try to get to it ASAP.

I’m afraid I am missing the point…..

No Kidding.

If there are specific points you want to explore in more detail, I’m happy to do that. Otherwise, what point exactly have I missed or have I proven? 

How about dialogue?

Entity,

I don’t really see your snide tone as promoting dialogue. Did you read the part where I explained why I don’t want to re-write hundreds of words I’ve already written on the subject of this thread, and where I linked to the discussions so you can read those words if you’d like more detail about the position I alluded to in my first post? DO you actually want dialogue, or are you just fond of sarcasm for its own sake?

If you’d like to have a conversation, offering an opinion (other than that I’m an idiot who’s missing the point of the thread) or asking substantive questions is the usual way to go about it. I’m not seeing any effort on anyone else’s part here (Jackson excepted) to promote dialogue, and certainly your responses to me could not be better designed to shut down communication even if that were your intent.

If you’d like to have a conversation, offering an opinion (other than that I’m an idiot who’s missing the point of the thread) or asking substantive questions is the usual way to go about it. I’m not seeing any effort on anyone else’s part here (Jackson excepted) to promote dialogue, and certainly your responses to me could not be better designed to shut down communication even if that were your intent.

OK well said, You want to dismiss the subject because you have already been there so, don’t interject.
Humans exist, is this true or not?

Thanks, Jackson. It’s sitting in my briefcase now, so I’ll try to get to it ASAP.

I listened to the podcast and my recollection has little to do with the ongoing discussion on the other thread or here. I’ll listen to it again—I also probably need to see if there is a copy of the book at the library.

I’m afraid I am missing the point since I don’t know what you and entity are talking about. My reluctance to engage in a prolonged debate about moral relativism is simply that I’ve written dozens of posts on the topic here which are available for others to read and I don’t feel like re-writing them all.
HERE and HERE are two threads in which I have explained my position at length and in detail.

If there are specific points you want to explore in more detail, I’m happy to do that. Otherwise, what point exactly have I missed or have I proven? I have to say that despite the kind caveat you open with, there is a certain patronizing tone to the remark , though I know you well enough to understand you did not intend to be provocative. But since you initiated the thread and put forward the theory for discussion, I’m inclined to think that you bear the burden of promoting and defending the position you seem to favor. I did include in my response a couple of opening for further discussion, in the form of gaps I have seen in Dacey’s and others’ arguments, so perhaps responding to that would be more productive in moving this discussion forward?

I think the few lines I quoted from Austin’s first two pages state the thesis succinctly and well.

I’m not interested in another one of the usual pointless and adversarial debates either. So consider this: If we’re not about something, then why are we here (at CFI forums)?

Here’s how it goes bad. Matters of conscience are up to us, so they can amount to no more than subjective preferences. As such, they cannot be critically discussed by others who do not share them. Conscience is personal, so politeness and civility forbid bringing it up in public. Call this the Privacy Fallacy.

Conscience is free, so it must be liberated from shared objective standards of rightness and truth. Call this the Liberty Fallacy. The result of these misconceptions about privacy and freedom is a culture unwilling or unable to sustain a real public conversation about religion, ethics, and values. What culture can survive without that conversation?”
(http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1591026040/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link, emphasis added)

I think there is a fallacy of reasoning here.
[Encylopedia of Fallacies]

The fallacy is that although some deference is paid to personal conscience, there is plenty of room for discussion in civil society. The argument as PLaClair phrases it suggests that all discussion defers to privacy-politeness and freedom-liberty, and that we need to change this. At the very least he (or Austin Dacey, if he’s quoting him accurately) needs to acknowledge that there is a spectrum and he’s asking to shift along that spectrum.  I also think the argument can be turned on its tail and we could say “What culture can survive” is there is no recognition of privacy or liberty.

I also actually question whether the problem PLaClair and Austin Dacey point to really exists—

The fallacy from the list seems to be “Black-or-White” (excluded middle)

Here’s how it goes bad. Matters of conscience are up to us, so they can amount to no more than subjective preferences. As such, they cannot be critically discussed by others who do not share them. Conscience is personal, so politeness and civility forbid bringing it up in public. Call this the Privacy Fallacy.

Conscience is free, so it must be liberated from shared objective standards of rightness and truth. Call this the Liberty Fallacy. The result of these misconceptions about privacy and freedom is a culture unwilling or unable to sustain a real public conversation about religion, ethics, and values. What culture can survive without that conversation?”
(http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1591026040/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link, emphasis added)

I think there is a fallacy of reasoning here.
[Encylopedia of Fallacies]

The fallacy is that although some deference is paid to personal conscience, there is plenty of room for discussion in civil society. The argument as PLaClair phrases it suggests that all discussion defers to privacy-politeness and freedom-liberty, and that we need to change this. At the very least he (or Austin Dacey, if he’s quoting him accurately) needs to acknowledge that there is a spectrum and he’s asking to shift along that spectrum.  I also think the argument can be turned on its tail and we could say “What culture can survive” is there is no recognition of privacy or liberty.

I also actually question whether the problem PLaClair and Austin Dacey point to really exists—

The fallacy from the list seems to be “Black-or-White” (excluded middle)

Jackson,

Dacey’s argument is not fallacious. The argument you suggest turning on its head is not an argument he is making. He’s not saying that a culture should not recognize privacy and liberty. He’s saying that privacy and liberty are not appropriately applied to suppress the analysis and critique of ideas.

In addition, Dacey’s argument is not that “all discussion defers” to the Privacy and Liberty fallacies, but that the practice of not criticizing other people’s opinions - especially on matters like religion and to a lesser extent politics - is widespread, including within the secular community. As a result, we have become powerless bystanders to whatever discussions might are going on, ceding the entire field to people who don’t mind criticizing ideas like secularism and non-theism - which many people don’t hesitate to do, right wing radio talk show hosts, for example. Dacey’s argument is that there’s nothing wrong with criticizing ideas; on the contrary, it is a necessary foundation for a reasoned and democratic society. He would like for us to get in the game so that there’s more going on than just the slander being slung at us.

There’s no doubt in my mind that this problem exists. I’ve seen too many examples of deference, where people will not criticize another person’s religious beliefs, unless, of course, he’s an atheist or non-theist or non-Christian - take your pick, depending on the community where the non-discussion is taking place. We’ve bought into it, I suspect because we in the secular community have become so sensitive to religious persecution that we’ve become unreasoning absolutists about the content of any thought that someone might call religious. The fallacy in that approach is that we make ourselves safer by rejecting any content criticism of religion. We don’t. Even if we play by those rules and even if the majority enforces the taboo to insulate itself from any criticism, we’re still going to be hammered. Not to mention that any idea that is expressed is fair game for criticism.

Well, I’ve read the FI article, but there’s noting new there that didn’t come up in the podcast. I tend to agree that Dacey overstates the problem. I consider myself a secular liberal, yet I regularly criticise religious precepts, and I consider myself a cultural relativist yet I consider all ideas and perspectives fair game for critique. The academic left may be guilty of the sort of extreme postmodernism and deference to personal belief/faith that Dacey is worried about, but there are plenty of us on the left and in the secular community who are not. So I am not convinced by his diagnosis, and I still see his prescription as vague. If all he is saying is that we should feel free to debate any and all ideas, well I certainly agree and I don’t think that’s likely to be a very controversial idea here. On the other hand, if he’s saying, as he often seems to, that conscience and moral intuition constitute a sound basis or hard evidence for a particular moral position, and that we should invoke conscience in public policy debates the way the religious invoke god’s law, well than I think he’s dead wrong.

SO I’m not sure, Paul, that we disagree in terms of the importance of public debate and criticism of all ideas, including the religious. But I suspct we disagree on why such debate is currently inadequate (I atribute it to the overwhelming ominance of religious thinking, not the influence of relativism or postmodernism) and the relevance of conscience to polticl an policy debates (I think policies need to be justified by logic and external evidence, and while based on one’s intuitions about right and wrong, perhaps, these intuition are not a meaningful selling point or argument for the rightness of a particular position).

In addition, Dacey’s argument is .... that the practice of not criticizing other people’s opinions - especially on matters like religion and to a lesser extent politics - is widespread, including within the secular community.

I listened to the podcast again and read the Free Inquiry article.  I think what he is criticizing is the “political correctness” flaw in liberalism which is where the tolerance for intolerance has its roots—the “every opinion deserves to be heard” and the emphasis on self-esteem rather than achievement.  There is a pendulum which swings in these ideas, and I think it has been swinging back from post-modernism for some time.  Although Dacey is right—the criticism of the reaction to the Dutch-cartoons was much too muted, I think this is not a flaw in secularism but a flaw in liberalism.

I basically agree with your statement above—but I don’t think it’s a “privacy fallacy” or a “freedom fallacy”, but rather that it’s a “post-modern liberal fallacy” that tries to not be judgmental about ANYTHING.

Although Dacey is right—the criticism of the reaction to the Dutch-cartoons was much too muted, I think this is not a flaw in secularism but a flaw in liberalism.
I basically agree with your statement above—but I don’t think it’s a “privacy fallacy” or a “freedom fallacy”, but rather that it’s a “post-modern liberal fallacy” that tries to not be judgmental about ANYTHING.

Some people don’t attack in hopes of not being attacked. Others attack but cannot take a defensive front. I on the other hand encamp hoping for an attack. Some have taken my attitude as simplistic or harsh and for that, I apologize but for me less is best. I understand Dacey as attempting to explain the environment surrounding the person that looks at disagreements as a personal attack on their individual thought process and as a result shut down dialogue. I on the other hand, dream of the day when I can have a “argument” with someone who does not start out the conversation accusing me of stupidity or as being a hateful skeptic.

Although Dacey is right—the criticism of the reaction to the Dutch-cartoons was much too muted, I think this is not a flaw in secularism but a flaw in liberalism.
I basically agree with your statement above—but I don’t think it’s a “privacy fallacy” or a “freedom fallacy”, but rather that it’s a “post-modern liberal fallacy” that tries to not be judgmental about ANYTHING.

Some people don’t attack in hopes of not being attacked. Others attack but cannot take a defensive front. I on the other hand encamp hoping for an attack. Some have taken my attitude as simplistic or harsh and for that, I apologize but for me less is best. I understand Dacey as attempting to explain the environment surrounding the person that looks at disagreements as a personal attack on their individual thought process and as a result shut down dialogue. I on the other hand, dream of the day when I can have a “argument” with someone who does not start out the conversation accusing me of stupidity or as being a hateful skeptic.

I’m not following you…are you saying this is how you feel treated in this forum or in daily life?

I like the point Dacey makes that a having a “conscience” precedes being religious, rather than the other way around, just as Spinoza, Madison etc. felt that you could not compell someone to believer.

In addition, Dacey’s argument is .... that the practice of not criticizing other people’s opinions - especially on matters like religion and to a lesser extent politics - is widespread, including within the secular community.

I listened to the podcast again and read the Free Inquiry article.  I think what he is criticizing is the “political correctness” flaw in liberalism which is where the tolerance for intolerance has its roots—the “every opinion deserves to be heard” and the emphasis on self-esteem rather than achievement.  There is a pendulum which swings in these ideas, and I think it has been swinging back from post-modernism for some time.  Although Dacey is right—the criticism of the reaction to the Dutch-cartoons was much too muted, I think this is not a flaw in secularism but a flaw in liberalism.

I basically agree with your statement above—but I don’t think it’s a “privacy fallacy” or a “freedom fallacy”, but rather that it’s a “post-modern liberal fallacy” that tries to not be judgmental about ANYTHING.

The value in identifying the Privacy Fallacy (PF) and the Liberty Fallacy (LF) is that Dacey is offering a more specific, and I think a more useful, critique than merely saying “political correctness” (PC) or “post-modernism” (PM). In fact, political correctness is a different animal, which proceeds from the assumption that there is a content that ought not to be challenged - as opposed to the dogma of PF and LF, which is that we ought not to challenge. PF and LF are more along the lines of post-modernism, but these two fallacies offer a more specific insight than just saying post-modernism.

The two views (PC is a problem and PF/LF is a problem) are compatible with each other. There are many strains of thought out there, and many problems in the way people think about things. I think Austin makes an important point about two influential elements.

Well, I’ve read the FI article, but there’s noting new there that didn’t come up in the podcast. I tend to agree that Dacey overstates the problem. I consider myself a secular liberal, yet I regularly criticise religious precepts, and I consider myself a cultural relativist yet I consider all ideas and perspectives fair game for critique. The academic left may be guilty of the sort of extreme postmodernism and deference to personal belief/faith that Dacey is worried about, but there are plenty of us on the left and in the secular community who are not. So I am not convinced by his diagnosis, and I still see his prescription as vague. If all he is saying is that we should feel free to debate any and all ideas, well I certainly agree and I don’t think that’s likely to be a very controversial idea here. On the other hand, if he’s saying, as he often seems to, that conscience and moral intuition constitute a sound basis or hard evidence for a particular moral position, and that we should invoke conscience in public policy debates the way the religious invoke god’s law, well than I think he’s dead wrong.

SO I’m not sure, Paul, that we disagree in terms of the importance of public debate and criticism of all ideas, including the religious. But I suspct we disagree on why such debate is currently inadequate (I atribute it to the overwhelming ominance of religious thinking, not the influence of relativism or postmodernism) and the relevance of conscience to polticl an policy debates (I think policies need to be justified by logic and external evidence, and while based on one’s intuitions about right and wrong, perhaps, these intuition are not a meaningful selling point or argument for the rightness of a particular position).

Brennen, it’s true that some of us are quite outspoken, but most people are not, in my view. I have noticed a taboo against criticizing other people’s religions.

We see the same world in two different ways. I’ll keep on keeping my eyes open as best I can.

Once again, some really filthy politics are being passed off under the cover of ‘liberal tolerance’, and being given a free pass by the ‘secular humanist’ left. I refer not to the phoney scandal around the Danish cartoons, but Austin Dacey’s own services as an ideological handmaiden to the neocons.

In this interview Dacey is asked about what he actually does at the UN. Openly expressing his admiration for War Party stalwart (and Washington’s former UN ambassador) John Bolton, Dacey describes his own role as what I would call nothing other than a proxy for US foreign policy initiatives for ‘freedom of expression’ (enforced by cruise missiles and depleted uranium munitions).

This is of a piece with Dacey’s ideological campaigning among secular leftists to support christian conservative efforts to bring down the wall church/state separation under a falsified ‘freedom of conscience’ argument (on which I have commented before).

The fact that there are sufficient numbers of ‘leftist’ rubes out there who are ready to buy into Dacey’s game is a real testament to the wholesale retrogression of political consciousness that has characterised the Clinton/Bush New World Order.

The point is that no credible claim can be made to defending the struggle for secular values in the Muslim world by those who give active support or passive acquiescence to military aggression by the U.S. and allied imperialist forces in the Middle East.

Once again, some really filthy politics are being passed off under the cover of ‘liberal tolerance’, and being given a free pass by the ‘secular humanist’ left. I refer not to the phoney scandal around the Danish cartoons, but Austin Dacey’s own services as an ideological handmaiden to the neocons.

In this interview Dacey is asked about what he actually does at the UN. Openly expressing his admiration for War Party stalwart (and Washington’s former UN ambassador) John Bolton, Dacey describes his own role as what I would call nothing other than a proxy for US foreign policy initiatives for ‘freedom of expression’ (enforced by cruise missiles and depleted uranium munitions).

This is of a piece with Dacey’s ideological campaigning among secular leftists to support christian conservative efforts to bring down the wall church/state separation under a falsified ‘freedom of conscience’ argument (on which I have commented before).

The fact that there are sufficient numbers of ‘leftist’ rubes out there who are ready to buy into Dacey’s game is a real testament to the wholesale retrogression of political consciousness that has characterised the Clinton/Bush New World Order.

The point is that no credible claim can be made to defending the struggle for secular values in the Muslim world by those who give active support or passive acquiescence to military aggression by the U.S. and allied imperialist forces in the Middle East.

Balak, this sort of abusive post is against the rules of the forum, particularly since Austin is himself a sometime member here. I understand your ideological differences of opinion with some members of this site, even those like Austin who are very much on the left wing. However this sort of political boilerplate has become something of a routine with your posts here. Please avoid this sort of hyperbole in the future. Members with a pattern of violating forum rules are subject to banning. Thanks.

Could you please be specific? The characterizations in the post above are all political, not personal.

They are political, however the hyperbolic nature of the claims makes them personal as well. Rule 2(f).

I consider what Dacey is advocating politically is extremely dangerous to the cause of secular humanism, and believe this concern should be stated in clear terms. 

It is certainly ironic though, isn’t it…. while Dacey waves Muslim offense at the anti-Islamic cartoons as his own ‘bloody shirt’ for the cause of ‘freedom of speech’, his would-be defenders can respond to sharp criticism of his politics only with the threat of ...censorship.

Also like Prof. Dacey, I believe that the human person is what merits respect. For us, not discussing a point of disagreement is not respect. Respect is holding each of our fellows to the same standard to which we hold ourselves, and discussing disagreements openly, honestly and as intelligently as our abilities will allow. (Listen to the brief segment from Dr. Dacey’s interview under customer Len Nobs’ customer review at http://www.amazon.com/review/product/1591026040/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?_encoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1).

What is it that you see Prof. Dacey wants us to do differently?  I think that I see an increase in discussion along the lines Dacey is talking about, but maybe I am becoming more atuned to the topic.

Certainly people are holding clergy publicly accountable for chilid abuse.

I think the Internet is gradually changing communications (my children get their news online rather than the nightly network news).

Anyway, I’m not sure if Dacey is pushing for individual initiative or encouraging a groundswell of collective effort.

I’m not following you…are you saying this is how you feel treated in this forum or in daily life?

I have not felt any attacks inappropriate from this forum,… however, you all remind me of a band that plays to many notes and the tune becomes stale but, boy are you good. Arguments between truth and elusion should be debated daily until we get it right,…..don’t you think….. So, I say we can know and it is not based on objective inference and subjectively placed in the known column. The fact, if humans did not exist the ability to perhaps exist still does and as a result will not always negate the fact that it does not.

Also like Prof. Dacey, I believe that the human person is what merits respect. For us, not discussing a point of disagreement is not respect. Respect is holding each of our fellows to the same standard to which we hold ourselves, and discussing disagreements openly, honestly and as intelligently as our abilities will allow. (Listen to the brief segment from Dr. Dacey’s interview under customer Len Nobs’ customer review at http://www.amazon.com/review/product/1591026040/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?_encoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1).

What is it that you see Prof. Dacey wants us to do differently?  I think that I see an increase in discussion along the lines Dacey is talking about, but maybe I am becoming more atuned to the topic.

Certainly people are holding clergy publicly accountable for chilid abuse.

I think the Internet is gradually changing communications (my children get their news online rather than the nightly network news).

Anyway, I’m not sure if Dacey is pushing for individual initiative or encouraging a groundswell of collective effort.

To the extent that any of us is refraining from honest criticism of opinion, he’d like us to stop refraining and engage the discussion. A person and his opinion are not the same thing.

Individual initiative and collective effort are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, the one feeds the other. This is a false choice.