[Buddha-l] Re: S. Pinker

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 16:31 -0400, SJZiobro at cs.com wrote:

> Richard, any statement can be subjected to methodological doubt with
> the claim that there is no reason to believe what the statement
> articulates. 

I see no reason to believe that.

>  That said, I see no grounds for reasonably disagreeing with the
> historical record.  We know what a religious ethos is, and we know
> what "dominant" means.  To state otherwise strikes me as disingenuous.

Very well, I concede the point. The United States is a Protestant nation
in which Roman Catholics are barely tolerated, and women and native
Americans have no right to vote, and the economy is based on slave
labor. Thus it was for most of our history, and thus it ever more should
be, because that is the kind of nation the Founding Fathers wished to
have.

> I shall not, however, deny the sociological reality that Christianity
> is the dominant religion here in the States.  If you take offense at
> this, I'll not argue that you should not since we are dealing with
> emotions, and emotions are neither true nor false.

That statement makes no sense at all to me. I can't even imagine what
you were trying to say. But never mind.

If we are going to speak sociologically, then the dominant world view in
the USA is secular humanism. Far more Americans are secular than
Christian, and that is just plain fact. Dispute it all you wish, but
wishing will not make this a Christian nation.

> If somebody wants to claim the USA for Buddhism (or Islam, or Judaism,
> or Shinto) I see nothing offensive in that, but perhap that is just
> one of my quirks.

These claims would all be false. There is nothing offensive in being
wrong. What is offensive is insisting that one is right when all the
evidence shows that one's position is problematic. (We have a president
who does that. It would be pathetic if his citizens followed him in this
unfortunate proclivity.)

> We still have significant areas of freedom of speech left in the
> society.

True, but completely irrelevant to this discussion.

> This is a fine rhetorical move on your part.  I happen to agree with
> you that unadulterated consumerism is antithetical to Christianity
> (and I suspect to Buddhism, right?), and I happen to agree with you
> that where our government has abandoned the poor (they are always a
> handy group to bring into an argument) and we intentionally willingly
> acquiesce in this abandonment, that is antithetical to Christianity.

So we agree that the majority of those who think of themselves as
Christians are deluded in this belief and that it would be offensive if
they were to continue making that claim for themselves when their
actions bely their professions.

> But I am not willing to claim that the failings of Christians changes
> the sociological fact that the greater majority of people who here in
> the USA practice a religion (however poorly), ally themselves with
> some form of Christianity.

The key phrase there is "who practice a religion." The majority of
citizens of the USA do not practice any religion at all, unless
consumerism, unjust war and blind patriotism count as religious
practices. In fact, I have argued on numerous occasions that these
things DO, sociologically speaking, amount to the equivalents of
religious practices. I think USAmericans are very good at practicing a
very bad religion, a religion that is not, by any stretch of the
imagination, Christianity, Judaism, Islam or Buddhism.

> Accordingly, the fact that there are Christians who do not live up to
> the demands of the Gospel does not nullify that reality that they are
> Christians; they are simply benighted or unfaithful. 

If one is bad at being a Christian, then one is not in fact a Christian
at all. That principle was invoked repeatedly by the Puritans who
founded this nation. And since by your own advice we should not deviate
from their convictions, you are bound to agree with them.

> Your original statement was simply a blanket statement to the effect
> that whatever bound anybody in any manner in the 18th century "cannot
> possibly be binding in the first decade of the 21st century."  As
> stated, this is false.

Of course it is. So apply some charity of interpretation if you are
interested in anything but winning an argument at all costs. Use your
imagination. Try to figure out what I might have been saying with those
words.

> I would also think that the Supreme Court's justification of this
> principle simply further opens the door to the judiciary subverting
> the legislative branches of government.

I have never seen this happening during my lifetime. What I have seen is
the Executive branch subverting the legislative branch and trying to
manipulate the judiciary. But never has the judiciary subverted the
other two branches, at least not since I have been alive.

> There is also something counter-intuitive to this, especially in light
> of the clearly articulated checks and balances mentioned in the
> Constitution. 

Agreed. The constitution says that only Congress can declare war. And
yet we have an executive branch saying almost daily that we are at war.
In fact, we are not. This is an example of the executive branch
betraying the constitution.

> I was simply responding in jest to your original Hail Mary comment
> made in jest (which I rather enjoyed).

My jokes are meant to hurt people's feelings. I resent it when anyone
enjoys them. It is a bitter reminder that I have failed in my mission.

-- 
Richard Hayes
http://www.unm.edu/~rhayes