Uncouth PerspectivesNot on the rug, man.

Let me tell you a little story.

So to Pope decides to visit an Italian University and give a speech.  This is not a churchy event, but is  the opening of the academic year and, in my opinion, a pretty big win for the University.  Say what you will about the Pope, it is a big deal for him to come give a speech, whether you agree or not, which, really, is what this story is about.

What is the response from the school, do you think?  Why for the students and faculty members to protest so loud that the Pope cancels the visit.

Here’s the story: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pope16jan16,0,296931.story?coll=la-home-center

And some choice quotes:

More than 60 professors signed a letter to the public school’s rector saying the pope’s appearance, which had been scheduled for the opening of the academic year Thursday, was an affront to people of science and to the “secular” nature of the institution.

…

The students who led the protests celebrated their “victory for laicism,” whereas the rector of La Sapienza, Renato Guarini, said he was dismayed that a “small publicity-seeking minority” had managed to derail a papal visit to an institution founded, as it happens, by one of Benedict’s predecessors, Pope Boniface VIII — 700 years ago.

Let me start by getting my feelings out in the open:  screw you.

One of the challenges the students and faculty put forward is legitimate:  the Pope was going to give a speech but was not open to a question and answer session.  Although, if I were the Pope (Oh, how I dream about it!  Where’s my hat?!), I think I would be disinclined to play hardball with people so determined to hate me on principle that they’ll cancel my appearance anyways.

But, seriously, I believe strongly in the Academic mission and, question and answer session or not, I think that having the Pope come speak is valuable and useful part of that mission.  When people are critical of Universities as “liberal brain washing” institutes, it’s this kind of asshat actions that they are talking about.  I am not saying that people should not be vocal against the Pope, or whoever, if they feel like it–I am certainly do not support the Catholic church–but let the man talk!  And use it as an opportunity to hold more sessions about the Science vs. Religion debate, or on the issue of morality in atheism, or whatever you want!  But do not silence a voice because they say things you do not like.  That, to me, goes against the entire idea of Academia.  Especially when that voice is the selected leader of a major world religion.

I just get so angry when I read or see this kind of hypocricy.   This is one of those ultimate opportunities for education, learning, and growth.  I mean, if the Dali Lama came, would these same people have protested… or is he western and modern enough?  What if the next one isn’t so interested in constitutions and has takes a hard line.  Well, too bad, same guy, just reincarnated.  Haha!  You fail!

Seriously, though, I expected in Academia, of all places, for any civilized voice to have a platform and opportunity to speak.  It’s not a victory to celebrate–you did not win a skirmish in the great war against religion;  you did not even fight.  Walk around with all the pride and prejudice you want.  It is not for me.

Editor’s Note:  It has been pointed out that this article is from 1970, so I suppose that changes things a little bit.  I preserve the original entry nonetheless.

Apparently not in New Jersey.

According to this Time article, a New Jersey couple has been denied the ability to adopt a child because they are not religious. Let us just cut to the chase–here is what the judge who ruled this says it is all about:

Inestimable Privilege. In an extraordinary decision, Judge Camarata denied the Burkes’ right to the child because of their lack of belief in a Supreme Being. Despite the Burkes’ “high moral and ethical standards,” he said, the New Jersey state constitution declares that “no person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience.” . . . he continued, “the child should have the freedom to worship as she sees fit, and not be influenced by prospective parents who do not believe in a Supreme Being.”

Here is the argument in a nutshell: 1) the law says no one shall be denied the ability to worship God, 2) the parents do not worship God, 3) therefore the child is being denied the ability to worship God.

First, if nothing else, I am simply offended at this, even if the logic was not flawed. If I may be frank, this judge can suck my left nut. I think this kind of rough-shod abuse of authority is absolutely asinine. The judge obviously is simply making a point and, I would guess, knows that this bullshit will never stand up over time. I am a big fan of the idea of the judiciary, but any asshat who uses the bench as a pulpit (or other type of soapbox) deserves to be stripped down and run out of town.

Now that is out of the way, let’s take a moment to look at the logic. First, to make this work, the judge is taking a narrow definition of the word “worship.” I.e. the law only protects the actual worship (positive), not lack there of. While there are those who would agree with him (and may even define the “freedom to worship however they like” to mean “the freedom to be Christian and, oh, by Christian, I mean my denomination”), legal precedence (and perhaps just using you head) tells us that “freedom to worship” has a much broader definition which happens to include the option of not doing so.

Second, the judge is appealing to all kinds of logical bullshit. You wouldn’t want to deprive the child of her right to make her own decision, would you? This poor, innocent, little child, depraved and left to shallow ignorance by her, while highly moral and ethical, adopted atheist parents. There’s no other way to put it. It’s bullshit.

Third, the logic is incomplete. The assumption being presented here is twofold: 1) parental influence necessarily defines a child’s ideological framework and 2) the parents would necessarily only present the child with the option of atheism. The judge tried to lighten the blow by talking about the “influence” of the parents, but he’s basically saying the above. Neither of these statements are axiomatic and it is wrong to simply present them as assumed fact.

Lastly, and most ironically, the flawed logic allows for some interesting thinking. I mean, if the judge is correct (and I’ll look to his own words, where he says “the child should have the freedom to worship as she sees fit”), I would that we should not allow Catholics to adopt, as they parents may influence the child to believe in, of all things, Catholicism and not give the child the freedom to worship “as she sees fit.” For that matter, Jews are out too. In fact, maybe we shouldn’t let anyone adopt. Well, really, that’s a bit of a slippery slope, but seeing as the logic is gone from the judge’s argument already, might as well!

Can a forced ideology be called morality?

What I am concerned with here when I say “forced ideology” is when an individual accepts an ideology because they were told to do so, whether this is from a personal authority figure, such as a parent, or something or someone more systemic, such as the military commander for drafted soldiers.  This should be contrasted to an ideology one rationally accepts, based on knowledge and self-reflection.  There is, of course, a very grey area here which is not easy to define, but I am currently most interested in a strong understanding of forced ideology.

If a person does a “good” act based on a belief system which they have not rationally accepted, is the act really good?  Or is the person good/moral?  If a child makes a conscience effort to not lie on Christmas Eve for fear of not getting presents from Santa (assuming the child has something to gain from lieing), has the child done good?

My instinct tells me no, the act is not necessarily morally good.  One may argue that refraining from lieing is an objective moral good and the intent plays no part.  I, however, cannot agree with this.  Discarding the objective/subjective arguments of morality for another day, I cannot believe actions should be divorced so coldly from intent.

At issue for me is “good” actions which are more based on routine or dogma as opposed to rational choice or desire.  However, it seems that this thought has implications on “evil” actions as well.  If blind acceptance to an ideology devalues the “good” of an action, then it must devalue the “evil” of an action.
If giving to the poor because you are told to do so is not a morally good action, then what about a solider who kills because he is told to do so?  Or perhaps to make it even more stark, what about a man who rapes a virgin for purification?

I have too strong an emotional response to such evil deeds and too strong a belief in individual responsibility to accept that.  But I have to admit that I do feel that the good acts are devalued because of this.   Perhaps this is just faulty thinking on my part, but I think it simply leads to a better conclusion.

It is blind acceptance that is the problem.  I believe that blind acceptance is intellectually criminal.  Individuals must have a personal and reasoned system of beliefs or they do not really have a belief system.  One of the real tests of a person’s character is how they act compared to what they believe in.  Those with a void for a true belief system (or an understood belief system) often find themselves doing things or acting in ways contrary to their ideology.  Or they act accordingly to their ideology but are miserable in the process.

Blind acceptance is an individual choice.  You might even say (in fact, I do) that it is a moral choice.  Not accepting responsibility for your beliefs or your actions does not make those beliefs or actions justifiable.

It just makes them stupid.