Common Myths

  • Republicans are against unions
    Republicans are not always anti-union, but generally side with big business over the interests of labor. But lost in much of the discussions, is the awareness that big business usually consists of unions of owners. These owners collectively bargain with their employees, either with the employees singly or in groups. Quite often those groups of employees are not based on unions, but instead on bureaucratic determinations made by the corporation. Republicans, and often Democrats, will side with the more powerful union of owners against the employees. Why is there a false understanding of corporations? Because clearly the market supports unions of owners over individual large owners and because of decades of misconceptions often fostered by corporations. Somehow many believe unions of owners are efficient and unions of employees or consumers are inefficient. Of course, democracy, a system based on the equality of humans, can be portrayed as inefficient in the short terms and tyranny of the powerful much more efficient. And that gets to the main distinction in the form of unions of owners versus employees, generally corporations are anti-democratic (power decided by wealth) versus unions of labor or consumers (power decided by people).
  • Republican leaders are against regulations
    Look it up, regulations are essentially laws. What Republicans tend to be against are both laws and regulations that force corporations to favor protecting life over profits. Republicans tend to be strongly for regulations and laws that protect corporation profits and protect corportations being held accountable by a democratic society.
  • Social Security is running out of money
    Repeating a lie doesn't make it so. Williams repeats the myth that Social Security is running out of money despite evidence and protestations to the contrary by Krugman. Unfortunately this myth is designed to allow a wealthy minority to steal the savings of generations of Americans.

Cures for the common myth

  • HeadlineUpdate
    William Klein tears apart the headlines to get to the real story.
  • On the Media
    Show that savages co-opted and self-censored media coverage.
  • RIP - Wall Street Journal
    Until recently, perhaps, the best newspaper in the United States. Murdoch decided to squeeze the life out of this golden goose. Previously had fantastic muckracking pieces. The ruling class preferred WSJ to the whitewashed and watered down mass media.
  • Technorati

    Hidden among the millions of blogs and RSS feeds is the vox populi.

« How the Conservatives Won with Mandates and the Liberals Lose with Mandates | Main | A Recipe for Stupidity: How the Study on Organic Foods Was Released »

An Open Letter to Up w/ Chris Hayes

Re: http://upwithchrishayes.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/24/10841786-sundays-guests-march-25

Dear Chris Hayes:

It was mentioned in your show this week that Al Gore bringing up climate change in his film, he created push back. But I think it became a religious tinged issue, because several interested parties such as oil companies and companies in other industries that avoiding passage of laws intended to avoid the catastrophic impacts of climate change have reached out to allies including religious affiliated efforts. And for political actors that favor profits over protections, they are able to shape the religion and arguments to fit their self-interest.

This is very similar to how religions and politics changed due to the spread of chattel slavery in the colonies and later US states. Slavery was an industry that produced profits and particular lifestyle, and its defenders changed denominations or changed what their denominations preached. It so changed the religion that for the proponents, denying religion from their slaves overcame a natural religious disposition to proselytize.

So if religion can very easily change to meet the political and economic desires of political movers and shakers, the question should be asked, what is the point of religion? Rather than focussing on beliefs that are specific to religion, which I find to be an incomplete understanding of their role in our lives. I think that those that came from families or cultures where religions were equated with “god” beliefs, tend to conflate religion with “god” or “spiritual” faith.

I came from a tradition where religion was primarily a law and ethical concern and ritual practices did not have to be viewed as a faith practice. Atheism seems to be more of a concern of those from faith oriented religions.

This distinction, I think makes it easier to discuss how religion works within society. Rather than the common question of, “do you believe in God?”, the more interesting question is, “does god exist?”. It is more interesting, not because it would provoke an argument to answer it, but because it prompts more pressing questions like:

Can a person be a Christian whether or not god exists? (fill in any faith based religion)
I would posit that the answer is yes.
Can a person be an atheist whether or not god exists?
Again, I would say, yes.

You were getting close to this by separating the public versus private beliefs, but without the language to explain it.

What does it matter what a person believes? It matters on how they treat other people.

Atheism is more a reaction to Christianity than a reaction generally to religion in that not all religions are faith based. I think among atheists there is a fundamental belief in free will. Or hope that there is free will. An atheist would be hard pressed to answer the free will question in scientific terms. Rather they likely believe in it than know it,  because it is core to our understanding of our existence and our ability to act. In this way atheists base their own actions on beliefs which may not be proven by science-not a crime, just a way to get through the day.

Although it may be that evolutionary biology may explain our natural tendencies in how we think about ourselves and how we act with others, I would think that we want to be able to not be bound on finding those out as a method of determining ethical treatment of each other. One of the basic misunderstandings of our natural disposition has been in what rational acting is. Science or more importantly our potential understanding of science, should not be the main influence in determining ethical treatment of others. This is where the dangers of atheism can creep in.

Understanding some people's desire for a god is part of a search to understanding what is outside of ourselves. And this is an important step toward ethics. In part seeing that each us us is described and defined by others (or the Other), can lead us to a more ethical approach.

What science can help with is understanding the effect of ethics as it influences political action. Will people be less likely to kill each other? Will that improve the economic and health outcomes. We see this in religious practice or non-practice, when it comes to birth control. Is it ethical to deprive people of birth control even as it  seems to conflict with religious doctrine? Is the economic outcome an ethical consideration? How do these issues express themselves in political speech? And does religion practice and even doctrine change to meet ethical considerations as they have for centuries?

So, the question for me circles back to the core issue, how does belief act on or interfere with how people treat each other? Ethics are the core to society and religion in the sense that how we treat each other and how we are treated by others.

I would go back over the discussion you held today and consider how much your instinct was to promote your sense of ethics, of how you should treat each other. And not be as confrontational as Dawkins espoused being on issues that do not seem to impact how we treat each other/ethics.  Sometimes you spoke in political terms of how to bring others around to your ethical interests without attacking their beliefs. That is an ethical choice as well, as opposed to the selfish/arrogant effort or the Machiavellian/ ends justify the means attitude.

I believe that we need to build a better language to get at these issues. I hope this letter helps.

Daniel Bennett

March 28, 2012 |

Comments

The comments to this entry are closed.