Letters to the Editor
ELYDOG
Published Letters: 497 Editor's Choice: 43
-
Health Benefits of Religion?
[Read the article: Manufacturing belief]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This Wolpert is a kind, jolly old troll, what? Two questions. Would it be possible that, while individual believers might feel comforted by religion (no doubt they are, as drugs comfort us too...I resort to a glass of wine...) might society be less able to cope with reality due to religion? Causing wars or disease or prejudice or any number of physical traumas on a grand scale? Might this not be a contra-indicator of 'health?' IE you can see on a small scale, if you son dies because you are a Christian Scientist and you don't believe in drugs, what happens if we were all Christian Scientists? Mr. Wolpert, jolly old troll, doesn't look at it like that. His individual 'health benefits' argument seems incredibly narrow, and somewhat stupid for a professor. He is a biologist only, his writ doesn't run much farther.
Or take it like this. Let's say you live in a society where religion rules the society, and you, as an atheist or agnostic, are made to feel somewhat out of place. Would these social anxieties lead to medical problems? Of course. So, let's put the 'believers' in a nice socialist society, where we laugh at them on TV and in politics constantly. You want to see believers having heart problems? I guarantee the location of heart problems would change.
So Black people have far greater health problem in a white-ruled society. Perhaps they should just change their skin color? Women have more mental conditions. The poor suffer more health issues. The workers divorce more. etc. I.E. the 'health' argument is the argument of social Darwinism.
Will atheism win the argument? It will win the logical argument. More people are atheists now than any time in history. Again, Mr. Wolpert can't see the forest for the trees.
-
Blumenthal Redbaits Again
[Read the article: Wolfowitz's tomb]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well, I guess we all need another ponderous post-mortem on Wolfowitz.
I have no quarrel with burying Wolfie a little deeper, but the ridiculous red-baiting that starts this article reminds me that liberals are as big a red-baiters as conservatives.
At least Blumenthal got one thing right, Wolfie had no concept of 'mass politics,' unlike Lenin. Unfortunately, in this bizarre analogy which he has used before, Blumenthal completely forgets about class. Wolfie was a representative of the most virulent capitalist elements in the United States.
Lenin and Trotsky wanted to overthrow those people. Yet, they are the same.
They are the same because of a shallow 'impressionist' understanding of organization.
How's this on organization? Blumenthal actually represents a wing of the ruling class that is more careful, and appreciates a mask of 'humanism' put over it's face. I.E., capitalism with a human face, but capitalism none the same. Blumenthal and Wolfie are actually on the same side on this issue. Unfortunately for Mr. Blumenthal, imperialism is showing more and more it cannot afford humanism, or a mask, or anything but the most hollow assurances.
What is dying with the Iraq war is not just Wolfie, but a U.S. capitalist view of how to control oil ... and the world. And that target is far bigger than the neo-cons alone.
-
Back in Junior High School ...
[Read the article: Right-wing noise machine: Plame not covert]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...I learned a technique to win arguments called "making it up on the spot." I'd say, or assert what I wanted to say, and, if it was said quickly and forcefully enough, the less sure, the slow, the insecure would accept it, or at least fall quiet.
I usually thought I was right, and did not go to the length of actually making something up, but I would assert on dimly remembered or very vague evidence.
I did not reveal this to the kids, of course.
As an adult, I have seen people use the same technique, and I always enjoy calling them on it. By reading the signals and information, you can tell when someone has tipped into this assertion mode. I call it being "agressively ignorant." The agressively ignorant are very strong in their completely off-base way, and loudly proclaim it. They hope to cow the rest of us. Glenn is not cowed, and nor is most of the rest of the population anymore, and the Plame scandal is just another example.
-
Dawkins & Harris aren't going to outlaw religion
[Read the article: Inside the Creation Museum]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To the Christian Indian who practices drum circles. Dawkins and Harris aren't going to outlaw religion or persecute believers or become Atheist "Custers".
They are going to treat religion like the personal interest that it is, like tea-cup collecting or Soren Kierkegaard societies or union membership. But they won't put "In God we Trust" on the money or make people swear on Bibles in court, or teach religious concepts like creation in public school, or determine political sexual policy by looking at the Bible, or justify oil wars with Christian logic, or let churches go untaxed, etc. This Adam & Eve museum would be just fine legally in an atheist society, but it is going to pay taxes like everyone else, including the flying saucer museum down the street.
I. E., they want to de-couple religion from politics. By the way, Custer was a Christian, and many Christian's of his day believed Indians were pagans and should suffer for it. I think Dawkins and Harris are better defenders of religious liberty than fundamentalists of many stripes - Muslim, Jewish, Hindi or Christian, who only want THEIR religion to rule. Look out if you are not their religion, in their society.