From panix!not-for-mail Sat Jun 19 19:17:18 EDT 1993
Article: 438 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Care to explicate a buzzword?
Date: 19 Jun 1993 13:42:50 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <1vvj6q$ns@sun.Panix.Com>
References: <1993Jun19.000119.12252@news.vanderbilt.edu> <1vv53u$jot@sun.Panix.Com> <1993Jun19.163014.22357@news.vanderbilt.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sun.panix.com
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes:
>It appears to me that many of these "healing" books are written for
>people in their late 30's or early 40's who fit roughly the following
>description: did pot in the 70's, opposed Vietnam, favored and enjoyed
>the sexual revolution; eventually finished college, got married, found a
>decent to pretty good job, got divorced; current interests include
>health/fitness and environmentalism.
>
> What do you think?
Sounds reasonable. You start off thinking that everything will turn out
OK if you just let it flow. When you get to the middle years, you find
things aren't catastrophically bad but aren't OK either, so you look for
a way to make it all better while changing your outlook as little as
possible. The proposed resolution is a more sophisticated form of
letting it flow called "healing".
>>>Nec vitia nostra nec remedia pati possumus.
>
> I found Livy's humor here pretty tart, that's all. :-)
The humor has so much bite you don't have to read it as humor.
[Non-latinists: the quote means "we can bear neither our vices nor
their remedies".]
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Sun Jun 20 05:59:16 EDT 1993
Article: 13425 of talk.politics.theory
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Efficacy of moaning and groaning (was: Social setting)
Date: 19 Jun 1993 20:19:45 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 39
Distribution: usa
Message-ID: <200af1$j4q@sun.Panix.Com>
References: <1vv3ss$is2@sun.Panix.Com> <1vv7lb$ldd@sun.Panix.Com> <2003vu$dc5@sun.Panix.Com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sun.panix.com
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>The critical distinction is not who applies the force, but how much of
>it needs to be applied.
"Who applies the force" defines the form of society and form of
government, and so seems an important issue to me.
I would be inclined to say that a society does not rely on force to the
extent its members accept the requirements of the society as just. For
that reason it is not clear to me that liberal societies
characteristically rely on force less than societies based on a
particular substantive understanding of the common good. Quite possibly
liberal societies rely on force less so long as the trend of thought and
feeling is in the direction of liberalism, but such things change.
Perhaps in the future liberal societies will have to use force quite
extensively to repress the illiberal aspirations of the people. They
already do that to some extent.
>Although human beings are not very rational, it does seem to occur to a
>lot of them that such social pathologies as crime and civil war are
>unaesthetic and unprofitable.
It is not necessary for a majority to favor crime and civil war for such
things to come about.
>It is also possible that, due to the dispersion and exfoliation of
>information capital I have written about so much, that the state will
>be _unable_ to create order even if it (that is, the people involved in
>it) want to do so -- which would mean that the resumption of
>authoritarianism would be an academic hypothesis.
If there is neither public nor private authority we will get the reign
of force. As you suggest, it is possible that force will be unable to
create order. I would expect that failure to intensify the reign of
force.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Sun Jun 20 10:28:31 EDT 1993
Article: 921 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: deconstruction & conservatism
Date: 20 Jun 1993 10:28:07 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <201s5n$gtb@sun.Panix.Com>
References: <1993Jun19.222211.51112@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sun.panix.com
miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>The meaning of a word depends only upon the meanings of other words.
If the meaning of a word depends only on the meanings of other words,
then it seems that the truth of a sentence ("if you throw that switch
the light will go on") would not depend on any non-lingistic fact.
That's not so, though.
>What about the idea that words refer to things in the real world? you
>may ask. While it's true in a way that they do, the "things in the real
>world" that we have clear conceptions of tend to be just those things we
>have words for;
What's cause and what's effect? It seems to me that if we find we can
understand and deal with non-linguistic things better by developing and
refining a particular concept (e.g., "gravity"), then we also develop
linguistic means of expressing the concept.
>moreover languages vary in the "things in the real world" they have
>words for.
People can learn foreign languages and translate between them.
>In the Judeo-Christian tradition closure (presence, the center, nature
>uncontaminated by culture) is guaranteed by the belief that God is real
>-- indeed, if you know your Aquinas, that *only* God is real. Upon this
>primary fact, accepted by faith, all meaning depends. Logocentrism,
>here, succeeds.
I agree that there is something very puzzling about the relation of
language and the world. Nonetheless, language does somehow manage to be
about the world and serve as a medium for stating at least some truths
about reality. I don't see how the contrary can coherently be
asserted. Possibly (as you seem to suggest) a religious explanation is
the only way to make sense of the situation.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Sun Jun 20 20:50:47 EDT 1993
Article: 13439 of talk.politics.theory
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Back to definitions of liberalism (was: Efficacy ...)
Date: 20 Jun 1993 17:03:39 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 57
Distribution: usa
Message-ID: <202jbb$gke@sun.Panix.Com>
References: <2003vu$dc5@sun.Panix.Com> <200af1$j4q@sun.Panix.Com> <2025gm$poh@sun.Panix.Com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sun.panix.com
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>In my opinion -- and I'm probably in a very small minority here -- the
>idea of a society being just, forcibly just, is illiberal. In the
>liberal ideal, the state ought to _leave_ _people_alone_ as much as
>possible, so as to minimize itself (and the sum of coercion in the
>community). Thus, the individual trades an idea of state justice or
>virtue for freedom. I recognize that justice is an extremely vague
>concept, like goodness, and that a community could exist which would
>see the practice of liberalism (maximized freedom for all) as "just",
>but usually I think people are talking about something else.
You seem to be saying that the liberal view is that there are lots of
things that are unjust but the state shouldn't forbid them because if it
did we couldn't do those unjust things when we felt like it. That seems
wrong to me -- it seems to me that like other people liberals think that
if something is unjust then it should be forbidden unless there is some
reason to the contrary, and the mere fact that someone might want to
commit the injustice is not a reason.
It's true that the classical liberal's list of things that are unjust
(breach of contract and injuring others in their persons or property)
was rather short and consisted in invasions of the rights of others, so
that it was possible to view enforcing justice as one method of
protecting freedom. I think the tendency over the past 100 years has
been implicitly to lengthen the list by expanding the conception of
"injuring others in their persons or property" to include things like
race or sex discrimination and denial of access to an adequate material
standard of living. So liberals are still able to identify enforcing
their conception of justice as a matter of protecting various negative
and positive freedoms. All the same, they believe justice should be
enforced.
>For example, imagine a society in which enough information
>had been dispersed to enable most of the citizens to build
>small nuclear weapons in their basements. While there would
>no doubt be a period of serious real-estate damage and
>population reduction, my guess is that Axelrod's theorem
>would come into play, and that those who did not offer
>serious offense to one another would tend to survive much
>longer than those who did, which would in turn encourage
>certain cultural changes.
It's not clear to me why the diffusion of information should bring about
a situation in which organizations larger than a household would have no
offensive or defensive advantage. After all, if I could build a
mininuke in my cellar, a group that pooled its resources might be able
to build a mininuke scanner/deactivator in an abandoned warehouse
somewhere and render all weapons except their own innocuous.
Also, the non-society you imagine composed of a large number of
individuals not subject to any controlling power, each of whom can kill
any of the others, sounds like Hobbes' state of nature to me. Why
should the outcome be any different?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Mon Jun 21 19:50:02 EDT 1993
Article: 938 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Eagle Forum
Date: 21 Jun 1993 17:15:16 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <2058d4$7rq@sun.Panix.Com>
References: <1vv5c1$jt0@sun.Panix.Com> <204tfj$i4d@crchh327.bnr.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sun.panix.com
harsch@bnr.ca (Joseph Harsch) writes:
>Also, the 14th amendment forces the states to respect the rights of the
>people enumerated (and not enumerated) by the Constitution.
The 14th amendment says the states can't deprive any person of life,
liberty or property without due process of law. It follows, the Supreme
Court has held, that almost all the limitations on Federal action set
forth in the first 10 amendments are also limitations on actions by the
states (the right to trial by jury in civil cases does not apply to the
states).
If you can understand that line of reasoning you're smarter than I am.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Mon Jun 21 19:50:47 EDT 1993
Article: 13454 of talk.politics.theory
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Back to definitions of liberalism (was: Efficacy ...)
Date: 21 Jun 1993 16:33:02 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 42
Distribution: usa
Message-ID: <2055tu$4na@sun.Panix.Com>
References: <2025gm$poh@sun.Panix.Com> <202jbb$gke@sun.Panix.Com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sun.panix.com
turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:
>It is a central tenet of liberalism (in the traditional sense) that only
>a small portion of those acts that are wrong, unfair, and unjust should
>be forbidden, and that the reason for forbidding some acts is not their
>wrongness, unfairness, or injustice, per se, but to maximize individual
>liberty and promote a rational economic order.
Are there classical liberal writers who say that injustice should not be
legally restrained because doing so would restrict the freedom of the
individual to engage in unjust acts? If it is a central tenant of
traditional liberalism that injustice is not per se a reason for legal
restraint I would expect classical liberal writers such as Locke and
Mill to be clear on the point. I seem to recall statements to the
effect that a man commits no injustice by doing what he wishes with his
own.
I realize that current proponents of classical liberalism often sharply
oppose morality, including justice, to law. It seems to me that
position is forced on them by the substantive moral views that are now
predominant and that make classical liberalism seem morally
objectionable to most people. The need to take such a position strikes
me as one of the reasons classical liberalism is a loser today.
>What characterizes liberal society is that the Good is given only
>limited support in the law.
I would say that what characterizes liberal society is a tendency to
view the Good as consisting in each individual getting whatever he
happens to want. (Has this discussion just completed some sort of
circle?) Injustice then consists in illegitimate interference with an
individual's getting what he wants and can properly be repressed by the
liberal state.
>Liberal freedom includes the freedom to do bad.
I would say that liberal freedom includes the freedom to do things that
other people object to because of their personal moral feelings but are
not unjust from the standpoint of liberalism.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Wed Jun 23 16:00:30 EDT 1993
Article: 444 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: More buzzwords!
Date: 23 Jun 1993 14:14:10 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <20a6hi$ltf@sun.Panix.Com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sun.panix.com
John Rickert's question about "healing" brought to mind some other
examples of the language used by the Left in America:
Change -- "progress", but with fewer overtones of linear thinking. This
word came in during the late 60's, along with everything else.
Equity -- "equality", but vaguer and less threatening and therefore more
useable by the Democrats.
Access -- a right to have the government pay for something. A useful
word because it emphasizes the perspective of the individual beneficiary
rather than the institutional arrangements being proposed.
Hate -- expressions of loyalty to social institutions other than the
liberal state, and to the customs and standards that support the
authority of such institutions. Attempts to control immigration to
maintain the hegemony of the dominant culture and attempts to privilege
the traditional patriarchal monogamous family are examples of hate.
Any others? Recently someone posted a list on some of the other reac
groups compiled by someone at the Harvard theological school that dealt
with "diversity" and related terms.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Thu Jun 24 06:15:30 EDT 1993
Article: 446 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: More buzzwords!
Date: 23 Jun 1993 21:03:13 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <20augh$n93@sun.Panix.Com>
References: <20a6hi$ltf@sun.Panix.Com> <1993Jun23.232211.436@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sun.panix.com
In <1993Jun23.232211.436@news.cs.brandeis.edu> deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane) writes:
>What other reac groups? What list?
alt.society.conservatism, alt.politics.usa.republican,
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.rush-limbaugh, alt.fan.dan-quayle. They
feature a lot of college kids having pie-throwing contests, and the
*.r.-l. groups have far too many messages, but they do exist.
The list I mentioned was put together by some poor soul at whatever the
theological school is at Harvard and details the diversity-related
vocabulary people use there. I looked but it's already expired on
alt.society.conservatism at my site.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Thu Jun 24 12:33:03 EDT 1993
Article: 449 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: More buzzwords!
Date: 24 Jun 1993 07:04:27 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <20c1nr$rad@sun.Panix.Com>
References: <20a6hi$ltf@sun.Panix.Com> <1993Jun23.232211.436@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sun.panix.com
aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken) writes:
>Do not forget "gender," the term used by radical feminists attempting to
>deconstruct innate sexual differences [ . . . ] Once they have
>convinced the mob to adopt their usage (sadly, they have), we have lost
>the battle.
It has been interesting to see how readily the word has been taken up.
I think part of the reason is that it's more pretentious than "sex".
Certainly a lot of the people who use it don't get its significance,
judging by references I've seen to things like the "gender" of insects.
It's also interesting to note that "male" -- certainly a specifically
biological term -- is a feminist expression as well. Maybe the idea is
to use sex to put men in their places while denying that it limits women
in any way. I'm sure feminist men have discussed the point in various
whine groups on the net.
In any case, the more jargon there is the more pleasure there is in
keeping your own language free of it. It's like the pleasure of keeping
cool on a sticky summer day.
>Living in the worst of both worlds: A cultural conservative with liberal
>guilt.
A passing phase because it's not a natural combination. To be a
cultural conservative is to accept the necessity of particularism, while
liberal guilt comes from the view that we are all equally responsible
for everything. If you believe that your duties to your family are part
of what makes you what you are, then you won't view children as
"society's children".
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Thu Jun 24 18:34:59 EDT 1993
Article: 454 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: More buzzwords!
Date: 24 Jun 1993 18:33:45 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <20da49$i1n@sun.Panix.Com>
References: <1993Jun23.232211.436@news.cs.brandeis.edu> <20c1nr$rad@sun.Panix.Com> <1993Jun24.173043.16837@news.vanderbilt.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sun.panix.com
In <1993Jun24.173043.16837@news.vanderbilt.edu> rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes:
>Congratulations Dr. Andrew
>Wiles for proving Fermat's
>Last Theorem!
Wonderful news, isn't it? On less inspirational topics:
> "Peace." The only meaning consistent with the contexts that I can
>discern is "capitulation to the liberal agenda."
If you want peace, pursue justice (and you know what we mean by
justice). A list of the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize might be a
good indicator of the generally-accepted meaning of the word. In the
days of the late lamented _Soyuz_, the word also had a technical meaning
in some circles.
> Conversely, moral sentiments, particularly those of compunction,
>be it an internal sense of guilt or a disapproval of certain actions,
>are often called, "hangups."
Why be judgmental? Just call them "personal moral preferences"!
Onward to Mr. Deane:
>"diversity" - a truly disengenious word if one thinks about the
>practical results of its application.
A remarkable word. Diversity can be achieved only if there is
ideological uniformity within institutions, and it requires similarity
of membership, purposes and procedures among institutions so that the
government can monitor diversity and verify its presence. In addition,
cultural diversity requires the trivialization or destruction of the
constituent cultures because none of them is allowed to have any
consequences that are not strictly private.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Fri Jun 25 07:21:46 EDT 1993
Article: 109 of alt.politics.usa.republican
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: NET: Politics and Family
Date: 25 Jun 1993 06:42:41 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 128
Message-ID: <20ekr1$q84@sun.Panix.Com>
References: <9306221246.AA13346@bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sun.panix.com
Xref: panix alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:28248 alt.politics.usa.republican:109 alt.society.conservatism:1054
Jackson.D.Verdery@dartmouth.edu (Jackson D. Verdery) writes:
>It seems clear that [the ideal family] should contain at least one
>breadwinner, and that this breadwinner should be able to earn at least
>enough bread to provide for the basic necessities and leave enough time
>and energy to spend with the younger generation imparting values.
In America "the basic necessities" are a matter of convention. In 1950
not many people here were on the brink of starvation, and most married
couples with children had one breadwinner working a 40-hour week.
Hourly pay hasn't gone down since then and the requirements of the human
body for survival haven't gone up, so the difference must be people's
material expectations.
>(Can we also agree that imparting values is a role that should be shared
>by father and mother, and not just the parent who is not the
>breadwinner?)
It's hard to imagine any family values type not agreeing with that. Of
course, in most families Mom has more of a constant on-the-scene
hands-on role and Dad is more the final authority in the background (in
addition to being the primary breadwinner). Does that give you a
problem?
>And it is not sensible to assume that if every family just got down to
>the business of imparting values, the economy would improve.
Why doubt that if every family taught its children the virtues of
honesty and hard work the economy would improve? It seems obvious that
more good workers and fewer bad workers would be good for the economy.
Of course, not all virtues increase GNP and some antimaterialist virtues
reduce GNP. But presumably people live good lives mostly through being
taught how to do so, so more teaching of values presumably means fewer
problems for government to worry about.
>I think voters became irritated when the Republican Party, instead of
>talking about actions its members would take as elected officials
>(address national savings rate, tax structure, lack of support in the
>educational system for skilled worker training, ruinous cost of health
>care), wasted time discussing soft issues like family values over which
>elected officials really have little direct control.
What's wrong with a political party saying:
1. We have little direct control over the national savings rate. If
people are responsible for their own financial position and are free to
invest and to keep the profits from their investments, they'll tend to
save and to invest productively. If they don't do so under those
circumstances we're not going to be able to force them to do so.
2. Taxes should be low because the federal government has little direct
control over the things that are most important to our well-being as a
people, so if it receives a large share of the nation's economic
resources in the hopes that it will be able indirectly to promote our
well-being the money is not likely to be well spent.
3. Federal worker training programs haven't worked well and we don't
expect that we can do better than other people have. If there are
opportunities that require special training the people on the spot can
probably do a better job figuring out what the opportunities are, what
training is needed and whether the training is worth what it costs than
the feds can.
4. Government has little direct control over people's health or
advances in the treatment and prevention of disease. Government can
drive up costs by regulation, by liability rules or by agreeing to pay
doctors whatever doctors feel like charging or can justify charging on
some formal standards. In fact, government seems already to have done
so, so maybe we should look at existing government involvement and see
if it's all appropriate.
>An electoral campaign is a little like a job interview. When you
>interview for a job, you do not waste the employer's time saying that
>what the company needs is a little more morality and personal integrity.
>That may be true, but the employer (voter) is interested in what you can
>and will do for him and the company (country).
Good point. One complaint about both political parties is that they
habitually promise everything when in fact they have little direct
control over things. I suppose I'd prefer the party that at least talks
about the things that bear most directly on our national well-being --
for example, the kind of people we are in our day-to-day dealings with
the people to whom we have direct responsibilities (that is, family
values). Then even though the party won't be able to promote the public
good very directly they're at least more likely to avoid messing up the
things that do promote the public good.
>But do make certain the competition is fair. That means that private
>schools must 1. accept all applicants, including special needs
>applicants, 2. not be permitted to expel students whose parents have
>"chosen" the school.
I think it would be better to permit public schools to be selective and
to expel students. An educational institution can't function if the
students and teachers don't generally agree on what the purpose of the
institution is and that they will either cooperate or leave. Nor does
it make sense to expect an institution to be all things to all people.
>3. Modify their tuition structure to bring it in line with the
>per-student yearly cost to the taxpayer in the public sector.
A voucher plan that allowed participating private schools to spend no
more per student than public schools should be workable. In New York
City that cost is more than 8K/year. It should still be workable if
special needs students get bigger vouchers (if the government spends
more on their education) and others get smaller vouchers.
>Otherwise private schools will be cherry picking at the taxpayers'
>expense, the way the more unscrupulous private and not-for-profit
>hospitals do.
It seems to me a private school could be set up to offer the most
effective vocational or remedial education it could for whatever the
voucher was worth. Why would such a school be an impossibility, or
necessarily be worse than a public school for those students? It ought
to be better, since markets are usually better than the government at
turning given inputs (like education dollars) into desired outputs (like
students whose educational deficiencies have been remedied).
>So let's start talking about the creation of meaningful employment as a
>way to support families, and stop getting all misty-eyed over it.
The creation of meaningful employment is supposed to be something
government officials have direct control over? Sounds rather misty-eyed
to me.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Fri Jun 25 16:28:00 EDT 1993
Article: 123 of alt.politics.usa.republican
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Why Some Conservatives Should Shut Up...
Date: 25 Jun 1993 15:41:12 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 190
Message-ID: <20fkco$8ub@sun.Panix.Com>
References: <9306222005.AA14076@MIT.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sun.panix.com
Xref: panix alt.society.conservatism:1069 alt.politics.usa.republican:123
Herbert Stein writes:
> In 1960 Hayek wrote an article, "Why I Am Not a Conservative,"
> in which he said the following: (Note that he uses the word
> "liberalism" in the 19th century European sense of assigning highest
> value to individual freedom.)
> "I sometimes feel that the most conspicuous attribute of
> liberalism that distinguishes it as much from conservatism as from
> socialism is the view that moral beliefs concerning matters of
> conduct which do not directly interfere with the protected sphere
> of other persons do not justify coercion."
The quote may have some application if you live in a society run in
accordance with what Hayek would call liberal principles. But the
conservative social issues, insofar as they are political issues, arise
mostly in settings in which the government is already engaged in
coercion.
The public schools are an example. Schools are always coercive agencies
as to the students, and compulsory attendence laws and public funding
make them coercive as to parents and taxpayers as well. It's hard to
see how the education of the young can be value-free even if it is
somehow restricted to teaching kids the three Rs, and American public
education is not restricted that way. Education is always based on some
notion of what the world is like, what things are worth pursuing and
what our obligations are. Liberals and conservatives have different
views of those things, and the conflicts in the schools have mostly
involved conservative defenses against liberal attempts to have their
own views prevail.
Other coercive settings include the welfare system (which now provides
that if a young girl wants to leave home and set up on her own all she
need do is have an illegitimate child and the taxpayers will be forced
to pay the bill), antidiscrimination laws (which many want to expand to
cover homosexuality), and government funding of expressive activity (the
liberal view is that it's coercive to fund crucifixes unless they are
soaked in urine, and then it becomes coercive not to fund them).
One obvious exception is the abortion issue. However, it's not clear
that abortion can sensibly be disposed of by treating it as conduct that
doesn't affect other persons. The heart of the abortion issue is the
status of the unborn child, which biologically is a separate human
organism even though it may never have been recognized as a legal
person. Most people wouldn't take Hayekian liberalism so far as to view
as illegitimate a prohibition against torturing cats to death for fun or
paving over the sole nesting site of the whooping crane. The issue for
such people should be whether the unborn child (like the well-being of
cats or the survival of species whooping crane) is sufficiently valuable
to justify protection.
> Feeling much in sympathy with Hayek, I am disturbed to find the
> vice president now injecting himself forcefully into moral beliefs
> concerning matters of conduct in areas commonly considered private
> and personal. This is especially anomalous coming from the man who
> is the spearhead of the administration's program for reducing
> regulation of private economic activity.
What's anomalous? Government programs (the welfare system, for example)
have led to increased illegitimacy and family breakup. It's appropriate
for a government official to call the effect of a government program bad
if he thinks it so. Illegitimacy and family breakup have also led to
calls for more government programs. It's appropriate for a government
official to discuss publicly the conditions that lead to the problems
thought to require government intervention. The purpose of deregulation
is to promote the general good by making individuals and institutions
other than the government responsible for things. It's appropriate for
a government official to discuss what institutions other than the
government (the family, for instance) can deal with problems and why
that would be a good thing.
More generally, government today is held responsible for the well-being
of the public in general. That being so, it must be appropriate for
public officials to talk about whatever has a bearing on that well-being.
> Quayle is surely not engaging in reasoned discourse. He is
> rallying sympathetic audiences to a frenzy of fear and loathing
> against a satanic enemy - lurking in faculty lounges.
Talk about a frenzy of fear and loathing against a satanic enemy! If
you want to see a better frenzy than even aging neoclassical economists
can whip up, you might take a look at some of the comments and
depictions by left-wingers of (say) Jesse Helms or John Cardinal
O'Connor.
> (Incidentally, the vice president was premature in saying that
> the TV program glorified Murphy Brown's behavior. We don't know yet
> how it will come out. In the case of other fictional bad girls -
> Emma Bovary, Anna Karenina, Violetta, Cio-Cio San - we didn't know
> until the last chapter or act that their behavior would be punished.
> If Murphy Brown ends up on welfare, and her son, then aged 12, is
> running drugs, we will have to say that the program did not glorify
> her action. If, however, in 35 years her son is vice president of
> the United States we will not know what to think.)
Stein seems to intend the last sentence as a joke. Charity would
suggest interpreting the preceding sentences as jokes as well.
> First, he might be saying that it is wrong for a wealthy,
> educated, intelligent woman, who is quite capable of giving a child
> love and many advantages, who is harming neither herself nor the
> child, to have a child without a husband present. I don't know by
> what authority or revelation Quayle casts the first stone at this
> woman.
Taken literally, Stein seems to be making the silly suggestion that the
notion that it is bad to have an illegitimate child is Quayle's personal
invention. The "cast the first stone" reference is also silly, since
Quayle didn't throw any stones. All he did was say that there was
something amiss with what Murphy Brown had done, which was no more than
what Jesus said to the woman taken in adultery.
I suppose Stein's hidden point is that if someone views a practice
(having illegitimate children) as bad because its consequences are
generally bad he ought rationally to view it as OK in those situations
in which the bad consequences do not follow. The problem with that
point (assuming Stein is right that illegitimacy doesn't have bad
effects as long as there is enough money around) is that people don't
forbear to do things they are strongly tempted to do because they
rationally calculate consequences, they forbear to do such things
because they have an aversion to doing them. Given the strength of the
impulses that can favor conceiving and bearing a child, a social
standard condemning unwed motherhood won't work unless the condemnation
is categorical.
Elsewhere (in language I do not quote) Stein suggests that only poor
women should be condemned for having illegitimate children, because it's
not civic of them. I have a hard time imagining such a view becoming
part of an effective and generally-accepted moral code. Such a code has
to be part of a way of life shared by rich and poor alike. "Do whatever
you want as long as you can pay for it" and "thou shalt not put any
avoidable economic burdens on society" may appeal to Stein as candidates
for the fundamental principles of a shared way of life, but few people
other than neoclassical economists will agree with him.
> Second, the vice president might be saying that it is wrong to
> show such a woman having such a child on television, because that
> would encourage child-bearing by unmarried young women who do not
> have such abilities, and whose child-bearing will be a burden to the
> society in various ways. But to justify this position he would have
> to know that the TV program "Murphy Brown" does have that effect on
> the population of young women who are likely to cause the problem,
> something for which there is no evidence.
Stein condemns Quayle for saying what he did, presumably because bad
consequences will follow. Does Stein have any specific social science
evidence of the sort demanded here to justify that condemnation?
> One cannot escape the feeling that Quayle's speeches are intended
> more to titillate and win favor with [anti-abortion organizations or
> to groups of white evangelical Christians] than to affect the behavior
> of disadvantaged women.
Saying something the star character in a TV show watched by tens of
millions of people did was bad is supposed to titillate people? Why not
assume that Quayle thought there was something wrong with the way our
national outlook was developing and wanted to start a public discussion
of the matter? Certainly, it's common enough for politicians to choose
sympathetic audiences to try out new ideas.
> As my
> son, Benjamin Stein, pointed out in a recent article in this
> newspaper, the central family value is love among family members and
> mutual support.
No one opposes love and mutual support. The issue is whether those
things are sufficient by themselves for family life, or whether people
also need more definite standards as to what duties they owe other
family members. It's worth noting that by themselves love and mutual
support have no specific connection to families. For example, many
people have believed in universal love and mutual support.
> Family values are important, and we are suffering from a
> weakening of those values. But they are not the whole of virtue.
> There is an implication of exclusiveness in them that is worrisome.
The implication is only that they are fundamental, especially in a free
society. People learn values starting with what is immediate and
concrete. So if they don't learn the values appropriate for family life
they're not likely to get far learning the more abstract values. Also,
a free government can exist only if its responsibilities are limited,
and the responsibilities of government can be limited only if people can
take care of themselves with minimal government assistance and
supervision. Since people can't live as isolated individuals (if only
because no one gets a paycheck all his life) that means that free
government can exist only if there are institutions other than
government through which people can deal with their needs. The family
is the foremost such institution.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Fri Jun 25 18:38:17 EDT 1993
Article: 127 of alt.politics.usa.republican
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: NET: Politics and Family
Date: 25 Jun 1993 16:36:34 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <20fnki$ckr@sun.Panix.Com>
References: <20ekr1$q84@sun.Panix.Com> <1993Jun25.172815.7765@midway.uchicago.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sun.panix.com
Xref: panix alt.politics.usa.republican:127 alt.society.conservatism:1074
rivk@ellis.uchicago.edu (Naomi Gayle Rivkis) writes:
>Adjust for inflation, and hourly pay's gone down quite a bit [since
>1950], I believe.
We disagree on the facts. The obvious way to resolve the disagreement
is to dig out statistics, but I have none immediately available.
>>I think it would be better to permit public schools to be selective and
>>to expel students. An educational institution can't function if the
>>students and teachers don't generally agree on what the purpose of the
>>institution is and that they will either cooperate or leave. Nor does
>>it make sense to expect an institution to be all things to all people.
>
>To expel on what grounds?
On the grounds that the student is unwilling or unable to go along with
the program.
>The private schools may expel students they don't like, and if they're
>discreet about how they phrase it that includes for the color of their
>skin. It certainly includes for their religion. Do the public schools,
>in your vision, have the right to expel students who refuse to say a
>Christian prayer because they are Muslim and their religion forbids
>it? The private schools do.
No. I agree that public schools are more limited than private schools
in the educational purposes they could appropriately select. The issue
the previous poster had raised was that comparisons between the
effectiveness of public schools and private schools are meaningless
because public schools are required to educate all the children and
private schools are not. My response was that (1) no school (apart from
a reformatory) should be required to educate everyone who happens to be
assigned there, and (2) it would be no less possible for private schools
set up for the purpose to educate students with special problems than
for public schools to do so.
>I wouldn't be opposed to a system that allowed for expulsion (though
>not initial selectivity; if your taxes go to support the school your
>kids are allowed in until their own behavior screws it up), if the
>rules by which a school could do so and for what charges were clear,
>reasonable, and included the possibility of a court appeal if the
>student felt they needed it. (If you don't have it backed up by the
>courts, then the rules are meaningless, since school officials will
>do whatever they want anyhow with nobody to stop them.) I would be
>very wary of what I'd let them expel for, though.
New York City has a number of special high schools for students with
special talents in the arts, science or whatever. Those schools are
selective. What's wrong with that? My taxes pay for lots of things
that don't benefit me or my kids directly.
You seem to take a legalistic approach to making sure school officials
act appropriately. That makes no sense to me -- if school officials
aren't trying to do a good job then there are problems that go much
deeper than the chance someone might be expelled inappropriately. It
seems to me that extensive formalization of procedures makes it less
likely that teachers and administrators will do a good job. One thing
good schools tend to have in common is a principal with the authority to
define what kind of place the school is. That kind of authority can't
coexist easily with an emphasis on building a record that will survive
court challenge.
If the worry is that teachers or administrators might abuse their
authority within the school, then it seems to me the best answer is to
limit the power they have over particular students by making it possible
for the student's parents to put him in a different school if they don't
like the way the school he is in is run. A voucher system would have
that effect.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Sat Jun 26 06:32:59 EDT 1993
Article: 135 of alt.politics.usa.republican
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: NET: Politics and Family
Date: 25 Jun 1993 20:17:33 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <20g4it$pbv@sun.Panix.Com>
References: <20ck0g$8eb@hpscit.sc.hp.com> <20ftdt$75e@hpscit.sc.hp.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sun.panix.com
Xref: panix alt.politics.usa.republican:135 alt.society.conservatism:1090
miller@sc.hp.com (Phil Miller) writes:
>But the welfare in the short term is just supposed to keep people above
>the poverty level, not promote the broken family.
That's all welfare is supposed to do. The problem is that if you pay
money to people who do things people tend to do those things more often.
A basic reason for taking family obligations seriously is that when
people ignore them there are problems. If the government takes care of
the problems the obligations will be taken less seriously.
>If we really want to keep the traditional family together, why don't we
>look at the deep rooted causes of why they fall apart. The government
>supplying welfare to broken families is just an after symptom, not a
>cause. I feel the real causes lie in a failed value system based upon
>betrayal from institutions and a lack of sound and realistic moral
>guidlines with a credible intellectual basis from the Church.
There's plenty of blame to go around and plenty of things that might
contribute to reversing the situation. It seems to me that changes in
the welfare system are one such thing. That's not to say they are the
most important thing.
>When traditional families go bad, why shouldn't the innocent
>participants be aided by someone on the outside?
How can innocent participants be distinguished from non-innocent
participants? The only way of making sure innocents are held harmless
is to hold everybody harmless -- that is, to deprive the family of its
practical functions.
>I'm just defending those non traditional family types who wish to
>proudly say that they are a family.
People can say what they wish and take pride in what they wish.
"Family" can't remain a source of pride, though, unless it has some
content beyond "any group of people that call themselves a family".
>I'm not necessarily saying ever potporui of interactive households
>should get government tax relief in the same way traditional families
>do. It would depend on the case and if the "new" family was promoting
>its members for a constructive and progressive society.
You mean there should be case-by-case hearings? Sounds unworkable.
>My point was that I believe traditional families are being disrupted by
>economic conditions.
No doubt. The specific question, though, is whether government has
contributed to the problem and whether anything government might do can
contribute to the solution.
>One of the best points somebody made was that a parent who does a proper
>job of teaching the value of abstinence in the home should have no fear
>of it being bullied by a few weeks of sex-ed in the school. (Plus
>can't parents get their child wavered from sex-ed still).
As immigrant families have often found, what a child is taught at home
can not always counteract the influence of the broader society. I agree
that parents who grouse about the way sex ed is taught should also
complain about advertising, TV shows and so on. Anything else you want
to add to the hit list?
>Given the condition of our society today, I don't blame kids for having
>sex earlier than they should.
Obviously kids did not invent our problems.
>And by God, look at all those women before the 1960s who were forced to
>live with abusive husbands while the men were allowed to commit adultary
>because it was a "traditional" value at the time. At least the freedom
>to divorce in this country has prevented women from being trapped in
>abusive marriages.
Where in this country was male adultery a traditional value? People
used to say that sort of thing about Latin countries, but Americans were
always said to be too puritanical to do fun things like keep mistresses.
Also, I doubt that looser marital bonds have led to greater freedom from
abusive behavior. My own observations of the American community in
which the bonds between the sexes seem to be weakest (poor urban blacks)
suggests the contrary.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Sat Jun 26 09:54:06 EDT 1993
Article: 463 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: More buzzwords!
Date: 26 Jun 1993 09:53:52 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <20hkdg$qa7@sun.Panix.Com>
References: <1993Jun23.232211.436@news.cs.brandeis.edu> <20c1nr$rad@sun.Panix.Com> <1993Jun24.173043.16837@news.vanderbilt.edu>,<20da49$i1n@sun.Panix.Com> <1993Jun25.232236.12332@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sun.panix.com
There is "question", and "choose" for anything a woman does (as in
"women who choose to question their relegation to marginal roles in
corporate America").
Moving from libspeak to litspeak, there are always "text" and
"problematic".
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Sun Jun 27 06:23:04 EDT 1993
Article: 161 of alt.politics.usa.republican
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.conservatism
Subject: School voucher system (was: NET: Politics and Family)
Date: 26 Jun 1993 20:20:44 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 82
Message-ID: <20ip4s$r18@sun.Panix.Com>
References: <1993Jun25.172815.7765@midway.uchicago.edu> <20fnki$ckr@sun.Panix.Com> <1993Jun26.203155.23140@midway.uchicago.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sun.panix.com
Xref: panix alt.politics.usa.republican:161 alt.society.conservatism:1128
rivk@ellis.uchicago.edu (Naomi Gayle Rivkis) writes:
>That said, there are demonstrated advantages in the case of at least
>some special-needs students, to allowing them to participate in a reg-
>ular, mixed classroom rather than segregating them into any kind of
>specialized program at all. I thnk you'd have to stipulate that any
>child who *could* meet the standards of the regular program, without
>appreciably more special help than any other child (though the form of
>help may be different -- I don't consider an off-hours speech therapy
>class to be any harder for the school than off-hours math tutoring for a
>child who needs a little bit of a boost) to do so, without regard to
>whether they're considered handicapped or not. The flip side to letting
>a school expel any student who does not meet their standards for
>performance and behavior is to require them to accept any child who
>*does* meet their standards for performance and behavior.
I don't have any objection in principle to an antidiscrimination rule of
the sort you propose. I don't have a view on whether the consequences
of such a rule would in fact be good or bad.
>I was envisioning the public schools as de facto reformatories, in that
>they are the places where the people incapable of being accepted or
>remaining accepted at any private school have to go as a last resort.
I agree that public schools should be available for students no one else
wants anything to do with. You may be right that at least in the big
cities those would be the only students who would remain in the public
school system.
>Principals have to be allowed to violate the Constitution in order to
>run a decent school? I don't believe that.
Nor do I. The Constitution prohibits deprivations of life, liberty or
property without due process of law. If judges were convinced that
schools could be better if they had more institutional autonomy and
discretion then I think judges would find that degree of autonomy and
discretion consistent with due process.
>As I said, I *did* go to one of those selective public schools you
>mentioned, Hunter College High School, and the school was perfectly well
>able (and *very* willing) to expel students for behavioral or academic
>reasons. But they were accountable in court for violations, if they
>tried to do it on unconstitutional grounds. Our principals never seemed
>to have any trouble with getting sued, nor with maintaining a tight ship
>without having to resort to anything that might get them sued.
I can understand that if students and their parents think attending a
school is a valuable privilege, and students don't get admitted to the
school unless they've made a big effort throughout their academic
careers to pursue the thing (academic excellence) that the school has
chosen as its goal, you can give the students lots of procedural and
other rights and it will work because they won't abuse their rights.
Schools in which the students feel less personal attachment to
institutional goals may be less lucky.
My impression is that the multiplication of student due process and
other rights in the past 20 years has made it harder for schools to do
their job. Education, especially the education of students who don't
already have a strong personal devotion to learning, requires authority
and authority can't be extensively formalized. It seems to me that if
we can't trust a school administration not to abuse students then the
school has problems that go far beyond the risk that a student might be
arbitrarily expelled. So rather than formalize procedures and make the
school a place where students are guaranteed not to be abused I would
try to deal with the more fundamental problems in the hopes of making it
a place where students learn.
>[T]here's the question of those with no place to go. I don't want to
>make the schools handle them the same way as everyone else and so run
>most of the schools on the lowest common denominator; but I do want to
>protect them from gross mistreatment and violation of constitutional
>rights. Something of a balance seems called for, so that a child who has
>to use the public schools because they can't get into anywhere else does
>not also have to lose their rights as a citizen in the process.
Special considerations may apply to reformatories. I do think that if
conditions are such that people think that protecting students from the
school is a major concern then the school is a failure. But maybe
reformatories are almost always failures.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Mon Jun 28 20:34:07 EDT 1993
Article: 466 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: boom! pow! whizz! bang! pop! whosh! crash! blam!
Date: 28 Jun 1993 13:01:31 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <20n85b$5ss@Panix.Com>
References: <1993Jun28.074326.20977@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.panix.com
deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane) writes:
>Well, we've bombed Irag again. I would be very interested in learning
>what the regulars here think of this latest incident.
I don't have any very definite opinion. Some sort of tit for tat makes
sense, especially when the United States has more military power than
anyone else. Of course, there is the more general question of what sort
of military involvements we should have abroad, whether our involvement
with Iraq is a good idea or something we should break away from, and the
relation of this sort of action to overall goals. My prejudice is very
much against foreign military involvements, but I don't know enough to
draw conclusions in this case.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Tue Jun 29 12:01:18 EDT 1993
Article: 210 of alt.politics.usa.republican
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: NET: Politics and Family
Date: 29 Jun 1993 08:23:12 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <20pc7g$hp@Panix.Com>
References: <20ekr1$q84@sun.Panix.Com> <20o4jt$5mb@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.panix.com
Xref: panix alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:28851 alt.politics.usa.republican:210 alt.society.conservatism:1215
ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Ivaliotes) writes:
>>Of
>>course, in most families Mom has more of a constant on-the-scene
>>hands-on role and Dad is more the final authority in the background (in
>>addition to being the primary breadwinner). Does that give you a
>>problem?
>No, it doesn't. But I have no idea what that has to do with policy,
>unless you think you can legislate values and/or culture. That would be
>an assertion, howeverm that I would take issue with.
Most of the issues arise in situations in which the government has
already chosen to play a role in forming values or culture, for example
public education and government support of the arts and humanities.
>>Why doubt that if every family taught its children the virtues of
>>honesty and hard work the economy would improve? It seems obvious that
>>more good workers and fewer bad workers would be good for the economy.
>Absolutely. But that is not a policy. It is ludicrous to assume that the
>government's #1 role in promoting economic development should be to tell
>all of its citizens to give their kids good values. What an incredibly
>weak action.
A government official might think that most government programs to
promote economic development are worse than useless and that (assuming a
reasonably free society) how people end up living mostly depends in the
long run on what kind of people they are. If such an official wanted to
explain why he was against all the programs others were proposing, he
would do well to explain what the things are (culture and values of a
particular kind) that he thinks are the real source of public well-being
and why he thinks they are good. If he made his points successfully,
discussions regarding the extent to which government can contribute to
(or at least avoid destroying) public welfare could proceed in what he
would see as more productive channels.
>But certain actions by the government make saving more or less
>attractive. Show me the equivalent as applies to 'family values' that
>would not be a constitutional violation.
The degree to which government undertakes responsibilities traditionally
borne by the family makes family values more or less attractive.
>>3. Federal worker training programs haven't worked well and we don't
>>expect that we can do better than other people have.
>What other people? We'd also have to know why they failed. If we don't
>know why they failed, then we can't exactly lay down and die, now, can we?
My impression is that Federal job training initiatives have worked out
rather badly. (I looked quickly but don't have cites at hand.) I know
nothing about state programs, which to me suggests there aren't many
successes there either.
Are you saying that having no government job training programs is lying
down and dying? If so, why is job training something the government is
better suited for than (for example) parental effectiveness training or
marital counselling?
>>4. Government has little direct control over people's health or
>>advances in the treatment and prevention of disease.
>That is just not true. The level of government support for disease
>prevention and health promotion has a huge amount to do with the level of
>plague and poor health in a country.
I agree that 19th century public health measures related to things like
pure water and and the control of communicable disease had an effect on
health. My impression is that overall the advances in health and
longevity since then have had more to do with scientific advances and
increasing prosperity than anything the government has done.
>I think of [politicians who talk about family values] much the same way
>that Jesus thought about people who prayed in public. They spend all of
>their time telling us how to be moral, and deal in a better, more
>ethical way, and yet they seem no better than their political rivals in
>that respect.
If it is in fact true that public well-being depends mostly on
generally-accepted culture and values, and that one who keeps that truth
in mind will think differently and better about government policy,
politicians who emphasize that truth are performing a public service
regardless of what else they might be doing. (Similarly, someone might
be able to do a good job as Surgeon General even though he himself was a
drug addict with strong suicidal tendencies.)
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From alt.politics.usa.republican Tue Jun 29 18:06:23 1993
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: NET: Politics and Family
Date: 29 Jun 1993 16:52:14 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <20qa1u$g02@Panix.Com>
References: <20o4jt$5mb@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <20pc7g$hp@Panix.Com> <1993Jun29.172635.4837@midway.uchicago.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.panix.com
Xref: panix alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:28970 alt.politics.usa.republican:216 alt.society.conservatism:1225
rivk@ellis.uchicago.edu (Naomi Gayle Rivkis) writes:
>Where family values as a political point runs into trouble with me, and
>with the Constitution, is when the government *does* begin to take on
>certain responsibilities traditionally borne by the family, like
>religious education, because they don't trust all parents to give their
>kids what the politicians consider the right form of it and don't plan
>on giving them an option.
I can't think of any instances of the government undertaking religious
education in the United States, unless the term "religious education" is
given an unusually broad interpretation. Your language suggests some
new departure in the direction of compulsory training in a particular
form of religion. I can't think of anything like that that has happened
or even been proposed.
Maybe I should say that I don't consider the sort of daily prayer that
existed in most American schools before 1963 to be "religious
education". Or if it is, then it equally constitutes education in
irreligion to inculcate through example an official doctrine that the
search for truth and education for a good life in a good society make
sense without any reference whatever to a supreme being. By the way, it
seems to me that it would be possible to limit public education to
training in skills without regard to values only if the length of the
school day and school year and the period of compulsory attendance were
radically shortened.
>>My impression is that overall the advances in health and
>>longevity since then have had more to do with scientific advances and
>>increasing prosperity than anything the government has done.
>
>You may not realize just how much scientific research is government
>funded.
Most new drugs and equipment are developed by the drug and medical
supply companies. My impression is that most new medical procedures are
developed by practicing doctors in the course of their practice.
Increased prosperity has meant more money to spend on medical care, most
of which is not paid for by the government. Improved nutrition (which
has made the recent generations taller and earlier to mature than
earlier generations, and I assume has other generalized health benefits
as well) doesn't have that much to do with the government.
To be slightly less argumentative for a moment, it seems to me that
government support for basic scientific research makes sense because it
often has great benefits for society in general but usually not for
anyone in particular who can be known in advance.
>The Surgeon General has a technical position.
But to the extent it is rational, morality has a technical side as well.
If it's true that a do-what-you-will approach to sexual matters has
determinable intellectual presuppositions and social consequences then
that remains true whether the person who says it's true is Norman
Podhoretz, Patrick Buchanan or the Marquis de Sade.
>If the job *is* persuasion, however; if someone's objective is to teach
>people to behave in a certain way rather than to force some companies to
>behave in a certain way, then his ability to convince somebody he's
>right becomes paramount. Few people are capable of convincing someone
>they're right without first convincing them that they are sincere.
You are right, of course. I would add, though, that even assuming all
the politicians who talk about family values lack integrity, a public
figure who lacks integrity can nonetheless raise an issue that it would
be irresponsible to dismiss on the basis of personal criticisms, and
that raising the issue can itself be a public service.
I'll be disappearing from the net for about 10 days, so anyone who wants
further comments from me should send email, which I'll respond to when I
reappear.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Fri Jul 9 19:54:39 EDT 1993
Article: 511 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Why?
Date: 9 Jul 1993 19:47:48 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <21l034$cfl@panix.com>
References: <212lm4INN5ta@dns1.NMSU.Edu> <1993Jul4.004051.14973@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane) writes:
>In article <212lm4INN5ta@dns1.NMSU.Edu>, tminnix@dante.nmsu.edu (MINNIX) writes:
>
>> As to my question, why is it that a number of people I know whose
>>livelihoods and careers depend in large part on federal government programs
>>warmly profess to libertarian beliefs?
>
>I think that there is something about libertarianism which appeals to
>people in white collar, esp. technical-type jobs. It's clear, cold,
>antiseptically rational: everything about the theory fits together and
>works perfectly like a well oiled machine. It's bound to appeal to
>technical, rationally-oriented people who think reality can indeed be
>manipulated that way. Mr. Kalb has a similar theory I think, but he
>seems to have vanished of late.
I've been off reading Thucydides and drinking beer in the leafy glades
of Pennsylvania and Ohio, but am now on-line again.
My theory is more or less as you say. Libertarianism appeals to people
who are ruled more by their heads than their hearts, who like clear
theories that cover a lot of ground with a few clearly-defined concepts
and rules, and who take what they believe is technically doable more
seriously than what happens actually to exist. Their personal material
interests don't come into it directly, although they believe that in a
rational system such as the one they favor their talents would be used
and rewarded appropriately. Such people are also naturally attracted to
the technical professions.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Sat Jul 10 13:31:24 EDT 1993
Article: 398 of alt.politics.usa.republican
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Focus on the Family Letter
Date: 10 Jul 1993 13:31:17 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <21mud5$adu@panix.com>
References: <21eun2$42g@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU> <1993Jul9.191826.16234@den.mmc.com> <21kid3$2r8@fitz.TC.Cornell.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.politics.usa.republican:398 alt.society.conservatism:1676
shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
>Back to the question of your sorry faggot ass: now that
>Colorado has decided that it's okay for its citizens to be
>treated badly on the basis of unsubstantiated rumor, it is
>my very fondest hope that you not become a target of one
>of those unsubstantiated rumors.
If refusal to hire (for example) is an example of bad treatment, then
every state has decided that it's okay for its citizens to be treated
badly on the basis of unsubstantiated rumor. The general principle is
that you don't have to hire someone if you don't want to, so if you
don't hire someone you don't have to give a reason or any kind of
evidence for your decision. If you don't hire someone on the basis of
unsubstantiated rumor that he's a homophobic bigot, your action is okay
under the laws of both New York and Colorado.
>And because you want to restrict the rights of some
>Coloradans based on your objections to their lifestyle, I
>do think you have some obligation to describe that
>lifestyle and explain just what it is that you find so
>problematic that you think people who share it should not
>be protected from arbitrary mistreatment.
If the lifestyle is so hard to describe, why not just eliminate
references to it from the law? That should satisfy you on this point,
and should also satisfy the fans of Proposition 2 (no references to
"homosexuality" in the law => no laws against discrimination on account
of homosexuality).
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Sat Jul 10 13:38:24 EDT 1993
Article: 399 of alt.politics.usa.republican
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: ARCHIVES: The hatred and rational thought of Jim Halat
Date: 10 Jul 1993 13:33:58 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <21mui6$ajn@panix.com>
References: <16003@blue.cis.pitt.edu> <21fs6e$284@news.acns.nwu.edu> <1993Jul09.171916.10483@microsoft.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
>Some teenagers get pregnant because of lack of "values". Some get
>pregnant because their values are different from yours. Some get
>pregnant because of ignorance. The third is preventable.
The notion here seems to be that values or lack of values is a feature
that people just happen to have without regard to education, upbringing,
social pressures and so on, and that if you present information to
people their actions will reflect that information appropriately
regardless of the values they hold or fail to hold.
Such notions are incorrect. (It's possible, of course, that you make
neither supposition, and that I am reading too much into what you say.)
1. My values and yours are different from those of any Assyrian
nobleman of the 7th century B.C. or any adherent of Thuggee in 19th
century India. The reason for the difference is nothing personal to you
or me, but rather the different direction in which we have been pointed
by our society. Society points us in one direction or another by a
number of means, including formal instruction and popular entertainment.
So it seems that conscious modifications to instruction and
entertainment can have some effect on the values young people form. My
own observations of the effects of the anti-smoking and
pro-environmentalist propaganda children are subjected to today confirms
that conclusion. Those who believe education should promote tolerance
apparently agree.
2. Information presented to students will not be learned, still less
acted upon, unless the students' habits and values are conducive to
attentiveness, to confidence in the person presenting the information,
and to rational control of immediate impulse. That is why schools try
to teach good study habits and other value-laden things.
>From what I have seen, the religious right simply does not want
>teenagers to learn that people can be happy, healthy, productive people
>and also gay/bi/polyamorous/whatever. Any depiction or demonstration of
>positive "alternate lifestyles" folk is flagged as moral instruction.
Perfectly true. More generally, no group wants its children to be
taught that a happy life is attainable through rejection of the
institutions, values and habits that promote the successful functioning
of the group. Most American educators would object to vivid depictions
of the advantages accruing to traditional Chinese society through strict
subordination of women to men and the young to the old, or to
traditional European society through rule by a military caste, a strict
class system and the special status of the Roman Catholic Church. Nor
would our schools want teenagers to learn that people can be happy,
healthy and productive people and also cheat on their income taxes or
associate willingly only with their own kind, rejecting and excluding
those of differing class, racial or religious backgrounds or sexual
orientation.
The issue is not whether all ways of life that it is possible to choose
are to be depicted as possibly worthy of choice. That won't happen
ever. Rather, the issue is whether the family (a man, a woman and their
children) is to continue to be in our society, as it has been in almost
every known society, a fundamental social institution. If it is, then
formal instruction and other social influences will inculcate standards
defining what a family is and what concrete duties the members owe to
each other. It seems to me that such standards necessarily include
standards governing sexual relationships.
If the family is not to be a fundamental social institution its
functions will have to be performed by some other institution,
presumably by the market (as libertarians propose) or by the government
(as liberals propose). The point of the conservative view on these
issues is that life will become worse for most people if the family is
so replaced by the market or the state.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Sat Jul 10 13:38:25 EDT 1993
Article: 400 of alt.politics.usa.republican
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Focus on the Family Letter
Date: 10 Jul 1993 13:35:51 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <21muln$ap7@panix.com>
References: <1993Jul07.173922.13140@microsoft.com> <1993Jul9.193800.18847@den.mmc.com> <1993Jul9.201811.4066@midway.uchicago.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.politics.usa.republican:400 alt.society.conservatism:1677
rivk@ellis.uchicago.edu (Naomi Gayle Rivkis) writes:
>But discrimination against Jews has never been on the basis of whether
>they practiced that -- or any -- religion.
It is sometimes cultural. There are people who wouldn't hire a Hasid
man for (say) a position dealing with the public because they think the
dress, the whiskers and the sidelocks look funny but would have no
objection against hiring a nonobservant Jew. Also, I've heard people
say that someone is "too Jewish" (in accent and manner), and I would
imagine that people who say such things might discriminate against
someone they thought was too Jewish.
It's also worth noting (you said "never") that forced conversion such as
took place in Spain constitutes discrimination against Jews on a
specifically religious basis (those who practiced Judaism were subject
to penalties not applicable to those who practiced Christianity). And
in _The Merchant of Venice_ Shylock's villainy seems to have something
to do with his Jewishness, but his daughter Jessica becomes perfectly
acceptable as a marriage partner for a Christian when she converts.
To take things back even farther, it seems to me that those who trace
Christian antisemitism to the very early days of the church will find it
hard to claim that discrimination against Jews has never had a religious
basis, since many of the earliest Christians -- including the founder
and all his associates -- were Jews.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Sat Jul 10 13:38:35 EDT 1993
Article: 513 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: April is the cruelest month? Hell! June, July....
Date: 10 Jul 1993 13:38:15 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <21muq7$avn@panix.com>
References: <1993Jul5.191934.12016@news.cs.brandeis.edu> <21hhih$isu@gabriel.keele.ac.uk> <1993Jul9.200433.2222@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane) writes:
>>I've always found Kropotkin a sympathetic
>>character.
I would urge anyone to read his autobiography. He was an admirable man,
with great intelligence and charm. Not as admirable as Confucius, say,
and he certainly didn't understand as much about politics, but he's not
someone to miss.
>>The problem is
>>that this is mere nostalgia and as laughable, albeit more sympathetic,
>>as the Hitler imitator types [ . . . ]
>
>But, if one reasons thus, *all* conservative or restorative positions are
>subject to being categorized as being "mere nostalgia" and "laughable"
>[ . . . ]
It's possible that at present all conservative positions should be so
categorized, at least if they are understood as proposals for the reform
of society at large. If so, it seems to me that the future does not
belong to the dominant institutions and culural tendencies of society at
large, which have had their day and have now turned self-destructive.
Maybe the future belongs to the Amish or the Mennonites, who *are*
agrarian, and who may still be with us when everything else has come
undone.
>There is an organized neo-pagan movement, both over here and in Europe.
>It - at least the N. American phenomenon - is dominated by politically
>correct types: left-wingers, feminists, etc. However, there is a strong
>neo-pagan movement within both the radical right and the European New
>Right. Perspectives has publicized a number of French pagan groups. All
>of this is not obviously apparent to the casual observer, but I assure
>you that it's out there.
Is there anything in English or German worth reading on the subject? I
have a hard time conceiving of neo-paganism as a serious and sustainable
way of understanding the world. After all, when the paleo-pagans
started thinking systematically about things they began to conceive of a
supreme God beyond all the other gods as the final explanation of why
things are as they are. Maybe I misconceive the issues, though.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Sat Jul 10 18:59:26 EDT 1993
Article: 1681 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Focus on the Family Letter
Date: 10 Jul 1993 18:57:33 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <21nhgt$5i1@panix.com>
References: <21kid3$2r8@fitz.TC.Cornell.EDU> <21mud5$adu@panix.com> <1993Jul10.184115.20215@midway.uchicago.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.politics.usa.republican:404 alt.society.conservatism:1681
rivk@ellis.uchicago.edu (Naomi Gayle Rivkis) writes:
>I wouldn't mind removing all references to homosexuality from the law,
>as long as you remove **all** references from the law. That includes all
>protected-minority status, yes. It also removes the military ban, the
>restrictions against teaching anything on the subject in public schools,
>the Oregon prohibition on letting the government support anything that
>could be construed as 'promoting' homosexuality as an 'acceptable
>lifestyle'.
I'm not sure why "removing all references to homosexuality from the
law", at least if that principle were construed broadly to reach all
government action with respect to homosexuality, would not incorporate
restrictions on teaching about homosexuality in the public schools and
government support for promoting particular views about homosexuality.
Would I be wrong in thinking you would construe the principle broadly
enough to forbid public school curricula that depict homosexuality as
unnatural and antisocial?
>In truth, I'd prefer to have sexual orientation simply not come up as a
>subject at all. I'd rather that include the reactions of private
>individuals [ . . . ]
This seems odd to me. Our reactions to other people are affected by
everything about them and by everything about us. Sexuality is
intertwined with almost everything we desire and do. In particular,
sexuality makes us wish to share everything in our lives with particular
other people, and makes us desire them physically and emotionally more
intensely than we desire anything but physical survival. How likely is
it that such a force would not affect our relations with other people
generally?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Sat Jul 10 21:26:21 EDT 1993
Article: 515 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: neo-paganism?
Date: 10 Jul 1993 18:59:18 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <21nhk6$5nr@panix.com>
References: <1993Jul10.202452.5598@news.vanderbilt.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
TROTTEJE@ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu () writes:
>I would suggest that the attraction of the movement is obvious enough:
>It arises out of a deeply felt but largely inchoate desire to recover a
>sense of the sacred, by now all but obliterated in our commercial and
>technological civilization--and increasingly in the Christian churches.
It seems that people want to recover a sense of the sacred without
running a risk that the sacred might make serious demands on them. So
they try to make up for a lack of substance in their conception of the
sacred by giving that conception a mysterious and exotic exterior. I
believe Spengler comments on a similar situation among the Roman upper
classes.
>Can anyone seriously imagine Goddess worship in Middle America? Temples
>rising to the glorification of Isis in Des Moine and Topeka?
Why not? American regionalism isn't what it was.
>If orthodox Christianity is withering on the vine--as some believe--then
>perhaps a more likely replacement will be the already thriving
>ne0-gnostic cult [ . . . ]
Quite possibly. Would you recommend Harold Bloom on the subject?
>Oh, by the way, welcome back on-line Mr. Kalb. Tell us more about your
>Pennsylvania idyll.
Thank you. The idyll consisted of stays in a couple of Pennsylvania
state parks. We had to deliver one of our daughters to her
grandmother's in Ohio and pick up the other, and took the better part of
two weeks to do the job.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Sun Jul 11 06:13:18 EDT 1993
Article: 406 of alt.politics.usa.republican
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Focus on the Family Letter
Date: 10 Jul 1993 22:01:30 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <21ns9q$hr6@panix.com>
References: <1993Jul10.184115.20215@midway.uchicago.edu> <21nhgt$5i1@panix.com> <1993Jul11.002518.1514@midway.uchicago.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.politics.usa.republican:406 alt.society.conservatism:1684
rivk@ellis.uchicago.edu (Naomi Gayle Rivkis) writes:
>I'll accept leaving the law out of the subject, as the people who oppose
>minority-protection claim they want, if you leave the law *completely*
>out of the subject. Every aspect of the law. That means that there would
>be no guidelines in public school curricula regarding the subject at
>all; it would be a matter for individual teachers to mention or not with
>no restriction or requirement [ . . . ] Clear?
Clear but not completely comprehended. Public school teachers are
government employees placed in authority over young people who are
compelled to be their students. To me it seems odd to treat what such a
person does and what the law does as so utterly distinct in principle.
>[Sexuality is] not relevant to more than a very small fraction of social
>interaction [ . . . ] [I]t simply doesn't matter for most purposes [ . .
>. ] I don't buy that who one shares one's life with [ . . . ] is or
>should be a subject for public comment, judgement, consideration, or
>even thought. I don't go around evaluating the characteristics of the
>people my friends choose to marry; that's their business [ . . . ] The
>only use I have for specific information regarding who the life partner
>of people I interact socially with is, is so I know who else to invite
>to parties I invite the first person to.
It appears that you are very different from me and from everyone I know.
Out of curiosity, have you ever found any piece of gossip even slightly
interesting? Have you ever read a novel with pleasure? (If the
questions are too personal, you can ignore them.)
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Sun Jul 11 13:54:27 EDT 1993
Article: 1689 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Notes from the Big Apple
Date: 11 Jul 1993 09:38:18 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <21p54a$fji@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In the current issue of _The Public Interest, Senator Patrick Moynihan
(D., N.Y.) notes that in 1943 (50 years ago) there were 73,000 persons
on relief in New York City. In that year there were 44 homicides by
gunshot in the city (last year there were 1,499) and the illegitimacy
rate was 3% (last year it was 45%).
Based on what I am told are the causes and solutions of social problems,
I can only conclude that in New York in 1943 there was no race or sex
discrimination, educational funding that was far higher than today's
$8,000 per child, abundant quality publicly-funded childcare, gun
control laws that were strict beyond the dreams of the most ardent
liberal of today, comprehensive sex education in the public schools
untrammelled by moralistic prejudice, and safe and readily-available
publicly-funded abortion.
It's enough to turn one into a liberal.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Sun Jul 11 15:44:54 EDT 1993
Article: 411 of alt.politics.usa.republican
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Focus on the Family Letter
Date: 11 Jul 1993 14:33:32 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <21pmds$27g@panix.com>
References: <1993Jul11.002518.1514@midway.uchicago.edu> <21ns9q$hr6@panix.com> <1993Jul11.162955.26232@midway.uchicago.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.politics.usa.republican:411 alt.society.conservatism:1692
rivk@ellis.uchicago.edu (Naomi Gayle Rivkis) writes:
>[L]etting the government do very little but individuals do a great deal
>makes perfect sense.
Action by a public school teacher who is paid by the government, whose
authority is conferred on him by the government, who is supervised and
controlled by the government and whose students are forced by the
government to attend his classes seems very much like action by the
government to me.
>I would much prefer fewer guidelines in general on what a teacher was
>required to teach, and none whatsoever on what they were forbidden from
>teaching.
I seem to recall that a Canadian teacher got into trouble because he
taught his classes that the Holocaust never happened. Comments?
>I have a better view of human nature than to think that it is impossible
>for people to be polite enough to keep from speculating about things
>they have no business in... let alone letting such speculation or their
>opinions on the conclusions from it influence them to be rude or
>unpleasant to the individual involved.
It seems to me that in order to live in the world we have to understand
people, and we won't understand people unless we know things about them
that have no immediate bearing on our personal interests.
While we're on the subject of homosexuality and morality, my
understanding is that one of the seven Noachide laws, which many Jews
hold to be binding on everyone, forbids at least male homosexuality.
Comments?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Sun Jul 11 15:44:57 EDT 1993
Article: 13750 of talk.politics.theory
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Capitalism
Date: 11 Jul 1993 14:31:30 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <21pma2$210@panix.com>
References: <28JUN199322541023@envmsa.eas.asu.edu> <2367@rc1.vub.ac.be> <1993Jul8.220006.26460@leland.Stanford.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>The statistics I've seen indicate that rich people give a lower
>percentage of their income to charity than the poor. [If you
>have different figures, I'd be interested.]
The figures I've seen agree with yours if contributions to churches are
counted as charity. I've never seen any figures regarding the relative
rates of contributions to the sort of charity that is relevant to this
discussion (i.e., that don't go for running churches, medical research
for diseases rich old people are personally concerned about, cultural
institutions, and so on).
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Mon Jul 12 07:24:52 EDT 1993
Article: 518 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: The real scoop on Americcan neo-paganism!
Date: 12 Jul 1993 06:39:20 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 706
Message-ID: <21rf0o$hh8@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Here's the alt.pagan FAQ. Although it doesn't seem to describe anything
Michael Walker or de Benoist would sign on to, who knows? Forward it, I
say, and see if they find it works for them.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS FOR ALT.PAGAN
Authors:
Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik; Br'an Arthur Davis-Howe;
T. O. Radzykewycz; Ailsa N.T. Murphy; Cecilia Henningsson
Acknowledgements to Jack Coyote and Robert Pearson, and a special
thanks to Janis Maria Cortese.
**Disclaimer**
Throughout this FAQ you will find the words "usually," often," and
other disclaimers; this is because Paganism is not a rigid, structured
belief system. We have tried to present as many faces of the neopagan
sub-culture as possible in the FAQ, but realize we can't possibly
cover it all.
Many people, no doubt, will object to every part of this FAQ, but
we stand by it as our best attempt.
*First version completed 25 January 1993*
Questions:
1) What is this group for?
2) What is paganism/a pagan?
2b) What is Paganism? How is it different from paganism?
3) What are different types of paganism?
4) What is Witchcraft/Wicca?
4b) Why do some of you use the word Witch? Wiccan?
5) What are some different traditions in the Craft?
6) Are pagans Witches?
7) Are you Satanists?
8) What kinds of people are pagans?
9) What holidays do you celebrate?
10) What god(s) do you believe in?
11) Can one be both Christian and pagan?
12) What were the Burning Times?
13) How many pagans/Witches are there today?
14) Why isn't it soc.religion.paganism instead of alt.pagan?
15) Is brutal honesty or polite conversation the preferred tone of
conversation around here?
16) What are the related newsgroups?
17) Are there any electronic mailing lists on this subject?
18) I'm not a pagan; should I post here?
19) How does one/do I become a pagan?
20) What books/magazines should I read?
21) How do I find pagans/Witches/covens/teachers in my area?
22) What's a coven really like?
23) How do I form a coven?
24) What does Dianic mean?
25) Aren't women-only circles discriminatory?
26) Can/will you cast me a love spell/curse my enemies?
27) Is it okay if I...? Will I still be a pagan if I...?
28) I am a pagan and I think I am being discriminated against because
of my religion. What should I do?
29) What one thing would most pagans probably want the world to know
about them?
1) What is this group for?
This newsgroup is for the discussion of paganism and Witchcraft in
their various forms and traditions; for sharing ideas for ritual and
completed liturgy; for networking with others of a like mind and those
who are not; for answering questions and disseminating information
about paganism and Witchcraft (and, occasionally, for dispelling the
misconceptions about same). It's also for sharing within a larger
community than one might find at home. While we are interested in
traditional pagan practices, the alt.pagan community is fundamentally
neopagan -- our practices are modern, though they are based on ancient
ideas or images.
2) What is paganism/a pagan?
The words paganism and pagan come from the Latin "paganus,"
meaning "country dweller." Neopagans hold a reverence for the Earth
and all its creatures, generally see all life as interconnected, and
tend to strive to attune one's self to the manifestation of this
belief as seen in the cycles of nature. Pagans are usually
polytheistic (believing in more than one god), and they usually
believe in immanance, or the concept of divinity residing in all
things. Many pagans, though polytheistic, see all things as being
part of one Great Mystery. The apparent contradiction of being both
polytheistic and monotheistic can be resolved by seeing the God/desses
as masks worn by the Great Mystery. Other pagans are simply
monotheistic or polytheistic, and still others are atheistic.
Some people believe paganism to be a religion within itself;
others see it as a belief system (such as monotheism) that can be
incorporated into religions like Wicca or Druidism; others see it as a
broad category including many religions. The fact that we are
re-creating religion for ourselves after centuries of suppression
makes us very eclectic and very concerned with the "rightness" of a
particular thing for the individual. So when you see some people
calling it a religion and others not, when you see it capitalized in
some instances and not in others, don't be confused -- we're all still
basically talking about the same thing.
2b) What is Paganism? How is it different from paganism?
Paganism (with a capital "P") is one strand of neopaganism which
strives to allow each person to draw from whatever religious and
cultural traditions are meaningful for the individual. The practices
of Paganism derive from those of Wicca, but are not identical with
those of Wicca. Some people view Paganism as a non-initiatory form of
Wicca, or Wicca as an initiatory form of Paganism. Some say that
Witches are the clergy of Paganism. (On the other hand, some Witches
violently disagree with that viewpoint. As with most things in this
FAQ, there is no answer with which everyone can completely agree.)
3) What are different types of paganism?
Paleo-paganism: the standard of paganism, a pagan culture which
has not been disrupted by "civilization" by another culture --
Australian Bushmen modern (who are probably becoming meso-pagans),
ancient Celtic religion (Druidism), the religions of the
pre-patriarchal cultures of Old Europe, Norse religion, pre-Columbian
Native American religions, etc.
Civilo-paganism: the religions of "civilized" communities which
evolved in paleo-pagan cultures -- Classical Greco-Roman religion,
Egyptian religion, Middle-Eastern paganism, Aztec religion, etc.
Meso-paganism: a group, which may or may not still constitute a
separate culture, which has been influenced by a conquering culture,
but has been able to maintain an independence of religious practice --
many Native American nations, etc.
Syncreto-paganism: similar to meso-pagan, but having had to
submerge itself into the dominant culture, and adopt the external
practices and symbols of the other religion -- the various
Afro-diasporic traditions (Voudoun, Santeria, etc.), Culdee
Christianity, etc.
Neopaganism: attempts of modern people to reconnect with nature,
using imagery and forms from other types of pagans, but adjusting them
to the needs of modern people. Since this category is the focus of
alt.pagan, the listing here is more comprehensive (though no listing
could be completely comprehensive):
Wicca -- in all its many forms
neo-Shamanism
neo-Druidism
Asatru and other forms of Norse neopaganism
neo-Native American practices
the range of things labeled "Women's Spirituality"
the Sabaean Religious Order
Church of All Worlds
Discordianism
Radical Faeries and other "Men's Spirituality" movements
certain people within Thelema and hedonistic Satanism
some of eco-feminism
and last, but not least, Paganism
4) What is Witchcraft/Wicca?
Wicca was the first (or at least one of the first) of the neopagan
religions. As a result, it is the best known, and tends to overshadow
its younger, smaller siblings. This bias appears in the postings in
alt.pagan and in this FAQ. This does not mean that Wicca is more
valid than other neopagan religions -- just larger and louder.
Wicca, however, is only one of the things called W/witchcraft (or
sometimes, the Craft, a term also applied to Masonry). There are a
whole range of styles of folk-magic around the world which are called
witchcraft in English. If the word Witch is capitalized, it indicates
that it is being used to refer to a member of a pagan religion, not
just to a practitioner of folk-magic. There are also Witches who
practice religions called Witchcraft which are not Wicca. These
religions tend to be more folk-pagan than Wicca, drawing on the
heritage of a specific culture or region.
Wicca itself is a new religion, drawing strongly on the practices
of Ceremonial Magic. While there are claims that Wicca goes back into
the mists of pre-history, honest examination of the practices and
history of the Wicca will make it clear that Wicca is new. (Actually,
the word "Wicca" itself is recently coined, at least in its present
usage. The OE "wicca" was pronounced "witch-ah" and meant male
magician. The new word "Wicca" is pronounced "wick-uh", capitalized
as a religion, and means a religion, not a person.) However, Wicca
has developed in many directions and should not be seen as a unified
whole, even though it is fairly new. Rituals and beliefs vary widely
among Witches.
Unlike most of the neopagan religions, Wicca is an initiatory
religion, that is, people who choose to practice Wicca believe that
the commitment to this path set changes in motion in their lives.
Many Traditions (sects) of Wicca formalize this with a ritual (or
series of rituals) of initiation. Others, especially Solitary
Witches, trust that the Gods will do the initiating of the Witch.
4b) Why do some of you use the word Witch? Wiccan?
First, not everyone in alt.pagan is Wiccan/Witchy, so this
question only applies to some of the people.
Witch is a very old word meaning "magic-maker", from a root which
meant "bending" and "shaping". For many of us, the word Witch is a
powerful reclaiming of that inherent human power to make changes
around us. For others, including some of the people within Wicca,
that word is not their word. Some people within Wicca take the
adjective "Wiccan" and use it as a noun.
(Some people question the authenticity of the etymology that says
"witch" means "to bend or shape." They believe that the word is
simply from the Old English for "wise one" and has no relation to the
root mentioned above -- which gives us the modern word "wicker," for
instance. However, this definition is a good way to think of how a
modern Witch might see him/herself.)
5) What are some different traditions in the Craft?
Different traditions in the Craft include Gardnerian Wicca,
Alexandrian Wicca, Dianic Wicca, the Faery tradition, many branches of
Celtic-based Wicca, and many other forms of Wicca often called
eclectic, since they draw their practices and liturgy from many
different sources. There is no way to include all traditions because
new ones are being created every day by the practitioners themselves.
6) Are pagans Witches?
We've mentioned that even among pagans and Witches, there is
dispute about just how specific these terms are. But the majority
opinion seems to be that the question, "Are pagans Witches?" is about
the same as the question, "Are Christians Catholics?" (or Methodists,
Baptists or whatever). Most Witches are pagans, but not all pagans
are Witches.
7) Are you Satanists?
This is a bit of a loaded question, since there are several
different conceptions of what Satanism really is. Most pagans do not
worship Satan or practice Satanic rites. Some pagans practice
something called Satanism, but it is a far cry from the Hollywood
image of Satanism. These people tend to value pleasure as a primary
motivation, or to find meaning in images which the repressive
Christian churches attacked. For some of these folk, reclaiming the
word "Satanist" is an act of resistance against oppression. For more
information on Satanism as a religion, please check out alt.satanism.
If what you're really wanting to know is do we sacrifice babies
and worship evil incarnate, the answer's no.
8) What kinds of people are pagans?
People from all walks of life are pagans -- computer programmers,
artists, police officers, journalists, university professors -- the
list is endless. Many people, no matter what their mundane
occupation, find solace in the life-affirming aspects of paganism.
9) What holidays do you celebrate?
Because neopaganism follows so many traditions from many different
parts of the world, there is no single set of holidays that all
neopagans celebrate. Several calendars are available which list many
different holidays, one or more for every day of the year (e.g. Wise
Woman's Wheel of the Year calendar from SageWoman Magazine). Most of
these holidays are either dedicated to particular deities (e.g.
Brighid, Diana, Thor), or mark seasonal changes in the environment
(e.g. the solstices and equinoxes). What specific holidays are
celebrated is something decided within a certain tradition, or by the
individual.
10) What god(s) do you believe in?
Neopagans believe in a great many goddesses and gods. However,
not all neopagans believe in the same ones, or even in any at all.
Many neopagans believe in a Goddess and a God that are manifest in all
things. Some follow particular pantheons (e.g. Greek, Irish, Norse,
Yoruban, Welsh), others don't stick to any one culture, and still
others see the Divine in more symbolic terms. Many ascribe certain
qualities to different goddesses, such as Athena as the goddess of
wisdom; Aphrodite as the goddess of love; Artemis as the goddess of
the hunt, and so on. Many pagans and Witches see the Goddess in three
aspects, those of Maiden, Mother and Crone; and the God in two, the
Young God and the Old God. Other pagans do not believe in any gods at
all, but instead honor spirits and/or totems in various forms such as
animals or trees, as in many of the native American religions. As is
usually the case, defining "God" is a very slippery idea. But these
are some of the more common among modern pagans.
11) Can one be both Christian and pagan?
Depends on who you ask. :)
There is much dissention on this particular topic, with both
pagans and Christians taking both stances. There are many brands of
Christian mysticism, some more similar to the aspects of paganism than
others. But some pagans who dance outside to the light of the moon
and praise the Goddess in Her aspect of Diana see and feel no
contradiction to going inside and lighting candles to Mary, the Queen
of Heaven and the Mother of God, the next day. And those same pagans
see the same sacrificial king motif in Jesus as they do in Osiris.
Many people might find it difficult to reconcile the two paths;
others see a successful integration possible. It depends on what is
right for the individual.
12) What were the Burning Times?
The Burning Times is the name used by many modern Witches and
pagans for the era of the Inquisition, and of the other witch hunts
(including Salem) which sprang from it. During that time, many
women and some men were persecuted for practices objectionable to the
Church, especially witchcraft. The _Malleus Maleficarum_ was a guide
on how to torture accused witches into confessing to whatever they
were accused of. At the height of the persecutions, entire towns were
left with only one or two women in them, and to this day no one knows
for sure how many people were brutally murdered during this craze.
As is often the case, this horror sprang from fear and
misinformation -- most of the people who were arrested, tortured and
killed were not Witches (or witches) of any sort, but simply people
who had gotten on the wrong side of someone who had the local
magistrate's ear, or who somehow didn't fit in (particularly beautiful
or ugly women, widows who had wealth or owned land, the handicapped
and retarded, and even overly intelligent people are all examples of
those who became primary targets of this persecution).
Although discrimination still exists against Witches and pagans,
we now enjoy comparative freedom of religious practice after those
dark times. But this time is considered a very important event by
most Witches and pagans (comparable to the atrocities and devastation
perpetrated during the Holocaust ), one that should never be
forgotten, and many do active public education work to assure as best
they can that it will never happen again.
13) How many pagans/Witches are there today?
Although many people have given estimates, it's impossible to know
this due to the number of people "in the broom closet." However, all
branches of the neopagan movement are steadily growing.
14) Why isn't it soc.religion.paganism instead of alt.pagan?
Because we had a vote to create a talk.religion.paganism newsgroup
back in January 1990 and it was voted down, largely because the
proposed group was to be moderated and people didn't like that idea.
So, when that failed, some enterprising soul took it upon himself to
create alt.pagan, because you don't need approval to do that.
Since then, we have discussed changing newsgroup hierarchies
(usually to either soc.religion or talk.religion), but the consensus
at present seems to be to keep the format we have. Being typical
pagans, we like as little structure as possible.
15) Is brutal honesty or polite conversation the preferred mode
of conversation around here?
People tend to get a little rowdy around here sometimes, so don't
let it get to you. One of the disadvantages to this type of
communication is the increased possibility of misunderstanding due to
the inability to see the person and hear his or her vocal inflections,
see their facial expressions, et cetera. It's generally frowned upon
to attack someone baselessly, but there is no problem with disagreeing
with someone vigorously -- vociferously, even. Try being
constructive.
16) What are the related newsgroups?
alt.mythology
alt.satanism
alt.magick
alt.astrology
alt.divination
alt.discordia
17) Are there any electronic mailing lists on this subject?
Many -- we will include some in our alt.pagan resources list.
This list is not yet completed; we will revise the FAQ as soon as it
is.
18) I'm not a pagan; should I post here?
Yes, definitely -- with a couple of caveats:
a) Don't come on to witness to us. We're really not interested in
being converted (or worse, saved). It's not a tenet of our path to
convert, and so we are particularly unhappy with the idea. Plus
which, you will add unnecessarily to the noise level in this
newsgroup, since most readers will feel compelled to flame you to the
farthest reaches of Hell.
(This doesn't mean we don't want to discuss aspects of other
religions as they relate to paganism, however. Discussion we like.
Argument, even. But *not* witness attempts.)
b) If you're new to News, then you might want to check out
news.announce.newusers for the posting protocol. And you might want
to read some articles for a while -- get the feel of things -- before
you post.
And remember, Usenet and Internet provide you with (among other
things) the opportunity to make a total fool of yourself in front of
thousands of people worldwide, *and* include the bonus of having it
preserved on CD-ROM for many years afterwards.
19) How does one/do I become a pagan?
Most followers of pagan beliefs feel that, if someone is meant to
find the pagan path, s/he will eventually. Usually, it is not a case
so much of "becoming" a pagan as it is of finding a vocabulary for
ideas and beliefs that you have always held. Good ways of
investigating if this path is for you is to frequent pagan or new age
bookstores, attend open pagan gatherings when the opportunity arises,
and look for contacts. Most importantly, read read read! There are
plenty of good books out there, as well as periodicals. The latter
especially might be useful in the way of making contacts in your area.
20) What books/magazines should I read?
There are many, many good books on this subject (and quite a few
bad ones), and we will have many of them in our alt.pagan resources
list when it is completed. But the best book to read is _Drawing Down
the Moon_ by Margot Adler. This is not a how-to book; it's a
comprehensive study of the neopagan movement in America, and the
author is a journalist, a reporter for National Public Radio, and a
pagan.
Also, to get started contacting other pagans, the best place to
write is Circle Network, P.O. Box 219, Mt. Horeb, WI, 53572. Circle
is the largest pagan network in the country and publishes a guide to
pagan groups around the United States, Canada, and overseas. They
might be able to get you in touch with pagans in your area if you
can't find them yourself.
If you start with that, then you will generally find pointers to
other sources and resources.
21) How do I find pagans/Witches/covens/teachers in my area? How do I
evaluate them?
Some of your best contacts may come from your local new age, pagan
or occult bookstores. Check their bulletin boards for notices, or ask
the staff. Also, many periodicals frequently allow people to
advertise for contacts in their particular area. Circle Network,
based in Wisconsin, has recently come out with an updated guide to
pagan groups; it is available by mail-order or through certain new age
bookstores.
Don't be in a hurry to find a teacher. "When the student is
ready, the teacher will appear" is a popular saying in most pagan and
Craft communities. Frustrating as that may sound, it's really a
sensible way to think. Neopaganism, like any esoteric movement,
attracts its share of unsavory characters. When you do meet people,
use your intuition. If they seem somehow "off" to you, then they're
probably not for you. If no one seems like someone you think you'd
like to be with, then you're probably better off working solitary, at
least for such time as you find no compatible people.
And by no means should you infer from this that all solitaries are
"pagans-in-waiting". Many people are quite happy to work alone, and
in fact prefer it. There is nothing wrong with working on your own as
long as you like -- even if that turns out to be a lifetime.
In fact, there are several people who highly recommend that you
study on your own for a while before looking for others to work with.
This gives you the chance to get started figuring out what feels right
for you without having pressure from others to conform to their
beliefs and dogmas.
22) What's a coven really like?
Well, if you're expecting to hear about sex and blood magic,
animal sacrifice, and ritual cruelty, then you'll be disappointed.
Forming or joining a coven, is a spiritual commitment (the words coven
and covenant are related) that is entered into advisedly. Once that
bond is made, though, you find yourself in a spiritual community of
people who have roughly the same theology, getting together to
celebrate the passing of the seasons and the cycles of the moon,
providing support and comfort to its members -- a lot like a small
spiritual community of any faith. Another common saying in the Craft
is "In perfect love and perfect trust," and that sums up the
relationship among coveners pretty well.
Another kind of group for like-minded pagans to gather in is
called a circle. The ties between coven members are as close as those
between members of a family, and in some cases, closer. A circle is
similar to a group of friends -- you like to do things together, but
the bonds between members are not as serious as between coven-members.
23) How do I form a coven?
Just as you shouldn't be in a big rush to find a teacher, you
probably shouldn't set right out to form a coven. Most Witches
believe the coven bond to be a very intense and serious one, one that
applies on the Karmic as well as mundane levels. Think of it as
getting married -- you wouldn't marry the first people you met who are
interested in getting married too, would you?
Forming a circle, or a magical study group, is perhaps a better
first step. It can be on a relatively informal basis, and you and the
other participants can get to know each other while learning about the
Craft together (as a matter of fact, many covens are formed from study
groups). The fun of this is that you can meet more people who are
interested in what you're interested in, and you can all learn
together, and maybe even develop a tradition from the results of your
studies. (You can do this as a solitary, of course, but some people
do take more enjoyment in working with others. Once again, do what's
right for you.)
The steps for contacting people to form a coven are much the same
as finding other pagans and Witches in your area. A word of advice,
though: You may want to leave your last name off, or get a P.O. box.
Don't give out your number (unless you have an answering machine).
Advertising yourself as being interested in this sort of thing might
attract, shall we say, undesirables. Try writing such a notice so
that those who are probably interested in similar ideals will know
what you're talking about without attracting the attention of people
who aren't. Even though *we* know that we're perfectly ethical and
legitimate, not everyone else does.
24) What does Dianic mean?
Like everything else in neopaganism and the Craft, the term Dianic
is one that has several meanings. A majority of those who call
themselves Dianic don't recognize male energy in their ritual, magic,
or universe. They feel that they need spiritual and psychic space
filled with only women's energy.
Some Dianics are feminist Witches, both lesbian and heterosexual,
who often come to the Craft through feminism. Although these women
may be involved with men in one way or another, they agree that
religion has over-emphasized the male for the last several thousand
years, and therefore want to share their women's energy in women's
circles. They may or may not also be involved with the mainstream
pagan community, and they may or may not participate in magic and
ritual with men.
The most visible groups of Dianics are those who are lesbian
Dianics. They are generally not interested in revering any sort of
male deity or in working with men in circle. They choose to limit
their interactions with men and the male world as much as possible,
and they do so not to exclude men but rather to celebrate women and
the feminine. For that reason many of them do not interact much with
the "mainstream" pagan community.
(There are also those who call themselves Dianic and who are not
lesbian or separatist, but who practice Witchcraft based on the
traditions found books like those of anthropologist Margaret Murray.
However, the term is more often meant to designate those practitioners
described in the first two paragraphs.)
25) Aren't women-only circles discriminatory?
Yes, women-only circles are discriminatory. So what? *ALL*
circles are somewhat discriminatory, even if the only discrimination
is that they'll evict preachers who disrupt the proceedings of the
circle.
If you're worried about being discriminatory in your own circle,
simply look at the circle as a group of friends. Then, the
discrimination is simply a limit on who you'll have as your friends,
which is undeniably a good thing.
If you're worried about being discriminated against, then you can
form your own circle, and you have the option to make it a men-only
circle. Why do you want to intrude into a social space where you're
not wanted?
If the participants are discussing business-related things
affecting you during their circle, then you have legal rights to be
allowed to participate, regardless of whether the discrimination is
gender-related or not. It would be good advice to avoid such topics
during circle. If you're worried that a circle from which you're
excluded is doing so, you can talk to a lawyer to find out what those
rights are and whether it will be wise and useful to pursue them.
Ultimately, though, you need to remember that some people feel
strongly that some mysteries are gender-related and therefore it is
not appropriate to have men (or women, depending) in attendance. It's
not a plot to keep you out or to make you feel bad, but rather quite
an ancient method of exploring certain mysteries that only apply to
one sex (e.g. menstruation).
26) Can/will you cast me a love spell/curse my enemies?
Can we? Probably. (Whether it might yield the desired result is
something else.) Will we? Not on your life, bucko.
Pagans and Witches usually believe in some form of what's called
the Witches' Rede: "As long as you harm no one, do what you will."
That isn't nearly as easy as it might sound. That means whatever
action you undertake, it can't harm anyone, including yourself.
Witches and pagans also believe in some form of the Law of Return:
"Whatever you do magically [or otherwise] will come back to you," some
say three times, some nine, some just say it will come back to you.
And it does. As Ursula K. LeGuin said, "You can't light a candle
without somewhere casting a shadow."
Most of us believe that it is wrong to use magical power to coerce
someone into doing something against his or her free will. Curses and
love spells are the most prevalent examples of manipulative magic.
Some Witches and pagans do believe that using one's powers in defense
(say, to assure a rapist's getting caught) is all right; others do
not. Those who do choose to work that kind of magic do so knowing
that it will come back to them, and are making an informed choice when
they decide to do so.
This makes it sound as if we spend our lives deciding whether to
curse or hex someone, when that's not true. Most of the time, our
spells and magical workings are for such things as healing the planet,
getting a job (or otherwise bringing prosperity into our lives),
healing (both ourselves and others), and spiritual empowerment.
Spells are really quite similar to prayer -- they just have more
Hollywood hoopla attached to them.
Besides, anything you do for yourself will work much better than a
spell or working done by someone else.
27. Is it okay if I...? Will I still be a pagan if I...?
Yes. Most pagans take a clearly anti-authorative (no one is your
superior) stance when it comes to other pagans' religious practices.
Ideally, we try to remember the relativity of our values.
One of the major advantages of neopaganism, is that it is defined
by you, and that is what makes it so empowering (making you feel your
own power). Nobody can tell you that you aren't a true neopagan,
because *you* decide what's right for *you*. There are no dogmas
(truth defined by an expert) in neopaganism, simply because there
couldn't possibly be any expert who knows better than you what feels
right for you. Many pagans also appreciate the Discordian catma
(related to dog-ma :) "Any Discordian is expressedly forbidden to
believe what she reads." We also like the paradox in this cuddly
catma.
You are encouraged to share your new ideas and inventions with us,
but a statement along with a request for comments will probably give
you more informative replies than asking your fellow netters for
permission to do what is right for you. A "Am I still okay if I..."
question will probably leave you with dozens of responses containing
the most frequently given piece of advice on alt.pagan: Do what feels
right for you. If what you really want is to hear that you are okay,
please turn to alt.support.
28) I am a pagan and I think I am being discriminated against because
of my religion. What should I do?
First of all, don't panic. Are you really being discriminated
against, or are things happening to you that would happen no matter
what your religious beliefs were? Not to belittle religious
discrimination because of course it happens, but you want to be sure
that's what is going on before you take measures based on that
assumption.
If, after looking at the situation objectively, you feel that you
are being treated the way you are *specifically because of your
religion*, then there are groups you can contact who specialize in
giving assistance in just this very thing. One is Circle Network,
whose address is given above. Another is AMER (Alliance of Magical
and Earth Religions), and they can be reached at amer@lectrickblue.com
or from addresses on several hobbyist networks including FIDONET as
well.
28) What one thing would most pagans probably want the world to know
about them?
The answer included here comes from Margot Adler's excellent book
_Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, Goddess-Worshippers and Other
Pagans in America Today_ (the revised edition). If after reading this
FAQ, you want to learn even more about modern paganism, we highly
recommend this book. It is available in most bookstores and in many
libraries.
"We are not evil. We don't harm or seduce people. We are not
dangerous. We are ordinary people like you. We have families, jobs,
hopes, and dreams. We are not a cult. This religion is not a joke.
We are not what you think we are from looking at T.V. We are real.
We laugh, we cry. We are serious. We have a sense of humor. You
don't have to be afraid of us. We don't want to convert you. And
please don't try to convert us. Just give us the same right we give
you -- to live in peace. We are much more similar to you than you
think."
-- Margot Adler, _Drawing Down the Moon_, p.453.
AFTERWORD
The creators of this FAQ want to thank the readers of alt.pagan for
their input in compiling the questions. We will be more than happy to
revise it to include the points of view from other readers. If you
would like to add information to this FAQ, please send email to
amadeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu with your proposed addition.
Thank you and Blessed Be!
**References**
_Drawing Down the Moon_, Margot Adler, Beacon Press.
_To Know_, Jade, Delphi Press.
This file is available via anonymous Internet FTP to the host
ftp.cc.utexas.edu (128.83.186.19), in the directory /pub/amadeus.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Mon Jul 12 07:24:53 EDT 1993
Article: 519 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: neo-paganism?
Date: 12 Jul 1993 07:23:41 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <21rhjt$irh@panix.com>
References: <1993Jul12.052514.27008@news.vanderbilt.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
TROTTEJE@ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu () writes:
>I expect that a close inspection would reveal that much of Vidal's
>animus against Christianity has to do with latent antisemitic leanings
> [ . . . ] I wonder, Mr. Fear, whether G.R.E.C.E's claim that
>Christianity is not a European religion might itself be animated by the
>very antisemitism which they claim to have transcended (in their
>efforts to disavow any association with the fascists) [ . . . ]
And then:
>As a Christian, I consider myself in some sense a "spiritual Jew." [ .
>. . ] perhaps the reason that Moslem fundamentalists hate the Jews so
>much: they are a constant reminder that the Islamic creed is
>derivative) [ . . . ] [Christianity] is at once deeply historical and
>yet transhistorical [ . . . ] Really, though, there is only one
>monotheism, and that is the Jewish one [ . . . ]
And finally:
>Perhaps the opposition of de Benoist and friends to the monotheistic
>creed is a purely rational one, free of any taint of racial hatred.
You seem to oppose a purely rational opposition to monotheism (which is
apparently OK, at least at one stage of discussion) to an opposition
tainted by racial hatred. (Definitely not OK.) Is such a clear
opposition consistent with the second group of quotes, in which you seem
to say that the true and sole authentic version of monotheism has an
essential connection to the Jews? If that view is true, then it appears
that to reject monotheism is to reject the Jews.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Tue Jul 13 07:21:01 EDT 1993
Article: 418 of alt.politics.usa.republican
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: ARCHIVES: The hatred and rational thought of Jim Halat
Date: 12 Jul 1993 21:05:51 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <21t1pf$88k@panix.com>
References: <21fs6e$284@news.acns.nwu.edu> <1993Jul09.171916.10483@microsoft.com> <1993Jul12.193529.26571@microsoft.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.politics.usa.republican:418 alt.society.conservatism:1737
fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
>Would you, by any chance, be able to define "unnatural" in a coherent
>manner? People are wonderfully erotic beings. It is perfectly
>"natural" for people to see how much eroticism they can crank up.
If it's so natural, I would expect that most people at most times and
places would make an effort to see how much eroticism they can crank up
and that the institutions of most societies would be set up to promote
that goal. That doesn't seem to be the case, though.
I would say that practices are natural to the extent they are fitted to
be part of social arrangements in which people florish and human
excellence is realized to the greatest degree possible. Since by and
large people do best in stable monogamous families, and stable
monogamous families require limitations on the modes of cranking up
eroticism, it seems to me that devotion to cranking up eroticism that
recognizes no limitations is unnatural.
>Why is it OK to club an animal to death and eat its carcass, but not OK
>to give it sexual pleasure?
The issue in bestiality is not the animal's pleasure. There's nothing
wrong with letting a bull inseminate a few cows the good old fashioned
way. The issue is what use of human sexuality is natural in the sense
described above and what effect it has on our understanding of human
sexuality if bestiality is accepted.
>I object profoundly to the use of ignorance as a tool of socialization.
Presumably we could teach children how to commit crimes and get away
with it, perhaps by putting the blame on others who find it difficult to
defend themselves for one reason or another (stupidity, bad reputation,
social prejudice, whatever). Is that something you would profoundly
favor, or would you just as soon children were kept ignorant on the
subject?
>The concern is not "successful functioning of the group" as much as it
>is "continued functioning of the group in the same way has it has been
>functioning". Tradition, and all that.
What do you think the distinction is? Do you have a manual that tells
you which things the members of the group think are important can really
be dispensed with without damage? Or do you think there is a
presumption that whatever the group thinks is important can be tossed
aside if it doesn't suit you?
>I think that this society will have to face up to the fact that there
>are many different variety of "family".
I realize that someone who wishes to use the word in a nonstandard way
can do so. So what?
>As far as I can tell, the "replace the family by the market" means that
>the concept of "family" becomes defined, not by the state (or the
>"society", whatever the hell that is), but by the people involved.
If "family" has no more meaning than a particular individual feels like
giving it at a particular time, then it's obviously not something anyone
would be smart to rely on for anything important. So the issue is
whether people would be better off or worse off if they can not rely on
family relationships.
>This is, to some extent, already happening.
True. The ozone layer is also being depleted and the rain forests are
being cut down.
>I would certainly expect conservatives to be in favor of government
>getting out of the way of people setting up structures for their lives.
If people can't rely on family they will rely on government. It makes
no sense to favor limited government without favoring strong families.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Tue Jul 13 17:47:01 EDT 1993
Article: 1773 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Pullig Out, Part III
Date: 13 Jul 1993 16:14:27 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <21v533$krk@panix.com>
References: <1993Jul13.115538.51704@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
thompson@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>But it seems that recently the group has been taken over by radical
>liberals and conservatives who have no desire to think, but to spew.
The group can be improved a great deal by setting your newsreader to
kill automatically anything crossposted to alt.fan.dan-quayle. If you
use rn, you can put the following line in the KILL file for the group:
/alt.fan.dan-quayle/h:j
Come to think of it, I think I'll do the same thing for articles
crossposted to alt.philosophy.objectivism.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Tue Jul 13 21:17:10 EDT 1993
Article: 525 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: April is the cruelest month? Hell! June, July....
Date: 13 Jul 1993 21:14:39 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <21vmlv$nf1@panix.com>
References: <1993Jul9.200433.2222@news.cs.brandeis.edu> <21muq7$avn@panix.com> <1993Jul13.224408.19491@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane) writes:
>I think you are working with an evolutionary view of religion which most
>anthropologists and religious historians no longer hold to: ie, first
>primitive animism, then polytheism, then monotheism, then rationalistic
>atheism.
Nothing so elaborate. It does seem to me that in a literate and urban
society in which people engage in philosophical speculation polytheism
tends to develop into monotheism, while monotheism does not tend to
develop into polytheism. People prefer unified theories based on as few
principles as possible. Therefore, if "neopaganism" rejects monotheism
in favor of polytheism it doesn't seem to me to have a serious future.
>The notion that monotheism stands in opposition to polytheism, however,
>is the more recent devolopment (i.e., in the last 1,000-2,000 years).
Why as little as 1,000 years? I thought the notion there is only one
God is rather older than that.
>More anon.
The Force be with you!
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Wed Jul 14 08:59:05 EDT 1993
Article: 1789 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Factions and Minorities
Date: 14 Jul 1993 08:58:57 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <220vuh$r89@panix.com>
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
jason@primal.ucdavis.edu (Jason Christian) writes:
>[Liberals] believe that individuals and groups have the right to
>identify themselves. If you wish to call yourself a liberal, or a
>conservative, or a Frenchman, or a Macedonian, or a Christian, or a Jew,
>or whatever, you may call yourself that, taking, of course,
>responsibility for the consequences if you adopt a confusing monniker
>(and, presumably, avoiding fraud).
Obviously if a collection of people think of themselves as a group they
are a group. You also seem to be saying that others should refer to
them by the name they choose. I suppose in general it's polite to do
so, but I hardly see it as a matter of principle. If I think someone's
language is manipulative, why should I have to cooperate with it?
>When one writes a group of people outside of the bounds of civil
>society, that is effectively a declaration of war. If one writes
>oneself out of the bounds of civil society, one has also effectively
>declared a state of war. I regret that I interpret a number of the
>actions and statements coming from the right in precisely that light.
Examples? To "write someone outside of the bounds of civil society"
sounds like it would include things like depriving someone of the
benefits of the laws providing security for life and property or for the
enforcement of contracts. What do you have in mind?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Wed Jul 14 09:01:55 EDT 1993
Article: 532 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: neo-paganism?
Date: 14 Jul 1993 09:01:51 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <22103v$rd1@panix.com>
References: <1993Jul12.052514.27008@news.vanderbilt.edu> <21rhjt$irh@panix.com> <1993Jul14.002249.21678@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane) writes:
>I'm no expert on the subject. I'd like to keep this to the philosophical
>implications, not get bogged down in the politics or name-slogging.
How about practical applications? The regulars on a.r.c. could organize
a coven in cyberspace and try putting a hex on the major TV networks.
It would be a right-wing first. If you like, we could work beer
drinking into the ritual.
>Anyway, most of the comments made by people so far have dealt with
>motivations or alleged motivations, with the rather smug assurance that
>"these people can't possibly be practicing any real religion or
>experiencing any real spirituality." How, I'd like to know, can anyone
>hear be so sure of themselves?
I would expect a new religion today to be something more than a
collection of practices expressing an orientation toward and
understanding of the world growing up among a people over time. Since a
religion must deal with everything, a new religion today would have to
be expressed theoretically and philosophically as well as in other
aspects of life. I would expect the theoretical expositors of a new
religion to be people who have found the truth and importance of the new
religion verified in their own lives, so that their former goals and way
of life have been transformed by their new religious attachment and that
attachment has become their main concern in life. I have heard of
nothing of the sort in the ENR.
Of course, my expectations may all be wrong. If so, an explanation and
description of what is going on would help.
(Incidentally, the a.r.c. stylebook says that "himself" is preferable to
"themselves" in contexts like that of your last sentence.)
>I might add, that even our worst enemies, whose ideas we oppose, might
>indeed be experiencing genuine religious feelings. Speculating about
>motivations strikes me as avoiding the larger issues.
How can one understand a religious movement without understanding what
is going on spiritually? It seems to me that speculation about motives
is necessary for such understanding.
>Well, if simply rejecting Christianity makes one an anti-semite, than
>GRECE et al are anti-semites, but surely this is ridiculous? The
>strongest anti-semitic movements have been driven by Christians (and
>more recently, Moslems) [ . . . ]
One might be antisemitic because one objects to the things that
distinguish Judaism from Christianity or because one objects to the
things they have in common.
>Question: is a desire to return to one's ancestral roots, to forge an
>ethnic identity, automaticly racist, anti-semitic, etc?
It seems to me that if someone treats his ethnic identity as ultimate he
will be a racist. Ethnic identity can't bear that much weight, so such
a person will end up defining himself less by love of his people and
their traditions and way of life than by their opposition to other
peoples. Ethnic identity seems like a good thing to me as long as it's
logically subordinate to loyalty to a transcendental source of value
that is the same for all peoples.
>Like the .sig, Mr. Kalb. I trust you will excuse a few of my own follys.
If you will excuse mine.
>[M]any pagans noted that the Christians were stealing *their* ideas.
>And the systemizing of paganism had been going on long before
>Christianity arrived on the scene. Anti-Christian or not, it was not
>artificial. It was part of the historical trend.
What does the ENR object to, then? Something specific to Christianity
or the historical trend toward systematizing religious thought that
seems to lead to some sort of universalistic monotheism?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Wed Jul 14 15:08:41 EDT 1993
Article: 425 of alt.politics.usa.republican
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: ARCHIVES: The hatred and rational thought of Jim Halat
Date: 14 Jul 1993 09:03:41 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <22107d$rie@panix.com>
References: <1993Jul12.172649.13526@microsoft.com> <21t3kf$okb@nwfocus.wa.com> <22018r$9hd@news.acns.nwu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
jeffc@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jeff Campbell) writes:
>In article <21t3kf$okb@nwfocus.wa.com> breier@halcyon.com (Breier William Scheetz) writes:
>>Unnatural is something that the human body is not designed to do. We
>>are designed for heterosexual sex. The only people become homosexuals
>>is by exposure to things such as the teaching of sick acts.
>>Kindergardeners will never think of such sick things unless it is taught
>>to them. With your line of reasoning, I suppose we should teach
>>children the proper way to rape, safely with condoms. You are an
>>example of typical liberal thinking, "People are going to do it anyway,
>>so we might as well make it safe."
>
>Did this guy just crawl out from a rock? His thinking is neither liberal
>nor conservative: It is just plain bigoted.
He says:
1. Human bodies are designed for heterosexual sex.
2. Homosexuality is sick.
3. Homosexuality is learned behavior.
4. Liberals characteristically claim that the sexual behavior people
engage will occur inevitably, and that the most society can do is to try
to limit concrete damage from things like spreading disease.
Which of the above positions do you consider bigoted?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Wed Jul 14 17:09:40 EDT 1993
Article: 1806 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Factions and Minorities
Date: 14 Jul 1993 17:07:44 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <221sj0$j87@panix.com>
References: <220vuh$r89@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
sanchezp@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (Paul J. Sanchez) writes:
>In article <220vuh$r89@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>
> jason@primal.ucdavis.edu (Jason Christian) writes:
>
> >When one writes a group of people outside of the bounds of civil
> >society, that is effectively a declaration of war.
>
> Examples?
>
>How about unequal enforcement of law, or different treatment by law
>enforcement officers?
I don't see why that would constitute "writing people outside the bounds
of civil society" or "effectively a declaration of war". Also, I
thought the comment was on conservative positions, and unequal
enforcement of the law is not a conservative position. I doubt that Pat
Buchanan thinks, for example, that if someone steals Barney Frank's car,
or if Jesse Helms passes a bad check, the police should simply snicker.
>>From where I sit, it looks as though those who are doing all the
>squawking about "traditional values" and "moral decay" are those who
>benefitted from inequalities in the past, and would like to retain or
>restore those inequalities now.
Your point isn't clear to me. Which inequalities are you talking about?
It's perfectly true that no system of social life treats all persons and
all types of conduct equally. A system of social life that represses
physical violence bears more heavily on big stupid people with
ungovernable tempers than on people who are clever but constitutionally
timid. Someone who favors a generally beneficial system of social life
will necessarily favor certain inequalities that he is likely to benefit
from personally, if only because the system is generally beneficial.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Wed Jul 14 17:09:41 EDT 1993
Article: 1807 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Factions and Minorities
Date: 14 Jul 1993 17:09:35 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <221smf$jf3@panix.com>
References: <220vuh$r89@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
jason@primal.ucdavis.edu (Jason Christian) writes:
>But politeness is politic.
Usually but not always. Sometimes it's more politic to make it clear
you oppose something.
>And if your lack of co-operation extends to denying them the right to
>use the name (as in the Usenet flamewars over newsgroup names), then
>perhaps you are denying them a fundamental right.
Don't understand. Why is it more of a fundamental right to extend the
application of a name like "Macedonia" or "Islam" than to restrict it?
>You will, of course, refuse your cooperation to all groups who use a
>manipulative name [ . . . ]
Why should I? If a name is chosen to make each act of referring to a
thing also an act of supporting a cause I might cooperate if I do in
fact support the cause but not otherwise.
>Suppose that all of the anonymous privateers in my community, or a
>significant group of us, get together and, working through our [dropped
>language -- perhaps "elected representatives get a law passed"?]
>prohibiting discrimination against anonymous privateers. Suppose that
>that law is judged constitutional by the relevent courts. Now suppose
>that another group gets together and, having power in a larger
>juristiction, passes a law prohibiting its subdivisions from enacting
>legislation concerning anonymous privateers. This group has suddenly
>lost the equal protection of the law. The larger society has, in my
>coarse terminology, declared war on them.
You seem to believe that to be a member of a group discrimination
against which is legal is to be deprived of the equal protection of the
law. How can that be? Federal law, and the laws of the state and city
of New York, do not prohibit discrimination against racist sexist
homophobes, and in fact such laws discriminate against them in their
chosen lifestyle by denying them freedom to associate occupationally and
so on. Has society declared war on racist sexist homophobes?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Wed Jul 14 19:58:47 EDT 1993
Article: 1808 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Factions and Minorities
Date: 14 Jul 1993 17:11:18 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <221spm$jpv@panix.com>
References: <220vuh$r89@panix.com> <1993Jul14.162349.11112@Princeton.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
jcc@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Julian Cummings) writes:
>But I think a more serious question to raise is, should we continue to
>place so much emphasis on our allegiance to certain "groups" at the
>expense of having a more fragmented and fractious society?
I think the conservative view on this is that people have to accept some
sort of common understanding of human nature and the good life in order
to form a society. Inconsistent minority views may be tolerated if
practical but such views can't have equal status without the
fragmentation you refer to. That view, of course, seems bigoted to
liberals and libertarians but I don't see what can be done about it.
>I'm not a mind reader, but I'd guess he has in mind things like Pat
>Buchanan practically declaring war on gays at the '92 Republican
>convention [ . . . ]
I can't comment effectively because I didn't see or read a transcript of
Buchanan's speech. My impression was that Buchanan said in effect that
government measures intended to promote equal respect for homosexuals'
way of life were wrong, which is different from proposing that they be
excluded from the benefits of civil society.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Wed Jul 14 20:03:14 EDT 1993
Article: 539 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: April is the cruelest month? Hell! June, July....
Date: 14 Jul 1993 20:02:49 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <2226r9$a4q@panix.com>
References: <1993Jul13.224408.19491@news.cs.brandeis.edu> <21vmlv$nf1@panix.com> <1993Jul14.200243.8616@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane) writes:
>>It does seem to me that in a literate and urban
>>society in which people engage in philosophical speculation polytheism
>>tends to develop into monotheism, while monotheism does not tend to
>>develop into polytheism.
>
>This is true only in Western history. Why has this not happened in the East?
>There, you end up with Buddhism, reformed Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism,
>all that neat stuff.
I would have thought the ENR would take very seriously the durable
tendencies in the West.
I know too little about Eastern religions to comment much on your
specific examples. I don't think the Buddha, Lao Tse or Confucius
proposed multiple objects of religious devotion. The Buddha is
sometimes said to have been an atheist, but what he took seriously was
one thing, nirvana. Lao Tse had the Way, which was ultimate and one (if
only because no distinctions are ultimately valid). Confucius'
interests were social and moral, but what lay behind society and
morality was Heaven, which seems to have been one. I know nothing at
all about reformed Hinduism, but the Bhagavad Gita seems to say that
everything is an aspect of a single ultimate reality. So if I had to
class the higher religions of the East (the ones that developed after
people became literate, urban and philosophically sophisticated) as mono
or poly, I would class them as mono.
>> People prefer unified theories based on as few
>>principles as possible.
>
>Aye, and the fewer principles a unified theory starts out with, the more
>inappropriate/incorrect the theory is.
To understand is to explain a great many facts by reference to a few
principles without injustice to the facts. Those principles are
themselves either irreducible brute facts, in which case the world in
the end makes no sense, or they can themselves be explained without
distortion by reference to a single system of principles or single
principle that is somehow necessary or self-explanatory. So it seems
that the preference for unified theories based on few principles is a
direct and necessary consequence of the desire to understand the world.
>One thinks of libertarianism as a sterling example of this tendency.
Libertarianism is a sterling example of the tendency to force things.
One way to reconcile the belief that the world makes sense and the
belief that each particular theory leaves important things out is to
believe that there is indeed a single ultimate principle that explains
itself and everything else but that transcends human understanding.
>I see no mono/poly conflict with a polytheistic worldview which
>recognizes a larger, ultimate truth beyond human comprehension, which
>one could call "God", the gods then being seen as aspects of this
>conception of "God". This is could be called "monotheism", but not the
>kind of monotheism which elevates one aspect of god as the one true God.
In Christianity, I believe that elevating one effect or aspect of God as
the one true God is referred to as "idolatry" or "heresy".
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Wed Jul 14 21:47:02 EDT 1993
Article: 1825 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Factions and Minorities
Date: 14 Jul 1993 21:46:57 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <222cuh$neb@panix.com>
References: <221smf$jf3@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
jason@primal.ucdavis.edu (Jason Christian) writes:
>>Has society declared war on racist sexist homophobes?
>
>If the racist sexist homophobes consider that they have an essential right to
>deny others life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then yes, I'll
>accept your conclusion.
Suppose the RSHs believe:
1. Over time, every ethnic group tends to develop habits and
standards that tend to make cooperation among members of the
group easier, more productive and more pleasant than cooperation
among members of different ethnic groups with different
histories. Therefore, the RSHs prefer to live among and have
business and work relationships with members of their own ethnic
group and make choices accordingly (that is, they engage in
ethnic discrimination).
2. Children grow up better in strong and stable families. An
organization works better and is therefore stronger and more
stable if there is differentiation of function within it, and
people accept a particular function and stick with it through
thick and thin (which makes for stability) if they have been
raised to do so and view their commitment to that function as
one of the essential things that make them what they are.
Therefore, the RSHs raise their boys to be fathers and their
girls to be mothers as traditionally conceived and view
filling those roles as the normal and praisewothy way of life.
As a result, ways of life pleasing to people whose inclinations
don't fit the traditional family are looked down upon.
Would you say that the actions of these RSHs demonstrate that they
consider that they have an essential right to deny others life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Wed Jul 14 21:48:59 EDT 1993
Article: 540 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: neo-paganism?
Date: 14 Jul 1993 21:44:43 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <222cqb$n66@panix.com>
References: <1993Jul14.002249.21678@news.cs.brandeis.edu> <22103v$rd1@panix.com> <1993Jul14.213921.10537@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane) writes:
>>It seems to me that if someone treats his ethnic identity as ultimate he
>>will be a racist.
>Well, treating any part of the whole as though it were the whole is
>reductionist, thus racism is reductionist. But the same can be said of
>"monotheism", which must, by its nature, take only a small part of that
>which is the whole (God) and make it into a reductionistic "whole"
>(dogma).
That would be true of a form of monotheism that considered that its
dogmas exhaust the important truths about God.
>If the idea is to avoid ethnic conflict, then any attempt to impose a
>"transcendental source" runs the risk of degenerating into a "religious
>war" in which competing universalisms vie for power: Christianity,
>Islam, Communism, Capitalism, etc.
Your idea seems to be that differences should be respected. I don't see
why Europe should respect China (rather than riding roughshod over the
peculiarities of the Chinese or reducing the Chinese to slavery or
exterminating them for the sake of the additional land and other
resources) unless Europeans believe that they and the Chinese have a
similar nature as to essentials and that the peculiarities of the
Chinese bear a similar relation to the same source of value as those of
the Europeans.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Thu Jul 15 05:34:44 EDT 1993
Article: 431 of alt.politics.usa.republican
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: ARCHIVES: The hatred and rational thought of Jim Halat
Date: 14 Jul 1993 21:48:50 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <222d22$nmk@panix.com>
References: <22018r$9hd@news.acns.nwu.edu> <22107d$rie@panix.com> <2223ip$e8@news.acns.nwu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
jeffc@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jeff Campbell) writes:
>>2. Homosexuality is sick.
>
>The second statement is bigoted. It is on the same level as ``Niggers are
>dirty'' and ``Jews are crooks''.
That seems an odd claim to me. I believe that until the early '70s
homosexuality was listed as a disorder by the American Psychiatric
Association (or whatever it's called). The change in the listing had
nothing to do with advances in medical knowledge, and many psychiatrists
continue to disagree with it. That doesn't prove the second statement
is true, of course, but it does suggest that it should be put in a
different category from the other statements you mention. Another
difference among the statements is that the first one evaluates a kind
of conduct, while the others make factual statements about members of
classes defined by characteristics with no obvious connection to the
factual statement being made.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Thu Jul 15 18:31:58 EDT 1993
Article: 1854 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Factions and Minorities
Date: 15 Jul 1993 14:38:01 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <224869$9ec@panix.com>
References: <222cuh$neb@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
jason@primal.ucdavis.edu (Jason Christian) writes:
>In article <222cuh$neb@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>> 1. Over time, every ethnic group tends to develop habits and
>> standards that tend to make cooperation among members of the
>> group easier, more productive and more pleasant than cooperation
>> among members of different ethnic groups with different
>> histories. Therefore, the RSHs prefer to live among and have
>> business and work relationships with members of their own ethnic
>> group and make choices accordingly (that is, they engage in
>> ethnic discrimination).
>>
>> 2. Children grow up better in strong and stable families. An
>> organization works better and is therefore stronger and more
>> stable if there is differentiation of function within it, and
>> people accept a particular function and stick with it through
>> thick and thin (which makes for stability) if they have been
>> raised to do so and view their commitment to that function as
>> one of the essential things that make them what they are.
>> Therefore, the RSHs raise their boys to be fathers and their
>> girls to be mothers as traditionally conceived and view
>> filling those roles as the normal and praisewothy way of life.
>> As a result, ways of life pleasing to people whose inclinations
>> don't fit the traditional family are looked down upon.
>
>Point 2 is a strawman. RSH's and everybody else can raise their
>families and pass on their ideas as they please.
As many immigrant parents have found, as children grow up they are
influenced on many points more by the way of life in the surrounding
society than by the way of life their parents are trying to pass on.
Therefore, the way of life accepted in society at large is of concern to
a parent who wants his child to be able to lead what he understands as a
good life. Man, after all, is a social animal and lives his life as a
member of his society. So why shouldn't any of us work toward a society
that is conducive to the good life as he understands it?
Apart from such general considerations, the issues raised by point 2
become acute in certain settings, for example the public schools. The
public schools now view it as part of their mission to break down
traditional sex roles. On your view, why shouldn't people who look on
traditional sex roles as a good thing view that and other government
measures that treat such roles as illegitimate, and attempt to weaken or
do away with them, as a declaration of war?
>To impose a program of economic and social discrimination upon New York
>City _would_ be an act of ``war.''
Suppose the RSHs believe in "live and let live", so they just keep to
themselves to the extent possible, avoiding contact when practical with
members of other ethnic groups. In other words, they practice private
ethnic discrimination whenever they have a chance. Does such conduct
constitute the imposition of a program of economic and social
discrimination upon New York City?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Thu Jul 15 22:03:16 EDT 1993
Article: 543 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: April is the cruelest month? Hell! June, July....
Date: 15 Jul 1993 22:03:12 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <225290$1ef@panix.com>
References: <1993Jul14.200243.8616@news.cs.brandeis.edu> <2226r9$a4q@panix.com> <1993Jul15.220055.4199@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane) writes:
>In article <2226r9$a4q@panix.com>, jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>>I would have thought the ENR would take very seriously the durable
>>tendencies in the West.
>
>Ah, but you see, they have decided it's a bad idea to defend "the West".
I should have said "Europe" rather than "the West".
>As to certain durable tendencies: it would seem that the objection is
>that some of these tendencies result in the deterioration and collapse
>of other tendencies, and therein lies the problem.
Life is hard, isn't it? I would have thought that religious tendencies
run at least as deep as other tendencies, and they are connected to
other tendencies, so it's not clear that a proposal to save Europe by
excising European religious tendencies makes sense.
>>I don't think the Buddha, Lao Tse or Confucius
>>proposed multiple objects of religious devotion.
>
>No, but they could see that there was more than one path leading to the
>truth.
Did they? I don't recall that the Buddha, Lao Tse or Confucius say so
anywhere, and the most eminent followers of Lao Tse and Confucius
(Chuang Tse and Mencius) criticize as small-minded (Chuang Tse) or
erroneous (Mencius) outlooks that differ from their own. I don't know
much about the Buddhists, but my impression was that they thought the
fourfold this, the eightfold that and so on were indeed great and
unparalleled discoveries. Your point may be valid with respect to the
Hindus.
>In any case, their religions permeated and took over, intact, the old
>religions and gods.
I don't think they treated them as of much importance. (I am leaving
later popular Taoism, a lowbrow religion, out of account.)
>They didn't destroy them, didn't go around smashing idols, etc.
The conception of a jealous God may for all I know be a specifically
Jewish conception. I think there were episodes in Chinese history in
which Buddhism came under attack and temples were closed and images
smashed, but the motivation may have been more political opposition to a
foreign religion than anything we would consider strictly religious.
>This is not what GRECE means when referring to monotheism - it's talking
>about something more specific.
I'm unclear about what that specific thing is.
>Western Monotheism relies on Divine Revelation. One cannot reason one's
>way to God.
The Bhagavad Gita presents itself as an account of a divine revelation.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Fri Jul 16 07:41:04 EDT 1993
Article: 1869 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Factions and Minorities
Date: 15 Jul 1993 22:06:11 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 83
Message-ID: <2252ej$1ta@panix.com>
References: <224869$9ec@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
jason@primal.ucdavis.edu (Jason Christian) writes:
>The difficult part, for all of us, is to find the boundary where we
>start trespassing on others efforts to ``work towards the good life
>etc.''
It's not difficult, it's insoluble. Not all goods can coexist, and any
particular society has to be based on some particular conception of the
good. Big strong guys who are courageous and loyal but dumb and little
guys who are clever but unreliable and physically timid aren't going to
be happy in the same societies. Also, some notions of the good life
(for example, notions of the good life that don't provide adequately for
childcare) are impossible because they can't be embodied in an enduring
social order.
>From my life experience, and that of my family, I think that the family
>which has well thought out beliefs about the right way to live has
>tremendous influence over the social and moral development of its
>members.
I agree that strength and integrity can conquer social environment. Not
everyone is capable of heroic virtue at all times, though, so social
enviroment is still important. In addition, families of the sort you
mention will be far more common in some social environments than in
others. The family is a social institution, after all, and it's hard
for a group of people to pull themselves up by the bootstraps.
>I have absolutely no objections to the decisions of the Hasidim to live
>in a closeknit community in Brooklyn---groovy multiculturalism and all
>that.
Suppose their way of life is wonderfully successful and their
enterprises prosper, and someone notices that they prefer to hire other
Hasidim because they are so closeknit? Suppose someone notices that
there are definably Hasidic neighborhoods and wonders whether real
estate brokers who do business there tend to steer Hasidim to those
neighborhoods and black lesbian communes to presumably more congenial
areas? Suppose someone starts wondering whether in their educational
system the Hasidim depict other ways of life as somehow less good than
their own? Suppose they multiply and eventually come to constitute most
of the population, and considerably the the most prosperous part of the
population, of Brooklyn? Would that still be groovy multiculturalism or
would it be oppression?
Another way to put the question: is a closeknit community of Hasidim in
Brooklyn better than a closeknit community of white Southern Baptists in
Georgia?
>Tell me, though, you who've been throwing out all the hypotheticals: do
>you really believe you can reshape society to your tastes without
>destroying it?
If you don't like the idea of destroying society you should try to put
it on a footing that gives it some prospect of surviving decently. It
seems to me that an urban society that rejects the traditional family as
a norm will be a violent society because of poorly socialized children.
More generally, it seems to me that people who live in a society that
treats all ways of life that might be chosen as equally worthy of choice
will tend increasingly to act on impulse because they won't be educated
to distinguish some impulses as good and others as bad, and so will
become increasingly stupid and brutal. So it seems to me that our only
hope of establishing and preserving a tolerable society lies in
reversing current trends.
>How?
The traditional family can't exist as a norm without sexism and
homophobia. So antidiscrimination and other laws intended to establish
the equivalency of the sexes and of varying forms of sexual conduct have
to go. Particular ways of life exist within particular cultures, so a
particular way of life can't be privileged without privileging a
particular culture and marginalizing the others. So multiculturalism
has to go. As a practical matter that probably means laws against
racial discrimination have to go as well. To the extent that different
ethnic groups find that their ways of life don't mesh they will
presumably withdraw into somewhat separate societies.
Obviously there's a lot of public education that has to be done before
any of this can happen, and people will complain no matter how good the
public education is, but the alternative seems worse to me.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Fri Jul 16 07:47:48 EDT 1993
Article: 545 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: neo-paganism?
Date: 16 Jul 1993 07:44:56 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <2264bo$3gu@panix.com>
References: <1993Jul14.213921.10537@news.cs.brandeis.edu> <222cqb$n66@panix.com> <1993Jul15.221643.4788@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane) writes:
>>>"monotheism", which must, by its nature, take only a small part of that
>>>which is the whole (God) and make it into a reductionistic "whole"
>>>(dogma).
>>That would be true of a form of monotheism that considered that its
>>dogmas exhaust the important truths about God.
>
>Religious skepticism/humility within the Church?
St. Paul said that we see through a glass, darkly. According to St.
Thomas, "God cannot be seen in His essence by one who is merely man,
except he be separated from this mortal life" and that the words we use
to describe God fall short of representing him.
>Take away this exclusivety and you have a very different thing indeed.
It may be that a particular sort of exclusivity is a feature unique to
the Semitic religions. Exclusivity and reductionism are two different
things, though. Revelation permits exclusivity (the assurance that some
particular things are true and others false) without any claim that one
has the whole truth. Also, there's no need for a claim that all
important aspects of one's way of life can be infallibly justified by
reference to revealed truth. A Christian society might be either a
monarchy or a republic, for example.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Fri Jul 16 10:20:32 EDT 1993
Article: 436 of alt.politics.usa.republican
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: ARCHIVES: The hatred and rational thought of Jim Halat
Date: 16 Jul 1993 07:47:37 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <2264gp$3lp@panix.com>
References: <1993Jul09.171916.10483@microsoft.com> <1993Jul12.193529.26571@microsoft.com> <1993Jul15.190128.18748@microsoft.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.politics.usa.republican:436 alt.society.conservatism:1877
fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
>Please prove that "people do best in stable monogamous families" (as
>opposed to stable polyamorous families, for example).
There are plenty of statistics showing that people do worse in unstable
families, and that two parents are better than one. Apparently, your
suggestion is that a stable family with 3+ parents might be even better.
I have no reason to think any significant number of such families is
likely to exist. There have been and are societies that accept
polygamy, but my impression of such families (mostly from _Genesis_,
histories of Eastern monarchies and a couple of Chinese accounts)
suggests that such families tend toward instability because of conflicts
and jealousies among the wives. I doubt that such families are likely
to hold together long without masculine dominance that is much more
absolute than we are likely to see. Anthropologists have uncovered (I
believe) four societies that accept polyandry. I don't know much about
them, but the rarity of the institution suggests we aren't going to see
a lot of it.
"Polyamorous" suggests something much more freeform than mere polygamy
or polyandry. If that's right, then I have no reason at all to think
polyamorous families are likely to be stable. If it were a possibility
I would think stable polyamorous families would have been actualized in
one of the thousands of known societies. I would expect them to have
the problems communes have, only more so, and communes don't last.
>Are you suggesting that the way children get socialized to not steal is
>by deliberately witholding information on how to steal? I think you
>are wrong about that.
They are socialized not to steal by being told and shown in every way
possible that stealing is not an acceptable part of life. One trivial
consequence of that method of socialization is that they are not shown
how they can steal successfully if they reject what they're being told.
>If a group rule (group being the society backed up with the guns of the
>government) doesn't suit me, then I do a combination of submission,
>subversion, and evasion, depending on the circumstances. What I do not
>do is internalize the group rule as my own. What do you do?
Your reference to guns suggests that you are talking about laws and what
you say suggests that you recognize no obligation whatever to obey the
law as such. I certainly don't agree. People have written whole
libraries about what to do when confronted with a bad law. I don't have
the energy at the moment to pursue the topic (which is certainly an
important and interesting one).
>Certainly structures can be important but still open to widespread
>interpretations of meaning. "Love" comes to mind as an example. "God"
>or "religion" are a few more. Why should these important concepts be
>variable, but "family" must have one definion -- yours?
My personal views, of course, don't affect the appropriate definition of
"family".
Unless the definition of "family" can be counted on to be quite stable
over time within the family itself, the members of the family won't be
well-advised to rely on each other for long-term and difficult things
like raising and supporting children. I can't think of a way to make
that definition stable within families generally other than by having a
reasonably coherent social definition that children are raised to accept
and that is supported by social attitudes, customs and institutions
generally.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Fri Jul 16 11:16:56 EDT 1993
Article: 546 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Include me out.
Date: 16 Jul 1993 10:35:05 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 426
Message-ID: <226eap$f3p@panix.com>
References: <1993Jul16.002004.27462@news.vanderbilt.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes:
Did you know that there is a UN commission called "The Council for
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women"? Certainly,
the condition of women is deplorable in various places around the world.
But a UN commission to _eliminate_ discrimination against women in
_all_forms_? Who defines the terms?
Why, the attached convention, of course. Read it, it's a remarkable
document. I believe the United States signed it during the Carter
Administration, but it has not yet been ratified.
One wonders about the legal consequences if it were ratified. For
example, would it be possible for a plaintiff to get the U.S. courts to
enjoin the adoption of particular legal rules designed "to modify the
social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to
achieving the elimination of [ . . . ] customary and all other practices
which are based [ . . . ] on stereotyped roles for men and women"?
(Article 5(a)) Treaties made according to the U.S. Constitution are
part of the supreme law of the land, after all. Could be rather
far-reaching. And that's only one of many provisions.
CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN
The States Parties to the present Convention,
Noting that the Charter of the United Nations reaffirms faith in
fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and
in the equal rights of man and women,
Noting that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the principle
of the inadmissibility of discrimination and proclaims that all human
beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is
entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without
distinction of any kind, including distinction based on sex,
Noting that the States Parties to the International Covenants on Human
Rights have the obligation to ensure the equal right of men and women to
enjoy all economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights,
Considering the international conventions concluded under the auspices of
the United Nations and the specialized agencies promoting equality of
rights of men and women,
Noting also the resolutions, declarations and recommendations adopted by
the United Nations and the specialized agencies promoting equality of
rights of men and women,
Concerned, however, that despite these various instruments extensive
discrimination against women continues to exist,
Recalling that discrimination against women violates the principles of
equality of rights and respect for human dignity, is an obstacle to the
participation of women, on equal terms with men, in the political, social,
economic and cultural life of their countries, hampers the growth of the
prosperity of society and the family and makes more difficult the full
development of the potentialities of women in the service of their
countries and of humanity,
Concerned that in situations of poverty women have the least access to
food, health, education, training and opportunities for employment and
other needs,
Convinced that the establishment of the new international economic order
based on equity and justice will contribute significantly towards the
promotion of equality between men and women,
Emphasizing that the eradication of apartheid, of all forms of racism,
racial discrimination, colonialism, neo-colonialism, aggression, foreign
occupation and domination and interference in the internal affairs of
States is essential to the full enjoyment of the rights of men and women,
Affirming that the strengthening of international peace and security,
relaxation of international tension, mutual co-operation among all States
irrespective of their social and economic systems, general and complete
disarmament, and in particular nuclear disarmament under strict and
effective international control, the affirmation of the principles of
justice, equality and mutual benefit in relations among countries and the
realization of the right of peoples under alien and colonial domination and
foreign occupation to self-determination and independence, as well as
respect for national sovereignty and territorial integrity, will promote
social progress and development and as a consequence will contribute to the
attainment of full equality between men and women,
Convinced that the full and complete development of a country, the welfare
of the world and the cause of peace require the maximum participation of
women on equal terms with men in all fields,
Bearing in mind the great contribution of women to the welfare of the
family and to the development of society, so far not fully recognized, the
social significance of maternity and the role of both parents in the family
and in the upbringing of children, and aware that the role of women in
procreation should not be a basis for discrimination but that the
upbringing of children requires a sharing of responsibility between men and
women and society as a whole,
Aware that a change in the traditional role of men as well as the role of
women in society and in the family is needed to achieve full equality
between men and women,
Determined to implement the principles set forth in the Declaration on the
Elimination of Discrimination against Women and, for that purpose, to adopt
the measures required for the elimination of such discrimination in all its
forms and manifestations,
Have agreed on the following:
PART I
Article 1. For the purposes of the present Convention, the term
"discrimination against women" shall mean any distinction, exclusion or
restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of
impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women,
irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and
women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic,
social, cultural, civil or any other field.
Article 2. States Parties condemn discrimination against women in all its
forms, agree to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy
of eliminating discrimination against women and, to this end, undertake:
(a) To embody the principle of the equality of men and women in their
national constitutions or other appropriate legislation if not yet
incorporated therein and to ensure, through law and other appropriate
means, the practical realization of this principle;
(b) To adopt appropriate legislative and other measures, including
sanctions where appropriate, prohibiting all discrimination against
women;
(c) To establish legal protection of the rights of women on an equal
basis with men and to ensure through competent national tribunals and
other public institutions the effective protection of women against
any act of discrimination;
(d) To refrain from engaging in any act or practice of discrimination
against women and to ensure that public authorities and institutions
shall act in conformity with this obligation;
(e) To take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against
women by any person, organization or enterprise;
(f) To take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or
abolish existing laws, regulations, customs and practices which
constitute discrimination against women;
(g) To repeal all national penal provisions which constitute
discrimination against women.
Article 3. States Parties shall take in all fields, in particular in the
political, social, economic and cultural fields, all appropriate measures,
including legislation, to ensure the full development and advancement of
women, for the purpose of guaranteeing them the exercise and enjoyment of
human rights and fundamental freedoms on a basis of equality with men.
Article 4. 1. Adoption by States Parties of temporary special measures
aimed at accelerating de facto equality between men and women shall not be
considered discrimination as defined in the present Convention, but shall
in no way entail as a consequence the maintenance of unequal or separate
standards; these measures shall be discontinued when the objectives of
equality of opportunity and treatment have been achieved.
2. Adoption by States Parties of special measures, including those measures
contained in the present Convention, aimed at protecting maternity shall
not be considered discriminatory.
Article 5. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures:
(a) To modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and
women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and
customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the
inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on
stereotyped roles for men and women;
(b) To ensure that family education includes a proper understanding of
maternity as a social function and the recognition of the common
responsibility of men and women in the upbringing and development of
their children, it being understood that the interest of the children
is the primordial consideration in all cases.
Article 6. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including
legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of
prostitution of women.
PART II
Article 7. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate
discrimination against women in the political and public life of the
country and, in particular, shall ensure to women, on equal terms with men,
the right:
(a) To vote in all elections and public referenda and to be eligible for
election to all publicly elected bodies;
(b) To participate in the formulation of government policy and the
implementation thereof and to hold public office and perform all
public functions at all levels of government;
(c) To participate in non-governmental organizations and associations
concerned with the public and political life of the country.
Article 8. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure to
women, on equal terms with men and without any discrimination, the
opportunity to represent their Governments at the international level and
to participate in the work of international organizations.
Article 9. 1. States Parties shall grant women equal rights with men to
acquire, change or retain their nationality. They shall ensure in
particular that neither marriage to an alien nor change of nationality by
the husband during marriage shall automatically change the nationality of
the wife, render her stateless or force upon her the nationality of the
husband.
2. States Parties shall grant women equal rights with men with respect to
the nationality of their children.
PART III
Article 10. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate
discrimination against women in order to ensure to them equal rights with
men in the field of education and in particular to ensure, on a basis of
equality of men and women:
(a) The same conditions for career and vocational guidance, for access to
studies and for the achievement of diplomas in educational
establishments of all categories in rural as well as in urban areas;
this equality shall be ensured in preschool, general, technical,
professional and higher technical education, as well as in all types
of vocational training;
(b) Access to the same curricula, the same examinations, teaching staff
with qualifications of the same standard and school premises and
equipment of the same quality;
(c) The elimination of any stereotyped concept of the roles of men and
women at all levels and in all forms of education by encouraging
coeducation and other types of education which will help to achieve
this aim and, in particular, by the revision of textbooks and school
programmes and the adaptation of teaching methods;
(d) The same opportunities to benefit from scholarships and other study
grants;
(e) The same opportunities for access to programmes of continuing
education including adult and functional literacy programmes,
particularly those aimed at reducing, at the earliest possible time,
any gap in education existing between men and women;
(f) The reduction of female student drop-out rates and the organization
of programmes for girls and women who have left school prematurely;
(g) The same opportunities to participate actively in sports and physical
education;
(h) Access to specific educational information to help to ensure the
health and well-being of families, including information and advice
on family planning.
Article 11. 1. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to
eliminate discrimination against women in the field of employment in order
to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, the same rights, in
particular:
(a) The right to work as an inalienable right of all human beings;
(b) The right to the same employment opportunities, including the
application of the same criteria for selection in matters of
employment;
(c) The right to free choice of profession and employment, the right to
promotion, job security and all benefits and conditions of service
and the right to receive vocational training and retraining,
including apprenticeships, advanced vocational training and recurrent
training;
(d) The right to equal remuneration, including benefits, and to equal
treatment in respect of work of equal value, as well as equality of
treatment in the evaluation of the quality of work;
(e) The right to social security, particularly in cases of retirement,
unemployment, sickness, invalidity and old age and other incapacity
to work, as well as the right to paid leave;
(f) The right to protection of health and to safety in working
conditions, including the safeguarding of the function of
reproduction.
2. In order to prevent discrimination against women on the grounds of
marriage or maternity and to ensure their effective right to work, States
Parties shall take appropriate measures:
(a) To prohibit, subject to the imposition of sanctions, dismissal on the
grounds of pregnancy or of maternity leave and discrimination in
dismissals on the basis of marital status;
(b) To introduce maternity leave with pay or with comparable social
benefits without loss of former employment, seniority or social
allowances;
(c) To encourage the provision of the necessary supporting social
services to enable parents to combine family obligations with work
responsibilities and participation in public life, in particular
through promoting the establishment and development of a network of
child-care facilities;
(d) To provide special protection to women during pregnancy in types of
work proved to be harmful to them.
3. Protective legislation relating to matters covered in this article shall
be reviewed periodically in the light of scientific and technological
knowledge and shall be revised, repealed or extended as necessary.
Article 12. 1. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to
eliminate discrimination against women in the field of health care in order
to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, access to health care
services, including those related to family planning.
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article, States
Parties shall ensure to women appropriate services in connexion with
pregnancy, confinement and the post-natal period, granting free services
where necessary, as well as adequate nutrition during pregnancy and
lactation.
Article 13. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate
discrimination against women in other areas of economic and social life in
order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, the same rights,
in particular:
(a) The right to family benefits;
(b) The right to bank loans, mortgages and other forms of financial
credit;
(c) The right to participate in recreational activities, sports and all
aspects of cultural life.
Article 14. 1. States Parties shall take into account the particular
problems faced by rural women and the significant roles which rural women
play in the economic survival of their families, including their work in
the non-monetized sectors of the economy, and shall take all appropriate
measures to ensure the application of the provisions of this Convention to
women in rural areas.
2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate
discrimination against women in rural areas in order to ensure, on a basis
of equality of men and women, that they participate in and benefit from
rural development and, in particular, shall ensure to such women the right:
(a) To participate in the elaboration and implementation of development
planning at all levels;
(b) To have access to adequate health care facilities, including
information, counselling and services in family planning;
(c) To benefit directly from social security programmes;
(d) To obtain all types of training and education, formal and non-formal,
including that relating to functional literacy, as well as, inter
alia, the benefit of all community and extension services, in order
to increase their technical proficiency;
(e) To organize self-help groups and co-operatives in order to obtain
equal access to economic opportunities through employment or
self-employment;
(f) To participate in all community activities;
(g) To have access to agricultural credit and loans, marketing
facilities, appropriate technology and equal treatment in land and
agrarian reform as well as in land resettlement schemes;
(h) To enjoy adequate living conditions, particularly in relation to
housing, sanitation, electricity and water supply, transport and
communications.
PART IV
Article 15. 1. States Parties shall accord to women equality with men
before the law.
2. States Parties shall accord to women, in civil matters, a legal capacity
identical to that of men and the same opportunities to exercise that
capacity. In particular, they shall give women equal rights to conclude
contracts and to administer property and shall treat them equally in all
stages of procedure in courts and tribunals.
3. States Parties agree that all contracts and all other private
instruments of any kind with a legal effect which is directed at
restricting the legal capacity of women shall be deemed null and void.
4. States Parties shall accord to men and women the same rights with regard
to the law relating to the movement of persons and the freedom to choose
their residence and domicile.
Article 16. 1. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to
eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage
and family relations and in particular shall ensure, on a basis of equality
of men and women:
(a) The same right to enter into marriage;
(b) The same right freely to choose a spouse and to enter into marriage
only with their free and full consent;
(c) The same rights and responsibilities during marriage and at its
dissolution;
(d) The same rights and responsibilities as parents, irrespective of
their marital status, in matters relating to their children; in all
cases the interests of the children shall be paramount;
(e) The same rights to decide freely and responsibly on the number and
spacing of their children and to have access to the information,
education and means to enable them to exercise these rights;
(f) The same rights and responsibilities with regard to guardianship,
wardship, trusteeship and adoption of children, or similar
institutions where these concepts exist in national legislation; in
all cases the interests of the children shall be paramount;
(g) The same personal rights as husband and wife, including the right to
choose a family name, a profession and an occupation;
(h) The same rights for both spouses in respect of the ownership,
acquisition, management, administration, enjoyment and disposition of
property, whether free of charge or for a valuable consideration.
2. The betrothal and the marriage of a child shall have no legal effect,
and all necessary action, including legislation, shall be taken to specify
a minimum age for marriage and to make the registration of marriages in an
official registry compulsory.
PART V
Article 17. 1. For the purpose of considering the progress made in the
implementation of the present Convention, there shall be established a
Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women [ . . . ]
[Organizational stuff deleted]
PART VI
Article 23. Nothing in this Convention shall affect any provisions that are
more conducive to the achievement of equality between men and women which
may be contained:
(a) In the legislation of a State Party; or
(b) In any other international convention, treaty or agreement in force
for that State.
Article 24. States Parties undertake to adopt all necessary measures at the
national level aimed at achieving the full realization of the rights
recognized in the present Convention.
[Procedural stuff deleted]
Article 28. 1. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall receive
and circulate to all States the text of reservations made by States at the
time of ratification or accession.
2. A reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the present
Convention shall not be permitted.
[More legal and procedural stuff deleted]
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Fri Jul 16 11:16:59 EDT 1993
Article: 1884 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Factions and Minorities
Date: 16 Jul 1993 10:23:32 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <226dl4$dr0@panix.com>
References: <221sj0$j87@panix.com> <1993Jul16.112704.15666@midway.uchicago.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
rivk@ellis.uchicago.edu (Naomi Gayle Rivkis) writes:
>I tend to consider this "writing people outside the bounds of civilized
>society" in the sense that they are not considered full members of the
>society if killing them is not considered murder the same way killing
>somebody else is.
I agree that in an extreme case such as this differential enforcement of
the law would constitute exclusion from the benefits of civil society.
Since I had already mentioned the benefit of the laws protecting the
security of person and property as among such benefits, I assumed that
something far less extreme was meant.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Fri Jul 16 12:42:23 EDT 1993
Article: 1888 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Factions and Minorities
Date: 16 Jul 1993 11:23:37 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <226h5p$jh8@panix.com>
References: <221smf$jf3@panix.com> <1993Jul16.114502.16209@midway.uchicago.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
rivk@ellis.uchicago.edu (Naomi Gayle Rivkis) writes:
>>>But politeness is politic.
>>
>>Usually but not always. Sometimes it's more politic to make it clear
>>you oppose something.
>
>True, but often doing this on the level of names is more trouble than
>it's worth and keeps you from ever getting around to doing it on more
>substantive grounds.
You are right, of course. If you want to discuss something with someone
you have to at least act like you respect him and what he stands for.
So normally I'm willing to use people's language. I just don't think
I'm bound to do so.
>>Why is it more of a fundamental right to extend the
>>application of a name like "Macedonia" or "Islam" than to restrict it?
>
>First Amendment. Naming yourself is an act of speech; you may not have
>to call them that, but to *restrict* it, as in "denying them the right
>to use the name", is violating their freedom of expression.
But getting other people to accept your name is not an act of speech in
the same way. To propose that "soc.culture.macedonia" be accepted as
the name of a newsgroup is to propose that the name be used by people
who do not view themselves as non-Greek Macedonians (at the very least,
by site administrators, and more generally by anone on the net who wants
to participate in discussions of the relevant issues).
>I don't think that a simple absence of gay-rights laws would constitute
>a violation of equal protection. I think a specific law passed that
>prohibits such laws does.
The distinction is too refined for me. I could understand the point if
there were laws prohibiting discrimination against heterosexuals as well
as laws prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals, or if there were
a prospect of such laws being enacted.
>If [racist sexist homophobes] attempt to enforce these beliefs by law,
>yes. If they attempt to enforce these beliefs by violence, yes. If they
>only express these beliefs in the ways you've mentioned -- private
>speech and their own private association -- no.
Does private association include the employment decisions of private
business enterprises?
>>So why shouldn't any of us work toward a society
>>that is conducive to the good life as he understands it?
>
>Because of the principle that their right to wave their fist around stops
>where somebody else's face begins.
Sure, but if someone doesn't go along with something that I believe is
conducive to the good life for people in general, am I waving a fist in
his face or is he waving one in mine? I don't think the question can be
answered without reference to theories of human nature and the good life
that people will disagree on.
>Because nobody, including in the public schools, is saying that people
>cannot follow traditional sex roles if they want to. They are saying
>that those with different beliefs don't have to.
if it's as neutral as that, then why do textbook publishers have
guidelines to prevent depictions of people following traditional sex
roles? Why is the underrepresentation of women in nontraditional fields
of study seen as a problem to be overcome? Why do educators talk about
the need to counteract sex role stereotypes?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Fri Jul 16 14:29:41 EDT 1993
Article: 1897 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Factions and Minorities
Date: 16 Jul 1993 13:27:27 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <226odv$1kt@panix.com>
References: <1993Jul16.114502.16209@midway.uchicago.edu> <226h5p$jh8@panix.com> <1993Jul16.155803.28195@midway.uchicago.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
rivk@ellis.uchicago.edu (Naomi Gayle Rivkis) writes:
>Is the behavior in question directly affecting you, in some definable
>and demonstrable way? If not, it isn't yours to prohibit.
Torturing cats to death? Nonpayment of federal income tax? The latter
would eventually affect me if enough people engaged in it, but the same
could be said of not setting a good example for your kids of walking the
straight and narrow. Actually, if I had a choice between having more
than Y% of the people pay their Federal income tax and having more than
Y% set their kids a good example of walking the straight and narrow, I
would choose the latter. It would do more for me personally.
>I've never heard of a publisher having guidelines to prevent depictions
>of people following traditional sex roles, only guidelines to prevent
>them from *exclusively* picturing people following traditional sex
>roles.
This and other parts of your discussion raise factual issues. I believe
Michael Levin's _Feminism and Freedom_ has a chapter in which he goes
into some of the relevant material.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Fri Jul 16 14:38:35 EDT 1993
Article: 1899 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Factions and Minorities
Date: 16 Jul 1993 14:38:22 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <226siu$a8l@panix.com>
References: <221sj0$j87@panix.com> <1993Jul16.112704.15666@midway.uchicago.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
sanchezp@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (Paul J. Sanchez) writes:
>If you really value law and order, it seems to me that the way to
>achieve it is by *showing* (not telling) people that the law will work
>*for* them.
I agree that differential enforcement can be a very bad thing and can
turn people against the government. Except in extreme cases, though, it
seems different from a declaration of war.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Fri Jul 16 19:39:39 EDT 1993
Article: 1900 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Factions and Minorities
Date: 16 Jul 1993 14:46:41 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <226t2h$b9h@panix.com>
References: <2252ej$1ta@panix.com> <1993Jul16.165406.1121@midway.uchicago.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
rivk@ellis.uchicago.edu (Naomi Gayle Rivkis) writes:
>What definition of "the traditional family" are you using
Two parents and their children, father bears primary responsibility for
support, mother bears primary responsibility for day-to-day care of
children.
>[H]ow strictly do you intend to enforce that "norm"? I object when you
>begin legislating against anyone who does not meet your "norm"; I don't
>mind when you simply want to be allowed to speak/act as though violating
>it were wrong.
No special strictness. It would be enough for people to think that it's
a good thing and to assume that by and large people rightly aspire to
it. Those assumptions would be reflected in the law but not by
requiring people to comply with them, just as today a similar assumption
as to the desirability of having a steady job with prospects for
advancement is reflected in the law without making it illegal for people
who prefer a less conventional or less ambitious way of life to live as
they choose.
>As for "traditional" families, there have "traditionally" been quite a
>number of different sorts of families.
There haven't been many that haven't followed the general pattern I
described.
>Exactly what would disqualify a family from being traditional? A
>single-parent household run by a widow raising her children alone after
>her husband died?
I would describe this as a traditional family that has met with
misfortune. The norm has not been rejected.
>A family where both parents did equal, moneyraising work? (Nearly
>universal in Western society, both European and in this country, until
>late this century; only the extreme upper classes had the luxury of
>avoiding it).
Certainly not identical work, although it may have been equal in the
sense that the work of each was demanding and made an essential
contribution to family wellbeing. I can't think of any time or place in
which women's work has not usually been connected more closely to the
home than men's, or in which men's cash earnings have not
characteristically been higher than women's.
>A family in which neither parent worked, nor did either of them see
>their children for more than a brief period a day, and in which the
>children were raised by a series of governesses and tutors? (Nearly
>universal during the same place and time, for the small segment of the
>population not caught in the first category.)
The pattern still held that the husband was normally responsible for
support (if only because of primogeniture) and for public dealings in
general, and the wife for management of the household even though that
management may not have involved much hands-on activity.
>Current trend I see is not that of treating all ways of life as equally
>worthy of choice. Current trend I see is that of using different
>criteria from the traditional to determine what is or is not a worthy
>choice.
What would you say those new and different criteria are?
>Or does your permission to discriminate include permission to go into
>Jewish neighborhoods with sticks breaking windows? Or permission to
>restrict emigration from the country to those of races the government
>likes? Or permission to set the penalty for killing a Jew at a $25.00
>fine, while the penalty for killing a Christian is the usual life
>imprisonment and the penalty for a Jew killing a Christian -- or failing
>to step off the sidewalk for a Christian, or being suspected of robbery
>by a Christian and convicted according to a new standard whereby any
>Christian's word against a Jew will suffice for conviction -- is death?
No, no and no. Why do you think these are sensible questions to ask?
>Or the penalty simply for having been born a Jew? It's happened before,
>Jim. Recently.
No, and I know. Death has also been the penalty recently for suspicion
of unfriendliness to left-wing efforts to replace traditional
arrangements with new social forms.
>>[T]he alternative seems worse to me.
>
>Worse than permitting genocide?
No, but I oppose permitting genocide. Why would you think otherwise?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Sat Jul 17 06:22:23 EDT 1993
Article: 551 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: neo-paganism?
Date: 16 Jul 1993 20:12:34 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <227g5i$f0s@panix.com>
References: <1993Jul15.221643.4788@news.cs.brandeis.edu> <2264bo$3gu@panix.com> <1993Jul16.214735.25990@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane) writes:
>> Exclusivity and reductionism are two different
>>things, though.
>
>But when the two occur together, then you have the "monotheistic" tendency
>that GRECE refers to.
As discussed, I don't understand how Christianity can be said to be
reductionist. (By "reductionism" I understand the claim that all things
can be reduced to something one is in some sense master of.)
>> Also, there's no need for a claim that all
>>important aspects of one's way of life can be infallibly justified by
>>reference to revealed truth.
>
>Maybe not, but that's what seems to happen. More so with religious
>fundamentalism, of course.
Not that I've noticed.
We seem to have reached the "it is so/it is not" stage of argumentation.
The only additional point that occurs to me is that you seem willing to
refer, and even see the necessity of referring, everything to God, but
your conception of God is wholly content-free. I'm not sure that makes
sense. If we say "the folkways of the Hairy Ainu are to be respected
because they too are a reflection of the divine" it seems that what we
are saying makes sense only if we might possibly have noticed if the
folkways of the Hairy Ainu had not in fact been a reflection of the
divine and therefore had not been worthy of respect. Put another way,
it can't be that whatever foreigners habitually do is worthy of respect
simply because they are foreigners.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Sat Jul 17 10:15:38 EDT 1993
Article: 554 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: A couple of questions
Date: 17 Jul 1993 10:15:11 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 19
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <2291hf$2oe@panix.com>
References: <227is9$o2n@news.acns.nwu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
rcarrier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Ronald Carrier) writes:
>My other question: I used to consider myself a conservative of the
>Russell Kirk/Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddhin type (I'm an anarchist now, but
>still somewhat sympathetic to these folks). What do folks here think of
>these two?
I haven't read anything by either for years. I think of RK as
presenting predigested intellectual conservatism for beginners. Nothing
wrong with that, of course. I started EvK-L's book _Leftism_ a couple
of years ago, but was dissatisfied. It seemed long on assertion and
short on analysis. I'm a grouch, though, and it's been a while.
What type of anarchist are you? The net is thick with
anarcho-capitalists and crypto-anarcho-capitalists. This particular
newsgroup tends to favor exotics, though . . .
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
From panix!not-for-mail Sat Jul 17 16:20:07 EDT 1993
Article: 556 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: A couple of questions
Date: 17 Jul 1993 16:19:43 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <229msv$nub@panix.com>
References: <227is9$o2n@news.acns.nwu.edu> <2291hf$2oe@panix.com> <2296i5$98m@news.acns.nwu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
rcarrier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Ronald Carrier) writes:
>Doctrinally, what irks me about RK is that, while he's in favor of a
>principled conservatism (hear, hear!), he thinks that Burke is an
>example of such a conservatism; and that just doesn't strike me as
>plausible anymore.
Burke was a politician who didn't have a fundamental problem with the
guiding principles and main tendencies of the political society he lived
in and so didn't have occasion to engage in constructive theorizing.
His defensive theorizing pointed out valuable features of the political
institutions of his own society that were inconsistent with the
principles of the French Revolution. He is still helpful to
conservatives in that regard, but today those who like many of the
things Burke liked have the problem that they live in a society governed
by inconsistent principles. It follows that for modern conservatives
constructive theorizing is a necessity, but we have the problem that
many of the things both we and Burke value are valuable because of the
difficulty of applying explicit rational schemes to human affairs.
>"I am of the number of those who would have asked God to conserve chaos,
>and who would would have stormed Olympus with the Titans for the sake of
>old Cronos' memory; I confess, in short, to being a true-blue
>conservative; and if any taint of liberalism has crept into these pages,
>I am infinitely sorry for it" (pp. 4-5) [Russell Kirk].
You gotta deal with the real, Russ. We're never going to convince
anyone to take our views seriously if this is our attitude.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) "Who lives without folly is not so wise
as he thinks." (La Rochefoucauld)
Back to my archive of posts.