A place for all the Atheist bloggers out there.
Why voting for Sarah Palin is immoral
The Atheist Ethicist gives an ethical slant to voting against Palin.
"Opposing the Palin Presidency
As I mentioned yesterday, I am going to focus this blog more on relating moral theory to action. The first action that I would recommend is to oppose acts that lead to the possibility of a Palin presidency. A person with good desires and true and complete beliefs would be adamantly opposed to any action that would put Palin a heartbeat away from being President.
The moral issue in this case is not that of Palin becoming President. The moral issue is that of a culture filled with people whose beliefs and desires are such that they are willing to support having Palin as President. To the degree that such people exist in our culture, to that degree our culture is not as good as it could be. In fact, to that degree, our culture is prone to doing things harmful to itself, and harmful to others.
Having said that, I immediately need to assert a couple of caveats that will be familiar to regular readers. There is a right to freedom of speech, and there is a right to freedom of religion (belief). However, these rights are not rights to immunity from criticism for what one says or what one believes. It is a right to freedom from violence. It is a right that permits others to say, "You are wrong," or even, "I will not vote for you or even do business with you." It is a right that prohibits others from picking up weapons and using them against the speaker or believer.
So, in speaking about reducing the number of people who would support having somebody like Palin in line to be President, I am speaking solely about using words and private actions for that purpose – respecting the rights to freedom of speech and of religion."
Article continues here:
http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2008/09/opposing-palin-presiden...
++++++++++
The issue is ignorance. However do ignorant people like Palin know they are ignorant? Does George W. Bush know he is woefully ignorant?
I don't think these people know they are ignorant, because they show no evidence of self examination and curiosity. Childhood indoctrination (or other factors) can shutdown the human faculty of curiosity. I don't believe we know how it happens outside of childhood religious brainwashing, but this may just mean I have not found any research yet in this area. I do subscribe to Donald Capps' (The Child's Song - The Religious Abuse of Children) concept of intellectual heteronomy where childhood indoctrination is practiced. It is not absolutely imperative to be religious to be an incompetent parent, after all.
"What is at stake here is the freedom of children to think for themselves and to feel secure in the knowledge that adults will not hold their expressions of intellectual autonomy against them. Especially where biblical literalism is taught and practiced, and where punitive attitudes towards sinners are voiced and countenanced, children are unlikely to experience such freedom to think and reason for themselves. Rather, they are likely to feel that it is wrong for them to think for themselves and that, if they do, they are likely to incur the disapproval, if not the wrath, of precisely those adults who have power over them. Fearing the negative consequences of their exercise of intellectual autonomy, they are likely to overreact, to place even greater strictures on their own freedom of thought than these adults may have required of them." (p. 59)
Parents who promote intellectual heteronomy likely grew up in such a stifling environment themselves and simply cannot imagine any other way of thinking or being. This is a key argument for ending childhood indoctrination. The chain must be severed once and for all. Every parent who contemplates imposing their religion on their children should study Donald Capps' book before they do that.
"Opposing the Palin Presidency
As I mentioned yesterday, I am going to focus this blog more on relating moral theory to action. The first action that I would recommend is to oppose acts that lead to the possibility of a Palin presidency. A person with good desires and true and complete beliefs would be adamantly opposed to any action that would put Palin a heartbeat away from being President.
The moral issue in this case is not that of Palin becoming President. The moral issue is that of a culture filled with people whose beliefs and desires are such that they are willing to support having Palin as President. To the degree that such people exist in our culture, to that degree our culture is not as good as it could be. In fact, to that degree, our culture is prone to doing things harmful to itself, and harmful to others.
Having said that, I immediately need to assert a couple of caveats that will be familiar to regular readers. There is a right to freedom of speech, and there is a right to freedom of religion (belief). However, these rights are not rights to immunity from criticism for what one says or what one believes. It is a right to freedom from violence. It is a right that permits others to say, "You are wrong," or even, "I will not vote for you or even do business with you." It is a right that prohibits others from picking up weapons and using them against the speaker or believer.
So, in speaking about reducing the number of people who would support having somebody like Palin in line to be President, I am speaking solely about using words and private actions for that purpose – respecting the rights to freedom of speech and of religion."
Article continues here:
http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2008/09/opposing-palin-presiden...
++++++++++
The issue is ignorance. However do ignorant people like Palin know they are ignorant? Does George W. Bush know he is woefully ignorant?
I don't think these people know they are ignorant, because they show no evidence of self examination and curiosity. Childhood indoctrination (or other factors) can shutdown the human faculty of curiosity. I don't believe we know how it happens outside of childhood religious brainwashing, but this may just mean I have not found any research yet in this area. I do subscribe to Donald Capps' (The Child's Song - The Religious Abuse of Children) concept of intellectual heteronomy where childhood indoctrination is practiced. It is not absolutely imperative to be religious to be an incompetent parent, after all.
"What is at stake here is the freedom of children to think for themselves and to feel secure in the knowledge that adults will not hold their expressions of intellectual autonomy against them. Especially where biblical literalism is taught and practiced, and where punitive attitudes towards sinners are voiced and countenanced, children are unlikely to experience such freedom to think and reason for themselves. Rather, they are likely to feel that it is wrong for them to think for themselves and that, if they do, they are likely to incur the disapproval, if not the wrath, of precisely those adults who have power over them. Fearing the negative consequences of their exercise of intellectual autonomy, they are likely to overreact, to place even greater strictures on their own freedom of thought than these adults may have required of them." (p. 59)
Parents who promote intellectual heteronomy likely grew up in such a stifling environment themselves and simply cannot imagine any other way of thinking or being. This is a key argument for ending childhood indoctrination. The chain must be severed once and for all. Every parent who contemplates imposing their religion on their children should study Donald Capps' book before they do that.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Beast on -
Well. Good news for the liberals and the rest of the world who don't like Bush. Apparently the Mc Cain camp has decided to "suspend" their part of the campaign.
Fortunately, Obama ain't stupid. He didn't buy Mc Cain's bet to halt the campaign in order to "concentrate on saving the country's economy".
Let the fucking republicans who started the mess clear the mess. Failing which, Americans MUST VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATS so as to spare the rest of us non Americans the sight of yet another ignoranamous who can't tell the difference between Russia and Alaska (Hint: One is a country and the other a state. Let Palin decide. Lol)
Beast
-
Permalink Reply by Richard J. Collins on -
Beast said:Well. Good news for the liberals and the rest of the world who don't like Bush. Apparently the Mc Cain camp has decided to "suspend" their part of the campaign.
Fortunately, Obama ain't stupid. He didn't buy Mc Cain's bet to halt the campaign in order to "concentrate on saving the country's economy".
Let the fucking republicans who started the mess clear the mess. Failing which, Americans MUST VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATS so as to spare the rest of us non Americans the sight of yet another ignoranamous who can't tell the difference between Russia and Alaska (Hint: One is a country and the other a state. Let Palin decide. Lol)
Beast
The futurists at InTrade are projecting an Obama win, actually a landslide at this point.
https://www.intrade.com/ prediction market 2008 Election
But, we must make sure we hold majorities in the house and senate. Otherwise, we will face stalemates.
About
© 2009 Created by Jaakko Wallenius on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
