Asymmetrical Information

Thomas Jefferson is attributed with saying, "The Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance." What the ACLU and Jefferson have in common is the knowledge that civil liberties are not threatened just by major new attacks like the Military Commission's Act's potential erosion of Habeas Corpus, but also by the little, niggling, daily threats posed by, for instance, new attempts to erode the Bill of Rights by using public resources to promote a particular religion.

It may seem inconsequential when a city hosts a nativity scene on public property, but it is by the steady accumulation of uncontested instances that customary use and practice are established. Once a practice has become customary, it is harder to make the case in the future that it should be ruled objectionable. It is therefore essential that organizations like the ACLU exist and take the time and effort to monitor and resist the seemingly inconsequential erosions precisely because otherwise sensible civil libertarians begin to weary of the struggle or become accustomed to the accumulating erosions.

new attempts to erode the Bill of Rights by using public resources to promote a particular religion.

But, um, how really "new" are these attempts to "erode the Bill of Rights" by having nativity scenes?

(One could also ask you to explain how the Military Commissions Act differs from, say, Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950) and Ahrens v. Clark (1948) when deciding whether this is a "new" attempt. Indeed, a decent case can be made that the Military Commissions Act protects the rights of captured enemy unlawful combatants more than previous standards. On the whole, civil liberties are more protected than in the past, not that the ACLU doesn't do some good work.)

The erosion of the Bill of Rights is certainly an issue. Campaign Finance Reform certainly eroded the First Amendment. Kelo certainly eroded the Fifth Amendment.

Accretions to the Bill of Rights are also an issue. The right to an abortion is an example here.

The "leap" from permitting display of a nativity scene, or a menorah, on public property to the federal establishment of a religion seems rather long to me. The federal establishment of secular humanism as the national religion appears to me to be a greater threat.

"The federal establishment of secular humanism as the national religion appears to me to be a greater threat."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/latulippe/latulippe71.html

Getting the judiciary to ram one's policy preferences down everyone's throats, which is what the ACLU does, on the national level is undemocratic and tyrannical.

Let the ACLU (and other left-wing groups) do the hard of work of lobbying legislators, who are elected by everyone, just as the NRA and Christians conservatives do.

The big issues of abortion, gay marriage, etc. are for us the people to debate and resolve through compromise and through our elected officials. To have the judiciary settle these questions for us won't work. Soon it will be 34 years since Roe v. Wade? Has the debate over abortion gone away? (In Europe, it was the legislatures that legalized abortion within limits. Maybe that's why European countries aren't torn over this issue.)

Readers might be interested in First Things' controversial "End of Democracy" discussion, which appeared in November 1996. See http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9611/articles/eodmaster.html

What's the difference between an agnotheist and an atheist?

Umm ... on Lew Rockwell, it's common to encounter essays against evolution, rejections of the "theory" of AIDS, and serious proposals (I've seen this at least twice) to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict via mass relocation of all Israelis to the American southwest.

Who the hell cares what they say?

*puts on flameshield*

I've never understood this expansive interpretation of the First Amendment religion clause. From the plain reading of it, it says:

1) The government may not set up a state church.

2) The government may not prevent people from practicing their faith (with obvious exceptions for where it would infringe on the rights of others such as "My religion requires me to kill toddlers.")

Which one of those does a nativity scene violate?

(And again, it may be *ill-advised* for the government to have a nativity scene, but how would it violate the plain meaning of the First Amendment?)

Stuart,

As Megan said, the belief that the probability that God exists is very small, but non-zero.

I tend to be agnostic on odd days of the week and deist on even days of the week, as was one of Heinlein's characters, with leap days being reserved for the sheer debauchery of solipsism!

stuart, are you still not reading Jane's posts? Read the footnote. "1 What on earth is an agnotheist? I hear you cry. It's an agnostic who puts a very, very low--yet non-zero!--value on [the probability of there being a god]." Didn't you miss the point of her "conservatives believe ..." post too?

Aaron Adams,

I can certainly understand much of your defense. I'm speaking to you as someone who, in fact, used to donate to the ACLU. As much as I disagreed with individual positions they might take, they could pretty pretty consistently be counted on to defend individual feedom. I can't honestly say I believe that to be the case anymore. At this point, they're no longer a neutral defender of people's rights and liberties, but an agenda-driven player in the political realm. As a result, their commitment to liberty has taken a back seat. Just consider, for a moment, cases such as Kelo or McCain Feingold. In neither case were they particularly at the ramparts in defending freedom. Consider the very case Jane links to. Are you somehow telling me that not allowing single sex schools is somehow or another expanding our liberty? If so, I feel like I've entered OrwellWorld. At the end of the day, I'm curious, do you think that the ACLU would frame the case of a public school teacher claiming the Bible is a fairy tale for idiots in the same way as a public school teacher claiming the Bible is the revealed world of God? At one time, I would have said absolutely. At this point, I'm inclined to believe they'd treat the first as a free speech issue and the latter as a church-state issue.

STIPULATED:

The ACLU is the worst, least politically neutral defender of American Civil Liberties, except for all the other similar organizations.

And the other similar organizations are...?

Jane,

I always thought of an agnostic (without knowledge) as one who doesn't deny the possibility of God, but views the probability of God to be so minimal as to not be worth shaping his or her life around it. In other words, what I call an agnostic, you are calling an agnotheist. Not that there's anything wrong with that... I'm just curious as to your preferred definition of agnositic.

Tyler Cowen thinks that P(God)=0.5; that's a true agnostic.

Aaron Adams,

Let's assume that your premise is right. That there are no other organizations making the case for civil liberties. Well, no offense, but why should it matter? Just because there's no organization that supports civil liberties when I'm largely in agreement with them is hardly a reason I should support, or even admire, an organization whose selectivity runs against my preferences.

Just consider, for a moment, cases such as Kelo or McCain Feingold

I can't speak for Kelo, but in McConnell v. FEC they were right there at the forefront with conservative Republican Mitch McConnell and the NRA (no joke!).

I'm no fan of the ACLU, but they do sometimes get it right.

AA: Others like, well the NRA, the Institute for Justice, the Death Penalty Project, NARAL, Lamda Legal Defense Fund, NAACP, Center for Individual Rights, etc...Not that any of those are non-political (and not that I agree with all of their politics), but then they don't claim to be.

If the ACLU disappeared, we'd muddle through somehow.

I'll consider the ACLU a serious civil liberties organisation when they stop pretending the Second Amendment isn't about individual rights.

They sometimes do good work, but I'm not under any illusions that they're really a "civil liberties" organisation; they're a "some civil liberties" organisation with interpretations of those liberties that I don't think are always even close to constitutional.

(Like Person said, I don't see how the 1st Amendment prevents a creche or menorah on public property. The standard argument I've heard, that "it might kinda look to some people sorta like other religions aren't OK", well... I'm not sympathetic with the idea that a nativity scene at Christmas has that effect, or that making someone think that it's a halfass endorsement of Christianity makes it an Establishment of religion.

The laws of the time are pretty clear about what "establishment" means, and it ain't that.

Christ, I'm an atheist and I think that's probably the stupidest thing the ACLU's ever complained about.)

Rob Lyman,

Thanks for the insight. I stand corrected on that one. Does it much change my opinion of the ACLU? Not much. I'm sorry, but I generally have to question how I'm more free because the boyscouts can't sleep over in the city park or the local church that just had a fire can't use the firehouse for the Sunday service. Yes. I understand public revenues, blah, blah, blah. But all of this stuff is basically sunk costs. It isn't like its adding to our tax bill.

Aaron,

I'm sympathetic to the slippery-slope argument and certainly support organizations (however many there are) that defend individual liberty. I believe Jane's point is "where on the slope do you define slippery?" (Or, more precisely, "where does the ACLU define it?") You appear to aim as sensitively as possible, e.g., the tiniest liberty-infringing pebble could eventually become an avalanche that crushes us all.

Maybe. But I'd argue there are a lot of pebbles and how do you decide? I honestly can't discern the ACLU's criteria beyond claiming to catch them all -- but actually focusing on those important to their left-wing backers.

I'd also remind anyone enamored of "eternal vigilance" that: 1) Jefferson didn't get everything right; and 2) the republic has withstood the pebbles of single-sex schools and, yes, nativity scenes on public property for about 230 years -- and we're still waiting for the avalanche.

Bill, no one has a gun to your head to support the ACLU.

Rob, all the other organization you listed have narrower focuses than the ACLU. As for muddling through, I'm not content to muddle and neither is the ACLU.

The good (defending the civil liberties of all Americans, even ones whose viewpoints are generally viewed as repugnant, eg: American Nazis) done by the ACLU far exceeds any notional harm others may perceive to have been done by the organization.

It appears some may want the ACLU to relax, just let slide what a few (or many, for that matter) may view as trivial encroachments on civil liberties. Well, that way leads to tyranny, as Jefferson recognized. Every forest fire begins with a small flame. I rest easier knowing ACLU smoke-jumpers are geared up and trained to parachute in and man the firelines, no matter how remote the threat to my house.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

Jane,

Re; .5

Fair enough. But honestly I don't think I've ever met anyone referring to themselves as an agnostic who would place the probability anywhere near that high. At .5 it would be worth anyone's time to go to church. What's the point of being an agnostic if I can't go hiking on Sunday morning?

Aaron Adams,

Bill, no one has a gun to your head to support the ACLU
Hmm...so one only has a right to complain or voice a criticism if the party in question has a gun to you're head? Where's that famous commitment to free speech?
Every forest fire begins with a small flame.
Again, that's true. But, of course, the overwhelming majority of small flames aren't budding forest fires. And if you go running around turning fire hoses on every poor stiff trying to light his cigarette or have a barbeque, you're going to do a lot of pointless and unnecessary damage.
Look, I'm not criticizing them for defending unpopular speech or pointed out the dangers of Megan's laws. When that was the focus and work, I supported them. But let's look just at the case Jane linked to. Are you going to tell me that you'd feel freer if the nation refused to permit any single-sex education? Are you going to tell me you feel you're living under tyranny beause the Scouts get to sleep over in the town park?

I don't see how the 1st Amendment prevents a creche or menorah on public property....

I'm sorry, but I generally have to question how I'm more free because the boyscouts can't sleep over in the city park or the local church that just had a fire can't use the firehouse for the Sunday service.

I'm fine with nativity scenes in front of the court house or church services in the firehouse under two conditions.

1. Everyone has equal access to these things. It's not just one religious establishment that gets them. The government should work off a fair standard which is applied equally to various groups.

2. The government doesn't pay for it.

Otherwise, it's pretty clearly discrimination even if you don't see it as an establishment of religion.

It undid my italics.

I'm sorry, but I generally have to question how I'm more free because the boyscouts can't sleep over in the city park or the local church that just had a fire can't use the firehouse for the Sunday service.

Should be in italics.

Aaron,

You're right that all of my listed organizations have a narrower focus, but add them all up and they cover most, if not all, of the ground that the ACLU covers (along with some ground it doesn't cover). Plus they have the benfit of no pretentions to being non-political. The ACLU is anti-death penalty, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and, apparently, anti-same-sex classes (It's OK for a wedding to be all boys, but NOT a math class). It's a left-wing law firm. There's nothing wrong with that, but one might as well be forthright about it, and about its consequences for ACLU credibilty (and therefore its ability to do the other things you like).

And as for stopping small violations before they get big, it's probably a good idea. But the slippery slope can't be all that slippery considering we seem to have been going up for most of our history.

The ACLU's history is ironic. In 1920, Roger Baldwin, a Communist, founded the ACLU. In 1927, he wrote a book, "Liberty Under the Soviets," extolling life in Stalin's Russia.

Isn't it amusing that when the ACLU was fighting for civil liberties in this country, its leader was turning a turn a blind eye to real violations of civil liberties in the USSR? (Baldwin finally turned against the USSR after the Nazi-Soviet Pact in 1939.)

It seems from 1920 to 1939, Baldwin and the ACLU were using civil liberties not as end in itself but as a means to allow Communists to disseminate their propaganda in the United States without any harrassment from the government and promote the revolution. I'm guessing that after the revolution, Baldwin and the ACLU would have come up with an excuse justifying why civil liberties (and human rights) should be suspended.

(BTW, how come they aren't fighting government censorship of tobacco advertising on radio and TV? I guess they make exceptions to freedom of speech.)

Ryan,

Then we're pretty well in agreement. If I'm not mistaken, though, the equal access approach you're advocating is a BIG no-no with the ACLU. Also, they've successfully argued that the possibility of liability is enough to constitute the government paying for it. That's precisely where a lot of us roll our eyes and decide that, in fact, they're pushing an agenda, rather than adherance to the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights? How about some enforcement of the TENTH amendment, then? Half the federal government is in standing violation of it!

It appears Bill understands the concept of the longest journey beginning with the first step so long as those with whom he does not agree only have access to his maps.

I'm with William O. Douglas on free speech issues. The more robust, open, transparent and equally accessible the marketplace of ideas, the better chance democratic ideals and a republican form of government have to survive.

I don't endorse every stand taken by the ACLU. I do quite vigorously defend their right, I could say their responsibility, to make their arguments.

Defending creche displays on public property when a majority of Americans are christian, defending the Boy Scouts of America's choice to camp on public land, defending the benign nature of public same sex only schools is easy.

The hard part is arguing against what a majority may think of a benign activity. The tyranny of the majority was a focus of the framers of the constitution. They recognized that a pluralistic society could too easily adopt what a minority might perceive to be oppressive or discriminatory measures. The way to thrash out (democracy is nothing if not boisterous and messy) tensions between the majority view and a minority view is not only through the political realm of elections and legislative measures. The elaborate separation of powers which defines our system of government gives the ultimate role of interpreting the constitution to the courts. Some may not like that fact, but there it is. The ACLU uses the court system as it was defined to be used: the last resort of a minority against (the perception of) discrimination by or oppression of the majority.

Whew! I hate talking like a pedant but sometimes the obvious has to be restated.

The tyranny of the majority was a focus of the framers of the constitution. They recognized that a pluralistic society could too easily adopt what a minority might perceive to be oppressive or discriminatory measures. The way to thrash out (democracy is nothing if not boisterous and messy) tensions between the majority view and a minority view is not only through the political realm of elections and legislative measures. The elaborate separation of powers which defines our system of government gives the ultimate role of interpreting the constitution to the courts.

Unfortunately, the very same framers would have laughed at the idea that a nativity scene on public property or a religious group being allowed access to public land would have constituted "tyranny of the majority". There may be valid reason to enshrine the RIGHT not to have a nativity scene enter your line of sight, but don't act like the framers would be behind you on it.

"...the...framers would have laughed at..."

From God's mouth to your ear.

I have no special insight into what individual framers would or would not have laughed at could they have anticipated the messy and boisterous thrashing out of tensions between this or that minority and the majority in the present day. Neither does anyone else.

I only know what the framers wrote and how the courses of our political, legislative and judicial histories have brought us to the current state of our constitutional government.

The thing is, I support the ACLU with my money and my voice. I am free to do so in part because of the ACLU. Others are free to not support and to argue against the ACLU in part because of the ACLU. We are all free to make whatever arguments either for or against this or that perceived benign opinion or activity or for or against this or that perceived threat to civil liberties in part because of the ACLU.

American society would be diminished at least in part if the ACLU didn't exist. One doesn't have to agree with any or all of the ACLU's positions or arguments, but one most assuredly ought recognize the ACLU's right to make their arguments.

'Nuff said.

Jane- Tyler's P(god)=.05

If thinking that P(god) is tiny makes you agnostic, does that mean that atheists should have P(god)=0? Are dawkins and dennett agnostics?

From God's mouth to your ear.

Or, from the fact that there were nativity scenes on public property in their day and it never seemed to be an instance of violation of religious freedoms or "tyranny of the majority" to them -- even the atheists -- to my ear.

You invoked the framers to support your position, but get to dismiss any discussion about the framers because "no one knows that they believed." Welcome to the Cake Having/Eating Club.

My favorite part was how you sloooowly slinked back to the "I'm just defending their right to make argument's, man!". That's a lot more defensible.

One doesn't have to agree with any or all of the ACLU's positions or arguments, but one most assuredly ought recognize the ACLU's right to make their arguments.

No one here disputes that they have the right to make their arguments. (Although I would dispute the notion that without the ACLU we'd have lost our free speech by now). We just think they make pretty far left-wing arguments while pretending to be non-political.

Notice that no one is criticizing Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. We know how they feel about nativity scenes. But at least they're up front and honest about it, instead of pretending to be mere servants of the Constitution, utterly without political bias.

I suppose we'd all support the ACLU much more if they truly stood up for all our civil liberties. The problem is, is that they don't. The right to bear arms in a liberty granted by the Constitution of the United States. That has been enfringed (to one degree or another) in certain states. When gun owners in those states asked the ACLU to step up and help them, the ACLU has refused. Their reason? "There are a number of other organizations with the money and resourcres to help the liberties of gun owners so the ACLU needn't spend their time and money to protact that liberty." Well isn't that cute.

The way I look at that, is that the ACLU has a political agenda. They don't work on behalf of all our liberties. They only work on behalf of the liberties that they deem appropriate and worthy.

" ... At this point, they're no longer a neutral defender of people's rights and liberties, but an agenda-driven player in the political realm. ..."

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the ACLU has lifted a finger to help Cory Maye (the black guy who is on death row in Mississippi for shooting a white cop in self-defense during a botched [is there any other kind?] drug raid.)

I actually don't mind the ACLU ignoring gun stuff, because they do, in fact, have limited resources, and have to allocate them carefully. Besides, the NRA is consistently #1 or #2 lobby in DC, so I doubt the ACLU has much to add.

But that conclusion is in tension with Aaron's strategy of whacking every miniature violation of our rights to prevent them from getting big.

I actually don't mind the ACLU ignoring gun stuff, because they do, in fact, have limited resources, and have to allocate them carefully. Besides, the NRA is consistently #1 or #2 lobby in DC, so I doubt the ACLU has much to add.

But their reasoning is disingenuous. The ACLU doesn't have anything to add, because they don't want to add to firearm liberty. They just choose their words carefully (like lawyers) so they don't seem hypocritical.

Basically, I think that they are lying when they use that as an excuse.

Aaron Adams,

Odd, then, that you would mention Jefferson as your inspiration on these issues. I assume you are aware that he was NOT one of the framers. Odder still, in light of your insistance of the role of open public debate and questioning, that you seem so bound and determined to exempt them from the very criticism you deem so necessary.

Rob: Exactly right - except that the current infringements on the 2nd Amendment are anything but "miniature".

The other thing wrong with Aaron describing suing over a nativity scene as "whacking every miniature violation of our rights to prevent them from getting big" is that these particular little violations have been going on for over two centuries. I'd think that was evidence enough that this particular slope isn't very slippery, and maybe their limited resources could be better spent elsewhere.

I'm not anti-ACLU. My mother was on the board of the local chapter. I think many of these local chapters do a lot of good, and I'm not dismayed that you can find chapters on the opposite sides of some issues - decentralization is good, and if the ACLU can come up with the funds to see that both sides are well represented in court, that just helps ensure the court makes the decision on the merits instead of being overwhelmed by the better lawyer, right? But their policy decisions on the national level owe more to political principles than to their professed support for freedom.

Odd, then, that you would mention Jefferson as your inspiration on these issues. I assume you are aware that he was NOT one of the framers.

He also wasn’t the source for the quote lazily tossed out. It was actually Wendell Phillips who said “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” That quote, much like “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” is one of the many things wrongly attributed to Jefferson but for which there is no record of him having said or written in any of his speeches or writings.

Putting quotes around "no one knows what they believed" doesn't magically transform it into something I actually said. Nor do I slink.

Neither do I believe the ACLU is the sole defender of free speech and that without the ACLU we would have lost our right to free speech but I will acknowledge that straw can be used to fashion a false opponent.

Without getting drawn into a second amendment argument and a discussion of the details of this or that USSC decision, the NRA is well-funded and dedicated to the second amendment. ACLU participation would seem to be therefore unnecessary. Also, the ACLU accepts the current USSC interpretaion of the second amendment not the "individual right" argument favored by the NRA.

As for Cory (Corey?) Maye, one might look here:

http://www.theagitator.com/archives/026286.php

for the information that the ACLU, the NAACP and other "leftist" groups are giving attention to the case, but that the NRA is not.

The ACLU strategy is not "...whacking every miniature violation of our rights to prevent them from getting big." Rather the ACLU strategy is to pick (perceived) violations getting no, little or insufficient attention from other competent civil libertarian organizations.

What that means in practice is the ACLU often is the only civil liberties defense organization willing and able to take up controversial cases. The ACLU can't and doesn't take every case where, absent other circumstances, they might otherwise have participated. One has to marshal one's resources.

And I have to marshal mine.

Adieu, ya'll. I enjoyed the debate.

god - .5 is unclear.
are you saying 50%
or 5% or 0.5%

from the context I would presume
0.5% but I am not certain.

Aaron_Adams:

Putting quotes around "no one knows what they believed" doesn't magically transform it into something I actually said.

I didn't say you said it. However, you *did* say:

I have no special insight into what individual framers would or would not have laughed at ... Neither does anyone else.

You'll have to forgive me if I think the part in scare quotes is a fair characterization. You implied I must have pulled the belief out of my ... God. That was the lie.

Nor do I slink.

Of course not. You just feel the need to BOLDLY remind others how you merely support this *basic* right to voice one's arguments ... falsely implying that point was being contested.

Sorry if your arguments aren't up to snuff. I won't miss you.

I can see individuals benefits from a all male or all female school.

But would an all female school be the best preparation for competing in a co-ed world?

I do not know but I have not seen anyone address this question.

Just a general comment: I think you should reconsider your opinion that Libertarians ultimately belong more with the Republican party than the Democratic party, and that your vote for the Democratic party in the upcoming elections is only a vote against Republicans. The truth is, libertarians belong in neither party as currently constituted, but pragmatically they have a better shot with the Democrats. Libertarian Republican, ever since the Republicans courted and won the HUGE segment of big-government moralist or religious fascists in the late 1980s, is an even more severe oxymoron than is Libertarian Democrat.

The problem with Democrats is not that their "ends" (liberty and welfare) are not in agreement with Libertarianism, it is simply that they are not educated as to the means of achieving those ends. If you made a case to most of those Democrats that limited government involvement is actually more effective at achieving those ends, many would be won over. After all, most Democrats are more anti-big-business-subsidy than they are about giving hand outs to the poor.

On the other hand, the 40% of the Republican party that are religious conservatives, along with another 25% of "Big Government" conservatives, will never be won over since Libertarian philosophy conflicts with their deepest beliefs, indeed, both their "ends" and their "means".

spencer,

Well, I can't say for sure, but I went to a college with 5 women's colleges in plausible driving distance, so I can tell you the argument. The idea is that intellectual aggressiveness is a learned habit, that people are take-charge because they have prior experience taking charge. By segregating away from the more aggressive males, the women gain experience doing this. Therefore, they're more able to do this once they enter the co-ed world. Now, I can't say how well supported this is empirically, but then I don't really see the harm in allowing such a model to continue in competition with coeducation.

Jacob,

Could you be so kind as to provide some sort of support for your implied claims? I'd like to see some evidence that 40% of Republicans consider themselves religious conservatives and 25% consider themselves "big government" conservatives. Also, can you be so kind as to provide any evidence that either brand of conservative is more partial to government intervention than, say, the median Democrat? I also note you provide some pretty broad swath arguments as to Democratic thinking. Let's put it this way, what percentage of Democrats don't look at tax cuts as a subsidy? What percentage oppose various schemes of social engineering to gain desireable ends?

But would an all female school be the best preparation for competing in a co-ed world?

I don’t have it handy but I remember hearing a news report in which a researcher made the claim of something to the effect that the majority of female executives (IIRC in the nation or in fortune five hundred companies) attended single-sex educational facilities. Has anyone heard anything similar?

Thorley Winston,

I've never heard of the study, but overrepresentation going school to executives wouldn't surprise me, if for no other reason than that they are generally more expensive private schools.

Politicization is the nearly-inevitable end of any organization that has non-monetary goals. Success at any of those goals gives a taste of power, and power then creepingly corrupts as the leadership becomes acquaintanted with the idea of "Say, I could use this to fix the world..."

For another example of this phenomenon occurring, try listening to ten minutes of James Dobson these days. Dobson has long had a political axe to grind, but years ago, it was a very small axe and mostly stayed in the closet until early October on years divisible by four. Presently...well...

What's the difference between an agnotheist and an atheist?

Depending on the definition you use, nothing.

Technically speaking, an agnostic is a person who believes it is impossible to know whether or not god exists, and an atheist is a person who does not believe that god exists. The atheist can either positively believe there are no gods (and this is the common usage of the word) or simply lack belief in them (much as I lack belief in life on Mars). Agnostics (and agnotheists) are a special case of the latter kind of atheist -- they are people who lack belief in gods either because their existance is undemonstrable or because they are unlikely to exist.

I was going to post this in the thread for Sept.11th 2006, but the comments are closed for that thread, so I will post it here because it needs to be posted as it is of paramount importance. My apologies that it is not in a pertinent thread.

One thing that struck me as odd in the days after 9/11 was Bush saying "We will not tolerate conspiracy theories [regarding 9/11]". Sure enough there have been some wacky conspiracy theories surrounding the events of that day. The most far-fetched and patently ridiculous one that I've ever heard goes like this: Nineteen hijackers who claimed to be devout Muslims but yet were so un-Muslim as to be getting drunk all the time, doing cocaine and frequenting strip clubs decided to hijack four airliners and fly them into buildings in the northeastern U.S., the area of the country that is the most thick with fighter bases. After leaving a Koran on a barstool at a strip bar after getting shitfaced drunk on the night before, then writing a suicide note/inspirational letter that sounded like it was written by someone with next to no knowledge of Islam, they went to bed and got up the next morning hung over and carried out their devious plan. Nevermind the fact that of the four "pilots" among them there was not a one that could handle a Cessna or a Piper Cub let alone fly a jumbo jet, and the one assigned the most difficult task of all, Hani Hanjour, was so laughably incompetent that he was the worst fake "pilot" of the bunch. Nevermind the fact that they received very rudimentary flight training at Pensacola Naval Air Station, making them more likely to have been C.I.A. assets than Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. So on to the airports. These "hijackers" somehow managed to board all four airliners with their tickets, yet not even ONE got his name on any of the flight manifests. So they hijack all four airliners and at this time passengers on United 93 start making a bunch of cell phone calls from 35,000 feet in the air to tell people what was going on. Nevermind the fact that cell phones wouldn't work very well above 4,000 feet, and wouldn't work at ALL above 8,000 feet. But the conspiracy theorists won't let that fact get in the way of a good fantasy. That is one of the little things you "aren't supposed to think about". Nevermind that one of the callers called his mom and said his first and last name, more like he was reading from a list than calling his own mom. Anyway, when these airliners each deviated from their flight plan and didn't respond to ground control, NORAD would any other time have followed standard operating procedure (and did NOT have to be told by F.A.A. that there were hijackings because they were watching the same events unfold on their own radar) which means fighter jets would be scrambled from the nearest base where they were available on standby within a few minutes, just like every other time when airliners stray off course. But of course on 9/11 this didn't happen, not even close. Somehow these "hijackers" must have used magical powers to cause NORAD to stand down, as ridiculous as this sounds because total inaction from the most high-tech and professional Air Force in the world would be necessary to carry out their tasks. So on the most important day in its history the Air Force was totally worthless. Then they had to make one of the airliners look like a smaller plane, because unknown to them the Naudet brothers had a videocamera to capture the only known footage of the North Tower crash, and this footage shows something that is not at all like a jumbo jet, but didn't have to bother with the South Tower jet disguising itself because that was the one we were "supposed to see". Anyway, as for the Pentagon they had to have Hani Hanjour fly his airliner like it was a fighter plane, making a high G-force corkscrew turn that no real airliner can do, in making its descent to strike the Pentagon. But these "hijackers" wanted to make sure Rumsfeld survived so they went out of their way to hit the farthest point in the building from where Rumsfeld and the top brass are located. And this worked out rather well for the military personnel in the Pentagon, since the side that was hit was the part that was under renovation at the time with few military personnel present compared to construction workers. Still more fortuitous for the Pentagon, the side that was hit had just before 9/11 been structurally reinforced to prevent a large fire there from spreading elsewhere in the building. Awful nice of them to pick that part to hit, huh? Then the airliner vaporized itself into nothing but tiny unidentifiable pieces no bigger than a fist, unlike the crash of a real airliner when you will be able to see at least some identifiable parts, like crumpled wings, broken tail section etc. Why, Hani Hanjour the terrible pilot flew that airliner so good that even though he hit the Pentagon on the ground floor the engines didn't even drag the ground!! Imagine that!! Though the airliner vaporized itself on impact it only made a tiny 16 foot hole in the building. Amazing. Meanwhile, though the planes hitting the Twin Towers caused fires small enough for the firefighters to be heard on their radios saying "We just need 2 hoses and we can knock this fire down" attesting to the small size of it, somehow they must have used magical powers from beyond the grave to make this morph into a raging inferno capable of making the steel on all forty-seven main support columns (not to mention the over 100 smaller support columns) soften and buckle, then all fail at once. Hmmm. Then still more magic was used to make the building totally defy physics as well as common sense in having the uppermost floors pass through the remainder of the building as quickly, meaning as effortlessly, as falling through air, a feat that without magic could only be done with explosives. Then exactly 30 minutes later the North Tower collapses in precisely the same freefall physics-defying manner. Incredible. Not to mention the fact that both collapsed at a uniform rate too, not slowing down, which also defies physics because as the uppermost floors crash into and through each successive floor beneath them they would shed more and more energy each time, thus slowing itself down. Common sense tells you this is not possible without either the hijackers' magical powers or explosives. To emphasize their telekinetic prowess, later in the day they made a third building, WTC # 7, collapse also at freefall rate though no plane or any major debris hit it. Amazing guys these magical hijackers. But we know it had to be "Muslim hijackers" the conspiracy theorist will tell you because (now don't laugh) one of their passports was "found" a couple days later near Ground Zero, miraculously "surviving" the fire that we were told incinerated planes, passengers and black boxes, and also "survived" the collapse of the building it was in. When common sense tells you if that were true then they should start making buildings and airliners out of heavy paper and plastic so as to be "indestructable" like that magic passport. The hijackers even used their magical powers to bring at least seven of their number back to life, to appear at american embassies outraged at being blamed for 9/11!! BBC reported on that and it is still online. Nevertheless, they also used magical powers to make the american government look like it was covering something up in the aftermath of this, what with the hasty removal of the steel debris and having it driven to ports in trucks with GPS locators on them, to be shipped overseas to China and India to be melted down. When common sense again tells you that this is paradoxical in that if the steel was so unimportant that they didn't bother saving some for analysis but so important as to require GPS locators on the trucks with one driver losing his job because he stopped to get lunch. Hmmmm. Yes, this whole story smacks of the utmost idiocy and fantastical far-fetched lying, but it is amazingly enough what some people believe. Even now, five years later, the provably false fairy tale of the "nineteen hijackers" is heard repeated again and again, and is accepted without question by so many Americans. Which is itself a testament to the innate psychological cowardice of the American sheeple, i mean people, and their abject willingness to believe something, ANYTHING, no matter how ridiculous in order to avoid facing a scary uncomfortable truth. Time to wake up America.

Enlightenment,

It was a bunch of pissed off Muslims. What are you, retarded?

I think Enlightenment just took a dookie in the urinal.

The things I learn reading comments. I would never have guessed that Communists were allowed to disseminate their message WITHOUT HARRASSMENT from 1920 to 1939.

The ACLU strategy is not "...whacking every miniature violation of our rights to prevent them from getting big." Rather the ACLU strategy is to pick (perceived) violations getting no, little or insufficient attention from other competent civil libertarian organizations.

What that means in practice is the ACLU often is the only civil liberties defense organization willing and able to take up controversial cases. The ACLU can't and doesn't take every case where, absent other circumstances, they might otherwise have participated. One has to marshal one's resources.

And they can't find more important cases to use those limited resources on than creche scenes? Gee, I guess protestors at big political events are no longer restricted to out-of-sight "free speech zones". I guess McCain-Feingold has been overturned. When did I miss all this good news?
(/sarcasm)

As for the 2nd Amendment, I hear different stories about the ACLU's noninvolvement:

1) "It's not an individual right", That is bull-droppings. It is quite obvious that it was meant to protect an individual right when it was written, and court decisions in the 19th Century acknowledged it as such, with the exception of cases where black people were the ones trying to exercise this right. The Supreme Court's Miller decision in the 1930's has often been misrepresented, but if you actually read it, it acknowledges an individual right to keep and bear individual military weapons. They sent the case back to the trial court to determine if a sawed-off shotgun was a military weapon, but Miller was dead so the case went no further. The SC has not addressed the issue ever since.

But the important thing here is that the ACLU thinks that one part of the Bill of Rights can be re-interpreted into meaninglessness. It makes me wonder whether I can trust it to defend any other rights that become politically incorrect.

2. "it wasn't incorporated to apply to the states by the 14th Amendment."
a) why would the 1st be incorporated and the 2nd not? Oh yes, because in the earliest 2nd Amendment cases to reach higher courts, it was black men wanting guns to protect themselves against the KKK...
b) Note this difference between the 1st and the 2nd: "Congress shall not" vs. "shall not be infringed". The 1st Amendment and most of the others were specifically written to restrict Federal power, while the 2nd wasn't.
c) The ACLU also won't touch cases where the infringement is federal: DC's handgun ban, or the federal ban on gun ownership by anyone who's ever been the target of a domestic restraining order (which are issued without a trial and on the flimsiest of evidence).

3. "Our resources are limited" and "the NRA is already doing this." That's a better argument, but I think it's been a counterproductive policy. Avoiding all cases concerned with the civil liberty many conservatives care about most makes it easy for conservatives to see the ACLU as more concerned with leftism than with civil liberties. It also costs the ACLU quite a lot in donations, and I suspect that if it took 2nd Amendment cases on the same basis as others, it wouldn't have such limited resources.

The NRA isn't a substitute. It's not entirely trusted by the gun community; they've made too many compromises for political expediency, and some have the feeling that the NRA is quite willing to sell out all the other gunowners to protect their target pistols, bolt-action hunting rifles, and antique firearms collections. At best, the NRA is a political organization, which is different than a litigation-oriented organization. When they do get involved in litigation, it's usually to crowd into a case that someone else initiated, and then they try to grab all the credit.

Just saw ACLU vs. Scalia debate on CSPAN (it was TiVo'd from a week or two ago). Was favorably impressed by the ACLU in several ways though I thought the lady could have defended her position better has she used the 9th and 10th amendments instead of the 14th to argue that the constitution can be more broadly interpreted over time to protect inalienable rights. She should have used the decl. of ind. to argue that the framers of the constitution DID mean for us to expand who is eligable for protection of these rights and for what the basic rights are and encompass. She should have argued that the constitution is only there to hold back government, hence the right to have sex in your own home is protected by the basic concept of right to liberty and regulation of such acts is not enumerated as one of the powers of government.

But she did not. Why?

Scalia's own arguments could be used to expand the areas where he seems to protect basic rights and liberties - but instead she ventures into territories of argument clearly outside the bounds of legal thinking -- an ever-evolving constitution, bizarre interpretations of clauses, international law as an interpretation tool, etc.

Why?

P(God)=.5 and agnosticism in general is just plain lame kow-towing to crazy people who act *as if* they're saying something *specific* to be true or false by the predicate "God". Any realistic semantic survey reveals a Baker's dozen of rather conflicting notions attached to the word. That makes P(God)=0 quite credible.

The various P(God_i)'s for various non-contradictory subsets of the properties attributed to God_i would perhaps be more meaningful to discuss, though these are usually either prima facie silly or too vague to be explanatorily relevant.

P(God_i) that achieves any logical *explanatory work* is indeed zero, as I've yet to hear of a single God_i that isn't merely a crutch for the ignorant who wish to feel less so. Relabel a bundle of questions as "answered" by "God_i" and be done. What a great explanation plan! I'm sure by Tuesday I'll be curing cancer or cracking cosmology.

Even practicing scientists often miss (outside their field) the broadest lessons that ignorance is both opportunity for discovery and curse for lack of control, and regardless not to be swept away through frivolous re-labeling of mystery and anthropomorphic explanations.

God-speak is an unfortunately seductive neural misfiring, clearly keyed to drives and needs of homo sapiens to predict and influence the behavior of other social actors. If you talk to religious people, the only thing that makes people feel remotely happy about "God_i" is that social and/or parental component. If they feel they have no relationship with God other than that it's some hyper abstract entity that created and/or controls the universe, then they don't get much emotional support out of the religion. They may lie about that aspect of their beliefs, though, often under some mistaken impression they have more logical reasons. Even faithless church goers do to feel community.

The offense of the nativity scene seems to have more to do with Judaism's rejection of the messiah...a contest between "one true God" within various internal political groups in America and that sort of thing. America has more trouble with this precisely because of our diversity. Were it merely a story of goofy miracle stories like "Beam me up Scotty...I just talked to God at the center of the Galaxy and he says we need to save the whales!" then it would be far less legally problematic. Even the people pushing for the nativity scenes are very much pushing for group preference and/or group exhibition. I say, let them parade around in cobalt blue jumpsuits.... No, no...that wouldn't have centuries of emotional tradition handed down by the grand parents... ;-)

Anyway, sure, managing the ruffled feathers of some Jews or other offended "out of the main group" folksies around the holidays might be less important than say, not having North Korea and Iran be some kind of nuclear dream team. It's also arguably much easier to police whacko christians that dominate the land. So, yeah...allocate your efforts where you may. Low hanging fruit vs. the really important. That's all debatable and Jane clearly has an effort alloction debating raging within her lofty brain...

Now, I must take my leave and bow to Mecca with quasi-OCD ritualism, imagining that I'm gazing into the fiery eyes of Allah whilst I sacrifice my sheep on the spire of a giant Spaaaaace Dradle to garner his good grace and prey to the saints of Buddha for leniency in his Kingdom/society of afterlife since the Son of Myth died for my hypothetical past or future Thought Crimes against a logically superfluous entity...Or...err, it's vaguely possible that I'm blending several "supernatural socially-centered explanatory centers" [ aka "God_i"'s ] in there...

Gosh, I sure hope they're all "listening" and socially reciprocate for me. Sheesh. Isn't it the 21st century already where we've learned that, you know, non-people aren't really much like people? Metaphor and analogy isn't explanation and hasn't been for centuries. It continues to be an unfortunately necessary device details-oriented actual scientists use to try to communicate with non-experts which, doubtless, causes confucsion about the deeper structure of the arguments for and against various beliefs scientists have.

Brown vs Board of Education holds that "separate but equal" is not possible. Separate schools are always unequal. A government funded schools must provide equal education to all types children within its jurisdiction.
Therefore separate schools for boys and girls are by definition unequal and therefore, discriminatory, and therefore violate the 14th amendment via the interstate commerce clause.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061028/ap_on_re_us/patriot_act_lawsuit_1

ACLU dropping "Patriot" Act challenge

Wow, Enlightenment. So, being badly trained as pilots means they were *more* likely to be CIA assets? Don't you realize how ridiculous that point is? The CIA has effectively unlimited funds for training their ops. And the thinking of the rest of your item is just as sloppy.

Thanks for playing. Find another sandbox.

The atheist can either positively believe there are no gods (and this is the common usage of the word) or simply lack belief in them (much as I lack belief in life on Mars).

The meanings of "atheist" and "agnostic" have changed over time. The mainstream currently often applies the term "atheist" to people who fit the technical definition of 'agnostic.' (i.e. not believing in God, but not claiming to be able to disprove his existance.)

See here for a good forum debating the topic.

liberty - She should have used the decl. of ind. to argue that the framers of the constitution DID mean for us to expand who is eligable for protection of these rights and for what the basic rights are and encompass. But she did not. Why?

I didn't see the debate. However the framers deliberately gave the Declaration of Independance zero legal standing. It was a purely rhetorical document. Her argument would have likewise been rhetorical rather than legally valid. She might have won some points with her audience, but (though I didn't see the debate) I'd guess the lawyer in her won out over the orator.

I also find it interesting that cell phones don't work well above 4,000 feet. If that's an example of the "scientific" underpinnings for his argument, well, I think it speaks for itself.

Spencer,

The standard way of expressing probabilities mathematically is to use P[x], where x ranges from 0 to 1. P[0] means absolutely no chance at all. because the probability is zero. P[1] means that it definitely will happen. It looks a bit odd using a "1", because we are used to percents, but if you remember your grade school days, percents were defined as fractions, with 1/2 being 50%, so the number "1" equals 100%. P[1] = 100%.

Rex,

I live at 6,200 feet and use a cell phone all the time. I've also made calls from around 8,000 feet. Whether the service is as good as that at sea level I really don't know. But next time I go climbing I'll be sure to test enlightenment's theory further.

"Brown vs Board of Education holds that "separate but equal" is not possible. Separate schools are always unequal... Therefore separate schools for boys and girls are by definition unequal"

I don't think so. Brown vs Board of Education was based on sociological studies concerning schools segregated by race. It didn't say anything about segregation by gender. You'd have to do a whole new trial with studies comparing coed and unisex schools - and as far as I can tell without spending a whole lot of time on it, girls actually do better in unisex schools. (OTOH, by most measures girls are also doing better than boys in coed schools.)

Even if Enlightenment's claims regarding cell phones were correct, it wouldn't matter. Most of those calls were from the phones on the airplane, the ones on the back of the seat in front of you where you slide your credit card through to pay for the call. Perhaps Enlightenment has also learned that credit cards don't work above 8,000 feet?

And the part about the hijackers doing things that devout Muslims weren't supposed to do is easily explained. They thought that they had a 'get out of jail free' card and could get away with breaking a few rules, given what they were about to do.

Ryan,

it has no legal standing, but Scalia was arguing about the original intent, and she chose to argue that intent doesn't matter and the constitution should be alive and evolving (not a legal point) rather than to argue that in fact the founders did intend certain rights and freedoms, etc (based on documents from the time such as the decl.)

The existence of God can be proven metaphysically beyond a shadow of doubt, but certainly never to someone who is at the level of spiritual development that they would seriously talk about twaddle like a "nonzero P(God)".

Sounds like something a rather precocious 14 year old would say. Not surprising though. Spiritual vacuity is practically universal among the chattering classes, especially so in fallen, twilight-stage Britain.

Smoov,

Re; "The existence of God can be proven metaphysically..."

To prove that God exists through metaphysics is to prove that metaphysics is of questionable value.

Cell phones are radios. Relatively low power radios, to be sure, but radios none the less. They transmit and receive on frequencies that are line of sight. Radio line of sight is about 13 miles from a point at sea level to another point at sea level, even though visual line of sight at sea level is about 11 miles. (The physics of radio frequencies are different from the physics of optical frequencies.)

So cell phone towers are built, preferably on top of hills to gain some height advantage, and I believe that the whole system is engineered so that the towers can be spread about 35-40 miles apart so that every point in between (where the cell phone user is) is no more than 17-20 miles from any given tower. I'm guessing on these distances, but the exact distances are not important to this discussion.

Let's see, now, we can round off 8000 feet upward to 2 miles (10,560 feet) and compare talking from a cell phone in the air to talking on the ground. Hmm. Sure looks to me as if talking in the air is going to give you much BETTER coverage than talking on the ground. Not only are the distances shorter, but there is less intervening terrain, such as hills and mountains, in the way.

The only problem is that cell towers use an omnidirectional antenna that is pointed straight up and down, so that the radiation pattern looks like a torus with the antenna sticking through the hole. That means that coverage right overhead the cell tower is not good--but in an airplane, just how long are you right over a cell tower?

There are just too many similar factual inaccuracies in Enlightenment's story.

The existence of God can be proven metaphysically beyond a shadow of doubt, but certainly never to someone who is at the level of spiritual development that they would seriously talk about twaddle like a "nonzero P(God)".

"Nonzero P(God)" means "there is a chance that God exists". So your claim means "The existence of God can be proven metaphysically, but not to somebody who thinks there's any chance that God exists".

So the only people to whom God's existance can be proven are people who think there's no chance that God exists. Talk about twaddle!

Rex,

with this: "There are just too many similar factual inaccuracies in Enlightenment's story."

You seem to be a bright boy, maybe you'll do us favor and illuminate his other errors?

(Dis)Enlightenment is repeating the same bag of rubbish as all the rest of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. This is neither the time nor place for Rex or anyone else to tie the Babe Ruth record -- others with the necessary resources and access to core expertise have already done it. If you don't already know what else is wrong with Enli's post, start with the Popular Mechanics review.

The reason the ACLU declines 2nd Amendment cases generally is given to be "Policy Statement #47", which can be summarized as "The RKBA is a group right, not an individual one". How "the People" can be individuals in the 1st and 4th but suddenly turn into some group in the 2nd is a mystery to me, but there it is.

I find more interest in what ACLU doesn't sue over; the case in California where Islam was taught for a week, requiring students to memorize certain prayers, pretend to be pilgrims to Mecca, and the school was decorated with a banner proclaiming "There Is No God But Allah And Mohammed Is His Prophet", etc. featured no ACLU involvement at all, to the best of my knowledge. One can only imagine the hullabloo from SoCal ACLU had similar teaching about Christianity been done.

The 9th Circus, ACLU-Judge Reinhardt presiding, determined there was nothing wrong at all. So separation of church & state obviously does not include separation of mosque & state, so far as ACLU and its pet judges are concerned.

Then there's ACLU's odd silence regarding Waco...but that is a different, and longer, posting. Suffice to say that the more I observe ACLU at work, the more I despise it.

There's a difference between a one-week religious sensitization class for Christians on Islam, and teaching Christian theology to Christians in public schools. I would have no problem with a one-week religious understanding class on Christianity either (but this wouldn't make sense if you are teaching it to Christians), but many on the religious right want to go way beyond that and teach entire classes on Christian theology in PUBLIC schools.

The ACLU often takes unpopular cases because our legal system requires the courts to pretend to follow general principles even when they don't. In other words, they can't admit they want to ignore separation of Church and State in one case because putting "God" on the money seems harmless -- they have to pretend to have a general legal principle that judges can apply to many different cases. For example, our courts have committed themselves to the position that "God" is not religious. By that logic, you could forbid atheists from teaching in public schools. We can only hope the courts don't believe what they say on this point. People at the ACLU would very much like to reverse this insane precedent before it corrupts the legal system (in other words, before someone comes to believe the lie.)

Not to defend (un)Enlightenment, but Randy, do you live at 6,200 ft AGL?

For the enlightenment of anyone who wants to do battle with folks like Enlightenment:

http://www.911myths.com

I will have to admit that I've engaged those folks mostly for my own amusement, since they are pretty well drunk on the Flavor-Aid (it wasn't Kool-Aid that Jim Jones served).

Comments are Closed.