From: Jeff Davis (jrd1415@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Jul 22 2002 - 16:24:49 MDT
Extropes,
--- Harvey Newstrom <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com> expanded
on Samantha Atkins comment:
"Religous is not necessary to meere authoritarianism
rearing its ugly head to limit choice. Calling it
"Talibandry" doesn't really help the problem."
> Worse than that, it confuses the issue. Anybody who
thinks that the Taliban, banditry, and bioethicists
have anything to do with each other is just lumping
everything they don't like into one category and
calling it "bad".
With respect Harvey, I disagree.
The Taliban were a cabal, drunk on their own power and
self-justifying piety, who found joy, freedom, and
modernity repugnant, and who, when they gained power,
lowered a cloud of darkness onto their people under
the license of SUPREME (ie God's) authority. Their
rule was based on 'ethics', as in Leon Kass's
(bio)ethics of repugnance.
> This doesn't help resolve the issue.
It could help.
This business is entirely political. Now, one could
approach this scientifically--as in political
science--as in the science of emotion and persuasion,
as in the science of crowd control. To counter the
political influence of a given party, one needs to
poison their support. To do that you need to send the
proper message, a message which weakens them and
strengthens their opposition. Success in politics
***IS*** success in emotional manipulation.
In this moment in history 'the Taliban' is a
strikingly powerful meme equivalent for evil. The
parallels between the Taliban's character and
political power in Afghanistan, and the religious
right's character and political power in the US are
striking. The President and his 'bioethics' panel are
our own little council of mullahs. They should be made
to pay the political price of bearing up under that
comparison. The price being a whole load of
whoop-ass.
'Bioethics'--I love it--the term, is magnificent!
It's like 'creation science' only better. The prefix
'bio' gives it that scientific flavor, and 'ethics'
presumptively defines whatever ground lies beneath the
'bioethicist's' feet as the moral high ground.
Certainly their are real ethical issues arising from
bioscience. That doesn't make Talibandits lurking in
that protective thicket any less malignant. That they
actually believe in their righteous repugnance only
makes matters worse.
"When devils will the blackest sins put on
They do suggest at first with heavenly shows"
Othello, Act 2, Scene 3
So I see it as a bare-fisted fight for political
power. These are not people to be reasoned with or
appeased. That simply legitimizes them. Bad move.
They need to be de-legitimized. A child's voice needs
to be raised declaring the parade of would-be emperors
as naked, stupid, venal, tyrannical, death-worshipping
obstructors of progress. America is progress.
Obstructors of progress are anti-American. Their
vision for our civilization stands before us in the
form of 'modern' Islam: tyranny, poverty, prostrate
helplessness, and intellectual incompetence.
Slamming them with these comparisons/criticisms,
combined with a generous portion of ridicule and
disdain, would be both just and politically effective.
Because our system is strong, we don't need to
thoroughly bludgeon them, just slap them down some
until the next election cycle. Superstition and
stupidity are abundant, but also flagrantly
vulnerable. Predictions of dystopic doom may have a
certain political resonance, but absent something bad
to confirm those predictions, the resonance fades.
The opportunists who ride that wave cannot long
prevail in a system which retains political freedom,
and consequently continues to deliver prosperity,
strength/safety, and individual freedom.
Still a major fan, Harvey.
Best, Jeff Davis
"Science works, religion doesn't."
Berni Chong
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:37 MST