Comments for Secular Right

Comment on Why liberals should defend Harvard’s right to accept and publish Jason Richwine’s dissertation by David Hume

David Hume — Wed, 22 May 2013 05:40:17 +0000

yeah. i wish studies were destroyed too. but i don’t want academia torn down around them.

Comment on Why liberals should defend Harvard’s right to accept and publish Jason Richwine’s dissertation by Contemplationist

Contemplationist — Wed, 22 May 2013 05:19:07 +0000

Yeah it’s not the scientists I’m worried about, though I think you would agree, most ‘science’ is just grant-whoring non-reproducible junk these days as well. Its obviously understandable that you are worried about collateral damage to the sciences in a culture war that would break out (sorry for assuming this I know you hate readers making assumptions but this seemed like a defensible one), but I am mostly interested in the destruction of the “Studies” departments.

Comment on Why liberals should defend Harvard’s right to accept and publish Jason Richwine’s dissertation by David Hume

David Hume — Wed, 22 May 2013 05:00:52 +0000

many scientists do good work within academia. though your position is defensible IMO.

Comment on Why liberals should defend Harvard’s right to accept and publish Jason Richwine’s dissertation by Contemplationist

Contemplationist — Wed, 22 May 2013 04:15:34 +0000

Hasn’t this horse already left the barn? I understand that theses may not have been expurgated for ideological reasons yet, but gatekeeping already serves this purpose and has for decades. Would you disagree?
The reputation of the academy is already that of an arm of the cultural Left. Infact this expurgation, if it happens, may actually be the straw that broke the camel’s back and if so I would wholeheartedly support it. The academy needs to be reorganized or destroyed in its current form. Its a malign and pathological influence on mainstream culture.

Comment on Unknown Unknowns by Florida resident

Florida resident — Sun, 19 May 2013 19:48:44 +0000

Interesting (for the lack of other characterization) article at “Scientific American”:
“Should Research on Race and IQ Be Banned?”

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2013/05/16/should-research-on-race-and-iq-be-banned/
From there (it is actual citation, and not a parody):

“*Clarification: Some readers may wonder what I mean by “ban,” so let me spell it out. I envision a federal prohibition against speech or publications supporting racial theories of intelligence. All papers, books and other documents advocating such theories will be burned, deleted or otherwise destroyed. Those who continue espousing such theories either publicly or privately (as determined by monitoring of email, phone calls or other communications) will be detained indefinitely in Guantanamo until or unless a secret tribunal overseen by me says they have expressed sufficient remorse and can be released.”
-
Razib Khan posted recently important considerations:
“Why race as a biological construct matters”,
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/?p=21046#.UZkqcqI-ajM

Respectfully, F.r.

Comment on Unknown Unknowns by Mark in Spokane

Mark in Spokane — Sun, 19 May 2013 06:16:40 +0000

Given that Atlee was a “frozen chosen” Anglican, perhaps some of his hesitance in describing himself as an agnostic was due to the fact that it is possible to be a perfectly devout (by Anglican standards) member of the Church of England without being required to explicitly believe in God?

Comment on Same Old, Same Old by Mark in Spokane

Mark in Spokane — Thu, 16 May 2013 19:24:34 +0000

Don, I didn’t attribute those views to Catholic leadership — those are my own views regarding the beneficial nature of capitalism. My own view is that the authorities within the Catholic Church are insufficiently appreciative of the benefits of modern capitalism and free market economics. There are a variety of reasons they are like this, but on the whole (with one or two exceptions here and there), I think they don’t understand how economics really works well enough to have much of an informed opinion the specifics of economic policy.

Which leads me to agree with CJColucci — the basic job of the Pope or any religious leaders when it comes to economic policy is to insist that a given society not ignore the people within it who aren’t doing well. How the problem of the have-nots gets addressed, well that is better left to the secular authorities (both in government and in business, intermediate associations, etc.). The Pope’s critique of free market economics is strongest when he is pointing out that there is still poverty, suffering, etc., and that people (particularly people who claim to be part of the Christian tradition) have a duty to try to help the poor and the suffering. Where his critique is weakest is where he strays from his basic area of competency and tries to get into serious economic analysis. He just doesn’t have the training or skills for that kind of critique, so it inevitably is weak.

What I do support is the right (and duty) of leaders like the Pope (but not just him!) to try to remind people that we have moral duties to others. That those moral duties are not often the proper subjects of government regulation or command does not alter the fact that we have those moral duties. In a culture that is increasing becoming atomistically individualized, such reminders are good to have.

Comment on Same Old, Same Old by Don Kenner

Don Kenner — Thu, 16 May 2013 13:05:34 +0000

“Capitalism is wonderful and amazing and incredible and is responsible for more prosperity than any other economic system designed by man.”

Problem: you would NEVER get any pope (or bishop for that matter) to admit that. You are imparting a view to the Church that does not exist. In fact, the sum total of the last five pope’s pronouncements on capitalism strongly suggest the Church has the opposite view.

Comment on Same Old, Same Old by CJColucci

CJColucci — Wed, 15 May 2013 21:40:22 +0000

The only thing a prominent cleric is likely to be able to say worth saying on any question of economic policy is that “let’s all grab what we can and f**k the ones who lose out” is a morally unacceptable policy. What one does, if anything, about society’s net losers is a technical question about which they have nothing valuable to say. But I do think what they can say is worth saying because a great many folk in public life who claim to be adherents to some religious tradition do, in fact, adhere to the “let’s all grab, etc…” view, and it is good to smoke them out.

Comment on Same Old, Same Old by bpuharic

bpuharic — Sun, 12 May 2013 10:43:21 +0000

One need not be a reflexive atheist (like I am) to see even the pope may have a point. Paul Volcker had the same sentiment, in a more refined sense, when he pointed out that, between 1997 and 2007, the financial sector doubled its share of corporate profits as a percentage of GDP.

The negative effects of that run up are evident in our GDP sluggishness and high unemployment