Metaphysics and Politics: Scalia Says atheists "favor the devil's desires"


syrakusos

Recommended Posts

Scalia said the Devil has gotten "wilier" and convinced people that he and God don't exist. The justice added that he doesn't think that atheists are Satan's minions, but that disbelief in God "certainly favors the devil's desires." -- CNN Belief for October 7, 2013 here.

The devil is a real person, he said. The reason that we do not see evil miracles like pigs running off a cliff (Matthew 8) is that the devil is more clever now. (Well, that would follow from the Flynn Effect, of course. God cannot become smarter, but how about the good angels? Are they playing defense behind the devil's power curve?)

This guy is supposed to be educated. If Kagin or Sotomayer said some liberal nonsense about global warming, the conservative cheerleaders would be all over them. And surely, if some Supreme Justice of Shariah in Iran said the very same thing, we would have two competing posts here. But some self-styled Objectivists are stone deaf when it comes to their conservative comrades.

How will he view your non-Constitutionally guaranteed right to travel or to privacy? (The Ninth and Tenth Amendments never have been strictly constructed to generate new rights not listed previously.) If a state made witchcraft a capital crime - as it says in the Bible: you shall not suffer a witch to live - would he strictly keep the Federal government out of it? And would the "state's rights" conservatives blog in support?

And conservative will excuse these as his "personal" views, while fearing that the President is privately a Muslim...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scalia said the Devil has gotten "wilier" and convinced people that he and God don't exist. The justice added that he doesn't think that atheists are Satan's minions, but that disbelief in God "certainly favors the devil's desires." -- CNN Belief for October 7, 2013 here.

The devil is a real person, he said. The reason that we do not see evil miracles like pigs running off a cliff (Matthew 8) is that the devil is more clever now. (Well, that would follow from the Flynn Effect, of course. God cannot become smarter, but how about the good angels? Are they playing defense behind the devil's power curve?)

This guy is supposed to be educated. If Kagin or Sotomayer said some liberal nonsense about global warming, the conservative cheerleaders would be all over them. And surely, if some Supreme Justice of Shariah in Iran said the very same thing, we would have two competing posts here. But some self-styled Objectivists are stone deaf when it comes to their conservative comrades.

How will he view your non-Constitutionally guaranteed right to travel or to privacy? (The Ninth and Tenth Amendments never have been strictly constructed to generate new rights not listed previously.) If a state made witchcraft a capital crime - as it says in the Bible: you shall not suffer a witch to live - would he strictly keep the Federal government out of it? And would the "state's rights" conservatives blog in support?

And conservative will excuse these as his "personal" views, while fearing that the President is privately a Muslim...

That one absolutely needs to be used more often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got no problem with Scalia's personal beliefs.

His record speaks for itself.

Give me a simple religious person who supports individualism any day over a "sophisticated" collectivist.

And I do not believe Obama is a Muslim. That quip comes from a false dichotomy based on stereotypes that border on bigotry.

I believe Obama is a liar to religious people so he can get and keep power. If it were in his interest, I believe he would say he's a Buddhist or even Scientologist.

In his actions, he keeps favoring the Muslim Brotherhood. So some people assume he's a Muslim. But he does the hood thing because his half-brother is a head honcho in Muslim Brotherhood finance. (My opinion.)

Inside, I am pretty sure Obama is an atheist.

But I might be wrong. He says he's a Christian. And if that's true, doesn't that mean he believes in Heaven, Hell and the Devil? The President of the USA, President Obama, believes in the Devil. Isn't that reasonable to conclude if we take him at his word about being Christian?

So how is that different from Scalia's beliefs?

This criticism of Scalia is garbage unless it is equally applied to the other side.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried to go to Heaven, where all good people are supposed to go. I met Saint Peter at the gate. He told me to go to Hell. I followed advice and went to Hell. Satan the Devil kicked me out of Hell. He said: "We have enough trouble here already. We don't need YOU!" So I came back to planet Earth.

The reason why Satan the Devil kicked me out of Hell is I tried to take over his job. I figured Satan the Devil, as CEO of Hell, should make some effort to promote the goddamn place. Nobody wants to go there. It's not promoted very well. Also I figured Satan the Devil should do something about his public image. Most people have a low opinion of him. And I figured he should do something about the bad publicity he gets in the press. For example some of the passages in the Bible about Satan the Devil are outright character assassination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not just that Objectivism expects a level of consistency from an intellectual, but, more deeply, Objectivism predicts that a person's basic beliefs will determine consequential actions.

The iconic expression is Ayn Rand's open letter to Boris Spassky. However, that formal essay was presaged by comments years earlier from Nathaniel Branden (from Ayn Rand) in the NBI Lectures about the moral failure of a person who lives an irrational life though engaging their skills at logic by playing games of chess.

Justice Scalia seemed not to be speaking in any metaphorical way about the action of evil in the world. Yesterday at a bus stop, I was approached by an evangelist. He had his say. I told him that revelation is arguable but that to me the physical sciences and natural sciences reveal the handiwork of the Creator. I am still an atheist, even if I can speak metaphorically. Scalia was not being poetic.

We have a problem among Objectivists and libertarians with people swooning over conservatives who use words we like to hear and then ignoring the very real meaning of their deeper convictions.

Sen. Paul Ryan and Sen. Randal S. Paul come to mind easily. Politics is a game of compromise, of making friends by making promises, and keeping the one without keeping the other.

We like it when Clarence Thomas cites Ayn Rand, but Justice Scalia never has, apparently.

The arch-conservative Robert Bork once declared that Ninth Amendment “rights” carry no more meaning than an accidental inkblot on the constitutional parchment. And according to Justice Antonin Scalia, there’s nothing in the Constitution “authorizing judges to identify what [those rights] might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people.” As for life, liberty, and property, government can smash them at will, if society so wishes. “Does [the Constitution] guarantee life, liberty or property?” asks Justice Scalia rhetorically. “No, indeed! All three can be taken away. . . . It’s a procedural guarantee.”
Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights here.

And in the link cited below, in the speech to the Woodrow Wilson Center archived by CFIF, Scalia says exactly that.

From the Center for Individual Freedom,

"Constitutional Interpretation the Old Fashioned Way"
Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the following remarks at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., on March 14, 2005.
Read here.

Justice Scalia gave a similar speech at the University of Virginia.
Here is a news report from the UVa Law School.
Scalia Defends Originalism as Best Methodology for Judging Law
Posted April 20, 2010
Examining what the Founders meant when writing the Constitution is the best method for judging cases, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Friday during a lecture sponsored by the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Freedom of Expression.

Our language has changed in 200 years. If we are to understand the Second Amendment, we must know what "regulate" meant to them.

REG' ULATE v.t. To adjust by rule, method, or established mode ; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assizes of bread ; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and society ; to regulate our manners by the customary forms,
2. To put in good order ; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.
3. To subjet to rules or restrictions ; as to regulate trade; to regulate diet.

American Dictionary of the English Language; Noah Webster; 1828.

It seems perfectly plain to me that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is not to be the militia, but to control the militia. That may well sound attractive to some patriots. The originalist construction would be that if the government has tanks, the people need anti-tank rockets. If the government has aircraft, the people need anti-aircraft guns. To control government aircraft carriers, we the people need submarines and to control government submarines, we need combined air and naval forces of patrol helicopters spotting and guiding for destroyers with depth charges. If that sounds ridiculous, it does because it is. Constitutional originalism is just a political kind of religious literalism

The Eighth Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments."

The Crimes Act of 1790 (Wikipedia here) provided for pillorying perjurers and executing counterfeiters. The pillory, of course, is just one kind of a restraint - the stocks would be similar - and it consists, also, not of just the restraint, but also the public display and public abuse of the accused. Flogging was a common punishment of the time, also. It was neither cruel nor unusual to the authors of the Constitution. So, if these were enacted today, Justice Scalia would have no problem with them.

Rather than "originalism" I advocate for objectivism in law. The over-arching intent of the US Constitution was in perfect alignment with the requirements of objective government: limited powers - balanced and divided - enacted only to protect rights.

We can discuss all of these issues at length. Here is a link from "First Things" about "Postmodern Conservatism" that calls Sen. Randal S. Paul a "living Constitutionalist" of the conservative variety. It is an interesting debate. But whatever else we thrash out, my premise will always be objective law, not linguistic originalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using the standard that if a person is religious, that is the indication of his "true" political intentions, then the USA could have never come into being. Everybody was religious back when it was founded. What were the founders "true" political intentions and how in hell did they come up with a concept like "individual rights"?

Heh.

I agree that metaphysical views are important in analyzing what a person will do, but it's part of the mix, not an acid test. I am awfully suspect of "the one true way" kind of thinking. Especially when you have to join the atheist club, or the Christian club, or the Marxist club, or the Islamic club, or any of these clubs (including the Objectivist club and libertarian club) in order for your ideas to be considered.

In practice, this kind of thinking usually ends up in reality with a "one true way" all right, but rarely is it the one advertised.

I'll stick to my observation and even repeat it:

Give me a simple religious person who supports individualism any day over a "sophisticated" collectivist.

I'll leave 100% consistency as a political standard for those who know what the "one true way" is. I'm not a member of their club.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scalia is such a clown, in my opinion.

Certainly...

He is not as accomplished as you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using the standard that if a person is religious, that is the indication of his "true" political intentions, then the USA could have never come into being. Everybody was religious back when it was founded. ...

Give me a simple religious person who supports individualism any day over a "sophisticated" collectivist.

Well, it is actually the reason why the bourgeois ethics of Benjamin Franklin and the laissez faire capitalism of Adam Smith never triumphed. The essential individualism of a self-selected people carried America forward, but the seeds of its destruction were sown at its very birth. The religious dogmas enjoyed repeated revivals. Moreover, immigrants continued to bring Old World religious ideas to America.

Moreover, Michael, you (and Selene) are fully aware of the error of equivalency. It is a fallacy to claim that

"Radical Islam is equivalent to Radical Quakerism because both are Religious Radicalism." In point of fact, consistent Objectivism is not equivalent to consistent religion any more than a consistent application of the scientific method is equivalent to a consistent application of religious faith. In fact, if an equivalency exists it is the equivalence of Objectivism with the Scientific Method. You do call this message board "Objectivist Living"; and you do not call this board "Generally Living to Get Along with the Political Powers That Be."

Perhaps it is time (after all these years) that we ask you: What is Objectivism to you??

You are free to disagree with Ayn Rand, as we all are and do, but you must be cognizant of the fact the she herself preferred the sophisticated collectivist over the simple, religious advocate of personal liberty. Ayn Rand was a philosopher who was dedicated to the efficacy of rational inquiry based on empirical fact, as distinct from the traditional acceptance of inherited culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps it is time (after all these years) that we ask you: What is Objectivism to you??

You are free to disagree with Ayn Rand, as we all are and do, but you must be cognizant of the fact the she herself preferred the sophisticated collectivist over the simple, religious advocate of personal liberty. Ayn Rand was a philosopher who was dedicated to the efficacy of rational inquiry based on empirical fact, as distinct from the traditional acceptance of inherited culture.

Michael,

And who in hell is "we"?

You see, I don't belong to your "one true way" club. Your collective. So I don't know who your "we" is.

I also don't channel Ayn Rand from the grave.

As for the "sophisticated" collectivist, you mean people like Noam Chomsky? John Kennedy? The Students for a Democratic Society?

Rand preferred those people?

From what I read, she despised them equally to people like Ronald Reagan.

But what do I know?

I'm not in your "one true way" collective (proudly, at that).

I just don't like the cult mentality lifestyle.

And I don't have no stinkin' esoteric channel powers. None that work, anyway.

:smile:

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael EM, The implicit premises of the (non-radical)religious person hardly bother me. So long as I don't get my nose rubbed in mysticism too much. But I've found the explicit effects in reality are often individuality, good character - and a strong 'knowledge of conviction'.
By which I mean our convictions may hugely differ, but we mutually recognise their absolute significance.
If my experience is anything to go by, I've nearly always got along best when engaging them, (e.g. a Catholic ex-priest knowledgeable about Aquinas, a Talmudic scholar or many Christians/Jews) knowing me as an atheist, than I have with many a secular "sophisticated collectivist".

I'm most doubtful about Rand's preference for secular collectivists, as you state it - though it brought me to her letter to Senator Barry Goldwater thanking him for the gift of his book 'The Conscience of a Conservative' and for his praise of 'Atlas'.
A few select quotes from her letter:

"But there is no such thing as a "Conservative" philosophy. It is the lack of philosophy that has brought the American conservatives to helplessness, vacillation and successive defeats".
[...]
"To make religion the basis of your stand is to slap the faces and reject the support of those whom a Conservative leader most needs: the independent thinkers, those who are fighting Collectivism by intellectual means and on the intellectual front".
[...]
" On page 12, [of BG's book] there is the statement: "The economic and spiritual aspects of man's nature are inextricably intertwined":

"THIS IS TRUE..."
[1960, Letters of AR]

All in all, she has a quite conciliatory approach to Goldwater, although naturally she takes to task his contradictions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All in all, she has a quite conciliatory approach to Goldwater, although naturally she takes to task his contradictions.

Contradictions and all, Barry Goldwater was better than anyone or anything out there now. I sorely miss him and those like him.

He was the last major candidate for whom I voted without reservation. That was 1964. 49 years ago.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got no problem with Scalia's personal beliefs.

His record speaks for itself.

Give me a simple religious person who supports individualism any day over a "sophisticated" collectivist.

And I do not believe Obama is a Muslim. That quip comes from a false dichotomy based on stereotypes that border on bigotry.

I believe Obama is a liar to religious people so he can get and keep power. If it were in his interest, I believe he would say he's a Buddhist or even Scientologist.

In his actions, he keeps favoring the Muslim Brotherhood. So some people assume he's a Muslim. But he does the hood thing because his half-brother is a head honcho in Muslim Brotherhood finance. (My opinion.)

Inside, I am pretty sure Obama is an atheist.

But I might be wrong. He says he's a Christian. And if that's true, doesn't that mean he believes in Heaven, Hell and the Devil? The President of the USA, President Obama, believes in the Devil. Isn't that reasonable to conclude if we take him at his word about being Christian?

So how is that different from Scalia's beliefs?

This criticism of Scalia is garbage unless it is equally applied to the other side.

Michael

Michael "Give me a simple religious person who supports individualism any day over a "sophisticated" collectivist".

Amen to that.

-Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now