Robert Jones

You are right about the educational arena: I taught U.S. History and World History A.P. at a Catholic school here in San Antonio, and I had many parents giving me kudos on an article from The Objectivist I used in my lectures, "Metaphysics in Marble," which I think was written either by Joan Mitchell Blumenthal or Mary Ann Sures. Most people are religious, I believe, based on what I call "Scarlett O'Hara Metaphysics." That is they believe in God because they believe in God and any thought beyond that point is difficult for them -- they'll think about that tomorrow. Most people in this country are more than nominally religious, but they still have that "show me" mentality grounded in good common horse sense. Now that I've digested the entire Objectivist canon, I find myself too tired and busy to give more than a passing glance at epistemology, or metaphysics, or ethical conundrums. I get excited, however, by Robert Rodriguez's and Quentin Tarrantino's latest double bill. I think this is a healthy attitude: After all, Objectivism is supposed to be a "philosophy for living on this Earth," and if I'm pretty rusty on "The Teleological Basis for Biology," it's because I'm busy living life on this Earth. I think that the IOS/TOC/TAS has a realistic approach to the religious among us. While I may disagree from time to time with them, and vice-versa, they are not secular bigots or militant atheists. Proof of this can be seen in two of my upcoming movie reviews for TNI. Even a recent book review on a pro-atheistic book by Richard Dawkins by Hugo Schmidt, a frequenter over at the Bidinotto Blog, makes observations similar to yours Philip about religious folks. A few years ago, both Robert Bidinotto and David Kelley -- while not espousing religion per se -- made overtures towards the religious along the lines of finding common ground amongst "Enlightenment" religionists. And, although I haven't noticed religious people flocking over to TAS in huge numbers, it is through no fault of TAS -- they've put out the welcome mat to an astonishing degree. The fact that I find myself more comfortable among you guys and the people at TAS (in particular Robert and Ed as well as Iraida Botshteyn and her husband Igor) than I am at Mass in my own parish speaks volumes in that David Kelley put his money where his mouth is on the issue of toleration.

Thanks Chris! I appreciate that. Somerset Maugham is no Graham Greene, but quite enjoyable nonetheless.

Now, now, can't upset "our friends" the Saudis!

This sort of thing often happens to me: I quote a guy in a blog, for the first time in years, and he up and dies the next day. I made mention of "The Church of God the Utterly Indifferent" in movies on the 10th (that phrase was from "The Sirens of Titan" I think, and on the 11th he's kaput. Same thing happened when I quoted Hunter S. Thompson. This is too weird. Anyways, I loved "Harrison Bergeron," but one of my favorites from Vonnegut is this observation of his from "Cat's Cradle": (These passages are subsequent to an ecological disaster caused by Ice-Nine, a substance which has turned all the world's bodies of water permanently into a frozen state): "He was up to nothing new. He was watching an ant farm he had constructed. He had dug up a few surviving ants in the three-dimensional world of the ruins of Bolivar, and he had reduced the dimensions to two by making a dirt and ant sandwich between two sheets of glass. The ants could do nothing without Frank's catching them at it and commenting upon it. "The experiment had solved in short order the mystery of how ants could survive in a waterless world. As far as I know, they were the only insects that did survive, and they did it by forming with their bodies tight balls around grains of ice-nine. They would generate enough heat at the center to kill half their number and produce one bead of dew. The dew was drinkable. The corpses were edible. " 'Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die,' I said to Frank and his tiny cannibals. "His response was always the same. It was a peevish lecture on all the things people could learn from ants. "My responses were ritualized, too. 'Nature's a wonderful thing, Frank. Nature's a wonderful thing.' "'You know why ants are so successful?' he asked me for the thousandth time. 'They co-op-er-ate.'"

Oh, I get you now. I wasn't trying to be abrasive either, I just didn't know where you were coming from is all. Here's the thing: I agree with Objectivism about 90% and with my own faith about 50%, yet, because our society places an inordinate emphasis on one's religious beliefs as predetermining the rest of one's cerebral content, when it gets down to brass tacks, I'm a Christian, not an Objectivist. It's sort of like what Groucho Marx once said, though: "I would never belong to any club that would have me as a member." That is, I'm an individual first and an individualist second. One cannot be an individualist if he isn't true to the individual who is himself. Hence, my heterodoxical worldview. Or, as the old Jewish lament goes: "I can't talk to the people I pray with, and I can't pray with the people I talk to."

National Enquirer, Us Magazine, Oprah, The Little Green Men Whose Broadcasts My Tinfoil Hat is Inadequate to Jam Transmission of, My Dog (who told me to kill a bunch of blonde chicks), People en Espanol, usw ;)

Singled out?

You've got to admit one thing about Lenny Peikoff: He KNOWS a theocracy when he sees one! I think we should pay his words some more heed. Perhaps he noticed the "ominous parallels" between certain Republican evangelicals and his own reign as Pope Leonard I of the Objectivist Church. Maybe Peikoff envisions the GOP conducting sham show trials, character assassinations, excommunications and issuing inscrutable encyclicals. Or, maybe he thought he had a monopoly on the whole theocracy gig, and doesn't want the likes of Dobson, Robertson and Bush II muscling in on his racket. Who knows????

Chris, you are missing a great deal -- especially his short stories. Barbara I'll second that. "The Razor's Edge" is my favorite novel, and an excellent early Hitchcock flick ("Secret Agent") was based on a Maugham story. Check em out.

Do not grok. That is, I don't quite get your reasoning for espousing a theoretical, but not actual belief in God. Or the idea that belief in God is putting oneself "out there," or any of the rest. That is, I *could* infer a whole lot of things that maybe you did not intend, but I'd rather not go that route, because I don't want to put words in your mouth. Please elaborate, not because I'm debating this, but because I'm interested to see where your reasoning is going. Thanks, Rob't

If movie had been made right after the book came out: Kim Novak If they get a move-on, my current choice: Julianne Moore (LOOKS like someone named "Taggart")

Exactly! Well said, Brant. While I believe it is proper for those who are motivated by the sacred impulse to actively engage in political *issues* (e.g., Abolition, civil rights, abortion), there is a limit to the arguments they can make with credibility. That is, how do they *know* God is for or against this or that? No one cam claim such gnostic knowledge, and thus the religiously motivated must therefore make their case using extrareligious (i.e., fact, logic, evidence, reason) arguments. Further, I am wary of anybody who enters politics (particularly political office) in order to enact the will of God. When I was a atheist for about ten years, it bewildered me how anyone could be a *militant* atheist. After all, what was the worst that could happen to believers when they died? To go to hell? Then, as now, I gauge a man's moral worth on his *actions,* not on what's in his head. The world is too large and life is too short to get all "clubby" about these things, making a clicque out of whom we will accept and respect, based upon their philosophical beliefs. I especially have this dilemma, as (unbeknownst to him), it was the writings of atheist Nat Hentoff (a writer for the Village Voice for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration) that primarily impelled me to believe in God. I had come to the conclusion that God works in mysterious ways, and that if there is proof there is a benign force in the universe, it is men such as Nat Hentoff, who -- despite his lack of theology -- are moral exemplars because of their superior exercise of free will and intellect. Contast him with religious demagogues and charlatans such as Falwell, Robertson, Oral Roberts, etc., who could easily be used as proof that God doesn't exist, or at worst, that the Devil is in charge. So, it's true that Nat Hentoff made a Catholic out of me (this was also the most acceptable choice for me, intellectually, as Catholicism--as opposed to such Protestant creeds as Calvinism--places great emphasis on the role of free will in human decision). I don't believe in God as some "puppet master," but subscribe to, as Kurt Vonnegut called it, the concept of "God the utterly indifferent." I don't go quite to that extreme, as I believe He cares deeply, but rather that it's up to humanity, not Him, what the course of history will be. As for the Jehovah's Witnesses, they would accost me all the time. I lived in Red Hook Brooklyn for a long time, and their world HQ is in Brooklyn Heights, right next door. That's another benefit of being Catholic: When they'd invariably hector me for Mary statue worship, I'd say something along the lines of "shut up: we were here first." ;)

I am one such fan! Without "Doctor Who" there'd be no "Quantum Leap," which was also an excellent sci-fi show with a time-travel premise.

I saw "Amazing Grace" and liked it very much. Wilberforce was a man who figured prominently in the Enlightenment and among English evangelical reformers. I would like to suggest, however, that if we want to work for the "truly free society based on a rational view of man and Nature," it would be more practical to do so by forging alliances with those who may be otherwise religious, but quite this-worldly, than waiting around for that day that will never come, when the human race is both atheistical AND rational. I just saw a news story of a recent Gallup poll, which found that 92% of Americans believe in God. Take that as you will, but I agree with Mark Steyn on two points from his book "America Alone": 1). That we cannot count on largely secular, but largely passive, Europe to grow a spine in fighting the Islamist takeover of Europe, and, 2). That you cannot fight something with nothing, that it is the religious (read: Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc.) in America who will take up the fight against the Islamist radicals who want to trash Western society. Remember: It was CATHOLIC Crusaders who saved Western society from the clutches of Islam the last go-around, and that any dreams we may have for the society you want (which I do share) are contingent FIRST on secularists and religious people together beating back the barbarians already within our gates. Then, we can sort out the secondary issues of religion versus reason (which, I believe, is a false dichotomy).

The director of Porky's was just killed in a head on collision with a wrong way drunken driver on the Pacific Pallisades Parkway in California. His son also died. --Brant But, that director -- Bob Clark -- will always be remembered most for his greatest flick, "A Christmas Story." "You'll shoot your eye out! You'll shoot your eye out!"

I ate a ham for Jesus and gave the bones to Mohammed! Last week, we went out with some Jewish friends and drank the Bloody Marys of a Gentile barkeeper. Seriously, though, I love Easter. My little boy messed up our living room with his first Easter basket, the plastic "grass" is strewn all about and he has what's left of the chocolate bunny all over his hands, mouth and clothes. It's sweater weather here in San Antonio too, but seeing him having fun makes me warm and toasty all over. =)

Yeah, it was probably the alliterative similarity of the two names.

John: I wish it was one of my PhotoShop creations, but alas it is not. That's real, although it's not Heston as Charlie Darwin. It's a still of him in "Planet of the Apes," kissing Kim Hunter dressed in a monkey suit. "Stella!!!! Stella!!! Stella!!!"

I took the quiz, and I'm Gail Wynand. Today TNI movie reviewer, tomorrow the world! Ha ha ha ha!

You da MAN! It almost makes up for that picture of Churchill *sigh* No, Steve, I'm not "Da Man." It's been ages since I've worked for the CIA, selling crack in Compton and South-Central L.A. ;) BTW, what's the matter with Churchill? I'd read that .pdf, but it won't pop up in my Acrobat reader for some reason.

Let us take some time off from religion bashing, for on television right now is the greatest Easter/Passover classic, Cecil B. DeMille's "The Ten Commandments": In the interest of equal time for atheists, here's Chuck Heston again, this time starring as Charles Darwin:

Bach a Catholic???!!!! He converted out of convenience. Regardless , I was mainly being facetious. Humor, and the like. It must be admitted, though, that Catholics in particular revere his works.

Hmm. Maybe that's why I didn't think Tim allen was funny: I've never seen "Home Improvement," just the bad movies you mentioned. "Rick Wakeman"? Ha ha! I can guess your age. Another Freudian slip -- you meant Alan Rickman; Rick Wakeman was from the progressive rock group Yes.

I didn't say the movie was "trash" but "trashy," mainly referring to Ann-Margret's trashy character. I agree, it was quite good movie. I thought Forsythe was too stiff, too bad, considering he has been so good in many other movies.