|
March 23, 2004
And now for something even more disgusting than eating ice cream in public!
A blog by Joe Carter, called Evangelical Outpost" (via Glenn Reynolds -- whose views Mr. Carter characterizes as "radical libertarian") has taken issue with the criticism Leon Kass's ice cream quote has received in the blogosphere. While Mr. Carter has as much right to his opinion as anyone else (including Kass), he seems to have a feeling that religion is implicated, and I want to address that. First of all, let's not forget that Kass wrote what he wrote. I didn't, nor did any of the people commenting on it. To insinuate that it is playing dirty pool to quote what the man said strikes me as too extravagant a position to require a serious response. On to "religion" (or what passes for it).... Whether or not a view is religious in origin has nothing to do with its validity, and still less to do with whether other people should agree with it. Religion is personal, and if one does or does not do something for religious reasons that is not an argument for or against anyone else doing it. In Kass's case, though, no argument was made by the doctor against ice cream from a religious perspective. But as Glenn Reynolds observes, even if he had done so, it would change nothing except possibly make him appear more ridiculous in light of his powerful position as head of a government commission (and his stated championing of the "yuck/disgust factor"). What I want to know is why a religious motivation should render an opinion or an action any more immune from criticism than the lack thereof. Do Islamic terrorists, because of their allegedly "religious" motivations become less blameworthy than Marxist terrorists? I see no reason why. Yet I see more and more people attempting to hide behind religion as if it immunizes them not only from all criticism, but from having to defend the logic of their positions. What ticks me off about Kass is that, regardless of whether he's motivated by religion or philosophy, he wants his views made into laws enforced by the power of the state. To my mind, this heightens the duty to disagree or criticize him. Because if I don't, and his laws are imposed on me, the disagreement will morph into something quite different from a mere difference of opinion. The "opinion" that people should go to jail becomes a present threat once that opinion becomes the law of the land. Not that I worry about criminalization of ice cream, mind you. But state power shaped by crazy opinions can lead to crazy laws. (I am reminded of the criminalization of water not long ago....) Did I just mention "water"? This renewed interest in ice cream etiquette has reminded me that I am long overdue for Part II of Dr. Kass's star profile. Ahem.... All who are disgusted by Astrology are hereby warned to stop reading now, or forever hold your disgust, your instinctive revulsion, or whatever you might call your feelings of outrage. In a post last week I began with Dr. Kass's Sun/Moon combination, "The Dilettante." I promised to continue with the other major planets, so here they are. MARS AND VENUS Most people have heard about Mars and Venus as the male and female planets, which they are. I like to use Debbi Kempton-Smith's traditional (although compassionately humorous) treatise, Secrets from a Stargazer's Notebook (Bantam Books, New York, 1982.), and the following are her observations. The following material is offered along with my standard disclaimer (see my previous post), and is based on the assumption that Dr. Kass was born on February 12, 1929. Mars is known as the male planet, and Ms. Kempton-Smith calls it "How You Drive People Crazy", and here's a partial excerpt explaining why: Mars likes war. Mars makes enthusiasm too, but it'll settle for trouble. Mars is your energy, what you put your energy into, your drive and your courage. Mars stands for lust and drive and passion. Mars burns for things. If someone has Mars on your Venus, they'll burn for you.Dr. Kass's Mars is in Sagittarius, and, on a point of personal privilege, I should state here that my Mars is also in Sagittarius, so anyone who thinks I am being mean to Dr. Kass here should bear in mind that the following can also be used against me! MARS IN SAGITTARIUSOK, so much for Kass's Mars. (And so much for me!) We now come to the planet Venus -- described by Ms. Kempton-Smith as the planet of "Sleazy Sex and Eternal Love." Dr. Kass's Venus is in Capricorn: VENUS IN CAPRICORN The planet Saturn is described as "What's Stopping You From Getting There?": Saturn is the symbol of all living things that scare the living daylights out of you. Astrologers call it The Great Teacher, but they're jiving if they fail to inform you of the pain that comes with the lessons. Most of this pain comes from ignorance. Saturn shows what got distorted in youth. It shows the things we never got or what we got too much of. Worse still, if someone offers those things we want most now, we don't know what to do with the goodies. Psychologists and astrologers are constantly astonished at how human beings push away the very things that could make us feel secure. We're afraid to want the things of our Saturn, so we pretend we can do without them. We do do without them, but at a cost to our willingness to gently work on facing our fears. There's more, but Saturn is called the "DON'T CROSS THAT LINE" planet. And now, with compassion and understanding, readers may venture across Dr. Kass's "line." SATURN IN ARIES, THE FIRST HOUSE, OR CAPRICORN RISINGMy sincerest apologies to all who are disgusted by Astrology (which, I suspect includes at least as many atheistic and secular libertarians as it does people with religious objections). So much for another labor of love. (As the saying goes, "No good deed goes unpunished....") posted by Eric on 03.23.04 at 09:41 PM
Comments
Sorry I didn't comment on this before. Too wrapped up in my own writing (not on the blog, though) and spectrumology. What you wrote here, and linked to, excruciatingly interesting, as always. One of the commenters (Steve the Irrational Legalist) at that Evangelical blog gave us a Jack T. Chick-style screed on how Christianity since the Council of Nicea has been engulfed in the Pagan worship of Nimrod, Semiramis, and Tammuz. An irreconcilable theological controversy thus arises from all this: Is Jack T. Chick a Son of the Devil for denying the Lesbian Birth of the Christ? or is Fr. de Bay (following the holy dogmas of Dawn and Norma) Devilish for preaching it in their Cathedral? Dawn also says Jack T. Chick is a Communist. I see no connection whatsoever, either logically or psychologically, between independence and autonomy on the one hand and an emphasis on the here and now on the other. I, exercising and fiercely defending my independence and autonomy, tend to focus on the long ago and far away. I'm an IN(T/F)P in the Myers-Briggs typology. In another thread in a site delineating yet another interesting political/ideological spectrum (the Vosem Chart), one commenter didn't like the whole subject of spectrumology (as I call it) and compared it to the Myers-Briggs typology and to astrology, which he didn't care for. That, plus your writings here on the subject, make me like astrology more. I must note that my brother, an INTJ (like Ayn Rand, who he never read), seems to find astrology rather disgusting. He hasn't yet used that word, but I get the sense, now that I think of it, that that is his feeling. Most fascinating it all is.... ...but, in the here and now, I have to go to the store. Syephen or Starn or Storm Malcolmb Anderssonnn the Lesbian-eating pho-loving aesthete-worshipping gu · March 27, 2004 02:46 PM Could that be RobotSlave's post on Kuro5hin, by any chance? I still remembered that. He said that the political spectrum (at least in multidimensional forms), along with Myers-Briggs and the enneagram, belonged in the same category as Japanese blood types. Sheesh! He said it was because it was recursive -- you describe yourself as an extrovert therefore you are by definition an E (and vice versa) but there are ways of creating empirical (as opposed to analytical) tests for some of these things. See E. Alan Meece's work on astrology if you want an example. (The guy got introduced to astrology by accurately predicting what his own star chart would be!) Josh Gardner · March 29, 2004 03:32 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Re: Leon Kass, bioethicist and cultural warrior
Chris Mooney writes in his article Irrationalist in Chief:
“It's important to note that the objection is not that Kass has religious views, but that he thinks it's fine to base his arguments on them when making policy recommendations for a pluralistic society...In Leon Kass, bioethics has put forward a minority figure who comes down on the side of sermons--a sixteenth-century sensibility to guide us through twenty-first-century conundrums...At bottom, Kass's appointment raises the question of whether we can expect a national bioethics debate or a national bioethics sermon.”
To get a feel for this Mr. Kass fellow:
In Toward a More Natural Science, Leon Kass condemns as selfish and immoral our modern way of life whose “practices and beliefs...insist on our independence and autonomy, [as we] live more and more wholly for the here and now, subjugating everything we can to the exercise of our wills, with little respect for the nature and meaning of bodily life.”
Now suppose - just suppose - that the “nature and meaning of bodily life” IS to “live more and more wholly for the here and now” and that by “insist[ing] on our independence and autonomy” we fulfill that nature and meaning, thereby adding to the rich tapestry of human existence and endeavor. Just suppose.