Posted on 10/24/2003 3:38:16 PM PDT by jennyp
The Witless Battle Over General Boykin
By David Kelley
TOC Executive Director
dskelley@objectivistcenter.org
The crackle of small-arms fire you hear about General William Boykin is the sound of the latest skirmish in America’s culture wars. Boykin is the Pentagon’s head of intelligence in the war on terrorism. He is also an evangelical Christian who has told church groups that Muslim terrorists hate the United States because it is a “Christian nation,” that our real enemy is not Osama bin Laden but Satan, and that we will prevail only if “we come against them in the name of Jesus.”
It gets worse. According to the Los Angeles Times reporter who broke the story, Boykin would show audiences a picture he took while in Somalia, after the “Blackhawk Down” fiasco in Mogadishu. Pointing to an unnatural-looking dark streak in the sky, he said, "Ladies and gentlemen, this is your enemy. It is the principalities of darkness. It is a demonic presence in that city that God revealed to me as the enemy.”
The usual suspects quickly rounded themselves up and the cultural skirmish began. Liberals denounced the general’s remarks as divisive and likely to offend Muslims worldwide, and called for his resignation. “The most important global struggle,” wrote Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman, “is not between one religion and another but between fanaticism and tolerance.” Conservatives rushed to Boykin’s defense. Not only does he have the right to express his religious conviction, they argued, but he is also right that America is a Christian nation, engaged in a war against evil.
Following the culture wars is usually interesting. It is often infuriating. But in this case it’s just embarrassing. The mark of the devil over Mogadishu? And this from a man in charge of military intelligence?
The problem here is not intolerance, divisiveness, or extremism. It is rank irrationality. The whole exchange is another tiresome example of a false dichotomy: dogmatism vs. relativism. Conservatives are right that liberals are afraid to assert the truth of their convictions. Liberals are right that conservatives are claiming truth for sectarian religious dogmas—and rightly alarmed that they invoke those dogmas to justify war.
What both sides ignore is the alternative of reason and rational certainty. When Islamic terrorists attack us out of hatred for our secular way of life, our pursuit of happiness, our wealth and productive achievements, it is reason, not Jesus, that tells us they are viciously wrong. And reason does tell us that they are wrong, objectively wrong, and that we are objectively right in responding with force.
Earth to General Boykin and his conservative allies: You are defending a country founded in the Enlightenment, the era when reason was finally recognized as the arbiter of truth. You are relying on America’s vast wealth, created by people who used their minds, not their prayers, to work and produce. You are employing sophisticated military technology created by scientists whose highest commitment is to facts, observation, logic, and proof. You would not count on incantations or sacred texts to find bin Laden’s cave. How can you rely on such means to justify your cause?
Earth to Ellen Goodman and her liberal co-ideologists: You are living in a country founded in the Enlightenment, by men who believed in the power of reason to find the truth and create a good society. The tolerance you enjoy is not an ultimate value; it is a means to an end, an enabling condition for peaceful cooperation and the rational exchange of ideas. If peace and reason are not objective values, worth defending when attacked, then you have no case for tolerance in the first place. And to judge by your vehement antipathy to dogmatism, you’re really not willing to tolerate that, are you?
The next time one of these skirmishes begins—whether it’s the Ten Commandments in a courtroom, the Pledge of Allegiance, or a leader’s invocation of faith—could we try to avoid another such witless battle?
******************************
The Objectivist Center is a national not-for-profit think tank promoting the values of reason, individualism, freedom and achievement in American culture. For more information, please visit www.ObjectivistCenter.org. To unsubscribe to this list, or to subscribe to the Center's Web Update List, please visit http://www.objectivistcenter.org/email_updates.asp.
If Abdul will pray, to a smoking crater.
He seems well motivated to do that.
Satan doesn't fight with earthly weapons. He distorts, beclouds, and tempts; that is all. Our enemies are human beings. While their minds are definitely in thrall to evil, that's not the same as being the actual moving spirit of evil for the entire universe.
We can beat Islamist terrorism and Islamic hegemonic ambition. If our task were to defeat Satan himself, I'd say we'd bitten off a good deal more than we can chew.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com
Earth to Kelley: We are the enlightment.
It takes men like Boykin to make a country like this one possible. Boykin is not a country-western analogue to Bin Ladinism, he is the kind of man that makes a country like this one possible. He believes that liberty is God-given. He believes that reason is god-given. He believes that there is an objective good and evil and he believes them to be real, and he is prepared to do combat in that arena. He believes that to the degree that this country embodies Godly virtue that it is worth the sacrifice of his own life and if necessary the lives of men under his command.
Men who believe that self-interest is the highest good are not going to line up to sacrifice their lives for someone else's self-interest, not unless they are motivated by something deeper than the philosophy that they explicitly claim. It takes men like Boykin who believe that there is a life beyond life, or at the very least, lives more important than their own.
There are men who have willingly sacrificed themselves for the master race, for the emperor, for the ummah. Boykin and men like him are prepared to sacrifice themselves for liberty. That makes them a different breed of cat altogether.
So mock them if you must, but just remember that there isn't an America without them.
Yes, Heaven forbid we should do anything to offend muslims. Why, they might get mad and, I dunno, hi-jack an airplane and fly it into a bulding or something......Oh yeah, its been done.
Too bad no one has the guts to do what really needs to be done to end this problem. If anyone did they'd be crucified. Wouldn't be the first time. Look at what happens now to anyone who even suggests what the problem really is. OTOH, if Someone doesn't grow some Godilla sized cojones and deal with it, ultimately I fear a lot of Americans are going to die.
No, you're arguing against a self-serving brand of self-interest. True, there's no life after death (IMO), but there are loved ones who live after our deaths. And by "loved ones" I mean not just our relatives & friends. To a lesser degree this includes all Americans, and to a lesser degree still, all people.
I want my husband, our children, my nieces & nephews, & their future kids to thrive after I'm gone. But I also want America to thrive. And I want all of humanity to thrive after I'm gone, as well. For some cultures, that'll take several generations to accomplish. But long term, I'm very optimistic about humanity's chances.
Every time a society, country, culture, or political system implodes, that's a powerful lesson for the rest of us. And when they succeed & the people living in them thrive, it's also a powerful lesson. As time goes on, more & more people throughout the world are exposed to what's going on in the rest of the world. So more people learn each new lesson. Meanwhile our understanding of historical events gets more accurate as time goes on, as secrets are revealed & known facts are looked at again with hindsight. (I'm thinking of the saga of Communists in Hollywood & Wash. DC for example.)
That's why I think that - eventually - China will abandon Communism altogether and become more open & free. I think that eventually, Africa will come around. And I even think that - in the far distant future - even the Muslim world has a good chance of throwing off their fantasyworld mentality & joining the real world.
But this all depends on what we do with our lives. Every action we take implicitly declares a moral code to the rest of the world. So by our actions we're either declaring a world of a virtuous cycle of rationality, prosperity, safety, & progress, or we're tearing it down in favor of a code that leads to some variation of all-against-all.
See? You don't need a concept of a supernatural Authority Figure to come up with a moral code that promotes enlightened behavior. The real world provides one just fine.
Oh, boy.
So do I. Thats why you and I are on the same side in this battle.
our understanding of historical events gets more accurate as time goes on, as secrets are revealed & known facts are looked at again with hindsight.
I agree. While Truth is an objective thing, our knowledge of it is incomplete, and we advance toward it by fits and starts, sometimes forgetting some truths and having to relearn them at great cost, but in general we advance toward truth generation by generation.
But you also have the opposite dynamic, you have the Romans overturned by the Goths, burning books for firewood. You have Latin Americans having won their liberty at long last returning to a kind of left-fascism by which they re-interpret the world. Each stage of misery is then used to justify the next stage of misery.
The advance toward truth is never a straight line, and sometimes there are tragic detours. That is part of what makes history so fascinating.
That's why I think that - eventually - China will abandon Communism altogether and become more open & free.
Long term I agree. Short- to mid-term is a bit spooky, but long term looks good. The question is how long, and what happens on the way. I would make a great prognosticator, wouldn't I?
I think that eventually, Africa will come around.
If we can replace leftist solutions with rule of law, I agree.
But this all depends on what we do with our lives. Every action we take implicitly declares a moral code to the rest of the world. So by our actions we're either declaring a world of a virtuous cycle of rationality, prosperity, safety, & progress, or we're tearing it down in favor of a code that leads to some variation of all-against-all.
Very well stated. I couldn't have said it better. Its worth repeating.
You don't need a concept of a supernatural Authority Figure to come up with a moral code that promotes enlightened behavior. The real world provides one just fine.
You are assuming that a supernatural Authority Figure is a kind of useful fiction. He either is or is not. His nature, if he is, is unaffected by our belief or lack of it. Objective truth is or is not, without regard to our opinion of it. You are, of course, whether I believe in you or not.
But even if you don't believe in me, you have come to the same belief in the ultimate rationality of liberty, and the ultimate rationality of a fruitful and active life, and the ultimate rationality of service to something beyond yourself. If there were a God, he would agree with us, of course, because if there were a God, this rationality would be a reflection of the nature that established our nature. The Creator of the real world that is your model would have been the source of the rationality that you draw from observing it.
So while we may seem to disagree, the disagreement is less than it appears.
The greatest revolution which paved the way for the American revolution was the belief that God wanted men to be free. That has never been part of every religion. It isn't now, but it was this shift in religious thinking that made America possible.
You may count yourself as an atheist, but your atheism isn't the key part of your nature. Nazis and Marxists are atheists, but you have nothing in common with them. What is key is that you have looked at the same world they looked at, and rather than arrive at an analysis that is hateful to humans, that uses reason to bind men, you believed that reason required that men should love, be fruitful, and free.
I agree with you, reason requires it. And, according to me, God also agrees with you. We are on this earth to love, to be fruitful, and free. Reason requires it, and God intends it. You are in agreement with God, and his will, as we understand it, even if you don't believe in him.
Dang, I do not know when to quite writing. Quitting...... now.
I stand in awe at your writing...and understanding. Please Freep mail me - I'd like to know your background.
And the ROAR of Counter-Battery Fire you hear against General William Boykin is the sound of whining Atheist Objectivists being pissed off that General William Boykin was smart enough to use the Islamic Radical's own Mohammedan Fundamentalism against them.
Here's the Scoop -- America is not in a Christian Crusade against Islam (according to the received teachings of Jesus, it is impossible for the Government of Caesar to either assist the True Religion of Christianity, or to prevent our ultimate triumph).
But you can be damn certain that the Islamist Radicals believe that's what this is about. They think that this is a Religious War (and I don't deny that some Christian Fundamentalists have added fuel to the fire). They think that is a World War between Religious Civilizations.
And in that respect, General Boykin has employed effective psychological warfare techniques against the Islamist Radicals. They claimed that "Allah would protect them" against American technology and war-making capability. General Boykin got in their face and basically told them that Allah can't protect them for shinola. He told them that their God is an Idol and can do nothing against the U S of A.
And then, he gave them cause to despair when he declared that, absent Jesus, they have no hope at all.
This is a vicious, brutal, and potentially-devastating psychological sucker-punch against the entire basis of Islamic Radicalism. General Boykin didn't waste time with "Tolerance" and "Political Correctness"; he followed the example of Sun Tzu, and decided that if you want to win a War, you go in underneath, and you Cut off their Balls.
But the Objectivist Center seems to have overlooked these facts. The Objectivists seem to have signed on with George Bush and declared a "Global Crusade" against Statism and Islamo-Fascism, of which Ayn Rand would be proud.
I'm not looking to make Ayn Rand proud. I'm not interested in a "Global Crusade" of any sort, Objectivist or otherwise.
But if you are determined to wage a Randian Global Crusade -- it is incumbent upon you TO WIN. And that includes efficacious psychological warfare, of the sort that General Boykin is waging against the Islamic Radicals.
You're just pissed off that Boykin happens to believe in his own Psychological Warfare.
In other words, you are willing to sacrifice Military Efficiency upon the altar of your own Atheism. As a commitment to your own atheistic "faith", one might say.
And here I thought that the Atheist Objectivists had read their Sun Tzu.
The Atheist Objectivists have, by their BIASES, disappointed me once again.
In addition to Salman-Pak add the vial of crimea-congo hemmorhagic virus found by Kay's research teams.
Sounds like a derivative of ebola. (hemmorhagic)
Thank you for your post. One of the best I've read on FR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.