God in the Gutter, Allah at the Altar

Despite objections from the Liberal parties and requests not to go ahead with the exclusive meeting of the eighteen "Friends of the EU Constitution", called for by Luxemburg and Spain - the latter currently led by the political and cultural equivalent of Attila The Hun - in an opening speech in Madrid, Spain's Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos argued that any revised Constitution should be extended to include more European objectives (?), rather than pared down to just institutional reforms.

Delegates from the eighteen countries that have ratified the EU constitution, plus its strong supporters - Ireland and Portugal - gathered in Madrid to outline their positions on the future of the European treaty and to "help the German presidency to collect the positions, to help finding a way out" of the current limbo. In line with the motto of the meeting and the key idea to be highlighted in the forthcoming statement - "Por una Europa Mejor", for a better Europe - Mr Moratinos reiterated that the current treaty is an "excellent document".

Apart from the usual underhanded way of conducting EU business, the "excellent document" is a re-hash of the existing treaties and charters, plus lots of wool produced by a committee of political has-beens, minus the good proposals and ideas. How the EU deals with its own values is exemplified by the extra-curricular "meeting of the friends" and how they run roughshod over the French and Dutch vetoes. In an EU Observer article the word vetoes is indicated between inverted commas, as if these were not real, but only a sort of constructed coincidence, having no real value in the legal sense. But the contrary is the case and these attempts at invalidating it are an indication of the legal relativism that is current in Brussels politics. I'm still wondering what part of "Non" and "Nee" they did not quite understand.

The vetoes are what the Constitution would make impossible, if adopted: for any one country to obstruct the deals the others make, and an end to (mostly Thatcherite) opt-outs. It is also at this point that the negative side of the EU would start to outweigh the positive: it would no longer be a benign, voluntary "occupation" by foreign powers offset by economic benefits, but a dictatorship by the majority, violating members' principle right to self-determination and sovereignty: it will prove to be self-defeating and its adoption will mark the end of the European Union and its efforts for peace in the absence of power politics on the continent.

The proposed Constitution is also an effort of creating a future in which moral truth has no role in governance. Like the VVD Dutch Liberal Party, it doesn't pass moral judgement, equating Christianity with cannibalism and Colin Powell with Robert Mugabe. It will impose a anti-theist French style laïcité [1] on public life, thereby violating its own declared moral commitment to tolerance.

The single thing that the patch-work of member countries have in common - a culture based on the Judeo-Christian civilizational enterprise built on the ruins of classical Greco-Roman values, is being denied to the point of stretching science to prove a rather immature purpose. The question can be asked: are a people who deny their own history worthy of a future? This isn't a time for wisdom and visions, but for polarization and transition. That is why the desert call to shelve the constitutional project for the moment, is wasted on "the friends". European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso's EU 50th anniversary birthday list calls for all but roots, although he does invoke the Catholic founding fathers, who we may wonder cover their heads in disappointment over such cultural barbarism.

Thanks to the relativist Christophobia of the anti-theist state [1] and in consideration of a comment yesterday on Dr Sanity's blog: "By all means, accept reality ... your grandchildren will be Muslim. Allahu akbar!" (yes, the gloves are off), the future is likely to be characterised by "God in the Gutter and Allah at the Altar". But we shouldn't despair: salvation may yet come in the guise of two former communist countries and new P.C. irritants, the Czech Republic and Poland. Perhaps after the last Western baby-boomer has packed it in, the New Europe may yet be able to snatch some of the bankrupt assets away from the Gates of Vienna.

I specifically would like to hear the views of new Europeans. They are heartily invited to post their comments.

Relativism's Seven Sins Against Reason: Truth by Survey

Relativism has come up with yet another offense against logic. It is of course not new at all. On the contrary, the poisonous mixture of truth and the phenomenon of surveys has been around for a long time. As all neo-sophistry it starts innocent enough, but before long it reaches new depths as the misconception is allowed to live on.

It causes widespread mistakes, errors, misunderstandings and misconceptions about all matter. It suggests people's opinions, thought-through - or not, properly motivated - mostly not, matter in cases that are not their call at all; or that do not call for an opinion because they are questioning given facts, of nature or otherwise. It creates some kind of quasi democracy - whether appropriate or not. Surveys also suggest that if people vote it down and it happens all the same, this is done somehow Contrary to the Will of the People, causing some crypto-sense of Outrage.

This is how it could happen that, as over 51% of people surveyed returned a result of "Pope John Paul II should retire" this was in places taken quite seriously. The fact that St Peter had never taken out a pension policy and that it is therefore also not customary for his current replacement, doesn't enter the relativist mind, that is so full of its own idea that all and sundry dating before the period of the Enlightenment is obsolete, the folly of the question doesn't even occur to him. Let alone the conclusion that it's not The People's call, that the Roman Church isn't a Jeffersonian democracy avant la lettre, or that it is certainly not a matter for non-Catholics to decide.

Notwithstanding the given that public opinion is notoriously fickle and there is such a thing as the dictatorship by the majority to consider, all this has very little to do with fact and truth, and it is misleading the public.

Open a web-page and there's a survey to fill out. Let us know what you think! We value your opinion! Have your say! Before you know it, some lux in tenebris [1] will put to the question if God exists! "Fill in: yes or no". Hurray for the atheists: 50,3% of the people surveyed returned a No! It's now official: there is no God!
Crazy? Not so. It can happen tomorrow. I don't want to confuse the issues, but it's too good to pass up: consider weblog "The Atheist Ethicist" that this week posted the following trouvaille:

Quote
The Morality Test
In a recent posting, "Jewish Atheist" offered a ‘morality test’ [2] that attempted to collect empirical data that no two people are in complete agreement on a range of moral statements. What "Jewish Atheist" meant to imply from this set of data is not entirely clear. It is not clear, in part, because I can come up with a similar set of statements about things that are totally objective, where people are in disagreement about the facts of the matter ... et cetera, et cetera.
Unquote

While the "Atheist Ethicist" correctly questions a test to establish morality, it commits the sin of confusing facts with opinion: you cannot disagree over facts; there are a given!
The Jewish variety goes on to suggest the following questions:

(1) At least one God exists.
(2) Humans are the product of a phenomena called ‘evolution’ in a universe designed by God in such a way that evolution would create humans.
(3) Jesus rose from the dead.
(4) Mohamed was a prophet of God.
(5) There is at least one planet with multi-cellular life within 1000 light years of Earth.
(6) Earth will be hit by an asteroid or comet at least 0.5 km in diameter within the next 100,000 years.
(7) There were dinosaurs on Noah’s Arc. Et cetera, et cetera.

This set of queries have nothing to do with morality. They are a selection of faith articles, plus one thrown in for good measure about Darwinism (which just goes to show that Ann Coulter wasn't that far off the mark), plus a few questions about astronomy that have no business there at all; but is doesn't matter as they're all irrelevant as far as morality is concerned.
Wait, I know a good secular question to put to the test: let's ask if anybody has problems dodging taxes? I think the rates can be abolished by tomorrow noon.
It defies belief sometimes what relativism can do to the brain!

It is of course only one of many offences against reason that are committed by the pseudo philosophers and sophists. To date I'm listing seven misconceptions on very basic matters, and counting. We'll come to each one in turn, given time. But please, the next time you see a survey, set it alight if laws of nature and personal safety allow.

I am considering organizing a contest for the Most Outrageous Survey, so by all means let me know if there is any one you come across that you'd like to submit for an award.