Aren't I worth saving?

I have a friend who has a friend ...

My friend is an atheist. His friend is a Christian of the literalist variety. He, the atheist, and she, the Christian, appear to have a close, loving friendship.

I once asked my friend if his friend ever proselytized to him. He said, "No, she respects me to much to do that."

This answer, while it didn't surprise me, still baffles me.

My wife, who was with us for this conversation, agreed with my friend: his friend was being respectful by not preaching her religion to him.

So I asked, if he were practicing unsafe sex, and if she had reason to believe he'd thereby contract a deadly disease, would it be respectful to keep her concerns to herself? They agreed with me that it wouldn't be. They even agreed that she would be neglectful as a friend to just let him destroy himself that way.

So why didn't they make the same move with his eternal soul that they made with his mortal life?

Don't get me wrong! I don't worry for my atheist friend's immortal soul. I'm not a believer in Christ or Jehovah or any version of an afterlife -- I don't believe in immortal souls. I'm closer to my friend's atheism than I am to his friend's Christian literalism. But that's beside the point. If she believes in Hell, then I would want her to try to keep her friends and loved ones out of the place.

Should she pester him about the afterlife? No. I also don't think she'd be right to pester him about his sexual practices if his (hypothetical) risky behavior were at issue. I'm not advocating nagging in either case.

But why do non-believers have such a hard time taking seriously the beliefs of the believers? I don't mean that agnostics and atheists should suddenly become Biblical literalists; I mean that non-believers should be capable of following the literalist logic of believers, especially believers they care about.

At some other point, I'll give other examples of this problem with the moral imagination of my fellow non-believers, but meanwhile I wanted to point to a Gary North article from a couple years back on why American Christian fundamentalists don't proselytize to Israeli Jews. (Hint: it's not out of respect!)

While I'm at it, I'll also throw in a Wiccan(/witch)'s advice on how Christians can respectfully preach to pagans.

---cut here---

"The Unannounced Reason Behind American Fundamentalism's Support for the State of Israel" by Gary North -- http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/north7.html

"How to Share the Gospel With Pagans" by Gwydion -- http://www.homestead.com/barbooch/Gospel.html

masculine politics

(Click to enlarge.)	(Click to see all.)

Left of Peace

A couple of nice blog entries from AntiWar.com:

Fri Jul 30, 2004

DNC Night 4: The Smell of Napalm the Morning After

John Kerry: "I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as president."

You defended this country from what? Those Vietnamese peasants who were pillaging Boston?

Source: http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=P1202

DNC Night 4: The Peace Party

The loudest applause during Wesley Clark's speech last night came at the end of this:

Under John Kerry we will attack and destroy the terrorist threats to America. He'll join the pantheon of great wartime Democrats.

Great Democrats like Woodrow Wilson, who led us to victory in World War 1. Great Democrats like Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, who turned back the tide of fascism to win World War II. Great Democrats like John Kennedy, who stood firm and steered us safely through the Cuban Missile Crisis. And great Democrats like Bill Clinton, who confronted ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, and with diplomacy -- backed by force -- brought peace to a shattered land.

Source: http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=P1204

The True Reason for "lessons"?

(Click to enlarge.)

Game Rules ... Revisited

Game Rules

• Politics is a zero-sum game: for anything won, there must be something lost.
• The market (i.e., voluntary exchange) is a positive-sum game: every voluntary player wins.

Game Rules Revisited

• The Market is a positive-sum game (winners and winners) that is usually thought of as a zero-sum game (winners and losers).
• Politics is a negative-sum game (losers and losers) that is talked about as a positive-sum game, while generally believed to be a zero-sum game.

2nd-tier arguments for liberty

There seem to be three distinct approaches to taking a position. I sometimes call these the 3 'P's -- principle, practical, persuasion -- and sometimes the 3 'E's -- ethics, economics, emotions.

The first-tier approach is for those of us who believe the ends can't justify the means. The second-tier approach is for people who not only say that they are results-oriented, but who actually mean it! The third-tier is for everyone else -- it is the realm of both the a-rational and the irrational.

The only necessary argument for liberty is the ethical, first-tier argument: The Non-Aggression Principle: "No one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to delegate its initiation." -- L. Neil Smith

But I've never managed to bring anyone over to libertarianism with a first-tier, ethical appeal to principle.

For almost anyone I've ever talked to, the ends justify the means! As H.A. Scott Trask says, "Americans are quick to deny the ethical legitimacy of this doctrine when it is presented to them as a naked proposition, yet there is no doctrine that they more readily turn to in order to justify morally questionable practices."

So, sadly, I turned to the study of economics and game theory a year or two ago, to learn more about the practical realm of the second-tier. (I say "sadly" because the move from first- to second-tier was an emotional defeat, but I am, in fact, very happy to have discovered economics!)

Not all second-tier arguments would be recognized as "economic" by most people, which is why I also describe E2/P2 as practical, strategic, utilitarian and consequentialist.

The third-tier is where most people really choose their positions, but I don't have the strength to address that here and now. I've written a piece on the 3 'E's of the Minimum Wage, and I will post a link when and if I get it published. [update]

Meanwhile, I highly recommend these two second-tier arguments for liberty, both published today at LewRockwell.com:

Those Good Old Days, by Gary North.
The pattern behind what gets better and what gets worse over time.

Don't Vote, by Bretigne Shaffer.
So-called liberals (left-wing social democrats) are naive to think you can have a Welfare State without the Warfare State.