19th Annual War On Christmas

Commentary copyright by Joshua Michail, 2015

It was only the day after Halloween that I saw this meme pop-up on Facebook. I decided to add some fun loving thought-provoking rebuttal to the absurdity of the contrived "War On Christmas". Apparently, Thanksgiving and New Year's Eve are not holidays for Christians and that must be why they take so much offense when people say "Happy Holidays".

Please feel free to share this post.


Follow, Like, Subscribe:
On Facebook  --  On Twitter  --  On YouTube  --  On GoodReads  --  On Amazon's Author Central

My book "To Make a Better World" would make a great gift and is available in paperback & eBook, here:
amazon.com/dp/1512115894

Galileo's 451st Birthday.

Yesterday, 15 February, was Galileo Galilei's birthday. He would have turned 451 years old, born in Italy in 1564. He was a physicist, mathematician, philosopher, engineer, and an astronomer most notably. As the "father of modern astronomy" he made great improvements on telescope designs of his time, and during the Renaissance he was one of the most important contributors to the scientific revolution. The Catholic Inquisition sentenced him to spend the rest of his life under house arrest, never allowed to leave his home, because he correctly stated that the Earth orbits the sun. All things considered, he got off light on his unjust punishment since so many people were tortured to death. It only took the Catholic church 400 plus years to finally admit that he was right and they were wrong only in imprisoning him.

A Little Game of Spot The Fallacy.

There's a game I like to play called "spot the fallacies".

1. Ad Populum. The appeal to popularity occurs in the first sentence of the post, "8 out of 10 atheists will convert." Oh well, if so many others are doing it, it must be true! By the way, there is a funny British panel show called "8 Out of 10 Cats". You all should look it up on YouTube.

2. Anecdotal evidence. For some reason it seems that anecdotal stories are quite compelling among Christians. Of course, the story proves absolutely nothing. Anyone can tell a story. "A priest and an atheist were sitting in a restaurant . . . when a meteor smashed into the building killing the priest but not the atheist. So, clearly, it's better to be an atheist!" Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

3. Ad Hominem. "The atheist looks angrily at the priest and says smugly, "I can't believe how dumb you are!" Of course, if you want to slander one side the favored approach is to paint them as hostile, and rude, and arrogant. Why can't the atheist have not looked angrily and not smugly say "so, why don't you accept the evidence for evolution?" Oh, that would be more reasonable and would not reinforce the stereotype religious people enjoy believing about atheists.

4. Strawman. The story suggests that atheists "believe" in evolution, as if it were a religion requiring faith. The story also sets up a misrepresentation of the evidence for evolution just so the story teller can easily win. For some reason creationists always seem to fail when they try to argue against the actual position of evolution by natural selection. Perhaps because dinosaur fossils are not the totality of the evidence, by a long shot.

5. Extended Analogy. Chicken Nuggets are not very much like either rocks or dinosaur fossils. For that matter, dinosaur fossils are not mere rocks. Rocks are molten minerals that have cooled and thus solidified. While fossils are the result of a long process of minerals deposits that occupy cells and replace each, in organic matter. In any event, there is much more science involved in determining if something is a fossil than merely looking at it and saying "gee this looks vaguely like another thing, so it must be it." But, the analogy suggests that dinosaur fossils are rocks that merely look like parts of an animal.

6. Tu Quoque (Latin for "you too"). This is the fallacy of excusing one's own errors by invoking the errors of one's opponent. You've heard the saying "two wrongs don't make a right"? The story has the priest saying "Now, you atheists make fun of us Christians when we see Jesus in our pancakes . . ." In no way does this attempt to excuse one side's errors by pointing to the other sides errors make any sense, logically speaking. It simply is irrelevant, and it's not any kind of evidence or refutation.

7. Appeal to Emotion. Aside from the painting of the opposition as hostile, mean, rude, and arrogant, which is meant to stir dislike in the reader, there is the attempt at the tear-jerker redemption story. All of a sudden the big bad meany realizes he was bad, and begs forgiveness. And, of course, the "good guy" then shows compassion and forgiveness and kindness, so we all know who won, right?

Copyright © 2014, Joshua Michail

All Rights Reserved.

Conspiracy; The Nature of Beliefs & What They Have to do with Honor.

The terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001 is one of
the most controversial and heated subjects of all
conspiracy stories.

I am going to tell you that the beliefs you hold can affect your honor. I know this may seem odd, but I will explain my position. However, I want to also delve into some other issues regarding beliefs, most specifically on conspiracy “theories”. Recently, a friend of mine shared a link to a video lecture by Rob Brotherton, an Irish psychologist. The title of the lecture is Psychology of Conspiracy Theories [linked], which happens to also be his doctoral thesis. I found the lecture to be quite interesting, and it got me to thinking on the issue, and beyond. It raised a few issues for me that I want to deal with here. One being the problem I take with calling conspiracy stories “theories”, and I believe you can start already to see where I'm going on that point. Another point is about beliefs based on emotional thinking versus beliefs based on evidence.

There is no such thing as a “conspiracy theory”. I know this is a bold statement, but soon you'll see my point. There certainly are people who believe that there are secret plots, by a few allegedly extraordinarily-powerful interests, to take control of the world. And, it's true that sometimes conspiracies occur. Though, you'll never find the truth on sites like Info Wars, or Conspiracy Watch, and from people like Alex Jones and David Icke. In fact, there are some red flags sources like those raise, and alarm bells they sound. For instance, as a general rule, one should be quite suspicious of anyone who insists, without being questioned first, that they are telling you the truth, or that they have a secret that no other has. One should be, rightly, ready to dismiss those who make such ridiculous claims as the conspiracists do. For instance, if it's a secret that some extremely powerful cabal of conspirators would kill to keep silent, then why is the person revealing the secret on media outlets, such as You Tube, or Facebook, spreading these “secrets” for so long with no interference? Why would such secret cabals do what they are being accused of doing, what do they really gain? Why can't they use more reasonable approaches? Why is it taking them so long to accomplish their goals? If they're so powerful and secretive, why is this secret even being talked about by anyone? You get the idea, the list of questions about the story tellers goes on for a long time.

The point, however, about the term “theory” that raises my ire, is that it's not acceptable to use that term for such nonsense. The term “theory” is specifically scientific, and so should be limited to that use. The definition of which is this, Theory (n.): A stated set of ideas that; 1. coherently, 2. explain observed phenomenon, 3. and which is derived from a hypothesis that has been tested repeatedly by different groups who all found the same results. I make this point because there are two main ways people with questionable agendas tend to misuse the word. First, the conspiracy story tellers, who want people to believe there is more veracity to their claims than really exists. After-all, “theory” sounds much more important and intellectual than “story” or “opinion”. The second way that it is misused for a particular agenda is among creationists, who actually use the term in another way. They like to say “theory” as if it means the same thing as “opinion” or “just a guess”. They use the word for such actual scientific theories as Evolution by Natural Selection in the context of their discussion in the hopes that they can discredit the veracity of such science. The common acceptance of people using the term in both ways actually harms the public understanding of science. I suggest, strongly, that everyone starts to call people out on this problem. We owe it to humanity to demand intellectual honesty. We must correct our friends on the misuse of the word “theory”, and this is why I say there is no such thing as a “conspiracy theory”.

To help facilitate this effort, I suggest a few terms that can be used to replace “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist”. So, one who proposes, endorses, or spreads conspiracy stories is a “conspiracist”. This term should not be confused with “conspirator”, which is one who conspires to commit whatever the story alleges. For instance, in Jenny McCarthy's endorsement of the false story that vaccines cause autism she, by extension, endorses also the claim that governments and doctors are conspirators attempting to keep their “conspiracy” a secret. In this sense Jenny McCarthy is a conspiracist, because she is spreading the conspiracy story that vaccines allegedly cause autism. It should be noted, by the way, that the original article making the claim was scientifically discredited and the publisher retracted the article, though the doctor who initially made the claim sticks to it, even after his medical license was revoked. Further, “conspiracism” is the term I use to describe the attitude or belief that conspiracy stories have some legitimate footing for consideration and deserve to be taken seriously. More specifically, I'd say conspiracism is an undue and excessive willingness to believe, or accept as plausible, such conspiracy stories.

In the lecture that inspired me to write this essay, Rob Brotherton discussed the psychology of conspiracy stories. I find psychology to be an astoundingly interesting subject, but I'll try to keep this discussion short since we all have busy lives. Among the particular issues discussed in the lecture were the personality traits of people who believe conspiracy stories. Some research has been done which indicates the possibility that people who believe one conspiracy story also tend to believe many other conspiracy stories. Additionally, there tends to be a sense of powerlessness in the world on the part of the person who believes such stories. The typical conspiracy story narrative is a perception that some evil and extraordinarily-powerful group is responsible for the bad things that happen in the world. Rob Brotherton defines conspiracy “theories” as: (1) “an unsubstantiated allegation of conspiracy (2) pertaining to events of profound importance, (3) competing with a more plausible explanation (4) which assumes deception and misinformation [from the alleged conspirators], and (5) presumes malicious intent and hyper-competence, and (6) insulates the idea against correction”.

Moreover, there are some distinctive personality traits that are often quite evident. For one thing, most people who believe such conspiracy stories tend to be extraordinarily open to unusual ideas and are more willing to accept the stories that seem compelling to them. Additionally, believers of conspiracy stories tend to be mildly, or more, paranoid than most. They also tend to have quite a bit of bias. There's Projection Bias, in which a person presumes that most others think and behave like he/she does. Michael Shermer calls another bias “Patternicity”, which is an ability that most people have to see meaning in random stimuli. Though for the religious and many conspiracists this trait is more noticeable and usually not considered by the person who believes such things. A very common bias among conspiracists is Proportionality, they often believe that major events must have major players, such as the John F Kennedy assassination. Conspiracists often insist that because Kennedy was an important man the assassin must have been involved in a conspiracy that must have been far bigger than a lone mentally disturbed gunman. But, perhaps the most powerful and intractable bias is Confirmation Bias. People who believe in conspiracy stories usually ignore and reject evidence that does not support their existing beliefs but willingly and quickly accept anything they can perceive as supporting their presumptions.

One more very interesting point that I want to discuss is the difference between emotionally based beliefs and evidence based beliefs. Mr. Brotherton also raised this issue in the video lecture. And, as promised, here is where I'll begin discussing how one's beliefs can affect one's honor. Now, for Mr. Brotherton's sake I will state that he never mentioned honor. Rather, he talked about how in debating with someone evidence-based arguments will not be effective if that person formed his/her belief through emotions. You see, there are two basic ways people form opinions, or beliefs. One is through being presented evidence and logical arguments. The other is through appeals to emotions. Obviously the problem with emotionally-based beliefs is that they are not formed through critical examination of evidence. So emotionally-based opinions or beliefs tend, all too often, to not reflect anything resembling reality. Fundamentally there can be no honor in holding beliefs that are wishful thinking, that are discordant with reality.

But, worse still, some beliefs can be actually quite dishonorable. In fact, when one holds a belief that can motivate one to do harm, or to advocate others to do harm to themselves. And since there is no honor in ignorance, one cannot expect that being ignorant of the facts can excuse the dishonor one does to one's self by such dangerous beliefs. Such examples, sadly, exist. When someone like Jenny McCarthy tells parents to not vaccinate their children, she is actively giving medical advice. The problem in this sense is that she is nothing like a qualified doctor. This is a highly dishonorable thing to do. In fact, I will tell you this is the fundamental reason I say Jenny McCarthy is without honor. She has chosen to accept the already discredited claims against vaccinations, and she lends her cheapened celebrity status to support a most ridiculous conspiracy story. Her activism against vaccinations is, in plain fact, actively encouraging parents to harm their children. And, for this, there is no excuse. She has thrown away whatever degree of honor she might have had by holding fast to her beloved conspiracy fantasy.

Copyright © 2014, Joshua Michail

All Rights Reserved.

Censorship Inherently Admits Weakness

Privilegism; A Very Wrong Idea

Add caption

Have you ever wondered why it seems that criticizing certain ideas, or claims, is considered taboo? The Church of Scientology insists that its members use only their approved web browsers, versions of existing browsers that they usually modify. Several Islamic nations attempt to pressure internet providers and various websites, like Facebook, to block or remove certain material. They even go so far as to pressure them to ban those who produce or share material they claim is offensive. The problem is that while it may be offensive to some, it's not offensive to many. It's completely unreasonable and unjust to attempt impose one's views on others by being so selfish and inconsiderate of others as to demand that one's views get special privileges. Yet, there are those who believe wholeheartedly that they are in the right to demand special treatment. Some people believe that their beliefs are entitled, by unestablished but presumed privilege, to not be ridiculed or mocked or criticized in any way. This attitude strikes me, at first, as strange and undeserved. To think that some belief is deserving of some special privilege is a very wrong idea.

Perhaps this is something that has already been noticed and discussed, but I think this new term is appropriate. I have not yet encountered such a term, let alone an identification and discussion on this issue though. So here it is. I'm calling this phenomenon “Privilegism”. The root of this term is privilege, which is defined as the special and favorable treatment which is not enjoyed by all, or the granting of certain rights to only a few, or exemptions from some rule, burden or law, or a manifestation of favoritism. Those who are treated with favoritism, or a beneficial special consideration, etcetera, are called “privileged”. Those who believe that their views, their opinions or beliefs are entitled to a privilege of not being criticized or ridiculed, are obviously going to act as if it's natural and normal for their beliefs to be so immune. To their thinking it goes without saying, it is clearly granted. They assume it's the way it is and should be.

I'm defining “privilegism” as; the belief or attitude, that certain ideas are sacred and entitled to privileges, especially immunity from criticism or ridicule and special treatment. A "privilegist" is one who practices privilegism. An example would be when someone says something like "how dare you post this offensive picture of Mohammad on your page! You have no right to do that!" Though it's not limited to religion, it is most often the case that religious people demand the privilege for their beliefs, that they are not challenged or ridiculed. On a large enough scale this privilegism becomes the norm. Even in a technically secular nation like the United States, when the majority are of a particular religion, the idea that religion is somehow “sacred” and immune to criticism or ridicule is commonplace. It leads me to ask “are they afraid that people won't believe the idea if people can scrutinize it?” Why do some people want to protect their fragile but “precious” belief? I think the underlying motivation for privilegism is comfort. People don't like their beliefs to be challenged and so they'll do what they must to protect them. This seems to me to be a clear issue.

There certainly is a continuum to privilegism. At one end there is the weak position, the idea that people should just let people believe whatever they want. They say “don't rock the boat!” On the other end, the extremist end, the people take it much further. They tend to believe that anyone who criticizes even slightly, let alone makes fun of their belief, is blasphemous and deserves punishment. The furthest this goes is to murdering people because someone else drew a rather mild cartoon. Of course, there are also societal and legal counter-pressures that are also at play. This often frustrates the more extreme privilegists. This is seen when religious people demand that social networks, for example, ban certain people or groups and remove material, which the privilegists deem offensive. The fact that in the US we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion and freedom of the press means that they can't do very much. But, they still yell their own obscenities and they try, and though not very often it's still too frequent that they succeed. Then there is the other axis. The scale on which a nation values it's liberties.

On this second continuum we can see different societies' values of liberty. In the US, for example, we tend to value freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of the press more than in many other nations. Granted there may be some where they value those liberties more. In the case of a more civilized, free and secular nation even the moderate privilegists fail to get their way, more often than not. But, in some other nations, even the more extreme of the privilegists are quite successful and so there tends to be much less liberty. In such places one will likely find blasphemy laws. Ireland, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and North Korea all come to mind, quickly. Blasphemy laws tend to be among the more egregious of the privileges that they seek. Even more extreme, though, are places where they impose death penalties for blasphemy.

They have the attitude that their religious beliefs are privileged in some way as to justify favoritism and protection. I don't know of any religion that does not practice this. In fact, it is a confession of the weak position of a belief or claim to demand special privilege for it. Why should any idea or belief need to be protected from criticism? If it is true, if it is well-formed and grounded in reality, then such an idea or belief should have no desire for special treatment. Every belief or idea should be subject to criticism. If it is valid, if it has a modicum of truth it will need no defense and no privilege. For instance, the idea of evolution by natural selection does not need to be defended, it needs no special privilege, because whether or not it is accepted it remains true and observable. Privilegists, those who employ privilegism, are actually saying that if they did not seek the special treatment, defense from criticism and privilege, their beliefs would be too weak to long survive. Any belief, or idea, which has truth will stand on its own merits and will long endure. Privilegism is the subconscious admission that one's belief is more than merely untrue, but that it is a very wrong idea.

copyright © 2012, Joshua Michail

Read my book here.          Follow me on Twitter.          Like my page on Facebook.   
Check out my videos on YouTube.          Visit me on Instagram.  
Visit my author page on GoodReads.    

Brain Dead; On the Assault on Intellectuals

            The value of being well educated should go without needing to be stated. It ought to be obvious, even to those who are not not so well educated, that education is so very important. In fact, it is as simple as being the most basic principle, education is the foundation upon which all human progress has been and will ever be built. First one learns, then one applies what one has learned. This is the most fundamental process to advancing our understanding of the universe, our technology and to improve every aspect of humanity. The intellectual pursuit is the greater accumulation of wisdom, knowledge and justice for all people. Education and intellectualism are inseparably tied together. The one is embodied in the other, they each depend also upon the other. Strangely, however, there are all too many people among us who would destroy these sisters of inalienable human quality. On the accomplishment of their desires, whether confessed or not nor whether fully contemplated, would be the extinction of our species. They would leave the last generation brain dead.

Recently, Rick Santorum, the former US Senator representing Pennsylvania and a Republican Presidential hopeful*, had said that people should not get a college education. He actually said universities and colleges are “elitist” factories, as if being educated were somehow equal to being an elitist. Never mind, for now, that he used the word “snob” wrongly in an attempt to mislead people. It seems to me that this incident is merely the more obvious surfacing of a long-existing problem. This is not the first time the words “snob” or “elitist” have been used to insult educated people. There is an abundance of reason to worry that the very idea of education, let alone universities and colleges, are under attack. Intellectuals have been persecuted throughout history, and yet they are the originators of modernity and higher standards of living. It seems strange that such people would be so maligned.

But, there are people who dislike the idea of someone else being smart enough to question false comforts and supposedly sacred beliefs. Certainly the daring truth-seeking makes many people uncomfortable. There are two types of people who enjoy the status quo. There are those who fear change and want stability and traditions. They also want to be reassured that the beliefs they hold are acceptable and that they fit into some hierarchical design. Then there are those who wish to hold power over others, or at least to protect some profiteering racket. They are generally willing to do, or say, whatever needs be to do this, including influencing the opinions of the masses. The first group wish to stay comfortable and they see intellectuals as making them uncomfortable. The intellectual challenges their traditions and calls for change. The second group see intellectuals as 'rabble-rousers', challenging to their authority and undermining their power. To the status quo the intellectual is a painful thorn in the side. Rick Santorum seems to be the epitome of both groups at once.

Intellectuals think, not to be redundant. They do a lot of thinking and, in fact, they usually do this as a career. They also tend to be smart and well educated. But, despite the dishonest use of words like “elitist” or “snob” intellectuals, and educated people in general, tend to be concerned with what is best for humanity. People like Santorum actually want to scare people away from getting an education. Even though, he has not just one, but two degrees from two different universities, he says that it's a bad thing for people to go to college. Santorum, by the way has a M.B.A. (Master of Business Administration) degree from the University of Pittsburgh and while that is a nearly worthless, easy to get, degree he also has a J.D. (Juris Doctor) from Dickinson Law School. Yet, he says that going to school will make people become heathens who will denounce god and that efforts to promote greater access to college for as many people as possible is an evil, presumably “Satanic” effort to turn people against god. He implies that religious uneducated people are superior to educated people who might not believe in god. So one must surely get the feeling that Santorum is a bit of a hypocrite.

Of course, Santorum could be merely pandering to a block of voters, upon whom he hopes to have suasion. He could also be acting like an elitist himself, and he could be fostering among the people, whose votes he hopes to get, a sense of themselves being superior. After all, the word “elitist” means one who believes him/her self to be superior to others. Reasonably, there is an issue here known in psychology parlance as 'transference', in which a person – or in this case, a group – project onto others, particularly some disliked group or person, that which is true of themselves. In other words, the people who protest educated people as “elitist” are the ones who are in fact the elitists. It's rather like the thief who accuses the person he stole from, and who is now wanting his property back, a 'thief'. It is politicians, seeking the power of the office, who exploit the baser nature of their voting block, and in doing so perpetuate a dishonest prejudice. They attack their opposition, and those even very loosely associated with the opposition. They attempt to make the opposition look bad in the opinions of the voters, in hopes of winning the votes, but in doing so they do so much damage to the integrity of the nation.

Nationalism is a political ideology that promotes the supremacy of the particular nation over all other nations. The truth is, that Nationalism is both “elitist” and anti-intellectual at the same time. This political view is that the government must favor the nation to the point that imports and immigrants are forbidden. 'National security' becomes a buzz-term and everyone is pressured to embrace a sense of exaggerated patriotism. In fact Nationalists see their country as being somehow “exceptional”, as in Santorum's “American exceptionalism”. The nationalist says that his/her nation is “god's favorite” and “our country is the greatest ever”. There is a horrific historical example of, not just what nationalism looks like, but also the connection between nationalism and anti-intellectualism. Nazis were Nationalists first and only slightly Socialist second. The Socialist part was not what made them evil, indeed the Nationalism played more to that point. An interesting notable is that most intellectuals have long advocated for socialism, while denouncing nationalism. The latter may have been part of the reason the Nazis persecuted intellectuals. In fact, Hitler's Reich rounded up, tortured and murdered intellectuals. Apparently not content with merely burning their books and banning their works.

When conservatives lambast intellectuals as being “un-American” they are betraying their actual motivations. The conservative propaganda machine, largely exemplified in Fox News, paints a portrait of nationalism and hypocrisy. They throw the word “patriot” around as if they owned the trademark on it. Grandma, apple pie, big corporations, the good ol' days, the Stars and Stripes, the Founding Fathers, Jesus, guns, no immigrants and the like are the elements of their ideal of America. Communism is still the boogie-man for them, and worker unions are the most “communist”, or so they say. It doesn't get much more nationalist than “close the border”, “deny citizenship to anchor-babies”, “America is the greatest nation ever” or “America is god's muscle on earth”. Well, certainly the Nazis in WWII were somewhat more nationalistic.

But, there is clear reason for the conservative attitudes of Nationalism and Anti-Intellectualism. It is all about power. Corporations and billionaires want to protect their interests, their good times, and they want politicians who will do their bidding. Otherwise, the politicians might institute and enforce regulations that protect the economy and the people. To this end they dump millions of dollars into the campaigns of the political candidates who are likely to do their dirty work for them. And a central part of this agenda is education. After all, a well educated populous can see through the horseshit and will call the politicians out on their lies. So while they chip away at our liberties, one piece at a time, here and there, they are strategically weakening the possibility of resistance. Among other things, while they weaken our liberty, they create Straw-man representations of the opposition and claim the opposition wants to take the people's liberties from them. They could never have gone straight for the brass ring, it would have not been tolerated. But the people wind up being less unified and present less of a strong opposition to each of the little, seemingly unrelated, attacks which occur over a long time.

So now we're at the point that the pandering corrupt corporate-owned politicians are shifting attitudes about education. They've gotten to the point that they openly claim that education is somehow “bad”, suggesting that those who are smart are not really American. Santorum is not the only one trying to imply this nonsense, but he is the most clear example. The greatest lie, the most absurd twist, is the fact that the anti-intellectuals are both eager to declare their so-called love of America – while while attempting to stylize themselves after our founding fathers – and at the same time they distort history to suit their needs. The fact is that most of the founding fathers were intellectuals. Thomas Paine wrote and published Common Sense, a booklet which encouraged the separation of the colonies from the crown and the formation of the United States. Benjamin Franklin strategically, and successfully, maneuvered to get the French king to support American independence from the British king. Franklin also publish quite a few of his ponderings on the nature of liberty. Thomas Jefferson was a lawyer and the author of our Declaration of Independence. John Adams and James Monroe were actually intellectuals also. In fact, many of the patriotic heroes – the patriot's patriots, one might say – were, by comparison with today's averages, quite well educated. The anti-intellectuals, at once, idealize their twisted view of the founding fathers while demonizing anyone who is anything like them.

While some may choose to blame the media, I don't. The reason is that the media is not really the originator of the shift in attitudes, but rather, the reinforcement machine. After all, the media is a business, it aims for the lowest common denominator. It is all about getting the most viewers, to get ratings that let the companies charge as much as they can for advertising. Certainly the media is not helping the situation, but it's also not the premiere offender. If the common people were better educated, on the whole, it is likely the media, in general, would be putting out more sophisticated content. After all, the people would be much more receptive to the higher standards of quality.

Knowledge is power, as the old adage goes, and education increases knowledge. If this is true then, would it not be true that to impede education – to discourage people from getting an education – is actually an attempt to make the people powerless? Rick Santorum echoes what many conservative religious people think, that getting an education makes people “stray away” from the “godly” lifestyle. Politicians and preachers, generally, do not want to let slip the power they wield over the heads of their subjects. To them education, especially outside of the total control of the church, is a serious threat to the power. Seneca the Elder is reported to have said “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false and by the rulers as useful”. But, it's not true that universities make people leave their religions. In fact, there are many well educated people who continue believing in their deities after years of higher education, albeit most tend to shift their views. Many educated religious people tend to be more moderate and they try to make their religious beliefs fit around scientific knowledge, rather than the other way around. Our founding fathers established the United States as a Democratic Republic, but the current situation with super-wealthy corporate interests cooperating with religious conservatives is seeing America being pushed corruptly, insidiously, toward a Theocratic Plutocracy. A rule by the wealthiest unelected few couched in a system that claims “divine authority” to rule.

At the end, this effort to sure up the religion and the voting constituency for conservatives is dangerous. The religious conservatives and their bedfellows have gone to great lengths to obscure the facts about what they're doing. But, if one is aware, their actions are transparent enough. In the execution of the dumbing-down of the people, to make them more useful to the religious and political conservative leaders – and most secretively, the corporate profiteering puppet-masters – they may well damage the people far beyond even their own expectations. They would undo thousands of years of progress. All to satiate their greed and selfishness. And America, if not all of humanity, may be lost. But, this need not be our path. If people call the conservatives out on their nefarious efforts, if we make a strong defense for education and intellectual pursuits we may yet succeed in protecting humanity's progress.

Copyright © 2012 Joshua Michail

*UPDATE: Since I started writing this essay Rick Santorum has, thankfully, given-up his candidacy for US President.