My last word on Religion        My upcoming blog posts are going to be about the role of education in the world peace algorithm. I have wasted too much time talking about religion. I said that in yesterday's blog post, and I gave you a link to my last word on the subject on my website: "Nailed to the Door of Faith."
       Back in my undergraduate days, I wrote a paper on the Clifford - James Debate. As many of you know, William James and William K. Clifford had different views on religion. Since I do not want to talk about it anymore, you can read what I have already written on my website at "Clifford - James Debate" That paper also has a reference page at the end so you can research my research on Clifford and James, and also John Dewey.
       Race is another module (subroutine) in the world peace algorithm, and I also don't want to talk about that anymore. I posted "My Last Word on Race" on my website. Remember The Paris 12!!!        They cannot kill us all!!! If every journalist and cartoonist in the world just spent one day publishing a diatribes, offensive or not, against a stupid religious belief, maybe a clear message will be sent that those Paris 12 were real martyrs, not just for freedom of speech but for intellectual and cultural progress through mutual dialogue and non-violent action.

Empiricism and Spirituality        As a philosopher, I understand that logic alone cannot give us all the answers. Empirical experience has its limits, and so many philosophers have looked beyond scientific empiricism for answers. The 17th Century philosopher, Rene Descartes left us with the mind/body conundrum, the idea that the material and the immaterial worlds can never connect. This has caused the cognitive extremes of religious metaphysics and scientific reductionism to bookend the middle majority of people who want to believe in both, but cannot figure out how that would would work. Some so-called intellectuals are even saying that philosophy has come to an end, or is just irrelevant. Philosophy is being attacked from both sides and, if you will look at the budgets of most colleges and universities, the Philosophy Departments are getting the most severe cuts.
       However, philosophy is now more important than ever, because the relatively new subject of process philosophy, a subject on which I have written a textbook, has shown that the immaterial and the material are not mutually exclusive. (Hint: check out quantum mechanics.)
       Yesterday I ended my blog with the question: "So, who am I to criticize other people's religious beliefs?" My religious policy is "Don't ask, don't tell." And if everybody did that we wouldn't have so many problems with conflicting religious beliefs. It is nobody's business what my spiritual beliefs are, That is between me and my higher power, and I would not care about other people's beliefs if they were not violently stuffing it in our faces by their actions. Case in point: Today's Santa Rosa Press Democrat ran a story about two Mississippi state legislators, Tom Miles and Michael Evans, who are trying to make the Bible the official book of Mississippi. What? Nobody in Mississippi has ever read Kant, Kierkegaard, or Whitehead?
       The freedom to believe stupid ideas does not logically translate into the "right" to freedom of action. But more about that tomorrow.
       Religion is only one of many modules in the World Peace Algorithm and, using a calculus of economic opportunity costs, I find I cannot afford to waste anymore time on it. For those interested in my previous writings on Religion, here is a link to an article I wrote many years ago, Nailed To The Door of Faith. Stay tuned for more rants        In an upcoming blog, I will explore the differences between thought, speech, and action, and discuss the relationships among them. In my future blogs I will also be discussing my current research on the relationship of education and world peace that I have doing for MA in ED at SSU. Remember The Paris 12!!!        They cannot kill us all!!! If every journalist and cartoonist in the world just spent one week publishing diatribes,offensive or not, against stupid religious beliefs, maybe a clear message will be sent that those Paris 12 were real martyrs, not just for freedom of speech but for intellectual and cultural progress through mutual dialogue and non-violent action.

Remembering the Paris 12 Part III
       A boycott is not censorship. Censorship is when the government restricts your freedom of speech. Censorship is imposed from the outside. Self-censorship is imposed from within. An individual or group decides to censor themselves for whatever reasons they see fit. It may seem wrong to others, but it is their right, and it is not censorship by government. And here is where the line gets fuzzy. Extortion and violence by terrorists can also cause self-censorship; the terrorism is wrong, but the victims have a right to self-censorship. Not all essayists and cartoonists are as brave as the Paris 12 martyrs, but every journalist and editor has to decide that issue for themselves.
       A boycott is not censorship, but nor is it self-censorship. When you ignore something or refuse to have anything to do with it, it has not been censored; it still exists, unrestricted. I like to know who the racists and war mongers are, but after I've heard all the stupid racist rants and heard all the self-serving right-wing excuses for perpetuating war, I get tired of it and I invoke my "opportunity costs" rule of philosophical economics. I have better things to read and write about. so I boycott them. Everyone knows that only 1 person boycotting something has absolutely no effect on the target of the boycott. That's why social activists call for large groups of people to boycott things of which they disapprove. And that brings us to the topics of government and corporations.
       We already established that censorship by the government is wrong, but also that boycotts are not censorship. That is why government economic sanctions against other racist and/or terrorist governments is a legitimate tactic. But now we get into a really sticky problem here. Both individuals and groups (corporate bodies) have the right to free speech. Even non-democratic corporate bodies? If a corporate entity is run by a dictator, and his personal free speech is in direct conflict with the free speech of everybody under him, isn't that censorship? Because I am a journalist, I will use a hypothetical newspaper as an example. Suppose the whole staff of this hypothetical newspaper decided that they wanted to run some cartoons about Catholics being against, not only abortion, but also against birth control methods which would have made abortion unnecessary in the first place, and furthermore, that their ideas are based on questionable interpretations of scriptures of questionable origin, but accepted on blind faith, not on logic or critical thinking. But now suppose that the publisher, or the editor, of this hypothetical newspaper (or magazine) decided to self-censor the controversial cartoons in the name of cultural sensitivity. If he was running his own blog, or a small one-person publication of handbills and flyers, it would be legitimate self-censorship, and he would have a right to it. If the majority of the staff of the newspaper agreed with him, by a democratic vote, that would also be legitimate self-censorship. But in this case it is censorship, but not by a government, we are still theorizing within the realm of the private sector. So what are the options of the majority of the staff who want to publish the "culturally offensive" material? For one thing, they can boycott the publication either by staging a strike or just quitting their jobs and going on to another publication before the publisher could fire them for then strike. But if they couldn't get work elsewhere they would lose their salaries and medical benefits, which means that the publisher is actually extorting, (blackmailing) them into submission. I really do not have an answer to that problem because, having been a journalist for other publications in the past, I am now in the position of an independent blogger. To self-censor or not, that is the question.
       So, who am I to criticize other people's religious beliefs? My religious policy is "Don't ask, don't tell." It is nobody's business what my spiritual beliefs are, and I would not care about other people's beliefs if they were violently stuffing it in our faces by their actions. The freedom to believe stupid ideas does not logically translate into the "right" to freedom of action. Stay tuned for by blog tomorrow, when I will explain my own spiritual beliefs.
Remember The Paris 12!!!        They cannot kill us all!!! If every journalist and cartoonist in the world just spent one week publishing diatribes against stupid religious beliefs, offensive or not, maybe a clear message will be sent that those Paris 12 were real martyrs, not just for freedom of speech but for intellectual and cultural progress through mutual dialogue and non-violent action.

Remembering the Paris 12 Part II
       Many people think that freedom of speech means the right of anyone to say anything. They are right, and it does. But the corollary to speaking is hearing. I have the right to hear what ideas are out there. Sure, racists have the right to hate speech, but not just for their benefit; we have a right to know who they are, who is saying what. I want to know who the racists are and what they are saying so that I can write logical essays opposing their views. Verbal and literary dialogue is the real point of this whole discussion. A terrorist sympathizer might write "Death to the infidels" and be protected by free speech, but he crosses the line when he acts on it, when he commits murder, which is not covered by free speech. And now we segue into two other topics: "race" and "cultural sensitivity".
       A Religion is not a "race". I have written elsewhere about race, about how there is no such thing as race; it has no scientific basis. It is just a psychological construct which becomes a social construct when shared by a group of people. Since I have already covered this elsewhere, I don't want to waste any more space here on race. But when people of some religions actually believe they are a race, or have a race-based religion, it is still just a social construct, but it confuses people who are sensitive to racism.
       Racism is when someone makes judgments of other people based on superficial physical characteristics such as skin color, hair texture, eye shape, etc. This is why the concept of "race" has no scientific basis: no racist groups can agree on how many "races" there are, or which of our superficial, physical characteristics counts in determining a "race". The problem is that racists are not only people who judge others by race; racists are also people who self-identify by race. Racists always divide the human race into "Us" and "Them". People do not have a choice about the genetic markers they inherit from their parents, but they do have a choice about the culture and social constructs they accept. Social constructs are beliefs, but culture is both beliefs and actions. Culture is learned behavior, and anything that can be learned can be unlearned. And now we come to the topic of cultural sensitivity.
       As I said in the previous paragraph, people have no choice about the genetic markers that give them their superficial physical characteristics. Also, looking at a person and describing their physical characteristics (the construct of "race" is only good for describing missing persons), does not tell you anything about who they really are. Describing their clothes, speech, and actions might give you clues to their general cultural affiliation, but not always, and that still won't tell you who they really are, what they really believe, what their individual life-experiences have been and how they have reacted to them. Racism is just plain stupid and hurtful. But the problem here is that groups of people whose culture is based on racial identity will cry "racism" when someone criticizes their culture or their religion. Liberals cave in and enable this racism when they self-censor themselves in the name of "cultural sensitivity". I agree that it is hypocritical to criticize other people's cultural beliefs when one is too cowardly to question one's own culture. Ironically, that is my main criticism of other cultures; that they are too cowardly to question their own beliefs and values. But most Progressives do question their own cultures first, and that is what makes us different than your standard establishment liberal or conservative. So where does that get us on the self-censorship topic?
       Stay tuned tomorrow for Part III of “Remembering The Paris 12”, when I will discuss the different levels of self-censorship. I will also deconstruct the social construct of “cultural sensitivity”, maybe not as extremely culturally offensive as some of you would like, but culturally (to some) offensive all the same. Remember The Paris 12!!!        They cannot kill us all!!! If every journalist and cartoonist in the world just spent one day publishing a diatribes against a stupid religious belief, offensive or not, maybe a clear message will be sent that those Paris 12 were real martyrs, not just for freedom of speech but for intellectual and cultural progress through mutual dialogue and non-violent action.

I Also Have Talented Siblings       Two of my talented siblings, Christopher K. Moon, photographer, and Carol Louise Moon, poet, have posted their work on the net. Check it out, friends. Moonerisms

Remembering the Paris 12 Part I
       Two columnists (among many others, I am sure) had perceptive things to say about free speech v. terrorism. I am referring to Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post and David Brooks of the New York Times, published in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat on Fri. Jan 9th and Sat Jan 10th respectively. Both essayists were eloquent.
       Eugene Robinson's column, was a great essay warning against self censorship by journalists, reminding us all that we cannot let terrorism and extortion stifle our free speech, no matter the quality of our writing.
       The next day, David Brooks (nominally a conservative, but I call him a "closet liberal")also stepped up with an essay in favor of free speech and against censorship.
       Usually social conservatives, especially religious ones, would agree, speaking out against govt. censorship in principle, but warn against "offensive" writing and call for self-censorship. Brooks did not do that; he also warned against self-censorship. He went even further, using his conservative persona as a front, pointing out that the kind of satire that the Charlie Hedbo journalists and cartoonists were doing would have been been censored as "hate speech" if a high school or college newspaper had tried publish it.
       I am in total agreement with Brooks on his criticism of "liberal cultural sensitivity", but I see it as a Progressive political point of view, one that makes Progressives different from liberals who are still living in the 1960s and 70s. Progressives are not conservatives, we are more to the left of liberals, but we seem to (almost)share a common view with (some) conservatives about free speech and censorship. But as I pointed out in a previous paragraph, religious social conservatives are easily offended by our secular, ant-religious rhetoric and are kind of conflicted about where to draw the line between censorship and self-censorship. This is why some Progressives think that culturally sensitive liberals are just caving in to the social conservatives.
       Brooks went on to say that there are different levels of quality and civility in political essays that range from "adult" to "kids" but still, none of them should be censored. (I think it was cool that Brooks put both Bill Maher and Ann Coulter in the same category with the "jesters and holy fools". I disagree with hum about Bill Maher; he had to say that to preserve his Con Cred, but the closet liberal in him appropriately trashed Ann Coulter.)
Tomorrow, Part II of "Remembering the Paris 12"        Today's blog post will, (I hope), have raised more questions than it has answered. There are two ways to deal with this. 1. Send me an email with your questions and criticisms. 2. Keep reading this blog because tomorrow I will explain how I define my terms such as "freedom of speech", "self-censorship", "cultural sensitivity", "boycott", "race", "Government", and "corporation", with brief essays on these topics.
       In another future blog I will be discussing my own spiritual and moral beliefs. After that I will begin my series of academic research on Education and World Peace. Stay tuned. Remember The Paris 12!!!        They cannot kill us all!!!
       If every journalist and cartoonist in the world just spent one week publishing diatribes against stupid religious beliefs, offensive or not, maybe a clear message will be sent that those Paris 12 were real martyrs, not just for freedom of speech but for cultural and intellectual progress through mutual dialogue and non-violent action.

Muslim Outrage Against Terrorism
      Yesterday I implied that a certain religion was not outraged enough by atrocities committed in their name. I have often heard Muslims claim that they are outraged by violence committed against civilians in their name, as the Koran forbids these terrorist attacks. Their claim is that it is our Western news media that is biased against them. Their accusation does have merit.
      Yesterday, in San Francisco, the Northern California Muslim community held a vigil for the victims of the Paris attack. They are outraged by terrorism in their name. So my next question is to the northern California New media; SF Chronicle, SF Examiner, Oakland Tribute, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, et. al.:If you can put the terrorist attack in the main headline of your papers, why can't you put the Muslim Outrage in the headlines, or at least give them equal space? Are not these peaceful Muslims justified in their frustration at being ignored? Also, why give the terrorists the honor of letting them control how the debate is framed? Why call them Muslims in the first place, why not call them murderers and criminals, which is what they really are, and murderers and criminals is what defines them more than the "Muslim" label.
      As long as the media give them the recognition that they are asking for, they will continue murdering civilians. On the other hand if the Peaceful Muslim community gets the recognition they deserve from the media,the terrorist criminals can be discredited.
      But I still stand by what I wrote yesterday. The peaceful Muslims really do have to do more than they have been doing. The media thing is a two-way street. If they want headlines and more space for their message, they will have to show their outrage more openly and forcefully. They must force their attention on the media.        If there were vigils for the victims of terrorism in every major city in America (and there well may be) the news media would have to give it more space. It is the job of editors to assign such stories to reporters.
       But Muslims must also question their own attitudes about Western Culture in general and free speech in particular. If the Muslim religion forbids this kind of dialogue, then the Muslim religion will be totally disgraced and discredited by history. In a civilized world extortion and threats of violence do not earn honor and respect. Terrorists are only gangsters, and any religion that uses or condones such tactics is really a criminal organization. And as I said yesterday, this applies to Jews and Christians equally.
      www.peacemoon.org