A Decry for the Rational World

Last week I happened to run across an Op-Ed Piece in the Marshall University’s campus newspaper, The Parthenon. I replied to this piece, for the blatant support of ignorance eats away at society and any form of progress.

I navigate my existence on this planet by Reason. To paraphrase Sam Harris, a philosopher and author, if my reasons and arguments are better than yours then you will helplessly give yours over to mine; that is, what it means to be a rational person. And, of course, vice versa.

Here is my reply:

You say, “I Believe in God because I want to.” Why is it so hard for people to give themselves some credit and find inside their being their own strength and believe in themselves, instead of an absentee father-figure.

People take the internal creation of an abstraction, a deity that can fully understand their woes and who might even give a damn, and move it outwardly to be an external force and then decry their own weaknesses, and in so doing, bring the now external abstraction back to an internal one, only to possess the moral firmness to face the bloody day.

“Just that I want to believe in something bigger than me.” That is a purely romantic viewpoint. You are forcing a mystery where one does not need to be; we, as mankind, have enough as is.

Basically, you are spitting in the face of reality. And all that is Reason. But, of course, you and billions of others do not play inside the realm of evidence and, as you say, “logical reasoning”. Talk about the blind leading the visually impaired.


The rational world loathes the irrational one; thusly, I felt a deep calling to decry the barefaced injustice to the logical members of the former. I will add, the perception is sometimes more of a problem than the obvious. Let us hope that the problems lays in the perception.

Principles of an Abstraction

A tough, internal debate that raged within my own being for several years has been settled, at least with my mindset for the time being. I will add, though, I cannot imagine an argument that will detract from my present position.

Before launching into my brief post, I must state that I advocate for reason to prevail at the close of all modes of intercourse.

Furthermore, living a life by principle one must consciously choose with which principles to mark life’s pathways. I, as one individual, pride myself on navigating my life according to principle, and of course, in doing so, I face decisions about my present character, which will lead towards my future self.

Also, I note: always, one must confront the melee between what one was taught and what one learns, for seldom do these two ever coincide.

So, to the point, if in a time of national threat from a domestic or foreign enemy--as in war, either symmetrical or asymmetrical, as it may be--should we, as Americans, sacrifice liberty for safety?

For as long as this current war has been surging, I defended the argument--one well backed by history--that in wartimes all Americans have relinquished certain liberties for protection. Therefore, with an end to any of these particular crises, we would then reclaim our surrendered liberties as well as additional ones.

The argument that by reining in our freedoms, restricting our way of life, fettering our principles, we then have lost the war from the outset, I had heard numerous times. As well, the Revolutionary sentiment, which is often wrongly attributed to Benjamin Franklin, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

These lines of reasoning ate away at the core of what is honour, what is principle, to the basic questions of man, what is right and wrong. And to the greatest of questions: why and why not.

I viewed the sacrifice of certain liberties as a way to combat the threat in its many arrays by more flexible means, and that the resoluteness of a single, immovable stance existed only in a black and white world.

The idea liberty becomes a causality of war was rebutted with the simple proclamation that a life saved is a battle championed, yet I found these all inconstant with my value of principle.

The principles that liberty divides us from our foes and unites us with our allies, liberty mirrors the civilized and well-informed citizenry and lures the curious to our shores, liberty to all grants all the ability to accept and to be accepted and thusly to be equals.

Yes, liberty battles with one arm tied, yet liberty always maintains the upper hand in the moral, ideological battles, which run alongside the physical conflicts. Better for a thousand to die for the preservation of liberty than one to be saved by liberty's crucifixion. What value does one have, if the whole is lost?

The American Experiment displays the fragility and the power of the abstraction of liberty and the majesty of the execution of that abstraction by millions who believe so ardently in the principles of liberty that death for it is something for which countless volunteer. Not saying countless offer to wear a blindfold and smoke a last cigarette, but that countless will fight to the death for the principle that liberty must remain or the American Experiment fails, thusly, all that is fair and just or the ever attempt forwards such then fails.

What I am saying translates basically as liberty cannot be, directly contrary to my prior position, a causality of any conflict, no matter how severe, for the principle of the abstraction then unwinds and the abstraction disappears as a dream in the closing hours of a simple, commonplace twilight and there, forgotten by the time the dreamer opens his eyes.


Yes, I do not explain exactly how liberty is an abstraction, or why man needs principles, or more so why is liberty an important principle. I just lack the energy to write more tonight. I have more to say, but that will wait for another day. I will add, I am not quite sure why this revelation was so difficult in coming. I know this has been with me for a long while, yet it takes something so simple to humble one. It was more of the acceptance than anything, I gather.

Dividing of Our Rights

What divides rights from privileges? Are there “certain unalienable rights,” due to all mankind, as Mr. Jefferson once wrote?

A popular notion, which many believe, is that rights are for everyone without thought or effort or obligation, where privileges are only things which we, as “good and moral” human beings, strip from those who are not so “good and moral.” For example, education and voting are rights, yet driving is a privilege.

Our Founding Fathers and Framers were brilliant intellectuals. Yet, I must argue that so-called “unalienable rights” do not exist and never have. It is a whitewash of the human reality.

Case in point, Orhan Pamuk, Nobel Prize-winning Turkish author, in February 2005 stated a historic fact to a Swiss newspaper: “Thirty thousand Kurds, and a million Armenians were killed in these lands and nobody dares to talk about it.”

What Pamuk is speaking about is the Armenian Genocide which took place in 1915. Moreover, the Turkish government does not acknowledge such a genocide ever occurred, even in the face of most historians worldwide.

In June 2005, the Turkish government passed Article 301 of their penal code. Article 301 states, “A person who publicly denigrates Turkishness, the Republic, or the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and three years.” Furthermore, if a Turkish citizen denigrates Turkishness while aboard, “the punishment shall be increased by one third.”

Charges were brought after the fact against Pamuk, and another dozen or more Turkish citizens. From which Pamuk then experienced his books being burnt, photos being destroyed, and publicly being booed by his fellow citizens and once readers. He also received threats against his own life.

Turkey finally dropped charges against Pamuk in January 2006, due to widespread global outcry and pressure forced by the European Union. The EU’s upper-hand came by Turkey’s longing to join the EU.

Keeping this instance in mind, one must agree that American rights (Freedom of Speech and Expression, in this case) are not universal and we cannot expect them to be so. If we are to respect each nation’s national identity, then we must accept each nation’s chosen identity.

All rights are only privileges, granted by the government or the authority in charge. A nation’s laws guarantee a citizen’s rights; thus, his or her rights are assured only as long as the nation’s laws remain unchanged.

We may possess the romantic ideals of human rights. Yet, these ideals are not natural laws, they are societal laws. If one, therefore, knows his or her history, one will know that societies fail all the time.

The main purpose for this article comes out of witnessing people’s myopic tendencies. Some people believe that all human beings have the same rights, but that is sadly not true. The natural law of survival of the fittest stands in testimony of this reality.

I, for one, would not want to imagine living in a nation where Freedom of Expression is not the First Amendment, yet billions do live in nations contrary to this.

From the First Amendment comes the ability of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of being one’s self. As Americans, we are honored, for all privileges must pass through the First Amendment.

However, as Americans, we must understand that the First Amendment is itself a privilege granted to us by the Framers and upheld by politicians and statesmen still today.


This column came from a column I read last week, where a guy was arguing about human rights and how all men and women have them. I wish there were “unalienable rights.” However, there are none. Even the basics as food and shelter are not rights, but privileges. So, it is our job to maintain the privileges we hold dear.