"The Bill of Rights, anyone?" The rights of the Constitution (which includes the Bill of Rights) are granted to people by "their Creator" (as stated in the Constitution). The Constitution (ie, Bill of Rights) simply outlines the restrictions on government power that cannot usurp those rights. "Congress shall make no law...", not "the people have the right to..."
I respect Noah Feldman because I feel that he is open minded and sincere. Yet, I do not quite understand the usefulness of comparing politics and religions to technologies. He does not really explain the reason nor the purpose of such comparison. Moreover, although Islam or democracy are relatively susceptible to wide interpretations, there does exist mainstream understandings that are shared by a majority.
An interresting point made by Noah Feldman is the continuous support for anti-democratic regimes in the Muslim world to preserve US interests. This continuous support cannot anymore be justified by the threat of the soviet union. Human rights issues are selectively ignored when it comes to friendly regimes.
(Continuing my previous response to UnitedHumanity, I now am also responding to you comment, with all due respect.) ..."selectively", I research! Instead of merely allowing my brain being bombarded with "objective truth" from multi-channels, I synthesize, which am afraid not practiced by the majority nowadays. Feldman's prudent analyses by no means rule out the possibility that Bush and his colleagues were contemplating the attack before 9/11. He is making the most logical argument that 9/11....
"You use the word logic, but what you mean to say is that people in Western Civilizations more readily accept your particular view of the world which is based on current trends in science, does that sound about right?" In a way, yes. People in the Western world are more likely to evaluate their world based on the observation of available evidence instead of superstition. Probably partly due to the fact that we have much more evidence today than we used to.
Although i suspect he's on to something when he says politics and religion are kinds of technology, his view about politics is very naïve to say the least.
De-theocratization is the only hope for the Islamic world in virtue of democracy. I salute Turkey for having a great nation and having their faith too.
(continuing response to PlanetoftheAtheists)... ...as prefaced before, conveniently handed Bush and friends the "right" (rationalized nonetheless) to exercise the "just war doctrine". Hence, his entire premise, in my humble opinion, was poised poignantly and accurately. Sincerely, Chad Y.
"The Bill of Rights doesn't say that, you're thinking of the Declaration of Independance." Ah, yes, you're right. "At any rate, no creator interferes to protect these rights." "Creator" does not mean "God"; if it did, they would have used the word "God". Thomas Jefferson, in fact, was most likely an atheist himself, so the use of the word "creator" was intentional. It signifies that the rights were a birthright.
"Humans are no more "logical" today then they were 2,500 years ago." I disagree, in the sense that I think the average person today sees more value in logic and basing their belief around it. Today's person is more willing to accept reason and evidence than religious dogma. That's not to say that logical people did not exist back then, but that logic is becoming more accepted as a source of truth. I'm sure our vastly increased knowledge of the natural world has something to do with it, too.
I think its a valid point of view. Technology means a tool. And a tool has purpose, I think from that train of thought, religion and politics are tools for some agenda or purpose.
"The rights of the Constitution (which includes the Bill of Rights) are granted to people by "their Creator" (as stated in the Constitution)." The Bill of Rights doesn't say that, you're thinking of the Declaration of Independance. At any rate, no creator interferes to protect these rights. In real life, government officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights). And "Congress shall make no law" and "the people have a right to" are the same thing.
some notes politics and religion are analyzable as technologies, via conceptual design democracy is a way to channel power from many into hands of few Islam - means of construing universe as way to bring salvation to its followers to achieve goals: peace, justice, equality as viewed within its doctrine there isn’t a clear symbol for democracy or Islam, as such are subject to wide interpretation “because they’re technologies, they’re manipulable” democracy and Islam are portrayed as incompatible, but technologies are more malleable than that an Egyptian activist group was blocked from forming a party which presented a combination of democracy and Islam kevinhabits.com/ted-talk-notes-3-noah-feldman-politics-and-religion-are-technologies/
"A republic with limited powers would do the same thing." That's what a Constitutional Republic is. The Constitution doesn't grant rights, it simply outlines the limitations of government power. The rights of the people are a birthright. "However the tendancy is to grant more power to the government during emergancies and then the government doesn't return the power." Well, people have to stop being so naive and driven by fear.
"but the structure and diffusion of power within religion comes as an afterthought not as a primary objective." Just to clarify, do you not believe that religion was created as a means to control people? Because I do. That is the only way I can see how the various rules of religion would make any sense. And the contradictions due to the fact that humans at the time thought less logically than we do today, and thus the contradictions would not have been a problem for them.
Hi kolnidre666, If you don't mind my respectfully asking, based on your profound & critical analysis, how was Feldman's piece a perpetuation of "lies and slanders"? Are you proposing that his analyses were "lies and slanders"? Sincerely, Chad Y.
i think the point on islam being a cause for the iraq war was as he mentioned, 'once removed.' meaning obviously, with no quick war in afghanistan that seemed to have been successful then, the war in iraq would have been a harder sell. and thus, no 9/11, no war in afghanistan, no war in iraq. and thats where you can link the islam part in it. i dont believe he is saying that this is necessarily true, but he's making a statement. whether you agree or not is different.
A republic with limited powers would do the same thing. However the tendancy is to grant more power to the government during emergancies and then the government doesn't return the power. Tribal government doesn't work on large scales. Plus you'd still have intertribal issues.
Well, I suppose I must apologize for generalizing, as my experience comes mostly from Catholicism. That is the religion I was taught so it is the one I have examined the most. When I began to question my religion, I felt as if much of it seemed structured to control the faithful. "Thou shalt not" this and that. I think controlling outsiders is a byproduct of inducting them into the religion.
No, not kidding, that is true. All Christianity is supposed to follow that rule as well according to the bible. Do they? No. Pick and choose what you want to live your life by is the way religions run.
"Liberal democracy and Islam seem to be incompatible. But technologies tend to be highly malleable and compatible, so I'm going to call democracy and Islam technologies. Now that democracy and Islam are technologies, they must be highly malleable, and therefore they are compatible. Thank you."
@nondescriptman I get why that particular phrasing pisses you off, but it's like you're missing the point.. That Islam (or almost ANY other major religion for that matter) is designed to efficiently connect and manage any group of people, is a legitimate opinion to have - just not a very considerate one towards religious people. That [insert major religion here] is CAPABLE OF efficiently connecting and managing any group of people, however, is undebatable.
@nondescriptman Unless you're a Muslim, the only explanation for why it has flourished and then survived is that it has been useful as a technology---if it hadn't lasted, no-one would call the Quran the word of God except for small groups of Jews/Jains/Parsees size. My grandfather had an Halakhic court: compliance was voluntary (under threat of possible ostracism, but no physical force), and I don't see why we should be afraid of Sharia courts similarly constituted----State/violence-free.
And what system would you propose for two wolves and a lamb to decide what to have for lunch? Let the lamb be dictator and force the wolves to eat grass?
Does Islam contain some elements found in democracy and vice versa? I think that we can safely answer positively. Wether democratic systems and societies ruled by Islamic systems can coexist peacefully depends on what means are selected to resolve differences. The wide majority of Muslims would select peaceful means for the simple reasons that they are economically, technologically and militarily weak. The most extreme actions come from desperate people who have nothing left to lose.
I dont agree with this guy. To say that Politics or Religion is a technology is a real stretch. Especially religion. His whole talk is based on this faulty premise so hes on pretty shaky ground if you ask me. And Im not convinced that a democratically elected Islamic leader will do any more or less evil than the alternative.
What an incredibly dissapointing talk...I wonder what Mr. Feldman thinks about that " hope" he was promising at the end of his speech: You destroyed a country of 20 million people, killed 600.000 people, you have thrown 4.500 young American soldiers into the fire, ISIS which was born BECAUSE of the mess you have created afterwards, killed 150.000 people on their turn. The entire Yazidi community has been destroyed, their women enslaved, raped, sold. Is this the " democracy" you said you were going to build? What about bringing democracy to your own country first and solve your problems with poverty, racism, mess incarceration, healthcare, education? Middle Eastern lives don't count at all for you, but those 4500 American soldiers would still be alive, right? It is just incredibly, incredibly dissapointing to see such a clever man, NOT being able to realise what was coming...
People who hate or fear religion do so because they think it is trying to control them. Some religions may do that but Christianity (most of it) is simply a way of living life and showing and expressing love. Can that be a bad thing? They are not trying to control anyone. Islam does that!
who sent this guy? im gonna go with it wasnt some church, but rather, a group (not mentioning any *bilderberg* names...) who wishes to unite through politics. Hmmmmm? go figure....
Unusually for TED, I have to say that this is a very disappointing talk. This guy makes so many dumb statements that it is annoying. Having an idiotic voice is no guarantee of intelligence, although it usually helps.
This guy is so Pro-Islam it is disgusting! No sir. Religion, politics and government are not the same for any religion except Islam which still makes government and religion be intertwined like 7th century ideology. Christianity has little to do with technology but if you read you would know it is based on LOVE! Expressing LOVE, sharing LOVE.
!["สนธิ" ห่วงมีขบวนการปกป้อง "ทนายตั้ม" : [THE MESSAGE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2GQNp3EoMc0/mqdefault.jpg)
"The Bill of Rights, anyone?"
The rights of the Constitution (which includes the Bill of Rights) are granted to people by "their Creator" (as stated in the Constitution). The Constitution (ie, Bill of Rights) simply outlines the restrictions on government power that cannot usurp those rights.
"Congress shall make no law...", not "the people have the right to..."
I respect Noah Feldman because I feel that he is open minded and sincere. Yet, I do not quite understand the usefulness of comparing politics and religions to technologies. He does not really explain the reason nor the purpose of such comparison. Moreover, although Islam or democracy are relatively susceptible to wide interpretations, there does exist mainstream understandings that are shared by a majority.
An interresting point made by Noah Feldman is the continuous support for anti-democratic regimes in the Muslim world to preserve US interests. This continuous support cannot anymore be justified by the threat of the soviet union. Human rights issues are selectively ignored when it comes to friendly regimes.
This must have been interesting in 2003...bloody boring in 2011 though
(Continuing my previous response to UnitedHumanity, I now am also responding to you comment, with all due respect.)
..."selectively", I research! Instead of merely allowing my brain being bombarded with "objective truth" from multi-channels, I synthesize, which am afraid not practiced by the majority nowadays. Feldman's prudent analyses by no means rule out the possibility that Bush and his colleagues were contemplating the attack before 9/11. He is making the most logical argument that 9/11....
"You use the word logic, but what you mean to say is that people in Western Civilizations more readily accept your particular view of the world which is based on current trends in science, does that sound about right?"
In a way, yes. People in the Western world are more likely to evaluate their world based on the observation of available evidence instead of superstition. Probably partly due to the fact that we have much more evidence today than we used to.
Although i suspect he's on to something when he says politics and religion are kinds of technology, his view about politics is very naïve to say the least.
De-theocratization is the only hope for the Islamic world in virtue of democracy. I salute Turkey for having a great nation and having their faith too.
Thank you for pointing this out.
(continuing response to PlanetoftheAtheists)...
...as prefaced before, conveniently handed Bush and friends the "right" (rationalized nonetheless) to exercise the "just war doctrine". Hence, his entire premise, in my humble opinion, was poised poignantly and accurately.
Sincerely,
Chad Y.
"The Bill of Rights doesn't say that, you're thinking of the Declaration of Independance."
Ah, yes, you're right.
"At any rate, no creator interferes to protect these rights."
"Creator" does not mean "God"; if it did, they would have used the word "God". Thomas Jefferson, in fact, was most likely an atheist himself, so the use of the word "creator" was intentional. It signifies that the rights were a birthright.
"Humans are no more "logical" today then they were 2,500 years ago."
I disagree, in the sense that I think the average person today sees more value in logic and basing their belief around it. Today's person is more willing to accept reason and evidence than religious dogma. That's not to say that logical people did not exist back then, but that logic is becoming more accepted as a source of truth.
I'm sure our vastly increased knowledge of the natural world has something to do with it, too.
Brilliant. Love the elequance.
I think its a valid point of view. Technology means a tool. And a tool has purpose, I think from that train of thought, religion and politics are tools for some agenda or purpose.
"The rights of the Constitution (which includes the Bill of Rights) are granted to people by "their Creator" (as stated in the Constitution)."
The Bill of Rights doesn't say that, you're thinking of the Declaration of Independance.
At any rate, no creator interferes to protect these rights. In real life, government officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights).
And "Congress shall make no law" and "the people have a right to" are the same thing.
I think he's quite honest but it's not one of those enlightening TEDs I've gotten used to. Rather meh.
some notes
politics and religion are analyzable as technologies, via conceptual design
democracy is a way to channel power from many into hands of few
Islam - means of construing universe as way to bring salvation to its followers
to achieve goals: peace, justice, equality as viewed within its doctrine
there isn’t a clear symbol for democracy or Islam, as such are subject to wide interpretation
“because they’re technologies, they’re manipulable”
democracy and Islam are portrayed as incompatible, but technologies are more malleable than that
an Egyptian activist group was blocked from forming a party which presented a combination of democracy and Islam
kevinhabits.com/ted-talk-notes-3-noah-feldman-politics-and-religion-are-technologies/
"A republic with limited powers would do the same thing."
That's what a Constitutional Republic is. The Constitution doesn't grant rights, it simply outlines the limitations of government power. The rights of the people are a birthright.
"However the tendancy is to grant more power to the government during emergancies and then the government doesn't return the power."
Well, people have to stop being so naive and driven by fear.
"but the structure and diffusion of power within religion comes as an afterthought not as a primary objective."
Just to clarify, do you not believe that religion was created as a means to control people? Because I do. That is the only way I can see how the various rules of religion would make any sense. And the contradictions due to the fact that humans at the time thought less logically than we do today, and thus the contradictions would not have been a problem for them.
Hi kolnidre666,
If you don't mind my respectfully asking, based on your profound & critical analysis, how was Feldman's piece a perpetuation of "lies and slanders"? Are you proposing that his analyses were "lies and slanders"?
Sincerely,
Chad Y.
i think the point on islam being a cause for the iraq war was as he mentioned, 'once removed.' meaning obviously, with no quick war in afghanistan that seemed to have been successful then, the war in iraq would have been a harder sell. and thus, no 9/11, no war in afghanistan, no war in iraq. and thats where you can link the islam part in it. i dont believe he is saying that this is necessarily true, but he's making a statement. whether you agree or not is different.
"The Constitution doesn't grant rights"
The Bill of Rights, anyone?
"Well, people have to stop being so naive and driven by fear."
I completely agree.
A republic with limited powers would do the same thing. However the tendancy is to grant more power to the government during emergancies and then the government doesn't return the power. Tribal government doesn't work on large scales. Plus you'd still have intertribal issues.
what is sad about this video is that there has only been 5000 views
Religion can be used to shaped groups of people's world view. This is used a lot in the Dune series.
The Golden Calf RULES THE WORLD, nothing else.
A lot of good updates today.
Just look up psychohistory on wikipedia... It will enlighten you much more.
Yeah I think we're arguing semantics at this point.
Well, I suppose I must apologize for generalizing, as my experience comes mostly from Catholicism. That is the religion I was taught so it is the one I have examined the most.
When I began to question my religion, I felt as if much of it seemed structured to control the faithful. "Thou shalt not" this and that. I think controlling outsiders is a byproduct of inducting them into the religion.
No, not kidding, that is true. All Christianity is supposed to follow that rule as well according to the bible. Do they? No. Pick and choose what you want to live your life by is the way religions run.
"Liberal democracy and Islam seem to be incompatible. But technologies tend to be highly malleable and compatible, so I'm going to call democracy and Islam technologies. Now that democracy and Islam are technologies, they must be highly malleable, and therefore they are compatible. Thank you."
The biggest themes of Dune.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."
@nondescriptman I get why that particular phrasing pisses you off, but it's like you're missing the point.. That Islam (or almost ANY other major religion for that matter) is designed to efficiently connect and manage any group of people, is a legitimate opinion to have - just not a very considerate one towards religious people. That [insert major religion here] is CAPABLE OF efficiently connecting and managing any group of people, however, is undebatable.
@nondescriptman
Unless you're a Muslim, the only explanation for why it has flourished and then survived is that it has been useful as a technology---if it hadn't lasted, no-one would call the Quran the word of God except for small groups of Jews/Jains/Parsees size.
My grandfather had an Halakhic court: compliance was voluntary (under threat of possible ostracism, but no physical force), and I don't see why we should be afraid of Sharia courts similarly constituted----State/violence-free.
WOW only 12,000 views. How frustrating.
And what system would you propose for two wolves and a lamb to decide what to have for lunch? Let the lamb be dictator and force the wolves to eat grass?
It's a double standard. After all they are both based on Abraham, pray to the same god and fought wars in his name. The differences are marginal.
Does Islam contain some elements found in democracy and vice versa? I think that we can safely answer positively. Wether democratic systems and societies ruled by Islamic systems can coexist peacefully depends on what means are selected to resolve differences. The wide majority of Muslims would select peaceful means for the simple reasons that they are economically, technologically and militarily weak. The most extreme actions come from desperate people who have nothing left to lose.
you blow my mind sir LOL
A Constitutional Republic, duh.
wonder why american elected Bush.... twice!
It was a terrible turn for the world. If Al Gore had won we would be living in a much different world today.
Interesting Fact: Noah Feldman earned straight "As", while he was at Harvard college.
Interesting but not surprising
I dont agree with this guy. To say that Politics or Religion is a technology is a real stretch. Especially religion. His whole talk is based on this faulty premise so hes on pretty shaky ground if you ask me.
And Im not convinced that a democratically elected Islamic leader will do any more or less evil than the alternative.
The same?
Those are technologies to manipulate people and employ recources.
@HawkEyeBlue
Innocent people? So who is exactly innocent?
Gosh, never mind, you mean what he would say to their srewups, right?
Sry.
What an incredibly dissapointing talk...I wonder what Mr. Feldman thinks about that " hope" he was promising at the end of his speech: You destroyed a country of 20 million people, killed 600.000 people, you have thrown 4.500 young American soldiers into the fire, ISIS which was born BECAUSE of the mess you have created afterwards, killed 150.000 people on their turn. The entire Yazidi community has been destroyed, their women enslaved, raped, sold. Is this the " democracy" you said you were going to build? What about bringing democracy to your own country first and solve your problems with poverty, racism, mess incarceration, healthcare, education? Middle Eastern lives don't count at all for you, but those 4500 American soldiers would still be alive, right? It is just incredibly, incredibly dissapointing to see such a clever man, NOT being able to realise what was coming...
@Anton Gromek Hello there! Thanks a lot for reading all this. Best wishes to you too :- )
People who hate or fear religion do so because they think it is trying to control them. Some religions may do that but Christianity (most of it) is simply a way of living life and showing and expressing love. Can that be a bad thing? They are not trying to control anyone. Islam does that!
who sent this guy? im gonna go with it wasnt some church, but rather, a group (not mentioning any *bilderberg* names...) who wishes to unite through politics. Hmmmmm? go figure....
You can't make a picture of Islam because you would commit a sin. Just kidding.
wow he is talking about the center party in egypt now it is there after the 25th revolution hehehe
Islam and Democracy; Islocracy. Sounds good to me!
Unusually for TED, I have to say that this is a very disappointing talk. This guy makes so many dumb statements that it is annoying.
Having an idiotic voice is no guarantee of intelligence, although it usually helps.
This guy is so Pro-Islam it is disgusting! No sir. Religion, politics and government are not the same for any religion except Islam which still makes government and religion be intertwined like 7th century ideology. Christianity has little to do with technology but if you read you would know it is based on LOVE! Expressing LOVE, sharing LOVE.
This guy knows nothing about the Bush administration.
Dennett is way ahead of him.
little knowledge!!! have u seen this guys crudentials?!