Klevius philosophy tutorial for Stanford: Referring to reason or a "god" in politics and Human Rights? Only a racist/sexist fascist* would have a problem digesting the self evident answer.

* Today's real fascists are those who haven't understood why fascism in the past was so widespread among politicians and ordinary people.

Rational politics needs to be anchored in rational Human Rights freedom, not in irrational sharia "belief" impositions. And who needs irrational politics anyway?

Nor can we accept a class society based on "beliefs".

When Klevius 16-year old daughter was finishing her university degree and went for a SAT test and due application for Stanford, Klevius tried to warn her that although her age might be seen positively, her fair skin might not be an asset because of "affirmative" actions etc. PC. However, what is much more important is that the quality of Stanford's teachings has dropped dramatically during the last decades. Here's just one example:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Religion and Political Theory
First published Thu Oct 2, 2008; substantive revision Thu Jan 15, 2015


Stanford concludes:

"...members of all parties to the debate agree that the task at hand is to articulate ways in which citizens of a deeply pluralistic liberal democracy can conduct their behavior in manners that are not only faithful to whatever religious identities they may have, but are also just and contribute to the common good."

Klevius: "are not only faithful to whatever religious identities they may have" completely misses the most essential, i.e. that "religious identities" may be (and in a strict definition of religion always are) incompatible with the political scenarios Stanford outlines as the very basis for this tendentious and crypto-polemical, biased article.

Religion that reaches the political sphere is always at odds with negative Human Rights precisely because religion is positive, i.e. has to impose something to be meaningful - without impositions no religion - whereas basic (negative) Human Rights freedom is the very opposite, i.e. a minimum space freed from impositions. This is the stumbling bloc islam (OIC) couldn't avoid, e.g. regarding the position of women, and therefore had to abandon Human Rights equality by adopting the Human Rights violating Cairo declaration (sharia) instead.

The basic idea of Human Rights starts from negative rights, i.e. the right of the individual not to be imposed restrictions due to, for example, sex, ethnicity, beliefs etc. This basic right therefore also excludes positive measures not necessary in a democratic society. Transferred to traffic that simply means that whatever "beliefs" you may have they shouldn't be allowed to give you the right to go against red light for example. Politics ought to be restricted in the same way as traffic. "Negative rights" of a self driving car would mean that the car is allowed to go wherever its human "driver" asks it to go, but within the restrictions that its connections to GPS and other cars (i.e. the overall flow of traffic) may impose. Politics is the way you organize social "traffic" with the least possible positive interference.

Compare the setting to traffic where there's no room whatsoever for "beliefs". A muslim has to obey exactly the same rules etc. as an Atheist, men and women etc. Islam* may ban women from driving but that has no bearing on rules and organization of traffic.

* Do note that there's no islam without someone using it. Islam is operational. Whenever you hear "it's not islam", this empty phrase is just a reflection of an other plattitude, namely "the many faces of political islam".

The only correct way to address Stanford's weird* problem formulation "is political authority to be grounded in the claims of revelation or reason" is to tackle it with the follow up question "is revelation politics". And if you insist it is, then take the consequences of not only whatever racism/sexism etc. slipping into the political domain but also that the individual who feeds the politicians, will be over run by group based actions not based in reason.

* If by politics we mean general (i.e. not in a private or particular setting) decision making and legislation based on generally understood (i.e. rational) argumentation, then there seems to be no place for irrational politics. And if we want to base politics in unversal Human Rights equality the only option is to avoid mixing in "beliefs", "faith" etc.

Don't let sexism and racism hide behind religion. What you're left with then is the only possible "religion" which might not fulfill your initial (racist/sexist or fascist?) motivation. This is why Klevius says islam is dying just as sex segregation (a main element in "monotheisms") has done for some time (see Klevius Warning for Feminism).

Adam Smith and Karl Marx referred to reason, as do most politicians today when explaining their stand point. They might refer to a belief in certain changes in market forces etc. but never to a "will of god".

Universal Human Rights equality is also based on reason, i.e. that anyone can agree it's not a "belief" but something one can rationally understand and evaluate ones actions against. In other words, whether you approve of anti-racist and anti-sexist Human Rights equality or if you rather stick to a racist and sexist belief you "justify" as a "will of god"..

Negative Human Rights is an unchanging moral principle that constitutes a logical bedrock for human conduct. For those of you already too confused by academic rants about "faith-based reasoning", let Klevius explain to you how an 'unchanging moral principle' is possible without other "beliefs" than the axiomatic 'human'.

Morality is by necessity always changing because, as Klevius wrote back in 1981*, the meaning of life is uncertainty.

* An article in Hufvudstadsbladet published in May 1981. It was laying for a long time on the editors desk because no one there seemed to understand it (Klevius takes full responsibility for that), and it was only published after recommendation by Georg Henrik von Wright (Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge) who was a good friend of the chief editor Jan Magnus Jansson (presidential candidate in the 1980s) who then let it through and paid Klevius 500 Finnish Marks, i.e. approxim. $1,000 today. Not bad for a relatively short text very few understood. The article was titled Resursbegär (Demand for Resources) and was a precursor to Klevius 1992 book with same name (ISBN 9173288411), which elaborates with examples (see e.g. pp 30-33 where for the first time 'consiousness' and 'awareness', i.e. how we "think", is exemplified and explained). So why all this self citation and boasting, as you might see it? Well, isn't it quite obvious that lacking this info would make it much more likely that you'd dismiss Klevius as just an other opinoner and therefore also missing the deeper points.

Do note that it was only England/Wales that voted for Brexit - not the rest of UK.
An unfortunate feature of modern political liberalism is its acceptance of faith-based "reasoning" over rational Human Rights equality.

 This drawing about sex segregation by Klevius from 1979 has been on many exhibitions and since 2003 on the web. Do note the "steely" construction of the DNA "ladder.

Btw, Chinese products and investments don't come tied with "faith" tags. In this respect dealing with China instead of muslim oil dictators etc. would be less of a threat to Human Rights, right...