Iranian foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, “We do not see any glory, pride or power in the nuclear weapons — quite the opposite,” he said. He added that on the basis of a religious decree by Ayatollah Khamenei, “the production, possession, use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is illegitimate, futile, harmful, dangerous and prohibited as a great sin.”
Thinking that Mr. Salehi's words should be taken seriously is quite likely a mistake. Iran is widely reported to be one of the world's chief financiers of Islamic terrorism, seems as intent as the US to provoke another shooting war in the Middle-East, and can properly be described as just another Islamic dictatorship. But it is intriguing that he said such words at all. Imagine the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, making such a statement. It would be chaos.
Republicans, of course, would go absolutely ape-shit crazy. Included in that group would be the Christian leadership that has taken up residence in the Republican party. (Recall that I consider the Republican party to be a sect of American Christianity.) The defence industry would howl and military leaders would threaten rebellion. Ms. Clinton would be forced to resign within hours of making such a statement; even if her words were no more sincere than those of Mr.Salehi.
The Christian Democracy of the United States of America gazing up at the Islamic Dictatorship of Iran taking the moral high ground. So wedded are we to being the world's most overwhelmingly powerful military force, we can't even pretend to regard nuclear war as evil. We stand by our stockpile of 5,100 active warheads,including 1800 deployed strategic 'nukes, without a murmur of that being an immoral place to be.
Russia is reported to have 1,600 such strategic weapons; China 240, N. Korea 10. Israel, it is thought, has about 200. The mix of strategic and tactical warheads, deployment, stockpiles, and inactive warheads is hard to pin down. Russia clearly has the most available; the USA has the most currently deployed, and either one can easily out-gun the rest of the combined world.
N. Korea announced today that it is suspending its nuclear program in exchange for food and that it will allow UN inspections to verify the decision. That puts N. Korea in a club with South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, South Korea, and Taiwan who have abandoned nuclear weapons programs. Libya renounced its attempts at building 'nukes before the revolution. Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine were left with some Soviet weapons when that empire fell, but returned them to Russia. (Cuba had Soviet weapons for a short time but their withdrawal from the world nuclear stage wasn't voluntary.)
There are a lot of countries in that group that many Americans would find lacking according to our moral view of the world.
Moral considerations aside, I would love to hear one acknowledge that eliminating nuclear weapons just might be a good financial decision. I found some interesting numbers...
In 2008 the US spent $52 Billion for "nuclear security". B-2A Bombers cost $2.6 Billion EACH. Minuteman III missiles = $48.5 Million each. MX Peacekeepers = $190 Million each. A fully armed Ohio Class "Boomer" = $3.4 to 4.1 Billion (B) each.
Heard any US political or religious leader mention that nuclear weapons are putting a pretty big dent in the budget lately? Have any of them suggested that crippling the country's budget to maintain such a force hastened the demise of the Soviet Empire? Anyone figured out how many 4 year collage degrees can be bought for a single year of nuclear security? (My guess = 1,083,333.) Mr. Obama? Mr. Perry? Newt, Rick, Joe, Harry, Mitch, Nancy, John...anyone? No?
Heard any of these folks suggest that threatening any peoples of the world with nuclear destruction is immoral?
Me either.
Mr. Ali Akbar Salehi of IRAN? Really?
Shit.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Monday, February 20, 2012
The Christian leaders are at war with each other...
...and their followers don't seen to realize it.
Every serious contender in the Presidential election this year (yes - for the purposes of this muse I am counting the Republican Primary Candidates as serious contenders) insists that they are a Christian. This religious claim is the issue underlining the entire process. Every policy debate is being cast as a theological and doctrinal issue whose very foundation lies in the dictates of the god of the bible. From off the reservation the debates have veered deep into the territory of the insane.
It is being seriously argued that god would not approve of taking care of the poor, revising the American judicial system, or providing health care for impoverished kids. Likewise it is stated as accepted fact that god demsnds women should, once again, have their lives dictated by continuously being pregnant. This god of the American right demands that the earth be exploted exclusivly for the benifit of the current human generation without regard to the next generation of humans, let alone any other creatures on the planet. Yet somehow, while agreeing to most of these basic tenets, they are still at war with each other over forcing this ideology on the rest of society.
Listening to the Christians who all claim a mandate from god to run for the White House must be very hard for any god that might actually be close enough to hear. Someone is slinging a lot of bullshit while claiming god as the source. The result is that all political debates have become theological debates rather than debates of policy or various approaches to solving problems.
Poverty is a good example. Some of the Christians out there seem to think that poverty is not actually a problem. Poor people deserve to be poor. Rich people deserve to profit from the efforts of the poor. After all, god himself supposedly said "the poor will always be with you." This pretty much suggests that "the poor" are not included with "you," god's chosen. Certainly taxing rich people to provide a safety net for the poor is decried as "un-Christian" by a large segment of political / Christian leaders. Others of course, suggest that god would demand just such a thing.
Yet the true cure for poverty is there for anyone to see, demonstrated time and time again throughout history and in any culture; the education and emancipation of women INCLUDING access to birth control. Where ever that happens, when ever that happens, poverty is drastically reduced. Both warring Christian sects have it wrong.
I have not heard a single political leader or candidate state that birth control and universal education for women is the cure for poverty and, as such, the will of god. Not a single one. The Christian war for the White House has totally obscured the truth when it comes to poverty.
Abortion is another place where the Christians have lost their minds. Drastically reducing the numbers of abortions is actually pretty straight-forward; do everything possible to make every pregnancy a wanted pregnancy. Real (as opposed to the idiocy of "abstinence-only") sex education, universal health care for women AND access to birth control. For the most part the only unplanned pregnancies remaining are those from rape and incest. We should have the debate about the morality of insisting women carry those pregnancies to term - so long as the debaters are women who have suffered from those assaults.
The Christians like to insist that the abortion debate has only two sides, you are for it or you are against it. They are, as usual, full of shit. The Christians don't care much about abortion. What they care about is dictating how other people live their lives. I emphasize the "other" because it appears that the self-proclaimed Christian leaders are regular fans of mistresses, serial philandering, and girl-friends. (And are clearly using birth control - for which I very much thank them.)
They often seem to be pretty fond of their boy-friends as well. So many Christians who hate gay people...so many gay Christians. Like I said, they are at war with each other.
When it come to war the Christian war gets even more bazaar. None of the current political / Christian leadership suggests that god is opposed to war. (And I guess in this case they are all consistent with the war god of the Old and New Testaments. The first war of the Bible is found in Genesis 14, the last in Revelations - first and last books of the Bible.) The debate here is spending more on war, or much more on war. None of them suggests spending less on war. None of them much suggests exploring alternatives to war. Obama is actively involved in several wars and is moving toward a shooting war with Iran. The other Christian leaders would have him start that shooting war as soon as possible. All of them worship the war god of the military.
For some reason god loves oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear power plants. But solar and wind power? Not so much. Or maybe he does. It depends on which of god's chosen leaders is standing at the microphone. I'm not sure exactly how this has become a theological debate and not a discussion on sustainability, economics and pollution.
Then again the Christian / political leaders seem to think that Armageddon is just around the corner so sustainability isn't an issue. Supply side economics is god's own gift and thus oil, coal, etc. get the nod for tax support, not solar power. (That one baffles me a little but I'm sure it makes sense to the Christan politicians. After all they are, to a person, outspoken capitalists.) Pollution gets a bit more debate as some Christian leaders seem to think poisoning ourselves isn't actually subduing the earth. Still, they don't worry about it enough to take on King Coal or Big Oil. Anyway, even what would seem the most secular of discussions, energy supplies and management, are sheathed in theological rhetoric. "My" side is "good" and "god approved." The "other" side is evil and out of step with "god's plan" for humanity.
It is strange that this election has become a battle of some Christians against other Christians when less than a quarter of the American population bothered to go to Church last Sunday. When it comes to established religion nearly 20% of Americans label themselves as unaffiliated. I know that many of these folks still think of themselves as Christians. But they are explicitly (as opposed to the Christan / political leadership) NOT Catholics or Protestants, Baptists or Methodists or Mormons. From off the reservation I certainly understand why, and welcome their declaration of Independence from ridged religious ideology.
I wish our political leadership would join them.
If they did we might get the debate, and the leadership, that is needed. We might get a debate about how large a war machine the country can support. There might even be a debate on energy production, consumption, and distribution. Both sides might admit that reducing poverty is to every one's advantage; deficits would go down, revenues would go up, a rising tide that would help reduce the severity of many of human kinds problems. Even if it was possible to err on the side of providing woman with too much freedom, too many rights (it isn't, but lets suppose) it would still be of overall benefit to EVERY BREATHING PERSON ON THE PLANET! If god has a problem with that, fuck him.
All of our problems have answers, or at least we know avenues we might pursue to find those answers. None of those avenues, not one of those answers, are exclusively Christan ones. (Some of the them, the emancipation and education of women, are explicitly not Christian.) Various Christian sects are fighting a war to lead the country.
None of them can save it.
Every serious contender in the Presidential election this year (yes - for the purposes of this muse I am counting the Republican Primary Candidates as serious contenders) insists that they are a Christian. This religious claim is the issue underlining the entire process. Every policy debate is being cast as a theological and doctrinal issue whose very foundation lies in the dictates of the god of the bible. From off the reservation the debates have veered deep into the territory of the insane.
It is being seriously argued that god would not approve of taking care of the poor, revising the American judicial system, or providing health care for impoverished kids. Likewise it is stated as accepted fact that god demsnds women should, once again, have their lives dictated by continuously being pregnant. This god of the American right demands that the earth be exploted exclusivly for the benifit of the current human generation without regard to the next generation of humans, let alone any other creatures on the planet. Yet somehow, while agreeing to most of these basic tenets, they are still at war with each other over forcing this ideology on the rest of society.
Listening to the Christians who all claim a mandate from god to run for the White House must be very hard for any god that might actually be close enough to hear. Someone is slinging a lot of bullshit while claiming god as the source. The result is that all political debates have become theological debates rather than debates of policy or various approaches to solving problems.
Poverty is a good example. Some of the Christians out there seem to think that poverty is not actually a problem. Poor people deserve to be poor. Rich people deserve to profit from the efforts of the poor. After all, god himself supposedly said "the poor will always be with you." This pretty much suggests that "the poor" are not included with "you," god's chosen. Certainly taxing rich people to provide a safety net for the poor is decried as "un-Christian" by a large segment of political / Christian leaders. Others of course, suggest that god would demand just such a thing.
Yet the true cure for poverty is there for anyone to see, demonstrated time and time again throughout history and in any culture; the education and emancipation of women INCLUDING access to birth control. Where ever that happens, when ever that happens, poverty is drastically reduced. Both warring Christian sects have it wrong.
I have not heard a single political leader or candidate state that birth control and universal education for women is the cure for poverty and, as such, the will of god. Not a single one. The Christian war for the White House has totally obscured the truth when it comes to poverty.
Abortion is another place where the Christians have lost their minds. Drastically reducing the numbers of abortions is actually pretty straight-forward; do everything possible to make every pregnancy a wanted pregnancy. Real (as opposed to the idiocy of "abstinence-only") sex education, universal health care for women AND access to birth control. For the most part the only unplanned pregnancies remaining are those from rape and incest. We should have the debate about the morality of insisting women carry those pregnancies to term - so long as the debaters are women who have suffered from those assaults.
The Christians like to insist that the abortion debate has only two sides, you are for it or you are against it. They are, as usual, full of shit. The Christians don't care much about abortion. What they care about is dictating how other people live their lives. I emphasize the "other" because it appears that the self-proclaimed Christian leaders are regular fans of mistresses, serial philandering, and girl-friends. (And are clearly using birth control - for which I very much thank them.)
They often seem to be pretty fond of their boy-friends as well. So many Christians who hate gay people...so many gay Christians. Like I said, they are at war with each other.
When it come to war the Christian war gets even more bazaar. None of the current political / Christian leadership suggests that god is opposed to war. (And I guess in this case they are all consistent with the war god of the Old and New Testaments. The first war of the Bible is found in Genesis 14, the last in Revelations - first and last books of the Bible.) The debate here is spending more on war, or much more on war. None of them suggests spending less on war. None of them much suggests exploring alternatives to war. Obama is actively involved in several wars and is moving toward a shooting war with Iran. The other Christian leaders would have him start that shooting war as soon as possible. All of them worship the war god of the military.
For some reason god loves oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear power plants. But solar and wind power? Not so much. Or maybe he does. It depends on which of god's chosen leaders is standing at the microphone. I'm not sure exactly how this has become a theological debate and not a discussion on sustainability, economics and pollution.
Then again the Christian / political leaders seem to think that Armageddon is just around the corner so sustainability isn't an issue. Supply side economics is god's own gift and thus oil, coal, etc. get the nod for tax support, not solar power. (That one baffles me a little but I'm sure it makes sense to the Christan politicians. After all they are, to a person, outspoken capitalists.) Pollution gets a bit more debate as some Christian leaders seem to think poisoning ourselves isn't actually subduing the earth. Still, they don't worry about it enough to take on King Coal or Big Oil. Anyway, even what would seem the most secular of discussions, energy supplies and management, are sheathed in theological rhetoric. "My" side is "good" and "god approved." The "other" side is evil and out of step with "god's plan" for humanity.
It is strange that this election has become a battle of some Christians against other Christians when less than a quarter of the American population bothered to go to Church last Sunday. When it comes to established religion nearly 20% of Americans label themselves as unaffiliated. I know that many of these folks still think of themselves as Christians. But they are explicitly (as opposed to the Christan / political leadership) NOT Catholics or Protestants, Baptists or Methodists or Mormons. From off the reservation I certainly understand why, and welcome their declaration of Independence from ridged religious ideology.
I wish our political leadership would join them.
If they did we might get the debate, and the leadership, that is needed. We might get a debate about how large a war machine the country can support. There might even be a debate on energy production, consumption, and distribution. Both sides might admit that reducing poverty is to every one's advantage; deficits would go down, revenues would go up, a rising tide that would help reduce the severity of many of human kinds problems. Even if it was possible to err on the side of providing woman with too much freedom, too many rights (it isn't, but lets suppose) it would still be of overall benefit to EVERY BREATHING PERSON ON THE PLANET! If god has a problem with that, fuck him.
All of our problems have answers, or at least we know avenues we might pursue to find those answers. None of those avenues, not one of those answers, are exclusively Christan ones. (Some of the them, the emancipation and education of women, are explicitly not Christian.) Various Christian sects are fighting a war to lead the country.
None of them can save it.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Backhanding Pascal's Wager
If god exists and one doesn't believe, one goes to hell.
If god exists and one does believe, one goes to heaven.
If god doesn't exist and one doesn't believe, nothing happens.
If god doesn't exist and one does believe, nothing happens.
A smart person will believe in god just to hedge his bets.
If you are a non-believer it is likely you have had this argument tossed at you in a discussion somewhere. Believers seem to think it is a knock-out punch of some kind. Apparently it never occurs to them that their particular god might not be the one under discussion or, whomever the god might be, it might not accept a "just-in-case" kind of faith.
Pascal's wager is a pretty sorry excuse for an argument for faith, but it does shed light on one of the truly deep and ultimately most dangerous facets of faith. If god doesn't exist (it doesn't really matter which god) but human kind continues to put faith in the idea that one does, such assumption may well prove fatal to the entire species. Believing that there is a god who is looking out for us, who will ultimately protect us from our own foolishness, and who will eventually guarantee our success, is nearly suicidal if the god doesn't exist. It is exactly like jumping out of an airplane assuming there is an operable parachute in the pack. If there isn't death is the likely outcome.
Most of the people who deny that a) the global climate is changing rapidly for the warmer and, b) that human activities and decisions could possibly be the cause if it is, are religious fundamentalists. Their rejection is partly based on the arguments for global warming coming from scientists. Religious fundamentalism is fundamentally opposed to knowledge, inquiry, curiosity, and open debate. God has reveled everything we need to know to be successful as a species; belief is what matters, not knowledge.
I wonder if a deeper reason for their rejection is understanding that a god who would allow humankind to fade away (as most other species have) would be antithetical to the god they claim. In most religions the continuation of at least a remnant of redeemed human kind, for all eternity, is integral to the god belief. Humanity must be important in the cosmos, god must be paying attention, and therefore we need not worry about the future of mankind. The only impetus is to find a place in heaven for our individual self by an act of faith.
Overpopulation, poisoning the earth, and an escalating war are all actions exacerbated by religious belief. Breeding without regard to population concerns is a notorious facet of religious fundamentalism. Many of human kinds most pressing problems (hunger, dwindling supplies of clean water, lack of resources) and the planet's (poisoning of the environment, deforestation, mass extinctions, habitat loss) can be directly attributed to unchecked and out of control human population growth. Actively working against population control is irresponsible and intellectually dishonest. That it condemns millions to a short and miserable life while threatening the future of the entire species makes such a stance fundamentally immoral. Yet much of official religious ideoloogy continues to reject birth control, smaller families, and the emancipation of women. (Religious people, as usual, are not nearly as immoral as their doctrine might suggest. The vast majority of women with access to birth control have taken advantage of it at some point in their lives, religious or not.)
The imagery of "subduing" the earth has its foundations in religion as well, and hints again at the dangers inherent in belief. We never imagine a nursing baby as "subduing" its mother, such a thought is nearly perverse. Force the image in your mind and your heart will whisper another thought; neither the mother nor the baby is likely to survive. Our hearts know what faith refuses to admit. Religious doctrine is completely ignorant of the fact that the human species is a very late comer in the expression of life on earth. Insisting that we are the very reason for earth's existence is hubris in the extreme.
War is not exclusive of religion though I would argue that religion adds a savage edge to war. Still, it is only religion that believes a nuclear war in the Middle East is foretold by god, and will lead to his return to take up Kingship over the cosmos. People who believe such perversity should be spending time in our finest mental hospitals while we seek a cure for their insanity. Instead they hold positions of government where they can help start the war they look to with their twisted idea of hope.
When we actually lay faith aside and look at the cosmos as it is, here is what we see. There is no god particularly interested in human kind. There is no reason that our species should continue in the face of a sometime hostile and uncaring universe. The careful and diligent application of our intelligence to understanding our place in that universe, and discovering the avenues we may take in order to enhance our chances for long-term survival, are the only things that might protect our future. Neglecting to do that by betting a god will do it for us is shear madness.
Madness cannot long survive this cosmos.
Pascal got it completely backwards. If one is a little less selfish, a little less conceited, the argument goes like this;
If a god does exist and human kind acts as it one doesn't, the future is hopeful even if the god does not act as we assume.
If a god does exist and human kind acts as if one does, the future is hopeful only if the god acts as we assume it will.
If a god doesn't exist and human kind acts as if one doesn't, the future is hopeful.
If a god doesn't exist and human kind acts as if one does, there is no future for human kind.
Smart people will act as if there is no god.
If god exists and one does believe, one goes to heaven.
If god doesn't exist and one doesn't believe, nothing happens.
If god doesn't exist and one does believe, nothing happens.
A smart person will believe in god just to hedge his bets.
If you are a non-believer it is likely you have had this argument tossed at you in a discussion somewhere. Believers seem to think it is a knock-out punch of some kind. Apparently it never occurs to them that their particular god might not be the one under discussion or, whomever the god might be, it might not accept a "just-in-case" kind of faith.
Pascal's wager is a pretty sorry excuse for an argument for faith, but it does shed light on one of the truly deep and ultimately most dangerous facets of faith. If god doesn't exist (it doesn't really matter which god) but human kind continues to put faith in the idea that one does, such assumption may well prove fatal to the entire species. Believing that there is a god who is looking out for us, who will ultimately protect us from our own foolishness, and who will eventually guarantee our success, is nearly suicidal if the god doesn't exist. It is exactly like jumping out of an airplane assuming there is an operable parachute in the pack. If there isn't death is the likely outcome.
Most of the people who deny that a) the global climate is changing rapidly for the warmer and, b) that human activities and decisions could possibly be the cause if it is, are religious fundamentalists. Their rejection is partly based on the arguments for global warming coming from scientists. Religious fundamentalism is fundamentally opposed to knowledge, inquiry, curiosity, and open debate. God has reveled everything we need to know to be successful as a species; belief is what matters, not knowledge.
I wonder if a deeper reason for their rejection is understanding that a god who would allow humankind to fade away (as most other species have) would be antithetical to the god they claim. In most religions the continuation of at least a remnant of redeemed human kind, for all eternity, is integral to the god belief. Humanity must be important in the cosmos, god must be paying attention, and therefore we need not worry about the future of mankind. The only impetus is to find a place in heaven for our individual self by an act of faith.
Overpopulation, poisoning the earth, and an escalating war are all actions exacerbated by religious belief. Breeding without regard to population concerns is a notorious facet of religious fundamentalism. Many of human kinds most pressing problems (hunger, dwindling supplies of clean water, lack of resources) and the planet's (poisoning of the environment, deforestation, mass extinctions, habitat loss) can be directly attributed to unchecked and out of control human population growth. Actively working against population control is irresponsible and intellectually dishonest. That it condemns millions to a short and miserable life while threatening the future of the entire species makes such a stance fundamentally immoral. Yet much of official religious ideoloogy continues to reject birth control, smaller families, and the emancipation of women. (Religious people, as usual, are not nearly as immoral as their doctrine might suggest. The vast majority of women with access to birth control have taken advantage of it at some point in their lives, religious or not.)
The imagery of "subduing" the earth has its foundations in religion as well, and hints again at the dangers inherent in belief. We never imagine a nursing baby as "subduing" its mother, such a thought is nearly perverse. Force the image in your mind and your heart will whisper another thought; neither the mother nor the baby is likely to survive. Our hearts know what faith refuses to admit. Religious doctrine is completely ignorant of the fact that the human species is a very late comer in the expression of life on earth. Insisting that we are the very reason for earth's existence is hubris in the extreme.
War is not exclusive of religion though I would argue that religion adds a savage edge to war. Still, it is only religion that believes a nuclear war in the Middle East is foretold by god, and will lead to his return to take up Kingship over the cosmos. People who believe such perversity should be spending time in our finest mental hospitals while we seek a cure for their insanity. Instead they hold positions of government where they can help start the war they look to with their twisted idea of hope.
When we actually lay faith aside and look at the cosmos as it is, here is what we see. There is no god particularly interested in human kind. There is no reason that our species should continue in the face of a sometime hostile and uncaring universe. The careful and diligent application of our intelligence to understanding our place in that universe, and discovering the avenues we may take in order to enhance our chances for long-term survival, are the only things that might protect our future. Neglecting to do that by betting a god will do it for us is shear madness.
Madness cannot long survive this cosmos.
Pascal got it completely backwards. If one is a little less selfish, a little less conceited, the argument goes like this;
If a god does exist and human kind acts as it one doesn't, the future is hopeful even if the god does not act as we assume.
If a god does exist and human kind acts as if one does, the future is hopeful only if the god acts as we assume it will.
If a god doesn't exist and human kind acts as if one doesn't, the future is hopeful.
If a god doesn't exist and human kind acts as if one does, there is no future for human kind.
Smart people will act as if there is no god.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Religious Freedom
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; a pretty remarkable statement. It would be hard to craft a more precise foundation for a free society. Though there is much to contemplate in this day of speech being equal to money, a press that is owned by a few multi-national corporations, or those peaceably assembling for a redress of grievances being assaulted by police...this evening's muse is on the freedom of religion.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This may be the most perfectly balanced statement any group of thinking people has ever penned. How could it be better? Congress is completely bared from the arena of religious practices. In a world that has suffered a long history of religious extremists battling each other and oppressing others, completely isolating religion from the power structure of the State is nothing short of a stroke of genius. Every single religious person in the US should celebrate such insight. Since no religion is given access to the power structure of the state, every religious practitioner is protected from being coerced or abused by every other religious practitioner. Each is free to practice the religion of his or her choice. Each is free to change religious perceptions without fear and are not bound to the religion of their government, parents, society, or their own youth. This unabridged freedom to pursue the truth as each person finds it unfolding in their own life is the very essence of a free society.
If your religion prohibits you from ingesting meat on Friday you can't be forced to eat meat on Friday...by anyone. If, on the other hand, my religion sees nothing wrong with eating meat on Friday, no one (including you) can force me to abstain. So far, so good.
But what if you run a deli? Should you be forced to sell me meat on Friday, and if you are is that an assault on your religious freedom? Maybe "ingesting" meat, according to your denomination's interpretation, includes touching, or even smelling, any kind of dead flesh? Clearly insisting that you handle meat on Friday could be seen as prohibiting you from the free exercise of your religion.
And does that mean that you can prohibit an employee from having a ham sandwich for lunch in order for you to adhere to the dictates of your religious conscious?
I don't think so. Meeting the obligations of religion is the most personal of responsibilities. It is not a licence to infringe on the lives of others. If you are our fictitious deli owner you can take Friday off and let your employee handle the counter. (Who would also be able to eat a ham sandwich for lunch.) It is your religion. It is your responsibility to live with your religion and yours only. If it costs you, well, it costs you, not me, not your employee...you.
Which is as it should be.
Religious dictates that boarder on the extreme will have a corresponding impact on the individual practitioner, but in a free society it can't be allowed to go any further than the individual. Our "No ingesting meat on Friday," is an example. Not eating meat is a rather clear and easy dictate. No touching gets a little more difficult for the devotee but not insurmountable. Not allowing a single molecule of meat to enter the body in any way becomes an extreme interpretation (though some sect somewhere will undoubtedly go with it). Now the followers are gathering in a sterile room and breathing carefully filtered air for the duration of Friday.
This is still pretty easy stuff so far as a free society goes. You do what you have to do to meet the dictates of your religious precepts - right up until they impact someone else.
And that is where it gets a touch more difficult. For, unfortunately for the world, most religions have commands in them that require followers to spread their religious dictates with little regard to individual liberty. In other words your religion dictates that, not only are you prohibited from eating meat on Friday, you are prohibited from allowing anyone to eat meat on Friday. (Most religions, at their core, are incompatible with any kind of democratic society - something we all conveniently ignore.)
And so the conflict joined at the very first religious schism continues to this very day.
A conflict that the First Amendment was designed to quell. Without some backing by the power of the State, you do not have the power to prohibit me from eating meat on Friday. I can simply ignore you and have a ham sandwich If you grab my arm the cops will haul you away. If there is not a cop around I can defend myself with as much force as I need, call the cops, and have them haul you away at a later time. If I have the inclination and the cash I can higher some mad-dog lawyer to sue you in civil court and put a serious hurting on your bank account, maybe end up owning your deli. The First Amendment will not protect you from being charged with assault.
But what if you own the only deli in town and on Friday you lock up all the meat? No assault, no violence; in fact the law works the other way now. If I break into you store to get at the ham, or hold a gun to your head and demand my Friday sandwich, the courts and the lawyers are your side. You have imposed your religious dictates on me without running afoul of the letter of the First Amendment. But I submit that you have run afoul of the spirit, the intent, of the First Amendment.
The moment religious freedom moves beyond the individual and touches someone else, a bit of liberty is lost. It could be a minor little bit, like losing my ham sandwich on Friday. It could be the most major loss, my life to your suicide bombing. The vast majority of the time is it somewhere in the middle, between the ham sandwich and murder. In every case another thing lost is the intent of the First Amendment - that of creating a free society.
The moment someone is prevented from an individual expression of their religion, a bit of liberty is lost as well. A person wants to wear a hood, kneel head toward Mecca 5 times a day, or grow a beard down to their waist? On what basis should they be restrained from performing these personal acts of conscious? That I am offended by a veil or a public prayer or a scraggly beard should be completely beside the point. Indeed, why should I be offended at all? Each is living his or her life in accordance with a take on the world that is different than is mine, so? Each time an individual is prevented from practicing their religion, from living their life freely in the light of the truth as they see it to be, a little bit of a free society is lost as well.
All of us should be committed to protecting every individual's liberty, should they share our religion or no. Ultimately that is the only way that liberty is preserved for anyone. It is the only way religious freedom survives.
Anyone who attempts to use the First Amendment to force a religious practice on anyone else is, ultimately, an enemy of liberty and of a free society. That they are not, necessarily, and enemy of religion would be one of the many reasons I am not religious. I have little use for a god who needs to impose itself on me. I have no use for a god that needs me to impose itself on you.
Those who hold the belief that they are called to impose god's will on others live in perpetual defiance of the First Amendment. Of course they don't care, but it does make it a little easier for the rest of us to figure out who be the bad guys.
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; a pretty remarkable statement. It would be hard to craft a more precise foundation for a free society. Though there is much to contemplate in this day of speech being equal to money, a press that is owned by a few multi-national corporations, or those peaceably assembling for a redress of grievances being assaulted by police...this evening's muse is on the freedom of religion.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This may be the most perfectly balanced statement any group of thinking people has ever penned. How could it be better? Congress is completely bared from the arena of religious practices. In a world that has suffered a long history of religious extremists battling each other and oppressing others, completely isolating religion from the power structure of the State is nothing short of a stroke of genius. Every single religious person in the US should celebrate such insight. Since no religion is given access to the power structure of the state, every religious practitioner is protected from being coerced or abused by every other religious practitioner. Each is free to practice the religion of his or her choice. Each is free to change religious perceptions without fear and are not bound to the religion of their government, parents, society, or their own youth. This unabridged freedom to pursue the truth as each person finds it unfolding in their own life is the very essence of a free society.
If your religion prohibits you from ingesting meat on Friday you can't be forced to eat meat on Friday...by anyone. If, on the other hand, my religion sees nothing wrong with eating meat on Friday, no one (including you) can force me to abstain. So far, so good.
But what if you run a deli? Should you be forced to sell me meat on Friday, and if you are is that an assault on your religious freedom? Maybe "ingesting" meat, according to your denomination's interpretation, includes touching, or even smelling, any kind of dead flesh? Clearly insisting that you handle meat on Friday could be seen as prohibiting you from the free exercise of your religion.
And does that mean that you can prohibit an employee from having a ham sandwich for lunch in order for you to adhere to the dictates of your religious conscious?
I don't think so. Meeting the obligations of religion is the most personal of responsibilities. It is not a licence to infringe on the lives of others. If you are our fictitious deli owner you can take Friday off and let your employee handle the counter. (Who would also be able to eat a ham sandwich for lunch.) It is your religion. It is your responsibility to live with your religion and yours only. If it costs you, well, it costs you, not me, not your employee...you.
Which is as it should be.
Religious dictates that boarder on the extreme will have a corresponding impact on the individual practitioner, but in a free society it can't be allowed to go any further than the individual. Our "No ingesting meat on Friday," is an example. Not eating meat is a rather clear and easy dictate. No touching gets a little more difficult for the devotee but not insurmountable. Not allowing a single molecule of meat to enter the body in any way becomes an extreme interpretation (though some sect somewhere will undoubtedly go with it). Now the followers are gathering in a sterile room and breathing carefully filtered air for the duration of Friday.
This is still pretty easy stuff so far as a free society goes. You do what you have to do to meet the dictates of your religious precepts - right up until they impact someone else.
And that is where it gets a touch more difficult. For, unfortunately for the world, most religions have commands in them that require followers to spread their religious dictates with little regard to individual liberty. In other words your religion dictates that, not only are you prohibited from eating meat on Friday, you are prohibited from allowing anyone to eat meat on Friday. (Most religions, at their core, are incompatible with any kind of democratic society - something we all conveniently ignore.)
And so the conflict joined at the very first religious schism continues to this very day.
A conflict that the First Amendment was designed to quell. Without some backing by the power of the State, you do not have the power to prohibit me from eating meat on Friday. I can simply ignore you and have a ham sandwich If you grab my arm the cops will haul you away. If there is not a cop around I can defend myself with as much force as I need, call the cops, and have them haul you away at a later time. If I have the inclination and the cash I can higher some mad-dog lawyer to sue you in civil court and put a serious hurting on your bank account, maybe end up owning your deli. The First Amendment will not protect you from being charged with assault.
But what if you own the only deli in town and on Friday you lock up all the meat? No assault, no violence; in fact the law works the other way now. If I break into you store to get at the ham, or hold a gun to your head and demand my Friday sandwich, the courts and the lawyers are your side. You have imposed your religious dictates on me without running afoul of the letter of the First Amendment. But I submit that you have run afoul of the spirit, the intent, of the First Amendment.
The moment religious freedom moves beyond the individual and touches someone else, a bit of liberty is lost. It could be a minor little bit, like losing my ham sandwich on Friday. It could be the most major loss, my life to your suicide bombing. The vast majority of the time is it somewhere in the middle, between the ham sandwich and murder. In every case another thing lost is the intent of the First Amendment - that of creating a free society.
The moment someone is prevented from an individual expression of their religion, a bit of liberty is lost as well. A person wants to wear a hood, kneel head toward Mecca 5 times a day, or grow a beard down to their waist? On what basis should they be restrained from performing these personal acts of conscious? That I am offended by a veil or a public prayer or a scraggly beard should be completely beside the point. Indeed, why should I be offended at all? Each is living his or her life in accordance with a take on the world that is different than is mine, so? Each time an individual is prevented from practicing their religion, from living their life freely in the light of the truth as they see it to be, a little bit of a free society is lost as well.
All of us should be committed to protecting every individual's liberty, should they share our religion or no. Ultimately that is the only way that liberty is preserved for anyone. It is the only way religious freedom survives.
Anyone who attempts to use the First Amendment to force a religious practice on anyone else is, ultimately, an enemy of liberty and of a free society. That they are not, necessarily, and enemy of religion would be one of the many reasons I am not religious. I have little use for a god who needs to impose itself on me. I have no use for a god that needs me to impose itself on you.
Those who hold the belief that they are called to impose god's will on others live in perpetual defiance of the First Amendment. Of course they don't care, but it does make it a little easier for the rest of us to figure out who be the bad guys.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Standing too close to the wreck
Being off the reservation makes me a bit of an outsider when it comes to both religion and politics. It isn't that I don't bother to think about these things or pay any attention to them; but it seems like few people share my perspective.
From out here it looks like the Republican Party has, over the last couple of decades, morphed into a very odd Christian religious sect; and a shallow, somewhat disagreeable one at that. How else to describe an ideology that hates poor people, rejoices in punishing children for the mistakes of their parents, sees health care as a privilege for the well-to-do, thinks sacrificing the ecology for corporate profits is a mandate from god, and actually believes that being rich is god's gift to the truly righteous? In addition they consider money to be free speech while cheering when peaceful demonstrators, who are actually people trying to speak freely, are assaulted by police using batons, tear gas and pepper spray. And really, other than some whacked-out religious ideology, on what possible fucking basis can anyone be opposed to public education?
Like a lot of religion they also seem to be afraid of nearly everything. Gay people and socialism are the true dangers to human civilization? Immigrants and smoking pot will destroy the future? Evolution is a myth created by scientists and the earth is 10,000 years old? Insisting that the world is flat and the center of the solar system would not make them one bit goofier than they already are.
Yet they are still one half of the party coalition that governs the US. Roughly half of our “leaders” are parishioners, priests and bishops in this bastard religion of the willfully stupid. They inhabit the power structures of our nation, write our laws, oversee the most powerful military the world has ever endured, and control the largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.
As eventually happens to all religious groups, this Conservative / Republican / T-Party / Christianity (CRTPC) sect is apparently splitting into even more exclusive, and mutually hostile, factions. Perhaps that reflects it being populated by those who cling to the worst bits of Catholic, Protestant fundamentalist, and Mormon lunacy? At its core this religion is all about hate and evil. They hate each other as much as they do the rest of us and they are completely blind to the evil that they do in the world.
This brings some good news. Evil always turns out to be its own worst enemy, eventually turns inward, and self-destructs. So far as that goes it is encouraging to watch this particular CRTPC coalition stumble into oblivion.
Even as its (often divorced and serial adulterous) leaders froth at the mouth over protecting marriage from gay people, states around the country (and around the world) move toward granting this basic civil right to people who actually love each other. (Do hate and evil always stand against people who love each other?) Though they continue to scheme and weasel to defend and protect their personal fortunes, they face growing criticism of a Robber Baron economy and its strangle hold on economic justice. The vise-grip on society's resources that indulges in the cravings of the few while ignoring the needs of the many, may finally be starting to loosen.
The US Supreme Court, packed with CRTPC appointees, is basically untouchable. But do you know anyone who thinks they serve anything other than corporate interests? These unelected Emperors are long shed of any cloak of jurisprudence, but much of the country now seems well aware of their ugly nakedness. And as sometimes happens when evil people begin to spin out of control, this Court is so fucked up that even some of the CRTPC faithful are starting to protest. You just have to love the karma behind Sup-Pacs savaging opposing CRTPC candidates and hastening the group's splintering into warring camps of bile. Sooner or later rational people are going to reign in the Robert's Court, or else history will revile their part in the failure of a once democratic republic.
Though there is little chance that the US military will face any actual cuts in funding any time soon, there is at least enough unrest among the masses that the Obama is being forced to slow its escalating drain on resources. How big is that drain? The US military is the biggest purchaser of oil in the world and the largest single consumer of petroleum in the US. Some estimate that 1000 troops have died protecting fuel convoys in hostile areas. (If the USA were my enemy I would close the Straits of Hormuz in a heartbeat.) You have to feed the troops, run air-conditioning for them, provide health care, uniforms, boots, vehicles, knives, forks, spoons and plates. Every single .50 caliber bullet fired costs the same as providing a meal for a child. The simple fact is supporting the largest war machine on the planet costs all of us a considerable chunk of our standard of living. Any restraint on the military that can come from the CRTPC sect loosing its grip is good news. (Eventually military spending will be dramatically cut, just check with those who used to command the armed forces of the old Soviet Union.)
The bad news is that the CRTPC sect is half of the party coalition that rules the US. Is the sect fading into irrelevance and chaos, or are they just the first and most obvious segment of the US experiment in democracy fading into irrelevance and chaos? Those who worship in CRTPC churches may be insane, but the other half of the coalition (we call them Democrats) are not particularly lucid either.
Obama isn't slashing the size of the military. He finished Bush's one war, is continuing on with the other, is fighting at least one semi-secret drone war of his own, and seems bent on initiating a shooting war with Iran. (Any bets on the first shots being fired in say, September or October?) The revolving door between Wall Street and Pennsylvania Ave is more a super highway than it is a doorway. If one actually arrested those responsible for the fraud that trashed the economy, some of the "perp-walks" would start in the West Wing. In fact, given that Wall Street was one of Obama's early supporters, one perp-walk might start in the Oval office. (This is even more so if one thinks Bush II is a war criminal. If he is it is impossible to insist that Obama isn't.) Are oil companies any less powerful? Is health care any better or more affordable? Does solar power heat our homes? How many can afford to put kids through collage and who can pay their student loans?
If the CRTPC religious sect is self-destructing and about to fade from the US political scene, then our world may soon be a slightly better place. That wreck the rest of us will both survive and cheer. If the sect is actually a structural part of the US government and its demise simply one of the last facets of a long faltering democracy, many of us are going to be way too close to that disaster. What comes after is any one's guess and surviving the transition will be mostly a matter of being in the right place at the right time. (Or avoiding the wrong place at the wrong time!)
And if, by some small chance, you are a CRTPC worshiper and have read this far in this blog (small, small chance) you are going to be a part of the wreck either way. Good luck.
From out here it looks like the Republican Party has, over the last couple of decades, morphed into a very odd Christian religious sect; and a shallow, somewhat disagreeable one at that. How else to describe an ideology that hates poor people, rejoices in punishing children for the mistakes of their parents, sees health care as a privilege for the well-to-do, thinks sacrificing the ecology for corporate profits is a mandate from god, and actually believes that being rich is god's gift to the truly righteous? In addition they consider money to be free speech while cheering when peaceful demonstrators, who are actually people trying to speak freely, are assaulted by police using batons, tear gas and pepper spray. And really, other than some whacked-out religious ideology, on what possible fucking basis can anyone be opposed to public education?
Like a lot of religion they also seem to be afraid of nearly everything. Gay people and socialism are the true dangers to human civilization? Immigrants and smoking pot will destroy the future? Evolution is a myth created by scientists and the earth is 10,000 years old? Insisting that the world is flat and the center of the solar system would not make them one bit goofier than they already are.
Yet they are still one half of the party coalition that governs the US. Roughly half of our “leaders” are parishioners, priests and bishops in this bastard religion of the willfully stupid. They inhabit the power structures of our nation, write our laws, oversee the most powerful military the world has ever endured, and control the largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.
As eventually happens to all religious groups, this Conservative / Republican / T-Party / Christianity (CRTPC) sect is apparently splitting into even more exclusive, and mutually hostile, factions. Perhaps that reflects it being populated by those who cling to the worst bits of Catholic, Protestant fundamentalist, and Mormon lunacy? At its core this religion is all about hate and evil. They hate each other as much as they do the rest of us and they are completely blind to the evil that they do in the world.
This brings some good news. Evil always turns out to be its own worst enemy, eventually turns inward, and self-destructs. So far as that goes it is encouraging to watch this particular CRTPC coalition stumble into oblivion.
Even as its (often divorced and serial adulterous) leaders froth at the mouth over protecting marriage from gay people, states around the country (and around the world) move toward granting this basic civil right to people who actually love each other. (Do hate and evil always stand against people who love each other?) Though they continue to scheme and weasel to defend and protect their personal fortunes, they face growing criticism of a Robber Baron economy and its strangle hold on economic justice. The vise-grip on society's resources that indulges in the cravings of the few while ignoring the needs of the many, may finally be starting to loosen.
The US Supreme Court, packed with CRTPC appointees, is basically untouchable. But do you know anyone who thinks they serve anything other than corporate interests? These unelected Emperors are long shed of any cloak of jurisprudence, but much of the country now seems well aware of their ugly nakedness. And as sometimes happens when evil people begin to spin out of control, this Court is so fucked up that even some of the CRTPC faithful are starting to protest. You just have to love the karma behind Sup-Pacs savaging opposing CRTPC candidates and hastening the group's splintering into warring camps of bile. Sooner or later rational people are going to reign in the Robert's Court, or else history will revile their part in the failure of a once democratic republic.
Though there is little chance that the US military will face any actual cuts in funding any time soon, there is at least enough unrest among the masses that the Obama is being forced to slow its escalating drain on resources. How big is that drain? The US military is the biggest purchaser of oil in the world and the largest single consumer of petroleum in the US. Some estimate that 1000 troops have died protecting fuel convoys in hostile areas. (If the USA were my enemy I would close the Straits of Hormuz in a heartbeat.) You have to feed the troops, run air-conditioning for them, provide health care, uniforms, boots, vehicles, knives, forks, spoons and plates. Every single .50 caliber bullet fired costs the same as providing a meal for a child. The simple fact is supporting the largest war machine on the planet costs all of us a considerable chunk of our standard of living. Any restraint on the military that can come from the CRTPC sect loosing its grip is good news. (Eventually military spending will be dramatically cut, just check with those who used to command the armed forces of the old Soviet Union.)
The bad news is that the CRTPC sect is half of the party coalition that rules the US. Is the sect fading into irrelevance and chaos, or are they just the first and most obvious segment of the US experiment in democracy fading into irrelevance and chaos? Those who worship in CRTPC churches may be insane, but the other half of the coalition (we call them Democrats) are not particularly lucid either.
Obama isn't slashing the size of the military. He finished Bush's one war, is continuing on with the other, is fighting at least one semi-secret drone war of his own, and seems bent on initiating a shooting war with Iran. (Any bets on the first shots being fired in say, September or October?) The revolving door between Wall Street and Pennsylvania Ave is more a super highway than it is a doorway. If one actually arrested those responsible for the fraud that trashed the economy, some of the "perp-walks" would start in the West Wing. In fact, given that Wall Street was one of Obama's early supporters, one perp-walk might start in the Oval office. (This is even more so if one thinks Bush II is a war criminal. If he is it is impossible to insist that Obama isn't.) Are oil companies any less powerful? Is health care any better or more affordable? Does solar power heat our homes? How many can afford to put kids through collage and who can pay their student loans?
If the CRTPC religious sect is self-destructing and about to fade from the US political scene, then our world may soon be a slightly better place. That wreck the rest of us will both survive and cheer. If the sect is actually a structural part of the US government and its demise simply one of the last facets of a long faltering democracy, many of us are going to be way too close to that disaster. What comes after is any one's guess and surviving the transition will be mostly a matter of being in the right place at the right time. (Or avoiding the wrong place at the wrong time!)
And if, by some small chance, you are a CRTPC worshiper and have read this far in this blog (small, small chance) you are going to be a part of the wreck either way. Good luck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)