"If we are going to condemn our politicians and businesses for celebrating the American tradition of Christmas ...."
Who has condemned a politician or even a business for celebrating Christmas? Even among the secular, even among groups such as Freedom From Religion Foundation, nobody is condemning a politician or a business for celebrating Christmas.
I, an atheist, am not the least bit offended if someone says Merry Christmas to me along as it is done in the spirit of the season and not some kind of barbed attack. Mr. Hancock wrote, "The founders addressed their faith first in the Bill of Rights, as the first order of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that restricts government from regulating religion."
Well, founders like Paine, Jefferson, Madison valued reason in determining if there was a God in lieu of faith. They valued reason over religious faith even in the matter of a God.
It is true the government cannot regulate or interfere with religious beliefs, but it doesn't need to show great religious faith for this to be true. Virtually any person in the U.S., religious or secular, supports the rights of people to worship as they so please, though I and other secular people are concerned when there might be violations of the Establishment clause which prohibits an "establishment of religion." Indeed, the Establishment clause shows the concern of the founders of not only a state church but an intermingling of church and state that can harm both.
The government was not in the business to promote one religion over another as true. If the Establishment clause only prohibited a state church it would state a "prohibition of a religion" instead of the correct wording "of religion."
Mr. Hancock wrote, "Separation of Church and State" is a myth, not to be found in any U.S. founding document." While separation of church and state is not in fact in the U.S. Constitution, it is a descriptive term for the free exercise and Establishment clauses. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the reply to the Connecticut Danbury Baptists, "Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the wall of separation between church and state, therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." This letter was in response to not the fear of a creation of a national church in the U.S. as is commonly thought but the state of Connecticut in forcing individuals to pay taxes to support the main church in that state.
Thomas Jefferson was commonly in correspondence with James Madison on religion and state and how there should be separation. James Madison wrote, "The civil government ... functions with complete success ... by the total separation of the Church from the State." James Madison, of course being the chief architect of our Constitution.
Harrie Meiers debacle:
Let's look back on the debacle that George Bush created with the Harriet Meiers Supreme Court nomination before moving on to the next Justice nominee. When Bush's choice was floundering like a fish on a boat his administration brought up the fact she was a devout Christian and attended a strict church. Muhammad Mithaqi, an Iraqi delegate to the Iraq Constitution stated, "You are lecturing us about keeping religion out of politics, and then your own president and conservative legal scholars go and tell your public to endorse Miers as a Supreme Court Justice because she is an evangelical Christian.
How would you feel if you picked up your newspaper the next week and read that the President of Iraq justified the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice by telling Iraqis "Don't pay attention to his lack of legal expertise, pay attention to the fact that he is a Muslim fundamentalist and prays at a Sadi funded Wahabi Mosque." Mr. Mithaqi is right, if it is wrong to pick Justices in Iraq for the exact reason they are deeply religious then in the U.S. it shouldn't be a reason to pick Justices for our courts.
Obviously you can be a Justice who is a Christian, or a Jew or a Muslim or an atheist. What is important is that you faithfully do the job of a Justice. One cannot urge support for a Justice because of their religion, (because you think his/her religion would be a plus for your side on issues like abortion, etc.) and then say that a candidate's religion can't be a criteria for evaluation by U.S. senators if it will impact their rulings.
If the atheist Madelyn O'Hair had been nominated for a Justice seat (wouldn't happened in a million years of course) then does anyone really believe that conservative a Senator wouldn't have objected and voted against her based upon her support for keeping the government neutral when it comes to religion? Frankly the whole Meiers affairs exposes massive conservative contradictions. They stated that Democrats should support giving every Bush judicial nominee a fair and up and down vote on the Senate floor and then pressure the White House to kill her nomination even before a Senate hearing. They stated that judges' only criteria should be if they are qualified (which most of Clinton's 50 judicial nominees who were denied a hearing or a vote in the GOP Senate Judicial Committee were) and then oppose Meiers because they are not sure of her judicial philosophy or how she will vote on abortion. Yes, the Meiers nomination has taught me and my fellow Americans quite a great deal.
Letter on Religious freedom/
After reading the letter by Al Johnson in regards to my previous letter, I felt I had to respond because he might have misunderstood my intentions.
Mr. Johnson, I do not want to interfere in your religious freedom. I do not want to violate your fundamental Constitutional rights. But, Mr. Johnson, this nation isn't only the nation of Christians. This is my nation too, and the nation of all Americans.
My forefathers were here before we were a nation and have fought in numerous wars. Your right to worship as you please isn't contigent on the government officially recognizing your religion as true. Your religion is true if it is true; a government recognition is not necessary anymore than to any other religion.
I did not say anything negative about the Christian God. Heck, I didn't even state positively whether your God exists or not. I stated that the government shouldn't have an endorsement of the view that God exists nor that of any other God. I don't even want the government stating no God exists.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Thomas Cooper in 1807, "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blind-folded fear." Now, this statement by our third President was much more critical of God or belief in God then I ever was. This from one of our leading Founders.
Should Mr. Jefferson have left the U.S. as you so advise any critics of the status quo? How much basis is there in our laws with Christianity?
Jefferson in a 1814 letter wrote, "Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law" meaning its orgins were Anglo Saxon. Yes, religous freedom of Christians was important to the founders but the FREEDOM of all Americans. Not just Christians but those of all religions and those of no religion. Religous freedom, again, isn't contigent on government recognization of that religion as true.
My concens are not just the view of atheists but many believers who are concerned about these same questions of Church and State interference with each other's turf.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Disagreeing with one's govt/House GOP
Criticism of our president and American foreign policy are acceptable within bounds, unless done to undermine the president’s authority, our foreign policy and the American people’s confidence and resolve in both."
So, criticism is OK along as it isn't effective enough that it will actually lead to a change in foreign policy? Is that his point?
Of course critics of a president, be it Rep. Murtha and his criticism of Bush, or Rush Limbaugh and his criticism of Clinton during the Balkans Campaign try to change the foreign policy. That is basic point of criticism, to enact change. If not, then freedom of speech is a pointless academic exercise in debate and nothing more.
The fact is no president, no government deserves the American people's confidence and resolve. They have to earn it and if they don't then the American people and the president or government's critics aren't obligated to give it nor are the American people.
Mr. Johnson calls former President Carter a traitor and an appeaser. But, Carter was once president just like Bush is now, so were the critics of President Carter while he was president traitors who were trying to undermine the president’s authority along with our foreign policy at that time and the American people’s confidence and resolve in both?
Criticize Carter, Clinton Kerry or any Democrat all you want. No president and no government is granted any right to be free of criticism. This is easily understood when a Democrat is president but for the life of me I cannot understand why it is so forgotten when a Republican is president. I know Bush supporters just want America to do well and believe that President Bush's policies are the best for the nation. They might be, but that is a separate question. But, you cannot state or imply that a criticism of a president when he is of one party is bad or less then patriotic and when the next party is in office forget the previous things you just said in your criticism of the new president.
When a Democrat takes the White House during this war on terrorism I don’t expect a honeymoon in the criticism of conservatives in the president's conduct on the war and I wouldn't fault them for it. If a president is wrong he should be called on the carpet no matter which party. I just hope for a little constiency in the future.
House GOP lack of ethics:
I was very disappointed to read that the GOP House struck a bid to debate a stronger ethics bill that would have made it a felony to use one’s office to influence the hiring or firing of lobbyists. The only question I have is, why vote against such a common sense proposal?
Heck, the Senate voted against even a proposal that would have even banned the acceptance of a free meal from any employee of a company that retains a lobbyist. Senators can’t afford their own pizzas?
An Office of Public Integrity to enforce reforms was scrapped. Republicans blocked an attempt to investigate House members and staff implicated in the scandals associated with Jack Abramoff’s criminal activity. Frankly, is Congress serious about ethics reform or not? Clearly Mr. Abramoff was up to no good, and anyone, no matter what party, who was involved with him in doing no good shouldn’t be given a free pass.
What is the cost to America of this low-down lobbying? Well, billions of dollars in pork. The biggest pork-laden senator was GOP Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens who secured $489.87 per person for the state of Alaska, which is about 16 times the $30.55 per person for the U.S. as a whole. Ted Stevens of course being the author of the Bridge to Nowhere, which would be a great achievement in bridge building if not for the fact that basically no one and no car will ever use it.
It’s nice to know the U.S. Senate’s system of giving two senators for each state allows us to waste so much money on so cold a place so Sen. Stevens can get a fat Senate retirement check.
So, criticism is OK along as it isn't effective enough that it will actually lead to a change in foreign policy? Is that his point?
Of course critics of a president, be it Rep. Murtha and his criticism of Bush, or Rush Limbaugh and his criticism of Clinton during the Balkans Campaign try to change the foreign policy. That is basic point of criticism, to enact change. If not, then freedom of speech is a pointless academic exercise in debate and nothing more.
The fact is no president, no government deserves the American people's confidence and resolve. They have to earn it and if they don't then the American people and the president or government's critics aren't obligated to give it nor are the American people.
Mr. Johnson calls former President Carter a traitor and an appeaser. But, Carter was once president just like Bush is now, so were the critics of President Carter while he was president traitors who were trying to undermine the president’s authority along with our foreign policy at that time and the American people’s confidence and resolve in both?
Criticize Carter, Clinton Kerry or any Democrat all you want. No president and no government is granted any right to be free of criticism. This is easily understood when a Democrat is president but for the life of me I cannot understand why it is so forgotten when a Republican is president. I know Bush supporters just want America to do well and believe that President Bush's policies are the best for the nation. They might be, but that is a separate question. But, you cannot state or imply that a criticism of a president when he is of one party is bad or less then patriotic and when the next party is in office forget the previous things you just said in your criticism of the new president.
When a Democrat takes the White House during this war on terrorism I don’t expect a honeymoon in the criticism of conservatives in the president's conduct on the war and I wouldn't fault them for it. If a president is wrong he should be called on the carpet no matter which party. I just hope for a little constiency in the future.
House GOP lack of ethics:
I was very disappointed to read that the GOP House struck a bid to debate a stronger ethics bill that would have made it a felony to use one’s office to influence the hiring or firing of lobbyists. The only question I have is, why vote against such a common sense proposal?
Heck, the Senate voted against even a proposal that would have even banned the acceptance of a free meal from any employee of a company that retains a lobbyist. Senators can’t afford their own pizzas?
An Office of Public Integrity to enforce reforms was scrapped. Republicans blocked an attempt to investigate House members and staff implicated in the scandals associated with Jack Abramoff’s criminal activity. Frankly, is Congress serious about ethics reform or not? Clearly Mr. Abramoff was up to no good, and anyone, no matter what party, who was involved with him in doing no good shouldn’t be given a free pass.
What is the cost to America of this low-down lobbying? Well, billions of dollars in pork. The biggest pork-laden senator was GOP Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens who secured $489.87 per person for the state of Alaska, which is about 16 times the $30.55 per person for the U.S. as a whole. Ted Stevens of course being the author of the Bridge to Nowhere, which would be a great achievement in bridge building if not for the fact that basically no one and no car will ever use it.
It’s nice to know the U.S. Senate’s system of giving two senators for each state allows us to waste so much money on so cold a place so Sen. Stevens can get a fat Senate retirement check.
Criticism of one's govt and old letter on Castro
Disagreeing with one's Govt:
I hear that some strong anti-war criticism is treason or treasonous because it is harmful to our country and to our national security. But, one has to ask: is that the opinion of both the anti-war and pro-war sides? No, obviously a person opposed to the war in Iraq does not believe their actions are harmful to the U.S. They believe it is a good for the country. They could be right or wrong on this matter, but they believe they are right.
Do we want to call someone treasonous for taking action they believe is right but the shouter of "treason" believes is wrong? If it is treason or at least harmful to our national security shouldn't that be required to be shown in the realm of the public forum? Or, should we just agree with the person equating the anti-war position as treasonous without so much as a public trial through debate?
Now, we are at war, but again being at war doesn't mean that a war is right and must be supported. Again, the supporter of the war has an obligation to prove why a war is right and necessary to our national security and that dissent would be harmful to that national security if he/she wants to call another, a traitor. But, the quandry is if this "treason” didn't happen there would be no or little debate on a war. The war could be right; it could be wrong. It could be positive or negative to our national security, but it would be off limits to debate under the belief that this disagreement could lead to harming our national security.
So, in order to stamp out perceived threats to national security we effectively disband democracy in the war on terror until the war is won and Islamic fundamentalism is beaten, about a century or two from now. I do not believe anyone on any side of the political divide wants to on purpose harm our national security. Some might be wrong, but again to stamp out their voice is to stamp out any exchange of ideas. Our troops in Iraq might be fighting a good struggle. It might be the right war, at the right time, but that cannot be taken for granted just because we are told so by the government.
It doesn't matter the party in power at the time. The protections of speech in our Bill of Rights isn't just to protect an end — speech — but a means. Without the means of free speech the government can do anything that it wants, even if it is wrong.
If a war is right, again, let it be argued in the realm of the public sphere. If it is right but there is a question on how it is being led, again let it be debated in the public sphere.
Is the war in Iraq being fought to protect the free speech rights of Americans? No. One could state if we don’t fight them there they would commit terrorist attacks here, effectively eliminating the free speech rights of the ones they kill. But that argument would be the same that regulations on auto safety are necessary to protect the free speech rights of automobile passengers who might be killed in accidents.
The war on Iraq is complicated. There are no easy answers, on either sides. Those who will give you easy answers do not understand the nature of the problem. "Just support whatever the government says" isn't a solution to the tremendous problems we as a nation face when confronting the quandry of terror and Iraq.
Castro:
Now that Fidel Castro (I cannot call a dictator a president) is on death's door, I think we as a nation need to revisit our policy on the Cuban trade and travel embargo. I don't think there are many people who wish to see democracy spring in Cuba more then me, but unfortunately a half-century policy of embargo with Cuba isn’t working. If it was, then I would support it.
What it does though is allow the Cuban regime to support the myth that it is the US's fault that Cuba has a lousy economy by its embargo, not the fault of the government in charge. Ironically Cuba does engage in trade without Western nations, but their economy is still lousy, a point that the Cuban government obviously doesn't make to their people.
The Cuban community in Florida overall does support this embargo, but they should realize their support for this embargo isn't working. It should and must end. Why exactly does this embargo still exist? Strangely, because of the electoral college. Florida is such a close swing state during presidential elections that the Cuban-American community in Florida has enough power (as do Iowa farmers who support ethanol federal subsidies during the Iowa Caucus election) to keep these embargoes in place. Ironically, the electoral college system that we have might keep an undemocratic regime in power in Cuba, longer then it might have been
I hear that some strong anti-war criticism is treason or treasonous because it is harmful to our country and to our national security. But, one has to ask: is that the opinion of both the anti-war and pro-war sides? No, obviously a person opposed to the war in Iraq does not believe their actions are harmful to the U.S. They believe it is a good for the country. They could be right or wrong on this matter, but they believe they are right.
Do we want to call someone treasonous for taking action they believe is right but the shouter of "treason" believes is wrong? If it is treason or at least harmful to our national security shouldn't that be required to be shown in the realm of the public forum? Or, should we just agree with the person equating the anti-war position as treasonous without so much as a public trial through debate?
Now, we are at war, but again being at war doesn't mean that a war is right and must be supported. Again, the supporter of the war has an obligation to prove why a war is right and necessary to our national security and that dissent would be harmful to that national security if he/she wants to call another, a traitor. But, the quandry is if this "treason” didn't happen there would be no or little debate on a war. The war could be right; it could be wrong. It could be positive or negative to our national security, but it would be off limits to debate under the belief that this disagreement could lead to harming our national security.
So, in order to stamp out perceived threats to national security we effectively disband democracy in the war on terror until the war is won and Islamic fundamentalism is beaten, about a century or two from now. I do not believe anyone on any side of the political divide wants to on purpose harm our national security. Some might be wrong, but again to stamp out their voice is to stamp out any exchange of ideas. Our troops in Iraq might be fighting a good struggle. It might be the right war, at the right time, but that cannot be taken for granted just because we are told so by the government.
It doesn't matter the party in power at the time. The protections of speech in our Bill of Rights isn't just to protect an end — speech — but a means. Without the means of free speech the government can do anything that it wants, even if it is wrong.
If a war is right, again, let it be argued in the realm of the public sphere. If it is right but there is a question on how it is being led, again let it be debated in the public sphere.
Is the war in Iraq being fought to protect the free speech rights of Americans? No. One could state if we don’t fight them there they would commit terrorist attacks here, effectively eliminating the free speech rights of the ones they kill. But that argument would be the same that regulations on auto safety are necessary to protect the free speech rights of automobile passengers who might be killed in accidents.
The war on Iraq is complicated. There are no easy answers, on either sides. Those who will give you easy answers do not understand the nature of the problem. "Just support whatever the government says" isn't a solution to the tremendous problems we as a nation face when confronting the quandry of terror and Iraq.
Castro:
Now that Fidel Castro (I cannot call a dictator a president) is on death's door, I think we as a nation need to revisit our policy on the Cuban trade and travel embargo. I don't think there are many people who wish to see democracy spring in Cuba more then me, but unfortunately a half-century policy of embargo with Cuba isn’t working. If it was, then I would support it.
What it does though is allow the Cuban regime to support the myth that it is the US's fault that Cuba has a lousy economy by its embargo, not the fault of the government in charge. Ironically Cuba does engage in trade without Western nations, but their economy is still lousy, a point that the Cuban government obviously doesn't make to their people.
The Cuban community in Florida overall does support this embargo, but they should realize their support for this embargo isn't working. It should and must end. Why exactly does this embargo still exist? Strangely, because of the electoral college. Florida is such a close swing state during presidential elections that the Cuban-American community in Florida has enough power (as do Iowa farmers who support ethanol federal subsidies during the Iowa Caucus election) to keep these embargoes in place. Ironically, the electoral college system that we have might keep an undemocratic regime in power in Cuba, longer then it might have been
Prayer and 10 Commandments
Prayer, can students pray?
The opinion persists, that one cannot pray in a public school. That isn't true. A child can pray, if he/she so wishes. The government and their respective public schools and teachers cannot and should not though devise organized prayers for children to recite. It is not in the interest of the state to encourage religious belief. To do so, would violate the rights of the parents of non-Christians and those Christian parents who don't want the government interfering in the religious upbringing of their children.
Although Madelyn Murray O'Hair is used as a scapegoat by many to demonize all that is secular, an honest and objective reading would see that the United States Supreme Court case and similar cases that dealt with the issue of organized school prayer, would show that she was on the right side of this particular issue. This decision stated that the government should be neutral on the question of government involvement in religion and the furthering of religion, that it was wrong for the government to require the reading of the Lord's Prayer and Bible readings in schools.
This case didn't establish atheism, as some state in our schools, but supported the rights of students and their parents who object to the state using their tax dollars to further a religion they didn't believe in. What is freedom of religion, if the government tries to make you a Christian through bible readings? That is freedom?
Madelyn Murray O'Hair wasn't the only parent with a child whose rights were violated; there were countless if not millions of others who were too scared to voice an objection and be labeled communists, unpatriotic and even to maybe be threatened with physical violence.
Has the end of organized/mandated school prayers and bible readings been a positive for America? Well, race relations are improved, segregation is over. Indeed, per capita violent crimes, teen pregnancies and other indicators of social ills are at the lowest levels in 10 or in some cases, 30 years.
James Madison viewed it is imperative to keep religion and state separate, "The Civil government ... functions with complete success ... by the total separation of the Church from the State," in a letter to Gene Garman. I don't think these Founders would object to voluntary prayer in lieu of school organized prayers while keeping the government out of the religion or nonreligion of its citizens.
10 Commandments
I'm wondering how the removal of the Ten Commandments in public courthouse stops people from practicing their religion?
Is something stopping them from putting the Ten Commandments up in churches? Indeed I have been to quite a few churches and rarely see this document on church walls, but people feel it is needed in public buildings? These public buildings are paid for by taxes by Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and atheists along with Christians; are the Christians in Alabama and throughout the United States willing to put documents of other religions in these buildings? When questioned, they usually answer no.
Christians want their religion supported and encouraged in taxpayer-supported buildings but don't want any other religion to have the same right. Is ours a Christian nation? Our founding fathers were dead set against people being forced to support other religions against their will through taxation. The Treaty of Tripoli, ratified in the presidency of John Adams states, "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
We are a religious people (mostly), but we are not a religious government. Any nation that confuses those lines, suffers at great peril.
The opinion persists, that one cannot pray in a public school. That isn't true. A child can pray, if he/she so wishes. The government and their respective public schools and teachers cannot and should not though devise organized prayers for children to recite. It is not in the interest of the state to encourage religious belief. To do so, would violate the rights of the parents of non-Christians and those Christian parents who don't want the government interfering in the religious upbringing of their children.
Although Madelyn Murray O'Hair is used as a scapegoat by many to demonize all that is secular, an honest and objective reading would see that the United States Supreme Court case and similar cases that dealt with the issue of organized school prayer, would show that she was on the right side of this particular issue. This decision stated that the government should be neutral on the question of government involvement in religion and the furthering of religion, that it was wrong for the government to require the reading of the Lord's Prayer and Bible readings in schools.
This case didn't establish atheism, as some state in our schools, but supported the rights of students and their parents who object to the state using their tax dollars to further a religion they didn't believe in. What is freedom of religion, if the government tries to make you a Christian through bible readings? That is freedom?
Madelyn Murray O'Hair wasn't the only parent with a child whose rights were violated; there were countless if not millions of others who were too scared to voice an objection and be labeled communists, unpatriotic and even to maybe be threatened with physical violence.
Has the end of organized/mandated school prayers and bible readings been a positive for America? Well, race relations are improved, segregation is over. Indeed, per capita violent crimes, teen pregnancies and other indicators of social ills are at the lowest levels in 10 or in some cases, 30 years.
James Madison viewed it is imperative to keep religion and state separate, "The Civil government ... functions with complete success ... by the total separation of the Church from the State," in a letter to Gene Garman. I don't think these Founders would object to voluntary prayer in lieu of school organized prayers while keeping the government out of the religion or nonreligion of its citizens.
10 Commandments
I'm wondering how the removal of the Ten Commandments in public courthouse stops people from practicing their religion?
Is something stopping them from putting the Ten Commandments up in churches? Indeed I have been to quite a few churches and rarely see this document on church walls, but people feel it is needed in public buildings? These public buildings are paid for by taxes by Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and atheists along with Christians; are the Christians in Alabama and throughout the United States willing to put documents of other religions in these buildings? When questioned, they usually answer no.
Christians want their religion supported and encouraged in taxpayer-supported buildings but don't want any other religion to have the same right. Is ours a Christian nation? Our founding fathers were dead set against people being forced to support other religions against their will through taxation. The Treaty of Tripoli, ratified in the presidency of John Adams states, "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
We are a religious people (mostly), but we are not a religious government. Any nation that confuses those lines, suffers at great peril.
Death Penalty and Divide and Conquor Christians
Death Penalty
Robin Lovitt has been convicted of the death penalty in Virginia. He was convicted of killing someone with a pair of scissors. DNA tests performed on the scissors were inconclusive. The scissors were later thrown away and cannot be retested with modern technology.
Ruben Cantu was executed on Aug. 24, 1993. What convicted him was an eyewitness who later recanted and stated he felt pressured by the police to change his story and name Cantu as the murderer. Cantu's co-defendant signed an affidavit stating Cantu was not with him at the night of the murder.
According to the 1987 Stanford University survey, at least 23 Americans have been wrongly executed in the 20th century. Mr. Lovitt and others were executed post-1987 so that figure would be higher. Since 1973, at least 122 prisoners have been freed from death row thanks to DNA testing, witnesses recanting their testimony among other factors.
What about the death penalty's role as a deterrent? Well, per 100,000 people in states with the death penalty there are 5.1 murders, in states without the death penalty, 2.9 per 100,000. The fact is that those who commit murder aren't the most rational and logical people. Many murders are committed in the heat of the moment where there was no intent to commit murder beforehand. A deterrence will not work in these cases.
Some murders are committed by the mentally deranged, a deterrence won't work in these cases. Ironically at the time of the French Revolution while people were being guillotined it was common for thieves to pickpocket spectators. So much for a deterrence.
Logically, a person with more money will be able to afford a better lawyer to defend himself/herself in a murder/death penalty case then a person with less money and so have a better chance of not receiving this ultimate penalty. Does anyone believe that if O.J. Simpson was not able to afford such a strong defense team that he wouldn't have been convicted?
We cannot allow essentially two different penalties for the accused depending on their socio-economic class and what they can afford as a defense. African Americans and Latinos are more likely to have poor representation that will be unable either to win the trial or to convince the prosecutor to allow pleading to lesser charges that do not carry the death penalty.
Divide and Conquor Christians:
There is a divide and conquer routine being practiced by supposed "Christians" like Pat Robertson and others to take us away from our own economic interests. Pat Robertson has stated, "Christians have a responsibility to submit to the authority of their employers since they are designated as part of God's plan for the exercise of authority on the earth of man." The late Jerry Falwell said, "Labor Unions should study and read the Bible instead of asking for more money. When people get right with God they are better workers." Ralph Reed, who was executive director of Pat Roberston's Christian Coalition, stated of issues like school prayer and abortion, "They are the bridge that gets you to constituencies that aren't with you on the economic issues." Paul Weyrich, Christian activist stated about the use of religious issues to trump economic interests during the Reagan administration, "there are those rural people in West Virginia who don't understand Reaganomics and who are being HURT BY REAGANICMICS and WHO WOULDN'T LIKE IT IF THEY DID UNDERSTAND IT," emphasis mine.
So, to a great extent the conservative religious leaders of America admit that the economic interests of the average people are hurt by GOP economic policies and the only way to get them to vote for the side of Corporate America is wedge/social issues. Pat Roberstson indeed believes that American workers should be serfs to their employer as feudal lord. Maybe he didn't hear that there are no Dukes and Barons in the U.S.; I don't know.
These conservatives believed to heck with more money for struggling workers, be good little servants to their employers. If they have to almost starve in the process, so be it. At least the wealthy can drive their Mercedes in peace. I wonder if Mr. Robertson is struggling to just get by.
How's about this for "Christian" values of the right. Fred Phelps, who protested at such funerals for gay men such as Matthew Shephard, is now protesting at the funerals of U.S. Army soldiers who fought and died in Iraq because the U.S. government and nation isn't hostile enough towards gay men and women. Where are the howls by the right of protest towards Mr. Phelps as un-American or unpatriotic, or is that only reserved toward those on the left?
Mr. Robertson practices his "Christian" values by advocating for the killing of the elected leader of Venezuela. I think we should ask ourselves, is the Christian Right still Christian anymore?
Robin Lovitt has been convicted of the death penalty in Virginia. He was convicted of killing someone with a pair of scissors. DNA tests performed on the scissors were inconclusive. The scissors were later thrown away and cannot be retested with modern technology.
Ruben Cantu was executed on Aug. 24, 1993. What convicted him was an eyewitness who later recanted and stated he felt pressured by the police to change his story and name Cantu as the murderer. Cantu's co-defendant signed an affidavit stating Cantu was not with him at the night of the murder.
According to the 1987 Stanford University survey, at least 23 Americans have been wrongly executed in the 20th century. Mr. Lovitt and others were executed post-1987 so that figure would be higher. Since 1973, at least 122 prisoners have been freed from death row thanks to DNA testing, witnesses recanting their testimony among other factors.
What about the death penalty's role as a deterrent? Well, per 100,000 people in states with the death penalty there are 5.1 murders, in states without the death penalty, 2.9 per 100,000. The fact is that those who commit murder aren't the most rational and logical people. Many murders are committed in the heat of the moment where there was no intent to commit murder beforehand. A deterrence will not work in these cases.
Some murders are committed by the mentally deranged, a deterrence won't work in these cases. Ironically at the time of the French Revolution while people were being guillotined it was common for thieves to pickpocket spectators. So much for a deterrence.
Logically, a person with more money will be able to afford a better lawyer to defend himself/herself in a murder/death penalty case then a person with less money and so have a better chance of not receiving this ultimate penalty. Does anyone believe that if O.J. Simpson was not able to afford such a strong defense team that he wouldn't have been convicted?
We cannot allow essentially two different penalties for the accused depending on their socio-economic class and what they can afford as a defense. African Americans and Latinos are more likely to have poor representation that will be unable either to win the trial or to convince the prosecutor to allow pleading to lesser charges that do not carry the death penalty.
Divide and Conquor Christians:
There is a divide and conquer routine being practiced by supposed "Christians" like Pat Robertson and others to take us away from our own economic interests. Pat Robertson has stated, "Christians have a responsibility to submit to the authority of their employers since they are designated as part of God's plan for the exercise of authority on the earth of man." The late Jerry Falwell said, "Labor Unions should study and read the Bible instead of asking for more money. When people get right with God they are better workers." Ralph Reed, who was executive director of Pat Roberston's Christian Coalition, stated of issues like school prayer and abortion, "They are the bridge that gets you to constituencies that aren't with you on the economic issues." Paul Weyrich, Christian activist stated about the use of religious issues to trump economic interests during the Reagan administration, "there are those rural people in West Virginia who don't understand Reaganomics and who are being HURT BY REAGANICMICS and WHO WOULDN'T LIKE IT IF THEY DID UNDERSTAND IT," emphasis mine.
So, to a great extent the conservative religious leaders of America admit that the economic interests of the average people are hurt by GOP economic policies and the only way to get them to vote for the side of Corporate America is wedge/social issues. Pat Roberstson indeed believes that American workers should be serfs to their employer as feudal lord. Maybe he didn't hear that there are no Dukes and Barons in the U.S.; I don't know.
These conservatives believed to heck with more money for struggling workers, be good little servants to their employers. If they have to almost starve in the process, so be it. At least the wealthy can drive their Mercedes in peace. I wonder if Mr. Robertson is struggling to just get by.
How's about this for "Christian" values of the right. Fred Phelps, who protested at such funerals for gay men such as Matthew Shephard, is now protesting at the funerals of U.S. Army soldiers who fought and died in Iraq because the U.S. government and nation isn't hostile enough towards gay men and women. Where are the howls by the right of protest towards Mr. Phelps as un-American or unpatriotic, or is that only reserved toward those on the left?
Mr. Robertson practices his "Christian" values by advocating for the killing of the elected leader of Venezuela. I think we should ask ourselves, is the Christian Right still Christian anymore?
Old letter of mine about the media and atheists
Steven Keller in his letter makes the case that the media is liberal by comparing its citing of think tanks and policy groups to those citations by members of Congress. But why is Congress, which is controlled by the GOP, used as an objective baseline?
A Republican Congress will of course on average cite think tanks/policy groups that are right-wing so it is by no means a surprise by that subjective standard the media is shown to be liberal. Why isn’t there a more objective baseline for this study if it is truly to measure ideological bias in the media in reports? This whole study is obviously flawed.
In a study by Media Matters which conducted a content analysis of ABC’s This Week, CBS’ Face the Nation, and NBC’s Meet the Press, which classified each one of the nearly 7,000 guest appearances during President Bill Clinton’s second term through Bush’s term as of 2005 as either Democrat, Republican, conservative, progressive or neutral. The conclusion: Republicans and conservatives have been offered more opportunities to appear on the Sunday shows — in some cases, dramatically so. Fifty-two percent of the ideological identified guests during Clinton’s second term were from the right, 48 percent from the left. In 2005, 58 percent from the right, 42 percent left are identifiable guests. Every year from 1997-2005 tilted right with its guests.
Indeed for a liberal media there are a number of stories which it misses or basically ignores. It has ignored the fact that the Bush administration narrowed the scope and application of the Freedom of Information Act, the Presidential Records Act and other key public-information legislation, while expanding laws blocking access to certain records. George Bush signed the Intelligence Authorization Act which allows the government to obtain an individual’s financial records without a court order. The law also makes it illegal for institutions to inform anyone that the government has requested those records, or that information has been shared with the authorities. Then there are other issues from strip mining mountaintops, bleaching of coral reefs, usage of federal lands without royalties paid to the government by mining/grazing interests, etc. and you can see our liberal media hasn’t lived up to its name.
Misconceptions about Atheists
I wish to clear up a few misconceptions about atheists. I, as an atheist, don’t get offended if someone refers to a Christmas tree or says, Merry Christmas. I commonly do this myself. I have never met a fellow atheist who ever got offended at these words. Indeed, I know of no atheist who has ever threatened to boycott a store for saying or not saying Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays or any seasonal greeting.
In terms of our lack of political power, atheists and other nonbelievers can’t even get an atheist on talk radio in America let alone be a threat to the views of millions of Christians. Heck, atheists have so little influence and voice that we don’t even get to define the term atheism. The non-atheist definition of atheism (as absolute belief there is no God) is the one that is used in society instead of the atheist definition of atheism which can simply be only non-belief.
Agnosticism is non-knowledge, different then non-belief by the way. No one wants to take bibles from pews; no one is taking down crosses in homes. Now, religion has been taken out of schools in terms of teaching that Christianity is true. As it should be. No person should be taxed to pay for religious beliefs they do not agree with. No child (as it once existed in some parts of the country) should be forced to engage in bible readings or a prayer.
Why anyone would want a governmental committee deciding their children’s religious education? I have no idea. I imagine that is one of the reasons we have churches. Some Christians complain about nonbelievers trying to take his religion away from the public sphere though many Christians want organized bible readings and prayers in public schools in order to further Christian values and ideas among the children of non-Christians. If this isn’t in fact what is wanted, then aren’t there still churches that have Sunday school classes to educate the children of parents who want their children to have a Christian education? Why the need for these bible readings/prayers in public schools?
There is no harm in Christians believing in their God nor that of any religious person believing in their God. That is their business, but the state should remain secular and neutral towards religion and the rights of atheists (including their children in school) should be respected. That means opposing the use of the Ten Commandments, bible readings, etc. in public buildings/schools to further the Christian religion as true. Let the government be neutral on this issue and not take the position that God exists or doesn’t exist with the right of the children of atheists respected. That is all that I and other atheists and assorted nonbelievers, ask.
A Republican Congress will of course on average cite think tanks/policy groups that are right-wing so it is by no means a surprise by that subjective standard the media is shown to be liberal. Why isn’t there a more objective baseline for this study if it is truly to measure ideological bias in the media in reports? This whole study is obviously flawed.
In a study by Media Matters which conducted a content analysis of ABC’s This Week, CBS’ Face the Nation, and NBC’s Meet the Press, which classified each one of the nearly 7,000 guest appearances during President Bill Clinton’s second term through Bush’s term as of 2005 as either Democrat, Republican, conservative, progressive or neutral. The conclusion: Republicans and conservatives have been offered more opportunities to appear on the Sunday shows — in some cases, dramatically so. Fifty-two percent of the ideological identified guests during Clinton’s second term were from the right, 48 percent from the left. In 2005, 58 percent from the right, 42 percent left are identifiable guests. Every year from 1997-2005 tilted right with its guests.
Indeed for a liberal media there are a number of stories which it misses or basically ignores. It has ignored the fact that the Bush administration narrowed the scope and application of the Freedom of Information Act, the Presidential Records Act and other key public-information legislation, while expanding laws blocking access to certain records. George Bush signed the Intelligence Authorization Act which allows the government to obtain an individual’s financial records without a court order. The law also makes it illegal for institutions to inform anyone that the government has requested those records, or that information has been shared with the authorities. Then there are other issues from strip mining mountaintops, bleaching of coral reefs, usage of federal lands without royalties paid to the government by mining/grazing interests, etc. and you can see our liberal media hasn’t lived up to its name.
Misconceptions about Atheists
I wish to clear up a few misconceptions about atheists. I, as an atheist, don’t get offended if someone refers to a Christmas tree or says, Merry Christmas. I commonly do this myself. I have never met a fellow atheist who ever got offended at these words. Indeed, I know of no atheist who has ever threatened to boycott a store for saying or not saying Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays or any seasonal greeting.
In terms of our lack of political power, atheists and other nonbelievers can’t even get an atheist on talk radio in America let alone be a threat to the views of millions of Christians. Heck, atheists have so little influence and voice that we don’t even get to define the term atheism. The non-atheist definition of atheism (as absolute belief there is no God) is the one that is used in society instead of the atheist definition of atheism which can simply be only non-belief.
Agnosticism is non-knowledge, different then non-belief by the way. No one wants to take bibles from pews; no one is taking down crosses in homes. Now, religion has been taken out of schools in terms of teaching that Christianity is true. As it should be. No person should be taxed to pay for religious beliefs they do not agree with. No child (as it once existed in some parts of the country) should be forced to engage in bible readings or a prayer.
Why anyone would want a governmental committee deciding their children’s religious education? I have no idea. I imagine that is one of the reasons we have churches. Some Christians complain about nonbelievers trying to take his religion away from the public sphere though many Christians want organized bible readings and prayers in public schools in order to further Christian values and ideas among the children of non-Christians. If this isn’t in fact what is wanted, then aren’t there still churches that have Sunday school classes to educate the children of parents who want their children to have a Christian education? Why the need for these bible readings/prayers in public schools?
There is no harm in Christians believing in their God nor that of any religious person believing in their God. That is their business, but the state should remain secular and neutral towards religion and the rights of atheists (including their children in school) should be respected. That means opposing the use of the Ten Commandments, bible readings, etc. in public buildings/schools to further the Christian religion as true. Let the government be neutral on this issue and not take the position that God exists or doesn’t exist with the right of the children of atheists respected. That is all that I and other atheists and assorted nonbelievers, ask.
Should we be loyal to a President/Wiretapping
Some state that because President Bush is commander-in-chief and duly elected that we should be united behind him. But the fact is that even though he is the president and CIC that doesn’t mean the American people forfeit from the day he takes office to the day he leaves, their right to disagree and dissent with his policy be it foreign or domestic. Nothing in the Constitution states or implies that we are obligated to do so, wartime or not. A president is not above the American people.
Conservatives such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Phil Gramm all opposed President Clinton strongly on the Kosovo and Serbian campaigns. They were not un-American for doing so. They took action on opposition to something they felt was immoral and wrong. That is the height of patriotism. When Clinton was criticized over Kosovo, no Democrat stated that such criticism was un-American, unpatriotic or treasonous. If critics of the war are wrong, then it should be easy to show on the merits why they are wrong.
The simple fact is that Americans are not obligated to support anything the president wants to do, just because he is the president. We do not check our brains at the door during a presidential term. Congress and the American people forfeit their rights and free speech to a President.
Letter in Regards to the issue of Wiretapping:
First of all Wisconsin Sen. Feingold’s opposition to Bush’s wiretapping program doesn’t mean he opposes wiretapping of terrorist suspects but that the President is obligated to get a judicial warrant. The concerns have been about the lack of judicial warrants for these wiretaps.
Are Democrats the only ones concerned? No.
Republican Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, stated that Attorney General Gonzalez’s belief that the 2001 Resolution authorizing force against those responsible for the 9/11 attack superseded the 1978 FISA requirements was that it “defies logic and plain English.” South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham stated that Gonzalez’s reasoning was “very dangerous” and “II never envisioned that I was giving to the president or any other president the ability to go around the (1978 law) carte blanche.”
The simple fact is that the President does not have any power, implicit or explicit, to be absolute in his powers be it either in peacetime or war. The idea that a President does have such a power, free from any checks or balances ceases to make us a democratic republic and puts us at the whims and discretion of a President, be it Republican or Democrat. That the Bush administration informed Congress about getting around judicial oversite, doesn’t excuse this act.
The law doesn’t allow for exceptions based on informing Congress. One needs to change the very law itself. Some state that we should be united in the war on terror. But, why should we be absolutely united behind President Bush? Has he shown himself free of mistakes? Probably most of the weapons being used against the U.S. military in Iraq were part of the cache of weapons that the Bush Administration failed to safeguard during the invasion in 2003. The Bush Administration ignored the needs, stated by high ranking military officials, to have enough troops on the ground after the initial invasion. Simply, the idea that we should unite behind an imperfect leader and hope that he magically gets it right from now on is the height of folly.
We are a nation of free peoples and the President works for us. We don’t work for him. Many on both sides of the aisle want to win the war on terror, but there are disagreements on how to accomplish that. That is fine, in a democracy the best ideas should win. But to have the best ideas win, debate needs not only to be allowed but encouraged. So, it isn’t necessarily a good thing to be united when the policy we are united upon might be bad or incompetently run
Teddy Roosevelt stated about a century ago, “To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” I think we need to remember the Rough Rider’s words once again.
Conservatives such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Phil Gramm all opposed President Clinton strongly on the Kosovo and Serbian campaigns. They were not un-American for doing so. They took action on opposition to something they felt was immoral and wrong. That is the height of patriotism. When Clinton was criticized over Kosovo, no Democrat stated that such criticism was un-American, unpatriotic or treasonous. If critics of the war are wrong, then it should be easy to show on the merits why they are wrong.
The simple fact is that Americans are not obligated to support anything the president wants to do, just because he is the president. We do not check our brains at the door during a presidential term. Congress and the American people forfeit their rights and free speech to a President.
Letter in Regards to the issue of Wiretapping:
First of all Wisconsin Sen. Feingold’s opposition to Bush’s wiretapping program doesn’t mean he opposes wiretapping of terrorist suspects but that the President is obligated to get a judicial warrant. The concerns have been about the lack of judicial warrants for these wiretaps.
Are Democrats the only ones concerned? No.
Republican Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, stated that Attorney General Gonzalez’s belief that the 2001 Resolution authorizing force against those responsible for the 9/11 attack superseded the 1978 FISA requirements was that it “defies logic and plain English.” South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham stated that Gonzalez’s reasoning was “very dangerous” and “II never envisioned that I was giving to the president or any other president the ability to go around the (1978 law) carte blanche.”
The simple fact is that the President does not have any power, implicit or explicit, to be absolute in his powers be it either in peacetime or war. The idea that a President does have such a power, free from any checks or balances ceases to make us a democratic republic and puts us at the whims and discretion of a President, be it Republican or Democrat. That the Bush administration informed Congress about getting around judicial oversite, doesn’t excuse this act.
The law doesn’t allow for exceptions based on informing Congress. One needs to change the very law itself. Some state that we should be united in the war on terror. But, why should we be absolutely united behind President Bush? Has he shown himself free of mistakes? Probably most of the weapons being used against the U.S. military in Iraq were part of the cache of weapons that the Bush Administration failed to safeguard during the invasion in 2003. The Bush Administration ignored the needs, stated by high ranking military officials, to have enough troops on the ground after the initial invasion. Simply, the idea that we should unite behind an imperfect leader and hope that he magically gets it right from now on is the height of folly.
We are a nation of free peoples and the President works for us. We don’t work for him. Many on both sides of the aisle want to win the war on terror, but there are disagreements on how to accomplish that. That is fine, in a democracy the best ideas should win. But to have the best ideas win, debate needs not only to be allowed but encouraged. So, it isn’t necessarily a good thing to be united when the policy we are united upon might be bad or incompetently run
Teddy Roosevelt stated about a century ago, “To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” I think we need to remember the Rough Rider’s words once again.
Marriage by God?
Some consider marriage as made by God. But not all do. Marriage came out of early cultures. I hear it is stated that God, usually it is mentioned or implied the Christian God, created marriage. But, most or all of these early cultures had gods or a god while having an institution of marriage.
Unless one wants to argue that all these deities were true then cultures without this true deity created marriage. So, is marriage then a product of mankind or God?
Now, these cultures believed that their deity or deities endorsed marriage, but the West has moved beyond the idea that the government, the culture, the law should be a reflection of whatever religious text states. We now understand that the law is to be made for man, not for a deity which might or might not exist.
If one wants to follow a religious based law in all areas of one's life, fine, that is their right. If a church wants to restrict marriage to only heterosexual couples, fine. That again is their right. But, not all Americans are religious.
Marriage has changed tremendously in the past century. Blacks and whites couldn't marry in much of the country, less then 40 years ago. At one time marriages were arranged with the young husband and wife having no say in the matter. At one time women were denied basic rights in a marriage. She was a second-class citizen in her own marriage.
We have progressed and done away with these injustices. Gay Americans might or might not be religious, just as their fellow citizens might or might not be. but they deserve the same rights under secular marriage laws as all others to marry according to their natural sexual orientation. It is as unjust to deny that right as it would be to deny a man or woman to marry the opposite sex while limiting them to only the same sex.
Gay men and women pay into the system, be it Social Security taxes, income taxes, property taxes, and should not be treated by that same society as second-class citizens.
Unless one wants to argue that all these deities were true then cultures without this true deity created marriage. So, is marriage then a product of mankind or God?
Now, these cultures believed that their deity or deities endorsed marriage, but the West has moved beyond the idea that the government, the culture, the law should be a reflection of whatever religious text states. We now understand that the law is to be made for man, not for a deity which might or might not exist.
If one wants to follow a religious based law in all areas of one's life, fine, that is their right. If a church wants to restrict marriage to only heterosexual couples, fine. That again is their right. But, not all Americans are religious.
Marriage has changed tremendously in the past century. Blacks and whites couldn't marry in much of the country, less then 40 years ago. At one time marriages were arranged with the young husband and wife having no say in the matter. At one time women were denied basic rights in a marriage. She was a second-class citizen in her own marriage.
We have progressed and done away with these injustices. Gay Americans might or might not be religious, just as their fellow citizens might or might not be. but they deserve the same rights under secular marriage laws as all others to marry according to their natural sexual orientation. It is as unjust to deny that right as it would be to deny a man or woman to marry the opposite sex while limiting them to only the same sex.
Gay men and women pay into the system, be it Social Security taxes, income taxes, property taxes, and should not be treated by that same society as second-class citizens.
New Post on evolution
The controversy over the teaching of creationism vs. the scientific theory of evolution shows the lack of understanding by many people about evolution. Evolution isn't an "atheist religion." A majority of Americans believe evolution is true, but only about 10 percent of society considers themselves atheist or agnostic. Evolution doesn't assume God doesn't exist; it is a set of statements based on evidence in the fossil record, on the geological strata, on morphology, rates of genetic mutations over time that are fairly constant along with other evidence.
A common refrain I hear about evolution is that it is "just a theory." The problem is that people confuse a layman's definition of theory with what a scientific theory means. A scientific theory is not a guess or even a hypothesis. The notion that earth orbits around the sun rather than the sun around the earth is a scientific theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure and dynamics of atoms is a scientific theory. Relativity and plate tectonics are also scientific theories.
Virtually no person, let alone a scientist, doubts these things are facts. A scientific theory is a set of principles that describes observed phenomena. If evolution isn't true, why do some species of fish that reside in caves with complete darkness have skin that cover useless eyes? Evolution shows these eyes are vestigial organs that aren't needed for these species but were functional for these fish ancestors.
The creationist response to this questions God did it that way. It begs the question, why did God want to mislead humans into making evolution seem true. Creationism violates Ockham's Razor, where the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct.
If we are going to say God is necessary for life, it begs the question that can't be ignored. Where did God come from? If creationists want to be respected scientifically, they have to defend their "theory" too, not just attack evolution.
A common refrain I hear about evolution is that it is "just a theory." The problem is that people confuse a layman's definition of theory with what a scientific theory means. A scientific theory is not a guess or even a hypothesis. The notion that earth orbits around the sun rather than the sun around the earth is a scientific theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure and dynamics of atoms is a scientific theory. Relativity and plate tectonics are also scientific theories.
Virtually no person, let alone a scientist, doubts these things are facts. A scientific theory is a set of principles that describes observed phenomena. If evolution isn't true, why do some species of fish that reside in caves with complete darkness have skin that cover useless eyes? Evolution shows these eyes are vestigial organs that aren't needed for these species but were functional for these fish ancestors.
The creationist response to this questions God did it that way. It begs the question, why did God want to mislead humans into making evolution seem true. Creationism violates Ockham's Razor, where the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct.
If we are going to say God is necessary for life, it begs the question that can't be ignored. Where did God come from? If creationists want to be respected scientifically, they have to defend their "theory" too, not just attack evolution.
Romney and same sex marriage
Mitt Romney, presidential hopeful, stated that we needed elected officials, people who are “people of faith.” I don’t know if he meant only the presidency or all elected officials. If all, then I guess he thinks an atheist combat veteran with a degree in government cannot be trusted to be a county clerk. Atheists do not have the religious concept of doctrine that their fellow Americans who are religious possess. To an atheist one must use one’s own reason/problem solving and plain common sense when confronted with a problem be it in life or if one was in the Oval Office.
Now many religious people do this every day, but unfortunately from what I hear of the religious, it is an appeal to religion in support of governmental policies, such as opposing same-sex marriage or a right to die for a person in intense pain because their religion says no to these things. That is fine, but when one leads a nation of 300 million people then appeals to religion in that way don’t do!
We are too diverse and not all Americans would agree with policies being taken simply from the bible or any other religious book. An atheist president might also believe rights don’t come from a God but are the product of evolutionary forces that gave forth a man that
needs/desires and yearns for liberty. In this way the creator of the Declaration of Independence can be a personal God, deist deity or just nature, including evolution. If God is true then it doesn’t require our country to elect a person to keep telling us that God is true.
Another example of hostility to supposed atheist political candidates is that the Texas Republican Party stated in an e-mail newsletter about a nominee for a seat on the 6th Court of Appeals of Texas that the man is an atheist. The gentleman says he isn’t an atheist, that he was just misquoted in a long-ago newspaper column in El Paso. That he is an atheist or not doesn’t matter. What matters is the statement by the state GOP that an atheist won’t uphold the laws and the Constitution of Texas.
To say this is insulting, does a disservice to that word. Yes, atheists will uphold the laws of the state of Texas or any other government they are entrusted to uphold. One doesn’t need a belief in God to do so. They do so based on their own honor. Atheists work as lawyers, doctors, engineers in society every day while upholding their responsibilities and obligations. If an atheist pilot can be responsible for a 100-plus passenger jet and the lives in it or an atheist soldier manning a machine gun in Baghdad, then he can be responsible to be say, a county clerk.
Homosexuality-same sex marriage
Some oppose same sex marriage and domestic partnerships because they state that the ideal for the institution of marriage is heterosexual marriage. Maybe or maybe not, but to believe that gay men and women will not want to marry and express their love through that institution just because one states heterosexual marriage is the ideal is nearsighted.
That heterosexual marriage maybe is the ideal for society doesn't make millions of gay men and women who love each other go away. Getting past the point that both heterosexual and gay couples have the same love for each other and that both groups contribute as law abiding, tax paying and economically productive citizens is heterosexual marriage better for society? No, not if enforcing such an ideal leads to more misery and deprivation of rights by denying same sex couples the same right to marry according to their sexual orientation.
An ideal has to be grounded in the real world. Should we have an ideal that only the best of possible parents should marry? After all, one of the reasons in opposition to same sex marriage is that heterosexual marriage is better for parenting. But, no study has shown that heterosexual parents are on average better then gay parents.
If same sex marriage or even domestic partnerships are are not allowed will there not still be gay couples raising kids every town in America? These parents deserve the same rights as all other parents.
I cannot believe that we as a society cannot give the respect that millions of our fellow citizens deserve to be equal under the law. But cannot they marry other people of the same sex, as heterosexual couples? Why should they? They do not wish to marry people of the same sex any more then a heterosexual wishes to marry someone of the same sex.
Now many religious people do this every day, but unfortunately from what I hear of the religious, it is an appeal to religion in support of governmental policies, such as opposing same-sex marriage or a right to die for a person in intense pain because their religion says no to these things. That is fine, but when one leads a nation of 300 million people then appeals to religion in that way don’t do!
We are too diverse and not all Americans would agree with policies being taken simply from the bible or any other religious book. An atheist president might also believe rights don’t come from a God but are the product of evolutionary forces that gave forth a man that
needs/desires and yearns for liberty. In this way the creator of the Declaration of Independence can be a personal God, deist deity or just nature, including evolution. If God is true then it doesn’t require our country to elect a person to keep telling us that God is true.
Another example of hostility to supposed atheist political candidates is that the Texas Republican Party stated in an e-mail newsletter about a nominee for a seat on the 6th Court of Appeals of Texas that the man is an atheist. The gentleman says he isn’t an atheist, that he was just misquoted in a long-ago newspaper column in El Paso. That he is an atheist or not doesn’t matter. What matters is the statement by the state GOP that an atheist won’t uphold the laws and the Constitution of Texas.
To say this is insulting, does a disservice to that word. Yes, atheists will uphold the laws of the state of Texas or any other government they are entrusted to uphold. One doesn’t need a belief in God to do so. They do so based on their own honor. Atheists work as lawyers, doctors, engineers in society every day while upholding their responsibilities and obligations. If an atheist pilot can be responsible for a 100-plus passenger jet and the lives in it or an atheist soldier manning a machine gun in Baghdad, then he can be responsible to be say, a county clerk.
Homosexuality-same sex marriage
Some oppose same sex marriage and domestic partnerships because they state that the ideal for the institution of marriage is heterosexual marriage. Maybe or maybe not, but to believe that gay men and women will not want to marry and express their love through that institution just because one states heterosexual marriage is the ideal is nearsighted.
That heterosexual marriage maybe is the ideal for society doesn't make millions of gay men and women who love each other go away. Getting past the point that both heterosexual and gay couples have the same love for each other and that both groups contribute as law abiding, tax paying and economically productive citizens is heterosexual marriage better for society? No, not if enforcing such an ideal leads to more misery and deprivation of rights by denying same sex couples the same right to marry according to their sexual orientation.
An ideal has to be grounded in the real world. Should we have an ideal that only the best of possible parents should marry? After all, one of the reasons in opposition to same sex marriage is that heterosexual marriage is better for parenting. But, no study has shown that heterosexual parents are on average better then gay parents.
If same sex marriage or even domestic partnerships are are not allowed will there not still be gay couples raising kids every town in America? These parents deserve the same rights as all other parents.
I cannot believe that we as a society cannot give the respect that millions of our fellow citizens deserve to be equal under the law. But cannot they marry other people of the same sex, as heterosexual couples? Why should they? They do not wish to marry people of the same sex any more then a heterosexual wishes to marry someone of the same sex.
DC/Guns/Gays
There is a plan for a full voting member in the House of Representatives for Washington, D.C. I agree with this idea. Maybe the U.S. Constitution has to be amended to allow for it, maybe not. But the point is people shouldn't be taxed and not given full representation. To calls that they can always move away from D.C., didn't our Founding Fathers also have the option of moving away from America and going to England to be represented in Parliament? They shouldn't have had to and neither should those who have raised families for generations in D.C.! After all we support democracy in Iraq, but we do not state that everyone but those who live in the capital city of Baghdad should be able to vote for legislative members to represent them. Most residents of D.C. aren't wealthy/powerful government officials (most of them live in Maryland or Virginia) but common and average Americans.
Americus, Greensboro
A U.S. Appeals Court reaffirmed the right of Washington, D.C., residents to have handguns in their homes by overturning a ban on handguns. I agree. My concern is that while it is a correct decision, it leaves unanswered the fact that a court decision, though correct, impacts the people of a region that has no U.S. senators who can vote to approve a President’s court nominees. Although D.C. residents can vote for President, they lack the ability of people of Alaska (with less people) to have senators to represent them on these kind of issues.
A common argument is that the people of D.C. can always move. Well, couldn’t that have been an argument used against Thomas Jefferson, John and Sam Adams plus others who decried “taxation without representation?” Should they have just moved back to England?
That a few hundred thousand people, with lower than average social-economic status, can have full voting rights is no danger to 300 million Americans. Remember, the power players in D.C. don’t live in D.C.; they live in Maryland and northern Virginia.
On a separate issue I hear discussions on the importance of religious objections for employees who are Muslim, Christian, etc who do not want to perform various duties as specified by their job. Such as a Muslim clerk not wanting to handle pork at a grocery checkout or a Christian pharmacist not wanting to sell the “morning after pill.” But, is a religious objection more important that a non-religious one? Should it be? Should the Christian pharmacist’s objection be more important in society and the law then an atheist pharmacist who doesn’t want to sell the same pill? What about an animal rights clerk who doesn’t want to ring up pork rinds? Should that receive lesser status then a Muslim clerk? All these are belief systems and all should have equal weight under the law. The law should protect all or not protect all objections of all these employees equally. To not do so is to favor religious beliefs over non-religious beliefs.
Lastly, Sen. Brownback (Kans.) stated that as a Catholic he had to agree with Gen. Peter Pace’s statement that homosexual acts are immoral. First, I believe morality is a product of harm, so I disagree. But, the greater problem with this statement is that Sen. Brownback, because he is following religious doctrine, doesn’t have to defend his position. All he has to say it is his religious belief.
As a humanist I cannot do the same. I cannot say “as a humanist I believe X is wrong.” No, I have to defend my position based on arguments/reasons. This is especially important because the good senator wants to be the President.
“Our principles are founded on the immovable basis of equal rights and reason,” said Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Sullivan in 1797. Another Jefferson quote: “Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.” Jefferson wasn’t an atheist (a deist though), but he stated and lived the importance of reason over that of faith. He would not be a man who would defend a belief of his by just appealing to faith but utilize the tool of reason. Why cannot we have politicians who do the same today?
Americus, Greensboro
A U.S. Appeals Court reaffirmed the right of Washington, D.C., residents to have handguns in their homes by overturning a ban on handguns. I agree. My concern is that while it is a correct decision, it leaves unanswered the fact that a court decision, though correct, impacts the people of a region that has no U.S. senators who can vote to approve a President’s court nominees. Although D.C. residents can vote for President, they lack the ability of people of Alaska (with less people) to have senators to represent them on these kind of issues.
A common argument is that the people of D.C. can always move. Well, couldn’t that have been an argument used against Thomas Jefferson, John and Sam Adams plus others who decried “taxation without representation?” Should they have just moved back to England?
That a few hundred thousand people, with lower than average social-economic status, can have full voting rights is no danger to 300 million Americans. Remember, the power players in D.C. don’t live in D.C.; they live in Maryland and northern Virginia.
On a separate issue I hear discussions on the importance of religious objections for employees who are Muslim, Christian, etc who do not want to perform various duties as specified by their job. Such as a Muslim clerk not wanting to handle pork at a grocery checkout or a Christian pharmacist not wanting to sell the “morning after pill.” But, is a religious objection more important that a non-religious one? Should it be? Should the Christian pharmacist’s objection be more important in society and the law then an atheist pharmacist who doesn’t want to sell the same pill? What about an animal rights clerk who doesn’t want to ring up pork rinds? Should that receive lesser status then a Muslim clerk? All these are belief systems and all should have equal weight under the law. The law should protect all or not protect all objections of all these employees equally. To not do so is to favor religious beliefs over non-religious beliefs.
Lastly, Sen. Brownback (Kans.) stated that as a Catholic he had to agree with Gen. Peter Pace’s statement that homosexual acts are immoral. First, I believe morality is a product of harm, so I disagree. But, the greater problem with this statement is that Sen. Brownback, because he is following religious doctrine, doesn’t have to defend his position. All he has to say it is his religious belief.
As a humanist I cannot do the same. I cannot say “as a humanist I believe X is wrong.” No, I have to defend my position based on arguments/reasons. This is especially important because the good senator wants to be the President.
“Our principles are founded on the immovable basis of equal rights and reason,” said Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Sullivan in 1797. Another Jefferson quote: “Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.” Jefferson wasn’t an atheist (a deist though), but he stated and lived the importance of reason over that of faith. He would not be a man who would defend a belief of his by just appealing to faith but utilize the tool of reason. Why cannot we have politicians who do the same today?
Killings at VA Tech/Morality
After the horrible killings at Virginia Tech University there are once again calls for religion to be taught in schools. But, no religious instruction would have stopped this deranged individual. Teaching morality is fine, but not all individuals in schools are Christians or even religious. To force the children of the non-religious or non-Christians to undergo a Christian religious education fundamentally violates their free exercise of religion. Moral rules can be taught without appealing to a specific deity in support. Not harming one's fellow man is a universal rule throughout the world and doing so would honor those in schools who aren't of the majority religious belief.
On another issue in the state of Wisconsin, a "Body Worlds" exhibit (where organs are displayed on a human skeleton doing everyday actions) a woman speaking for the Catholic church in that region stated that theologians should be consulted on how the specimens are presented. Should secular humanists and atheists be consulted on this or should only those consulted be of a religious belief? These individuals donated their bodies, and not all the individuals who did so are religious. A religious body shouldn't have the veto authority on how their bodies are displayed. That a purely secular museum exhibit needs the approval of religious authorities disappoints me greatly.
Lastly there is a plan for a full voting member in the House of Representatives for Washington, D.C. I agree with this idea. Maybe the U.S. Constitution has to be amended to allow for it, maybe not. But the point is people shouldn't be taxed and not given full representation. To calls that they can always move away from D.C., didn't our Founding Fathers also have the option of moving away from America and going to England to be represented in Parliament? They shouldn't have had to and neither should those who have raised families for generations in D.C.! After all we support democracy in Iraq, but we do not state that everyone but those who live in the capital city of Baghdad should be able to vote for legislative members to represent them. Most residents of D.C. aren't wealthy/powerful government officials (most of them live in Maryland or Virginia) but common and average Americans.
On another issue in the state of Wisconsin, a "Body Worlds" exhibit (where organs are displayed on a human skeleton doing everyday actions) a woman speaking for the Catholic church in that region stated that theologians should be consulted on how the specimens are presented. Should secular humanists and atheists be consulted on this or should only those consulted be of a religious belief? These individuals donated their bodies, and not all the individuals who did so are religious. A religious body shouldn't have the veto authority on how their bodies are displayed. That a purely secular museum exhibit needs the approval of religious authorities disappoints me greatly.
Lastly there is a plan for a full voting member in the House of Representatives for Washington, D.C. I agree with this idea. Maybe the U.S. Constitution has to be amended to allow for it, maybe not. But the point is people shouldn't be taxed and not given full representation. To calls that they can always move away from D.C., didn't our Founding Fathers also have the option of moving away from America and going to England to be represented in Parliament? They shouldn't have had to and neither should those who have raised families for generations in D.C.! After all we support democracy in Iraq, but we do not state that everyone but those who live in the capital city of Baghdad should be able to vote for legislative members to represent them. Most residents of D.C. aren't wealthy/powerful government officials (most of them live in Maryland or Virginia) but common and average Americans.
On evolution
I wish to refute a few myths that exist about biological evolution. One is that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics disapproves evolution because we (the earth) are a closed system without external energy and so that disorder will increase over time disallowing the complexity of evolution, But, the earth isn’t an isolated system or closed system. It receives energy through the sun. For example, if it was a closed system then plants wouldn’t grow but they do so because of energy from the sun. Then there are arguments that there are no intermediate” fossils between species. Well, there is Haasiophis terrasanctus, which is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Australopithecus afarensis, a very early homind and transitional form/intermediate species. This species has a humerofemoral ratio, or length of humerus divided by length of femur, of 84.6 compared to 71.8 for humans, and 97.8 and 101.6 for two species of chimpanzee. Indeed, since that the ratio is about halfway between that of chimps and humans is evidence (among other evidence) of it being much closer evolution wise to us then chimps are and that it is an early transitional form among hominds. Other transititional forms are Pelycodus frugivorus, an early lemur type primate. Then there are the supposed human footprints in the middle of dinosaur footprints or the so called Paluxy man tracks. Analyses of these tracks indicate that the alleged human tracks are elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks--made by dinosaurs that, at least at times, impressed their soles and heels as they walked. When the digit marks of such tracks (which are common in the Paluxy Riverbed) are subdued by one or more factors (erosion, sediment infilling, or mud-collapse), they often resemble giant human prints. On another point, not all mutations are harmful as some allege as a problem with evolution, indeed most mutations don’t get noticed since they have no noticed effect on survivability. Negative mutations usually don’t survive that long and have limited impact on the genetic pool. Lastly, to examine the common argument that evolution is dangerous. Well, that evolution is dangerous or not has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do if it is true or not. This is logic 101. Even if you believe that evolution is absolutely horrible for society, for our survival etc then that isn’t an argument that it is true or not. At best it is an argument should people or society should not believe it is true. Was evolution used as an excuse by the Nazis to promote their cause? Yes, but so was belief in God. Unfortunately many Nazis also justified their actions by saying they were fulfilling the will of God. Al Qaida commits violence in the name of God, does that committing violence prove God isn’t true? Frankly, the Nazis knowledge of evolution was limited at best Although the products of evolution, cheetah kills zebra, can be very violent that is though not the whole story. Indeed, in evolution cooperation is often rewarded. Members of a tribe cooperate and thereby increases the odds of members of the group to survive along with the group as a whole. This is the roots of primitive morality. Evolution is not prescriptive but it is descriptive. It describes facts. It does not say why something should be true or happen but explains/states how it happens. It describes processes. It is fine to argue against evolution based on science but to argue against it based on not wanting to believe it so it must not be true is a misunderstanding of science and logic 101
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)