It's just one of those stories that just seems too cut and dry; a perpetrator commits an unethical act and then explains why in unambiguous terms. Does this change anything for anyone? Probably not.
According to Newsday a couple of weeks ago a trio of men in Lakeview, Nassau County, NY, approached a man in a convenience store dressed in drag; the cross-dressing may have been in connection with Halloween, although this doesn't really matter.
The three men began to harass the cross-dresser both physically and verbally. Later on the trio encountered the same man now with walking a friend. They again abused them both physically and verbally, punching and kicking them, giving them bruises, black eyes and bloody lips.
Fortunately the police were able to arrest one alleged attacker.
So what could possibly have motivated such a pointless attack?
The arrested alleged attacker offered a complete explanation: "God made me hate gay people" was the answer recorded in the court records.
Here is the clear explanation for the obvious which most persons will completely deny: religious belief does not lead to moral behavior - it leads to obedience and obedience can lead ANYWHERE. If scripture calls for hating gays, pigs, dogs, shrimp, women, sex or asking questions, followers are expected to hate all of those things. And they often do.
Those that rise above their scripturally mandated hatreds risk ostracism or heresy. What they typically do, however, is reside in a state of denial; while scripture obviously calls for enmity against gays (and shrimp, pigs, etc.) many believers find a way to ignore the Word of God and continue to believe that gods are great even though the gods are simultaneously repugnant in their actual attitudes.
Imagine if an atheist were arrested and explained their attack on gays by claiming that a "lack of belief in god made them hate gays." Non-believers would never hear the end of it.
But since a believer said it was (belief in) god that made him hate gays, no one will notice it. Gods remain great and their hate mongering is ignored.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Separation of Church and State (only for Muslims?)
On November 18, 2009, Newsday had an interesting story about a Mosque expansion which was drawing the "ire" of neighbors in a Westbury, Long Island, NY community. Why shouldn't it be controversial? The building that was proposed would be huge and the parking would be about 130 cars short of what the code requires. Many cars would therefore have to park in and around the residential neighborhood. A deal to allow some cars to park at a local church was being arranged, but such a deal is not "forever." There would indeed be inconvenience to the neighborhood.
Plus the building will be totally out of character for the area; original plans with an 80 foot minaret on top have been scrapped, but the building is still quite unique.
But this is not unusual. Churches and temples do this all the time to residential neighborhoods. They often lack parking; they're often out of place aesthetically. But you don't often hear about objections. The reason is obvious; no one wants to be seen as anti-religion.
Unless the religion is Islam.
Now it is the opinion of most, if not all supporters of church-state separation, that no special privileges should be given to religious institutions when building their facilities. They should have no special rights other than whatever other non-profit organizations have. If the Center for Inquiry must obey building codes, so should a church, temple or mosque. Most religious persons probably disagree; they prefer privilege for religious institutions.
Unfortunately, Congress, in its infinite lack of wisdom, egged on by an equally un-wise electorate, passed a law in 1993 that is plainly un-Constitutional, called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which allows religious institutions to run roughshod over many zoning laws. It takes quite a court case to disallow something like this Westbury mosque to be built.
The residents of Westbury can thank those zealous anti-separationists for the cars that often flood their neighborhood. And perhaps it serves some of them right; I wonder how many of them would have supported this structure if it had been of their own denomination?
Plus the building will be totally out of character for the area; original plans with an 80 foot minaret on top have been scrapped, but the building is still quite unique.
But this is not unusual. Churches and temples do this all the time to residential neighborhoods. They often lack parking; they're often out of place aesthetically. But you don't often hear about objections. The reason is obvious; no one wants to be seen as anti-religion.
Unless the religion is Islam.
Now it is the opinion of most, if not all supporters of church-state separation, that no special privileges should be given to religious institutions when building their facilities. They should have no special rights other than whatever other non-profit organizations have. If the Center for Inquiry must obey building codes, so should a church, temple or mosque. Most religious persons probably disagree; they prefer privilege for religious institutions.
Unfortunately, Congress, in its infinite lack of wisdom, egged on by an equally un-wise electorate, passed a law in 1993 that is plainly un-Constitutional, called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which allows religious institutions to run roughshod over many zoning laws. It takes quite a court case to disallow something like this Westbury mosque to be built.
The residents of Westbury can thank those zealous anti-separationists for the cars that often flood their neighborhood. And perhaps it serves some of them right; I wonder how many of them would have supported this structure if it had been of their own denomination?
The Common Vices vs. the Common Virtues in Public Policy
The Common Decencies and Virtues that humanists claim to promote and encourage include the general categories of integrity/honesty, fairness/justice, responsibility/courage and benevolence/kindness. These virtues seem so universally accepted and admired that they appear to be internalized in most persons – we need no god to tell us that it is good to be honest, kind, courageous and fair. Natural Selection has placed our appreciation of these virtues in our minds naturally. From these decencies and virtues we build a moral system and code of behavior. None of this is a denial that experience, culture and society modify our innate tendencies; it is simply an explanation of the universality of many moral values. It also is not a denial that we innately can also be jealous, territorial, selfish and lazy; most cultures and societies recognize the universal existence of these human attributes but almost always frown on these “common vices,” at least towards those within the society. However, it is from these in-born common decencies (if not totally modified/destroyed by our cultural experiences) that we tend to build our most admirable political views.
We should therefore form political policies, in other words, to realize and express our honest intentions, our good will towards others, our courage and our sense of fairness. Although we can honestly disagree on the ultimate policies due to the incredible complexity of human nature, economics and the uncertainty of the outcomes, we should agree on the following: the use of reason to solve our problems that the Common Decencies and Virtues have uncovered and have made us care about.
Yet it would seem that anything but reason is the instrument of policy making in our country (and elsewhere) and instead, dogma (which depends on dishonesty), ideology and blind faith are the cornerstones of most policy-making.
Consider the major life-changing decisions in the United States that have been made over the last decade:
The Supreme Court’s 100% partisan-line decision to not count allow a count of all of the votes in Florida in 2000’s Presidential Election resulting in the selection a Republican president. Numerous so-called “over-votes” were never counted.
The ideological decision in 2001 to give a tax break to the wealthiest Americans, wiping out the Federal budget surplus, while doing little or nothing to improve the economy over the long run, and more likely, harming the economy.
Medicare Part D, passed in 2003 and effective in 2006, which disallowed the Government from negotiating with drug companies to reduce costs, widening the Federal deficit. This was not a “courageous” decision.
The Neo-Con influenced war in Iraq and Neo-Con influenced abandonment of the War in Afghanistan, again leading to ballooning deficits, and a decade of pointless wars and the attendant misery with negative returns on the so-called “War on Terror”.
The push to outlaw gay marriage and even civil unions as an election ploy in 2004, even though the lives of homosexuals, who are American citizens, would be negatively impacted, and no one’s life would be made better.
The ideologically inspired lax or non-regulation of financial markets which have been notorious for serial failures and serial reckless risk-taking, leading to the recent near financial meltdown.
The torture and un-Constitutional detaining of persons, including American citizens, based solely on the orders of the president.
Not included in the above was the horror of 9-11 itself which was not a choice made by us, but instead a completely ideological and dogmatic action made by religious fanatics, and perpetrated on us.
I am sure the reader could add numerous other policies and actions that in no way reflected integrity, kindness, courage or fairness, but instead only ideology and dogma, inspired by the Common Vices. And now, with a new administration, the trend remains difficult to alter.
The bailouts to major financial (made just before the election) and automotive corporations have again increased the deficit, and although financial meltdown has been averted for now, financial corporations are still “too big to fail” and little or no reform has been instituted to change this fact or the excessive risk taking which is encouraged and rewarded by huge bonuses to executives. Unfortunately big business is able to funnel big money to campaigns which inevitably influences elected officials. Elected officials, who have made being elected a “career” instead of the “public service” it was meant to be, are all too obedient to their benefactors. (Public financing of elections, term limits and a more parliamentary system of legislation anyone?)
Health care reform is another area where the problem is obvious; our nation has the most expensive health care “system” in the world, but it is far from the best. Although one can have legitimate objection to the plans being proposed, what cannot be justified, except dogmatically, are the lies and hyperbole used to defeat all such proposals. A health care system even as socialistic as Great Britain’s has not resulted in their citizens loss of freedoms; yet some opponents of US healthcare reform claim that reform is a threat to freedom; do these opponents of health reform propose to repeal Medicare while they’re fighting for America’s “freedom”? (Never mind paradoxically that one of their arguments against health care reform is that it actually “threatens” Medicare.)
Somehow opponents of reform depict the efforts as both socialistic and Nazistic; yes images of the holocaust and Obama as Hitler are in full view at many protests, as well as the weapons on persons who hold signs that proclaim that it is time to water the “tree of liberty” with blood. Are they promoting the assassination of public officials?
It is also appalling to see how many Americans, spurred on by some of their most dogmatic, ideological and partisan leaders claim it is an abomination to try the terrorists who perpetrated the 9-11 attacks according to the US Constitution! They seem to prefer kangaroo courts also known as “military tribunals” which command no respect internationally and whose decisions have a good chance of being overturned if appealed in a real court. They would be more comfortable with the Iranian system of law than our own.
Lest we forget, on June 30, 2006, “In a landmark decision restricting the president's powers during wartime, the US Supreme Court has dealt the Bush administration a severe blow in its push to prosecute terrorists in military tribunals.
The court ruled 5-to-3 Thursday that Mr. Bush acted outside his authority when he ordered Al Qaeda suspects to stand trial before these specially organized military commissions. The ruling said that the commission process at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, could not proceed without violating US military law and provisions of the Geneva Conventions. "The commission lacks power to proceed," writes Justice John Paul Stevens for the court majority.
President Bush said he would honor the decision in the case called Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, but do it in a way that did not jeopardize the safety of Americans.
"I want to find a way forward," Bush told reporters. "I would like there to be a way to return people from Guantánamo to their home countries, but some of these people need to be tried" in court.” (CSM, 6/30/06, go to http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0630/p01s01-usju.html .)
In other words, there is no other way than to do it Constitutionally. Partisan Republicans impeached President Clinton for far less of a transgression.
And then there’s simple dollars and sense. Now that we are in a deep fiscal hole as a nation, angry citizens are holding “Tea Parties” to protest the mess we are in. The one problem is; where have they been for all these years? President Obama has been in office for about 10+ months and has passed but one budget in a time of the worst economy since the depression. Spending cuts in that budget would have been universally deplored and opposed. Increasing taxes to pay for the spending? Forget it!
Of course, the budget can be criticized for pork and wasteful spending; but of course, as atrocious as it was, it was nothing unusual. Why the “Tea Parties” now, when the party now in power had left the other party a budget surplus which it squandered over the 8 years it was in power?
Where were the “Tea Parties” when we actually needed them? How do they think we got into the situation we are now in? Did it just happen in the last 9 months?
Going forward, it is hard to see how the Common Decencies of honesty, courage, responsibility and kindness will prevail in our public policies over the Common Vices of dishonesty, timidity, willful ignorance, irresponsibility and meanness. The solutions that many citizens are demanding involve impossibilities: spending more while taxing less, fighting wars without any inconvenience, instituting privilege over justice and having the rule of the jungle prevail over the rule of law.
Although the Common Vices may lead to some form of satisfaction in the very short term, in the long term we will pay for it; we have already. We will continue to pay for it.
In the long run, the Common Virtues are what they are because they promote our well being. If humanity is to thrive, we must reject the Common Vices in favor of the Common Virtues, remembering that there is no guarantee whatsoever that we will do what is best for ourselves. Ignorance and dishonesty don’t need no stinkin’ facts after all, and real courage in our leaders in a rare thing.
Can you picture a leader with Presidential aspirations telling the country that it will be necessary to reduce health care spending per capita if we are to offer health care to all (probably leading to a single-payer system) and meaning that profit margins may have to decrease in the health care industry unless it becomes vastly more efficient? Yet, if one looks around the developed world for evidence, this may be the probable truth.
Can you imagine a leader with Presidential aspirations stating that an increase in taxation and cuts to the defense budget and entitlements are inevitable if the deficit is to be tamed? Exactly where else is the money going to be found?
Can you imagine a leader with Presidential aspirations coming clean on any number of issues, from torture, the deficit, to the economy, etc.? Once again, I’m sure the reader can list numerous items where the voting public prefers to be lied to. Real debate? Forget it; someone might have to say something thoughtful! So lies are what we will get, until there is no choice. This does happen; that is, the situation gets to the point where there is no choice, such as with the end of the Viet Nam War, after Pearl Harbor, or during the Depression.
Unfortunately, if health care reform is passed in its current proposed forms, this issue and the issue of the deficit will not soon go away; it will need revisiting very soon when Baby Boomers age and need more medical care and Social Security payments, and US Treasury interest rates increase, inflation rears its ugly head and we can no longer afford our denial of the facts. Then we will have no choice but to embrace the Common Virtues (such as integrity and honesty) in our policy making and we will have to do the right thing just to survive.
We should therefore form political policies, in other words, to realize and express our honest intentions, our good will towards others, our courage and our sense of fairness. Although we can honestly disagree on the ultimate policies due to the incredible complexity of human nature, economics and the uncertainty of the outcomes, we should agree on the following: the use of reason to solve our problems that the Common Decencies and Virtues have uncovered and have made us care about.
Yet it would seem that anything but reason is the instrument of policy making in our country (and elsewhere) and instead, dogma (which depends on dishonesty), ideology and blind faith are the cornerstones of most policy-making.
Consider the major life-changing decisions in the United States that have been made over the last decade:
The Supreme Court’s 100% partisan-line decision to not count allow a count of all of the votes in Florida in 2000’s Presidential Election resulting in the selection a Republican president. Numerous so-called “over-votes” were never counted.
The ideological decision in 2001 to give a tax break to the wealthiest Americans, wiping out the Federal budget surplus, while doing little or nothing to improve the economy over the long run, and more likely, harming the economy.
Medicare Part D, passed in 2003 and effective in 2006, which disallowed the Government from negotiating with drug companies to reduce costs, widening the Federal deficit. This was not a “courageous” decision.
The Neo-Con influenced war in Iraq and Neo-Con influenced abandonment of the War in Afghanistan, again leading to ballooning deficits, and a decade of pointless wars and the attendant misery with negative returns on the so-called “War on Terror”.
The push to outlaw gay marriage and even civil unions as an election ploy in 2004, even though the lives of homosexuals, who are American citizens, would be negatively impacted, and no one’s life would be made better.
The ideologically inspired lax or non-regulation of financial markets which have been notorious for serial failures and serial reckless risk-taking, leading to the recent near financial meltdown.
The torture and un-Constitutional detaining of persons, including American citizens, based solely on the orders of the president.
Not included in the above was the horror of 9-11 itself which was not a choice made by us, but instead a completely ideological and dogmatic action made by religious fanatics, and perpetrated on us.
I am sure the reader could add numerous other policies and actions that in no way reflected integrity, kindness, courage or fairness, but instead only ideology and dogma, inspired by the Common Vices. And now, with a new administration, the trend remains difficult to alter.
The bailouts to major financial (made just before the election) and automotive corporations have again increased the deficit, and although financial meltdown has been averted for now, financial corporations are still “too big to fail” and little or no reform has been instituted to change this fact or the excessive risk taking which is encouraged and rewarded by huge bonuses to executives. Unfortunately big business is able to funnel big money to campaigns which inevitably influences elected officials. Elected officials, who have made being elected a “career” instead of the “public service” it was meant to be, are all too obedient to their benefactors. (Public financing of elections, term limits and a more parliamentary system of legislation anyone?)
Health care reform is another area where the problem is obvious; our nation has the most expensive health care “system” in the world, but it is far from the best. Although one can have legitimate objection to the plans being proposed, what cannot be justified, except dogmatically, are the lies and hyperbole used to defeat all such proposals. A health care system even as socialistic as Great Britain’s has not resulted in their citizens loss of freedoms; yet some opponents of US healthcare reform claim that reform is a threat to freedom; do these opponents of health reform propose to repeal Medicare while they’re fighting for America’s “freedom”? (Never mind paradoxically that one of their arguments against health care reform is that it actually “threatens” Medicare.)
Somehow opponents of reform depict the efforts as both socialistic and Nazistic; yes images of the holocaust and Obama as Hitler are in full view at many protests, as well as the weapons on persons who hold signs that proclaim that it is time to water the “tree of liberty” with blood. Are they promoting the assassination of public officials?
It is also appalling to see how many Americans, spurred on by some of their most dogmatic, ideological and partisan leaders claim it is an abomination to try the terrorists who perpetrated the 9-11 attacks according to the US Constitution! They seem to prefer kangaroo courts also known as “military tribunals” which command no respect internationally and whose decisions have a good chance of being overturned if appealed in a real court. They would be more comfortable with the Iranian system of law than our own.
Lest we forget, on June 30, 2006, “In a landmark decision restricting the president's powers during wartime, the US Supreme Court has dealt the Bush administration a severe blow in its push to prosecute terrorists in military tribunals.
The court ruled 5-to-3 Thursday that Mr. Bush acted outside his authority when he ordered Al Qaeda suspects to stand trial before these specially organized military commissions. The ruling said that the commission process at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, could not proceed without violating US military law and provisions of the Geneva Conventions. "The commission lacks power to proceed," writes Justice John Paul Stevens for the court majority.
President Bush said he would honor the decision in the case called Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, but do it in a way that did not jeopardize the safety of Americans.
"I want to find a way forward," Bush told reporters. "I would like there to be a way to return people from Guantánamo to their home countries, but some of these people need to be tried" in court.” (CSM, 6/30/06, go to http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0630/p01s01-usju.html .)
In other words, there is no other way than to do it Constitutionally. Partisan Republicans impeached President Clinton for far less of a transgression.
And then there’s simple dollars and sense. Now that we are in a deep fiscal hole as a nation, angry citizens are holding “Tea Parties” to protest the mess we are in. The one problem is; where have they been for all these years? President Obama has been in office for about 10+ months and has passed but one budget in a time of the worst economy since the depression. Spending cuts in that budget would have been universally deplored and opposed. Increasing taxes to pay for the spending? Forget it!
Of course, the budget can be criticized for pork and wasteful spending; but of course, as atrocious as it was, it was nothing unusual. Why the “Tea Parties” now, when the party now in power had left the other party a budget surplus which it squandered over the 8 years it was in power?
Where were the “Tea Parties” when we actually needed them? How do they think we got into the situation we are now in? Did it just happen in the last 9 months?
Going forward, it is hard to see how the Common Decencies of honesty, courage, responsibility and kindness will prevail in our public policies over the Common Vices of dishonesty, timidity, willful ignorance, irresponsibility and meanness. The solutions that many citizens are demanding involve impossibilities: spending more while taxing less, fighting wars without any inconvenience, instituting privilege over justice and having the rule of the jungle prevail over the rule of law.
Although the Common Vices may lead to some form of satisfaction in the very short term, in the long term we will pay for it; we have already. We will continue to pay for it.
In the long run, the Common Virtues are what they are because they promote our well being. If humanity is to thrive, we must reject the Common Vices in favor of the Common Virtues, remembering that there is no guarantee whatsoever that we will do what is best for ourselves. Ignorance and dishonesty don’t need no stinkin’ facts after all, and real courage in our leaders in a rare thing.
Can you picture a leader with Presidential aspirations telling the country that it will be necessary to reduce health care spending per capita if we are to offer health care to all (probably leading to a single-payer system) and meaning that profit margins may have to decrease in the health care industry unless it becomes vastly more efficient? Yet, if one looks around the developed world for evidence, this may be the probable truth.
Can you imagine a leader with Presidential aspirations stating that an increase in taxation and cuts to the defense budget and entitlements are inevitable if the deficit is to be tamed? Exactly where else is the money going to be found?
Can you imagine a leader with Presidential aspirations coming clean on any number of issues, from torture, the deficit, to the economy, etc.? Once again, I’m sure the reader can list numerous items where the voting public prefers to be lied to. Real debate? Forget it; someone might have to say something thoughtful! So lies are what we will get, until there is no choice. This does happen; that is, the situation gets to the point where there is no choice, such as with the end of the Viet Nam War, after Pearl Harbor, or during the Depression.
Unfortunately, if health care reform is passed in its current proposed forms, this issue and the issue of the deficit will not soon go away; it will need revisiting very soon when Baby Boomers age and need more medical care and Social Security payments, and US Treasury interest rates increase, inflation rears its ugly head and we can no longer afford our denial of the facts. Then we will have no choice but to embrace the Common Virtues (such as integrity and honesty) in our policy making and we will have to do the right thing just to survive.
Easy Targets Obscure Culturally Acceptable Bigotry
In September 2009, Long Island was visited was again by members of the Westboro Baptist Church, which is headquartered in Wichita, Kansas. Members of the church staged “protests” at various locations in Brooklyn, Nassau and Suffolk (including at the Temple of God Squad rabbi Marc Gellman.)
What were they protesting? They were protesting the fact that the United States does not execute gays (as suggested in Leviticus) and that in the U.S., gentiles marry Jews among other things. By extension they indict the whole of the US, including the military and its soldiers, who they claim are being killed in wars as divine retribution for the country’s “permissiveness.”
Oh.
Of course, the visit of this so-called “hate group” is an opportunity for one and all to get righteous and universally condemn the Westboro Baptist Church for its beliefs.
Yet the Westboro is spectacularly ineffective in getting anything done. If anything, their appearances evoke sympathy for their targets, thank goodness.
But there’s more!
Many of those who join in on the condemnations of this Church agree, in part, with the beliefs of the Westboro Baptist Church and in fact have actually done things to harm the Church’s favorite target: gays.
Who among those who condemn the Westboro Church also oppose equal rights for gays, including gay marriage and/or adoption?
Well, for example, that would probably include Rabbi Marc Gellman, who, before resigning because of the presence of alleged radical Islamists within the organization, was a member of the Alliance for Marriage Foundation (AFM), a group that actively opposes gay marriage and adoption.
Here is snippet from a recent press release from the AFM:
"Americans believe that gays and lesbians are free to live as they choose, but they don't believe they have a right to redefine marriage for our entire society," said Daniels. “But the common-sense definition of marriage – and the values of most Americans – cannot be protected apart from AFM’s Marriage Protection Amendment.” (Go to http://www.afmus.org .)
Although this press release post dates Rabbi Gellman’s tenure in the organization, the opinion expressed in it has remained consistent.
Now the AFM with its ability to lobby Congress and excite its membership to oppose equal rights for gays probably has done more to harm gays in a practical sense than has the Westboro Baptist Church.
And of course, Rabbi Gellman and the AFM are by no means alone in acceptable bigotry.
In fact, any religion (or secular dogma for that matter) that has a concept of a “chosen” people, or the “select” or the “saved” or the “damned” or the “infidel” is guilty of promoting enmity and divisiveness if not the outright hatred that typically flows from such beliefs.
This group would therefore include most versions of Christianity, Judaism, Islam and others.
How do those who profess to believe in the same scripture that inspires the Westboro Baptist Church and who agree, in part, that gays should be persecuted, then have the gall to then condemn the Westboro Baptist Church who have the consistency to invoke the biblical remedy for this biblical sin that so many agree is indeed a sin, and that the bible is the authority on its sinfulness?
Dogma requires such denial and that is why dogma endures – denial seems to be a component of human nature.
In the meantime, the Westboro Baptist Church, in their unabashed adherence to scripture and their religion, serves to obscure the more culturally acceptable biases that religion and dogma typically propagate. This safe cover for socially acceptable bigots might be their most dangerous attribute.
What were they protesting? They were protesting the fact that the United States does not execute gays (as suggested in Leviticus) and that in the U.S., gentiles marry Jews among other things. By extension they indict the whole of the US, including the military and its soldiers, who they claim are being killed in wars as divine retribution for the country’s “permissiveness.”
Oh.
Of course, the visit of this so-called “hate group” is an opportunity for one and all to get righteous and universally condemn the Westboro Baptist Church for its beliefs.
Yet the Westboro is spectacularly ineffective in getting anything done. If anything, their appearances evoke sympathy for their targets, thank goodness.
But there’s more!
Many of those who join in on the condemnations of this Church agree, in part, with the beliefs of the Westboro Baptist Church and in fact have actually done things to harm the Church’s favorite target: gays.
Who among those who condemn the Westboro Church also oppose equal rights for gays, including gay marriage and/or adoption?
Well, for example, that would probably include Rabbi Marc Gellman, who, before resigning because of the presence of alleged radical Islamists within the organization, was a member of the Alliance for Marriage Foundation (AFM), a group that actively opposes gay marriage and adoption.
Here is snippet from a recent press release from the AFM:
"Americans believe that gays and lesbians are free to live as they choose, but they don't believe they have a right to redefine marriage for our entire society," said Daniels. “But the common-sense definition of marriage – and the values of most Americans – cannot be protected apart from AFM’s Marriage Protection Amendment.” (Go to http://www.afmus.org .)
Although this press release post dates Rabbi Gellman’s tenure in the organization, the opinion expressed in it has remained consistent.
Now the AFM with its ability to lobby Congress and excite its membership to oppose equal rights for gays probably has done more to harm gays in a practical sense than has the Westboro Baptist Church.
And of course, Rabbi Gellman and the AFM are by no means alone in acceptable bigotry.
In fact, any religion (or secular dogma for that matter) that has a concept of a “chosen” people, or the “select” or the “saved” or the “damned” or the “infidel” is guilty of promoting enmity and divisiveness if not the outright hatred that typically flows from such beliefs.
This group would therefore include most versions of Christianity, Judaism, Islam and others.
How do those who profess to believe in the same scripture that inspires the Westboro Baptist Church and who agree, in part, that gays should be persecuted, then have the gall to then condemn the Westboro Baptist Church who have the consistency to invoke the biblical remedy for this biblical sin that so many agree is indeed a sin, and that the bible is the authority on its sinfulness?
Dogma requires such denial and that is why dogma endures – denial seems to be a component of human nature.
In the meantime, the Westboro Baptist Church, in their unabashed adherence to scripture and their religion, serves to obscure the more culturally acceptable biases that religion and dogma typically propagate. This safe cover for socially acceptable bigots might be their most dangerous attribute.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Al Qaeda, Terrorism, Long Island & Rep. Peter King
News Item: (NY Daily News, July 22, 2009) A Long Island man confessed to feeding Al Qaeda information about New York's subways and LIRR trains, triggering last year's Thanksgiving Eve terror alert, the feds say.
Bryant Neal Vinas, 26, the son of South American immigrants and a convert to Islam, was captured in November in Pakistan after he joined in a rocket attack on U.S. troops in Afghanistan, according to court papers unsealed Wednesday.
He confessed his treason almost immediately and began cooperating, offering information of potentially great value because he had met with high-level operational leaders, sources said.
Vinas is one of a handful of Americans charged with joining the terror network that took down the World Trade Center and has sworn to destroy America. A former truck driver who grew up Catholic in Patchogue, he converted to radical Islam and became a fighter known variously as "Ibrahim" or "Bashir el Ameriki" - Bashir the American…
Vinas began attending a mosque in Selden, L.I., and dressing in Islamic garb, but never explained his conversion to his Peruvian-born father, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/07/22/2009-07-22_feds_long_island_man_gave_al_qaeda_info.html#ixzz0MIzysoOv.
Is there any lesson or meaning to be gleaned from this sad episode? Do we assume that the Selden Mosque that Mr. Vinas attended is the cause of his radicalization?
“Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford), a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the Vinas case illustrates why mosques must monitor radicalism in their midst, one of his long-standing political talking points.
"There are a number of mosques under surveillance by law enforcement on Long Island and they've had radical speakers," said King. "I'm not saying they [the mosques] are involved in criminal activities, but they are not cooperating with law enforcement."
At the Islamic Association of Long Island mosque in Selden Wednesday its imam rejected him. "If he is al-Qaida, he should be arrested. He's a terrorist," said Imam Aziz. "Islam is a peaceful religion." (See http://www.newsday.com/long-island/feds-li-man-plotted-terror-attack-on-mass-transit-1.1318020 .)
Rep. King has often taken on “radical” Islam and depicted most mosques as being run by radicals.
In the past, “Rep. Peter T. King, R-N.Y., told radio talk host Sean Hannity in an interview no American Muslim leaders are cooperating in the war on terror.
"I would say, you could say that 80-85 percent of mosques in this country are controlled by Islamic fundamentalists," he said. "Those who are in control. The average Muslim, no, they are loyal, but they don't work, they don't come forward, they don't tell the police …"
King was promoting his new novel, "Vale of Tears," which he described as a "half truth and half fiction" story about future terrorist attacks by Muslim extremists in Nassau County, N.Y.
In the interview with Hannity, King criticized a mosque in Westbury, N.Y., which he accused of failing to adequately condemn terrorism.
Hannity asked King to confirm he was saying 85 percent of mosques in America are "ruled by the extremists."
"Yes," he replied, "and I can get you the documentation on that from experts in the field. Talk to a Steve Emerson, talk to a [Daniel] Pipes, talk to any of those. They will tell you. It's a real issue … I'll stand by that number of 85 percent. This is an enemy living amongst us..."
King said while most American Muslims are loyal to this country, "They won't turn in their own. They won't tell what's going on in the mosques. They won't come forward and cooperate with the police."
Go to http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37099 and http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/19/king-mosques .
Is Rep. Peter King correct? Are 85% of American Mosques run by “radicals”?
It would help if someone, preferably Rep. King, stopped to define the word “radical.”
Is a radical someone who voiced support for a violent or terrorist organization (not to mention actually committing violence)?
Oops!
“Like British Muslim support for Muslim extremist terrorism, Irish American support for Irish terrorism came in many forms. There were Irish Americans who waved the Irish flag once a year on St. Patrick's Day and admired the IRA's cause but felt queasy about the methods. There were Irish Americans who collected money for Catholic charities in Northern Ireland without condoning the IRA at all. There were also Irish Americans who, while claiming to be "aiding the families of political prisoners," were in fact helping to arm IRA terrorists. Throughout the 1970s, until Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher asked President Ronald Reagan to stop them, they were the IRA's primary source of funding. And even after that they were widely tolerated.
I concede there is one major difference: The Irish terrorists were setting off their bombs across the ocean and not in New York or Boston, which somehow made the whole thing seem less real. But in Britain the explosions were real enough. In 1982 -- the year an IRA bomb killed eight people in Hyde Park -- four IRA men were arrested in New York after trying to buy surface-to-air missiles from an FBI agent. In 1984 -- the year the IRA tried to kill the whole British cabinet in Brighton -- an IRA plot to smuggle seven tons of explosives was foiled, an action that led to the arrests of several Americans. As recently as 1999, long after the IRA had declared its cease-fire, members of an IRA group connected to an American organization, the Irish Northern Aid Committee (Noraid), were arrested for gun-running in Florida.
The range of Americans who were unbothered by this sort of thing was surprisingly wide. Some were members of Congress, such as Republican Rep. Peter King of Long Island, who stayed with IRA supporters on visits to Northern Ireland and drank at a Belfast club called the Felons, whose members were all IRA ex-cons.” (Go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201943.html .)
Here is what the Irish Echo, an Irish-American newspaper, writes about Rep. King:
“He was for years dogged by charges that he was soft on terrorism because he would not join the chorus of condemnation of the IRA.
He was once accused of having blood on his hands by a British ambassador to Washington because of his refusal to disown the IRA's campaign…
Never stepping back from his support of Sinn Féin, King engaged in a dialogue with loyalist leaders such as Andy Tyrie and John McMichael.
"When pressed he acknowledged support for the IRA," Mulvaney said of King.
King toured Protestant neighborhoods that were very bit as economically blighted than their Catholic counterparts.
"With the exception of Paul O'Dwyer, no one had more meetings with the Unionist extreme than Peter King. Make no mistake, that was a dangerous undertaking in the 1980s," said Mulvaney…
"I don't believe King's personal stances changed at all, but he proved that he was willing to listen and to see both sides of a complicated issue. I still believe that King's meetings in the mid 1980s were pivotal in the peace process. When King, and others, cajoled President Clinton into action, King was the one who could speak first hand of the suffering of both sides."
Attorney and Democratic party activist Frank Durkan agrees.
"Pete has been an effective voice. It took a lot of courage to speak out in defense of the IRA when everyone else was killing them. And remember, his constituency was not particularly Irish," said Durkan.
But though he stuck his neck out for Irish Republicans when it was distinctly unfashionable to do so, the post-Sept. 11 Pete King would have found it far more difficult to defend the IRA's campaign had it stretched into this century, and up as far as that fateful day.
The Sept. 11 attacks were a turning point for King. The son of a New York City detective, he lost friends and constituents in the attack on the World Trade Center and his now-unequivocal hostility towards anything that even remotely smacks of terrorism can be clearly traced to that attack on America.”
(Go to http://www.irishecho.com/newspaper/story.cfm?id=17249 .)
To be fair, Rep. Peter King later became instrumental in bringing peace to Northern Ireland during the Clinton Administration; in other words, his views and opinions and actions evolved to the point that he may have actually fully redeemed himself in this matter.
But shouldn’t he be more judicious in his condemnation of others, specifically American Muslims? Isn’t Rep. King in a perfect position to demonstrate an understanding of human nature and the tendency towards religious and nationalistic chauvinism that he once shared with the people he now chastises? After all, what percentage of Irish-American Catholics may have supported the IRA during those dark years? Could it be 80% to 85% or something approximate?
There is no doubt that ALL religions and dogmas open the door to radicalism; Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Fascism, Communism and so on are all easy examples of ideologies that have turned to unjustified violence at one time or another. When you hold a belief on faith or above question, you expose yourself to the possibility that you will hold dangerous beliefs. If you use reason, evidence and logic to guide you to a goal of improving the human condition, you may still make mistakes, but your chances of being a helpful person should be greatly improved! The alternatives of faith and dogmatism could lead to literally anything.
Rep. Peter King would be better served by denouncing faith and dogma – the real enemy. Although it is true that Islam can lead to radicalism and ultimately war, murder and terrorism, so has almost every other dogmatic religion and ideology including Rep. King’s own Irish Catholicism.
The real enemy within us is unreason and a lack of caring about others.
Bryant Neal Vinas, 26, the son of South American immigrants and a convert to Islam, was captured in November in Pakistan after he joined in a rocket attack on U.S. troops in Afghanistan, according to court papers unsealed Wednesday.
He confessed his treason almost immediately and began cooperating, offering information of potentially great value because he had met with high-level operational leaders, sources said.
Vinas is one of a handful of Americans charged with joining the terror network that took down the World Trade Center and has sworn to destroy America. A former truck driver who grew up Catholic in Patchogue, he converted to radical Islam and became a fighter known variously as "Ibrahim" or "Bashir el Ameriki" - Bashir the American…
Vinas began attending a mosque in Selden, L.I., and dressing in Islamic garb, but never explained his conversion to his Peruvian-born father, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/07/22/2009-07-22_feds_long_island_man_gave_al_qaeda_info.html#ixzz0MIzysoOv.
Is there any lesson or meaning to be gleaned from this sad episode? Do we assume that the Selden Mosque that Mr. Vinas attended is the cause of his radicalization?
“Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford), a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the Vinas case illustrates why mosques must monitor radicalism in their midst, one of his long-standing political talking points.
"There are a number of mosques under surveillance by law enforcement on Long Island and they've had radical speakers," said King. "I'm not saying they [the mosques] are involved in criminal activities, but they are not cooperating with law enforcement."
At the Islamic Association of Long Island mosque in Selden Wednesday its imam rejected him. "If he is al-Qaida, he should be arrested. He's a terrorist," said Imam Aziz. "Islam is a peaceful religion." (See http://www.newsday.com/long-island/feds-li-man-plotted-terror-attack-on-mass-transit-1.1318020 .)
Rep. King has often taken on “radical” Islam and depicted most mosques as being run by radicals.
In the past, “Rep. Peter T. King, R-N.Y., told radio talk host Sean Hannity in an interview no American Muslim leaders are cooperating in the war on terror.
"I would say, you could say that 80-85 percent of mosques in this country are controlled by Islamic fundamentalists," he said. "Those who are in control. The average Muslim, no, they are loyal, but they don't work, they don't come forward, they don't tell the police …"
King was promoting his new novel, "Vale of Tears," which he described as a "half truth and half fiction" story about future terrorist attacks by Muslim extremists in Nassau County, N.Y.
In the interview with Hannity, King criticized a mosque in Westbury, N.Y., which he accused of failing to adequately condemn terrorism.
Hannity asked King to confirm he was saying 85 percent of mosques in America are "ruled by the extremists."
"Yes," he replied, "and I can get you the documentation on that from experts in the field. Talk to a Steve Emerson, talk to a [Daniel] Pipes, talk to any of those. They will tell you. It's a real issue … I'll stand by that number of 85 percent. This is an enemy living amongst us..."
King said while most American Muslims are loyal to this country, "They won't turn in their own. They won't tell what's going on in the mosques. They won't come forward and cooperate with the police."
Go to http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37099 and http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/19/king-mosques .
Is Rep. Peter King correct? Are 85% of American Mosques run by “radicals”?
It would help if someone, preferably Rep. King, stopped to define the word “radical.”
Is a radical someone who voiced support for a violent or terrorist organization (not to mention actually committing violence)?
Oops!
“Like British Muslim support for Muslim extremist terrorism, Irish American support for Irish terrorism came in many forms. There were Irish Americans who waved the Irish flag once a year on St. Patrick's Day and admired the IRA's cause but felt queasy about the methods. There were Irish Americans who collected money for Catholic charities in Northern Ireland without condoning the IRA at all. There were also Irish Americans who, while claiming to be "aiding the families of political prisoners," were in fact helping to arm IRA terrorists. Throughout the 1970s, until Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher asked President Ronald Reagan to stop them, they were the IRA's primary source of funding. And even after that they were widely tolerated.
I concede there is one major difference: The Irish terrorists were setting off their bombs across the ocean and not in New York or Boston, which somehow made the whole thing seem less real. But in Britain the explosions were real enough. In 1982 -- the year an IRA bomb killed eight people in Hyde Park -- four IRA men were arrested in New York after trying to buy surface-to-air missiles from an FBI agent. In 1984 -- the year the IRA tried to kill the whole British cabinet in Brighton -- an IRA plot to smuggle seven tons of explosives was foiled, an action that led to the arrests of several Americans. As recently as 1999, long after the IRA had declared its cease-fire, members of an IRA group connected to an American organization, the Irish Northern Aid Committee (Noraid), were arrested for gun-running in Florida.
The range of Americans who were unbothered by this sort of thing was surprisingly wide. Some were members of Congress, such as Republican Rep. Peter King of Long Island, who stayed with IRA supporters on visits to Northern Ireland and drank at a Belfast club called the Felons, whose members were all IRA ex-cons.” (Go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201943.html .)
Here is what the Irish Echo, an Irish-American newspaper, writes about Rep. King:
“He was for years dogged by charges that he was soft on terrorism because he would not join the chorus of condemnation of the IRA.
He was once accused of having blood on his hands by a British ambassador to Washington because of his refusal to disown the IRA's campaign…
Never stepping back from his support of Sinn Féin, King engaged in a dialogue with loyalist leaders such as Andy Tyrie and John McMichael.
"When pressed he acknowledged support for the IRA," Mulvaney said of King.
King toured Protestant neighborhoods that were very bit as economically blighted than their Catholic counterparts.
"With the exception of Paul O'Dwyer, no one had more meetings with the Unionist extreme than Peter King. Make no mistake, that was a dangerous undertaking in the 1980s," said Mulvaney…
"I don't believe King's personal stances changed at all, but he proved that he was willing to listen and to see both sides of a complicated issue. I still believe that King's meetings in the mid 1980s were pivotal in the peace process. When King, and others, cajoled President Clinton into action, King was the one who could speak first hand of the suffering of both sides."
Attorney and Democratic party activist Frank Durkan agrees.
"Pete has been an effective voice. It took a lot of courage to speak out in defense of the IRA when everyone else was killing them. And remember, his constituency was not particularly Irish," said Durkan.
But though he stuck his neck out for Irish Republicans when it was distinctly unfashionable to do so, the post-Sept. 11 Pete King would have found it far more difficult to defend the IRA's campaign had it stretched into this century, and up as far as that fateful day.
The Sept. 11 attacks were a turning point for King. The son of a New York City detective, he lost friends and constituents in the attack on the World Trade Center and his now-unequivocal hostility towards anything that even remotely smacks of terrorism can be clearly traced to that attack on America.”
(Go to http://www.irishecho.com/newspaper/story.cfm?id=17249 .)
To be fair, Rep. Peter King later became instrumental in bringing peace to Northern Ireland during the Clinton Administration; in other words, his views and opinions and actions evolved to the point that he may have actually fully redeemed himself in this matter.
But shouldn’t he be more judicious in his condemnation of others, specifically American Muslims? Isn’t Rep. King in a perfect position to demonstrate an understanding of human nature and the tendency towards religious and nationalistic chauvinism that he once shared with the people he now chastises? After all, what percentage of Irish-American Catholics may have supported the IRA during those dark years? Could it be 80% to 85% or something approximate?
There is no doubt that ALL religions and dogmas open the door to radicalism; Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Fascism, Communism and so on are all easy examples of ideologies that have turned to unjustified violence at one time or another. When you hold a belief on faith or above question, you expose yourself to the possibility that you will hold dangerous beliefs. If you use reason, evidence and logic to guide you to a goal of improving the human condition, you may still make mistakes, but your chances of being a helpful person should be greatly improved! The alternatives of faith and dogmatism could lead to literally anything.
Rep. Peter King would be better served by denouncing faith and dogma – the real enemy. Although it is true that Islam can lead to radicalism and ultimately war, murder and terrorism, so has almost every other dogmatic religion and ideology including Rep. King’s own Irish Catholicism.
The real enemy within us is unreason and a lack of caring about others.
A Skeptical Look at the Economy
The last decade or so has been one giant roller coaster, economically speaking. It may seem like a long time ago, but in the late 20th Century, the United States actually had a balanced Federal budget. The head of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, actually had a moment of worry about the US having too large a Federal budget surplus! As we now know, he needn’t have worried about the surplus.
The stock market was booming and reached an inflation adjusted peak in the year 2000. Unemployment during the Clinton presidency fell to levels of about 3% - does anyone remember that? It seems to be just a dream to us now.
One of the reasons for the good economic fortune back then was absence of wars bleeding our treasury and distracting the US economy away from more prosperous endeavors as well as a balanced budget. Peace is good for the economy, war inevitably is destructive. Why?
The quick answer is that when a country is at peace, human effort and labor is more directed toward products that make life better; confidence is high among producers and consumers and the cycle of productivity grows, leading to an actual improvement in people’s lives and an increase in the wealth of a nation.
During a war effort, the end products are more often destructive and lead to misery for someone, somewhere. The wealth of nations is decreased by war because of the destruction inherent in wars. Wars may serve to preserve our freedom which is worthwhile of course; but war only serves at best to maintain a status quo economically and socially. At worst, wars destroy freedoms and liberty if they are unjustified. The righteousness of a war is everything; an unjust war is doom to a country, both morally and economically.
After 2000 the stock market experienced a “bubble”; the prices of stocks related to the Internet were valued beyond all reasonable expectation and the NASDAQ index reached the 5000 level. The bubble burst when many companies failed to turn profitable and could not justify such prices. Easy monetary policy from the Federal Reserve enabled the speculators who inflated the bubble – and much wealth was destroyed when the bubble burst. The NASDAQ still is over 60% lower today than it was then, which is almost 9 years ago.
With a new president in place, an ill-designed tax cut following the recession caused by the bursting Internet stock bubble was implemented; the major beneficiaries were the wealthiest taxpayers. That was the end of the surplus. Although the stock market partially rebounded, the bang for the buck was poor; employment and income for the non-wealthy lagged.
Then came 9-11 and we were on our way to a non-righteous war – in Iraq - that not only wiped away any semblance of fiscal sanity, but completely replaced it with economic delusion.
Ridiculously easy credit and lax regulation led to a housing bubble that peaked in 2007. When foreclosures started to become a big problem, banks and mortgage backed securities began to tank. Soon, literally no one could find a lender willing to lend and business and consumer spending came to a screeching halt.
The enormous deficits that have resulted from the ineffective tax cuts of the Bush Administration and the Iraq War, not to mention the Plan D Medicare giveaway to the major drug companies, have left us ill-prepared for the banking and housing crises that we are still suffering through. Ten percent unemployment is now a near certainty and the future looks grim.
Have we learned anything? Is the Obama Administration any better than the previous one?
There is no doubt that this administration is going after the problems more directly but unfortunately, for reasons of politics and popular sentiment, good solutions to difficult problems may elude us.
It must be admitted that the banking crisis which, if left unsolved would have led directly and swiftly into a depression, has been averted for now. The crisis is now just a lingering problem which will slowly return to “normal” unless a descent into a true depression occurs. Whether laws will be passed that will avoid future crises and banking abuses is unknown; if politicians were not involved, our chances would be better. Ideology is the enemy here as usual.
Similar comments could be made about all our other economic problems; health care, unemployment, the stimulus program, the federal deficit, and so on. In every case it seems that President Obama has the right idea; it also seems that in every case, Congress, to which the President has delegated the task of creating legislation addressing these issues, is not up to the task. Although the President highly values consensus and bi-partisanship, it may be that his preferences and ideas are better than consensus, the results of bi-partisanship or the ideas of the rest of his own party. His penchant for cooperation and delegation may not result in good health care reform.
This country desperately needs to reduce the cost of health care as a % of GDP while increasing the access of all Americans to healthcare (please note that it does not matter whether the solution is private or public). This may mean lower profit margins for the health care industry as they serve more people at a lower cost per person. Who has the nerve to publicly promote this kind of necessary policy?
The deficit MUST be reduced (please note that the amount of government spending is not the key issue, it’s the deficit). The government must stimulate the economy and increase employment while avoiding pork (please note that the stimulus must lead to productive labor, particularly involving infrastructure). This may mean higher taxes but if the budget is balanced and jobs created, and we are getting value for our taxes, ideology should not derail this solution. Are there elected officials who can balance all of these attainable goals?
It is hard to believe that most of our leaders are capable of putting ideology aside and doing what is most necessary. It is more likely that we will bounce from one emergency to another.
What do you think?
The stock market was booming and reached an inflation adjusted peak in the year 2000. Unemployment during the Clinton presidency fell to levels of about 3% - does anyone remember that? It seems to be just a dream to us now.
One of the reasons for the good economic fortune back then was absence of wars bleeding our treasury and distracting the US economy away from more prosperous endeavors as well as a balanced budget. Peace is good for the economy, war inevitably is destructive. Why?
The quick answer is that when a country is at peace, human effort and labor is more directed toward products that make life better; confidence is high among producers and consumers and the cycle of productivity grows, leading to an actual improvement in people’s lives and an increase in the wealth of a nation.
During a war effort, the end products are more often destructive and lead to misery for someone, somewhere. The wealth of nations is decreased by war because of the destruction inherent in wars. Wars may serve to preserve our freedom which is worthwhile of course; but war only serves at best to maintain a status quo economically and socially. At worst, wars destroy freedoms and liberty if they are unjustified. The righteousness of a war is everything; an unjust war is doom to a country, both morally and economically.
After 2000 the stock market experienced a “bubble”; the prices of stocks related to the Internet were valued beyond all reasonable expectation and the NASDAQ index reached the 5000 level. The bubble burst when many companies failed to turn profitable and could not justify such prices. Easy monetary policy from the Federal Reserve enabled the speculators who inflated the bubble – and much wealth was destroyed when the bubble burst. The NASDAQ still is over 60% lower today than it was then, which is almost 9 years ago.
With a new president in place, an ill-designed tax cut following the recession caused by the bursting Internet stock bubble was implemented; the major beneficiaries were the wealthiest taxpayers. That was the end of the surplus. Although the stock market partially rebounded, the bang for the buck was poor; employment and income for the non-wealthy lagged.
Then came 9-11 and we were on our way to a non-righteous war – in Iraq - that not only wiped away any semblance of fiscal sanity, but completely replaced it with economic delusion.
Ridiculously easy credit and lax regulation led to a housing bubble that peaked in 2007. When foreclosures started to become a big problem, banks and mortgage backed securities began to tank. Soon, literally no one could find a lender willing to lend and business and consumer spending came to a screeching halt.
The enormous deficits that have resulted from the ineffective tax cuts of the Bush Administration and the Iraq War, not to mention the Plan D Medicare giveaway to the major drug companies, have left us ill-prepared for the banking and housing crises that we are still suffering through. Ten percent unemployment is now a near certainty and the future looks grim.
Have we learned anything? Is the Obama Administration any better than the previous one?
There is no doubt that this administration is going after the problems more directly but unfortunately, for reasons of politics and popular sentiment, good solutions to difficult problems may elude us.
It must be admitted that the banking crisis which, if left unsolved would have led directly and swiftly into a depression, has been averted for now. The crisis is now just a lingering problem which will slowly return to “normal” unless a descent into a true depression occurs. Whether laws will be passed that will avoid future crises and banking abuses is unknown; if politicians were not involved, our chances would be better. Ideology is the enemy here as usual.
Similar comments could be made about all our other economic problems; health care, unemployment, the stimulus program, the federal deficit, and so on. In every case it seems that President Obama has the right idea; it also seems that in every case, Congress, to which the President has delegated the task of creating legislation addressing these issues, is not up to the task. Although the President highly values consensus and bi-partisanship, it may be that his preferences and ideas are better than consensus, the results of bi-partisanship or the ideas of the rest of his own party. His penchant for cooperation and delegation may not result in good health care reform.
This country desperately needs to reduce the cost of health care as a % of GDP while increasing the access of all Americans to healthcare (please note that it does not matter whether the solution is private or public). This may mean lower profit margins for the health care industry as they serve more people at a lower cost per person. Who has the nerve to publicly promote this kind of necessary policy?
The deficit MUST be reduced (please note that the amount of government spending is not the key issue, it’s the deficit). The government must stimulate the economy and increase employment while avoiding pork (please note that the stimulus must lead to productive labor, particularly involving infrastructure). This may mean higher taxes but if the budget is balanced and jobs created, and we are getting value for our taxes, ideology should not derail this solution. Are there elected officials who can balance all of these attainable goals?
It is hard to believe that most of our leaders are capable of putting ideology aside and doing what is most necessary. It is more likely that we will bounce from one emergency to another.
What do you think?
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Macro Humanism and Micro Humanism
One of the things that religion pretends to be able to do is make its adherents “better” persons. How many times have you heard politicians or religious leaders bemoan the prospect of “godless” societies? How often has it pointed out that Hitler was an atheist (he wasn’t according to Hitler himself) and that the greatest wars of the last century were begun by non-believers (they weren’t.)
In fact it would be shocking indeed to hear a public official claim that religion wasn’t at the source of all morality, as if human concern for others could not have been the result of something like “natural selection” (it was.)
CFI-LI friend, Rabbi Marc Gellman often depicts non-believers as less likely to moral than believers; he’s implied that non-believers are more likely to run others over in a parking lot! There is no data to support this contention.
The lack of supporting is at long last being addressed, sort of. An article in Slate magazine noted that “In Gross National Happiness, author Arthur Brooks notes that atheists are less charitable than their God-fearing counterparts: They donate less blood, for example, and are less likely to offer change to homeless people on the street.” (Go to http://www.slate.com/id/2203614/pagenum/all.) I’m sure the experiments that led to this conclusion were very “scientific”.
On this issue, the Slate article cited a strong rebuttal argument:
“In his new book, Society Without God, Phil Zuckerman looks at the Danes and the Swedes—probably the most godless people on Earth. They don't go to church or pray in the privacy of their own homes; they don't believe in God or heaven or hell. But, by any reasonable standard, they're nice to one another. They have a famously expansive welfare and health care service. They have a strong commitment to social equality. And—even without belief in a God looming over them—they murder and rape one another significantly less frequently than Americans do.
Denmark and Sweden aren't exceptions. A 2005 study by Gregory Paul looking at 18 democracies found that the more atheist societies tended to have relatively low murder and suicide rates and relatively low incidence of abortion and teen pregnancy.”
What could be the explanation, other than the very possible explanation of falsified data, for this difference in American godless and foreign godless behavior? (Note: the possibility that American atheists are more generous after all is very real – Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros, James Simons, and Ted Turner are among the biggest philanthropists in the world – non-believers all.)
The Slate article points out, “The Danes and the Swedes, despite being godless, have strong communities. In fact, Zuckerman points out that most Danes and Swedes identify themselves as Christian. They get married in church, have their babies baptized, give some of their income to the church, and feel attached to their religious community—they just don't believe in God. Zuckerman suggests that Scandinavian Christians are a lot like American Jews, who are also highly secularized in belief and practice, have strong communal feelings, and tend to be well-behaved.
American atheists, by contrast, are often left out of community life. The studies that Brooks cites in Gross National Happiness, which find that the religious are happier and more generous then the secular, do not define religious and secular in terms of belief. They define it in terms of religious attendance. It is not hard to see how being left out of one of the dominant modes of American togetherness can have a corrosive effect on morality. As P.Z. Myers, the biologist and prominent atheist, puts it, "[S]cattered individuals who are excluded from communities do not receive the benefits of community, nor do they feel willing to contribute to the communities that exclude them."
This is an obvious explanation that makes a lot of sense. In countries where secularism is the rule, it is often religious minorities that feel most alienated, fairly or unfairly. In the US, atheists, who are seen as the ultimate “outsiders”, could understandably be reluctant to donate money to, for example, the Boy Scouts, which excludes them, or the United Way, which gives to the Boy Scouts. It may be simply too much to ask for the despised to be generous to the despisers.
Humanism and secularism would seem to have much to offer on the macro level involving public moral policy; what could be a better philosophy for public policy than a non-dogmatic approach that uses reason, science and free inquiry with a goal of making the world a better place?
Humanists have consistently advocated for freedom, justice, and peaceful means for achieving these social aims. Humanism does not necessarily imply specific solutions to specific problems but it certainly is well equipped to frame problems properly and lead to asking the right questions. Secular humanism has little to apologize for as a basis for formulating a public, national, international and/or planetary or macro morality.
But this leads to the subject at hand which was inspired by the very compelling talk given by former Baptist minister Kevin Cordle at a CFI-LI forum earlier this year and an article in Free Inquiry by Paul Kurtz noting the shortcomings of many humanists on the personal level.
Mr. Cordle was a committed minister but his scientific orientation led to his questioning of his religious beliefs. However, the clincher was the lack of success that religious belief had in making his congregants better persons. In-fighting, politics and petty arguments that were the antithesis of “love thy neighbor,” soured the sincere minister on the necessity of religion.
But while it is obvious that religious beliefs do not make the religious better persons, neither does non-theism. Yes, on the personal level, humanists can act like jerks just as easily as the next person. Some humanists cheat, lie, hurt and behave poorly – is there any doubt? They profess humanism but cannot live its principles.
Hopefully this realization should make Mr. Cordle feel a little better; in no way should he feel that he failed because his congregants continued to behave poorly or indifferently despite all his efforts. Good character on a very personal level does not depend on belief, non-belief, zealotry or apathy; neither does good character depend on interest about god, religion or science.
So exactly how are we to nurture better behavior from fellow humanists and non-theists? Surely demonstrating that belief in god is unreasonable will not directly teach or inspire a person to treat others better.
The best approach must be setting a proper example. While humanism will definitely influence a person to denounce primitive and destructive religious practices, including FGM, sexism, many forms of bigotry and racism, religious war, religious intolerance and much more, it is much more difficult to make a person behave honestly, kindly, responsibly and courageously towards others on the personal level. But by showing others how to behave, we can practice our professed humanism on the more difficult micro level.
So what can we do to behave more humanistically? If I knew the answer to this question I would surely apply it to myself! I would figure out how to modify my own behavior so that I don’t yell at the kids, be more understanding of my wife and generally be more patient with everyone.
We are all works in progress; hopefully we’re getting better at applying the common decencies and virtues in our daily lives.
Perhaps working on an issue at a time would be a good approach to applying humanism on the micro level. Perhaps our character is too hard wired to be modified greatly, perhaps not. But we can take solace in a couple of facts; humanism is an approach that has been used to make great progress in civilizing humanity on the macro level to great benefit. Perhaps we need to discover the principles of a quantum humanism so that we can behave more humanistically toward each other every day on the micro level.
Any suggestions?
In fact it would be shocking indeed to hear a public official claim that religion wasn’t at the source of all morality, as if human concern for others could not have been the result of something like “natural selection” (it was.)
CFI-LI friend, Rabbi Marc Gellman often depicts non-believers as less likely to moral than believers; he’s implied that non-believers are more likely to run others over in a parking lot! There is no data to support this contention.
The lack of supporting is at long last being addressed, sort of. An article in Slate magazine noted that “In Gross National Happiness, author Arthur Brooks notes that atheists are less charitable than their God-fearing counterparts: They donate less blood, for example, and are less likely to offer change to homeless people on the street.” (Go to http://www.slate.com/id/2203614/pagenum/all.) I’m sure the experiments that led to this conclusion were very “scientific”.
On this issue, the Slate article cited a strong rebuttal argument:
“In his new book, Society Without God, Phil Zuckerman looks at the Danes and the Swedes—probably the most godless people on Earth. They don't go to church or pray in the privacy of their own homes; they don't believe in God or heaven or hell. But, by any reasonable standard, they're nice to one another. They have a famously expansive welfare and health care service. They have a strong commitment to social equality. And—even without belief in a God looming over them—they murder and rape one another significantly less frequently than Americans do.
Denmark and Sweden aren't exceptions. A 2005 study by Gregory Paul looking at 18 democracies found that the more atheist societies tended to have relatively low murder and suicide rates and relatively low incidence of abortion and teen pregnancy.”
What could be the explanation, other than the very possible explanation of falsified data, for this difference in American godless and foreign godless behavior? (Note: the possibility that American atheists are more generous after all is very real – Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros, James Simons, and Ted Turner are among the biggest philanthropists in the world – non-believers all.)
The Slate article points out, “The Danes and the Swedes, despite being godless, have strong communities. In fact, Zuckerman points out that most Danes and Swedes identify themselves as Christian. They get married in church, have their babies baptized, give some of their income to the church, and feel attached to their religious community—they just don't believe in God. Zuckerman suggests that Scandinavian Christians are a lot like American Jews, who are also highly secularized in belief and practice, have strong communal feelings, and tend to be well-behaved.
American atheists, by contrast, are often left out of community life. The studies that Brooks cites in Gross National Happiness, which find that the religious are happier and more generous then the secular, do not define religious and secular in terms of belief. They define it in terms of religious attendance. It is not hard to see how being left out of one of the dominant modes of American togetherness can have a corrosive effect on morality. As P.Z. Myers, the biologist and prominent atheist, puts it, "[S]cattered individuals who are excluded from communities do not receive the benefits of community, nor do they feel willing to contribute to the communities that exclude them."
This is an obvious explanation that makes a lot of sense. In countries where secularism is the rule, it is often religious minorities that feel most alienated, fairly or unfairly. In the US, atheists, who are seen as the ultimate “outsiders”, could understandably be reluctant to donate money to, for example, the Boy Scouts, which excludes them, or the United Way, which gives to the Boy Scouts. It may be simply too much to ask for the despised to be generous to the despisers.
Humanism and secularism would seem to have much to offer on the macro level involving public moral policy; what could be a better philosophy for public policy than a non-dogmatic approach that uses reason, science and free inquiry with a goal of making the world a better place?
Humanists have consistently advocated for freedom, justice, and peaceful means for achieving these social aims. Humanism does not necessarily imply specific solutions to specific problems but it certainly is well equipped to frame problems properly and lead to asking the right questions. Secular humanism has little to apologize for as a basis for formulating a public, national, international and/or planetary or macro morality.
But this leads to the subject at hand which was inspired by the very compelling talk given by former Baptist minister Kevin Cordle at a CFI-LI forum earlier this year and an article in Free Inquiry by Paul Kurtz noting the shortcomings of many humanists on the personal level.
Mr. Cordle was a committed minister but his scientific orientation led to his questioning of his religious beliefs. However, the clincher was the lack of success that religious belief had in making his congregants better persons. In-fighting, politics and petty arguments that were the antithesis of “love thy neighbor,” soured the sincere minister on the necessity of religion.
But while it is obvious that religious beliefs do not make the religious better persons, neither does non-theism. Yes, on the personal level, humanists can act like jerks just as easily as the next person. Some humanists cheat, lie, hurt and behave poorly – is there any doubt? They profess humanism but cannot live its principles.
Hopefully this realization should make Mr. Cordle feel a little better; in no way should he feel that he failed because his congregants continued to behave poorly or indifferently despite all his efforts. Good character on a very personal level does not depend on belief, non-belief, zealotry or apathy; neither does good character depend on interest about god, religion or science.
So exactly how are we to nurture better behavior from fellow humanists and non-theists? Surely demonstrating that belief in god is unreasonable will not directly teach or inspire a person to treat others better.
The best approach must be setting a proper example. While humanism will definitely influence a person to denounce primitive and destructive religious practices, including FGM, sexism, many forms of bigotry and racism, religious war, religious intolerance and much more, it is much more difficult to make a person behave honestly, kindly, responsibly and courageously towards others on the personal level. But by showing others how to behave, we can practice our professed humanism on the more difficult micro level.
So what can we do to behave more humanistically? If I knew the answer to this question I would surely apply it to myself! I would figure out how to modify my own behavior so that I don’t yell at the kids, be more understanding of my wife and generally be more patient with everyone.
We are all works in progress; hopefully we’re getting better at applying the common decencies and virtues in our daily lives.
Perhaps working on an issue at a time would be a good approach to applying humanism on the micro level. Perhaps our character is too hard wired to be modified greatly, perhaps not. But we can take solace in a couple of facts; humanism is an approach that has been used to make great progress in civilizing humanity on the macro level to great benefit. Perhaps we need to discover the principles of a quantum humanism so that we can behave more humanistically toward each other every day on the micro level.
Any suggestions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)