Sometimes seen as the ultimate question, the question of the purpose of life is something that nearly all humans think about at some point during their lives. Well, I have the answer.
First, it depends. It depends on what you believe in. If you believe in God or some other Supreme Being, the purpose of life is dictated by your beliefs in the nature of that being. If you don't believe, then the purpose of life is dictated by the nature of life in the universe.
Christianity (specifically, the mainstream modern "neo-Christianity" that subscribes to things like the Nicaean Creed) believes that God put humans on Earth to test them. The purpose of life is to prove yourself worthy of living with God forever. Most of neo-Christianity believes that this eternity consists entirely of singing praises to God forever. The purpose of life for the neo-Christian is to avoid eternal punishment in hell, so you can spend eternity singing and perhaps playing harps for God's personal enjoyment.
Islam has similar beliefs to neo-Christianity, except with a bit more flexibility in the afterlife. Islam claims that the righteous will receive rewards in this life, many of which are promised based on specific actions. Since some of the promised rewards are wealth, influence, and worldly honor, it is clear that part of the purpose of life as established by Allah is living a comfortable life in his service. After this life, the righteous Muslim is promised eighty thousand servants, seventy two wives (modern interpretation extends this to be husbands for women), and a house built of gems. Clearly, earning a comfortable after-life (that includes "carnal pleasures") is also part of the purpose of life for the devout Muslim. For the Muslim, the purpose of life is to avoid eternal punishment, so you can live comfortably in this life and for eternity.
Older oriental religions focus on living with your ancestors after this life. Living comfortably and honorably is the purpose of life. Honoring your ancestors is important, because family is the most important thing. The honor of the family is the honor of the individual. If an individual is dishonorable, the entire family is dishonored. The purpose of life is to bring honor to your family and to live comfortably doing so.
Some religions believe in reincarnation. Those religions typically believe in some kind of eternal progression. The quality of each life lived determines the starting point for the next. In Buddhism, the ultimate goal is enlightenment, which allows one to break the cycle of life and death and ascend to a higher state of being. This is done through meditation and conquering the ego. For Buddhists, the purpose of life is progression through learning and overcoming worldly desires, ultimately leading to enlightenment and ascension to a higher state of being.
For Mormons (a type of Christianity but not of neo-Christianity), the purpose of life is to realize Christ's commandment to become perfect like God. The end goal of life is to become like God. To do this, Mormon's believe that they have to prove themselves worthy (just like neo-Christian religions), but it goes one step further. Mormons believe that the purpose of life is learn to be like God. This includes things like learning to raise children and teach them about God. It also includes gaining specific knowledge. For Mormons, the purpose of life is to learn to be like God and prove themselves worthy of being like Him.
If you do not believe in God or some other kind of Supreme Being, life still has a purpose. Some say that the purpose of life is whatever you want it to be, but that is a lie. There is always something bigger than you that dictates the purpose of life. If it is not God, it is nature. Atheism offers what is perhaps the least individualistic purpose of life. The first and primary purpose of life is self propagation. Nature does not care about the individual, it cares about species, but only those species that can survive, and it cares about the system as a whole. Nature is about the collective. A species that does not contribute cannot survive. If there is no God, the purpose of life is to sustain and propagate life. For the individual, this means first, reproducing. If an individual cannot reproduce, then the second purpose is to help those with similar genetics to reproduce and survive. If there is no possible way the individual can contribute while alive, then the purpose of life is to die, to free up resources. The law of nature is survival of the fittest. Fitness is determined by how effectively an individual and a species can support and contribute to the system. Unless you can live forever (in which case, the purpose of your life is whatever you want it to be), the purpose of life if there is no God, is to contribute to the system by reproducing and by helping to ensure the survival of the rest of your species at any cost. Any self defined "purpose" beyond that will only be put up with by nature so long as it does not interfere with the real purpose of life.
Ultimately the purpose of life comes down to what you believe. If you choose not to believe anything, it is completely impersonal and utilitarian. If you do choose to believe in something, then the purpose of life will be what you believe it to be. If course, only one of those beliefs (or lack thereof) can actually be correct, so there is ultimately one true purpose of life and many false ones. That gets into the question of which religion is right, though, and that is outside the scope of this discussion.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
30 December 2015
29 June 2015
"Not a Belief System"
One of the perennial arguments between atheists and theists (especially Christians and very especially evangelical Christians) is whether or not atheism qualifies as a religion. Theists say that not believing in God qualifies just as much as a belief as believing in God. Atheists say that atheism is a lack of belief, and therefore does not qualify as a belief system at all, making it a lack of religion. Ultimately though, everyone involved in this argument is wrong in some way. The problem is that the English language (as well as many European languages) hides the truth.
The language problem that causes the confusion in this debate is the difference between active and passive negatives. English lacks a general purpose active negative. To compensate for this, we often use the passive negative, "not," as an active negative, and we understand it as an active or passive negative based on context. For example, I can say, "I don't like coffee." Because the "not" in "don't" is a passive negative, this phrase does not imply that I dislike coffee. It merely states that I don't particularly like it. English speakers will infer that it means I dislike coffee though. Now, there are special purpose active negatives, for example "dislike." These are limited to specific applications though, and there is not always an appropriate active negative for a given application. So instead, we infer "not" to be an active negative in many contexts where it makes sense.
This applies very directly to the above mentioned atheism argument. The problem with the argument is that "not" is being used ambiguously, and each side is inferring what they need it to mean to support their argument. The atheists are correct when they say that "not believing in God" is not a belief system. The theists are inferring the "not" in the phrase means specifically disbelief, not just lack of belief. They are wrong in this, as "not" is a passive negative, not an active negative. The atheists are wrong in claiming that atheism is merely a lack of belief in God. The ambiguity in the interpretation of the word "not" is convenient to the arguments of both sides, but it also makes them both wrong.
There is already a word for "not believing in God." That word is "agnosticism." Agnostics are apathetic to the existence of God. They do not claim that He does not exist, but they do not choose to believe in Him either. When a person says, "I don't believe in God," they are saying that they are agnostic. When atheists say that, they mean that they disbelieve in God, not that they are apathetic to His existence. The meaning of the words they are saying is different from what they intend those words to mean, but it makes a convenient argument to misconstrue their intending meaning when they are trying to prove that atheism is not a belief system. When an atheist says, "I do not believe in God," what they mean is that they disbelieve in God or that they believe that God does not exist. When you look at the root meaning, where "not" is being used as an active negative in the phrase, "I do not believe in God," it becomes very clear that atheism is indeed a belief system, not merely a lack of belief.
When atheists argue that atheism is not a belief system, they are deliberately confusing agnosticism with atheism to support their argument. Ultimately, both sides are confused by the lack of a general purpose active negative in English and related languages, and to be honest, most people that do not know a language that contains a general purpose active negative may never realize that this is a problem.
What the whole thing comes down to though, is that atheism is a belief system. Whether it is a religion or not is another matter entirely, as this depends largely on how "religion" is defined. If it is defined as a belief system, then atheism is a religion (as well as anti-vax, essential oils, and a whole range of other minor belief systems). If religion requires some kind of deity, then it is only a belief system if you can show that secularism is a deity. If it merely requires a higher power (with or without sentience), belief in science would be sufficient to make it a religion. In the end, the question of whether or not atheism is a religion is still subject to debate, but there is no question that it is a belief system.
The language problem that causes the confusion in this debate is the difference between active and passive negatives. English lacks a general purpose active negative. To compensate for this, we often use the passive negative, "not," as an active negative, and we understand it as an active or passive negative based on context. For example, I can say, "I don't like coffee." Because the "not" in "don't" is a passive negative, this phrase does not imply that I dislike coffee. It merely states that I don't particularly like it. English speakers will infer that it means I dislike coffee though. Now, there are special purpose active negatives, for example "dislike." These are limited to specific applications though, and there is not always an appropriate active negative for a given application. So instead, we infer "not" to be an active negative in many contexts where it makes sense.
This applies very directly to the above mentioned atheism argument. The problem with the argument is that "not" is being used ambiguously, and each side is inferring what they need it to mean to support their argument. The atheists are correct when they say that "not believing in God" is not a belief system. The theists are inferring the "not" in the phrase means specifically disbelief, not just lack of belief. They are wrong in this, as "not" is a passive negative, not an active negative. The atheists are wrong in claiming that atheism is merely a lack of belief in God. The ambiguity in the interpretation of the word "not" is convenient to the arguments of both sides, but it also makes them both wrong.
There is already a word for "not believing in God." That word is "agnosticism." Agnostics are apathetic to the existence of God. They do not claim that He does not exist, but they do not choose to believe in Him either. When a person says, "I don't believe in God," they are saying that they are agnostic. When atheists say that, they mean that they disbelieve in God, not that they are apathetic to His existence. The meaning of the words they are saying is different from what they intend those words to mean, but it makes a convenient argument to misconstrue their intending meaning when they are trying to prove that atheism is not a belief system. When an atheist says, "I do not believe in God," what they mean is that they disbelieve in God or that they believe that God does not exist. When you look at the root meaning, where "not" is being used as an active negative in the phrase, "I do not believe in God," it becomes very clear that atheism is indeed a belief system, not merely a lack of belief.
When atheists argue that atheism is not a belief system, they are deliberately confusing agnosticism with atheism to support their argument. Ultimately, both sides are confused by the lack of a general purpose active negative in English and related languages, and to be honest, most people that do not know a language that contains a general purpose active negative may never realize that this is a problem.
What the whole thing comes down to though, is that atheism is a belief system. Whether it is a religion or not is another matter entirely, as this depends largely on how "religion" is defined. If it is defined as a belief system, then atheism is a religion (as well as anti-vax, essential oils, and a whole range of other minor belief systems). If religion requires some kind of deity, then it is only a belief system if you can show that secularism is a deity. If it merely requires a higher power (with or without sentience), belief in science would be sufficient to make it a religion. In the end, the question of whether or not atheism is a religion is still subject to debate, but there is no question that it is a belief system.
09 February 2015
Boston Bombing Excludes Catholics
There is some consternation among Roman Catholics over the jury selection criteria for the Boston Bombing case. One of the criterion states that jurors must be able to impose the death penalty. The catechism states that the death penalty should only be imposed when there is no other reasonable way for the government to protect society from a criminal. In modern society, with much better prison security than the past, this is taken to mean that the death penalty is no longer necessary. Roman Catholics who believe and follow this teaching are not eligible to be on the jury for this case, and this is causing some frustration and controversy.
Unfortunately, the problem is not with the catechism or the jury selection criteria. The problem is with a fundamental understanding of the justice system. The catechism has it right, with the strong implication that justice is about protecting society, not about handing out due punishment. The problem is the assumption that an imprisoned criminal is neither threatening or harmful to society. Aside from the current jury issue, this is manifested in the fact that the U.S. has some of the highest prison populations per capita in the world. Prisoners are both a threat and a burden on the people, especially when they are in prison for life.
The problem here is that prisoners cost money. In fact, they cost a lot of money. Prison guards are not cheap to pay. Prisons cost a lot of money to maintain. Prisoners also require clothing, food, and other amenities. In the effort to avoid cruel and unusual punishment, expenses for prisoners are not trivial. Most modern prisons provide televisions, computers, and fairly nice recreational equipment for prisoners as well. Prisoners probably cost more than the typical American barely surviving in poverty. They certainly cost more (and have a higher quality of living) that the typical American college student.
Now, when a criminal is in prison for 6 months or a few years, and if that criminal comes out of prison as a functioning member of society, it is possible for him or her to eventually pay the debt to society incurred in prison through paying taxes and improve society in general. Those in prison for life can never pay back this debt, and thus they are a permanent burden on society. The money spend on permanent prisoners could, and probably should, be spent helping upstanding citizens who are in poverty due to any number of circumstances. By spending this money on permanent prisoners, we are allowing those prisoners to remain a threat to the safety and security of society at large and specifically of those who need that money for their survival. In other words, when there is no chance of reprieve, the harm that a prisoner will ultimately do to society completely justifies the death penalty, even according to the wording of the catechism.
That aside, prisoners themselves should also be regarded as part of society. If a terrorist is put in prison with other prisoners, that terrorist becomes a threat to the safety of those other prisoners. Even if you don't by the assertion that the cost to society constitutes serious harm, it is impossible to deny that especially dangerous prisoners, that may be a serious threat to other prisoners, constitute a threat to society as well (consider, what if the prisoner murdered by this criminal is your brother, who is serving time for some desperate but trivial crime).
In my opinion, any Roman Catholic who feels forced to opt out of jury duty for this case, because of catechism teachings, does not understand the justice system. I am not trying to discriminate. I am saying it like it is. The U.S. justice system is no where near a point where it is so infallible that a terrorist that is put in prison for life is not still a significant threat to society. Those who oppose the death penalty on the religious grounds that we should not impose that penalty if we can protect the people perfectly fine without it need to consider whether they may be "trusting in the arm of flesh" too much.
Unfortunately, the problem is not with the catechism or the jury selection criteria. The problem is with a fundamental understanding of the justice system. The catechism has it right, with the strong implication that justice is about protecting society, not about handing out due punishment. The problem is the assumption that an imprisoned criminal is neither threatening or harmful to society. Aside from the current jury issue, this is manifested in the fact that the U.S. has some of the highest prison populations per capita in the world. Prisoners are both a threat and a burden on the people, especially when they are in prison for life.
The problem here is that prisoners cost money. In fact, they cost a lot of money. Prison guards are not cheap to pay. Prisons cost a lot of money to maintain. Prisoners also require clothing, food, and other amenities. In the effort to avoid cruel and unusual punishment, expenses for prisoners are not trivial. Most modern prisons provide televisions, computers, and fairly nice recreational equipment for prisoners as well. Prisoners probably cost more than the typical American barely surviving in poverty. They certainly cost more (and have a higher quality of living) that the typical American college student.
Now, when a criminal is in prison for 6 months or a few years, and if that criminal comes out of prison as a functioning member of society, it is possible for him or her to eventually pay the debt to society incurred in prison through paying taxes and improve society in general. Those in prison for life can never pay back this debt, and thus they are a permanent burden on society. The money spend on permanent prisoners could, and probably should, be spent helping upstanding citizens who are in poverty due to any number of circumstances. By spending this money on permanent prisoners, we are allowing those prisoners to remain a threat to the safety and security of society at large and specifically of those who need that money for their survival. In other words, when there is no chance of reprieve, the harm that a prisoner will ultimately do to society completely justifies the death penalty, even according to the wording of the catechism.
That aside, prisoners themselves should also be regarded as part of society. If a terrorist is put in prison with other prisoners, that terrorist becomes a threat to the safety of those other prisoners. Even if you don't by the assertion that the cost to society constitutes serious harm, it is impossible to deny that especially dangerous prisoners, that may be a serious threat to other prisoners, constitute a threat to society as well (consider, what if the prisoner murdered by this criminal is your brother, who is serving time for some desperate but trivial crime).
In my opinion, any Roman Catholic who feels forced to opt out of jury duty for this case, because of catechism teachings, does not understand the justice system. I am not trying to discriminate. I am saying it like it is. The U.S. justice system is no where near a point where it is so infallible that a terrorist that is put in prison for life is not still a significant threat to society. Those who oppose the death penalty on the religious grounds that we should not impose that penalty if we can protect the people perfectly fine without it need to consider whether they may be "trusting in the arm of flesh" too much.
01 February 2015
Hedges Around the Law
The ancient Jews were constantly building hedges around their divine law. God told them that the Sabbath was a day of rest. He told them to keep it holy. He also commanded them to allow their servants to rest on the Sabbath. By the time of Jesus, the Jewish government had a large and complex set of laws based on this fairly simple commandment. A specific distance was set, beyond which it was illegal to travel on the Sabbath. The people were required to prepare their Sabbath meals the day before, to avoid the work of food preparation on the Sabbath. Specific activities were forbidden by law, including many charitable activities, to avoid work on the Sabbath. (Jewish leaders even accused Jesus of Sabbath breaking for healing someone.) This one law, to keep the Sabbath day holy, was surrounded by a thick hedge of additional laws to avoid even the smallest chance of breaking God's law.
The Sabbath was not the only law that the Jews built hedges around. Practically every commandment had something in Jewish law to clarify or extend it. Jewish leaders were so afraid of the people breaking commandments that they hardly gave them room to think for themselves.
Sadly, this hedge building is fairly common today as well. It is even becoming common in government, not just religion. The Catholic Church has laws against using birth control, based not on commandments, but rather based on two unrelated scriptures. The first is God's command to Adam and Eve to multiply. The second is an isolated incident where Judah's son Onan was killed by God for using a very primitive form of birth control (which is, ironically, the only form of birth control considered permissible by modern Catholics). (Note that Biblical experts contend over the actual reason for God's wrath. The most likely reason for God's reaction is not the use of birth control. Onan was required by law to impregnate his dead brother's wife, to give his brother offspring, and he deliberately used the birth control to avoid fulfilling this responsibility.)
Now, I want to discuss a few hedges found in the LDS (or Mormon) Church. There are probably fewer official hedges in the LDS faith than many other churches, but the culture within the Church has spawned its own hedges. As much as 50% of Mormon's believe it is forbidden by Church doctrine to drink caffeinated beverages. This is based on LDS scripture forbidding members from drinking "hot beverages" (later clarified as meaning coffee and tea specifically). Around the early '90s, Church leadership published a press release stating that no such law (forbidding caffeine) existed, and that rather, the Church discourages the use of any addictive substance in a case where it would cause addiction (in reference to caffeine, this merely means to consume it only in moderation, with good judgment). Despite this press release, Church culture still regards the consumption of caffeine as sinful.
Another Mormon hedge is forbidding women from working outside the home. Thankfully, Mormon culture has largely gotten over the idea that even single women should not work outside the home, but it still holds that married women should not. LDS Church policy provides only mild support for this, but it also explicitly recognizes that this is subject to exceptions, and it is really only the business of the couple and God. Many Mormons, however, still believe that other couples' personal choices are their own business in this regard. First, I need to clarify: The point of this Church policy is not that "women belong in the home and men should be the breadwinners." The point is that children thrive more when cared for by a parent in the home than they do in day care or in the care of baby sitters. Since women are typically better suited to this task than men, it makes the most sense, in the typical situation, for the mother to be the one that cares for the children. Now, a female friend of mine discovered, with her husband, that he was better at caring for the children than she was, when he lost his job, and only she could find work. They are both quite content with her working and him being a stay-at-home dad, but her mother-in-law has taken this hedge to the extreme, telling them that they are sinning by having her work instead of him. This is perhaps Mormon cultural hedges at their worst. As with caffeine, this is not Church doctrine or even Church policy. This is entirely cultural, and it actually violates Church policy, which specifically states that there are exceptions to this policy which are only the business of the couple involved.
There are a few hedges more I want to discuss. One is the opposition to Dungeons and Dragons. D&D is a table top role playing that got a lot of flak in the past because of some extremely stupid acts taken by some people who played it. It was blamed for some murders as well as some other crimes. Many churches during that time took up arms against the game, claiming that it was evil because the rules included the mention of demons and devils (they were mentioned as potential enemies for the players to defeat, but the opponents of the game left that fact out; they also left out that the Bible itself mentions such evil entities more frequently than the D&D rules). Supposedly, at some point, an LDS leader said that the game was evil and should be avoided. I have searched for this reference on multiple occasions, with no luck. The most reasonable person I have talked to about this told me that what was actually said recommended that Church members use good judgment when playing games (D&D, as an example), because it could be easy to get sucked into some games. Dungeons and Dragons has become a common game among Mormon gamers, and thus far, there have been no reports of harm caused. One beneficial part of Mormon culture is a focus on spending time wisely, and it is likely that this tempers the potential risk of becoming too focused on a game.
The most prevalent game based hedge in Mormon culture is playing cards. A Mormon leader once asked members of the Church to stay away from "face cards." (I also have been unable to find this reference.) This has lead to a widespread belief within the Church that playing cards are forbidden. This is actually completely wrong, and it is based on a misunderstanding of language. One reason for the immediate assumption that "face cards" meant playing cards is that the Church already forbids gambling. The assumption here was that the Church leadership was building a hedge around the gambling law, to "help" Church members to avoid the temptation. This is not what actually happened though. The LDS Church does not build hedges (and has taken pains over the last few decades to eliminate the hedges that have managed to get in). It expects members to govern themselves (and frequently says as much). The misunderstanding was in the simple fact that "face cards" did not mean playing cards. The royalty in playing cards are sometimes referred to as face cards, but this term was hijacked from another type of cards: Tarot cards. The Church leader was not telling people to avoid playing cards or to remove the royalty from the deck first. He was telling people to avoid what was becoming a common method of fortune telling, and since Tarot cards are not used for any other purpose, it was easier to forbid "face cards" than to explain in more detail. Most of the people at that time understood, so no explanation was needed. Since then, Tarot cards have declined in popularity, so few modern Mormon's recognize that "face cards" does not mean the royalty in playing cards, in this context. Consequently, many Mormon homes forbid the use or possession of playing cards within the home.
These are not the only hedges in Mormon culture, but they are some of the most prominent. There are plenty of other hedges, like the opposition to government welfare on the grounds of Church policy encouraging self sufficiency (or worse, on the grounds of personal responsibility, which has been proven to not apply to a vast majority of those in poverty). In the LDS Church, we sometimes even discuss the hedges of the Jews, but few of us recognize the hedges withing our own religious culture. To be clear, these hedges are not doctrinal hedges like those of the Jews. They are not supported by Church leadership. Nearly all Mormon hedges are entirely cultural in nature, and they are often the result of misunderstandings or incorrect assumptions from Church membership. The result of this is almost always unrighteous judgment of others, which is forbidden by Church doctrine.
(I am LDS, I drink caffeine on long drives to stay awake, I play games with playing cards, and I play D&D, when I have time. Judge me if you dare.)
The Sabbath was not the only law that the Jews built hedges around. Practically every commandment had something in Jewish law to clarify or extend it. Jewish leaders were so afraid of the people breaking commandments that they hardly gave them room to think for themselves.
Sadly, this hedge building is fairly common today as well. It is even becoming common in government, not just religion. The Catholic Church has laws against using birth control, based not on commandments, but rather based on two unrelated scriptures. The first is God's command to Adam and Eve to multiply. The second is an isolated incident where Judah's son Onan was killed by God for using a very primitive form of birth control (which is, ironically, the only form of birth control considered permissible by modern Catholics). (Note that Biblical experts contend over the actual reason for God's wrath. The most likely reason for God's reaction is not the use of birth control. Onan was required by law to impregnate his dead brother's wife, to give his brother offspring, and he deliberately used the birth control to avoid fulfilling this responsibility.)
Now, I want to discuss a few hedges found in the LDS (or Mormon) Church. There are probably fewer official hedges in the LDS faith than many other churches, but the culture within the Church has spawned its own hedges. As much as 50% of Mormon's believe it is forbidden by Church doctrine to drink caffeinated beverages. This is based on LDS scripture forbidding members from drinking "hot beverages" (later clarified as meaning coffee and tea specifically). Around the early '90s, Church leadership published a press release stating that no such law (forbidding caffeine) existed, and that rather, the Church discourages the use of any addictive substance in a case where it would cause addiction (in reference to caffeine, this merely means to consume it only in moderation, with good judgment). Despite this press release, Church culture still regards the consumption of caffeine as sinful.
Another Mormon hedge is forbidding women from working outside the home. Thankfully, Mormon culture has largely gotten over the idea that even single women should not work outside the home, but it still holds that married women should not. LDS Church policy provides only mild support for this, but it also explicitly recognizes that this is subject to exceptions, and it is really only the business of the couple and God. Many Mormons, however, still believe that other couples' personal choices are their own business in this regard. First, I need to clarify: The point of this Church policy is not that "women belong in the home and men should be the breadwinners." The point is that children thrive more when cared for by a parent in the home than they do in day care or in the care of baby sitters. Since women are typically better suited to this task than men, it makes the most sense, in the typical situation, for the mother to be the one that cares for the children. Now, a female friend of mine discovered, with her husband, that he was better at caring for the children than she was, when he lost his job, and only she could find work. They are both quite content with her working and him being a stay-at-home dad, but her mother-in-law has taken this hedge to the extreme, telling them that they are sinning by having her work instead of him. This is perhaps Mormon cultural hedges at their worst. As with caffeine, this is not Church doctrine or even Church policy. This is entirely cultural, and it actually violates Church policy, which specifically states that there are exceptions to this policy which are only the business of the couple involved.
There are a few hedges more I want to discuss. One is the opposition to Dungeons and Dragons. D&D is a table top role playing that got a lot of flak in the past because of some extremely stupid acts taken by some people who played it. It was blamed for some murders as well as some other crimes. Many churches during that time took up arms against the game, claiming that it was evil because the rules included the mention of demons and devils (they were mentioned as potential enemies for the players to defeat, but the opponents of the game left that fact out; they also left out that the Bible itself mentions such evil entities more frequently than the D&D rules). Supposedly, at some point, an LDS leader said that the game was evil and should be avoided. I have searched for this reference on multiple occasions, with no luck. The most reasonable person I have talked to about this told me that what was actually said recommended that Church members use good judgment when playing games (D&D, as an example), because it could be easy to get sucked into some games. Dungeons and Dragons has become a common game among Mormon gamers, and thus far, there have been no reports of harm caused. One beneficial part of Mormon culture is a focus on spending time wisely, and it is likely that this tempers the potential risk of becoming too focused on a game.
The most prevalent game based hedge in Mormon culture is playing cards. A Mormon leader once asked members of the Church to stay away from "face cards." (I also have been unable to find this reference.) This has lead to a widespread belief within the Church that playing cards are forbidden. This is actually completely wrong, and it is based on a misunderstanding of language. One reason for the immediate assumption that "face cards" meant playing cards is that the Church already forbids gambling. The assumption here was that the Church leadership was building a hedge around the gambling law, to "help" Church members to avoid the temptation. This is not what actually happened though. The LDS Church does not build hedges (and has taken pains over the last few decades to eliminate the hedges that have managed to get in). It expects members to govern themselves (and frequently says as much). The misunderstanding was in the simple fact that "face cards" did not mean playing cards. The royalty in playing cards are sometimes referred to as face cards, but this term was hijacked from another type of cards: Tarot cards. The Church leader was not telling people to avoid playing cards or to remove the royalty from the deck first. He was telling people to avoid what was becoming a common method of fortune telling, and since Tarot cards are not used for any other purpose, it was easier to forbid "face cards" than to explain in more detail. Most of the people at that time understood, so no explanation was needed. Since then, Tarot cards have declined in popularity, so few modern Mormon's recognize that "face cards" does not mean the royalty in playing cards, in this context. Consequently, many Mormon homes forbid the use or possession of playing cards within the home.
These are not the only hedges in Mormon culture, but they are some of the most prominent. There are plenty of other hedges, like the opposition to government welfare on the grounds of Church policy encouraging self sufficiency (or worse, on the grounds of personal responsibility, which has been proven to not apply to a vast majority of those in poverty). In the LDS Church, we sometimes even discuss the hedges of the Jews, but few of us recognize the hedges withing our own religious culture. To be clear, these hedges are not doctrinal hedges like those of the Jews. They are not supported by Church leadership. Nearly all Mormon hedges are entirely cultural in nature, and they are often the result of misunderstandings or incorrect assumptions from Church membership. The result of this is almost always unrighteous judgment of others, which is forbidden by Church doctrine.
(I am LDS, I drink caffeine on long drives to stay awake, I play games with playing cards, and I play D&D, when I have time. Judge me if you dare.)
04 December 2014
Religion is Government
Throughout history, religion has played a major role in how people act. In many cases, religion is better at controlling how people act than law is. Historically, many nations that recognized this co-opted religion as an additional method of control, creating or adopting state religions that encouraged people to act how the government wanted them to. Religion has always been more personal than government though. Even within one religion, members understand doctrines differently from one another. Because religion is about personal belief, it should not be forced on someone, and as the American Revolution approached, this started to become far more obvious. This fact was ultimately one of the driving factors in that revolution. If you ignore the aspect of personal belief though, you may notice that religion has a lot in common with government.
First, to be completely blunt, religions are governments. They are not secular governments, but they do govern their members. The most important difference between religion and secular government is free will, and this is why government and religions have no business being legally connected. When a state religion is created, it becomes an arm of the government, and the free will that makes religions what they are is lost. This even applies to nations that adopt atheism as the state religion, banning any other religions. As micro governments, religions actually play some very useful roles.
Religions have some power over the behavior of their members. Now, some people perceive this as a bad thing, but it is not actually. The reason is that participation is entirely voluntary. Where religion is free from the influence of secular government, it encourages people to be civilized of their own free will. Religions to do wield legal power to punish their members in any universally meaningful way. They might excommunicate members who do not follow the tenants of the religion, but in most cases, members who are expelled from a religion have shown either through their words or actions that they do not actually believe the doctrine of that religion (there are occasional exceptions), and thus, no serious harm is done to them. Religions are more or less social institutions that impose social rules and punish deviation through entirely social means. People are free to choose their social rules by choosing which religion they are a member of. This is unique, because people have little power over their secular government beyond relocating to the realm of a different government. Even in a democratic government, those who do not agree with the majority have little control over how they are governed. When religion is free, each person can choose his or her own social rules, and if there is not a religion that fits, it is always possible to create a new one. Overall, religions help keep civilization civilized, and more effectively than government can.
Religions act as an additional check and balance to secular government. Religions help unify people. Groups of people who choose to have similar beliefs is far more united than the people of a nation that is forced to follow only one religion. Religions can unite against unjust government actions. Religions can help encourage political dialog that can drive positive change. Religions give the people more power and ability to unite against the government when necessary (religions even played an integral role in starting the American Revolution). When governments choose to work with religions, the voice of the people can be better heard by the government, without the need for the people to unite against the government. Viewed as independent governing entities who represent their followers, religions can work with secular governments to enhance communication between the government and the people it represents.
Religions also tend to be better at social welfare than governments. Because religions cannot impose mandatory taxes, they are limited to the voluntary donations of their members, which is why some forms of welfare must be handled by secular governments, however, religions can often get into places that secular governments cannot. This does not just include countries in need of foreign aid that doubt the motives of secular governments. It also includes homeless people, who do not have permanent addresses or even identification. Secular governments just cannot afford the man power required to effectively distribute all needed welfare, even in their own regions. Religions often have plenty of members willing to spend some time on charity work, who can distribute welfare with less concern for accountability. Because the funds are donated voluntarily, religions do not have to worry so much about abuse of the system. Also, because religions typically have more limited funds, abuse of religious social welfare is rarely very profitable. In addition, because religions are autonomous and have less accountability, they can be more flexible. In the effort to enforce fairness and accountability, government often inadvertently leave gaps in their social welfare programs. Religions can fill those gaps, though perhaps no so well as the government could by analyzing the system and making adjustments. Without religions helping with social welfare, much of the world would be doing far less well than they are.
The most unique thing about religions is that participation is voluntary. This is very useful. First, it encourages each person to choose a religion. Most people in the U.S. are members of some religion or other. Of those that have no official membership, many still identify with some religion, even if it is just a generic version of some category of religions (for instance, non-denominational Christian). Those who do not identify with any religion often still have some personal religious ideology that guides they actions. This means that most Americans subscribe to some religious ideology that encourages them to get along with others. Further, because religion is voluntary, people feel compelled to keep the tenets of their religions, because they made a personal choice to do so. There is a great deal of work that government does not need to do, because religions do it for them. Integrity is only legally enforced when legal contracts are involved, however, most people are honest most of the time, even when it may not benefit them. Most people don't steal, even when they know they will not get caught. Most people overlook minor harm that was unintentional. There are no laws enforcing most of this good behavior, and in the cases where there are, they are not reliable. People choose to be civilized anyway, and in a large part, religions are responsible. Religions encourage civilization and making wise choices, and because participation is voluntary, members are more likely to follow the commandments and recommendations, because they chose them of their own free will.
Secular governments have a monopoly on violence, and perhaps that is for the best. In the past, religions that have been permitted to use violence have abused that authority a majority of the time. Even limiting religions to using violence only on their own members is probably a bad idea. Likewise, religions have something of a monopoly on personal belief. Again, this is probably for the best. Allowing secular governments to control the beliefs of people has almost always ended in disaster in the past, and forcing a large group of people to have the same beliefs has never turned out well. Government and religion complement each other in very important ways, when they are autonomous from each other. When they are combined, however, a major conflict of interests almost always arises, and one or the other is assimilated and becomes an engine of tyranny.
First, to be completely blunt, religions are governments. They are not secular governments, but they do govern their members. The most important difference between religion and secular government is free will, and this is why government and religions have no business being legally connected. When a state religion is created, it becomes an arm of the government, and the free will that makes religions what they are is lost. This even applies to nations that adopt atheism as the state religion, banning any other religions. As micro governments, religions actually play some very useful roles.
Religions have some power over the behavior of their members. Now, some people perceive this as a bad thing, but it is not actually. The reason is that participation is entirely voluntary. Where religion is free from the influence of secular government, it encourages people to be civilized of their own free will. Religions to do wield legal power to punish their members in any universally meaningful way. They might excommunicate members who do not follow the tenants of the religion, but in most cases, members who are expelled from a religion have shown either through their words or actions that they do not actually believe the doctrine of that religion (there are occasional exceptions), and thus, no serious harm is done to them. Religions are more or less social institutions that impose social rules and punish deviation through entirely social means. People are free to choose their social rules by choosing which religion they are a member of. This is unique, because people have little power over their secular government beyond relocating to the realm of a different government. Even in a democratic government, those who do not agree with the majority have little control over how they are governed. When religion is free, each person can choose his or her own social rules, and if there is not a religion that fits, it is always possible to create a new one. Overall, religions help keep civilization civilized, and more effectively than government can.
Religions act as an additional check and balance to secular government. Religions help unify people. Groups of people who choose to have similar beliefs is far more united than the people of a nation that is forced to follow only one religion. Religions can unite against unjust government actions. Religions can help encourage political dialog that can drive positive change. Religions give the people more power and ability to unite against the government when necessary (religions even played an integral role in starting the American Revolution). When governments choose to work with religions, the voice of the people can be better heard by the government, without the need for the people to unite against the government. Viewed as independent governing entities who represent their followers, religions can work with secular governments to enhance communication between the government and the people it represents.
Religions also tend to be better at social welfare than governments. Because religions cannot impose mandatory taxes, they are limited to the voluntary donations of their members, which is why some forms of welfare must be handled by secular governments, however, religions can often get into places that secular governments cannot. This does not just include countries in need of foreign aid that doubt the motives of secular governments. It also includes homeless people, who do not have permanent addresses or even identification. Secular governments just cannot afford the man power required to effectively distribute all needed welfare, even in their own regions. Religions often have plenty of members willing to spend some time on charity work, who can distribute welfare with less concern for accountability. Because the funds are donated voluntarily, religions do not have to worry so much about abuse of the system. Also, because religions typically have more limited funds, abuse of religious social welfare is rarely very profitable. In addition, because religions are autonomous and have less accountability, they can be more flexible. In the effort to enforce fairness and accountability, government often inadvertently leave gaps in their social welfare programs. Religions can fill those gaps, though perhaps no so well as the government could by analyzing the system and making adjustments. Without religions helping with social welfare, much of the world would be doing far less well than they are.
The most unique thing about religions is that participation is voluntary. This is very useful. First, it encourages each person to choose a religion. Most people in the U.S. are members of some religion or other. Of those that have no official membership, many still identify with some religion, even if it is just a generic version of some category of religions (for instance, non-denominational Christian). Those who do not identify with any religion often still have some personal religious ideology that guides they actions. This means that most Americans subscribe to some religious ideology that encourages them to get along with others. Further, because religion is voluntary, people feel compelled to keep the tenets of their religions, because they made a personal choice to do so. There is a great deal of work that government does not need to do, because religions do it for them. Integrity is only legally enforced when legal contracts are involved, however, most people are honest most of the time, even when it may not benefit them. Most people don't steal, even when they know they will not get caught. Most people overlook minor harm that was unintentional. There are no laws enforcing most of this good behavior, and in the cases where there are, they are not reliable. People choose to be civilized anyway, and in a large part, religions are responsible. Religions encourage civilization and making wise choices, and because participation is voluntary, members are more likely to follow the commandments and recommendations, because they chose them of their own free will.
Secular governments have a monopoly on violence, and perhaps that is for the best. In the past, religions that have been permitted to use violence have abused that authority a majority of the time. Even limiting religions to using violence only on their own members is probably a bad idea. Likewise, religions have something of a monopoly on personal belief. Again, this is probably for the best. Allowing secular governments to control the beliefs of people has almost always ended in disaster in the past, and forcing a large group of people to have the same beliefs has never turned out well. Government and religion complement each other in very important ways, when they are autonomous from each other. When they are combined, however, a major conflict of interests almost always arises, and one or the other is assimilated and becomes an engine of tyranny.
10 November 2014
Religion in Politics
Around 49% of Americans seem to believe that it is not only appropriate, but obligatory for churches to be involved in politics. While it is illegal, according to IRS restrictions for non-profit tax status, for churches designated as non-profit organizations to support specific political candidates, it is not illegal for churches to support specific ballot measures, initiatives, or even political movements. While there has been some resistance to churches having any involvement in politics, the percentage of Americans opposed to church involvement in politics is far lower than the percentage for. In fact, the percentage of Americans who support removing the non-profit restriction for supporting specific candidates is even growing.
Mixing politics with religion has been a controversial topic for almost a century, however, there was a time when few questioned it. The American Revolution was driven, in a very large part, by Protestant preachers in the colonies. The religious view at the time was that government was ordained of God, and only He had the right to change it. There are even Bible passages that lend a good deal of support to this argument. Many preachers, however, carefully studied the passages often quoted to support this idea, and they found an interesting loophole. Most of the passages stated or implied that government was ordained of God to serve the people. They reasoned that a government that does not effectively serve the people is not a legitimate government, by that standard. By refusing to give the colonies representation in Parliament, the British government was not doing its job by serving its citizens in it colonies. Many preachers explained this to their congregations, showing that even God could support a revolution against a tyrannical government, because, by His standards, a government that does not properly serve its people is not a legitimate government. The British government did serve the people of England properly, however, it did not serve its citizens in the colonies properly, thus it was not a legitimate government over the colonies. Ultimately, this broke down the barriers preventing the people from rebelling against Britain, and the result is that the U.S.A. is now a sovereign nation in its own right.
Our Founding Fathers were very wary of religious influence in government and government influence in religion. Some groups of colonists had come to the Americas specifically to escape religious persecution, and even much the majority that came primarily for economic freedom and opportunity also had religious freedom in mind. At the time (and even today), Britain had a state religion, which certain government officials were required to be members of. The Church of England was literally owned and controlled by the British government. Certain other religions were banned in Britain (often depending on the mood of the current monarch). Many other European countries also had state religions as well as specific religious bans. Punishments for violating bans or even being a member of a religion not endorsed by the state ranged from public persecution to death, depending on the religion and the current ruler. While Protestantism was the dominant religion in the colonies, there were still some Catholics and Anglicans. In addition, Protestantism was fractured into a large number of different denominations. Almost without fail, any state religion would reduce a significant portion of the population to second class citizens. This did not fit well at all with the philosophy that people should be allowed to worship as they saw fit. The result of this was strict protections for religious freedom, along with strict condemnation of any laws that might favor one religion over the other.
So now we get to a modern application of this knowledge. The first important thing to remember is that religion and politics are strongly related. Government is expected by the people to enforce certain moral expectations. In a large degree, these moral expectation come directly from religion. Rights that are supported by all religions are often called "human rights" and are frequently turned into laws called "civil rights." Even entirely secular laws designed to improve the national economy (including tariffs and such) are based in the Biblical principal that government is ordained of God to serve the people. This "separation of church and state" idea that religion and government should have nothing to do with each other is both wrong and impossible. So long as religion is common in the U.S., it will and must have an impact on government. Likewise, government will always have an impact on religions within the region it governs. The Constitutional protections necessary to ensure religious freedom make these influences largely indirect, but they cannot be reasonably prevented.
Back to the question: Should churches be involved in politics? Separation of church and state as an argument against it is not valid. While direct influence can be eliminated to a large degree, indirect influence cannot. Churches in the U.S. have a historical precedent of political involvement. Our Founding Fathers, who drafted the Constitution never spoke out against this practice, though they were fully aware that it existed. It would thus be unreasonable to assume that they believed churches should not be involved in politics. Perhaps they were wrong though, and maybe we are more enlightened. Of course, this attitude of assuming that past generations were stupider than we are is a strong red flag. This is an egotistical assumption that is often wrong and will cause more trouble than it is worth. Instead we should look at the relationship between government and religion.
What is the appropriate relationship between government and religion? Many people would say that no relationship between the two is appropriate. This argument is impossible to support though. There is no way the government can interact with religious without becoming involved with it. Even wide spread prohibition of religion is a government relationship with religion (and in fact, it is the equivalent of establishing a mandatory state religion). If the government ignores religion entirely, its relationship with religion will come through the people. For example, despite the fact that it is unconstitutional to restrict public official to those of a specific religion, Kennedy's opponents used his Roman Catholic religion against him in their campaigns. So long as religion exists, there will be a relationship between religion and government, and if it is eliminated by government edict, that is, in and of itself, a relationship between religion and government. It is almost pointless to discuss the question of whether such a relationship should exist, because it is impossibly for it not to exist. That said, in a democratic government where some of the citizens have religious beliefs, it is entirely appropriate for such a relationship to exist, because the people the government represents include religious people.
Government involvement of the general public is all about beliefs. A person who supports unregulated abortion typically does so out of a belief that the woman should be free to choose. A person against unregulated abortion may chose to be against it out of a belief that killing even an unborn child is murder. One of the most controversial topics that churches have gotten involved in is same sex marriage. Those who support it believe that homosexuals are otherwise being deprived of rights that are freely available to heterosexual Americans, while those against typically believe that homosexual acts are sinful and may ultimately result in the wrath of God. It does not matter whether the belief comes from religion or supposed logic; neither position really has a strong argument, and it all comes down to opinion and personal beliefs. One group may choose to subscribe to a specific set of beliefs will the other may choose beliefs ala-carte, but ultimately it does not matter. An American citizen has the right to representation, regardless of where they choose to get their beliefs. So long as some of those beliefs may be obtained from religion, religion is an integral part of government. Now, this does not mean that we should strip the Constitution of its protections for religion, but it is something that anyone arguing about the propriety of religious influence in government should be aware of.
During this election season, a much larger number of churches supported specific political candidates than in the past. While this is stated to be illegal, it is technically not. What is illegal is for a non-profit organization to support a specific candidate, and since most churches in the U.S. are registered as non-profits, it is illegal for them to support specific political candidates. Of course, this is actually far more complicated than it seems. This particular law is part of IRS policy for non-profit organizations. It is also legally questionable. While it is not addressed specifically in the Constitution, many believe that it could qualify as persecuting churches to prohibit them from supporting specific political candidates, and the specific argument is that it infringes on freedom of speech. While this argument does seem rather sound, it still has a great deal of opposition. The opposition's primary argument is the "separation of church and state" argument, which we have already established does not apply to this kind of situation. Ultimately though, it may not matter. The 1,600 preachers that have supported specific candidates from the pulpit will likely not face any trouble from the IRS. The IRS policy is primarily in place to prevent attempts to create non-profits designed as campaign engines for specific candidates. Churches, even when supporting specific candidates, are not specifically designed to do this. Churches typically support candidates that agree with their beliefs and that will support their morals in government. This is little different from supporting specific legislation on a state level ballot (which is entirely legal). Further though, the primary goal of these preachers is to gain the ire of the IRS, so they can push a case through to the Supreme Court, in hopes that the IRS non-profit policy will be overturned, at least with reference to religious organizations. So far, the IRS is not biting, and they may never bite, given that these churches are not violating the purpose of the policy.
My opinion on this is simple. I believe that churches have every right, and in fact, they may sometimes even have a moral obligation, to support or oppose specific legislation according to the beliefs they teach. I am ambivalent about the issue of churches supporting or opposing specific political candidates, however, I have a hard time seeing any difference if a church is consistently supporting candidates that will represent their moral beliefs. I do think that churches with non-profit status should not be allowed to make monetary campaign contributions for specific candidates. This could easily be seen as a misuse of tax exempt non-profit funds. I suppose, however, I would not be opposed to a specific exception allowing campaign contributions, so long as they are reported and taxes are paid on the money contributed, but these contributions should be entirely transparent, so their followers know what is going on. (Or, perhaps even better, they could organize a contribution event, where a church official collects and contributes funds for specific campaigns, but where the funds never become the legal property of the church. This would be sort of like how for-profit businesses have charity events, soliciting and collecting contributions for some charity.)
Overall, trying to separate politics from religion is a fruitless task. Religion defines the beliefs of many people, and the people are supposed to define the government. This means, in a large part, religion defines government. Attempting to completely eliminate the influence of religion on government is impossible, and if history is a good indicator, even trying is a prediction that the government is starting to crumble. Democratic politics and religion are both belief based things. This is, in a large part, why religious freedom needs protection from the government. Trying to take the religion out of politics is essentially saying that a majority of the population is not qualified to take part in government, because they are "tainted" by their religious beliefs. This is just not how a democratic government operates.
Mixing politics with religion has been a controversial topic for almost a century, however, there was a time when few questioned it. The American Revolution was driven, in a very large part, by Protestant preachers in the colonies. The religious view at the time was that government was ordained of God, and only He had the right to change it. There are even Bible passages that lend a good deal of support to this argument. Many preachers, however, carefully studied the passages often quoted to support this idea, and they found an interesting loophole. Most of the passages stated or implied that government was ordained of God to serve the people. They reasoned that a government that does not effectively serve the people is not a legitimate government, by that standard. By refusing to give the colonies representation in Parliament, the British government was not doing its job by serving its citizens in it colonies. Many preachers explained this to their congregations, showing that even God could support a revolution against a tyrannical government, because, by His standards, a government that does not properly serve its people is not a legitimate government. The British government did serve the people of England properly, however, it did not serve its citizens in the colonies properly, thus it was not a legitimate government over the colonies. Ultimately, this broke down the barriers preventing the people from rebelling against Britain, and the result is that the U.S.A. is now a sovereign nation in its own right.
Our Founding Fathers were very wary of religious influence in government and government influence in religion. Some groups of colonists had come to the Americas specifically to escape religious persecution, and even much the majority that came primarily for economic freedom and opportunity also had religious freedom in mind. At the time (and even today), Britain had a state religion, which certain government officials were required to be members of. The Church of England was literally owned and controlled by the British government. Certain other religions were banned in Britain (often depending on the mood of the current monarch). Many other European countries also had state religions as well as specific religious bans. Punishments for violating bans or even being a member of a religion not endorsed by the state ranged from public persecution to death, depending on the religion and the current ruler. While Protestantism was the dominant religion in the colonies, there were still some Catholics and Anglicans. In addition, Protestantism was fractured into a large number of different denominations. Almost without fail, any state religion would reduce a significant portion of the population to second class citizens. This did not fit well at all with the philosophy that people should be allowed to worship as they saw fit. The result of this was strict protections for religious freedom, along with strict condemnation of any laws that might favor one religion over the other.
So now we get to a modern application of this knowledge. The first important thing to remember is that religion and politics are strongly related. Government is expected by the people to enforce certain moral expectations. In a large degree, these moral expectation come directly from religion. Rights that are supported by all religions are often called "human rights" and are frequently turned into laws called "civil rights." Even entirely secular laws designed to improve the national economy (including tariffs and such) are based in the Biblical principal that government is ordained of God to serve the people. This "separation of church and state" idea that religion and government should have nothing to do with each other is both wrong and impossible. So long as religion is common in the U.S., it will and must have an impact on government. Likewise, government will always have an impact on religions within the region it governs. The Constitutional protections necessary to ensure religious freedom make these influences largely indirect, but they cannot be reasonably prevented.
Back to the question: Should churches be involved in politics? Separation of church and state as an argument against it is not valid. While direct influence can be eliminated to a large degree, indirect influence cannot. Churches in the U.S. have a historical precedent of political involvement. Our Founding Fathers, who drafted the Constitution never spoke out against this practice, though they were fully aware that it existed. It would thus be unreasonable to assume that they believed churches should not be involved in politics. Perhaps they were wrong though, and maybe we are more enlightened. Of course, this attitude of assuming that past generations were stupider than we are is a strong red flag. This is an egotistical assumption that is often wrong and will cause more trouble than it is worth. Instead we should look at the relationship between government and religion.
What is the appropriate relationship between government and religion? Many people would say that no relationship between the two is appropriate. This argument is impossible to support though. There is no way the government can interact with religious without becoming involved with it. Even wide spread prohibition of religion is a government relationship with religion (and in fact, it is the equivalent of establishing a mandatory state religion). If the government ignores religion entirely, its relationship with religion will come through the people. For example, despite the fact that it is unconstitutional to restrict public official to those of a specific religion, Kennedy's opponents used his Roman Catholic religion against him in their campaigns. So long as religion exists, there will be a relationship between religion and government, and if it is eliminated by government edict, that is, in and of itself, a relationship between religion and government. It is almost pointless to discuss the question of whether such a relationship should exist, because it is impossibly for it not to exist. That said, in a democratic government where some of the citizens have religious beliefs, it is entirely appropriate for such a relationship to exist, because the people the government represents include religious people.
Government involvement of the general public is all about beliefs. A person who supports unregulated abortion typically does so out of a belief that the woman should be free to choose. A person against unregulated abortion may chose to be against it out of a belief that killing even an unborn child is murder. One of the most controversial topics that churches have gotten involved in is same sex marriage. Those who support it believe that homosexuals are otherwise being deprived of rights that are freely available to heterosexual Americans, while those against typically believe that homosexual acts are sinful and may ultimately result in the wrath of God. It does not matter whether the belief comes from religion or supposed logic; neither position really has a strong argument, and it all comes down to opinion and personal beliefs. One group may choose to subscribe to a specific set of beliefs will the other may choose beliefs ala-carte, but ultimately it does not matter. An American citizen has the right to representation, regardless of where they choose to get their beliefs. So long as some of those beliefs may be obtained from religion, religion is an integral part of government. Now, this does not mean that we should strip the Constitution of its protections for religion, but it is something that anyone arguing about the propriety of religious influence in government should be aware of.
During this election season, a much larger number of churches supported specific political candidates than in the past. While this is stated to be illegal, it is technically not. What is illegal is for a non-profit organization to support a specific candidate, and since most churches in the U.S. are registered as non-profits, it is illegal for them to support specific political candidates. Of course, this is actually far more complicated than it seems. This particular law is part of IRS policy for non-profit organizations. It is also legally questionable. While it is not addressed specifically in the Constitution, many believe that it could qualify as persecuting churches to prohibit them from supporting specific political candidates, and the specific argument is that it infringes on freedom of speech. While this argument does seem rather sound, it still has a great deal of opposition. The opposition's primary argument is the "separation of church and state" argument, which we have already established does not apply to this kind of situation. Ultimately though, it may not matter. The 1,600 preachers that have supported specific candidates from the pulpit will likely not face any trouble from the IRS. The IRS policy is primarily in place to prevent attempts to create non-profits designed as campaign engines for specific candidates. Churches, even when supporting specific candidates, are not specifically designed to do this. Churches typically support candidates that agree with their beliefs and that will support their morals in government. This is little different from supporting specific legislation on a state level ballot (which is entirely legal). Further though, the primary goal of these preachers is to gain the ire of the IRS, so they can push a case through to the Supreme Court, in hopes that the IRS non-profit policy will be overturned, at least with reference to religious organizations. So far, the IRS is not biting, and they may never bite, given that these churches are not violating the purpose of the policy.
My opinion on this is simple. I believe that churches have every right, and in fact, they may sometimes even have a moral obligation, to support or oppose specific legislation according to the beliefs they teach. I am ambivalent about the issue of churches supporting or opposing specific political candidates, however, I have a hard time seeing any difference if a church is consistently supporting candidates that will represent their moral beliefs. I do think that churches with non-profit status should not be allowed to make monetary campaign contributions for specific candidates. This could easily be seen as a misuse of tax exempt non-profit funds. I suppose, however, I would not be opposed to a specific exception allowing campaign contributions, so long as they are reported and taxes are paid on the money contributed, but these contributions should be entirely transparent, so their followers know what is going on. (Or, perhaps even better, they could organize a contribution event, where a church official collects and contributes funds for specific campaigns, but where the funds never become the legal property of the church. This would be sort of like how for-profit businesses have charity events, soliciting and collecting contributions for some charity.)
Overall, trying to separate politics from religion is a fruitless task. Religion defines the beliefs of many people, and the people are supposed to define the government. This means, in a large part, religion defines government. Attempting to completely eliminate the influence of religion on government is impossible, and if history is a good indicator, even trying is a prediction that the government is starting to crumble. Democratic politics and religion are both belief based things. This is, in a large part, why religious freedom needs protection from the government. Trying to take the religion out of politics is essentially saying that a majority of the population is not qualified to take part in government, because they are "tainted" by their religious beliefs. This is just not how a democratic government operates.
25 August 2014
Death of Small Gods
There is this thing about modern physics that has always bothered me. It is closely related to the atheist assertion that people tend to invent new gods every time they come across something they do not understand (this assertion is true). Many ancient civilizations had Sun gods, Moon gods, various weather gods, and even fertility gods (or typically goddesses, but it is the same). Now, I am not bashing religion. Personally I believe in God, but I do not use my belief in God to explain away things that I do not understand. Frankly, I love science, and I enjoy reading about new discoveries. What bothers me is that modern particle physicists seem to be obsessed with inventing new particles every time they hit something they cannot explain. Instead of inventing new gods all the time, modern scientists invent new particles all the time. These are, in my estimation, little more than small gods. Now, I will admit that on occasion, they are right. It turns out, however, that sometimes they are epically wrong. Recently, a large group of these small gods died.
Small gods interfere with real physics. They lead us down paths that will ultimately turn out to be a colossal waste of time and money. Supersymmetry is a theory that suggests that every known particle has a symmetric sibling with a higher mass. This symmetric set of particles were invented to explain away why Higgs interactions do not cause a runaway increase in mass. They also happen to explain some of dark matter theory. They also happen not to exist. At least, the LCH has not detected even one of them, and particle physicists think that it should have. Supersymmetry has been a prevalent theory for a long time (invented in 1966 and seems to have gotten popular in 1981). Since its inception in 1966, we have wasted 48 years on it. Almost half a century of wasted work of at least thousands of physicists. Of course, some parts of the theory seem to be correct, but those parts could easily have been discovered as parts of other theories. Ultimately though, half of the particles of modern physics have turned out to be false gods.
All of the new theories also involve new particles, and who knows, maybe there are a few particles responsible for the effect. This should be a learning experience though. Just because inventing a whole bunch of new particles can easily explain a phenomenon does not mean that it is the right choice. New particles are convenient because they add mathematical variables that can be manipulated to fit observations. Sadly, this is much like inventing a Sun god (with a chariot and everything) to explain the observation of the huge ball of light in the sky. In science, there are often unnoticed variables, and they may even be associated with unobserved particles. Assuming that every inconsistency is the result of an unobserved particle is just bad science though. Given how often we prove ourselves wrong, the initial assumption should be that we have missed a property of at least one existing particle. Speculations about new particles are definitely appropriate. Dedicating most of our resources to them, however, is probably a bad idea so long as we have not eliminated other less invasive explanations.
Overall, when small gods die, scientists should feel humiliation. All of the scientists that have wasted half a century of work on supersymmetry should feel like a majority of their time was wasted. They should feel like their worship of these small gods was pointless. They should feel humiliated and embarrassed that they did not spend more time looking at alternatives that did not involve the invention of so many new gods. I am not saying that they should stop doing physics. They need to recognize their invention of new particles for what it is though: the invention of gods to explain nature. This does not mean they should stop trying though. Sometimes inventing new gods works out. After all, the invention of the idea of anti-particles was another instance of almost doubling the number of known particles (of specific classes, anyhow), and it has been very well proven since. While they should feel some amount of humiliation when they fail so epically, scientists should not allow themselves to get discouraged by failure. They should learn from their mistakes, and then get back up and try again.
Small gods interfere with real physics. They lead us down paths that will ultimately turn out to be a colossal waste of time and money. Supersymmetry is a theory that suggests that every known particle has a symmetric sibling with a higher mass. This symmetric set of particles were invented to explain away why Higgs interactions do not cause a runaway increase in mass. They also happen to explain some of dark matter theory. They also happen not to exist. At least, the LCH has not detected even one of them, and particle physicists think that it should have. Supersymmetry has been a prevalent theory for a long time (invented in 1966 and seems to have gotten popular in 1981). Since its inception in 1966, we have wasted 48 years on it. Almost half a century of wasted work of at least thousands of physicists. Of course, some parts of the theory seem to be correct, but those parts could easily have been discovered as parts of other theories. Ultimately though, half of the particles of modern physics have turned out to be false gods.
All of the new theories also involve new particles, and who knows, maybe there are a few particles responsible for the effect. This should be a learning experience though. Just because inventing a whole bunch of new particles can easily explain a phenomenon does not mean that it is the right choice. New particles are convenient because they add mathematical variables that can be manipulated to fit observations. Sadly, this is much like inventing a Sun god (with a chariot and everything) to explain the observation of the huge ball of light in the sky. In science, there are often unnoticed variables, and they may even be associated with unobserved particles. Assuming that every inconsistency is the result of an unobserved particle is just bad science though. Given how often we prove ourselves wrong, the initial assumption should be that we have missed a property of at least one existing particle. Speculations about new particles are definitely appropriate. Dedicating most of our resources to them, however, is probably a bad idea so long as we have not eliminated other less invasive explanations.
Overall, when small gods die, scientists should feel humiliation. All of the scientists that have wasted half a century of work on supersymmetry should feel like a majority of their time was wasted. They should feel like their worship of these small gods was pointless. They should feel humiliated and embarrassed that they did not spend more time looking at alternatives that did not involve the invention of so many new gods. I am not saying that they should stop doing physics. They need to recognize their invention of new particles for what it is though: the invention of gods to explain nature. This does not mean they should stop trying though. Sometimes inventing new gods works out. After all, the invention of the idea of anti-particles was another instance of almost doubling the number of known particles (of specific classes, anyhow), and it has been very well proven since. While they should feel some amount of humiliation when they fail so epically, scientists should not allow themselves to get discouraged by failure. They should learn from their mistakes, and then get back up and try again.
27 July 2014
Peace vs Prosecution
I would like to share an LDS scripture with you, but first I want to give some background.
All around, I see people breaking laws or otherwise causing harm to others. I am not talking about things like theft or speeding (ok, I see tons of speeding, but that is a different matter). I am talking about things like doctors forcing or cajoling their patients into accepting treatments that are not in their best interest. I am talking about housing providers ignoring laws requiring them to keep housing suitable for their tenants. I am also talking about businesses cheating their employees deliberately or due to ignorance. These things bother me. I have a policy of social intolerance of bad behavior, but most LDS people seem to think that it is better to sacrifice their freedoms than to do something that could be construed as uncivil or otherwise not getting along with others. The LDS religion teaches tolerance of the beliefs of others, but many act as if they believe this means they should tolerate harmful or illegal actions against them by others. If you are LDS, let me correct your thoughts on this. If you are not, feel free to consider what I am about to present anyway.
The LDS book of scripture called The Doctrine and Covenants (often abbreviated D&C) contains the following verse (D&C 134:11):
While I have found no LDS scripture stating this, in my personal opinion, when a person deliberately chooses to allow illegal or harmful behavior to continue, that person becomes complicit in that illegal behavior. While the law is unlikely to prosecute if the behavior is ever reported by someone else, I believe that God will hold you accountable for harm that happens because you are too lazy or fearful to do your civil duty as stated in the above mentioned scripture.
Here I would like to admit that I am not perfect. I have been in a few circumstances where I chose not to press charges against a doctor or a landlord, where, according to this scripture, I should have. In both cases, I did not want to cause contention. In hindsight, I should have. That doctor has probably caused emotional harm to multiple patients since then, which I could have prevented. I feel bad, and justifiably so, that I did nothing to prevent that harm. Since then, however, I have made some better choices. Long ago I mentioned this, but I will mention it again. I once gained knowledge of a labor law violation involving a minor. Even though I was not directly impacted by the violation, I chose to report it. The employer was raided by the labor department, and evidence of the violation was found. Fines were given (I do not know how much, but fines for minor violations can get into the tens of thousands, and the violation occurred multiple times). That employer will likely never make that mistake again. I am almost certain the employee who was harmed will never have that happen again with that employer either. My action may have hurt one employer (who earned the harm), but it saved a lot of innocent employees from harm. Also, by reporting the violation, I strengthened the law. If violations of the law are never reported, it is almost as if the law does not exist. By reporting a violation, I made it clear to those violating the law that they cannot get away with breaking the law without consequences. A law that is not enforced is worth very little and does almost nothing to protect anyone, but a law that is enforced justly serves its purpose well. My actions helped a law to be enforced that otherwise would have been useless (in that particular case).
Anyhow, any LDS person who believes that convenience and peace are more valuable than enforcing the law is a hypocrite. Besides the above scripture, there are many LDS scriptures stating that even killing is justified when it is in defense of yourself, your family, your friends, your property, or your rights and freedoms. Maybe the U.S. is a sue-happy nation where too many frivolous lawsuits occur. Choosing not to press charges when lawsuits are justified will not improve the situation, and in fact, this act of giving up your legal rights and protections will actually make it worse for everyone.
All around, I see people breaking laws or otherwise causing harm to others. I am not talking about things like theft or speeding (ok, I see tons of speeding, but that is a different matter). I am talking about things like doctors forcing or cajoling their patients into accepting treatments that are not in their best interest. I am talking about housing providers ignoring laws requiring them to keep housing suitable for their tenants. I am also talking about businesses cheating their employees deliberately or due to ignorance. These things bother me. I have a policy of social intolerance of bad behavior, but most LDS people seem to think that it is better to sacrifice their freedoms than to do something that could be construed as uncivil or otherwise not getting along with others. The LDS religion teaches tolerance of the beliefs of others, but many act as if they believe this means they should tolerate harmful or illegal actions against them by others. If you are LDS, let me correct your thoughts on this. If you are not, feel free to consider what I am about to present anyway.
The LDS book of scripture called The Doctrine and Covenants (often abbreviated D&C) contains the following verse (D&C 134:11):
We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.Note that the first part says "We believe that men should..." It does not say "can," "may," or even "are justified in." It says "should." This is Church doctrine. While it is not explicitly worded as a commandment ("thou shalt"), it does use very similar wording ("shalt" and "should" are conjugations of the same root). Now, I want to be clear here. This is not just about getting what you are legally entitled to. It goes much further than this. If you read the rest of section 134, you will find more Church doctrine stating that members of the LDS Church (well, and everyone else) have a responsibility to uphold the just laws of the land in part by turning in people who break it. Again, this is not just about getting what you are legally entitled to. This is about enforcement of the law in general. If you are mistreated by a doctor, and you choose not to take legal action against that doctor, you are allowing that doctor to mistreat others by your inaction. If you choose not enforce laws requiring your landlord to keep your home or apartment rental in livable conditions, you are potentially allowing others to come to harm by your inaction. If you do not report an employer who is cheating you out of overtime pay or who is otherwise cheating or harming you, you are allowing that employer to cheat or harm other employees. Some of these people who are coming to harm because of your inaction may not even realize that they are being treated in a way that is prohibited by the law.
While I have found no LDS scripture stating this, in my personal opinion, when a person deliberately chooses to allow illegal or harmful behavior to continue, that person becomes complicit in that illegal behavior. While the law is unlikely to prosecute if the behavior is ever reported by someone else, I believe that God will hold you accountable for harm that happens because you are too lazy or fearful to do your civil duty as stated in the above mentioned scripture.
Here I would like to admit that I am not perfect. I have been in a few circumstances where I chose not to press charges against a doctor or a landlord, where, according to this scripture, I should have. In both cases, I did not want to cause contention. In hindsight, I should have. That doctor has probably caused emotional harm to multiple patients since then, which I could have prevented. I feel bad, and justifiably so, that I did nothing to prevent that harm. Since then, however, I have made some better choices. Long ago I mentioned this, but I will mention it again. I once gained knowledge of a labor law violation involving a minor. Even though I was not directly impacted by the violation, I chose to report it. The employer was raided by the labor department, and evidence of the violation was found. Fines were given (I do not know how much, but fines for minor violations can get into the tens of thousands, and the violation occurred multiple times). That employer will likely never make that mistake again. I am almost certain the employee who was harmed will never have that happen again with that employer either. My action may have hurt one employer (who earned the harm), but it saved a lot of innocent employees from harm. Also, by reporting the violation, I strengthened the law. If violations of the law are never reported, it is almost as if the law does not exist. By reporting a violation, I made it clear to those violating the law that they cannot get away with breaking the law without consequences. A law that is not enforced is worth very little and does almost nothing to protect anyone, but a law that is enforced justly serves its purpose well. My actions helped a law to be enforced that otherwise would have been useless (in that particular case).
Anyhow, any LDS person who believes that convenience and peace are more valuable than enforcing the law is a hypocrite. Besides the above scripture, there are many LDS scriptures stating that even killing is justified when it is in defense of yourself, your family, your friends, your property, or your rights and freedoms. Maybe the U.S. is a sue-happy nation where too many frivolous lawsuits occur. Choosing not to press charges when lawsuits are justified will not improve the situation, and in fact, this act of giving up your legal rights and protections will actually make it worse for everyone.
03 June 2014
Economic Value of Religious Freedom
A few years ago, I wrote an article on religious freedom, where I suggested that even atheists should support religious freedom, because it is the root of all of our freedoms. Ultimately, if there was no belief in God, there would be no justification for the idea of human rights. Survival of the fittest would be the only real law, and freedom would only exist so far as the fittest permitted. Unsurprisingly, it goes further than this though. I just read an article discussing recent research showing that religious freedom also impact economic well being. The study found that religious freedom is one of only three variables that are reliable predictors of economic growth (measured by GDP).
There are several explanations for this impact of religious freedom on economic growth. The first is that political and religious tension make the business environment of a country unpredictable. Entrepreneurs do not want to try to start a new business in a political environment that may eventually damage, destroy, or even seize the business. Existing businesses may choose to relocate or even shut down, as the risk of losses increase with religious tension and hostilities. In short, hostilities over religious freedom will drive profitable businesses to leave or close. The second (which is closely related to the first) is that tension or hostilities over religious freedom will tend to reduce government stability. Besides the obvious affect on businesses, this also causes fears that reduce tourism. According to the Deseret News article, this problem has been seen over the last few years in Egypt. Besides these, it would also be reasonable to assume that hostilities against certain religions will cause immigration out of the country. Since many of those leaving are obviously those wealthy enough to afford the costs, this will result in a exodus of wealth, leaving the country poor. I can see more in the underlying causes than just the economic harm caused by lack of religious freedom.
In nearly all of the cases discussed in the article, the lack of religious freedom has caused significant internal unrest. Freedom of religion has great economic value, but I think it also has significant political value. Governments discussed in the article that limit religious freedom seem to all be unstable. Also, we have seen over the last few decades, as the U.S. government has reduced religious freedom, increased political unrest and even some threats of rebellion (mostly in the form of states threatening to secede). Religious freedom also seems to be a predictor of government stability, not just economic growth.
There are many things we can take away from this. Probably the most important is that strong religious freedom is the road to economic success. The second is that religious freedom is important to government stability. I want to stress this second one a bit, because it appears to be counter intuitive to politicians. Over the last few decades, politicians have repeatedly tried to limit religious freedom, because they believe it will solidify their political position and power. This has become especially common during times of economic hardships, because it becomes harder to get votes when the economy has done poorly while a politician is in power. It turns out that this creates a feedback loop that hinders the ability of the economy to recover, at the same time as reducing political stability. Maybe this will get the politician needed votes, but if the economy does not recover, eventually it will not be enough, and if the government fails, those politicians will loose all of their power (and, they may get lynched for limiting religious freedom).
My point here is not that we should give unlimited religious freedom. Some religious practices, for instance human sacrifice, should be prohibited by law. There are also some places where limiting religious observances may be appropriate. Schools should not be allowed to encourage or enforce the worship of a specific deity, or any deity for that matter. On the other side though, forcing people to do things that violate their religions is unethical and unwise, in most situations. There are cases where this cannot be avoided (for instance, I should not be able to avoid paying taxes by claiming it is against my religion), but there are many where it can. When considering laws that would limit religious freedom, the value of the law needs to be carefully weighed against the costs of not enacting it. If a specific minority group feels insulted that not all businesses will serve them, but there are plenty of reasonable alternatives, the economic harm of restricting religious freedom may be far greater than the harm caused by insulting a minority group. On the other side, if a minority group will be significantly harmed by this, without anywhere to turn for relief, it may be better to restrict religious freedom a bit (as little as reasonably possible) to maintain freedom for the minority. Minorities should not be allowed to leverage restrictions to religious freedom to harass others, but at the same time, religious freedom should not be a valid excuse to deny anyone a good quality of life. If there are 5 good quality wedding shops in a town, it would be a travesty of justice to allow a gay couple to deliberately harass the one that is religiously opposed to serving homosexual weddings. On the other hand, if there is limited housing, food, or clothing availability, religious freedom should not be a valid excuse to refuse to serve a homosexual couple. If all 5 wedding had religious objections to serving a gay couple (and no others were available nearby), I could see limiting religious freedom to ensure economic fairness. In fact, this had to be done in the South to stifle the rampant racism (some parts of the KKK did try to claim that requiring them to serve black people was a violation of their religious freedom). The problem in the South was that a vast majority of businesses refused to serve black people, which was severely limiting the quality of life for black people. Even if it is a limitation of religious freedom, it was necessary to restrict racial discrimination to ensure the continued freedom of the black population. (In my opinion, any American has the right to hate someone for race or religion, but they do not have the right to harm or limit the freedom of others based on those beliefs. Note that I do not hate anyone for race or religion. I just recognize that freedom of thought, conscience, and religion includes the right to hate people of a certain race or religion, though not necessarily the right to act on those feelings.)
Anyhow, it turns out there is reasonable evidence to the effect that religious freedom is important to economic well being and government stability. The idea that an atheist world where religion has been exterminated would be an ideal world has more or less been proven false on multiple occasions (the USSR provided one occasion), and now we have even more evidence that religious freedom is an important part of a strong economy. Now when we consider restricting religious freedom to get the votes of a disgruntled minority group, we should seriously consider the harm it will do to our economy.
There are several explanations for this impact of religious freedom on economic growth. The first is that political and religious tension make the business environment of a country unpredictable. Entrepreneurs do not want to try to start a new business in a political environment that may eventually damage, destroy, or even seize the business. Existing businesses may choose to relocate or even shut down, as the risk of losses increase with religious tension and hostilities. In short, hostilities over religious freedom will drive profitable businesses to leave or close. The second (which is closely related to the first) is that tension or hostilities over religious freedom will tend to reduce government stability. Besides the obvious affect on businesses, this also causes fears that reduce tourism. According to the Deseret News article, this problem has been seen over the last few years in Egypt. Besides these, it would also be reasonable to assume that hostilities against certain religions will cause immigration out of the country. Since many of those leaving are obviously those wealthy enough to afford the costs, this will result in a exodus of wealth, leaving the country poor. I can see more in the underlying causes than just the economic harm caused by lack of religious freedom.
In nearly all of the cases discussed in the article, the lack of religious freedom has caused significant internal unrest. Freedom of religion has great economic value, but I think it also has significant political value. Governments discussed in the article that limit religious freedom seem to all be unstable. Also, we have seen over the last few decades, as the U.S. government has reduced religious freedom, increased political unrest and even some threats of rebellion (mostly in the form of states threatening to secede). Religious freedom also seems to be a predictor of government stability, not just economic growth.
There are many things we can take away from this. Probably the most important is that strong religious freedom is the road to economic success. The second is that religious freedom is important to government stability. I want to stress this second one a bit, because it appears to be counter intuitive to politicians. Over the last few decades, politicians have repeatedly tried to limit religious freedom, because they believe it will solidify their political position and power. This has become especially common during times of economic hardships, because it becomes harder to get votes when the economy has done poorly while a politician is in power. It turns out that this creates a feedback loop that hinders the ability of the economy to recover, at the same time as reducing political stability. Maybe this will get the politician needed votes, but if the economy does not recover, eventually it will not be enough, and if the government fails, those politicians will loose all of their power (and, they may get lynched for limiting religious freedom).
My point here is not that we should give unlimited religious freedom. Some religious practices, for instance human sacrifice, should be prohibited by law. There are also some places where limiting religious observances may be appropriate. Schools should not be allowed to encourage or enforce the worship of a specific deity, or any deity for that matter. On the other side though, forcing people to do things that violate their religions is unethical and unwise, in most situations. There are cases where this cannot be avoided (for instance, I should not be able to avoid paying taxes by claiming it is against my religion), but there are many where it can. When considering laws that would limit religious freedom, the value of the law needs to be carefully weighed against the costs of not enacting it. If a specific minority group feels insulted that not all businesses will serve them, but there are plenty of reasonable alternatives, the economic harm of restricting religious freedom may be far greater than the harm caused by insulting a minority group. On the other side, if a minority group will be significantly harmed by this, without anywhere to turn for relief, it may be better to restrict religious freedom a bit (as little as reasonably possible) to maintain freedom for the minority. Minorities should not be allowed to leverage restrictions to religious freedom to harass others, but at the same time, religious freedom should not be a valid excuse to deny anyone a good quality of life. If there are 5 good quality wedding shops in a town, it would be a travesty of justice to allow a gay couple to deliberately harass the one that is religiously opposed to serving homosexual weddings. On the other hand, if there is limited housing, food, or clothing availability, religious freedom should not be a valid excuse to refuse to serve a homosexual couple. If all 5 wedding had religious objections to serving a gay couple (and no others were available nearby), I could see limiting religious freedom to ensure economic fairness. In fact, this had to be done in the South to stifle the rampant racism (some parts of the KKK did try to claim that requiring them to serve black people was a violation of their religious freedom). The problem in the South was that a vast majority of businesses refused to serve black people, which was severely limiting the quality of life for black people. Even if it is a limitation of religious freedom, it was necessary to restrict racial discrimination to ensure the continued freedom of the black population. (In my opinion, any American has the right to hate someone for race or religion, but they do not have the right to harm or limit the freedom of others based on those beliefs. Note that I do not hate anyone for race or religion. I just recognize that freedom of thought, conscience, and religion includes the right to hate people of a certain race or religion, though not necessarily the right to act on those feelings.)
Anyhow, it turns out there is reasonable evidence to the effect that religious freedom is important to economic well being and government stability. The idea that an atheist world where religion has been exterminated would be an ideal world has more or less been proven false on multiple occasions (the USSR provided one occasion), and now we have even more evidence that religious freedom is an important part of a strong economy. Now when we consider restricting religious freedom to get the votes of a disgruntled minority group, we should seriously consider the harm it will do to our economy.
26 June 2013
Tyranny Grips the World
A while back I discovered that a majority of the "civilized world" thinks that a majority of the world is civilized. I realized this as I was looking through the comments on a certain web page. You are probably aware that some guy released design files for a 3D printable gun recently. It turns out that several groups were working on this, and he happened to be the first to finish. Well, the web page I was looking at belonged to one of the other groups, and the comments contained an argument over whether printable guns would be a good thing or a bad thing. Most of the comments expressed the opinion that it was a good thing (as you would expect, most visitors of the site were fans of the project). A few comments expressed outrage, anger, and other negative emotions at the idea that this group was trying to take away their safety by making a type of gun that could not be effectively regulated by any government. A guy (who claimed to be...) from Spain described how the gun ban in his country made him feel safer. He complained that this project would make it too easy for criminals in his country to get guns and that this would interfere with his feeling of safety. I wrote a response.
I began by calling this guy from Spain out on his selfishness. He was either unaware, or apathetic that a great deal of people still live under oppressive governments. While his concern is only for personal safety, there are many people who have neither safety nor freedom. While easily obtainable guns might slightly endanger this guy's safety (actually, so far no one has gathered conclusive evidence that banning guns reduces violent crime), they will improve the ability of the oppressed masses of the world to gain their own freedom and safety.
So, yesterday I read a Deseret News article that gives actual figures on my claims: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865582058/Survey-finds-religious-freedom-did-not-increase-during-Arab-Spring.html I found the them appalling. This quote from the article says it all,
One of the worst parts of this story is that supposedly civilized countries often intentionally resist helping those trying to escape tyranny. Admittedly, their may be some justification for this, given that several democratic countries have had issues with Muslims trying to enforce Sharia law in ways that violate the laws of those countries. On the other side though, the U.S., who has two countries bordering it, allows people from one (Canada) which is civilized to enter and leave almost at will, while on the other border (Mexico) we try to make it almost impossible for those trying to escape tyranny and oppression from even visiting their families who are already in the U.S. Right, they can go to the U.S. Consulate there and apply for a visa and so on. Of course, the fee for applying (which is not refunded of the visa is refused) is more than most people there can afford, the wait in line is typically well over 24 hours, each applicant must have proof that they have even more money in the bank, and the other requirements are so strict that most people are turned away for trivial things that should not make any difference. The only people with even a chance are the very rich, who typically do not want to leave, because they are either corrupt government officials, or drug lords who are profiting more by oppressing their own people than they would working an honest job in the U.S. No wonder most of the world is oppressed. If "civilized" countries are not even willing to help out their closest neighbors, then how can we call any of the world civilized?
Now about the guns. Three quarters of the population of the world needs some means of escaping tyranny. While the U.S. could help the situation by allowing more immigrants from Mexico, we cannot take in the entire population of the oppressed countries of the world. In fact, all of the free countries in the world do not have room for all of the oppressed people of the world (well, that is not entirely true, but the burden would be too much to handle all at once). Maybe we could try to overthrow all of the oppressive governments of the world. While this might be possible, it would probably involve a massive war that would result in widespread destruction, throughout every country in the world. Also, as the above article points out, if the newly formed governments are not based first on freedom of religion, they will end up being as bad or worse than the original governments.
The best solution is to give the oppressed masses the ability to arm themselves and fight their governments. 3D printed plastic guns are actually an ideal way of doing this. First, many oppressive regimes have allowed cheap 3D printers to be donated to schools in their countries, so the means of production already exist (these are also fairly easy to make for only $100 or so, and existing printers can print many of the parts for new ones). Second, 3D printed guns can be manufactured fairly cheaply. Third, 3D printed guns in the hands of millions of angry subjects is enough to overthrow a government, but because the guns cannot handle more than a few shots, they are horrible weapons for terrorism. For them to be effective in war, the army wielding them would need a huge number of people, each armed with a large number of guns. In short, they make great self defensive weapons and would be very effective in a revolution where a very large number of people were participating, but they would be horrible for terrorism and waging war.
I will admit that the guy from Spain may have been right. Given the lack of evidence for either argument, it is possible that gun bans do increase safety by a small margin (the same lack of evidence also could support the claim that gun bans reduce safety by the same small margin). As such, it is also possible that printable guns would slightly reduce the safety of civilized countries. In my opinion, however, even if that is true, it is a perfectly acceptable price to pay if it has the potential to dramatically increase the safety and freedom of the other three quarters of the population of the world. I find it extremely selfish to consider my own safety to be more valuable than the freedom and safety of the rest of the population of the world (and, our country was ultimately founded by those who were willing to sacrifice all of their safety for the freedom and safety of others).
This is not only in the best interest of those three quarters who are oppressed. Free nations tend to have far better economies than oppressed ones. If all of the nations of the Earth were free, imagine the resources we would have access to. Also, the more people who are innovating, the faster innovation occurs. Again, imagine the rate of technological advancement, where the number of innovators in the world was quadrupled (or more, many of the oppressed masses are far less lazy than people who grew up in more developed nations). The improvements in economy that would occur if the majority of the world was free would dwarf anything ever seen in the history of the world. The free countries of the civilized world would benefit dramatically as well. Note that it might take years, decades, or even a century or two for this to play out, but, if nothing else, if they have guns and are fighting among themselves, at least they will be leaving us alone.
In summary, Earth is not a free world. Earth is a world where a vast majority of the population are in the grips of tyranny. There are some small pockets of resistance, but they are a small minority. Civilized countries need to be more willing to help those who are sincerely trying to escape tyranny and oppression. Printable guns may be the ultimate solution to the problem, but it will probably take a long time, regardless of the means to freedom. And last, the civilized world stands to benefit greatly from widespread global freedom from oppression. Instead of trying to create more laws to reduce our freedoms, the U.S. government should be protecting the distribution channels of information (i.e., gun printing files) that could help increase freedom in the rest of the world, for the benefit of the oppressed and of ourselves.
I began by calling this guy from Spain out on his selfishness. He was either unaware, or apathetic that a great deal of people still live under oppressive governments. While his concern is only for personal safety, there are many people who have neither safety nor freedom. While easily obtainable guns might slightly endanger this guy's safety (actually, so far no one has gathered conclusive evidence that banning guns reduces violent crime), they will improve the ability of the oppressed masses of the world to gain their own freedom and safety.
So, yesterday I read a Deseret News article that gives actual figures on my claims: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865582058/Survey-finds-religious-freedom-did-not-increase-during-Arab-Spring.html I found the them appalling. This quote from the article says it all,
"Because some of the most restrictive countries are very populous, more than 5.1 billion people (74 percent of the world's population) were living in countries with high government restrictions on religion or high social hostilities involving religion, the brunt of which often falls on religious minorities," Pew reported.Note that religious freedom is the first freedom. The article points out that in known history, no democratic form of government has been successful without first having religious freedom. It turns out that almost three quarters of the population of the world live under oppressive governments that do not even offer the first, and most important, fundamental human right recognized by the minority of the world that is civilized. If we were viewing our world as outsiders, and we were asked to analyze it based on freedom, we would have to conclude that Earth is an uncivilized world where oppression and tyranny rule the populace, because that is true not just of the majority, but of the vast majority. Our world is in the grip of tyranny. What's worse is that the situation is not improving. Even in the U.S., religious freedom is slowly declining. From later in the article,
But religious freedom must be a priority for the U.S. administration as well, Farr said, noting ratings in government restrictions and social hostilities toward religion in the United States have moved from a low level in 2009 to a moderate level in 2010 and 2011.An outsider looking at the Earth would not just have to conclude that it is in the grip of tyranny, but also that the few pockets of resistance are slowly crumbling to its influence.
The administration "seems to have lost the conviction that religious freedom is the first freedom," he said.
One of the worst parts of this story is that supposedly civilized countries often intentionally resist helping those trying to escape tyranny. Admittedly, their may be some justification for this, given that several democratic countries have had issues with Muslims trying to enforce Sharia law in ways that violate the laws of those countries. On the other side though, the U.S., who has two countries bordering it, allows people from one (Canada) which is civilized to enter and leave almost at will, while on the other border (Mexico) we try to make it almost impossible for those trying to escape tyranny and oppression from even visiting their families who are already in the U.S. Right, they can go to the U.S. Consulate there and apply for a visa and so on. Of course, the fee for applying (which is not refunded of the visa is refused) is more than most people there can afford, the wait in line is typically well over 24 hours, each applicant must have proof that they have even more money in the bank, and the other requirements are so strict that most people are turned away for trivial things that should not make any difference. The only people with even a chance are the very rich, who typically do not want to leave, because they are either corrupt government officials, or drug lords who are profiting more by oppressing their own people than they would working an honest job in the U.S. No wonder most of the world is oppressed. If "civilized" countries are not even willing to help out their closest neighbors, then how can we call any of the world civilized?
Now about the guns. Three quarters of the population of the world needs some means of escaping tyranny. While the U.S. could help the situation by allowing more immigrants from Mexico, we cannot take in the entire population of the oppressed countries of the world. In fact, all of the free countries in the world do not have room for all of the oppressed people of the world (well, that is not entirely true, but the burden would be too much to handle all at once). Maybe we could try to overthrow all of the oppressive governments of the world. While this might be possible, it would probably involve a massive war that would result in widespread destruction, throughout every country in the world. Also, as the above article points out, if the newly formed governments are not based first on freedom of religion, they will end up being as bad or worse than the original governments.
The best solution is to give the oppressed masses the ability to arm themselves and fight their governments. 3D printed plastic guns are actually an ideal way of doing this. First, many oppressive regimes have allowed cheap 3D printers to be donated to schools in their countries, so the means of production already exist (these are also fairly easy to make for only $100 or so, and existing printers can print many of the parts for new ones). Second, 3D printed guns can be manufactured fairly cheaply. Third, 3D printed guns in the hands of millions of angry subjects is enough to overthrow a government, but because the guns cannot handle more than a few shots, they are horrible weapons for terrorism. For them to be effective in war, the army wielding them would need a huge number of people, each armed with a large number of guns. In short, they make great self defensive weapons and would be very effective in a revolution where a very large number of people were participating, but they would be horrible for terrorism and waging war.
I will admit that the guy from Spain may have been right. Given the lack of evidence for either argument, it is possible that gun bans do increase safety by a small margin (the same lack of evidence also could support the claim that gun bans reduce safety by the same small margin). As such, it is also possible that printable guns would slightly reduce the safety of civilized countries. In my opinion, however, even if that is true, it is a perfectly acceptable price to pay if it has the potential to dramatically increase the safety and freedom of the other three quarters of the population of the world. I find it extremely selfish to consider my own safety to be more valuable than the freedom and safety of the rest of the population of the world (and, our country was ultimately founded by those who were willing to sacrifice all of their safety for the freedom and safety of others).
This is not only in the best interest of those three quarters who are oppressed. Free nations tend to have far better economies than oppressed ones. If all of the nations of the Earth were free, imagine the resources we would have access to. Also, the more people who are innovating, the faster innovation occurs. Again, imagine the rate of technological advancement, where the number of innovators in the world was quadrupled (or more, many of the oppressed masses are far less lazy than people who grew up in more developed nations). The improvements in economy that would occur if the majority of the world was free would dwarf anything ever seen in the history of the world. The free countries of the civilized world would benefit dramatically as well. Note that it might take years, decades, or even a century or two for this to play out, but, if nothing else, if they have guns and are fighting among themselves, at least they will be leaving us alone.
In summary, Earth is not a free world. Earth is a world where a vast majority of the population are in the grips of tyranny. There are some small pockets of resistance, but they are a small minority. Civilized countries need to be more willing to help those who are sincerely trying to escape tyranny and oppression. Printable guns may be the ultimate solution to the problem, but it will probably take a long time, regardless of the means to freedom. And last, the civilized world stands to benefit greatly from widespread global freedom from oppression. Instead of trying to create more laws to reduce our freedoms, the U.S. government should be protecting the distribution channels of information (i.e., gun printing files) that could help increase freedom in the rest of the world, for the benefit of the oppressed and of ourselves.
24 April 2013
Morality of Government Social Programs
This post is aimed primarily at Christians and more specifically at conservative Christians. I have probably mentioned it before, but I think it deserves mention here. I am a conservative Christian (unless you are one of the misinformed people that do not believe Mormons are Christians). I am not saying you should stop reading if you are not Christian, as this does apply, to a lesser degree, to most religions and maybe even some to Atheism.
First, ask yourselves if it is morally right for governments to take money from their subjects (in the form of taxes) to protect them from criminals. If you don't know what I am talking about, governments spend tax money on police, prisons, and sometimes even rehabilitation facilities and mental wards for this purpose, not to mention other forms of law enforcement. Most people I know have no problem with governments doing this, and many even think that the U.S. government is not doing enough to protect them. Also, ask yourselves if it is morally right for a government to enforce religious laws, or laws with a religious basis. As you ask yourself this, consider certain parts of the Ten Commandments, for instance, "Thou shalt not steal," and "Thou shalt not kill." In fact, I cannot think of many U.S. laws that are not based on Christian moral laws found in the Bible.
Now, let's discuss government social programs. Most conservative Christians are strongly opposed to government social programs (except, rather hypocritically, Social Security). Why is this? I actually am not sure, but I will try to think of some potential reasons anyway. One argument I frequently hear is that it is wrong for the government to take their hard earned money and give it to other people. One guy told me that it takes away the free agency of those with the money, because it forces them to give to the poor, instead of allowing them to choose how to use the money. Some people say that poor people deserve what they get, because they are obviously lazy otherwise they would not be poor. I have heard it compared to theft. Most conservative Christians use arguments that all come back to a feeling that it somehow violates their freedom, for the government to use tax money to help those in need.
The first argument, that it is wrong for the government to take their money and give it to other people, is clearly flawed. In fact, this is the only thing that the government does with tax money. Tax money is given to police officers in the form of wages. It is given to contractors to build prisons, roads, military bases, tanks, Humvees, aircraft, and all sorts of other things. Our government does not save any tax money (actually, they pretty much always spend more than they get), so they cannot be reasonably accused of hoarding it. Now, note that the one thing these all have in common is that the government gets some value out of the money, in labor or goods. If you think this is the difference though, consider also that the government donates money, without any explicit obligation, to 3rd world countries, to feed people who are starving. They even donate money, in the form of weapons, and sometimes even troops, to help warring countries, again without any explicit obligation. Is this morally wrong? Is it morally wrong for the government to spend our money to help people in other countries? Maybe you would say that it depends on our business relationship with those countries. For instance, you might say that it was not immoral to help out Kuwait, because we were buying oil from them, and if they were captured, it might increase the price of that oil, or even make it entirely unavailable to us. Is any of this really that different from helping U.S. citizens when they need it, though? Some of the poor in the U.S. can, and will, escape poverty, if they are given a leg up in the form of financial help. These people will ultimately become tax payers and will most likely eventually pay enough in taxes to pay back their welfare benefits.
The second argument is absurd. If using tax money is immoral because it deprives the payer of their agency to choose how to spend it, then it is equally immoral to prevent a murderer from killing, or a thief from stealing. If a man wants to murder someone, but the government imprisons him, is this not taking away his agency to choose what he does? You might say that his actions would have hurt someone, while the tax payer's actions would not have. Aside from the fact that there is no way to know this (the tax payer might have used the money to hire a hit man, or to get drunk and beat his wife), would it not result in harm if the money was not given to the people that need it to survive? The only difference is intent. In court, the difference of intent is the difference between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murder. The harm was still done, and the fault still exists. Intent cannot reverse the harm done. Laws are designed to limit agency to reduce harm done and to increase fairness. A law that does not limit agency is pointless, so this argument really just does not make sense.
I hope that the argument that the poor deserve poverty has been sufficiently debunked by our recent recession that no one still believes it. With over 8% unemployment (which does not count those who are unemployed and still want jobs, but who have given up searching), it should be clear that a significant portion of the population who are in poverty are people who are trying to get jobs. Claiming that these people deserve poverty because they are lazy is a foul lie. In addition, out of those who are not employed and are not looking for jobs, many are single parents. In fact, I would also include in this category couples with children, where one is disabled and the other cannot work much because someone has to care for the children and the disabled spouse, parents where their spouse is lazy and they are stuck caring for children and the lazy spouse, as well as anyone living in a place where there are no jobs available nearby and they cannot afford to move somewhere where jobs are available within a reasonable distance. Most people who fall into the category are already working more than 40 hours a week caring for other people, and it is a shameful travesty of justice that we allow them to remain in poverty given how hard they are working. I would even argue that most of these people are doing work that is much more important and valuable than anything that anyone working regular profitable jobs are doing (what do you think is more important, managing one large business, or raising the children who will eventually be expected to take over jobs including your job, the jobs of the entire government, and every other job in the U.S., not to mention a bunch more that have yet to be created). If you still believe that not working a normal job justifies poverty, you need to read my opinion on the Death Penalty.
As far as arguments that compare Social Welfare to theft, the government has a legal right (according to an amendment to the U.S. Constitution) to tax us. Thus, according to the law, taxing us is in no way theft. While the Constitution does strictly limit how this tax money can be used, and the limitations do not include any allowance for it to be used for social programs, violation of the Constitution is also not theft. Furthermore, any fault for such misuse of tax funds is not the responsibility of the entire government. It is the responsibility of the President (who has sworn to protect and uphold the Constitution) and the Supreme Court (who's job it is to review laws and determine if they legal according to the Constitution). It is in no way theft though.
Now, I want to discuss the underlying concern of all of these arguments. All of these arguments come back to the idea that spending tax money on Social Welfare somehow violates the freedom of the tax payers that fund it. We have already established that the government has the right to directly tax the people, through a Constitutional amendment (and, amendments cannot be declared unconstitutional, because they are part of the Constitution, and thus define themselves as Constitutional). The government technically does not have the right (Constitutionally) to spend tax money on Social Welfare, but it is hard to argue that it violates the freedom of the people, when a majority of the people appear to support these programs. Our government is based on a democratic system. Democratic freedom is ultimately defined as the right for people to be governed as they see fit (this is based on many publications written around the time that the Constitution was actually written). In a democratic system, this is accomplished by designing the government and its laws based on the desires of the majority of the people (because it is impossible for each person to be governed exactly how they want to be, when the population is greater than one). In short, if the majority of the people want tax money to be spent on Social Welfare, then it is a larger violation of freedom to refuse their desires than to spend the tax money on Social Welfare. You might consider government Social Welfare programs to violate your freedom, but your opinion is not the only one that matters.
Next I want to look at the religious implications of Social Welfare. I have already hinted at where this is going. Now it is time to discuss it. Since the U.S. is still a vast majority Christian, and this article is designed for Christian readers, I am going to focus on Christian religion. The Bible has a lot of commandments besides the ten brought down from the mountain by Moses. Many of our laws are based on those first ten commandments. Many are also based on an earlier part of the Bible where God granted Adam and Eve (and ultimately everyone) free agency. Most of our laws are designed to mediate agency such that everyone has an equal share. There is no specific commandment in the Bible against imprisoning someone against their will, however, this is a clear violation of another person's freedom, so we have a law against it to protect agency. Many conservative Christians, however, ignore the laws that go beyond agency and the Ten Commandments. Jesus Himself decreed that people should "clothe the naked," "feed the hungry," and do a great deal of other similar things. This is Social Welfare.
Does the government have the right or responsibility to enforce Christian commandments regarding Social Welfare? Most arguments I have heard say "no." The most common arguments are first, that the government does not have the right to enforce religious laws and second, that it deprives the giver of the blessings if they are forced to give. The first argument is clearly wrong, given that nearly every U.S. law is a religious law, that is being enforced by the government. If fact, by this argument, I could start a new religion, make a law for that religion that is the same as a government law, and the government law would immediately cease to be valid. It should be fairly obvious that the claim that the government has no right to enforce religious laws is absurd. The second, that it deprives the giver of blessings, is also questionable. This argument depends on the assumption that Jesus decreed His Social Welfare laws to give people an opportunity to obtain blessings, not because He believed that wealthy people have an obligation to help those in need. This would imply that all of the commandments are intended to be selfish, for instance, that not murdering is not about protecting the potential victim, but about getting blessings for the potential criminal. I hope you see how clearly absurd this is as well as I do.
If the "welfare" commandments Jesus decreed are designed to help the poor and not to give blessings to the rich, then the claim that forcing the wealthy to give to the poor is wrong because it deprives them of blessings is invalid. In short, blessings are a beneficial byproduct of giving, not the objective and thus should not even be considered in this argument. (Besides this, I think this claim is a lie. I believe that someone who willingly gives, even if they are compelled to do so, will get any blessings associated with giving. The only people who will not get blessings are those who would not have given if they had not been compelled to give. I think the Bible even says as much.) Given that these religious laws are designed to help and protect people, just like the Ten Commandments, I find no religious reason that the government should not use tax money to provide for the needs of those who cannot afford to do so themselves. In fact, I find that it is equally acceptable for the government to provide Social Welfare as it is to outlaw murder and theft, from a religious perspective. Further, I don't see why conservative Christians, who claim to believe and follow the commandments given in the Bible, don't strongly support adding this commandment to codified law. It seems hypocritical that Christians should support laws banning same sex marriage (a position which, contrary to the claims of certain people, is supported in the Bible), but not support laws enforcing commandments concerning welfare given by Jesus Himself.
There is still the issue of Constitutionality. This is the only valid argument against government Social Welfare. The Constitution gives an explicit list of powers the Federal Government has, and Social Welfare is not included in that list. (Note, however, that all other powers not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution are granted to the states. This means that the states do have the Constitutional right to create Social Welfare programs.) There are two ways of getting around this. Obviously, an amendment could be made adding the right of the Federal Government to create Social Welfare programs to the above mentioned list. The second, and in my opinion much better, way would be for all Social Welfare programs to be managed per state. Not only would this be entirely legal, it would also help those programs to be better tailored to the situations within each state (one problem with Federal welfare programs is that they cannot keep up with differences in cost of living between different states and even different regions within states).
This is a call to all Christians to reconsider your positions on government Social Welfare programs. I am not asking you to become liberals (and I certainly do not consider myself liberal even though I support well managed welfare), but rather, I am asking you to think for yourselves. Welfare is not a purely liberal subject, but if conservatives don't start playing a serious part in the discussion of how to best do it, it will be controlled entirely be liberals. We need to make welfare a bipartisan effort. I think that this is the only way to create a truly good welfare system. If we don't do this, then we will be pushing away the poor among us, and other, really important conservative issues will ultimately die with the loss of their support.
Lord Rybec
First, ask yourselves if it is morally right for governments to take money from their subjects (in the form of taxes) to protect them from criminals. If you don't know what I am talking about, governments spend tax money on police, prisons, and sometimes even rehabilitation facilities and mental wards for this purpose, not to mention other forms of law enforcement. Most people I know have no problem with governments doing this, and many even think that the U.S. government is not doing enough to protect them. Also, ask yourselves if it is morally right for a government to enforce religious laws, or laws with a religious basis. As you ask yourself this, consider certain parts of the Ten Commandments, for instance, "Thou shalt not steal," and "Thou shalt not kill." In fact, I cannot think of many U.S. laws that are not based on Christian moral laws found in the Bible.
Now, let's discuss government social programs. Most conservative Christians are strongly opposed to government social programs (except, rather hypocritically, Social Security). Why is this? I actually am not sure, but I will try to think of some potential reasons anyway. One argument I frequently hear is that it is wrong for the government to take their hard earned money and give it to other people. One guy told me that it takes away the free agency of those with the money, because it forces them to give to the poor, instead of allowing them to choose how to use the money. Some people say that poor people deserve what they get, because they are obviously lazy otherwise they would not be poor. I have heard it compared to theft. Most conservative Christians use arguments that all come back to a feeling that it somehow violates their freedom, for the government to use tax money to help those in need.
The first argument, that it is wrong for the government to take their money and give it to other people, is clearly flawed. In fact, this is the only thing that the government does with tax money. Tax money is given to police officers in the form of wages. It is given to contractors to build prisons, roads, military bases, tanks, Humvees, aircraft, and all sorts of other things. Our government does not save any tax money (actually, they pretty much always spend more than they get), so they cannot be reasonably accused of hoarding it. Now, note that the one thing these all have in common is that the government gets some value out of the money, in labor or goods. If you think this is the difference though, consider also that the government donates money, without any explicit obligation, to 3rd world countries, to feed people who are starving. They even donate money, in the form of weapons, and sometimes even troops, to help warring countries, again without any explicit obligation. Is this morally wrong? Is it morally wrong for the government to spend our money to help people in other countries? Maybe you would say that it depends on our business relationship with those countries. For instance, you might say that it was not immoral to help out Kuwait, because we were buying oil from them, and if they were captured, it might increase the price of that oil, or even make it entirely unavailable to us. Is any of this really that different from helping U.S. citizens when they need it, though? Some of the poor in the U.S. can, and will, escape poverty, if they are given a leg up in the form of financial help. These people will ultimately become tax payers and will most likely eventually pay enough in taxes to pay back their welfare benefits.
The second argument is absurd. If using tax money is immoral because it deprives the payer of their agency to choose how to spend it, then it is equally immoral to prevent a murderer from killing, or a thief from stealing. If a man wants to murder someone, but the government imprisons him, is this not taking away his agency to choose what he does? You might say that his actions would have hurt someone, while the tax payer's actions would not have. Aside from the fact that there is no way to know this (the tax payer might have used the money to hire a hit man, or to get drunk and beat his wife), would it not result in harm if the money was not given to the people that need it to survive? The only difference is intent. In court, the difference of intent is the difference between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murder. The harm was still done, and the fault still exists. Intent cannot reverse the harm done. Laws are designed to limit agency to reduce harm done and to increase fairness. A law that does not limit agency is pointless, so this argument really just does not make sense.
I hope that the argument that the poor deserve poverty has been sufficiently debunked by our recent recession that no one still believes it. With over 8% unemployment (which does not count those who are unemployed and still want jobs, but who have given up searching), it should be clear that a significant portion of the population who are in poverty are people who are trying to get jobs. Claiming that these people deserve poverty because they are lazy is a foul lie. In addition, out of those who are not employed and are not looking for jobs, many are single parents. In fact, I would also include in this category couples with children, where one is disabled and the other cannot work much because someone has to care for the children and the disabled spouse, parents where their spouse is lazy and they are stuck caring for children and the lazy spouse, as well as anyone living in a place where there are no jobs available nearby and they cannot afford to move somewhere where jobs are available within a reasonable distance. Most people who fall into the category are already working more than 40 hours a week caring for other people, and it is a shameful travesty of justice that we allow them to remain in poverty given how hard they are working. I would even argue that most of these people are doing work that is much more important and valuable than anything that anyone working regular profitable jobs are doing (what do you think is more important, managing one large business, or raising the children who will eventually be expected to take over jobs including your job, the jobs of the entire government, and every other job in the U.S., not to mention a bunch more that have yet to be created). If you still believe that not working a normal job justifies poverty, you need to read my opinion on the Death Penalty.
As far as arguments that compare Social Welfare to theft, the government has a legal right (according to an amendment to the U.S. Constitution) to tax us. Thus, according to the law, taxing us is in no way theft. While the Constitution does strictly limit how this tax money can be used, and the limitations do not include any allowance for it to be used for social programs, violation of the Constitution is also not theft. Furthermore, any fault for such misuse of tax funds is not the responsibility of the entire government. It is the responsibility of the President (who has sworn to protect and uphold the Constitution) and the Supreme Court (who's job it is to review laws and determine if they legal according to the Constitution). It is in no way theft though.
Now, I want to discuss the underlying concern of all of these arguments. All of these arguments come back to the idea that spending tax money on Social Welfare somehow violates the freedom of the tax payers that fund it. We have already established that the government has the right to directly tax the people, through a Constitutional amendment (and, amendments cannot be declared unconstitutional, because they are part of the Constitution, and thus define themselves as Constitutional). The government technically does not have the right (Constitutionally) to spend tax money on Social Welfare, but it is hard to argue that it violates the freedom of the people, when a majority of the people appear to support these programs. Our government is based on a democratic system. Democratic freedom is ultimately defined as the right for people to be governed as they see fit (this is based on many publications written around the time that the Constitution was actually written). In a democratic system, this is accomplished by designing the government and its laws based on the desires of the majority of the people (because it is impossible for each person to be governed exactly how they want to be, when the population is greater than one). In short, if the majority of the people want tax money to be spent on Social Welfare, then it is a larger violation of freedom to refuse their desires than to spend the tax money on Social Welfare. You might consider government Social Welfare programs to violate your freedom, but your opinion is not the only one that matters.
Next I want to look at the religious implications of Social Welfare. I have already hinted at where this is going. Now it is time to discuss it. Since the U.S. is still a vast majority Christian, and this article is designed for Christian readers, I am going to focus on Christian religion. The Bible has a lot of commandments besides the ten brought down from the mountain by Moses. Many of our laws are based on those first ten commandments. Many are also based on an earlier part of the Bible where God granted Adam and Eve (and ultimately everyone) free agency. Most of our laws are designed to mediate agency such that everyone has an equal share. There is no specific commandment in the Bible against imprisoning someone against their will, however, this is a clear violation of another person's freedom, so we have a law against it to protect agency. Many conservative Christians, however, ignore the laws that go beyond agency and the Ten Commandments. Jesus Himself decreed that people should "clothe the naked," "feed the hungry," and do a great deal of other similar things. This is Social Welfare.
Does the government have the right or responsibility to enforce Christian commandments regarding Social Welfare? Most arguments I have heard say "no." The most common arguments are first, that the government does not have the right to enforce religious laws and second, that it deprives the giver of the blessings if they are forced to give. The first argument is clearly wrong, given that nearly every U.S. law is a religious law, that is being enforced by the government. If fact, by this argument, I could start a new religion, make a law for that religion that is the same as a government law, and the government law would immediately cease to be valid. It should be fairly obvious that the claim that the government has no right to enforce religious laws is absurd. The second, that it deprives the giver of blessings, is also questionable. This argument depends on the assumption that Jesus decreed His Social Welfare laws to give people an opportunity to obtain blessings, not because He believed that wealthy people have an obligation to help those in need. This would imply that all of the commandments are intended to be selfish, for instance, that not murdering is not about protecting the potential victim, but about getting blessings for the potential criminal. I hope you see how clearly absurd this is as well as I do.
If the "welfare" commandments Jesus decreed are designed to help the poor and not to give blessings to the rich, then the claim that forcing the wealthy to give to the poor is wrong because it deprives them of blessings is invalid. In short, blessings are a beneficial byproduct of giving, not the objective and thus should not even be considered in this argument. (Besides this, I think this claim is a lie. I believe that someone who willingly gives, even if they are compelled to do so, will get any blessings associated with giving. The only people who will not get blessings are those who would not have given if they had not been compelled to give. I think the Bible even says as much.) Given that these religious laws are designed to help and protect people, just like the Ten Commandments, I find no religious reason that the government should not use tax money to provide for the needs of those who cannot afford to do so themselves. In fact, I find that it is equally acceptable for the government to provide Social Welfare as it is to outlaw murder and theft, from a religious perspective. Further, I don't see why conservative Christians, who claim to believe and follow the commandments given in the Bible, don't strongly support adding this commandment to codified law. It seems hypocritical that Christians should support laws banning same sex marriage (a position which, contrary to the claims of certain people, is supported in the Bible), but not support laws enforcing commandments concerning welfare given by Jesus Himself.
There is still the issue of Constitutionality. This is the only valid argument against government Social Welfare. The Constitution gives an explicit list of powers the Federal Government has, and Social Welfare is not included in that list. (Note, however, that all other powers not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution are granted to the states. This means that the states do have the Constitutional right to create Social Welfare programs.) There are two ways of getting around this. Obviously, an amendment could be made adding the right of the Federal Government to create Social Welfare programs to the above mentioned list. The second, and in my opinion much better, way would be for all Social Welfare programs to be managed per state. Not only would this be entirely legal, it would also help those programs to be better tailored to the situations within each state (one problem with Federal welfare programs is that they cannot keep up with differences in cost of living between different states and even different regions within states).
This is a call to all Christians to reconsider your positions on government Social Welfare programs. I am not asking you to become liberals (and I certainly do not consider myself liberal even though I support well managed welfare), but rather, I am asking you to think for yourselves. Welfare is not a purely liberal subject, but if conservatives don't start playing a serious part in the discussion of how to best do it, it will be controlled entirely be liberals. We need to make welfare a bipartisan effort. I think that this is the only way to create a truly good welfare system. If we don't do this, then we will be pushing away the poor among us, and other, really important conservative issues will ultimately die with the loss of their support.
Lord Rybec
07 March 2012
Good Revolution
Historically, revolutions have been a common method for the oppressed masses to escape tyrannical leaders. Nearly all forms of government have shown a propensity to decay towards oppression of their subjects. Some tend to decay very quickly, while others can take a very long time. One thing that is very common is that the governments that replace the oppressive governments are often as bad or worse than the original governments.
In feudal Europe, revolutions were generally led by nobles that wanted to control the government themselves. The nobles often felt that they were oppressed by the royalty, but when they succeeded in taking control they were as bad or worse. These revolutions did not generally have the support of the general population, except so far as the nobles had control over them.
Many other revolutions did have the support of the general populace. Sometimes these revolutions were incited by members of the oppressed lower classes, but many times, these revolutions were incited by people with a lust for power, who were able to use the oppression of the government to convince the lower classes to band together. Whichever the case, most revolutions have ended up with leaders who did not have the interest of the general populace in mind. In short, most revolutions have become engines for putting people aspiring to gain control into power. These are most often people who care as little or less than the previous government for the general populace. Again, most revolutions end with a worse government than the one that is overthrown.
So, now for the question: Why is this? When people overthrow their government to escape tyranny, why do they put up with someone worse? How do these aspiring tyrants gain control of the revolutions in the first place? Why don't good people stop them? The answer is that good people tend to oppose revolution, even when they are obviously oppressed.
Out of the many revolutions in the world, the American Revolution was an exception to this. No aspiring tyrant with ulterior motives got control of this revolution. The government that this revolution eventually established was a government that, for the most part, did care about the general populace. How was this revolution different from the vast majority? How did this revolution end up being lead by good people, instead of people trying to gain absolute control of the general population?
The answer is very complicated. First, the population of the American colonies at the time was mostly people trying to escape tyranny. The population was small, and the technology level was inferior to that of Europe. People desiring control like to have a lot of people to control, and stuff (read: technology) to make them more powerful. In short, the American colonies were not very tempting, so few aspiring tyrants bothered coming. The result was a population of people who valued freedom and were not interested in controlling everyone else (right, there were some Puritan sects that did try to control people, but this was a vast minority). This was not everything though. Many good people did oppose the revolution, on moral grounds. This is one of the strongest reasons that revolutions tend to be led by people without ethics.
As the American Revolution began to turn into a significant force, there were many good people who opposed it, on religious grounds. Religious discussions on the subject were very common. In the New Testament, there are many passages that establish the importance of government and of being subject to government. Many people took this to mean that God wanted them to submit to the oppressive British government. Many preachers urged pacifism and submission, on religious grounds. One of the big breaking points were a few preachers that took the same scriptures to mean something different. The same scriptures used to suggest that revolution was a violation of Biblical principals were taken by other preachers to mean that the people should submit only to righteous governments. These preachers became very popular among good people, because the people saw that there was a problem. These preachers were not the typical aspiring tyrants trying to get control. They were part of the general populace that wanted freedom for themselves and everyone else. Without them, any revolution probably would have been controlled by someone with ulterior motives. Instead, a lot of good people were convinced that they had not only a right to overthrow an oppressive government, but a moral responsibility to do so. Instead of a lot of angry rabble rebelling against an oppressive government by rioting in the streets and rushing government buildings, only to put in a worse government, the American Revolution was led by good, intelligent, and organized people, who only had a desire to free themselves and everyone else from the government that was oppressing them, and to establish a free government that did not oppress the people.
Revolutions require the participation of good people to be truly successful. If a government is truly corrupt and oppressive, the people have the responsibility for correcting the situation. When the majority does not feel oppressed, they have a responsibility to fight against revolution. When the majority does feel oppressed, the good people are responsible for being involved in correcting the problem. If good people refuse to be involved in just revolution, then they are just as responsible for whatever oppression the new government creates as if they had actively helped that government come into power.
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." When good men support oppressive governments, because they don't want to get involved, or because they believe that their religion opposes self defense, they are as guilty for the oppression as those in power. We are responsible for recognizing when a government has become oppressive. We are responsible for doing whatever we can to defend our freedom. Sometimes we can assert our authority through our voice and our vote. Other times, we must assert our authority with violence. Are we going to be those people who are eternally oppressed because we find self defense to be distasteful, or are we going to assert our authority by defending our right live without oppression?
Lord Rybec
In feudal Europe, revolutions were generally led by nobles that wanted to control the government themselves. The nobles often felt that they were oppressed by the royalty, but when they succeeded in taking control they were as bad or worse. These revolutions did not generally have the support of the general population, except so far as the nobles had control over them.
Many other revolutions did have the support of the general populace. Sometimes these revolutions were incited by members of the oppressed lower classes, but many times, these revolutions were incited by people with a lust for power, who were able to use the oppression of the government to convince the lower classes to band together. Whichever the case, most revolutions have ended up with leaders who did not have the interest of the general populace in mind. In short, most revolutions have become engines for putting people aspiring to gain control into power. These are most often people who care as little or less than the previous government for the general populace. Again, most revolutions end with a worse government than the one that is overthrown.
So, now for the question: Why is this? When people overthrow their government to escape tyranny, why do they put up with someone worse? How do these aspiring tyrants gain control of the revolutions in the first place? Why don't good people stop them? The answer is that good people tend to oppose revolution, even when they are obviously oppressed.
Out of the many revolutions in the world, the American Revolution was an exception to this. No aspiring tyrant with ulterior motives got control of this revolution. The government that this revolution eventually established was a government that, for the most part, did care about the general populace. How was this revolution different from the vast majority? How did this revolution end up being lead by good people, instead of people trying to gain absolute control of the general population?
The answer is very complicated. First, the population of the American colonies at the time was mostly people trying to escape tyranny. The population was small, and the technology level was inferior to that of Europe. People desiring control like to have a lot of people to control, and stuff (read: technology) to make them more powerful. In short, the American colonies were not very tempting, so few aspiring tyrants bothered coming. The result was a population of people who valued freedom and were not interested in controlling everyone else (right, there were some Puritan sects that did try to control people, but this was a vast minority). This was not everything though. Many good people did oppose the revolution, on moral grounds. This is one of the strongest reasons that revolutions tend to be led by people without ethics.
As the American Revolution began to turn into a significant force, there were many good people who opposed it, on religious grounds. Religious discussions on the subject were very common. In the New Testament, there are many passages that establish the importance of government and of being subject to government. Many people took this to mean that God wanted them to submit to the oppressive British government. Many preachers urged pacifism and submission, on religious grounds. One of the big breaking points were a few preachers that took the same scriptures to mean something different. The same scriptures used to suggest that revolution was a violation of Biblical principals were taken by other preachers to mean that the people should submit only to righteous governments. These preachers became very popular among good people, because the people saw that there was a problem. These preachers were not the typical aspiring tyrants trying to get control. They were part of the general populace that wanted freedom for themselves and everyone else. Without them, any revolution probably would have been controlled by someone with ulterior motives. Instead, a lot of good people were convinced that they had not only a right to overthrow an oppressive government, but a moral responsibility to do so. Instead of a lot of angry rabble rebelling against an oppressive government by rioting in the streets and rushing government buildings, only to put in a worse government, the American Revolution was led by good, intelligent, and organized people, who only had a desire to free themselves and everyone else from the government that was oppressing them, and to establish a free government that did not oppress the people.
Revolutions require the participation of good people to be truly successful. If a government is truly corrupt and oppressive, the people have the responsibility for correcting the situation. When the majority does not feel oppressed, they have a responsibility to fight against revolution. When the majority does feel oppressed, the good people are responsible for being involved in correcting the problem. If good people refuse to be involved in just revolution, then they are just as responsible for whatever oppression the new government creates as if they had actively helped that government come into power.
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." When good men support oppressive governments, because they don't want to get involved, or because they believe that their religion opposes self defense, they are as guilty for the oppression as those in power. We are responsible for recognizing when a government has become oppressive. We are responsible for doing whatever we can to defend our freedom. Sometimes we can assert our authority through our voice and our vote. Other times, we must assert our authority with violence. Are we going to be those people who are eternally oppressed because we find self defense to be distasteful, or are we going to assert our authority by defending our right live without oppression?
Lord Rybec
23 January 2012
Inflation vs Wage Increase
I recently wrote a paper for an English class (which I will post here eventually) based on the income distribution problems in the US. This paper required actual research and citations, so I ended up looking up things like average inflation and wage increase over the last 50 years. What I found is appalling and rather damning for large businesses. It turns out that the current situation is many times worse than I had initially thought.
The two above mentioned statistics (inflation and wage increase) should give a very clear indication of exactly where the problem lies. The statistics are as follows: average inflation from 1961 to now (the last 50 years) is 659%, and average wage increase for the lower 99% of wage earners is 75%. If you don't see the problem, let me explain.
This means that businesses are charging 6.5 times more for goods, but only paying 1.75 times more wages (to 99% of the population). Note that for the top 1%, wage increase is 250%, which is still only half of the rate of inflation. In short, everyone is getting ripped off, except for the few CEOs that are keeping the enormous leftovers.
Ok, this might sound kind of bad now (to me, this by itself is appalling). There is more though. The cost of production is literally at all time lows. I am not talking monetary costs. In the end, all production costs break down to labor. The cost, in labor, of producing even the most advanced technology is less than it has ever been, in the entire history of mankind. Our ability to produce food is legendary. The US produces many times more food than we need and with only a tiny fraction of the available labor. This goes for nearly everything produced in the US. Instead of lower prices however, businesses are raising them. Instead of using the surplus cash to pay their workers a fair wage though, they hoard it, paying their CEOs absurdly high wages (see that xkcd.com comic I posted a bit ago; typical CEO wages are $5,000 an hour), and squandering it on other fairly pointless endeavors.
I tried to explain this to someone recently, and the excuse for inaction was that it is none of our business if other people are getting ripped off by businesses. I was told that I could leave the US if I did not like how the businesses here treat people. First, to my knowledge, there is no place in the world that employers treat their employees fairly. The US and Europe are the best we have (actually, this is debatable) and both stink. This idea that ripping off people is ethical as long as they agree to it is nauseating to me (I believe I also posted my opinion on the idea that it is ethical to charge as much as people are willing to pay; I feel the same about the idea that it is ethical to pay the lowest wages people are willing to work for). Now the first argument, that it is none of our business, is just as bad. This is the argument used by Germans who were not willing to help the Jews. I know a cliche that fits this situation perfectly: "All that is needed for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing." I apologize if some people find this comparison to Nazi Germany to be offensive, but if you will take the time to think about it, you will find that there is little difference. If you believe that slavery in the South was bad and that freeing the slaves was a good thing, then it is hypocritical to claim that this injustice is none of your business. (When I post my paper, you will find that what is happening in the US now is not that far from actual slavery.)
I am a member of the LDS Church, commonly known as Mormons. Most Mormons that I know are very conservative. I consider myself to be fairly conservative (though I do not like to associate myself with the Republican party, as I have found it to be no less corrupt than any other party). Still, my religion dictates that it is my business to care that my fellow humans are being treated unfairly and are being oppressed. I have heard the argument that those running businesses have the agency to choose how to treat their employees. This, however, is not a valid excuse to allow them to continue to rob them of fairly earned wages. This argument is as valid as the argument that thieves should not be prevented from robbery (or punished for it), because they have the agency to act as they please. We live in a democratically run government (at least, in theory). It is the business of the people to enforce fairness. This is the purpose of a democratic government. My religion specifically states that I am my brother's keeper and that the term "brother" is used to represent every human ever born and that ever will be born. In short, my religion expressly dictates that how others are treated by their employers is my business. The agency of others does not even apply in this case. Any Mormon that tries to use this argument as an excuse for inaction does not understand the teachings of their religion. This applies equally to any religion that believes the Bible to be the Word of God.
One of these days, I will work out the math for these rates and post a projection for cost versus pay 50 years from now. I suspect that it will predict that 99% (or more) of the US population will not make enough money to eat without being on welfare in 50 years.
I doubt that this will ever happen, however. If the situation continues to decay, the Occupy Wall Street movement will eventually evolve into a violent revolution, and our government and all of the big businesses that control it will be destroyed. If the government tries to quell the movement, it will be another Tienanmen Square and will probably result in even a more violent revolution. Of course, maybe this is what SOPA and PIPA are all about. Maybe our government is trying to gain control of the internet so that they can kill thousands of protestors and then cover it up, just like China did. I doubt that it will work here, however. If nothing else, the nerds (I include myself in this group) will manage to spread the news even against all the efforts of the government to cover it up.
Since my last few posts, the government has not done anything significant to appease the 99%. In fact, they have blatantly tried to further oppress them (SOPA, PIPA). At the rate they are going, revolution is nigh. I recommend preparing. Still, don't give up. If it is possible to force our government to acknowledge that it is at the mercy of the people, peacefully, then it will take the effort of as much of the US population as possible.
Lord Rybec
The two above mentioned statistics (inflation and wage increase) should give a very clear indication of exactly where the problem lies. The statistics are as follows: average inflation from 1961 to now (the last 50 years) is 659%, and average wage increase for the lower 99% of wage earners is 75%. If you don't see the problem, let me explain.
This means that businesses are charging 6.5 times more for goods, but only paying 1.75 times more wages (to 99% of the population). Note that for the top 1%, wage increase is 250%, which is still only half of the rate of inflation. In short, everyone is getting ripped off, except for the few CEOs that are keeping the enormous leftovers.
Ok, this might sound kind of bad now (to me, this by itself is appalling). There is more though. The cost of production is literally at all time lows. I am not talking monetary costs. In the end, all production costs break down to labor. The cost, in labor, of producing even the most advanced technology is less than it has ever been, in the entire history of mankind. Our ability to produce food is legendary. The US produces many times more food than we need and with only a tiny fraction of the available labor. This goes for nearly everything produced in the US. Instead of lower prices however, businesses are raising them. Instead of using the surplus cash to pay their workers a fair wage though, they hoard it, paying their CEOs absurdly high wages (see that xkcd.com comic I posted a bit ago; typical CEO wages are $5,000 an hour), and squandering it on other fairly pointless endeavors.
I tried to explain this to someone recently, and the excuse for inaction was that it is none of our business if other people are getting ripped off by businesses. I was told that I could leave the US if I did not like how the businesses here treat people. First, to my knowledge, there is no place in the world that employers treat their employees fairly. The US and Europe are the best we have (actually, this is debatable) and both stink. This idea that ripping off people is ethical as long as they agree to it is nauseating to me (I believe I also posted my opinion on the idea that it is ethical to charge as much as people are willing to pay; I feel the same about the idea that it is ethical to pay the lowest wages people are willing to work for). Now the first argument, that it is none of our business, is just as bad. This is the argument used by Germans who were not willing to help the Jews. I know a cliche that fits this situation perfectly: "All that is needed for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing." I apologize if some people find this comparison to Nazi Germany to be offensive, but if you will take the time to think about it, you will find that there is little difference. If you believe that slavery in the South was bad and that freeing the slaves was a good thing, then it is hypocritical to claim that this injustice is none of your business. (When I post my paper, you will find that what is happening in the US now is not that far from actual slavery.)
I am a member of the LDS Church, commonly known as Mormons. Most Mormons that I know are very conservative. I consider myself to be fairly conservative (though I do not like to associate myself with the Republican party, as I have found it to be no less corrupt than any other party). Still, my religion dictates that it is my business to care that my fellow humans are being treated unfairly and are being oppressed. I have heard the argument that those running businesses have the agency to choose how to treat their employees. This, however, is not a valid excuse to allow them to continue to rob them of fairly earned wages. This argument is as valid as the argument that thieves should not be prevented from robbery (or punished for it), because they have the agency to act as they please. We live in a democratically run government (at least, in theory). It is the business of the people to enforce fairness. This is the purpose of a democratic government. My religion specifically states that I am my brother's keeper and that the term "brother" is used to represent every human ever born and that ever will be born. In short, my religion expressly dictates that how others are treated by their employers is my business. The agency of others does not even apply in this case. Any Mormon that tries to use this argument as an excuse for inaction does not understand the teachings of their religion. This applies equally to any religion that believes the Bible to be the Word of God.
One of these days, I will work out the math for these rates and post a projection for cost versus pay 50 years from now. I suspect that it will predict that 99% (or more) of the US population will not make enough money to eat without being on welfare in 50 years.
I doubt that this will ever happen, however. If the situation continues to decay, the Occupy Wall Street movement will eventually evolve into a violent revolution, and our government and all of the big businesses that control it will be destroyed. If the government tries to quell the movement, it will be another Tienanmen Square and will probably result in even a more violent revolution. Of course, maybe this is what SOPA and PIPA are all about. Maybe our government is trying to gain control of the internet so that they can kill thousands of protestors and then cover it up, just like China did. I doubt that it will work here, however. If nothing else, the nerds (I include myself in this group) will manage to spread the news even against all the efforts of the government to cover it up.
Since my last few posts, the government has not done anything significant to appease the 99%. In fact, they have blatantly tried to further oppress them (SOPA, PIPA). At the rate they are going, revolution is nigh. I recommend preparing. Still, don't give up. If it is possible to force our government to acknowledge that it is at the mercy of the people, peacefully, then it will take the effort of as much of the US population as possible.
Lord Rybec
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)