Sex

Reading too much into a gift

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Valentine’s Day is approaching, meaning yet another holiday where gifts are mandatory for relationship peace and harmony. So let’s talk about gifts.

And it seems that the one area where guys should definitely be cautious when shopping for their significant other is with gifts involving sex. And I can understand why. Giving any kind of gift that revolves around sex or your sex life can breed feelings of insecurity, especially if the woman in question is not into that kind of thing.

However one argument with which I have a problem was given in a list of (primarily Christmas) gifts to not give a woman on Yahoo! Shine by Jennifer Romolini. On the list after a cleaver (yes, a cleaver) was a "sexy" costume, and the description for it caught me the wrong way:

Um, yeah. Let me tell you why this is a bad idea. It made me feel self-conscious that the boyfriend who bought it was unhappy with our love life. Also? It wasn’t my taste at all. Also? It was really a gift for him.

* * *

The second point of this is key: it wasn’t her taste or style. Any product revolving around sex should always be purchased as a joint decision. There are exceptions to this, but not many, and this rule especially holds true for costumes or lingerie where size and style are the main considerations.

But then there’s the fantasy itself. You should not just spring a fantasy on your significant other. You should discuss the idea to see if they’re into it. Acting out fantasies should be fun and sexy, not a surprise that turns them off. This also means if you’re going to go the costume route, you definitely should not just buy the costume without talking about it. What if her role-playing fantasy has been to act as a police officer in an interrogation wanting to tease information out of a reluctant suspect, but you bought the French maid outfit instead?

The right fantasy for both of you is one you mutually decide to try after discussing it. And there is definitely nothing wrong with wanting to indulge in the fantasy.

* * *

The first point of Jennifer’s description is what caught me wrong: the implication that he was somehow unhappy with their love life. Wanting to indulge in a sexual fantasy is not a sign of unhappiness or dissatisfaction. Wanting to try something new is also not a sign of unhappiness or dissatisfaction. To demonstrate the fallacy behind this, let me use something else: cooking. I think it’ll be a lot easier to explain using this analogy.

From the point of view of the girlfriend, let’s say you have a boyfriend who has marvelous cooking skills. Then one afternoon you come across a new recipe, a variation on something he’s already cooked for you, or perhaps something completely new. If you were to show that recipe to your significant other, do you think he’d be offended at suggesting a new recipe you think would be something great to try? Would you for a moment consider that making such a suggestion would be taken as you not being satisfied with his cooking skills? I would hope not. In fact, he’d probably be thrilled that you want him to cook it for you rather than, say, finding a restaurant in your area that serves it.

So then, why the exact opposite with regard to sex? Why take a suggestion on trying something new as a sign of dissatisfaction? It should not be, as that is not what it means. Now if it is sprung on you at the most inopportune time – examples being as a Christmas, birthday, or anniversary gift or while you’re in the middle of it – then it could be disconcerting, but it still shouldn’t be taken as "oh he must not be happy with our sex life".

Sex is like cooking in many ways, of which this one is key: you need to try new things to keep it exciting. If you don’t switch things up every now and then, eventually you’re going to get to the point where your sex life becomes as routine as making the same thing each day of the week – this doesn’t mean same recipe either, "Oh we always have fish on Thursdays…" And once your sex life falls into routine where it’s "same thing, different day", eventually it becomes boring and that’s where problems can arise: either you fall into a sexless marriage or relationship, or affairs start entering the picture.

This is why there must be an open dialogue.

Sex should be a topic you can discuss without feeling any kind of embarrassment, being discrete where necessary of course. Even a notion as simple as buying a bottle of personal lubricant from Wal-Mart should be easy to discuss. And if you’re a woman who thinks that such a purchase means there’s something wrong with you, that is not what it means at all (I’ve seen women actually attempt to claim this). Not every woman is going to be as wet as a river when aroused, and this may be especially true in the days during and after your menstrual cycle. Post-menopausal women are also susceptible to vaginal dryness that can affect intercourse, so a bottle of lubricant can definitely go a long way to helping your own sexual comfort.

But the simplest way to keep your sex life satisfying is by talking about it with each other. Yes, discussing sex with your significant other without embarrassment is necessary.

And part of that discussion should include trying new things. Just as there are books, articles and websites for cooking, there are books, articles and websites discussing sex and new things you can try – and no, I’m not talking about porn sites. If you’ve typically glossed over those, give them a read every now and then and discuss what you’ve read with your significant other. Or read them together.

If you are genuinely unhappy with your sex life, unsatisfied in what you are getting, then dialogue must be opened. After all, your significant other won’t know that you’re unhappy unless you say you are unhappy. And if you are unhappy, there are plenty of suggestions of what can help once the root of the problem is found – which can really only occur with an open dialogue.

But you should not automatically take the suggestion of employing something new in your sex life as a sign of unhappiness. After all your sex life is very similar to your cooking life in many ways. If you won’t take the suggestion of trying something new in the kitchen as a sign that your significant other is not satisfied with your cooking, so too you should not take a suggestion of trying something new in the bedroom as a sign they are not satisfied sexually.

Constitution

Revisiting Gabrielle Giffords

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Gabrielle Giffords working at desk crop

It has been a little over a year since the tragic attempt on Representative Gabrielle Giffords’s life. First we must not forget that a Federal judge was also killed that day and the life of a 9 year-old girl was cut hopelessly short.

But at the same time, we cannot forget her congressional district. Every district in the United States is entitled to representation in the House of Representatives under the Constitution. And the district she represents, the 8th District for Arizona, has been without its representation since the attack.

It is without any doubt beyond absurd that she was not expelled within a month of the attack. It is beyond unfair to the people of the 8th District of Arizona that they have not had an opportunity to be represented in the House of Representatives. But the sad fact of the matter is that it is not unconstitutional, and it needs to be.

How is it not unconstitutional? Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution provides each house of Congress with the ability to determine the qualifications of their own members:

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members … and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

This is how Representative Giffords has been able to retain her seat in the House, including her full salary and other benefits, without actually being there. So for a year, her full salary and her medical care have been paid by those who pay taxes to the United States Treasury. And in return the 8th Congressional District of Arizona has received nothing. No representation in the House of Representatives, and therefore no ability to assent or object to any legislation that comes before the House or any committees to which Giffords is a member.

And now word has recently surfaced that Giffords is considering running to be re-elected to her seat in the House, despite no record of service for 2011 with the exception of one vote on a bill for which her one vote made no difference to the bill’s outcome. She needs to step aside until it can be determined that she is fit for service and able to take on the rigors and stresses that come with the job of a Representative. Further, she either needs to resign her position or be expelled from the House of Representatives such that the People of her district can select a new member, so the People can have the representation in Congress to which they are entitled under the Constitution.

Along with this, I propose the Constitution be amended such that the incapacitation of members of the House and Senate can be properly accounted, such that the people represented by that member can have that person recalled in the event of their incapacitation and new representation selected. Currently there is no remedy for the People of a District, other than a regular election, when their Representative or Senator is incapacitated and the House or Senate refuses to expel that member. There must be an additional remedy for either the People of a District or the Legislature of the State from which that Representative or Senator comes.

Allowing Giffords to be an example, the People of her District should have had the ability, last year, to recall her from her seat and allow another person to be selected in her place. Or, alternatively, the Legislature for the State of Arizona should have been allowed similar capacity, to declare that Giffords is incapacitated with respect to her duties as a Representative and hold an election to select a replacement.

Again, the Constitution should be so amended, and I would fully support such an Amendment, and I will likely be sending such an idea to my Senators and Representative in the coming weeks. I will post the details of such a communication if it occurs.

Health care/Life/Religion

Miracles

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

The answer you receive to any question regarding miracles will depend greatly on the person you are asking. Some will say that miracles occur all the time while others will say that everything has a rational and reasonable explanation, even if finding that explanation is difficult or even impossible depending on the circumstances of the evidence.

It is rather infuriating how people throw around the word "miracle" for things that, if they just look around, aren’t such rare occurrences. Calling a common occurrence a "miracle" is to degrade the word. Babies are conceived and born all the time, yet every baby is called a "miracle". Defying odds is not a miracle. It is merely defying odds. Something occurring for which there is plenty of evidence suggesting that said occurrence is impossible would be a miracle.

In other words, something that is possible, however remote, cannot be a miracle by definition.

So is it correct to call the case of the 21 year-old student who "miraculously" awoke from a coma a miracle? No.

People wake from comas, so the fact 21 year-old Sam Schmid awoke from a coma, into which he fell following a 5-car collision, is unto itself not a miracle. Comas are also still largely a mystery with regard to neurology, and while we can determine with a reasonable degree of certainty if someone is in a coma, judging the degree and whether someone will awaken is a bit difficult. Physicians do misjudge both. So the fact the physicians misjudged the degree of this person’s coma and miscalculated the possibility of waking up is also not a surprise.

Further the age of the patient must also be taken into account – something few appear to be doing. Younger patients tend to be better able to bounce back from injury, often "defying odds" and exceeding physician expectations. Are these events "miracles"? Certainly not. With proper treatments and the necessary degree of immobilization, the human body can repair many injuries it sustains. But there’s the caveat: with proper treatments and the necessary degree of immobilization. And some people can and do heal faster than others.

So what would be a miracle then? Here’s an example: a compound fracture that heals back to normal with no immobilization of the arm and no treatments for any wounds, including the punctures and tears of the bones going through flesh within days instead of weeks. Without treatment there may be some "healing" as the human body will do what it can to repair the damage, but a compound fracture poses an almost certain risk for infection and gangrene, meaning a compound fracture that is not properly treated will almost certainly require amputation. As such a compound fracture in a limb that heals completely with the bone, skin and flesh all returning fairly close to normal with no intervention of any medical nature would itself be a miracle.

However a 21 year-old victim of a 5-car collision coming awake after being in a coma for the better part of 2 months isn’t a miracle, as the article describing the student’s injuries states plainly (emphasis added):

For days Schmid didn’t seem to be responding, but what puzzled his doctor was that he did not see fatal injuries on the MRI scan. So he decided to keep Schmid on life support longer.

"There was plenty wrong — he had a hemorrhage, an aneurysm and a stroke from the part of the aneurysm," Spetzler said. "But he didn’t have a blood clot in the most vital part of his brain, which we know he can’t recover from. And he didn’t have a massive stroke that would predict no chance of a useful existence."

In other words, despite the fact he was not being responsive, there was still an expectation of recovery. But that expectation does dwindle as time goes on: the longer a patient is comatose, the less likely they are to awaken. A comatose patient could also slip into what is called a "persistent vegetative state", out of which recovery and awakening to consciousness is very rare.

Further the MRIs were showing that Sam’s body was recovering, healing itself from the inside after doctors intervened to repair the most life-threatening injuries:

So while the family was given a realistic picture of Schmid’s poor chances for survival, Spetzler ordered one more MRI to see if the critical areas of the brain had turned dark, indicating brain death.

…

The MRI came back with encouraging news during the day and by evening Schmid "inexplicably" followed the doctors’ commands, holding up two fingers.

Again this isn’t a miracle. The fact he is doing so well after waking shows that the coma served a purpose: the brain gave the body a chance to heal itself.

But what is even more disconcerting about calling this person’s recovery a miracle is simply this: if it truly is a miracle, it isn’t one that proves a point. It isn’t evidence for any god, especially the god of the Bible. If the god of the Bible were to perform a miracle that could be seen by anyone as being a miracle, then instead of waking a comatose patient, wake one that is unmistakably dead, say in the casket in front of the congregation during a funeral.

Or even better, cure a little girl for whom recovery has been deemed impossible. You see on Monday, December 19, 2011, a little girl of the tender age of three years old died of leukemia. I know her only as Sidney Mae. She spent much of her short life in a hospital. Her grandfather is also a rather prominent atheist, well known among atheists all across the country. Why wake a 21 year-old comatose patient when you could cure a 3 year-old of her leukemia and likely convert an atheist in the process?

Why call the awakening of a 21 year-old car accident victim a "miracle" when a true miracle to be performed that would have undeniably shown the existence of a higher power would have been to heal a little girl who’d been suffering with cancer for much of her very short life?

Sam’s recovery was remarkable, to say the least, but a miracle it was not for one clear reason: miracles do not happen.

Life

Christopher Hitchens

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Christopher Hitchens
April 13, 1949 – December 15, 2011

I first discovered Christopher Hitchens about 5 years ago when I was browsing YouTube. Someone had posted a copy of a lecture he’d given at the University of Toronto in which he was discussing the right of free speech and the various ways it is being inhibited. In that lecture he called Oliver Wendell Holmes "fatuous and overpraised", but also said in a nutshell that free expression is exceptionally important to a free society.

It was a lecture with which I found much agreement. I quickly became interested in other things he has done or said, finding other lectures and debates online in which he has participated. His views on religion and the supernatural were also agreeable to me. He had gained one more atheist supporter.

But it wasn’t his points of view that kept me interested in him, including reading his articles and essays. It was his way with words. Say what you will about Hitchens’ points of view, the way he expressed them had an elegance and style that could only be called unique. Sometimes his tone came across as caustic, likely intentionally, but the way his tone was expressed made his words seem like the caustic words were a finer grit of sandpaper that could glide easier across your skin without taking so much of it with each pass.

If one word could sum up Christopher Hitchens, that word would have to be brilliant. Brilliant until the end when his cancer overtook him.

He will definitely be missed.

Constitution/Law/Politics/Supreme Court

Ron Paul and the Federal courts

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

I’m surprised that the Republican establishment isn’t more in favor of Ron Paul. He is delivering on a part of the Republican platform that I’m sure plenty of other Republicans would love to see enacted, or at least the hardline Christian conservatives. How so? HR 958 – We the People Act

This bill was introduced by Dr Paul on March 8, 2011. It seeks to limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts with regard to actions of State and local governments and agencies. It seems the good Doctor has forgotten a bit about the jurisdiction and role of the Courts. Let’s review.

The jurisdiction of Federal courts is established by Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution: (stricken portion clarified by the Eleventh Amendment)

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

The first portion of this section is what is most prominent, and is what Dr Paul seeks to override with his bill:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority

This establishes the original jurisdiction requirement: any question where any law conflicts with a Federal law, treaty or the Constitution of the United States must be given a forum in a Federal court. In those cases the court of original jurisdiction on that question is typically a United States District Court. Congress can and has assigned original jurisdiction to other courts, such as the various bankruptcy and tax courts. But the Constitution requires there to be a court of original jurisdiction at all times. Congress cannot eliminate this.

The only limitation on Congress assigning original jurisdiction is with the Supreme Court. Congress cannot amend or degrade the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Congress has the power to muck with the appellate jurisdiction of the Courts, and has in the past. But such a power may, in fact, be overridden in part by the First Amendment, namely the provision providing for the right of the people to "petition the government for a redress of grievances". And a case that is not decided in your favor may in fact be a grievance under the First Amendment.

Limitation of Jurisdiction

Section 3 of Dr Paul’s bill seeks to limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, stating that no Federal Court, including the Supreme Court of the United States, shall hear a case involving:

  1. any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
  2. any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
  3. any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation

None of this is constitutional in the least, not by any stretch, because Congress cannot eliminate the original jurisdiction of the Courts. If there is a question of a conflict regarding anything at the State or local level and any Federal statute, treaty, or the Constitution of the United States, that question must be given a forum in the Federal judiciary. The limitations above could only constitutionally apply to the appellate jurisdiction within the Federal judiciary.

So what kind of cases would these points affect? What cases would basically be stripped from the jurisprudence of this country with the stroke of the legislative pen? Here are some examples, and it’s convenient that these are the kind of cases likely to get a Court or judge labeled as "activist" by conservatives:

  1. Kitzmiller v. Dover, the 2005 case in Pennsylvania regarding intelligent design in public schools; any case involving the Pledge of Allegiance with regard to "under God"; all cases involving prayer in public schools; Torcaso v. Watkins; Everson v. Board of Education
  2. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird, Lawrence v. Texas
  3. Perry v. Schwarzenegger

This is a very dangerous idea indeed: the Supreme Court decisions that many Christian conservatives want to see nullified rendered such by the stroke of a legislative vote and President’s signature. If you cannot see danger behind this idea, you are in need of a serious education. Further this bill, if passed into law would prevent future cases in Federal courts involving these topics, and would render these decisions inapplicable to the States and State courts.

Thankfully this bill is likely to suffer the same fate it has in Congresses prior: a silent death at committee.

Now Perry v. Schwarzenegger is still relatively new on the jurisprudential landscape, but it’s making its way through the appellate process. The other cases I’ve provided above are examples of established jurisprudence. And Dr Paul thinks that this can be ended with an ordinary act of Congress? And I thought Perry’s ideas for amending the Constitution were dangerous.

While it is certainly great that Ron Paul wants to bring this country back to the original scope of the Constitution, I think he needs to brush up on a few things.

Life/Religion

Dear Mom and Dad

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Dear Mom and Dad,

I know you are disappointed that I am an atheist. But you do remember that you never actually exposed me to any religion. In fact you made it a point to not do that. You allowed me to discover the world and universe for what it is, including all the various claims others make about it. Though we have come to differing conclusions about the nature of the universe, you recognize you gave me the freedom to come to a different conclusion rather than indoctrinating me into one particular set of answers.

Words cannot describe how grateful I am that I’ve had that freedom and independence.

Though you are disappointed by this one point of view that I hold, you love and accept me fully for who I am and who I have become. You are proud of my accomplishments and have overlooked most of my faults. You don’t let this one point question whether you were good parents or debate if there was some place along the line where you went wrong or didn’t do enough. Instead you are still there to be mentors for the various paths I will be taking on this road called life.

You could have done better as parents, but you also could’ve done much worse. You could’ve raised me with an indoctrinating hand, and turned me away when I questioned it all. Instead you preferred I think for myself, learning and discovering things along the way. Your love as parents is not conditional on the views I hold, conditional on holding the same views you do, and I am again grateful in ways that words cannot do justice.

As I read around about other atheists who’ve been turned away by their families, or who face unending criticism, shaming, and guilt-tripping, I’m grateful that I am one atheist who does not need to worry about that. I’m grateful that you, my mother and father, accept me for who I am and love me without any condition, expressed or implied.

Your loving son.

[Inspired by a recent blog post by The Thinking Atheist called “Dear Mom and Dad (a letter to a religious family)“]

Religion/Republican platform/Supreme Court

Public schools and the Ten Commandments

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

The time has come for another revisit on the First Amendment and public schools, namely the protections of the First Amendment regarding religious freedom. Namely the revisit is regarding the Ten Commandments, brought to you by the School Board for Giles County, Virginia.

So let’s make the question very plain: does a school violate the First Amendment when putting the Ten Commandments on public display? While virtually every Court that has addressed this question has said "Yes", let us examine more closely why this is the case.

First, a public school is a government entity created by an act of government. The incorporation doctrine says that the limitations of the First Amendment apply to State and local governments and any entities created by that government, including public schools. So public schools and their school boards are limited by the First Amendment.

So how does displaying the Ten Commandments run afoul of the First Amendment?

Namely the display runs afoul of the Establishment Clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion…" I’ve already discussed the meaning of these words in great detail, so I highly recommend you read it if you are under the impression that these words simply mean that Congress cannot establish a religion:

With regard to the First Amendment regarding Congress’ prohibition on making laws "respecting an establishment of religion", the Constitution is prohibiting Congress from making laws that have regard for the foundations and principles of all religion.

Again this limitation applies to the States and their local municipalities and any government-created entities by way of the Fourteenth Amendment.

So how does the Ten Commandments come into play here?

The Ten Commandments exist only in a religious context, namely in the Pentateuch, with similar wording appearing in the Qur’an, but when individuals consider the Ten Commandments, they tend to consider only the words in the Book of Exodus. This means that the school that places the Ten Commandments on display is doing so in respect to the establishments of Christianity and, indirectly, Judaism. The respect is in the form of indirect promotion of those religions.

The First Amendment, again, forbids any level of government from "respecting an establishment of religion". So by respecting the establishments of Christianity by attempting to indirectly promote Christianity through the display of the Decalogue, the school is running afoul of the Establishment Clause. It’s as plain as that.

And a public school can no more display the Eight "I’d Rather You Didn’ts" than it can the Ten Commandments. It is enjoined in all cases.

Economics/Politics/Religion

Trading one religion for another

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

While it is uplifting to read of more and more teenagers "seeing the light" and leaving Christianity or whatever religion held their mind captive, what I’m seeing as a side-effect of this is certainly not uplifting. And the best way I can summarize this side-effect is basically to call it "trading one god for another".

What do I mean?

I notice that a lot of those who became atheists while in high school or college also become seemingly ultra-liberal, and seemingly overnight. It seems they must be associating political and economic concepts that have no ties to religion with religion, and so start to take on entirely opposite political and economic points of view without any consideration of the evidence behind those points of view. A lot of atheists say they became atheists after discovering there is almost no evidence supporting the religion to which they previously belonged, but then start taking on economic and political points of view for which there is also little evidence in support.

In short, atheist teens and college students appear to be trading Christianity for statism.

Now many Christians will readily proffer the idea of leftist professors and "godless" teachers as the reason for this. In my experience, going to college that arguably had a more liberal-leaning teaching staff, I don’t find this to be the case. Not even my (Ph.D.’d) economics professor made any kind of attempt to indoctrinate us toward either Austrian economics or Keynesian economics, or whatever other economics model might exist. He just presented what was known and let us process it.

Now I won’t say such indoctrination never happens, but I doubt highly it’s as large a problem as the conservative right in this country attempts to model it.

Instead I believe it to be as I’ve already stated: a false association of certain political and economic views to Christianity. Christian conservatism and economic conservatism are not the same thing, yet too many atheists appear to think they are. And as such they begin to think that political points of view they once held are as wrong as religion without really looking into it, or they glance over some materials that in summary say their once-held political views are wrong and adopt the advocated point of view.

They leave Christianity which puts on the appearance of advocating for limited, responsible government, and turn to atheism and statism, the latter of which openly advocates for big, irresponsible government.

Thankfully not all Christians-turned-atheist are like this, so I hope it’s just a case of the ones who are just being a very vocal minority.

Bullying/Religion

Religiously-motivated bullying–with the approval of the State

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Recently the Senate for the State of Michigan approved a bill that has been receiving a lot of press and was touted by Sen. Gretchen Whitmer (D) as a "Republican license to bully":

Of all the organizations that I support, it came as a shock to me that the CATO Institute would actually speak out in favor of the amendment on which Sen. Whitmer and half the blogosphere is speaking. Neal McClusky wrote this:1McClusky, Neal. (2011, November 4). "Indignant over Free Speech Trumping Bullying Protection? Support Choice". CATO@LIBERTY.

Similarly, Time columnist Amy Sullivan asks ”why does Michigan’s anti-bullying bill protect religious tormentors?”

I’ll tell you why: because as odious as one might find the religious beliefs of many people, they are entitled to freedom of speech the same as anyone else. That is a basic American right, and all the desire in the world to protect kids from hearing things that might make them feel badly must not change that.

The problem with this statement is that it does give, as Whitmer correctly called it, a "license to bully". It is one thing to say that homosexuals are going to spend eternity in Hell. It’s a whole other idea, however, to belittle and bully homosexuals in the name of your religion. Which do you think Senator Whitmer fears is protected by the Michigan anti-bullying bill?

It has been famously said that a person’s right to swing their fist ends at the other person’s nose. A person’s right to express their religion ends when that right is being used to oppress, belittle, demonize and terrorize others with whom you disagree.

The bill in question defines "bullying" as:

any written, verbal, or physical act, or any electronic communication, by a pupil directed at 1 or more other pupils that is intended or that a reasonable person would know is likely to harm 1 or more pupils either directly or indirectly by doing any of the following:

  1. Substantially interfering with educational opportunities, benefits, or programs of 1 or more pupils.
  2. Substantially and adversely affecting the ability of a pupil to participate in or benefit from the school district’s or public school’s educational programs or activities by placing the pupil in reasonable fear of physical harm.
  3. Having an actual and substantial detrimental effect on a pupil’s physical or mental health or causing substantial emotional distress.
  4. Causing substantial disruption in, or substantial interference with, the orderly operation of the school.

This is the exception that has been bringing such a major negative response:

This section does not abridge the rights under the First Amendment of the constitution of the United States or under article I of the state constitution of 1963 of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil’s parent or guardian. This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil’s parent or guardian.

Anyone who knows the realities of bullying and how overstretched the Christian conservative interpretation of the First Amendment has become knows that this section essentially guts the protection of the bill from those whom the bill was intended to protect: homosexual teenagers. That is the reason I find the CATO Institute’s interpretation of this provision to be not only vapid, but incorrect. It would not surprise me the least if Neal McClusky has never experienced bullying. If he has not, he does not know the realities behind it.

Bullies play all kinds of tricks and say all kinds of things to keep things working in their favor. That is the reality of bullying. A bully who is backed by religious convictions has been handed a license by the above section. They will say or do whatever is necessary to turn the bullying into a war of words, essentially rendering it into a stalemate that will work out, ultimately, in the bully’s favor, meaning the problems will only continue and the school will be ultimately powerless, all in the name of an overstretched, tyrannical interpretation of the First Amendment.

This is rendered all the more astonishing by the one concept that has guided First Amendment jurisprudence at the Supreme Court: the captive audience. Students in public schools are captive individuals, there by mandate of law if their parents do not exercise any alternative options, if any exist. This means that students in a public school are the most vulnerable individuals because they have few, if any alternative options.

Knowing this it should be no surprise that many bullied homosexual teenagers have taken that ultimate of alternative options.

Religious freedom does not mean the freedom to be an ass in the name of your religion, to borrow on words my wife has used time and again. If you want to say homosexuals are going to hell, fine. If you want to say that the pregnant teenage moms are no better off because they had sex outside wedlock, fine. If you want to say that atheists (like yours truly) can never attain salvation, be my guest.

But the moment you start using that as a motivation for physical and mental torture of others who you feel are going to hell, then you’ve crossed the line.

McClusky’s article is an utter waste of CATO’s blog space, and his appeal to "education freedom" is a vapid response to the reality of bullying, especially bullying against homosexual teens in the name of Christianity.

I will conclude by reiterating what I posted to my Facebook wall.

Any person who would use force, intimidation, belittlement, or actual violence as part of "expressing" their religious beliefs deserves ridicule, contempt, and jail, not the protection of the State legislature. We talk all about the religiously-motivated terrorists from the Middle East but talk little about the religiously-motivated Christian terrorism going on in our own public schools under our own noses — and now with the sanction of the Michigan legislature.

References[+]

Immigration/Religion

Revisiting the Constitution and non-citizens

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 2 Comments

The time has come to once again take on this little nugget:

The Constitution applies only to AMERICAN CITIZENS!

Recently I got into an online discussion with a person in Montana about this. Another person was involved momentarily as well and made this little pot-shot argument:

Those here that are citizens of another country have no rights. If they had them, they’d (non-citizen legal residents) be allowed to vote.

This assertion shows some the hypocrisy with conservatives. They say that rights are God-given, but I guess God only gives you those rights when you actually become a citizen, at least according to this – if I may be so bold – pile of shit. And the person who made the above comment seems to believe that rights are all or nothing without realizing that there are, in fact, two classes of rights: natural and legal. Not all legal rights are natural rights, but all natural rights should be legally-protected rights.

Now I’ve said time and again that the legal protections of the Constitution do not apply exclusively to citizens because the language of the Constitution does not make such a limitation on its applicability. Typically when I say this, the person with whom I’m arguing brings the preamble of the Constitution into the fray:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The person from Montana did just this while also saying the Constitution must be taken in whole cloth. Even taken in whole cloth, however, the protections of the Constitution are still not limited to just citizens. The word person is used very specifically in the Constitution to make it clear that its protections are not limited to citizens exclusively. The word "citizen" appears in the Constitution with regard to the following (feel free to verify this for yourself):

  1. Specifying the requirements for office for the House of Representatives1Article I, Section 2 – "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have…been seven Years a Citizen of the United States…", Senate2Article I, Section 3 – "No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have…been nine Years a Citizen of the United States…", and President3Article II, Section 1 – "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President…"
  2. Specifying types of cases that shall be within the scope of Federal court jurisdiction4Article III, Section 1 – "The judicial Power shall extend…to Controversies…between a State and Citizens of another State,–between Citizens of different States,–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." and specifically denying such jurisdiction to two types of cases5Eleventh Amendment – "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
  3. the Privileges and Immunities Clause6Article IV, Section 2 – "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." and its clarification7Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 – "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
  4. defining who shall be considered a citizen8Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 – "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
  5. penalizing States attempting to deny the right to vote to any citizen within its jurisdiction9Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2 – "But when the right to vote…is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."
  6. prohibition of discrimination on the right to vote based on race10Fifteenth Amendment – "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude"
  7. prohibition of discrimination on the right to vote based on sex11Nineteenth Amendment – "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
  8. prohibition of poll taxes12Twenty-Fourth Amendment – "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any [Federal primary or election] shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax."
  9. setting the guaranteed voting age to 1813Twenty-Sixth Amendment – "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."

Out of the Preamble, Seven Articles of the main Constitution, and Twenty-Seven total Amendments, the word "citizen" in one form or another is specified in these relative very few number of places. And if you do a search of the text of the Constitution, the places where the word "citizen" is specifically and explicitly lacking are the clauses and sections restricting the Federal and State governments with regard to interactions with all persons within said jurisdiction. These include, but are not limited to:

  • privilege of writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended except in certain circumstances by the Federal government14Article I, Section 9 – "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
  • prohibition of bills of attainder and ex post facto laws at the Federal15Article I, Section 9 – "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." and State16Article I, Section 10 – "No State shall … pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility." levels
  • jurisdiction of the Federal courts17Article III, Section 2 – "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority"
  • requirement of a jury trial for all crimes18Article III, Section 2 – "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed" 19Sixth Amendment – "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed" unless otherwise waived
  • protection of the natural rights of religion, speech and peaceful assembly20First Amendment – "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
  • requirement of due process before a person may be deprived of any liberties21Fifth Amendment – "No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…" 22Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2 – "…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…"

among many others, but I’m not going to write a book on the topic right now.

Basically what I’m getting at is simply this: as I have said previously on this same blog and in other venues, the government is indiscriminately restrained when it comes to the interaction of the government and any person subject to that government’s jurisdiction. For a person to not have the Constitution’s protection of their natural rights, such person would have to be immune from the jurisdiction of the United States. Not even those with diplomatic immunity are immune from the full jurisdiction of the United States and the States therein when they are within the borders of the United States and any State therein.

I believe the assertion discussed herein first manifested in force only over the last decade, in the time since the attacks of September 11, 2001. Those attacks brought Islam to the forefront of the minds of people. It did not take long before an association was made between Muslims and terrorists that grew to the point where people started labeling all Muslims as terrorist material. From there, it was likely soon realized that a good portion of Muslims in this country are immigrants not yet naturalized, and there are a lot of Christians who want to deny the freedom of religion to Muslims in any way possible, even going so far as to assert that the protection of freedom of religion enshrined in the First Amendment applies only to Christians and that the religious liberty Muslims currently have is merely a "privilege":

The First Amendment was written by the Founders to protect the free exercise of Christianity…Islam has no fundamental First Amendment claims, for the simple reason that it was not written to protect the religion of Islam. Islam is entitled only to the religious liberty we extend to it out of courtesy…From a constitutional point of view, Muslims have no First Amendment right to build mosques in America. They have that privilege at the moment, but it is a privilege that can be revoked if, as is in fact the case, Islam is a totalitarian ideology dedicated to the destruction of the United States.23Fischer, Bryan. (March 23, 2011). "Islam and the First Amendment: privileges but not rights". On the blog "Rightly Concerned" hosted by the American Family Association.

The assertion that the protections of religious liberty apply only to Christians is gaining a lot of traction in the United States and it is a very, very dangerous idea. The desire for this point of view is rising in the face of two opponents seeing rising numbers: Islam and atheism.

In the case of the former, they see within Islam a "civil code" that allegedly must be countered at all costs: Sharia law of the Qur’an. The one thing rather intriguing about this is idea is that Christians are calling for countering one particular religion because of the laws stated in its holy book while not seeing their own hypocrisy: the Mosaic laws of the Bible, basically the Christian equivalent of Sharia. And the abrogation argument given by many Christians does not hold water as no place in the Bible did Jesus say he was overturning or vacating the Mosaic law.

In short the argument goes something like this: Muslims must not be allowed to implement Sharia into the civil code because it is a false religion and we are instead supposed to follow and implement into the civil code the Mosaic laws of the Bible – i.e. "God’s law".

The language of the First Amendment, applicable to the States by way of the incorporation doctrine, says that the free expression of religion shall not be prohibited. The language is not restricted to mean that only religious expressions applicable to Christianity shall not be prohibited, meaning that expressions applicable to any religion, including to deny or counter religion, is protected by the First Amendment. And no amount of redefining of a particular religion away from being called a religion will cause its expression to lose the protection of the First Amendment.

The Declaration of Independence asserts that there exist rights held by all persons:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

As such no amount of assertion that the Constitution does not provide protection of these rights to all persons subject to its jurisdiction will make that fact. A plain reading of the language of the Constitution makes it clear that it protects the rights of all persons who become subject to its jurisdiction.

"We the People of the United States" have stated that the Federal government and the governments of the States shall not deny to any person (not just citizens, but every person) the equal protection of the laws and shall not deprive any person of liberty without due process of law, and that included in those liberties that shall not be denied are the natural rights possessed by every person, as asserted by the Declaration of Independence.

References[+]