Law/Life/Religion

Unwelcome dissent

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

In the comments on my blog you will always have a fairly wide berth for discussion. Disagree with me and anyone else who posts all you want. The only “rule” I have is that you not lower yourself to the level of attacking a person instead of the points of their argument. Doing so reduces a discussion into a near-endless flame war, bringing any possible discussion to a complete standstill, a pileup on the interstate of discourse and discussion. Discussion is welcome. Dissent is welcome. Flame wars and personal attacks are not.

Many other sites will afford you the same, however, some aren’t so willing. Some aren’t into discussion, only ego-stroking, apparently.

The right-wing blog “The Right Scoop” recently posted an article discussing a “brave” senior named Laci Mattice who openly engaged her senior class in the Lord’s prayer during what was supposed to only be a moment of silence during the graduation ceremony. The writer behind the blog ascribed her actions to the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment:

A prayer said by a senior, listed on a graduation event program is nothing short of the free exercise of religion and has nothing to do with the creation of any law. End of story.

I disagreed. The Establishment Clause controls, and I posted this to define and support that opinion, based on a long line of jurisprudence extending back approaching 70 years:

Actually the Free Exercise Clause does not apply to this case. Allow me to explain why.

First and foremost, any institution established by the government becomes subject to the same limitations upon their powers and abilities as on the government that created it, for if the government is able to establish an institution with greater power than itself, we have tyranny.

The First Amendment restriction upon Congress implied that all actions of the government begin with Congress. This is why Article I is the longest article in the entirety of the Constitution. Restrict Congress and you restrict the entire Federal government, because the Executive Branch cannot do anything not authorized by Congress, or at least that was how it used to work. Unless Congress says “yes”, the Executive Branch cannot act, and Congress is enjoined by the Constitution in what they can say “yes” to.

The Fourteenth Amendment extends the limitations of the Bill of Rights upon the States and municipalities.

School boards are created by acts of law of the governments of each State, thus the same limitations upon the legislatures are inherited by the individual school boards, and thus the individual schools and their administrations, including the principal. Graduation ceremonies are official school functions, sanctioned by the school and school board by official act. School administrators may not design official school functions in such a way that it exceeds the limitations they have inherited from the very government that grants them any authority at all. This includes the limitations of the First Amendment.

These limitations are also inherited by those who are chosen by the school to speak during the ceremony — they are enjoined by the same limitations that enjoin the government due to their appointment by the school for the school function. Thus Laci Mattice exceeded the scope of her appointment by her attempt to join everyone together in prayer, thus she violated the First Amendment.

Again, this is based on decades of jurisprudence. And as you can tell the comment is fairly well-written, not heated or pointed in any way. A basic and brief overview of why public schools cannot endorse or sanction prayer — private schools do not have the same limitations because they are not entities created by an act of government.

And this comment, apparently, was enough to get me banned from commenting at The Right Scoop. An unregistered user going by the moniker “Valley Bash” spoke in support of my comment, and came under attack as well. Other comments that have also pointed out the impropriety of Laci’s actions have been edited by a moderator — I have the e-mail notifications showing the original text of the comments to show this.

Now it is perfectly within their right to do this. Going to their site is about the same as walking onto someone’s property. If they don’t like what I have to say, they can take whatever steps are reasonable to prevent me from stating my opinion there in the future.I knew that by commenting on the site I was risking being blocked. However it is also cowardly and disingenuous, and implies that the only people they want posting comments are those that already agree with the hard-right Christian conservative point of view. This basically means that if you don’t believe that the First Amendment gives Christians the right to engage anyone, anywhere in public prayer, including at public school functions and other government-sponsored events, then you are not welcome, despite the fact that such a belief does not jive with the law, decades of jurisprudence, and any idea even marginally in line with religious freedom and proper discourse.

Now while I have spoken harshly of religion on this blog, notably Christianity, I will always defend your right to practice your religion in peace. But once your beliefs enter the public square, or you put them on public display, they are fair game with regard to debate and discussion. No person’s beliefs, including my own, are immune from discussion and debate. Further while you have the freedom to practice your religion, protected by the First Amendment, that does not mean you have the right to use the captive audience of a public high school graduation ceremony to put your religious beliefs on display.

Religious expression is to be a purely private matter. The words of Jesus Christ even speak as such: (Matthew 6:1-6)

Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Again, disagree with me all you want. Express your dissent. It will always be welcome here.

Religion

Another doomsday come and gone

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Weather alert: Fire and brimstone warning issued for May 21, 2001, redacted due to flawed data.

The entire blogosphere is likely talking about the second, yet vastly more public failure of Harold Camping. First he predicted the Rapture would occur in September 1994, and after that first doomsday came without anyone being miraculously carted off to Heaven, Camping said his math was off and offered a second date: May 21, 2011.

It is now May 22, 2011 (or later, depending on when you’re reading this). Another predicted Rapture that didn’t happen. The closest thing we came to any indication of an apocalypse is Iceland’s volcano erupting again – though not nearly as bad as last year’s eruption that interrupted air travel in the region for months.

What many people are failing to see are the effects this prediction has had. People have given up their entire lives because of this prediction and significant portions if not the entireties of their savings and assets. Others have killed family and committed suicide because they didn’t want themselves or their family to suffer through seeing the world end – presumably those who committed such atrocious actions were also convinced of not being worthy of being taken to Heaven with Jesus. So here’s an interesting question: should Camping be held legally responsible for the actions taken as a result of his prediction? There is no legal device currently at common or statutory law by which he could be held responsible for that death and destruction, but you know people are laying blame on him and his radio network.

Camping’s 1994 prediction didn’t go very far. It couldn’t have much reach because no one would give it much publicity and the world-wide web was still in its infancy – Yahoo! wouldn’t be founded till 1995, Google till 1998, and close to all newspapers and news organizations weren’t yet on the WWW at that point. We all know about it now because of the publicity the Internet and news organizations have given his 2011 prediction, and the only reason his 2011 prediction went so far and reached so many people is because of the advances of technology since his last prediction.

So what excuse will Camping conjure this time? Was his math again flawed? Were we spared because he spread the word? Or did Jesus just feel that not enough people have accepted him to meet the "quota"? What thoughts currently occupy the minds of those who so vehemently followed Camping and worked so feverishly to spread his message?

One thing that should be clear is simply this: no doomsday prediction should ever be taken seriously. Yet people are easily manipulated.

And when you tell people who are convinced that they are "saved" that the Rapture is coming and soon they’ll all be with Jesus, how can they not be excited? That is, after all, what they’ve waited their entire lives to witness. Christians are raised to live their lives as if the Rapture will happen tomorrow. When Jesus calls the saved few to Heaven before God destroys the Earth, do you want to be left behind, left with those to be cast into the dark pit of a hellish and tortuous eternity?

Yet when the Rapture is predicted, and the predictor sounds so sincere about it, and then it doesn’t happen, the question that really needs to be asked is why so many people allow themselves to be so manipulated by self-appointed mouthpieces who allege themselves to speak for God on God’s behalf?

If this latest Rapture prediction has given us any lesson it is simply this: no one person or book speaks for God, not even the Bible. Not me, not you, not any Christian, and certainly not any pastor, priest or reverend up to and including the Pope. There are no prophets and never have been. No prediction of the Rapture has ever come to pass as predicted, and no action of God that has been predicted by these self-appointed, brainwashed, imbecilic mouthpieces has ever come to pass as predicted.

Instead people look upon actions after the fact and say "that was God who did that". Pat Robertson is a very famous example of that with his many gaffes ascribing various disasters in modern recollection to "God’s wrath".

Here’s an idea: perhaps God wants the Rapture to be a surprise, you know, just like the Bible says. You’re walking along the sidewalk, and suddenly, *poof* you’re in Heaven. Or perhaps God will pull a Star Trek VI – just as you’re about to hear or say something dreadfully important to whatever you’re working on or whatever is going on in your life, *poof* and you’re saying the entire time "Damn in, damn in, God and Jesus, just when he was about to tell me who killed my wife! Oh wait, I suppose you can tell me that, right?"

If there is a God and if there will be a Rapture, He will decide what will happen and when. At the same time, one cannot simply point to something that occurred purely by coincidence and say "that was God". In short, we cannot know, and any assertions or statements of fact made about God, what he will do and what he allegedly has done, require evidence. Yet where is the evidence that conclusively and exclusively supports these false predictions and prophecies and statements post facto of what God has done?

There is none. No evidence whatsoever.

The Rapture didn’t occur as predicted because Camping is not a prophet of God. His assertions that he found "evidence" in the Bible pointing to a May 21, 2011, date for the Rapture are flawed. And that evidence is flawed because the Bible is knowingly and provably flawed beyond any hope of repair or redemption. The Bible is flawed because it was written by men and not inspired or actually penned by God.

The God asserted by Christians does not exist. As such I feel it safe to say that the Rapture will never occur, so stop wasting your time and energy praying and hoping to be one of the chosen few and just live your lives.

Feminism/Life/Marriage

Revisiting the practice of the wife taking the husband’s surname

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 2 Comments

Recall that about two months ago I discussed the well-ingrained tradition of the woman taking the husband’s name when they marry. Well, recently the Wall Street Journal published an article regarding this very issue. One thing provided was not very surprising:

Well-educated women in high-earning occupations are significantly more likely to keep their maiden names, the study shows. Brides in professional fields such as medicine, the arts or entertainment are the most likely of all to do so.

Those with already-established careers are most likely to go with their maiden name to avoid confusion in their careers after their marriage. Women who take their husband’s last name are likely to continue using their maiden name as part of their professional identity if they adopt their married name as well: Hillary Rodham Clinton, for example. But one thing that was rather interesting is that a study appears to have found that women who keep their maiden names when they marry are more likely to earn more and be more successful in their careers.

In a Dutch study published last year in the journal Basic and Applied Social Psychology, researchers had 90 students compare hypothetical women they had met at a party based on whether they took their husband’s names. Those who did were judged as more caring, dependent and emotional, while those who kept their names were seen as smarter and more ambitious.

Researchers also asked 50 students to screen e-mails containing hypothetical job applications from women. The candidates who had kept their maiden names were more likely to be hired and were offered salaries averaging 40% higher than their name-changing peers.

The WSJ points out that the latter study does have some issues that will need to be overcome, but it does at least highlight that this is something in need of more study.

Yahoo! mirrored the article and in the comments on Yahoo! must be what I would consider a very striking comment with regard to the idea by Yahoo! user La Dominicana:

My boyfriend of five years and I have talked about and he knows that under no circumstances am I changing my name for his. It’s the fact that why should I have to be the one to change my name like it’s not as meaningful to me or like it’s not good enough. No one ever thinks the man should take the woman’s last name, do they? Then that also means to “carry on the name” of the family a woman “must” have a son. No thank you I am not buying into this patriarchal garbage that society wants to feed me. If we are so egalitarian like people want to assume then why this tradition and big deal over changing names with only the assumption that the woman should change her name. No thank you as for what name my kids will have if I have kids I know my name better be somewhere in their names since I will be the one carrying them around for nine months.

Like many other ideas in our society that have been around for longer than people really care to realize, such as abortion and circumcision, the idea of the wife not taking the last name of the husband tends to generate a lot of very harsh negative feedback, with accusations of lack of commitment and other vulgar, unwarranted responses being the norm. As I pointed out in my previous article, some men appear to think that women should feel privileged being able to take the husband’s last name, as if the man marrying her bestows such a privilege upon her for which she should feel gracious, such as this comment by Yahoo! user blackacidevil:

Your boyfriend or fiancee was right to state that you obviously lack the commitment necessary for a marriage. Men give up plenty to commit to one woman, to provide for her, etc. You should perhaps try to be honored that a man that is proud of his name and heritage would love you enough to GIVE you his name.

This blog uses a plugin to provide an alert to my Facebook wall whenever I post a new article. In response to the alert for my previous article, a lady friend of mine said this:

Here on facebook I have my maiden name alongside my married name. However legally I took my husband’s name because it pleased him and it was my joy to please him. It cost me very little, and brought Chris great joy and stablity. But every person should do as they wish.

And her use of her maiden name on Facebook allowed those of us who once knew her back in high school to find her again today.

Now one thing with which I’ve come to agree is that what you do matters not nearly as much as why you did it. Here she said that she legally changed her name to that of her husband’s “because it pleased him and it was my joy to please him”. To me this is not a good enough reason to legally give up a name you’ve had for the entirety of your life up to that point. Her college degree and high school diploma carry her maiden name. Everything she had done in her life prior to getting married were done in her maiden name. An entire life was started under her maiden name.

And she changed her last name to please her husband?

I am not yet legally married, and my fiancée has said that she has no issue taking my last name when we do get married. I’ve told her the decision is entirely hers. As Yahoo! user “Just Wondering…” eloquently put it in his comment to the above mentioned article:

There is no “need” for a woman to change her last name upon marrying. In the old days when the ownership of a woman was being transferred from one man (father) to another man (husband) it made sense. Now there really isn’t a need for it. You’re just as married (legally and to God) with the same last name as with different ones. Having the same last name doesn’t make anybody any more respectful, married, loving, etc. It makes no difference to the IRS, the bank when you buy a house or car, to Social Security Administration. The more property a woman acquires under her birth name, it can become more effort to change her last name and to make sure the property reflects the changed name. But if it’s important to a couple that they have the same last name (or first name, if they want) that’s up to them.

The mention of property is especially important, as title to any property acquired by the man and woman before they get married remain separately titled while they are married unless they decide there will be joint ownership of all assets. However only a legal contract can actually make that official. Thus for government-issued titles, if the woman changes her last name upon marriage, she must have those government-issued titles updated with the proper name at the cost of money and probably a considerable amount of time, depending on the procedures to follow.

Then there’s this idea that is mentioned:

In the old days when the ownership of a woman was being transferred from one man (father) to another man (husband) it made sense.

The notion that a woman was owned, first by her parents and then by her husband, is one of the principal reasons for the woman having the last name of the husband after the advent and propagation of surnames across society. Today in the western societies, you’ll be hard-pressed to find someone who actually believes the husband owns the wife. More common are men (and also women) who believe that women are to submit to their husbands, but an actual claim of ownership is hardly ever made.

But in law, however, the notion persisted until very recent history. I will discuss that in another article.

In concluding this iteration, the one thing that women need to understand is that taking the husband’s last name is not something you should do absentmindedly. You will be pressured by family and by your fiancée to do so, arguably in the name of societal tradition, but remember that the ultimate decision is yours and yours alone.

You see, and I’m addressing both men and women alike here, whether the wife takes the husband’s last name, keeps her maiden name, or hyphenates is entirely up to her. The question for men, then, is whether you will support her decision, or leave her or threaten to leave her because her decision isn’t to your liking.

Note: Please read my follow-up to this article “Playing the marriage name game“

Charity/Life/Nudity/Politics/Sex

Nudity and prudery

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Everyone is born nude. We find pictures of nude babies and nude young children “cute”. However should an adult appear in the buff, it seems that the response in this country might as well be “All hands to battle stations!”

In case you haven’t heard, recently Meghan McCain, liberal daughter of populist-conservative Senator John McCain, was filmed apparently naked from the chest up for a public service advertisement regarding skin cancer. The cause is certainly worthy, and the message readily apparent: if you don’t do anything to protect your skin, you’re no better off than if you were walking around outside naked.

So why the torches and pitchforks about this, led most notably by the ever-controversial Glenn Beck?

First let’s tackle the obvious question: was Meghan McCain actually naked on set? It’s hard to tell. As others have pointed out, what you see in the ad is no more than what she would be revealing if she were wearing a low-cut or strapless dress. Others appearing in the ad, such as former child star Danielle Fishel (Topanga from “Boy Meets World”), show far more despite clever attempts at covering up.

What is most egregious about Beck’s reaction to the public service ad is simply the fact that John and Cindy McCain are skin cancer survivors.

Now, granted, Meghan McCain is not thin. But in my point of view she is an attractive woman. I’m not a huge fan of her politics, but I don’t have to like her ideas to find her attractive. It isn’t the size of the woman that makes her attractive, and the best example of that is Queen Latifah.

Plus the advertisement is tasteful and clever. I disagree in whole that the advertisement is in any way racy. Contrary to how voters have responded in online polls, the advertisement is not sexually suggestive. If you find this advertisement to be sexually suggestive, then you obviously have issues between your ears (and your legs). Trust me, this is far, far from sexually suggestive. How so? Be glad Hustler or Playboy didn’t produce or sponsor the ad…

Beck’s response was far from tasteful and certainly not clever. If he didn’t like the idea of Meghan McCain being implicitly naked for a public service announcement regarding skin cancer, he should have just left it alone and not touched it. Sometimes the best response to something you dislike is just walking away from it. In this case, that would have been the most appropriate response.

One also has to wonder if Beck’s response would have been the same if it was Angelina Jolie appearing practically nude for this advertisement instead of Meghan McCain. Or hell, sub in Sarah Palin or Ann Coulter.

Bottom line, the United States of America is also the United States of Prudes.

How many of you remember Alicia Silverstone’s vegetarian commercial for PETA? (video below courtesy of PETA)

Regardless of what you feel about PETA, the advertisement was, in my opinion, tasteful, even with Silverstone appearing obviously completely nude in the advertisement. It is not sexually suggestive and fits in with PETA’s message about vegetarianism and their stance against furs. Yet the response to that advertisement was nowhere near the level received by the skin cancer PSA involving Meghan McCain. Some television stations did refuse to air the ad over concerns with its content.1Orloff, Brian. (2007, September 20). “Alicia Silverstone’s PETA ads pulled“. People. Other women have also appeared nude in PETA advertisements. Access Hollywood has the details.2Access Hollywood. “Stars Go Naked For PETA“.

It seems that to some any appearance of any naked woman (or man) in any video production, regardless of the message or reason for the production, is pornographic and worthy of censorship. And it is this kind of attitude that has resulted in parents being prosecuted under child pornography laws for taking pictures of their naked young children bathing.

I’m not going to discuss in detail the First Amendment with regard to either advertisement other than to say that both advertisements are covered under the free speech provisions of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has stated as such:

[N]udity alone does not render material obscene under Miller’s standards

Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 US 153 (1974) at 161

But seriously, the United States needs to lighten up. If an organization such as PETA wishes to use nudity as part of their campaign, then let them. The world isn’t going to end because Alicia Silverstone, Meghan McCain, or anyone else for that matter appears nude in an advertisement for a cause. No one should be getting all up in arms about it because it is not something of which to be overly concerned.

If you really have that big of a problem with nudity or someone appearing nude or partially nude on television, then perhaps your problems actually lie within, in which case, strip naked and stare at yourself in the mirror for a while. Appreciating your own natural body will help you see that nudity and being nude is not shameful in any way.

References[+]

Capitalism/Economics/Politics/Religion/Science/Socialism

An observation

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

First, let’s define a couple things.

Pure capitalism and the free market mean that the market participants determine who of the market competitors survives. The competitors must adapt to a change in demand, try to change the demand in their favor, or die trying. Capitalism has been vulgarly called "economic Darwinism".

Natural selection says virtually the same thing about life, except on a much grander scale. If the environment conditions change, you must adapt with them, finding a better way to survive. In the wild, predators move with their prey. If they don’t they starve and die off. The same if they are not able to find adequate shelter when it is needed. Those who are better able to make use of their environment are more likely to survive.

So capitalism and the free market can be said to be the economic equivalent of evolution. Socialism and communism, then, are the economic equivalents of intelligent design and creationism.

Why then does it appear that those who are more likely to support evolution tend to also support socialism more than capitalism? Conversely, why are those in the "religious right", who support capitalism and the free markets more than socialism, more likely to be creationists?

Something does not add up.

Politics/Religion

Indoctrinate

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

If you ever want to see the amount of hypocrisy that goes on in politics, there is only one word you need to know: indoctrination.

The right accuses the left of using public schools as liberal indoctrination centers. Creationists are accused of trying to indoctrinate students with their attempts to get creationism into the public school biology curriculum. And last month I received an e-mail from the organization "Vision2America" that said this:

The Radical Homosexuals infiltrating the United States Congress have a plan:

Indoctrinate an entire generation of American children with pro-homosexual propaganda and eliminate traditional values from American society.

Their ultimate dream is to create a new America based on sexual promiscuity in which the values you and I cherish are long forgotten.

I hate to admit it, but if they pass the deceptively named "Student Non-Discrimination Act," that’s exactly what they’ll do.

Better named the "Homosexual Classrooms Act," its chief advocate in Congress is Rep. Jared Polis, himself an open homosexual and radical activist.

Oh no! The "radical homosexuals" want children taught that a different sexual orientation is not a reason to hate a person. Oh God! They must be stopped such that America won’t be pummeled by hailstorms of rock and brimstone and our "traditional values" of discrimination against gays because they are gay and would dare have sex with someone of the same gender can be preserved. And to stop this legislation, your money is needed. So if you’re a good Christian, you’ll donate your money to stop this assault against traditional values and preserve discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Oh, dear God, when will the insanity end?

Now it’s no secret that social conservatives do not like homosexuality and any attempt to "promote" it. It was only two generations ago that pushing the idea that all people are entitled to equal protection of the law regardless of the skin color was considered a radical idea that could destroy America, but I digress.

Indoctrination can be informally defined as simply this: teaching children an idea to which you object or show disagreement. And this is currently almost-always lobbed at liberals. And in some ways I do have to agree. Look at

  • the 10/10 project’s commercials featuring children being blown up for not wanting to participate in carbon-reducing activities1"Epic Green Fail!!!". Posted October 1, 2010, on YouTube by user HowtheWorldWorks.
  • students at a B. Bernice Young Elementary School, a public school in Burlington Township, NJ, reciting chants to the President and singing a song to the President whose music is the melody to the "Battle Hymn of the Republic"2"Review Ordered of Video Showing Students Singing Praises of President Obama". September 24, 2009. Foxnews.com
  • a mother who, on the Glenn Beck radio program with her 6 year-old daughter, talked about chants her daughter recited from memory that mentioned "boycott" and "petition" with regard to corporations seen as not being environmentally friendly3"Beck interviews mother taking on school over indoctrination". Posted April 29, 2011, on the blog "The Right Scoop".

Now in partial defense of the last point, the chant the girl had memorized was, for the most part, relatively neutral. It discussed ideas that are demonstrably good ideas, such as recycling, biking instead of driving where it is practical, not driving alone in your car (I’m guilty of this, I admit), and a couple other good ideas. Where it crossed the line was when it mentioned "boycott" and "petition". On a right-wing blog I left this comment about that:

Trying to explain boycotting and petitioning to a six year-old is about the same as telling a child they must avoid or not like the kid across the street while answering "Because I said so" to the barrage of "why" questions that will inevitably spawn from such an order.

Formally, to indoctrinate is to "instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., especially to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view".4indoctrinate. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved May 01, 2011, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indoctrinate Indoctrination is distinguished from education in that the doctrine or ideology is not to be questioned or critically examined, merely accepted. The above examples are attempts at indoctrination, especially the first point above as threats or exercise of death or extreme injury have been used to force people to accept a certain ideology unquestionably.

If the person being educated questions the ideology and still accepts it after the questions have been adequately addressed, to the person’s satisfaction, the person cannot be said to have been indoctrinated.

As I said, when it comes to educating students on ideas that parents or the community do not particularly like or toward which they hold a disagreement, the word "indoctrinate" or "indoctrination" gets thrown around. The word exhibits a very strong emotional response from parents. The idea that their children are being indoctrinated should offend parents, yet they often don’t see their own hypocrisy.

If you are raising your child in a religious fashion, and teaching them that they must accept the doctrines and tenets of your own faith without question, you have indoctrinated your child. Forcing your child to accept tenets or beliefs for which there is no evidentiary support is indoctrination, plain and simple. Most children raised in a religious household are indoctrinated. There is no escaping that reality as they are told they must believe and cannot question any part of their religion, for if they do hellfire awaits their eternal soul. The indoctrination doesn’t have to be direct, but if you’ve ever answered "Because I said so" or "Because the Bible says so" in response to questions your children have regarding your religion, then you’re indoctrinating them.

And the indoctrination by way of religion runs very deep in the United States and much of the rest of the world.

The one thing that is interesting is that religious individuals tend to say that science classrooms are also indoctrination centers. Except there is one overwhelmingly important difference between what is taught through a science book versus what is proclaimed and preached from the pulpit: what is in a science book has been demonstrated to be true over the course of decades of research so such ideas are accepted and referenced by the scientists that write the science books. And where evidence instead of assertion is the tool of education, indoctrination cannot exist by definition.

Indoctrination may also exist among sports fanatics. At St. Clair Hospital in Upper St. Clair, Pennsylvania, a suburb of Pittsburgh, their neo-natal ward wrapped newborns in "Terrible Towels", the well-known relics of the Pittsburgh Steelers.5Boren, Cindy. (2011, January 31). "Super Bowl: Terrible towels bring extra layer of absorbency to Pittsburgh newborns". The Washington Post. Justin Eitel of Mt. Lebanon, PA, another Pittsburgh suburb, said of his newborn daughter, "She can choose her religion, but she can’t choose what team she likes." Sports fanaticism is something I’ve never understood and likely never will understand. And in actuality, I’m glad I will never understand it.

But the one thing that is clear: hypocrisy exists when you scream "that’s indoctrination" at your ideological opponents while seeking to indoctrinate children in your own ideologies. And it is clear that both the left and the right, liberals and conservatives, are seeking to indoctrinate children.

Now if you want a kind of indoctrination you can readily accept, might I suggest the libertarian indoctrination? It’s quite simple: leave unto others to do what they like, so long as in so doing they don’t cause demonstrable harm to anyone else.

"But why?" chants the five year-old.

"It’s always best to leave others to their own accord," I answer. "After all, such is the Golden Rule."

References[+]

Firearms and Ammunition

Remington UMC “Yellow box”

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Remington has been distributing bulk ammunition under the UMC label. In gun forums and message boards this distribution has become colloquially known as the “Yellow box” ammo because of it’s prominent yellow box. It’s a giant box of 250 rounds and it’s available in the more widely used calibers – 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP are what I’ve seen on the shelf.

One common complaint about this ammunition is that it’s very dirty ammo. After a using this at the range, I have to agree. Before getting into this more, let’s discuss the hardware involved.

First gun: Smith and Wesson 4026

This gun is a .40 S&W semi-automatic pistol formerly used by the Kansas City Police Department. It is a pretty reliable gun, in my opinion, and from what I’ve read in various online forums, other owners have had little other than positive feedback to provide. It is a heavy gun, as it’s body is full stainless steel, and carrying it in a holster has proven interesting. I do not yet have a CCW permit for Missouri, but if I get one I’m not entirely sure if this will be the weapon I carry or if I’m going to go with something a little smaller and lighter.

Second gun: Taurus Millennium Pro PT140

The PT140 is part of Taurus’ concealed carry line of pistols. It’s a .40 S&W firearm, but the Millennium Pro is available in everything from the .22 LR to the .45 ACP. The gun we are working with was acquired a little over 6 months ago, and so far it’s proven itself to be rather reliable, and we didn’t have any issues with the gun “out of the box” as many have reported on message boards because I also cleaned it after acquiring it to clean out the grease packed into it before it was shipped.

You can read a great review of the PT140 at Christian Gun Owner.

The ammunition

I bought the “yellow box” .40 S&W MC rounds at my local Bass Pro, paying $79.99 for it – equivalent to paying $15.99 for a box of 50 rounds. We expended all 250 rounds through both guns – 125 through each.

There are two things I prominently noticed firing the “yellow box” ammo. First, the ammunition caused a noticeable GSR cloud with smoke coming out of the barrel – as in enough that I could puff it away like in the cartoons. I have never seen that with any other ammunition I’d fired, and I’ve used Remington JHPs, Winchester FMJs and Federal FMJs. Most of these rounds were 165 grain, not 180 grain, but the smoke from the barrel tells me that the powder was not burning nearly as complete as with previously fired rounds.

Second, along with the noticeable GSR cloud was the noticeable GSR spatter that came back onto our arms and deeply colored our hands. Some GSR spatter is expected, but we were noticing this with only one magazine expended, and to a much greater degree than any rounds we’d previously fired. Again this likely means the powder isn’t burning nearly as complete in these rounds.

The ammo didn’t cause any feed or jam issues with the PT140. But the 4026 wasn’t so lucky. The first eight or so magazines (10 rounds each) didn’t have any issues, but then each subsequent magazine had multiple rounds where the cartridge was not getting extracted. I’ve had extraction issues with this gun before and I was told by a friend to just better clean around the firing pin and extractor hook, and it paid off given that I made it through about eight magazines without any extraction issues. Then I think the extractor issues started again because the GSR were starting to clog up the gun a little. From the first magazine that had issues, each subsequent magazine had issues with at least three cartridges failing to eject.

Cleaning the firearms

First, let me say thanks for Hoppes No. 9. Both my father and one of the gun specialists at Bass Pro recommended it. It works wonders, especially dealing with this ammunition. Patience will definitely be necessary while you are cleaning your guns after using this ammunition.

There are two things I noticed: the inside of the bore was not nearly as bad as I thought it’d be, but the chamber and slide didn’t fare so well, with the 4026 faring worse than the Taurus. In the 4026 the GSR had started to cake inside the slide and chamber, which is the reason for the feed issues I mentioned earlier. This is not a good scenario: a couple more magazines of rounds over what was fired and the gun probably would’ve jammed to the point where it would have been unusable and dangerous to fire.

Now I should point out that this was a practice scenario. Ejection issues started only after I’d put at least 75 rounds down range. If this were a self-defense scenario, there would be no issue whatsoever. However given that the CCW course in Missouri requires the firing of about 70 rounds of ammunition, when it comes to that course, the “yellow box” ammo will be avoided and instead I’ll either go with Federals or Winchesters.

The Taurus, as I mentioned, had no feed or ejection issues at all.

Conclusion

So in conclusion, if you use this ammunition for target practice, consider yourself forewarned that you’re going to be doing some heavy-duty cleaning afterward. A facemask at the range may not be a bad idea to avoid breathing in the GSR cloud that may be churned up. Keep some good solvents and cleaners around to get your firearm good and clean afterward. For me, I’m avoiding this ammunition from now on. The Winchester and Federal rounds are not only less expensive, but much, much cleaner when fired.

Is your experience different? Let me know by either writing in the comments section below or by creating a blog post of your own and tracking back to this one (URL below).

Religion

Responding to a Christian

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

In the previous article discussing the origin of rights, I mentioned that I was in a conversation with a Christian on the conservative blog "The Right Scoop". In a recent response1Jackyl’s response to me on The Right Scoop she asked a few questions of me that I realize are statements of my opinions and point of view that deserve some clarification on my blog – a fresh insight into past statements, if you will. As such, many of the points will be addressed not only to the Christian in question, who goes by the moniker Jackyl on the Disqus discussion system that The Right Scoop and this blog use to manage comments, but to all Christians in general. I will be going somewhat out of order with her comments, but I will do my best to address each point she has made.

After recognizing that I am, indeed, a libertarian, not a communist as she initially alleged because I have said that rights do not come from God, she said that she "somewhat" understands my reasoning behind what she called a "strong internal emotional need to argue with and somewhat demogogue christians or those who hold other religious beliefs."[sic] She explains the "somewhat" modifier as such:

It is consistant that if you are truly agnotics, at least by my understanding of the term, you will rationally admit that you can not deny the possibility that a god exists and you have done so.

However, where you lose me in terms of my ability to follow you is in how your develop and support your conclusion that a Christian god exists? Your writings are somewhat fuzzy in this area.

She is correct in that I have not stated really anywhere how I have come to the conclusion that the Christian God does not exist. It is not something that I have explored on my blog, so I will take this as an opportunity to do so.

First, Christians, would you agree that without the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, Christianity would not have any definition? In other words, much if not all of the theology behind the religion called Christianity relies on the Holy Bible. It is where the teachings and story of Jesus are recorded, and it is the basis if not sole source for the theology most often cited by Christians. Now Mormons, I am aware, also have the Book of Mormon, but that is merely an addendum to the Holy Bible, as far as I am aware, so everything for Christianity still rests on the Bible.

And in the Bible lies many problems.

Numerous scholars have written about the authoring of the Bible, including the identification of the various authors of not only the Pentateuch, but the other books of the Old and New Testament. To put it simply the Bible is riddled with numerous problems, errors, contradictions and the like. The Bible is not the work of a god, or if it is, it is certainly not an infallible God as has been declared so readily by Christians. As the Bible provides a definition of God accepted by Christians (and further defined, molded, polished and primed by apologists), and as the Bible has been shown by numerous scholars to be wrong about so many things between its covers, it is not only my opinion but the opinions of many others that the Christian God, the "God of the Bible", Yahweh, Jehovah, or whatever name you wish to ascribe to the God first mentioned in Genesis, does not exist.

Now my firm belief that the God of Christianity is an utter lie perpetuated upon (currently) billions of people does not, as I have already stated, mean that no deity of any kind exists at all. I cannot know for certain if that is the case. As I have also said, there is only one way to know whether there is an afterlife and a deity controlling that afterlife, and that requires that I die. So as far as I’m concerned, the longer before I learn whether there is an afterlife, the better. Others who are so enormously curious as to the answer to that question that they must discover the answer for themselves can feel free to take the plunge necessary ahead of me. Just don’t pull me in with you.

Now I could be surprised.

It could be that after I die, I discover that the God of the Bible is, in fact, real. However if that were to actually happen, let’s just say God would have *a lot* of explaining to do. And if he were to condemn me to a tortuous eternity for my failure to believe in him, then he would not be good at all for he would also have to realize that my failure to believe in him is not entirely of my own fault, as some fault does lie with those Christians who failed to convert me.

However, in her response Jackyl seems to have adopted a particular fallacy that I’ve seen repeated countless times:

However, if you do not have definitive proof, then it follows logically that you are merely speculating based on some for of indefinite technical analysis of your perception of reality against the words of the Christian Bible.

If I am interpreting what she has written correctly, she is implying that I am seeking definitive proof that the God of Christianity does not exist. This is not the case, and the fallacy lies in the perception of the burden of proof. You see a lot of theists I’ve encountered like to play the game that the burden is on atheists and agnostics to "disprove" Christianity. Basically they can make any fact or philosophy claim they like about God and the nature of God, and it is up to non-Christians to disprove those claims.

Not so. This fallacy has been outlined in what is called "Russell’s teapot":2Russell, Bertrand. (1952). "Is There a God?"

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

This has been parodied by several others into such concepts as the "invisible pink unicorn", "flying spaghetti monster", and "the dragon in my garage". I recently parodied it myself in a conversation with a friend in what I called the "million-dollar bank account". Thus it is not up to me to disprove the existence of the Christian God, but up to Christians to prove it. And as I and millions of other atheists and agnostics have said, the burden of proof has not been met for we are still unconvinced. The fact that some atheists have converted to Christianity means only that some do not hold a very high burden of proof on those attempting to assert claims for which there is not only no evidence, but likely no possibility of evidence applicable only to the claim.

It’s very easy to ascribe certain events or phenomena to a deity or supreme being. It’s a whole other matter actually backing up that assertion.

It seems that you may have inferred that the patterns you see in the bible are consistant with patterns you would expect to see if the bible were indeed a control mechanism and since you have percieved such patterns, this fact definitively proves that a Christian god does not exist.

The idea of religion being another control mechanism is not just my own. I also certainly do not limit this idea to only Christianity. My observation and interpretation of history leads me to believe that religion is one of many control mechanisms that have been employed. One need look no further than the Middle East to see this to be the case. The same can be said of the control the Catholic Church held over monarchs, and thus entire nations, until the latter half of the Middle Ages. Indeed the Church had their own Courts separate of those of the government with the full ability to deprive a person of life and liberty in the name of God. Look at the cases of Galileo and Jeanne d’Arc to see that, not to mention the witch trials of Salem, Massachusetts.

The claim to be speaking for a divine power, supreme being or deity has a profound psychological effect upon people. Further when one claims that it is possible to earn the salvation or redemption of this deity if they pray, show devotion, and, let’s not forget, hand over 10% of their earnings to those claiming to represent the deity, things start to get a little complicated. Control is not complete because the idea of salvation or redemption is still only perceptively voluntary.

No to actually bring the people in line and get them to act in a particular fashion, one must instill fear into those people. And how best to instill fear than to say that if you fail to believe, show devotion, and follow a long list of rules that until recent history most people couldn’t actually read and verify for themselves, then you will spend a very tortuous eternity in a place you wouldn’t wish on your worst enemy.

Given that the God of the Bible does not exist, there is only one reason to threaten hellfire upon people starting from the earliest days they are able to actually formulate independent thoughts: to maintain control over them. You see, Kings had a way of threatening you with violence in life to have you comply with laws. Priests, Cardinals and Popes, on the other hand, could not only threaten you with violence while you are still alive, but could threaten you further with violence to your soul for eternity after you die if you waver and sin against a deity they allegedly represent, or at least if you fail to seek redemption for your sins by confessing them to these very "representatives".

Sounds like the idea behind religion is control. Now it doesn’t have nearly the level of control it once did. Once the Church lost their ability to threaten violence upon people while they live, they ramped up their threats to your eternal soul once you die. All of this in the name of control.

If it is true that you are merely speculating based on indefinte technical analysis, then there are a few remaining possibilities as to the somewhat "harsh and demeaning" tone of your responses in this forum:

1) you percieve Christians views to be a threat to your own views and thus, are attempting to exert a moral superiority of your viewpoints over others because you are, without knowing it, narcistic.

I do not perceive Christian views to be a threat to my own views. I perceive Christian views to be a threat to liberty itself. I have written on this concept extensively on my blog. If Christian law were the governing law of this country, what I have written on my blog and in other places would land me in jail if not on death row. The same could be said for what I have done in my personal life. That is one thing that needs to be made painfully clear. The two biggest monotheisms in the world – Christianity and Islam – are anti-liberty and anti-freedom. Any Christian who attempts to assert otherwise is lying through their teeth and living in a fantasy.

I do not declare or assert a moral superiority over anyone. However I wish the same could be said of Christians I have encountered as, except with respect to only a few, I have encountered numerous Christians who attempt to assert themselves as morally superior because of their God backing them up. One such Christian literally implied in a discussion that I could adjust my morality to suit whatever purpose, implying in the process that I have no moral base, can rationalize away anything I have done such that my conscience is free and clear, and am, in essence, downright evil. Here are her actual words, written August 20, 2010, on my Facebook wall:

Kenneth even if you are correct in your non-belief in God your morality and my morality are different because if you violate yours you can simply walk on and change your morality or rationalize what you have done to fit in with your morality. If I violate mine I have committed a sin and that will weigh on me and cause me much more pain than your indiscretion will on you. I cannot rationalize it or change my perspective if it is a clear violation of what I believe are God’s laws.

Needless to say, reading this response from that person pissed me off to no end.

I cannot just simply walk on or change my morality. If I violate my morals, it’s like a hit to the chest. For example I don’t like the idea of killing any animal, including spiders and insects I find around my apartment. If I kill an animal with my car, I am visibly upset and disturbed by it. Ask anyone who has seen me after I have done this. There is no justification, rationalization, or changing of my morality. I could tell myself all I want that the occurrence was purely accidental, but that doesn’t lessen the sting.

As such, I can never kill an animal purely out of sport. And even if I had to kill an animal to eat, such as a rabbit or deer, I would take no joy and would feel plenty of regret in having to do it. I don’t like the idea, I don’t relish it, and I won’t ever relish the thought.

Yet the sad fact of the matter is that there are people who feel quite different, who feel no disturbance of any kind in killing anything. In fact there are people, such as the Governor of Idaho, who want to kill certain kinds of animals, such as wolves, and regret that the law is standing in their way. And many of these people are devout Christians, such as the Governor of Idaho.

And they have the audacity to assert any kind of moral superiority because they are Christian? Fuck that!

2) you have an aggenda to push your libertarian views into government practice which drives a need to "attack" the Christian Right which simply means the harsh and demeaning attitude in this forum which you tend to reflect in your posts is politically motivated.

I do have a political agenda by voicing my opinion in various venues. Everyone who voices their opinion has some kind of agenda behind it, otherwise there would be no need or desire to voice their opinion.

However attacking Christian beliefs is not part of trying to push my libertarian views into public policy. Okay, it is a part, but it is not the driving force. The need to counter social conservatism to advance social liberalism, which is one part of libertarianism, is the driving force. The fact that social conservatism is driven in large part by religion, namely Christianity, means that religion, namely Christianity, receives collateral damage in the process. One can be socially conservative without being religious, but in modern politics, the two are very much intertwined. One need look no further than the Republican party’s platform for evidence of this.

My attitude and tone is derived from the kind of responses I have received when I have commented in those venues before. As a libertarian there are points wherein I do agree with conservatives. My comment history on The Right Scoop shows this. However there are also points of contention, and where there is a point of contention, I do not take highly to being referred to as an intellectually inferior juvenile (I am a college-educated working professional in his early thirties) nor will I be driven away by such utterly unintelligent and juvenile responses.

Finally, one last question for you. You say that you believe man is a product of evolution. While that is truely an agnostic answer to my question as to "who is the source of man", it is an incomplete one.

An incomplete answer to this question implies a world view that humans or groups of humans are simply in competition with one another at a complex level and therefore, must fight for their beliefs or otherwise except servitude to the popular belief.

Before addressing her question, first let me speak to my abhorrence of this notion:

A failure to do so is in my mind a sign of someone who has weak convictions about their viewpoints and insecurity about their intellectual capability to carry out a rational debate to its endpoint without being humiliated.

Jackyl, you will think of me how you may, regardless of how I answer this question. I am not making any attempt to earn your respect. If you wish to think of me as one with weak convictions or intellectual insecurity, then so be it. I cannot change that. You already thought me to be a coward who decided to turn tail and run when in reality I was down and out with vertigo: "Run Kenny, run! I knew you were all wet! What are you afraid of little Kenny-I’m just asking questions." Nice to see you are unwilling to grant an opponent the benefit of any doubt and will readily judge a person without a lot to go by. I recall reading something in the Bible about that. In fact, I believe I wrote an article last year on that topic.3"Presumption of Innocence"

While you have passed judgment hastily upon me, I will not stoop to that level.

But do not hold out there the possibility of earning your respect as a carrot in hopes it will get me to respond to your questions. I cannot care any less whether I have your respect or whether how I answer this question will change your perception of me.

As such this article is not a courtesy extended to you, for given what I have discovered that you have written of me while I was offline, noted above, I am not extending you any courtesy nor any respect. Instead this is merely a discussion prompted by questions that you have posed and nothing more.

Whether you believe we were created by God, or some other deity, or are the product of the processes of evolution or some other natural process, it can undoubtedly be said that we appear to be more than just our biology. Biologically speaking, we are one species of millions (possibly billions) to have existed on this planet across its entire history. Modern man, that is to say Homo sapiens, has been around for, conservatively speaking, about 100,000 years. If there is any "source of man", it is man, in his various civilizations around the globe striving to find better ways to survive, while at the same time striving to be more than those who came before us.

We are a product of those who have come before us, nothing more.

Take that response how you may, but don’t you think of me as someone with weak convictions or intellectual insecurity when I have shown time and again in my blog and in comments in various venues that I have neither.

Now let’s address a couple statements made in addendum to the response to me:

Kenneth and I fundamentally disagree on many of his statements, but that is fine with me as long as the he relies on reason in his thinking and is honest about what he can and can not know.

This statement is typical of what I have encountered with Christians and other theists. It is rather interesting that you and other Christians will say that I cannot know for certain whether there is not a god, yet you appear unwilling to allow yourself to consider the same possibility with your own beliefs. You cannot know for certain whether your beliefs are real or whether you have been living a lie for your entire life – or however long you’ve been a Christian. And don’t even think about pulling Pascal’s wager on me because you cannot know if your religion is correct or if some other existing or extinct religion is actually correct. Or, very likely, no religion has gotten it right yet.

Just as I cannot know, neither can you.

And what kind of measure of reason shall you be putting against my statements? Many that I have encountered have a very flawed idea of what reason actually means, and the typical definition seems to be something along the lines of "if you think along the same lines I do, then you’re using reason, otherwise you’re completely insane".

In my opinion, Kenneth has a right to attack Christian viewpoints if he wants, but if he does then he should be willing to be attacked for his viewpoints. I hope Kenneth will enlighten readers of this site as to his objective and agenda in attacking Christian viewpoints.

The words of Betty Bowers come to mind in reading this: "As true Christians, we are called upon to marginalize other faiths or people with no faith and to scream ‘PERSECUTION!’ when they rudely return the favor."

Attack my points of view all you want. Say what you want in response to any points I make. However do not make ad hominem attacks against me personally, for then you have revealed yourself to have no argument at all and are only trying to do what you can to keep a failing line of thought alive. I have deleted comments from my blog and from my Facebook page that I have interpreted as being ad hominem attacks, and I removed a person from my Facebook friends list and blocked him for repeatedly making ad hominem attacks instead of attacking and responding to points I make.

In other words, if you have no response to what I have said, say so. Don’t go on attacking my character because you can’t conceive of a response to my points.

As for being enlightening as to my "objective and agenda", see what I have written above. To recapitulate, I see the views of Christianity, and those attempting to enact those views as public policy, as a threat to the rights and liberty of all Americans. And yes, I feel the same about Islam as well.

The authors of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights intended there to be a distinct separation between religion and the government, and the two were to not intermingle. Now it is impossible for our representatives in government to ignore or disperse with their religious beliefs when they enter the congressional chambers, but they must be able to set them aside when discussing and debating public policy and must not show any preference for any one religious point of view.

This is what one Christian libertarian I have encountered has dubbed a "libertarian filter".4"The Libertarian Paradox". Posted July 28, 2008, on the blog "Zeal for Truth".

References[+]

Religion/Rights

Origin of rights

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

The question is eventually posited to non-theists by theists: from where do our rights originate?

Recently I entered into an argument with several Christian conservatives regarding the concept of rights. The discussion started in the comments area to an article on The Right Scoop, a right-wing blog that is gaining some prominence in conservative circles. The blog has been mentioned on Rush Limbaugh’s program and also on Fox News. It would not surprise me if Glenn Beck’s radio program has mentioned them.

The article in question is in regard to the President recently mentioning "inalienable rights" without mentioning "Creator".1"Obama omits ‘Creator’ again when paraphrasing Declaration of Independence", posted April 21, 2011, on the blog The Right Scoop The Right Scoop’s article pulls on an article from Glenn Beck’s relatively-young news site call The Blaze.

First, let me say that the reaction to this is on the order of the reactions received when people say "One nation, indivisible". The reaction is downright absurd, to say the least. Why the big deal? I opened the discussion by saying this:

Okay let me see if I have this straight: if a person uses the word "endowed" when talking about "inalienable rights", that person must always say "endowed by our Creator", at least to keep you from going up in arms about the fact that the word "inalienable rights" was used without mentioning God or "the Creator"? No thanks.

We are endowed with inalienable rights. Plain and simple.

The reaction to this was expected: because the President says he is a Christian, they expect him to use the word "Creator" when mentioning inalienable rights.

Eventually the discussion got to the point where two Christians were basically asking me where I think our rights originated. The *wink wink* answer in the back of their minds, being Christians, is that our rights are "God-given". Being agnostic I don’t believe this, but the question is unavoidable: where did our rights originate? This is not an unanswerable question, but the answer is not what people think. I’ll get to that later.

"God-given" rights

In a previous article written last October, I responded to a YouTube user called TheAtheistAntidote and his video in which he says, very prominently and foolishly, that liberty only comes with and from God. In the discussion noted above, I asked of the Christians who were responding where in the Bible it says that God grants us rights or certain rights, even and especially those protected by the Bill of Rights:

Where in the Bible does it say God has granted you the freedom of speech, freedom of press and assembly? It’s certainly clear in the Bible that you do not have freedom of religion, for you are commanded to believe in God and the Bible or face a tortuous eternity. Where does the Bible grant you the right of protection from self-incrimination, right to a trial and an attorney to assist in your defense? Stoning is considered "cruel and unusual punishment", so the protection of the Eight Amendment is out the door.

Where in the Bible does it say God grants you any rights in particular?

As of yet, when I’ve posed this question to Christians, I have not received any response. Not one. Not one quote from the Bible that even alludes to this being the case. The invitation is still open. After all, since the Bible is the basis of Christianity, Christians should be able to point to a verse or series of verses in the Bible and say, "Ah ha! Here is where God says we have these rights."

I’ve been in numerous discussions in which Christians have said, to paraphrase, that the Constitution is based on God’s law. Not quite, as I’ve wrote in response to another commenter on another article on The Right Scoop:

The Constitution is not based on God’s law in the least. Where in the Bible is a bicameral legislature, a separation of powers, checks and balances, a Supreme Court, and the like even mentioned? How is the Constitution based on God’s law? Not even the Bill of Rights is based on God’s law. If the Constitution is based on God’s law, why is the word God nowhere to be found in the Constitution or any Amendment?

The concept of rights being "God-given" leaves open one giant problem: that which is given by God can be taken away. After all Christians believe that God gives everyone life, and then takes it away from us when he "calls us home". The Bible alludes to this in Job 1:21:

And said, Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.

Yet never will a Christian admit that the same can apply to rights. If God grants us our rights, he can take them away from us, and no Christian can, in their right mind, say this will not or cannot occur. Who are you to say what God will or will not do? In a previous article mentioned above, I discussed the issue of rights being "God-given" a little more in-depth:

If you believe in God, you believe in a government, a supernatural government whose will, authority, and tyranny you have no choice but to accept and to which you are eternally subject without any hope or possibility of escape. This government is even more tyrannical than the governments of men, as the governor God can find you guilty for crimes of thought, thoughts you may not even realize you had.

And on this trial of guilt there is no jury, no witnesses to cross-examine, no counsel to assist, and no appeal. Any finding of guilt is final, and any sentence eternal.

The idea that without God you have no liberty, or without God you have no rights can be seen as the fallacy it is when taken in this light.

If government does not grant rights, then God does not grant rights. From where then, do our rights originate? Ourselves.

However if government is to be the protector of rights, the protector of liberty, then God, if He exists, is not a grantor of rights and liberty, but the ultimate protector of rights and liberty. For if we have rights because we exist, even God cannot trample upon them, and any laws handed down by God that trample upon our rights as men are also illegitimate on their face.

Christians can proclaim all they like that God will never take our rights away from us, yet they cannot know for sure that it will never happen. That’s like saying that God will, in the dying days of our sun, refuel it to keep it going again such that our solar system will not suffer the same fate as countless solar systems preceding our own and following our own. These are extreme, extraordinary claims on which there is no basis and no reason to believe them to be true.

So the notion of God granting or giving us our rights is a complete and total fallacy. So from where do our rights originate?

"We made them up!"

The immortal words of the late and great George Carlin ring true here, rights are a purely invented concept:

Folks, I hate to spoil your fun but—there’s no such thing as rights, okay? They’re imaginary. We made them up! Like the Boogie Man… the Three Little Pigs, Pinocchio, Mother Goose, shit like that. Rights are an idea, they’re just imaginary, they are a cute idea, cute… but that’s all, cute, and fictional.

While rights are an invented concept, they were invented for a pretty good reason. Most often when rights are exercised, implicitly it is to keep the government in line. In the United States, the Constitution requires the government to recognize certain rights, while also stipulating that certain rights being stated in the Constitution is not reason to imply that those are the only rights people have.

So how did the concept of rights originate? It’s difficult to pinpoint, as it’s difficult to say where the people first started asserting that they had any rights at all. But a course through history shows that rights were generally asserted where the government sought to act with tyranny toward the people. The history of the Magna Carta is certainly telling on this point. The Bill of Rights of 1689 – also called the English Bill of Rights – established many rights that are mirrored in the Constitution:

  • freedom to petition the monarch without fear of retribution (First Amendment)
  • no Royal interference in the right of the people to have arms (Second Amendment)
  • no excessive bail or "cruel and unusual" punishments (Eighth Amendment)
  • freedom of speech and debates (First Amendment)

among others, including the declaration that only civil courts (those established by the government) have any legal authority, stripping such authority from courts of the Church, and also barring Roman Catholics from the throne.

But it is in the Declaration of Independence that we first see the concept of "inalienable rights":

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.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Declaration states not only the existence of inalienable rights, but states that they are established by a government that transcends all governments, even the Crown: the divine rule of the Creator. Further it names four rights specifically: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and to alter or abolish the sitting government and establish a new one whenever it tramples upon these, among other, rights of the People. More importantly, it establishes the concept of the limited government, that government is about securing the rights of the people and that government receives its powers from the people. This is, in essence, the idea of a Republic.

Thus the concept of rights is clearly defined. Rights are about limiting the government. Whereby laws are the devices of government for limiting the people, rights are the devices of the people for limiting their government, for where the laws of the government and the recognized and declared rights of the people are in conflict, the laws of the government are to fall.

The Rights of the Silver Platter

However the concept of rights has also been usurped and bastardized by the government as a further means of limiting the people whenever it is deemed convenient. This is something else we’ve seen all throughout history. The United States has a horrible history of it.  We’re certainly not alone, but since I’m an American living in the United States, I might as well talk about my own country, right?

In more recent history we see the bastardization of the rights concept with the invention of other "rights" that turn the concept from one of the people limiting their government to one of the people limiting other people. Let me explain.

When a person says they have a right of free speech, it is a statement to the government that the government may not tell that person they may not state their opinion without a damned good reason. And not liking the message is certainly not a damned good reason.

However, we have people who are saying they have some other rights: free education, a job, food, health care, and housing. When you say you have a right to these things, or are entitled to them, a very dangerous situation has been created. To assert these rights, you are claiming the ability to require these things be provided to you, and the only way that can occur is by way of someone else.

This is what I like to call the "rights of the silver platter" because essentially those asserting rights such as the aforementioned among others basically want their entirely livelihood, or large chunks thereof, handed to them on a silver platter, completely free of charge both in terms of money and effort expended to earn that livelihood or portions thereof.

The assertion of these rights has been commandeered by the government as another method of limiting the people. This can be seen in the comments of Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) in her comments on the repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010:2Benson, Guy. "Sheila Jackson Lee: Obamacare is a Constitutional Right". Posted on the blog Townhall.com.

The Fifth Amendment speaks specifically to denying someone their life and liberty without due process. That is what H.R. 2 does and I rise in opposition to it. And I rise in opposition because it is important that we preserve lives and we recognize that 40 million-plus are uninsured. Can you tell me what’s more unconstitutional than taking away from the people of America their Fifth Amendment rights, their Fourteenth Amendment rights, and the right to equal protection under the law?

For those unfamiliar, here is the text of the Fifth Amendment, emphasis added to point out the clauses that Rep. Lee is attempting to invoke:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Fifth Amendment lays out protections for the people when they have an encounter with the government by way of law enforcement. This can be seen by the entire clause that includes the original "due process" clause:

[No person] shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

You shall not be compelled to be a witness against yourself, nor shall you be put to death, incarcerated, or stripped of your properties and effects without first having the benefit of a court procedure. Rep. Lee is twisting out of focus the actual protections of the Fifth Amendment to apply them where they have no context.

Conclusion

The concept of rights has come a long way since rights were first asserted against governments. As I said herein, wherefore laws are the devices of the government to limit the people, rights are devices of the people to limit the government. Basically the concept of rights demands the government to justify everything they will do that will create limitations on the people. That, however, was back before the people had an inflamed notion of what rights actually are, before they decided that they are entitled to goods and services provided by others.

So to answer the question of where rights originated, the idea is quite simple: we made them up. But we had reason in doing so, as they gave the people ammunition to suppress their government from whatever tyrannical motives and actions were being undertaken. To sell the idea even further, calling the rights "God-given" elevated those rights above their governments and the claimed divine right of kings by saying, in essence, that the people have rights that not even the king (or other government) can take away.

The one thing that is odd about the concept of rights is that to exercise them fully required the suppression of the Church from the government, as can be seen in the English Bill of Rights and the declaration that Church courts no longer had any legal authority.

So what’s the verdict: are rights real or illusory? Rights are an illusory concept, invented by intelligent men for the very necessary purpose of suppressing governments, especially those governments that attempted to claim divine right of rule. For this notion was recognized not only by those who wrote the Declaration of Independence, but by many other intelligent men preceding them: when the government fears the people there is liberty, when the people fear the government there is tyranny. The concept of rights can be used to instill fear in the government, thus establishing and providing for liberty and suppressing tyranny.

References[+]

Censorship/Life/Politics

Words of a politician

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

One thing that I feel is rather telling is how Republicans and social conservatives are reacting in a rather predictable fashion to revelations of things that Obama has said when he presumed the conversation was private. The question that springs to mind is simply this — what kind of ill-worded statements originating from President Bush’s or any Republican or social conservative’s lips disappeared into history without being recorded in some fashion? What kind of personality revelations could have been made for which the evidence supporting such revelations is now forever lost?

The various reactions make it seem like Republicans and conservatives view themselves as favored among the people and their representatives favored among all who have been elected, like they hold some special place. “How dare the President speak ill of Republicans?” is the underlying question among the various statements and comments. And how arrogant of the conservatives and Republicans who, even if unspoken or unrealized, hold such a thought in their mind.

And yes, before you comment, I realize that Democrats have held similar views, but it seems much more pronounced with Republicans and conservatives for some reason.

The President, like every other politician in every government in the United States and beyond, has strong feelings about various things and ideas, and he will, from time to time, voice those opinions. Speaking in impolite and unkind words toward the competition and opposition is nothing new. Far from it. And conservatives and Republicans are certainly not above that. How dare they hold a “holier than thou” complex when it comes to such language and choice of words. Remember the reaction to Biden’s “f-bomb”?

What I would like to see the President do, however, is voice those opinions openly instead of in a private conversation. Bring his feelings, as strong as they might be, out into the genuine open instead of holding back and providing a charismatic front with abridged and choice statements. And it’s a challenge I’ll gladly issue to any politician, regardless of political affiliation or lack thereof.

If I were to run for an elected office, my hope would be that I would have the courage and conviction to speak my true thoughts on a matter, though in a somewhat collected and comprehensible manner, mind you, instead of resorting to talking points and bickering. And if I were a Congressman or Senator, or even President (perish that thought!), I would want to be able to speak my true mind and use my typical language — including all manners of vulgarities and epithets — if my true feelings on a matter drive me to do so, but without fear of political repercussions with my constituents.

And if I were to do such a thing, you know the press would be all over my manner of argument instead of the argument itself.

However it would not surprise me if a politician willing to use such language instead of holding back on their words would favor better among a constituency against an opponent who feels he must tone down his language and must reserve his true words for private conversation. His constituency has every right to hear his true words on a matter, however, his constituency has no right to judge his fitness for office based purely on the words he chooses. So allow me to start.

Both the Democrats and Republicans need to be absolutely honest with the American people about how red the ink actually is with regard to the country’s finances. Then, they need to get their fucking act together and come up with a plan that will correct the problem within a predictable time frame. We’re talking about a $14 trillion debt. That isn’t going away overnight, but we cannot allow it to continue to grow. Politicians of all calibers need to grow some fucking balls, tell it like it is, and stop talking down to us like we’re all infantile, inbred, unintelligent peons.

And further, the American people need to stop reacting like infantile, inbred, unintelligent peons whenever the government says that they cannot have what they want.

Yes I’m dropping the “f-bomb”, but it’s my blog and if I want to use the word “fuck” or any other vulgarity or epithet here, then I will. I reserve the right to use whatever language I so choose to get my point across. I’d like to see the President use such language in the State of the Union address. Will that ever happen? Unlikely, but what a breath of fresh air in politics it would be if that were to happen. Let’s see Senators and Representatives use it on the floor of their respective houses. They get heated in debates, I understand that, but they are still reserved in their language? Why? Why be reserved when you can be honest?

Fuck those who say that we must be reserved in our language “for the good of the children”. And fuck those politicians who choose to be reserved in their language instead of speaking their true feelings to avoid “upsetting the community”. Let’s see a politician with enough backbone to say how they truly feel, out in public where everyone can hear it, with all the glorious vulgarities and epithets they so choose, so long as they present their arguments in an otherwise clear and comprehensible manner.