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[+]

Pledge of Allegiance

Declaring my allegiance

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

One sentiment that pisses me off to no end, and reached a head yesterday afternoon, can be summarized as this:

If you aren’t willing to recite the pledge of allegiance, then you must not understand the freedoms that our flag represents. Why do you hate the flag and the republic and the freedoms we all cherish? Perhaps you should spend some time in an oppressive regime to fully understand how good we have it and then you’ll come crawling back to the US and will proclaim the pledge willingly and with an open and thankful heart.

If you’ve read any amount of my blog, you’ve likely come across the articles where I’ve utterly decimated the pledge of allegiance (here, here and here). My problem with the pledge of allegiance, as those articles make very abundantly clear, is not just with "under God", it’s with the whole… fucking… thing. By the way, if you think the pledge of allegiance was composed by one of the Founding Fathers or otherwise written at any time close to the ratification of the Constitution, you are in serious need of an education. But we’ll set aside the many misconceptions people have about the pledge of allegiance as I’ve already addressed those. So moving on…

If you are going to say to me or even entertain the thought in your mind that I do not understand or appreciate how good we’ve got it in the United States, or imply that my refusal to recite the pledge of allegiance somehow makes me less of an American than you or anyone else, then I’ve got a short response to whet your palate: shut the fuck up and pay attention.

I am the son of a Navy veteran who served this country for a very exemplary 12 years. He enlisted in the Navy at 19 and excelled through the ranks to make Chief Petty Officer (E-7) in just over 8 years. I am the grandson of another Navy veteran who served during the Korean War. I am the grand-nephew of a Marine killed in the South Pacific in 1943. Their service and sacrifice for this country alone gives me all I need to appreciate how good we have it in this country, but I’m not going to stop there.

The Marine who died in the South Pacific is the son of Hungarian immigrants who came to this country through Ellis Island in 1914. If I have to explain to you what occurred in 1914, and why a mixture of 1914 and Hungarian in the same sentence actually means something, I have to question the quality of your history education. And that is just the start of my family’s colorful history.

So let’s make sure this is clear.

I fully appreciate the freedoms we enjoy as Citizens of the United States, probably more so than most people, including those accusing me of being somehow less American because I won’t recite the pledge of allegiance. Perhaps that’s because I know and have studied the history behind it. Did that thought ever pop into your mind?

I know full well how good we have it in the United States, so don’t you dare try to tell me otherwise simply because I might disagree with you with regard to a statement written by a Christian socialist 103 years after the ratification of the Constitution and 116 years after the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. Don’t you dare imply that I’m somehow less of an American because I refuse to recite the pledge of allegiance.

My allegiance is with the document that protects the freedoms that you and I exercise on a daily basis. My allegiance is with the document that transcends the very government that is every day chipping away at those freedoms in subtle but important ways. My allegiance is NOT with something that is a product of that government (the flag) or that government or the State (the republic).

My allegiance is with the Constitution of the United States of America.

Where is your allegiance, Citizen?

Pledge of Allegiance/Politics

Love it or leave it

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

It seems according to some conservatives that if you don’t like the pledge of allegiance, then in actuality you don’t like the United States and are better off just leaving. The "love it or leave it" mentality seems quite strong among these patriotic hypocrites.

The biggest problem with the "love it or leave it" position is how it basically says that you should accept the country however it currently is. Complaining about the current state of affairs in the United States tends to bring out this mentality in quite a few people as well. So let’s get one thing straight: being the best does not mean you cannot be better to ensure you stay the best. After all, even world record holders keep trying to break their previous records.

This mentality was seen quite well in response to a series of videos by YouTube user PaulsEgo (here, here, and here) in which he talks about how he is ashamed to be an American. I suggest you watch them to get a feel for what he’s talking about.

There are many ways the United States falls short of other countries in the world. When it comes to social freedoms, we are far, far behind Europe though fiscally we’ve surpassed the rest of the world on spending.1Government budget by country. (2011, August 30). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 07:18, September 12, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Government_budget_by_country&oldid=447545851 Since we can be better, we should become better, and we should strive to become better.

I, for one, won’t give up on trying to make this country better. And becoming better starts by expanding the liberties and freedoms accorded to Americans by repealing the laws that infringe upon those liberties by design. Yes in many ways Europeans have more freedom than Americans – imagine that!

So until that changes, I will not stop criticizing the United States of America. Nor will I stop criticizing and demonizing the pledge of allegiance for what it really is: patriotic idolatry.

And I’m not going anywhere, either.

* * * * *

Related posts on the pledge:

* * * * *

References[+]

Religion/Republican platform/Supreme Court

God *is* allowed in public schools

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

If you’re on Facebook, chances are you’ve seen someone post this to their wall:

A dog had followed his owner to school. His owner was a fourth grader at a public elementary school. However, when the bell rang, the dog went inside the building and made it all the way to the child’s classroom before a teacher noticed and shooed him outside, closing the door behind him.The dog sat down,whimpered and stared at the closed doors. Then God appeared beside the dog, patted his head, and said, "Don’t feel bad fella they won’t let ME in either ".

The idea behind this post is a farce, attempting to assert that God is not allowed in public schools. This is pure, Grade A bullshit to anyone who knows the law, knows what the Courts have actually said, not what religious public relations organizations have misquoted the Courts as saying.

If you take all of the Court decisions, from the Supreme Court on down, what is actually being said? Only one thing: religious expression by students in public schools cannot be implicitly or explicitly compulsory. I’ve summarized this before:

Any religious practice by students on a public school campus should be entirely of the student’s free will and not compelled or mandated by school rules, city ordinances, or state laws. It should also be on the student’s own free time, outside the classroom such as in a study hall or, if in the classroom, in such a way that it is not disruptive to other students.

…

But many people seem to think that the Courts ruling that the government cannot mandate prayer in a public school is equivalent to saying no one can pray in a public school.

God, walk into our public schools. I know that you can see through the lies your so-called representatives are spreading. You know that you are still allowed in public schools, and that many among the students want you there. But would you riddle me this: would you prefer that students call out to you when they see fit, or when their teachers and administrators say it is? Would you prefer each person willingly seek you and your guidance, or would you prefer their teachers and administrators force them to do so?

Christians, which do you think God prefers?

Marriage and Relationships

Get married, live longer?

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Being someone who is not married – though I’ve been engaged for six years! – I see online a lot of articles discussing marriage. And there’s a good reason for this: the current trend in society today is away from marriage. Fewer people are getting married, and they are waiting longer to get married. So with that trend in mind, how can you convince people into wanting to get married, and do so sooner? Oh, I know! Convince them that if they don’t get married, they’ll die sooner.

Well such seems to be the trend on romance sites. Ladies, if your guy won’t commit, tell him that unless he gets married, he won’t live nearly as long. If only it were that simple.

The recent study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology is not the first study published attempting to link a correlation between marriage and mortality. When looking through a scientific paper, the limitations of the study should always be discussed and acknowledged. If they don’t recognize the limitations of the study, then there is an air of bias to that study that calls the rest of the paper and its conclusions into question.

A 2009 study1Dupre, Matthew, et. al., "Marital Trajectories and Mortality Among US Adults". Am J Epidemiol. 2009 September 1; 170(5): 546–555. Published online 2009 July 7. doi:  10.1093/aje/kwp194 published in the same journal, acknowledged the various limitations of attempting to study the correlation between marriage and mortality:

Our results reaffirm the fact that married persons live longer, and they further demonstrate that the health benefits of marriage and the detriments of marital dissolution are more complex than previously shown. We found that every facet of a marital trajectory was associated with mortality. As anticipated, the mortality risks associated with current marital status were highly significant.

The health benefits of marriage and detriments of divorce are more complex than previously shown. In other words the question is not so cut and dry. Further in the same paragraph, the authors note:

In either case, marital status had the least robust association with mortality compared with other trajectory measures once differences in risk were taken into account.

In other words, marital status alone is not what matters. Yet, this is all that most people seem to be focusing on. As this study notes, as well, the question is complex. Boiling it down to "get married, live longer" is disingenuous at best, fraudulent at worst. Further the age at which you get married is also a contributing factor. Marry younger, die sooner, marry later, live longer, seems to be a trend observed in the 2009 study:

Our analysis demonstrated that the most distal characteristic of marital history—age at first marriage—had lasting consequences for mortality. Results showed that marrying as a teenager increased the risks of dying by 56% for men and 38% for women.

…

Somewhat surprisingly, late marriages significantly reduced men’s mortality by approximately 20% compared with the majority of men who married between ages 19 and 25 years. Moreover, there was no evidence to suggest that postponement of marriage enhanced men’s socioeconomic resources as a mechanism to reduce mortality. To our knowledge, this study is the first to document a significant relation between late marriage and mortality, and we await further studies to confirm this finding.

The last sentence of this quote is the most important: the authors believe their study to be the first to note a positive correlation between marrying later and living longer. As such that observation should be considered only preliminary.

But all of the studies still show that divorce could lead to a lower life span. Should we outlaw divorce for this reason? Absolutely not. But at the same time, the 2009 study seemed to show something else that is of note: it’s not that you’re married, it’s how long you’re married that matters:

Marriage duration is the least studied component of marital life; however, in this study, it was one of the most robust factors contributing to mortality differentials. Mortality decreased significantly as the number of years of marriage increased, and the benefits were greatest for adults who accumulated 40 or more years of marriage compared with those with fewer than 20 years. These findings are especially significant given that a third of respondents with 30 or more years of marriage—and more than a quarter of those with 40 or more years—had at least one marital disruption. Therefore, it is plausible that attaining long durations of marriage can be as protective against mortality as maintaining a stable marriage. However, more research is needed to validate this claim.

I love how the authors of this study are very willing to cite the limitations. Again, this correlation is not well established, but this 2009 study shows a positive correlation.

The one thing on which most of these studies remain focused is the marital status, not the relationship itself. Is it just as possible that a stable, long-term relationship could have the same protections against mortality even if that couple is not married? I see no reason to think it could not, but I do not believe there are any studies that actually seek to answer this question. And the one place where such a question could be studied is the homosexual community.

But then there’s one question not yet addressed: why do those in a stable, long-term marriage have a greater tendency toward longer life? The 2009 study addressed this question as well:

The healthful effects of marriage duration for men were largely reduced by behavioral factors and moderately reduced by socioeconomic resources and health status. This finding supports the argument that marriage length protects men’s health by providing a lasting supportive environment that encourages reduced tobacco use and alcohol consumption, improved diet and exercise, and utilization of preventive care to detect and treat illnesses. Women’s hazard ratios were attenuated most by socioeconomic factors and less by behavioral and health factors. These findings support the argument that long marriages protect women’s health by increasing financial stability, wealth, and the health-purchasing resources needed to access quality health care, pay for costly treatments, and afford prophylactic lifestyles.

Unfortunately the recent 2011 study is locked behind a paywall and is not available anywhere online for free, to the best of my knowledge. That study in question is titled "The rising relative risk of mortality for singles: meta-analysis and meta-regression", and was published in the August 15, 2011, edition of the American Journal of Epidemiology.2Am J Epidemiol. 2011 Aug 15;174(4):379-89. Epub 2011 Jun 29. The study title shows that this recent study is nothing more than a meta-analysis. For those who don’t know, a meta-analysis is a study by which several researchers went back through the published literature looking for all studies relevant to a question and, in examining all of those studies, attempt to summarize the current consensus regarding that question. But meta-analyses raise another important question: what specifics or limitations get lost in the process?

There have been plenty of studies on the correlation between marriage and mortality. Without being able to take the recent study into account, what kind of conclusions can be drawn from this? Not much.

First, longer marriages tend to be happier marriages, so seeing the 2009 study show a negative correlation between longer marriages and mortality is not surprising. Does this mean that married individuals should just fight it out and continue with their marriage? Not if they are unhappy as they may be doing themselves more harm than good.

That is the single fundamental limitation with any study on this question. While it may be easy to assume that longer marriages are happy marriages, this may not always be the case. If they belong to a belief system that frowns on divorce or live in a segment of our society where divorced couples or divorced individuals are treated with less esteem than their married counterparts, the individuals in question may decide to stay in an unhappy marriage just to avoid the social consequences of divorce. This doesn’t mean their marital status automatically means they live longer.

And that is the biggest takeaway from all of the current studies: marital status is not what matters. Instead what matters is the quality of the relationship in question. If the relationship is unhappy, it matters not whether you are married. If you’re in an unhappy, stressful relationship full of misery and strife, you’re probably just as likely, if not more likely to die younger than your unmarried counterparts.

References[+]

Religion

Rejecting God: Why are atheists so hated?

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 2 Comments

On YouTube is an atheist named darkmatter2525. About two weeks ago he posted a video called “The Real God: An Epiphany” (see below), in which he argues something similar to what I said here back in January: that God is all in your mind and nothing more.

https://www.youtu.be/-j8ZMMuu7MU

His epiphany, so to speak, comes about from what is a flawed line of thinking. He starts out talking about the premise by Christians that atheists are “rejecting” God by going into what rejection means and analogizing it to a person trying to set a friend up on a blind date. Now with some Christians – the proselytizing kind  — they are trying to set you up on a blind date with God. For most Christians, however, such as those who continually say “I’m praying for you”, they’re not trying to set you up. They’ve already given your number to someone else and at least had the courtesy to tell you that they’ve done that, though they lacked the courtesy to ask permission before providing your number.

And the Christian might say, “Oh He’ll call, just you wait.” And so far, my phone’s yet to ring, but I digress.

Now darkmatter does properly assess that the person being set up (the atheist) can express doubt toward or even flat out reject the premise that the friend (God) even exists. So to the Christian I respond, “I’m still waiting for that phone call.”

From there, darkmatter asserts that the Christian does in fact believe we are rejecting God and becomes angry at this rejection because God and the Christian are one in the same. While he is correct that Christians do see atheists as rejecting God, it isn’t because God and the Christian are one in the same. It is because the Christian thinks that when they pray for you, God is actually trying to turn you back toward him. And if you repeatedly assert yourself as an atheist all the while they are praying for you, in their eye you must be rejecting God. Yes it is that simple.

In other words, you can only either accept or reject what God offers since God is “very real”, kind of like you can only accept or reject that person’s best mortal friend.

While the atheist may perceive the Christian as not having any legitimate reason for feeling rejection, as the God of the Bible does not exist, the Christian “knows” their God does exist, hence their feeling of rejection. It is also true that a person may not have any legitimate reason to feel rejected if you reject their best friend, but the feeling of rejection comes from association: the person may feel that by rejecting their friend you are rejecting a part of them. In the case of Christians, we’re talking about rejecting a friend and mentor believed to have a major influence on that person’s life, which is why the sense of rejection appears amplified. They hold that particular friend in high regard, and the atheist rejection of that friend causes that sense of rejection, and the accompanying anger.

This rejection, however, is not the reason atheists are hated by Christians, in my opinion.

A person who hates everyone who does not accept their friends or one particular friend (i.e. God) is a person with deep psychological issues that need to be resolved. And while plenty of atheists would say that religion is a mental disorder, I do not share that point of view. All Christians, except the most reclusive, have other friends and family members that you can choose to accept or not. Your rejection of a subset of those individuals may cause the person to feel a sense of rejection, regardless of how you justify it, but your refusal to accept any particular among them I doubt highly would cause that person to hate or demonize you. Now if you refuse to accept any of that person’s friends, then there’s something to be said on that, but again I digress.

Instead I feel there’s another dichotomy that darkmatter does not consider, and that it is the proper answer to the question of why a lot of Christians hate atheists and atheism: “you’re either with us or against us”. And Christians have, at least for the last several decades, seen atheists as the opposition. In other words: it’s tribalism. To put it in more religious-style terms: you are either the persecutor or the persecuted. And which would you rather be?

One thing that is rather interesting is how Christians can play both the persecutor and the persecuted at the same time:

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.

Betty Bowers, America’s Best Christian!

And before anyone responds, yes I know the whole “Betty Bowers” is nothing but an act, but many of the statements attributed to her are rather accurate observations, including the one quoted above. All you have to do is look at how Christians operate in this country. They are the majority and continually try to assert that majority, attempting to demonize and marginalize atheists and “secularists” in the process, and scream persecution or that their rights are being violated whenever they are opposed or don’t get what they want or what they think is constitutional. Actually those are one in the same, as they seem to think that anything agreeing with their politico-religious beliefs is constitutional. They don’t like that the government is being forced by the Courts to obey the Constitution (something it’s members took an oath to do before taking office) and are blaming a politically powerless segment of the population for it.

They need to keep us marginalized, which is why they react harshly to attempts by atheists to organize and advertise those organization attempts (see “Advertising Atheism“). If we organize, we become an unmanageable threat to their majority and their power. It is not irony nor coincidence that Christian conservatives will readily support the idea that this country is a republic until their majority religious view is challenged, then they assert the existence of that majority – a democratization of their view – as tacit authorization to do whatever they want – creationism in schools, Ten Commandments and other religious displays on government buildings, a cross as the 9/11 memorial, and so on – regardless of whether the Constitution actually permits it.

And this marginalization is not anything new. It has been going on for centuries. And marginalization is not a weapon exclusively wielded by the pious. It has been used by majorities of all flavors, both political and religious, for millennia.

So getting back to darkmatter2525 and his video, he correctly points out that atheists are a demonized, marginalized, hated minority, but incorrectly points out why that is the case. It’s association with the psychological response to rejection exists only to the extent that Christians do feel you are rejecting someone they believe with their whole heart and soul is real. But the reason atheists are hated by Christians has little to do with that rejection and everything to do with seeing us as an opposing force to their politico-religious goals and ends.

Politics

Gabrielle Giffords

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Over the past couple years I’ve discovered that I hold quite a few points of view that are unpopular. Well herein I’m about to express another, and I’m pretty sure it’s going to get on the nerves of pretty much every Democrat in Arizona, if not the United States. So if you’re a Democrat, prepare to be offended.

Gabrielle Giffords, Congressperson for the 8th Congressional District in Arizona, should not be in office.

Her district had been without representation since the attempt on her life back in January that, let us not forget, left a Federal judge and a 9 year-old girl dead. She had been unable to perform her duties until her first and only vote of this Congress thus far, on roll call 690 in the House of Representatives.

So from her shooting on January 8 to the roll call vote on August 1, the 8th Arizona district has been without representation. My question is why Rep. Giffords was never expelled from the House of Representatives? Out of sympathy? Because the Democrat leadership is weary of losing even her seat, despite the fact they had been without her vote for 7 months?

And now there is a person in her district with the balls (or gall, depending on your point of view) to attempt a challenge against Giffords for her seat in 2012, assuming he can get the signatures to get his name on the ballot. He will likely fail to even get the signatures, but if he succeeds he likely won’t electorally survive the primary. The response to his desire to challenge Giffords has been… less than according. If I lived in Arizona’s 8th district, I’d not only sign the petition, I’d do so in a very public place and in a very public manner.

My sympathy to the Representative and her husband, Capt. Mark Kelly, but she should have been expelled from the House of Representatives months ago.

Constitution/Republican platform/Supreme Court

Amending the Constitution

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 1 Comment

A columnist on Yahoo! recently posted a list of 7 ways Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) would like to change the Constitution. Of those seven, only two are ones with which I agree. I’ll link to blog posts describing my agreement rather than reiterate that here, but the others I’ll go into detail.

Before going into the list, there is one point of discussion I want to address first: be wary of anyone who says we should amend the Constitution, and question thoroughly if how they want to amend the Constitution is a legitimate reason. Two of Perry’s ideas are illegitimate reasons to amend the Constitution and should never be considered at all. But beyond this, given the ideas he has, I’m certainly glad the amendment process is intentionally very difficult: two-thirds of a quorum of both chambers of Congress plus the legislatures of 38 of the 50 States.

So let’s get into this list and discuss why five of these ideas are bad ideas.

1. Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution.

Article III, Section I of the Constitution establishes the Federal Judiciary and states clearly the tenure of Federal judges:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

The first sentence is pretty straightforward: the Federal Judiciary will be comprised of one Supreme Court (the Supreme Court of the United States), and various inferior Courts that Congress establishes. Congress has established the various District Courts and 12 Circuit Courts of Appeals, among other specialized Courts.

But the Constitution establishes the judges to have a lifetime tenure with a salary that can never be decreased. Why? To prevent Congress or the Executive Branch from using such as intimidation over the Judiciary. The Judiciary is the safeguard of the Constitution.

By removing said safeguards from the Constitution, Federal judges would be open to the same kind of intimidation that we saw in Iowa this past election cycle when three of Iowa’s Supreme Court justices were removed by popular vote purely because they had the audacity to write a decision that said that Iowa’s prohibition of gay marriage was unconstitutional. Several religious conservative groups campaigned successfully to have those judges removed – and a very dangerous precedent was set in the process.

Lifetime tenure for Federal judges and the requirement of the standard impeachment process for removing them is a necessary safeguard against intimidation by Congress, the Executive Branch, and the People against the only branch of government entrusted with safeguarding what gives them that lifetime tenure: the Constitution.

2. Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote.

Governor Perry should now be named the most dangerous politician in the United States. Quoting Governor Perry’s book:

[A]llow Congress to override the Supreme Court with a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, which risks increased politicization of judicial decisions, but also has the benefit of letting the people stop the Court from unilaterally deciding policy.

The Court does not decide policy, only if any implemented policy is in line with the Constitution. This means that, as I have said before on this blog, the Courts may overturn what the People want. How many times do I have to say this: where the will of the People and the Constitution are found to be in conflict, the Constitution wins, every time.

In allowing Congress to overturn Supreme Court decisions, Congress could muster support to overturn any Supreme Court decision, even ones wherein what Congress sought was in clear violation of the Constitution. I think when Governor Perry made mention of this idea, he was being extremely short-sighted, looking only at decisions like Roe v. Wade (arguably probably top in his list), Lawrence v. Texas, the various decisions against prayer in public schools, and the like.

But what if Congress decides to go after Miranda v. Arizona, which establishes the Miranda rule? Or Gideon v. Wainwright, which established the rule wherein indigent defendants must be provided competent counsel at the cost of the Court? Or, more recently, Ring v. Arizona, which strengthened the role of juries in criminal trials?

Let’s fast forward a little in time and presume that the Supreme Court declares unconstitutional the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, also known as “Obamacare”? Then the People vote in Democrat supermajorities into both houses with this kind of power sitting in the Constitution. Such a Congress would have the power to overrule the Supreme Court and Obamacare is once again legal with no ability for the Court to nullify it.

When you give such a power to Congress, the Courts lose their ability to keep Congress in check, and that is the principal power of the Courts. When you give such a power to Congress, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights become irrelevant. And when such becomes the case, we have tyranny.

I know Perry doesn’t like how “liberal activist judges” have ruled in the past, but that does not justify gutting the power of the Judiciary.

3. Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment.

I’m in favor of this simply because I don’t like nearly 40% of my salary disappearing to the various taxes. Income taxes were meant to be temporary, but when you give the Federal government a cookie, it’s going to want more cookies and a jug of milk to go with it.

4. End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.

I’ve discussed my support for this notion in great length: “Advice and consent“

5. Require the federal government to balance its budget every year.

I’m mixed on this notion. On one hand, it would require the Federal government to have the same fiscal accountability the States have imposed on themselves already, but on the other hand, I consider it an unnecessary constraint. In overturning the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, which statutorily created the power of “line item veto” that was exercised by President Clinton, Justice Anthony Kennedy stated in his concurring opinion, “Failure of political will does not justify unconstitutional remedies.”

While an Amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced budget and restricting Federal spending would create a constitutional remedy, it would be a remedy to an obvious failure of political will. I would expand Justice Kennedy’s words to say that a failure of political will does not justify necessarily amending the Constitution.

6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.

I’ve discussed in part why this is a bad idea already: “Responding to the Republican platform – ‘Traditional marriage’“. Look for the section called “Amending the Constitution”. While you’re at it, read the section called “Restricting appellate review” to see another way Perry and other Republicans would like to stifle the ability of the Courts with regard to reviewing government actions. In short it’s about ignoring the problem and shortcutting to a “solution” because they think they know what’s best.

And yet Republicans accuse Democrats of trying to do the exact same thing. Hypocrites!

7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.

Like the Prohibition amendment (Eighteenth Amendment), this could end up doing much more harm than good. “Speakeasies for abortions” could end up once again being commonplace as they were when abortion was illegal prior to several States legalizing it in 1970 and the Supreme Court decision in 1973.

Such an amendment, and the situations that would arise in its wake, would neuter and likely reverse the current downward trend in the abortion rates. I believe, and will discuss at length later, that abortion and poverty are closely tied together. So one effective method to continue to reduce abortion with the potential aim to virtually eliminate it is to bring those who are obtaining the abortions out of poverty. Now not everyone who obtains an abortion is impoverished, but the vast majority have incomes at less then 200% of the poverty rate.

Abortion is not a black and white issue. It has quite a few gray areas, but Perry shows he is willing to shortcut right to what he feels is the solution to that issue: amending the Constitution.

Conclusion

In short, Governor Perry needs to go back to college and restudy the Constitution. Given he recently used the Office of the Governor of Texas to promote religion, this need is not surprising. Most of the points above where he wants to see the Constitution changed solidify this need.

In short, Republicans accuse Obama of wanting to bypass Congress to get what he wants, yet Republicans want to bypass the Courts to get want they want.