Religion

Canning sin

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Have you ever canned food? Are you a Christian? Have you ever considered whether canning food might actually be sinful?

A Christian friend pointed out an article that asks this very question:

Is it biblical to practice food storage? Would it be a sin to do so? How could a believer even go about prepping without falling into sin? And prepare for what… natural disasters? An enemy? Economic instability? War? Terrorism? With such huge ethical questions to answer, it’s no wonder that most Christians don’t prepare in the least.

Article: Should a Christian practice food storage?

The fact the question even needs to be asked shows the penultimate issue with most religion: you must check every action in your life against the holy book that runs your life. Now the noted article ultimately concludes that there is no sin in preparing and using food storage as part of that preparation, but not without making some interesting, if not incorrect observations:

There’s a lot out in the blogging community about “getting prepared” (a.k.a. “prepping” or “food storage”) and the people who adhere to this premise typically fall into one of several categories: they either grew up in a culture where this was common (farmers, for example), or they’re hard core survivalists believing that everyone else is the enemy, or they’re doomsdayers who are fearful of the future and sure the world is coming to an end.  Just like a lot of things in this fallen world, there are some truths and good points each group espouses, but none of these philosophies would be consistent with a Christian world view.

Let’s talk economics for a second before going into the religious undertones. First saving money or saving food: it’s what you do to prepare for the future. For what you are preparing is immaterial. You could be saving food using food storage technologies because money is low and you want to stretch every dollar in your grocery budget. You save money in the bank (or in your mattress, to be old fashioned) instead of spending it to stretch out your budget as far as possible.

We all ultimately fend for ourselves, so preparation for the unknown is definitely necessary. It comes to budgeting and insuring yourself against the future. And if that is a sin, if preparing for the future is a sin, then many, many people are living a sinful life without knowing it.

So why would canning food and practicing food storage be sinful? My mother in law is a devout Catholic, and somehow I cannot see her kneeling in confession to say "Father, forgive me, for I have sinned. I have been canning food!"

The bigger question that needs to be answered is this: why is that question even being asked?

Now I know that some may say that the author of the article was only helping people become better Christians by pointing out that not only is canning food not sinful, but you’re a better Christian if you actually practice canning or food storage. And if you want to think that you’re somehow a better Christian because you’ve got a line of quart and pint Mason jars in your cabinet or fridge, be my guest.

But at the same time, why question whether canning food is a sin?

If Christians are truly questioning every little action to determine if it might fit the definition or description of a sin, I can definitely understand why many formerly-Christian atheists say the first thing they feel after they’ve made the sometimes horrifying transition is a great sense of liberation.

Now yes, I know that arguably a good proportion of Christians don’t question whether every little thing they do might earn them points redeemable for a tortuous eternity. But I doubt that the author of the above-noted article is the only Christian to question whether canning food is a sin, and it wouldn’t surprise me if every action that people take, from driving their cars to wearing a certain style of clothing, has been questioned for sin by some Christians at some point in time.

And therein lies the problem.

Many Christians go through their lives without really questioning their actions, not really all that concerned over whether they are leading a sinful or virtuous life, or a combination therein. Instead of questioning if your actions might be a sin, the only question you should be asking is whether your actions may cause foreseeable harm to others. Canning won’t cause harm to others, and if you’re questioning whether your religious beliefs will permit you to can food, perhaps your religion might be the problem.

So can food and exercise food storage all you want. And I’ll meet you at the farmer’s markets and county fairs to try your latest recipes.

Free speech and press/Religion/Supreme Court

But it says "Congress shall make no law…"

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states plainly:

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.

Recently in an article on The Right Scoop, this argument was raised regarding a senior reciting the Lord’s Prayer at a public high school graduation:

The left will not stop its intellectually bankrupt relentless attack on Christianity in America. The Constitution clearly restricts the making of laws in order to establish religion or to prohibit the free exercise of religion. 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.

Commonly argued by the pious right, many have come to believe that the First Amendment allows States to establish an official religion for that State (except where directly enjoined by their own Constitutions), allows students and school officials to join other students in a mass prayer, and all kinds of other things that have been explicitly denounced by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Establishment Clause states plainly that Congress shall not make any laws respecting an establishment of religion. Let’s break this down using a dictionary commonly available when the Amendment was drafted [Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1785 edition: Volume 1, Volume 2]. Two words in particular need to be documented: respect and establishment. We’ll start with the word "establishment":

Establishment. n.

  1. Settlement; fixed state.
  2. Confirmation of something already done; ratification.
  3. Settled regulation; form; model of a government or family.
  4. Foundation; fundamental principle; settled law.
  5. Allowance; income; salary.
  6. Settled or final rest.

One thing that should be clear is that when the First Amendment says "respecting an establishment", it isn’t talking about the act of establishing. Definition 4 from above is what applies here. Establishment is another word for foundation or fundamental principle. Congress shall make no law respecting the foundations and principles of religion. Not any particular religion in general either, but all religion.

Now what does it mean with regard to "respecting an establishment"? Well Dr Johnson’s dictionary has a definition for "respect", but it has a more specific definition for the verb state of that word:

To Respect. v.

  1. To regard; to have regard to.
  2. To consider with a lower degree of reverence.
  3. To have relation to: as, the allusion respects an ancient custom.
  4. To look toward.

So to respect something is to show regard or consideration for it. With regard to the First Amendment regarding Congress’ prohibition on making laws "respecting an establishment of religion", the Constitution is prohibiting Congress from making laws that have regard for the foundations and principles of all religion. Sounds to me like the Constitution is prohibiting Congress from touching religion at all. But why Congress? Does this mean that the Executive Branch is not so enjoined?

Why Congress?

Why is the Amendment addressed at Congress? There is a simple, straightforward answer and it has to do with how the powers of the Federal government were to be exercised.

In looking at the Constitution, you will notice that Article I discusses the legislative branch of the Federal government, and that it is the longest article of the Constitution, even longer, I believe, than any single amendment. Yet if you look at the Federal government, the Executive Branch is by far the largest branch of the Federal government. Congress is actually the smallest, with the judiciary coming in a distant second.

With the Constitution all powers of the Federal government were to originate with Congress. Article I, Section 8 specifically spells out 17 enumerated powers and designates them to Congress. In short these powers are actually categories of permissions that Congress can grant to the Executive Branch by way of legislation. The way our government is supposed to work is that Congress decides what the President (by way of his many departments) shall do, and the President does it (after making an evaluation on whether the law is constitutional).

If Congress doesn’t say "yes", then the Executive Branch cannot do something. However Article I, Section 8 and the Amendments restrict and specifically lay out toward what Congress may say "yes", and with a few things, such as those in the First Amendment, specifically denies Congress the ability to say "yes".

But the First Amendment doesn’t apply to the States

Aside from the States that have provisions in their own Constitutions mirroring that of the Bill of Rights, how is it that an Amendment that says "Congress shall make no law" is applied to the States? The Supreme Court applies the Bill of Rights to the States by way of the Fourteenth Amendment under what is called the incorporation doctrine. The history of the doctrine can be traced back to two cases:

  • Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad v. City of Chicago, 166 US 226 (1897)
  • Gitlow v. New York, 268 US 652 (1925)

The first case applied the "just compensation" clause of the Fifth Amendment to the eminent domain powers of States while the second required States to honor the free speech provisions of the First Amendment.

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment states

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In prior jurisprudence in the case Barron v. Baltimore, 32 US 243 (1833), the Supreme Court held that the Federal courts could not stop State legislatures from enacting and enforcing laws restricting the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. This basically means that any State, or all States, could pass laws denying people within that State any or all of the rights protected by the Bill of Rights. That jurisprudential mistake means that States could, unless enjoined by their own constitutions,

  • establish a State religion and prohibit the expression of other religions,
  • deny the freedom of speech, press, and assembly,
  • take away all guns and rifles and bar ownership of all firearms,
  • quarter State militia troops in your home against your will,
  • deny you the right to counsel in your defense against criminal charges,
  • compel you to testify against yourself,
  • enact cruel and unusual punishments,

among many other things. In other words, under the jurisprudence in Barron, a State government could be downright tyrannical toward its citizens, and the citizens would be powerless to fight back. Article I, Section 9 requires that States always honor the right of habeas corpus, except in cases of rebellion or invasion, so the State cannot arrest you without reason. But under Barron they could deny you a trial by jury, seize evidence without a warrant and absent probable cause, and stop and frisk you without any probable cause. Good thing the Constitution prohibited States from enacting bills of attainder and ex post facto laws.

The Fourteenth Amendment, by way of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, applied the Bill of Rights to the States, so said the Supreme Court in Gitlow: (268 US 652 at 666)

For present purposes we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press-which are protected by the First Amendment from abridgment by Congress-are among the fundamental personal rights and ‘liberties’ protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States.

By declaring at all that there exist liberties that the States, by way of the Fourteenth Amendment, may not abridge, the Supreme Court set themselves up for a cavalcade of jurisprudence that would result in a jurisprudential landscape by which the States must honor the Bill of Rights. Included in the jurisprudence were Supreme Court cases that limited the interaction of State governments with religion.

The first case to apply the Establishment Clause to the States is Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing, 330 US 1 (1947). Prior to this case, the Bill of Rights was interpreted as applying only to the Federal government, meaning the States were permitted to grant certain religious denominations certain privileges, whether legislative, effective or miscellaneous. In a sweeping decision by a 5 to 4 vote, the Supreme Court ended it with the stroke of a pen: (330 US 1, at 15, 16)

The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’

The situation that gave rise to the Everson decision involved taxation for transportation to both public and private schools. Of the private schools that benefited, virtually all were Catholic schools. Writing for the minority, dissenter Justice Rutledge wrote: (330 US 1, at 31, 32)

The [First] Amendment’s purpose was not to strike merely at the official establishment of a single sect, creed or religion, outlawing only a formal relation such as had prevailed in England and some of the colonies. Necessarily, it was to uproot all such relationships. But the object was broader than separating church and state in this narrow sense. It was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion.

Basically Rutledge felt that the decision in Everson, while striking a major blow at the entanglement of State governments with religion, was not sweeping enough. This arguably would be corrected in later decisions, most notably and extensively in application to public schools, though in some ways the Court has only muddied the waters in such a way that it is difficult for individual jurisdictions to determine whether a particular incorporation of religious expression by a government entity is a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Typically the muddy waters are with regard to holiday displays, such as those sponsored by city governments. Displays of the Ten Commandments have come under attack as well. On those, one thing is clear: a display of the Ten Commandments by itself in a government building (courthouse, public school, etc.) is a violation of the Establishment Clause.

But getting back to the article on The Right Scoop, how does this apply to public schools, or, more specifically, prayer at public school functions?

Government entities

Before getting to public schools specifically, a couple principles need to be established.

First, a legislature cannot establish government entities with powers beyond those granted to the legislature itself. Any specific restrictions on the legislature apply to the Executive Branch as well. The legislature cannot establish a government agency with powers beyond those granted by the applicable Constitution, nor can it grant powers to a government agency specifically denied by the applicable Constitutional provisions. To do so would result in tyranny.

School boards, state departments of education, and public schools are government entities, all established by acts of their superior legislatures. This means that public schools and their administrations inherit the same limitations applicable to their superior legislatures. This includes the restrictions of the First Amendment.

Prayer at public school functions

The Supreme Court has ruled in two cases applicable to prayer at public school functions:

  • Lee v. Weisman, 505 US 577 (1992), and
  • Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 US 290 (2000)

The Lee case involved specifically the graduation ceremony of a public middle school and a prayer benediction to be delivered by a Jewish rabbi. The student in question was Deborah Weisman, whose parents filed suit on her behalf seeking an injunction barring the rabbi from delivering the benediction. Various facts about the case only served to seal its fate at the Supreme Court. The decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, would state prominently: (505 US 577, at 592)

Our decisions in [Engel] and [Abington] recognize, among other things, that prayer exercises in public schools carry a particular risk of indirect coercion. The concern may not be limited to the context of schools, but it is most pronounced there. What to most believers may seem nothing more than a reasonable request that the nonbeliever respect their religious practices, in a school context may appear to the nonbeliever or dissenter to be an attempt to employ the machinery of the State to enforce a religious orthodoxy.

This established what is considered a "coercion test" with regard to prayer and public schools and school functions. This test would be applied in the follow-up case, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, with regard to student-led prayer at school functions, noting specifically

The delivery of such a [religious] message–over the school’s public address system, by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer–is not properly characterized as “private” speech.

One prominent fact about the Santa Fe case that is important to note: there are two families represented by the Doe moniker, one Mormon and the other Catholic.

Let’s look at this from a slightly different perspective.

The ability for students to elect student representatives and the purposes those representatives shall serve is entirely at the discretion of the public school at which the elections shall take place. As such the representative offices created by the school administrations, to be filled by the popular vote of students for particular candidates, are limited by the same applicable Constitutional provisions that limit the school itself, for the school cannot create an office, even an office to be occupied by a student representative, with greater power or ability than itself.

This means that student representatives are too enjoined by the First Amendment to the Constitution when operating within the capacity of their appointment and representation. Which brings us to Laci Rae Mattice.

Laci Rae Mattice

Laci Mattice was a school-appointed student representative chosen to speak at her graduation ceremony. As such her conduct and permitted actions are restricted by the First Amendment. The school even informed her of such before, telling her that the moment of silence on the program was to be just that. Instead she decided that her faith compelled her to thank God, after which she said some choice phrases designed with an attempt to escape the restrictions of the First Amendment – which her appointment by the school makes the First Amendment inescapable – before reciting the Lord’s Prayer.

She exceeded the scope of the authority granted her by the school and violated the religious rights of everyone in her graduating class, not just Damon Fowler, the atheist student who objected to the inclusion of a prayer in the graduation ceremony.

Despite what Mattice said, her actions were not compelled by her faith, but by her own willful disregard for the Constitution and her own willful disrespect of her fellow classmate. Other atheists around the blogosphere have commented that Mattice’s actions were more of a "Fuck you!" to atheists than a "Thank you" to God.

I am inclined to agree, as the evidence is overwhelming that the thought running through Laci’s mind as she approached the podium was simply this: fuck what that student has to say, I’m doing what I want, and let’s see them try to stop me.

Her actions, however, could lead to civil liability for the school if the principal had reason to believe that Mattice would perform the actions that took place and did nothing to stop her. As for whether Mattice herself could be held liable – well that’s up to the Courts to decide. And personally, I would support any lawsuit by Damon Fowler against Laci Mattice. I believe it would be the first of its kind.

Links and resources

Law/Life/Religion

Retraction

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Yesterday I alleged that I had been blocked from commenting on the right-wing blog “The Right Scoop”. This allegation is not correct according to an article posted this morning by The Right Scoop. Apparently a number of people, including those with conservative-leaning political views, also were blocked due to an apparent glitch in the Disqus (pronounced “discuss”) system. As such they have gone away from Disqus and have reverted back to WordPress’ built-in comment system with registration required.

As Disqus is the commenting system currently employed by this blog, I think I may be investigating other options. One option I’ve discovered is called IntenseDebate, and I’ve also considered using plugins that link commenting up with Facebook, but I think that would more discourage commenting and discussion than encourage it.

What are your opinions? Do you think using Facebook for commenting be more encouraging for discussion since a lot of people are on Facebook now? Have you heard of other systems that you think may be worth it? I’m open to suggestions.

But again, it appears I was not blocked by a moderator on the site, so I retract that allegation. The one thing that was intriguing is that the comments that were edited by moderators reverted to their original text after they turned off the Disqus system, so you can see what was originally posted as comments before they were edited. And again, debate and dissent will always be welcome here. If you start a flame war, however, I’ll pull out the fire extinguisher.

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 and Relationships

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).