Religion

Responding to a Christian

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

And in the Bible lies many problems.

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

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

Now I could be surprised.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just as I cannot know, neither can you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References[+]

Religion/Rights

Origin of rights

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

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

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

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

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

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

We are endowed with inalienable rights. Plain and simple.

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

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

"God-given" rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"We made them up!"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

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

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

The Rights of the Silver Platter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

References[+]

Censorship/Life/Politics

Words of a politician

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immigration/Republican platform

Birthright citizenship

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Let’s talk birthright citizenship. The concept comes from the Fourteenth Amendment:

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

Citizenship by birth is conferred upon the newly born under two policies: jus soli and jus sanguinis. The first means "right of the soil", citizenship by place of birth. The second means "right of the blood", citizenship determined by the citizenship of your parents. The first makes determining citizenship rather easy. The second, on the other hand, not so much, because of potential conflicts with birthright citizenship laws in other countries.

The problem with the latter has been especially noted between the United States and Canada, wherein patients in Canadian hospitals experiencing a difficult childbirth could be transferred to a hospital in the United States for better emergency care. The child then born in an American hospital is a citizen of the United States under the Constitution, but there is also a competing declaration of citizenship under Canadian law because the child was born to Canadian citizens in a foreign country. This problem has created a phenomenon known as "Lost Canadians".1Lost Canadians. (2011, March 29). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21:31, April 10, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lost_Canadians&oldid=421318808

The same is true of a child born to United States citizens in Canada. For example a woman who has progressed about 7 1/2 months through a pregnancy is travelling in Canada when she experiences unexpected complications requiring admission to a local Canadian hospital. There the attending physicians determine that an early delivery must be performed to ensure the best chance of the infant surviving. To maximize this chance, the physicians highly stress against attempting to transfer to a hospital in the United States. The pregnancy is delivered in a Canadian hospital. Under Canadian law, the child is a Canadian citizen. Under US law, the child may also be an American citizen.

The United States Code establishes several definitions by which a person born outside of the United States is still a citizen of the United States under the concept of jus sanguinis.28 USC 1401(c)38 USC 1401(d)48 USC 1401(g) An orphaned child under the age of five years discovered within the United States is also presumed to have been born within the United States, and thus a natural-born jus soli citizen, unless evidence obtained and presented prior to the individual’s twenty-first birthday can show that the child was not born in the United States.58 USC 1401(f)

Then we have what has been called an "anchor baby".

Now conservatives would like to "restrict" birthright citizenship as a way to counter illegal immigration because of so-called "anchor babies". It is the fallacy behind this idea6Anchor baby. (2011, April 9). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 19:44, April 10, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anchor_baby&oldid=423219740 that has resulted in numerous attempts at the Senate and House of Representatives to restrict birthright citizenship by amending the United States Code. That’s right, they want to restrict something defined by the Constitution by passing a law: the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011.

Now before getting into this particular law, let’s provide some clarification. The Fourteenth Amendment states a minimum subset of the population of the world that are citizens of the United States: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". This is jus soli citizenship, as explained earlier, and Federal law implements this definition in the United States Code78 USC 1401(a). But the Constitution provides Congress the power to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization"8Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8, which includes the ability to declare who else beyond the minimum definition established by the Constitution may also be citizens. And, as described earlier, Congress has implemented additional definitions beyond the minimum definition of the Constitution.

But of those persons born in the United States, Congress cannot restrict their citizenship or their ability to assert citizenship. Can they be deported to the countries of their parents? Representative Duncan D. Hunter (R-CA) would like to think so.9Frumin, Ben. (28 April, 2010). "GOPer: I Support Deporting American Citizens Whose Parents Are Illegal Immigrants". Talking Points Memo. And there are reports that this is actually occurring, where natural born citizens of the United States are being deported. One case that gained some notoriety is that of Helen Mejia-Perez, born in Novato, California, in 1996.10"Tell President Obama and Senator Feinstein to immediately halt the deportation of the Mejia-Perez family" posted November 3, 2009, to the blog NYSYLC.

The question for some reason seems to surround "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Here’s a simple question: who is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States? The answer is just as simple: anyone within the jurisdiction of the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States except those specifically exempted. So by deporting United States citizens, you remove them from the jurisdiction of the United States. The question of whether this is legal is still up for debate. Many contend that deporting citizens, regardless of the immigration status of their parents, is illegal, and I join that opinion.

Let’s throw out a hypothetical, but first let’s fast forward a couple years. Prince William and Princess Katherine are traveling through the United States while the Princess is pregnant with their first child. She’s coming close to her due-date, but they feel they still have plenty of opportunity to travel for a regalia in the United States before going back to London. The baby, however, decides to surprise them and Katherine goes into labor early and gives birth at an American hospital. Is that child a citizen of the United States? No. The reason is quite obvious: as diplomatic guests to the United States, William and Katherine would have diplomatic immunity, and this immunity is automatically conferred upon any children they have, whether born in the United States or not. That diplomatic immunity also means the child is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and cannot be declared a citizen of the United States unless the child emigrates and is naturalized.

Representative Steve King of Iowa and Senator David Vitter of Louisiana want to redefine the applicability of the jurisdiction phrase through the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011, introduced as HR 140 and S 723 respectively. This is a law seeking to redefine a phrase present in the Constitution and mirrored by the US Code. Basically what the law seeks to do is say, in essence, that a person is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, in terms of the Citizenship Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, only if "the person was born in the United States of parents, one of whom is":

  1. a citizen or national of the United States;
  2. an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or
  3. an alien performing active service in the armed forces (as defined in section 101 of title 10, United States Code).

Basically through an ordinary statute, Congressman King and Senator Vitter seek to redefine a phrase in the Constitution. Now this isn’t the first time such an attempt has been made, and, as can be readily assumed, all prior attempts have failed. But even if it were to succeed, and be signed into law by the President, something tells me that this would not withstand Court scrutiny. After all, if you want to redefine the Constitution, you refine the Constitution through an Amendment.

If you were born in the United States to parents who are not immune to the jurisdiction of the United States, you are a citizen. If you want to limit the applicability of birthright citizenship with regard to children of illegal immigrants, you basically have to grant all illegal immigrants immunity from the laws of the United States and all jurisdictions therein. Imagine the chaos such a notion would create.

The Supreme Court of the United States clarified birthright citizenship in the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649:

A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution

While the text of the decision is written in terms of a child of Chinese immigrants, it applies easily to any person in the United States. The words "permanent domicile" are especially important, as this basically means that the child has to be born to parents who intend to stay in the United States, but note that nowhere in the decision is any distinction made about the immigration status of the parents.

In Perkins v. Elg, 307 US 325 (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that a child born to foreign nationals in the United States is a natural born citizen of the United States. That child does not lose his/her US citizenship if removed from the United States by his/her parents provided that upon reaching the age of majority the person returns to the United States to assert their citizenship and assume its duties. This means that in the aforementioned case of Helen Mejia-Perez, Helen can, upon reaching the age of majority, return to the United States and assert her citizenship as a natural-born citizen of the United States.

Oddly enough, Senator Vitter has also introduced a Senate Joint Resolution calling for amending the Constitution to clarify the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.11112th Congress, Senate Joint Resolution 2 So Senator Vitter understands that an ordinary statute may not do the trick. The language of the proposed amendment, currently stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee, mirrors the language of the Birthright Citizenship Act which he recently introduced in the Senate.

An Amendment to the Constitution is the proper path to clarify birthright citizenship, and the most recently proposed amendment will restrict jus soli citizenship in very clear terms while not overriding the jus sanguinis citizenship that the United States Code currently permits. It will mean that Canadian pregnant women transferred to American hospitals will give birth to children who will not automatically have American citizenship. And it will mean that children born to illegal immigrants will not automatically have citizenship in the United States, but absent jus sanguinis laws of the country where the child’s parents originated, may instead be born without country.

References[+]

Politics

Legalization = condonation?

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

There was a point in time wherein the idea of arguing for the repeal of criminal sanctions for actions was laughable. After all, in a free country like the United States, why should we argue for something to be made legal? Shouldn’t the argument focus on why something should be outlawed?

Along these lines, conservatives and the Republican Party are *not*, repeat, NOT for small government and never have been. Enacting criminal laws means that people will end up in jail. There is a lot of cost to enforcing laws, from the arrest, to the trial and sentencing, to maintaining the prison population. Democrats want to take your money and redistribute it to people of lesser fortunes instead of helping them break their dependence on government handouts, or spend it on pointless, wasteful government programs. Republicans want to take your money so they can lock people up.

But I digress.

Whenever the argument regarding legalization of anything comes up, one of the first things that gets shouted in response is along the lines of this: if we legalize [insert ill here], we’re sending a signal to society that it’s okay to do that. The “legalization = condonation” argument is rather typical of social conservatives. Christian conservatives like to argue against the legalization of a lot of things and the criminalization of even more things by citing some odd reference to God, as if the criminal laws of the United States must reflect laws in the Bible or the United States will be utterly annihilated in a torrent of fire and brimstone reflective of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament.

The one thing that’s rather interesting about this as well is that conservatives say they are for personal liberty, yet they argue against the legalization or for the criminalization of many things using societal arguments. I’m sorry, but you cannot stand for personal liberty and use arguments scoped to society to argue for the enactment or continuation of criminal sanctions. When someone starts scoping their arguments to society at large, personal liberty will almost always be restricted in the name of “protecting society”. Rarely is this a good thing.

Now is legalizing something the same as condoning it? Hardly.

To understand this better, let’s first look at dictionary definition of “condone”, from Dictionary.com1condone. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged.:

–verb (used with object), -doned, -don·ing.

  1. to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like).
  2. to give tacit approval to
  3. to pardon or forgive (an offense); excuse.

Let us first look at the first and third definitions in this list. By removing criminal sanctions, are we disregarding or overlooking that which was previously criminal? Hardly. Are we pardoning or forgiving it, excusing it? Look at the pro-life movement to see the answer to that question with regard to abortion.

However by removing criminal sanctions, are we giving “tacit approval” to that which was previously criminal? No. Again, one need look no further than those who call for bans on cigarettes, abortion, and all kinds of things which are, at least as of the time of this writing, legal.

Instead by removing criminal sanctions, the People, by way of the government, recognize that the proper course of action regarding certain actions is not the criminal process. Legalizing something does not mean you are going to sit by and let something continue to happen. It just means you won’t throw someone in jail for doing it.

Ask yourself this: should someone who smokes a joint at the end of the day before going to bed be thrown in jail? What about an unmarried man (or woman, for that matter) who solicits the services of a prostitute? Should they really be thrown in jail? Is that really the best course of action? Can you think of anything else that is currently illegal that just makes you go “why does the government even care”?

The government need not, and should not, be involved in all aspects of life and human behavior.

Along the same lines of the “legalization = condonation” argument is this: “You just want it legal so you can do it”. Aside from illicit substances, prostitution is one area where this argument tends to surface with the vigor capable of lifting a steamship. Arguments against the legalization of prostitution are, in most cases, absolutely shallow. For example, women calling for legalizing prostitution may be asked by men (predominantly) and women how much they would charge for sex or certain sex services. This is the “you want it legal so you can do it” argument at its highest level of disgust, because it presumes that women want prostitution to be legal so they can become prostitutes without fear of being arrested. While some might, it is highly unlikely that all women who want to see prostitution legal want to do it themselves.

The response to men calling for the legalization of prostitution is beyond insulting. I’ve personally been told that I want prostitution to be legal so I can “buy a woman”, “objectify women”, and the statements only get worse from there. The absolute worst, most shallow and disgusting argument I have ever heard is this: “so you want to pay a woman so you can rape her?” That’s right, there are people (both men and women) who think that prostitution is “consensual rape”. That’s right: consensual rape, consenting to rape. You can find some of these people on YouTube. Their arguments really are quite disgusting.

The one thing about the arguments against legalized prostitution is simply that people presume that no woman (or man) would ever want to do that, and any who do did not enter the trade of their own free will. Yet there are plenty of women (and men) who are in the sex trade — prostitution, pornography, and the like — because (and I know this may be hard to believe) they genuinely like it.

One person on YouTube has gone to greater lengths than really should be necessary to argue in favor of legalizing prostitution: xxxThePeachxxx. She’s created a three-part series of videos (embedded below) about prostitution and why it should be legal. I invite and recommend you watch all three if you’ve never seen them before as she is really quite thorough in her approach.

Now there are all kinds of things that are illegal today that really aren’t any of society’s or the government’s business. This includes, but is certainly not limited to:

  • adultery — oh yes, in some States you can be arrested for cheating on your spouse
  • fornication — apparently in some States it’s illegal to consent to sex if you’re not married
  • prostitution — fuck for free and you’re fine (presuming the absence of fornication laws), but as soon as money changes hands it’s a crime
  • sodomy2This is not limited to homosexual penile-anal penetration between two men. Many States classify sodomy as any sexual act other than penile-vaginal penetration, such as oral sex and anal sex. In some States, such as the Commonwealth of Virginia, such acts may be punishable as a felony.
  • recreational and medicinal use of illicit substances, such as marijuana
  • gambling (both online and offline)
  • purchasing various items on Sundays
  • “obscene” materials, including pornography and erotic literature

and the list can go on and on and on and on and on… Ask yourself this question: for the items on this list, is it really any of your business or the business of the government if I or anyone else, whether you know them or not, engages in these activities? Absolutely not.

Instead the only argument that can really be made for making these particular actions illegal is that “it’s better for society to criminalize them”. Give me a break.

You don’t have to approve of these actions to legalize them. Instead what you have to understand is the proper role of government. The government is not supposed to be in the business of handing down morality upon the people. Instead the government is supposed to be in the business of being out of everybody’s way so we can do what we want so long as we are not violating anyone else’s rights.

And be wary whenever someone says that a certain law should be passed “because it’s good for society”. This argument can be made for damn-near anything, and anyone who tries to make that kind of argument is, much more often than not, talking about enacting a law that will infringe on your liberties.

References[+]

Life/Marriage and Relationships

Standards of commitment

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

I have friends who are both married and not. I have a friend who, last year, divorced her husband after he abandoned her. Let me ask this one question of everyone out there: who sets the standard of what shows commitment? There seems to be some unwritten, unpublished, but oft-quoted standard of what demonstrates commitment, and if, typically, the guy falls short, then he’s not actually committed.

Here are some of the things I’ve come across:

  • He’s not committed to you until he actually marries you, but
  • If the couple chooses to elope, or one of the couple wants to elope, there isn’t actually any commitment
  • If he doesn’t spend the equivalent of two (or three) month’s wages or salary (before or after taxes and deductions?) on an engagement ring, then he’s not really committed to you

and now, the latest one I’ve heard that comes from Prince William’s latest decision:

  • If he doesn’t wear a wedding ring, or stops wearing one, he’s not committed to the marriage

Ugh…

So someone, please, tell me who in the hell came up with any of these "standards" of showing commitment. I would really like to know so I can sit them down and set them straight. I wrote earlier on the fallacy of marriage being necessary to prove commitment (despite how many marriages each year ending in divorce?):

For some reason, many, many women have it in the back of their minds that

Marriage = Commitment

Even if you’ve been together for years, living together for most of that time, both of you are faithful to each other and talking about your future together, without the marriage certificate and the wedding rings, somehow the guy is not or has not committed? Somehow I find that very, very hard to believe, and downright insulting to say the least.

When my fiancée and I do get married, it is likely that neither of us will wear our wedding rings all the time. Does that mean we are not actually committed to each other? Indeed plenty of married couples who are perfectly committed to each other don’t wear their wedding rings all the time. Actually the last time I wore my wedding ring (I’ve worn one periodically since getting engaged) I think was when I had an in-person job interview about 2 1/2 years ago.

And after we are married, if I were to walk out of the apartment without the ring on my finger, she won’t worry or wonder if I’m fully committed or faithful. She trusts me and knows I will be faithful to her.

Now some do allow for an exception depending on profession. Not everyone is able to wear their wedding rings all the time because it would be dangerous to do so, and certain workplaces may require that the workers remove all jewelry: rings, bracelets, wristwatches, and necklaces or neck chains. Along those lines, certain hobbies that people undertake may not permit the wearing of jewelry or certain articles of clothing. For example my father likes to make things in his spare time and has a workshop on his farm. I hope he takes off his wedding ring before he starts working out there to avoid the possibility of it having to be cut off his finger. After all, safety first.

Let me put it this way, the ring doesn’t automatically mean the person is committed to the marriage. The sheer number of divorces per year should be a clear indication of this. And absent necessity for certain circumstances, if a married person chooses to not wear a wedding ring, it does not mean they are not committed to the marriage. The ring is, in my opinion, immaterial and is just another cultural relic from times past. It is not a commitment litmus test.

There are a lot of ways to show commitment within a marriage or relationship, but the oft-quoted standards don’t quite fit that bill. So what does?

While oft times it’s quite subjective and sometimes hard to pin down, I feel one thing above everything else shows commitment: the willingness to be honest. And I don’t mean honest to a degree, I mean completely honest. Now it is reasonable to withhold some information from your significant other so long as you are not being willfully dishonest. It is not necessary or practical to inform your significant other of everything, but you should not and cannot be willfully dishonest or deceitful if you are questioned about something. In general you need to be honest with each other about damn near everything, even if that honesty may provide for hurt feelings.

The glue that keeps relationships together is trust, and there is no agent better at dissolving that glue than dishonesty and deceit. And this applies to married and non-married relationships equally.

After all, as I’ve said before, there is nothing special about marriage. Marriage is nothing more than a legal status on your relationship that is recognized by the government. You can be committed without being married and you can be married without being committed to each other. Marriage does not make one committed, and neither do the oft-quoted standards.

Trust and honesty is what allows people to commit and stay committed. It doesn’t take a ring or a marriage certificate. All it takes is trust and the willingness to be honest.

Life/Technology

Gadgets you can keep

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Recently the New York Times ran an article by Sam Grobart called “Gadgets You Can Get Rid Of (or Not)” in which he severely downplays the usefulness of many gadgets still available, even if their demand is waning. In some cases he’s right, but let’s wait till the end to tally his score.

1. Desktop computer

He says: Lose it.

I say: Wait a second…

When you are deciding on a computer for your own personal use, evaluate all options available against what you need. For most people, it can be a toss-up between a laptop or a desktop. However if you are going to be doing any kind of video editing, spring for a desktop. If you’re going to be editing large images (such as from a >8 megapixel digital camera) spring for a desktop — the larger monitors that are available will make it a lot easier, and desktops have a lot more power to them.

What about games? If you’re a gamer, you already know that nothing beats a desktop computer, not even the consoles. Most hard-core gamers custom build their own systems, which brings up one major benefit of desktops over laptops: almost limitless upgradability. For most people this won’t be a major consideration, though.

Now if you need to be able to use a computer on the road, the laptop is pretty much your only option there. Laptops also generally use less power than desktops, though many desktop systems are rather energy-efficient, but they tend to also be inhibited system. Definitely shop around, though.

2. High speed Internet at home

He says: Keep it.

I say: Keep it.

You should definitely keep high speed Internet access at home even if you have access to the Internet through your mobile phone. The reason is simple: cellular and wireless signals are notoriously inconsistent and unreliable. Having a wired high-speed option coming to your home, either by cable or DSL, will save you a ton of headaches in the long run.

Plus if you get a wireless data card for your laptop, make sure to read the fine print on the contract: what is unlimited for your cellular phone may not be for the data card. Want to tether your cell phone to your laptop? That may cost extra too.

3. Cable TV

He says: Depends.

I say: Depends

My fiancée and I get away very well not having any premium television service coming into our living room. We are perfectly content waiting until shows appear online or on DVD to watch them. We don’t even connect an antenna to our television. You, however, may feel differently, so choose accordingly.

4. Point-and-shoot camera

He says: Lose it.

I say: Wait a sec…

Point and shoot cameras still have a lot of power and capability, and will always provide photo quality better than that of camera phones. Okay, much better than that of camera phones. If you actually care about photo quality, explore the P&S and SLR options available to find one that you feel suits you the best. Personally I have a Nikon D40 DSLR camera, and it’s not going anywhere.

Now while he does make a good point when he says that your point and shoot may not be handy when a photo op arises, are those ops the kind of moments where you will be planning ahead for quality pictures? If you’re going to be at a family gathering, will you be relying on your cell phone or a dedicated point and shoot or DSLR camera?

And to say that point and shoot cameras aren’t much better than cell phone cameras is just plain ignorance on his part. I’ve seen the differences and I’ve yet to see a phone camera that comes close to the level of quality you can get with a point and shoot, and none of them come even close to a DSLR.

5. Camcorder

He says: Lose it

I say: Not so fast…

Sam seems to think that the DSLR cameras available today can substitute well for a camcorder, but he also seems to think that you’re made of money. The DSLR cameras that are actually worth it that also shoot good HD video have 4 digits to their price tag before the decimal, yet you can get a good quality HD camcorder for around $300 to $400, possibly less, depending on where you go. Add on top the fact that a good quality point and shoot camera can be had for less than $200. Explore your options, of which your cell phone isn’t one of them.

6. USB Thumb drive

He says: Lose it

I say: Keep plenty of them

Once again a person not familiar with technology, or who hasn’t been familiar with it for long, is bringing up the cloud. And the cloud is a great resource: being able to store files online and access them from any Internet-ready device is a great convenience. But before you consider getting rid of writable DVDs, USB drives and external hard drives, here’s something to consider.

System administrators are very familiar with creating multiple points of redundancy in a system. Note this word: redundancy. When it comes to backing up personal digital affects, such as photos and documents, you want as much redundancy as possible.

First of all, online options have one very big weakness in them: the Internet connection. One may not always be available, and if one is not, you don’t have access to your files. Storing everything in the cloud exclusively requires you to relinquish immediate control of your digital property. USB drives are quick and easy destinations for small files such as copies of letters you’ve mailed and backing up your financial accounting system.

Now if you remember having to use floppy disks, you also remember this rule: never back up just once. With the reliability of today’s storage media this rule doesn’t entirely apply, but it’s still a helpful rule nonetheless, especially given that you can get a 4 GB USB thumb drive for $12, or an 8 GB drive for $20. Plus along with backing up small files quickly, you can also store digitally signed copies of a will or living will and keep them locked in a bank vault or fire-proof chest.

You will also always retain immediate access and control over your files without having to be at the mercy of a third party, passwords, and an Internet connection.

7. Digital music player

He says: Lose it (probably)

I say: Lose it

Virtually any cell phone today can play MP3s. For iTunes files you may have to… finagle things a little to convert them, but it’s doable. And virtually all phones (the iPhone being the only exception I can think of) have microSD slots on them, allowing the use of expandable media on which you can store your music collection. Don’t forget to keep backups, though.

Now I do have a 30 GB 5th generation iPod I bought a little over 5 years ago and will probably be keeping around until it dies. But when that happens, it’s not getting replaced with another iPod.

8. Alarm clock

He says: Keep it

I say: Keep it

When it comes to waking up in the morning, the cell phone alarm is a great thing to have, but nothing beats a backup. Plus having to answer both your alarm clock and cell phone alarm in the morning is a good way to help get you up on time.

9. GPS Unit

He says: Lose it

I say: Not so fast

GPS has been getting better and better as the years go by, and virtually every cell phone now has a GPS unit built in. Having a GPS unit separate of the one in your cell phone can still prove to be quite convenient, especially if you’re new to smart phones and haven’t quite figured out the turn-by-turn navigation on your cell phone, which also may not work if you’re also trying to talk while you’re on the road, depending on your cell phone provider.

10. Books

He says: Keep them (except cookbooks)

I say: Keep them (no exceptions)

Digital books may be the future, but they have two significant flaws. First, once you buy an e-book, you’re stuck with it. Hardcopy books you can resell at a used book store for credit toward other books. Not all books are available electronically either.

Second, the e-reader itself is an electronic device, meaning all kinds of things can happen to it. As Sam points out, books never run out of batteries, can withstand getting wet to a much farther degree, and they can be relatively inexpensive.

Sam says to lose the cookbooks, but I say to keep those too. They’re much easier to reference and virtually everyone has experience trying to cook from one. Plus recipes you find online can be printed out and kept in recipe boxes or, if you’re so inclined, in a Moleskine Passions recipe notebook or other kind of notebook. Plus would you rather walk into a kitchen with shelves lined with cookbooks and other assorted recipe books, or one with an iPad or e-reader and few, if any, cookbooks? The cookbooks tell you you’re walking into the kitchen of someone who loves to cook, and that’s the kind of kitchen I’d like to walk into.

Life/Religion

To all Christians

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 2 Comments

To all Christians,

On March 11, 2011, about a thousand citizens of Japan lost their lives when an earthquake erupted in the floor of the Pacific, sending a tsunami cascading not only toward Japan, but also toward Hawaii. In Japan there is concern about a nuclear power plant that sustained damage due to the tsunami. Thankfully the damage was nowhere near what it could have been.

However, if you feel the need or desire to have a Jerry Falwell moment and blame the tsunami on the fact that very little of Japan is Christian, then please do us all a favor and send yourself to your maker. This tsunami could have been far worse, both on Japan and the United States. Instead of trying to be a badass Christian by saying that this tsunami is part of “God’s wrath upon the world”, please keep your mouth shut. Contribute to the solution instead of trying to make the situation worse.

I dare any Christian to walk up to any family in Japan who lost a member due to this tsunami and say: “I’m sorry for your loss, but if he were a Christian, perhaps he would’ve been spared.” When you take the Falwell stance to tragedies such as the Japan tsunami, this is essentially what you are saying. You are blaming the dead for getting killed.

So to any Christians who feel like having thoughts similar to the comments Falwell and Robertson spewed forth after Katrina, please do us all a favor and take a long walk off a short pier. The world will be much better off without you.

Feminism/Life/Marriage and Relationships

What’s in a name?

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

A man marries a woman. Traditionally she takes his last name, but some woman opt against doing this for various reasons. Who knew that the idea of a woman not taking her husband’s name could create a firestorm? Okay, perhaps it’s inevitable. After all, this is the Internet and people will argue about anything on the Internet.

On The Stir, Janelle Harris penned an article that stirred up this debate.1Harris, Janelle. (2011, February 18). “Hyphenated married name fight heats up on Facebook“. The Stir.

In the article the author is debating on hyphenating her name with her future husband’s, with her name coming first: Harris-Williams. Her fiancé is apparently not impressed, saying that by doing so says that she is “wishy-washy about [her] commitment and (gasp) that [she’s] not ready to leave [her] family and be a wife.”

So here is my question: why the insistence that the wife take the husband’s name? Why not insist the husband take the wife’s name? I think there are a bunch of people wanting to claw my eyes out for even proposing such an idea, but it does happen. In 2008 screenwriter Kris Dyer took his wife’s name Myddleton when they married.2Harris, Sarah. (2008, August 17). “‘No one understood why I took my wife’s surname’.“. The Independent. The reaction was… less than according.

In my opinion that option is more logical in an evolutionary sense. It is the female of any sexually reproductive species (with some, but not many exceptions) that determines the fate of the species itself. And in human evolution there is ample evidence to suggest that women came first, contrary to the account in Genesis… wait a sec, did I just answer my question?

In the comments to Janelle’s article on its mirror location on Yahoo! Shine, Yahoo! user blackacidevil said this:

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.

Talk about dated thinking. First most households have two incomes, meaning both the husband and wife work. So most husbands are not providing for their wives, instead both are providing for their mutual standard of living. Plus he’s not giving her his last name. It’s presumed that she will take it and when she keeps her maiden name or hyphenates, confusion seems to erupt.

Plus as Janelle says in her article, she wants a professional career that includes a doctoral degree. That career will require she make a name for herself, so it seems reasonable that she wants to keep her maiden name in part in that respect. After all her career is going to identify her separate of her husband.

A dear friend of mine (an immigrant from the Balkans) kept her maiden name when she married – didn’t take her husband’s last name at all. I know another person who has a PhD, but appears to have kept her maiden name as well. The marriage came after the degree as well. Then we have names such as Jada Pinkett Smith and Hillary Roddham Clinton where the woman continues to use her maiden name as part of her identity, even if she legally takes her husband’s last name.

Now several commenters on both Yahoo! Shine and The Stir noted that her last name is not actually hers anyway. That name is her father’s last name. On that mark, however, as others have noted, the husband’s last name is not the husband’s last name, but the husband’s father’s last name. But even that isn’t true. Your name predates you by… a lot.

I will be getting married later this year (if the stars align properly and nothing gets in the way). My fiancée has already started using my last name when talking to people, though she doesn’t sign anything with my last name as it’s not legally her name yet. If she wanted to keep her last name, in part or in full, I would have no issue whatsoever.

The one thing that few people seem to be realizing is that the name decision is typically one-sided. A lot of men seem to think that they have control in the matter, but that is not the case. It’s the woman’s choice.

A lot of people come up with a lot of reasons why the wife should take the last name exclusively, and, you know what, they’re all full of hot air, in my opinion. If the wife wants to take the last name, then great. If she doesn’t or wants to hyphenate, why is this such a big deal? Some women have good reason to keep their maiden names, such as women with careers and reputations that existed before getting married. But even they can decide to take the husband’s last name.

In my opinion it doesn’t entirely matter either way. It’s entirely a judgment call — on her part. And guys, if you feel offended that your fiancée doesn’t want to take your last name or wants to hyphenate, get over it.

Note: Please read my follow-ups to this article “Revisiting the practice of the wife taking the husband’s surname” and “Playing the marriage name game“

References[+]

Life

Aiming at the wrong target

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Imagine this scenario: you own a restaurant a couple blocks from the police station. It proves popular with the police department as well, and officers are frequent patrons. Then one night the police arrest one of your friends. You take issue with the arrest, and to protest it, you decide that the police are not welcome so long as they hold your friend in custody.

What do you think will happen? Will the police cave in and release your friend, or will your restaurant take a serious financial hit to the point where you’ll either reverse the policy or go out of business?

If you think the police would give in, you’re mistaken, yet that seems to be on the mind of one business owner in the Seattle-Tacoma area. Except instead of the police, the patrons are employees of the Transportation Security Administration. She seems to believe that by not allowing TSA members to patron her business that the TSA will change its policy.

Somehow I doubt that’s going to happen. Instead she’s just going to lose business. When one sacrifices one’s livelihood to prove a point, you neither prove your point nor have a livelihood.

Direct your anger at the source of the policy, not those whose job it is to take the policy and put it into practice. Taking your frustrations out on the TSA agents is like venting your frustrations about police during a police stop – an unwise idea to say the least. I’d like to see this business owner walk into an airport security checkpoint and mouth off to the TSA – I wonder at what amount the judge would set bail?

The one thing that everyone needs to bear in mind is that if you have a beef with the government, agents of the government are not the people to whom you should be venting your frustration or on whom you should be taking out your animosity. They are powerless. They must enforce the policy or they risk losing their job.

Mouthing off to police because they arrested a friend of yours will only get yourself arrested. Mouthing off or accosting TSA agents because you don’t like the policies they have little choice but to enforce will probably also land you in Federal court. Say your friend ends their lengthy unemployment streak by taking a job with the TSA? What then? Do you turn away their patronage at your restaurant? Make an exception?

If you have a problem with a particular policy, then avoid situations in which the policy becomes applicable and mouth off to your elected official – keeping it somewhat civil to avoid your words being misinterpreted as something else.

Your elected officials have the power to act on a policy. The lowly officer in the location where you encounter them does not. And turning away willingly paying customers simply because of who happens to employ them is a foolish decision. If a business owner were to turn away everyone who works for a company, organization, or agency with whom they disagree, they’d be out of business in no time.