 |
With Palin, McCain Ignores Colorado Warning
By Diana Hsieh @ 6:04 AM   
The following article has been offered as a non-exclusive op-ed by the Coalition for Secular Government to newspapers in the interior west.
With Palin, McCain Ignores Colorado Warning
by Ari Armstrong
"I have to win here if I'm going to be the next president of the United States," John McCain told a Colorado crowd in July. The fact that the Democrats came to Colorado for their convention also proves the presidential importance of the Interior West, a region known for its independent streak and partisan upheavals.
However, McCain seems not to have learned the political lessons of the Interior West, despite the fact that he's from Arizona. By selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate to attract the evangelical vote, McCain risks alienating the independent voters and non- sectarian Republicans he needs to win.
Recent polling results from the Pew Research Center indicate that most Americans now think churches should keep out of politics. Even half of conservatives share this view. The Interior West is particularly leery about faith-based politics; Pew results from 2005 examined by Ryan Sager suggest that 59 percent of residents think "government is getting too involved in the issue of morality." Yet faith-based politics is one of Palin's signature issues.
Palin endorsed the teaching of creationism in tax-funded schools before softening her stance on the issue. She ardently opposes abortion, describing herself as "pro-life as any candidate can be," apparently even in cases of rape, incest, or health problems. Speaking to a church as governor, Palin said that it's "God's will" that she help build an energy pipeline; she added that the Iraq war is "a task that is from God." Political reform, Palin argued, "doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's heart isn't right with God."
Given McCain's desire to win Colorado, he might have examined why this once solidly Republican state is currently governed by Democrats. One central reason is the domination of the Republican Party in the state by the religious right.
Democrats captured the final branch of state government in 2006 when Bill Ritter defeated Republican Congressman Bob Beauprez in the governor's race. Ritter was accomplished in his own right as the Denver District Attorney but lacked high-level political experience. While Beauprez's campaign suffered a variety of failings, Beauprez's own commitment to faith-based politics, and his selection of a running mate of the same cloth, hurt him badly.
Beauprez himself opposed abortion and favored faith-based welfare. His running mate, Janet Rowland, shared those views and had also come out in favor of teaching creationism in tax-funded schools. When asked about the separation of church and state, Rowland replied, "We should have the freedom OF religion, not the freedom FROM religion." Such expressions rubbed independent-minded Westerners the wrong way.
Yet McCain is following a similar path. On his official web page, McCain says that his ultimate aim is "ending abortion." His running mate, like Rowland, shares that view and favored tax-funded religious education. Palin, like Rowland, would leave Americans without freedom from religious law. Will the team's commitment to faith-based politics be too much for voters in the Interior West to swallow?
The McCain-Palin ticket has a lot going for it that the Beauprez- Rowland ticket did not. McCain is a decorated military veteran with a lengthy career in the Senate. Palin is credible on energy, appealing to low-tax conservatives, and friendly toward gun owners. She has a record as a reformer, and she's an attractive, vibrant, and poised speaker.
Moreover, the left's shrill personal attacks against Palin may serve only to evoke public sympathy for her and energize her supporters. The left's complaints about Palin's lack of experience may underscore their own candidate's inexperience, as Barack Obama tends to come off as a glorified motivational speaker. Yet the Obama-friendly left, in its attempt to itself cozy up to the evangelical vote, shies away from criticizing the McCain-Palin ticket over the issue of separation of church and state.
Nevertheless, as independent and traditionally Republican voters evaluate McCain and Palin on their own merits, rather than merely as the alternative to Obama, many will grow concerned over the pair's commitment to faith-based politics. This will cost McCain votes and other forms of support.
McCain may have energized the religious right, but in doing so he has brought faith-based politics to the forefront of his campaign, leaving freedom-minded independents and secular Republicans without a candidate they can support. The question remaining is which presidential candidate will make them more fearful.
Ari Armstrong is the editor of FreeColorado.com and a co-author of "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life" at SecularGovernment.us, a paper criticizing the Colorado proposal to define a fertilized egg as a person.Labels: Activism, Coalition for Secular Government, Politics
|
| |
 E-mail Diana Hsieh
 PermaLink ( )
 Comments [1]
|
|
| Friday, September 05, 2008 |
|
The Attack on the Right of Petition is also an Attack on Property Rights
By Gina Liggett @ 1:00 AM
Lobbying is often scorned, and commonly considered an unethical practice of influencing lawmakers. Even though there are thousands of lobbyists working at all levels of government for every conceivable interest group, it is corporations that often receive the most wrath.
For example, Barack Obama brags: "I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists - and won."John McCain has been criticized for being anti-lobby while at the same time courting the advice of several corporate lobbyists; but he's quick to wash his hands of this hypocrisy, saying, "At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust."
But petitioning the government either as an interest group, private citizen, or corporation, is a fundamental right explicitly enumerated in the petition clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "Congress shall make no law.... abridging...the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
And according to the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University, lobbying is considered a form of petition (with no guarantee that the lobbyist will get what he wants): "Lobbyists try to persuade government officials either to support or oppose various policy issues. Therefore, lobbying can be considered a form of petitioning the government for redress of grievances, subject to protection under the First Amendment's petition clause. Although there has not been a great deal of judicial analysis on First Amendment protections afforded to lobbying, the courts have carved out several parameters. First, the petition clause does not grant a lobbyist the absolute right to speak to a government official nor does it grant a lobbyist the right to a hearing based on his or her grievances. In addition, the clause does not create an obligation for a government official to take action in response to a grievance. Finally, any statement made while a lobbyist petitions a government official does not receive greater protection than any other expression protected by the First Amendment." So, with the political bias against corporate lobbying, how are companies supposed to survive when politicians attempt to make laws and regulations that threaten their businesses? Are they just supposed to shut up and accept any capricious violation of their property rights?!
Because there is no separation of state and economics in America---resulting in the mixed capitalist-socialist economy we have today---it is imperative that the right to petition government be upheld. It may be the only way, albeit indirect, to fight for property rights.
While some interest groups and companies improperly lobby for government handouts and preferences, and play the infamous "pork-barrel" game, this is not because the right of petition is wrong, but because the entanglement of government and the economy is wrong.
The essential point is this: politicians' flagrant disregard of the First Amendment right to petition is symptomatic of not only their power lust, but their arrogant disdain for the concept of individual rights, property rights and government's proper role as servant to the people.
And the "people" includes the companies which create the wealth and the necessities of our daily life. If politicians legislate them out of existence directly by regulations or indirectly by limiting their right to petition, then government will truly have total power over the economy--and you and me.Labels: Ethics, Law, Politics
|
| |
E-mail Gina Liggett
PermaLink ()
Comments [8]
|
|
| Wednesday, September 03, 2008 |
|
Federal Ambiguity on Abortion Vs. Contraception
By Paul Hsieh @ 1:37 AM
William Saletan of Slate has recently posted a couple of informative updates on the Bush administration's attempt (or lack thereof) to define abortion.
The context is the proposed new law that would grant special protections for religious health care workers who chose not to provide abortion care or information to patients out of reasons of "conscience". In effect, the new law would forbid employers from firing such workers and enforce this by threatening the employer with loss of federal funding.
Leaving apart the fact that such issues should be settled by private contract (as nicely argued by Thomas Bowden of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights in their recent press release, "Let Doctors Protect Conscience by Contract"), this proposed law has spawned a controversy over what exactly constitutes an "abortion" in the eyes of the federal government.
As Saletan documents in his first piece from 8/28/2008, "Contraceptive Fudge", the initial definition was:...[A]ny of the various procedures -- including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action -- that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation However, this was dropped after protest from physicians and reproductive rights advocates who correctly noted that this would include some forms of birth control that are not generally regarded as "abortion" -- including IUDs and sometimes birth control pills.
Saletan also points out that a number of religious advocacy groups have already argued that "hormonal contraception is abortion", including Pharmacists for Life International, Christian Legal Society, and Concerned Women for America, and that the current definition still leaves the door open for this interpretation.
When others have asked Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt to clarify this point, he has been cagey. In Saleton's second piece from 8/29/2008, "Contraceptive Fudge: Addendum", he notes the following statement by Leavitt:But when pressed about whether the regulation would protect health-care workers who consider birth control pills, Plan B and other forms of contraception to be equivalent to abortion, Leavitt said: "This regulation does not seek to resolve any ambiguity in that area. It focuses on abortion and focuses on physicians' conscience in relation to that." Secretary Leavitt is trying to have it both ways. While claiming this would not "change a patient's right to a legal procedure", his deliberate characterization of this issue as one of "ambiguity" is leaving the door open for the conflation of popular forms of birth control with abortion, and thus preparing the way for future restrictions of birth control in the name of restricting abortion.
Saletan also explicitly supports the private contract approach to the "conscience" issue, and I applaud his principled stance:As a pharmacist, you have every right to refuse to fill contraceptive prescriptions. But your customers have every right to boycott your store, and your employer has every right to fire you. If you don't like your employer's policy, open your own pharmacy. He also notes that federal government is soliciting citizens' opinions on this issue. You can e-mail them at: consciencecomment@hhs.gov.
Here's a slightly edited version of the comment I sent them:The US government needs to be completely clear and unambiguous as to whether it regards standard forms of contraception such as birth control pills and IUDs as forms of "abortion", if they result in the expulsion of an egg that has already been fertilized but not yet undergone implantation.
Rather than fudging this issue and calling it an "ambiguity", it must let practicing physicians such as myself know whether restrictions on abortion will also entail restrictions on these other forms of contraception.
If the Bush administration wants to call those "abortions", then please be up front about it and say so. If the administration does not consider those to be "abortions", then say so and clear the air. To straddle the fence does a grave disservice to millions of men and women, and also leads to the concern that there is a hidden agenda amongst some in the government to also include restrictions on these forms of birth control when they propose future restrictions on abortions.
Paul Hsieh, MD You too can let the Feds know what you think!Labels: Abortion, Coalition for Secular Government, Politics, Religion
|
| |
E-mail Paul Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [7]
|
|
| Tuesday, September 02, 2008 |
|
Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:54 AM
I'm delighted to report that Capitalism Magazine is publishing Ari Armstrong's and my recent issue paper for Coalition for Secular Government -- "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person" -- as a six-part series.
Part One was posted yesterday.
Part Two was posted today.
Ultimately, you'll be able to find all six parts on our author page.
Here's what the paper is about:
Colorado's proposed Amendment 48 -- the ballot measure that would grant full legal rights to fertilized eggs -- would usher in disastrous government controls on abortion, birth control, medical research, and in vitro fertilization. It would violate the rights of real men and women -- based on the faith-based fiction that a fertilized egg is a person with the same moral standing as a born infant. Yet the biological facts of pregnancy show that the embryo/fetus becomes a human person with rights only when born. Our paper offers some philosophic analysis of the politics and ethics of abortion not seen elsewhere, I think. So go check it out on CapMag -- or you can download and read the full pdf version.
(By the way, I'm in a massive dissertation writing crunch right now. I wrote for eight hours on Sunday, eleven hours yesterday, and I have a huge day ahead of me to finish this &@*#! chapter on moral judgment. So I'm not answering any e-mails or whatnot -- except to put out fires. I'll be back in the game by the end of the week.)Labels: Abortion, Politics, Religion
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [1]
|
|
| Monday, September 01, 2008 |
|
Individual Rights Should be Cornerstone of Change
By Gina Liggett @ 2:27 PM
Denver Post columnist David Harsanyi wrote an editorial critical of the anti-capitalist Democrats at the DNC. I wrote the following letter-to-the-editor that was published in the Sunday Denver Post. (And the editors gave it such a lovely title, "Individual rights should be the cornerstone of change.")
Bravo on David Harsanyi's column, "In Denver, the end of capitalism."
The Democrats evade the truth of how the wealth they expropriate is created. They hijack the word, "investment," to justify the legalized stealing of earned income to pay for their "solutions."
To the Democrats who want to lead America, we are nothing more than some group with needs: "underserved," "women," "employers," "seniors," "the corrupt," "the bankrupt," etc. There is no mention of the fact that we are individuals--and that the pursuit of one's own life and happiness is the foundation of our rights in this country.
Freedom, individual rights, and property rights should be the cornerstone of what the U.S. needs to move forward. I have a new slogan for the Democrats: "Change for America: the immolation of the individual in service to others." Another reader, Sukumar Vijaraghavan, also wrote a letter. It is so rabidly anti-capitalist that it makes me wonder why the reader doesn't move to Cuba and become Michael Moore's roommate in one of Havana's public housing projects.
But I got the last word between the two letters, so HA HA!Labels: Activism, Politics
|
| |
E-mail Gina Liggett
PermaLink ()
Comments [34]
|
|
|
The Left Co-opts Religion for "Social Justice"
By Gina Liggett @ 12:26 AM
What could be a scarier entity to a rational person than a religious leftist? But that's what's coming down the cultural pike.
The Religious Right has historically staked its moral claim on the Republican Party, focusing on what they call "pro-life" issues such as abortion, stem-cell research, euthanasia, human cloning, and other issues that pertain to life and death.
But we have an emerging phenomenon among what has traditionally been the morally-vacuous Left: a religious basis for their agenda to tackle the Iraq war, so-called "social justice" and environmentalism.
To many, the Left has been always been perceived as coldly "scientific" and therefore anti-moral. But now that the Democrats are eagerly jumping into bed with religion, it must be very reassuring to some voters on the fence who "kind of like" the leftist ideology, but just can't embrace its moral hollowness. Now they have a new leader: Barack Obama, who has been apologetically leading his Christian Democrat soldiers into battle.
This is a marriage that should be annulled. It is a Las Vegas wedding of two faiths: religious belief in the supernatural with the statist's hatred of individualism.
Ayn Rand opened the lid on the leftist movement in her book, The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution. Although published in 1970s, the essays are as relevant today as ever.
And now that the Left can claim moral sanction from God, that's just one big heavenly green light for Obama's Blueprint for Change.
His plan is explicitly clear: Obama will expropriate wealth from capitalist producers and fund a welfare state on a grand scale with the the moral call-to-arms that we are our brothers' and sisters' keepers (to paraphrase his exact quote).
What a rallying cry for a purposeful America! The Taliban couldn't do any better!
Where is that third alternative to the bible-quoting statism of the Left and the
mystical-biblical politics of the Right? It is Ayn Rand's rational egoism.
Rational egoism means that an objective reality exists as we perceive it by our senses and by a process of reason (not by prayer or mystical revelation). This includes the knowledge that humans are individuals, not globs of "society" that must follow the state's or God's commands. Morally we have the right to pursue happiness and our necessities of life without violating the rights of others to do the same. It means we can have a society where we interact benevolently with others on the basis of trade with one another, free from theft of our lives and property by the state or criminals.
The bleak reality is this: our politicians are ruining America. But they don't have our minds yet. It is the ideas of rational egoism that will lead us to a better future--a future of freedom, wealth and happiness.Labels: Ethics, Politics, Religion
|
| |
E-mail Gina Liggett
PermaLink ()
Comments [18]
|
|
| Thursday, August 28, 2008 |
|
Morally Castrated Cowards
By Diana Hsieh @ 2:26 PM
Bryan nails the insignificance of the scandal about the too-young Chinese gymnasts. (I'm going to quote the whole post since a cut-and-paste wouldn't do it justice.)
The IOC should heed the immortal words of Mark Twain, who said: "It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a morally castrated coward, than to launch a ridiculous sham investigation of the age of some Chinese gymnasts and remove all doubt." (That's from memory, but I'm pretty sure those were his exact words.)
Look: the Chinese government has spent a decade cheerfully spitting in the IOC's face, flouting every last promise they made in order to get us all to ignore 800-pound elephants like Tiananmen Square, Tibet, the Falun Gong, and the slave labor camps, and give them the games. Human rights? Sorry. Free speech for Chinese citizens? Please—they've extended their censorship so effectively that even foreigners and visiting athletes are now subject to it. China has proven that they'll make whatever empty promises they have to in order to pry what they want out of a clueless and docile IOC, which has not protested. And now the IOC wants to demonstrate its moral authority and commitment to fair play ... by humbly requesting documents verifying the age of some gymnasts?
Of course they're cheating! Hell, they even Milli Vanillied the opening ceremonies! Now it's true that as a layman I don't have all the documentary evidence, but China has definitely crossed enough lines that there's absolutely no reason to extend them the benefit of the doubt, nor the presumption of innocence (and when it comes down to common sense versus a Chinese government-issued passport, I'll trust my lying eyes, thank you). And that's why it's a kind of treason for the IOC to get exercised over trivia like this, while piously ignoring China's systematic violation of the standards of decency and fair play.
The IOC knows who they're dealing with, and has known for years, and has taught China to rely faithfully on their "turn a blind eye" policy. There has never been even a token effort to hold them accountable for their promises. That's what makes this gymnastics business a red herring, designed only to distract people from the utter spinelessness of the IOC (Usain Bolt has also been victimized by this cowardly behavior). So let's do a thought experiment, and ask ourselves what might happen if the IOC gets smoking-gun evidence that proves beyond a doubt that China forged those little girls' passports. After prostrating themselves before demonstrably empty promises for all these years, does anybody imagine that they'll suddenly find what it takes to stand up to China, in any way other than the most meaningless and trivial?
If hard evidence turns up, and that's assuming that the IOC doesn't already have it and hasn't already destroyed it, then I think we'll see a sort of sacrificial lamb scenario: at most, China will permit one or two little girls to be stripped of their medals, and the IOC will pronounce itself satisfied, and praise China for its openness, and the story will fade away into the general tarnish that's descended onto the popular ideal of the Olympics as a fair, un-politicized, and sportsmanlike enterprise. Frankly the whole thing makes me sick. Oh, and let's add one more item to the long list of China's evils, to which supposedly civilized nations routinely turn a blind eye: Taiwan.Labels: Politics, Sports
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [0]
|
|
|
CSG Media Release: Faith-Based Politics Is a Losing Strategy
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:39 AM
MEDIA RELEASE: COALITION FOR SECULAR GOVERNMENT
Faith-Based Politics Is a Losing Strategy
Sedalia, Colorado / August 27, 2008
Contact: Diana Hsieh, founder of the Coalition for Secular Government and co-author of "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," Diana@SecularGovernment.us
The wholehearted embrace of faith-based politics by Democrats is the big news of the Democratic National Convention. "It's a losing strategy, particularly in more freedom-minded states like Colorado," said Diana Hsieh, founder of the Coalition for Secular Government.
A recent Pew survey showed that Americans are growing more wary of the persistent attempts of politicians to inject their private faith into public policy. A majority of Americans of all political stripes oppose the mixing of politics and religion.
In Colorado, the Republican Party's determination to enact laws and policies based on sectarian Christian values has resulted in stunning defeats in recent elections. Colorado was once a solidly red state, but now it's purple, and turning blue.
"Despite these losses, the religious right is still on the warpath in Colorado," Hsieh said. "This election, they're attempting to force God's law on the state via Amendment 48, the ballot measure which would grant fertilized eggs all the legal rights of persons in the Colorado constitution. If passed and implemented, the amendment would criminalize abortion as murder and ban the the birth control pill. It would be a disaster for the men and women of Colorado." See "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," a Coalition issue paper by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh, available at http://www.SecularGovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf.
Now the Democrats are imitating this losing strategy by infusing liberal politics with religious fervor. They're holding interfaith prayers, opening their platform to religious opponents of abortion, and supporting faith-based initiatives. Ironically, they're doing so in Colorado, the very state that was handed to them as a result of voter disgust with the religious right.
"It's political suicide. The Democrats will only alienate the majority of Americans committed to the principle of secular government," Hsieh said. "Who can those voters support, when both Republicans and Democrats seek to govern by their personal faith rather than rational principles?"
"To protect freedom of religion and conscience, Republican and Democratic leaders must embrace the separation of church and state on principle. Politicians should govern according to the secular principles of individual rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, not religious scripture," Hsieh said.
The Coalition for Secular Government (www.SecularGovernment.us) advocates government solely based on secular principles of individual rights. The protection of a person's basic rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness -- including freedom of religion and conscience -- requires a strict separation of church and state.Labels: Coalition for Secular Government, Election, Politics
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [3]
|
|
|
The Evasion Invasion
By Gina Liggett @ 12:21 AM
They've arrived in Denver by the thousands, ready to take on America... and change it.
In "The Blueprint for Change," Barack Obama outlines just what he's going to do if elected President. In this way, he will "... put government back in your hands, where it belongs."
Just what does he mean? Is this blueprint a principled declaration of the proper role of government? Is it an acknowledgment that somehow that relationship between government and its citizens has been breached and that he is going to set it right?
Careful not to fall out of your chair when reading this blueprint, because the dizzying list of government fix-its often contains a dollar sign followed by the word, "billions," in the sentence.
And the man who boasts that he's only worked in "public service" (as opposed to the private sector) doesn't hesitate to usurp the capitalist term, "investment," to hide the wealth-bleeding expropriation of earnings that will be required to pay for this fantastical plan.
This blueprint represents evasion on a grand scale, "...a wish to negate existence, an attempt to wipe out reality," in the words of Ayn Rand.
The Democratic candidate for President is blanking out the fact that it is the individual who is the fundamental unit of a society. To Obama, we are globs of groups: the wealthy, working class families, lenders, borrowers, the bankrupt, the corrupt, seniors, veterans, women, volunteers, methamphetamine addicts, the underserved, students, employers, disadvantaged youth..."
So it is no surprise that his vision of government is to correct the ailments of the various groups... somehow. And to pay for it... somehow...
- "President Bush's policies of giving tax breaks for the wealthy will cost the nation over $2.3 trillion by the time they expire in 2009... Obama is committed to repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans."
- "Obama supports public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests."
- "Obama will also create an energy-focused Green Jobs Corps to connect disconnected and disadvantaged youth with job skills for a high-growth industry."
- "Obama will create a new American Opportunity Tax Credit that will make tuition at the nation's community colleges completely free and will cover up to two-thirds the cost of tuition at the nation's public colleges and universities."
- "Obama will create a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund to fill a critical gap in U.S. technology development. Obama will invest $10 billion per year into this fund for five years. The fund will partner with existing investment funds and our National Laboratories to ensure that promising technologies move beyond the lab and are commercialized in the U.S."
- "Obama will invest $1 billion over five years in transitional jobs and career pathway programs that implement proven methods of helping low-income Americans succeed in the workforce."
- "Obama will set a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year."
- "Obama will sign a universal health care plan into law by the end of his first term in office."
In this blueprint, there is no reference to the individual. Therefore, there is no understanding of what is required for life. Therefore there is no mention of freedom... no mention of a moral basis for individual rights... no mention of property rights... no mention of how wealth is created... no mention of the right to live one's life free from the violation of one's rights... no mention of pursuing happiness... no mention of limitations on governmental power.
This is because, to Barack Obama and his evaders, there is only the collective.
Even when Obama properly opposes any attempt to overturn a woman's right to abortion, it's not because abortion is a moral right, but because it fits into the category of his policies that pertain to women.
In order to carry out his blueprint, Obama will take on America's "enemies" -- a floating, disembodied melange of "lobbyists," "disparities," "agribusiness," "chronic disease," "special interests," and "workers falling behind."
This is what he will do for America. This is what he means by giving America back to the people.
I fear there will not be enough duct tape in the world to patchwork this country back together if Obama's blueprint becomes realized. And the tragedy is that the masters of evasion won't even notice.Labels: Ethics, Politics
|
| |
E-mail Gina Liggett
PermaLink ()
Comments [13]
|
|
| Monday, August 25, 2008 |
|
Renewable Energy?
By Diana Hsieh @ 6:02 PM
Keith Lockitch, Resident Fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, has a post on renewable energy on The Hill Blog. Here's the philosophically juicy bit:
The basic premise of environmentalism is to leave nature alone -- to preserve it untouched by human activity. Capturing and utilizing any source of energy -- even ones that are supposedly green and renewable-will necessarily have some impact on nature, and will therefore inevitably be subject to environmentalist attacks and condemnation.
Ultimately, what this means is that environmentalists don't actually want us to find alternative ways of producing energy; they want us to stop using energy altogether. And since the use of energy is an indispensable component of everything we do in our lives, the greens' opposition to even such ridiculous, impractical sources of energy as solar and wind reveals their basic animus against human life.
Mr. Schwarzenegger added "if we cannot put solar power plants in the Mojave Desert, I don't know where the hell we can put it." But that is the whole point. On green philosophy, there is literally no place on earth for mankind. Nice!Labels: Environmentalism, Politics
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [5]
|
|
|
"Serving Others" is NOT the American Way
By Gina Liggett @ 12:37 AM
Political wives Michelle Obama and Jeannie Ritter, the wife of Colorado's Governor, wrote a Guest Commentary about "serving others" as being the American way. They echo Barack Obama's directive, "I am my brother's keeper. I am my sister's keeper."
Well, who is my big brother? Are we as Americans supposed to sit around while others "serve" us? Who pays the rent while we run around volunteering? What if I decide to define myself as "needy" and demand that others give me what I lack?
In fact, I think I'm going to quit my job and become needy so that rich liberals can serve me and feel good about themselves. (Drum roll and trumpets, please) I hereby heroically declare it my duty as a good and brave citizen to allow others the privilege of fulfilling their "American Way" by serving MOI! Gee, I feel really good about this....Now give me your money!!
All sarcasm aside, Obama's and Ritter's pernicious underlying message is this: that altruism should be one's primary purpose and responsibility in life, and that it is immoral to be left free to live one's life as an end in itself.
I've got news for the followers of this mandate: serving others out of altruism is not what made this country great. Our country is distinguished by the concept of freedom: freedom to pursue one's own life, goals, rational self-interest, relationships, and happiness. (Why the hell would millions leave everything behind in their dictatorial or poverty-infested countries to come to America?!)
Giving to a cause should be a secondary choice based on one's own values. It should not be a duty imposed by cultural pressure or law. The fact that Americans do volunteer and donate billions to various non-profits or community groups speaks of the generosity of Americans. It is a result of a natural benevolence that emerges when people are left free to choose their life path and relationships with others.
The alternative of "good equaling sacrifice" versus "bad equaling self-interest" is utterly fallacious. It disavows our nature as human beings. It ignores the historical fact that people pursuing their values without preventing others from doing the same leads to wealth, a higher standard of living and a healthier society.
The liberals are evading the natural consequence of their credo. Just look at the past horrors of regimes demanding sacrifice for the "people" or for the "state" (Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany) or sacrifice for God (Afghanistan under the Taliban).
We must reject the evil idea of altruism. A government that tells us we are responsible for the happiness and health of others is a government that will control us.
Whoever is my keeper is my master.Labels: Ethics, Politics
|
| |
E-mail Gina Liggett
PermaLink ()
Comments [18]
|
|
| Friday, August 22, 2008 |
|
Armed Teachers in Texas
By Paul Hsieh @ 1:02 AM
The August 15, 2008 Houston Chronicle has reported that one school district in North Texas will allow teachers who have concealed firearms licenses to carry their weapons on school property:Trustees at the Harrold Independent School District approved a district policy change last October so employees can carry concealed firearms to deter and protect against school shootings, provided the gun-toting teachers follow certain requirements.
In order for teachers and staff to carry a pistol, they must have a Texas license to carry a concealed handgun; must be authorized to carry by the district; must receive training in crisis management and hostile situations and have to use ammunition that is designed to minimize the risk of ricochet in school halls.
Superintendent David Thweatt said the small community is a 30-minute drive from the sheriff's office, leaving students and teachers without protection. He said the district's lone campus sits 500 feet from heavily trafficked U.S. 287, which could make it a target.
"When the federal government started making schools gun-free zones, that's when all of these shootings started. Why would you put it out there that a group of people can't defend themselves? That's like saying 'sic 'em' to a dog," Thweatt said... A number of regular NoodleFood readers have left supportive comments on the newspaper website. From Kelly McNulty (who alerted us to this story):This is a wonderful step in the right direction. Everyone has the right to defend their life, and in this situation, adults will be able to defend themselves and their students.
Someone commented earlier about being scared of "a bunch of kids." Scared of kids? Did you forget Bailey, Colorado less than two short years ago?
It doesn't matter where you are in society (work, school, home, the mall, etc.), you can be threatened with your life. If you are not prepared to save yourself, all you can do is hope that someone else will. (Good luck with that.) I was robbed in my own home (when I lived in Houston) and it's not fun to beg for your life. Now I own a handgun and I know how to use it. I just wish I would've had it then.
Unlike animals, humans are not naturally equipped to defend their lives. We have no claws, no sharp teeth, no tough, furry skin, etc. Man's only tool for survival is his mind. Guns were invented by the human mind as a tool to serve and protect us. You can pretend that evil doesn't exist or you can acknowledge it and prepare for the day it may come to you. Hopefully, it never will, but I'd rather be safe than dead. From Nick Provenzo:I absolutely support the right of a teacher to bear arms in defense of their and their student's lives, so I support this measure wholeheartedly and wish other jurisdictions would do the same.
I think it is appalling that anyone would demand that teachers be forced to be unarmed and left as the potential victims of any common thug. The lawful possession of firearms on campus is a sure deterrent against anyone who would seek to use savage violence in the schoolyard and I think it teaches as powerful lesson to would-be attackers: it tells them that the innocent will defend their lives without question. I also left the following comment:This is an excellent idea. Armed school staff have already saved lives.
Back in 1997, troubled teen Luke Woodham started shooting at students at Pearl High School in Pearl, MS. Fortunately, assistant principal Joel Myrick was able to retrieve his firearm from his car in the school parking lot, and use it to force Woodham to surrender.
Unfortunately, Woodham killed two students and wounded seven more before Myrick stopped him.
Who knows how many of those kids could have been spared if Principal Myrick had been allowed to keep his firearm concealed on his person in the classroom? For more information on similar situations when honest armed citizens have used their weapons to stop bad guys, I recommend this essay: " When mass killers meet armed resistance".
Penn & Teller have their own inimitable take on the issue in this episode of their television show:
(As an incidental note, Penn and Teller are both big fans of Ayn Rand. They mentioned this to Diana when we attended one of their shows in Las Vegas a couple of years ago and they saw that Diana was carrying a copy of The Fountainhead. We also got their autographs that evening, since I was one of the audience volunteers who picked a card out of the deck for one of their tricks.)Labels: Guns, Politics
|
| |
E-mail Paul Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [25]
|
|
| Thursday, August 21, 2008 |
|
The Emerging Religious Left
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 AM
My letter to the editor on the emerging religious left was finally published in the Rocky Mountain News yesterday. They must have been holding it for closer to the Democratic Convention.) Unfortunately, they don't seem to have printed my affiliation as the founder of the Coalition for Secular Government. Nonetheless, I'm delighted that they published it.
Democrats falling prey to religious influence
Diana Hsieh, Sedalia
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
The First Amendment of the Constitution upholds freedom of religion as absolute. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, it builds "a wall of separation between church and state."
For the past 30 years, that wall has been under attack from the religious right via "intelligent design," "faith-based initiatives" and now Colorado's own "definition of a person" amendment.
Alarmingly, Democrats are jumping on the faith-powered bandwagon. A powerful religious left is emerging within the Democratic Party, determined to entangle politics and religion. The ideal espoused by John F. Kennedy that the religious views of a politician should be "his own private affair" is dying.
Democrats, religious or not, must speak out for freedom of religion. If they don't, their party will soon be in the iron grip of savvy Christian evangelicals, just like today's Republican Party. Labels: Coalition for Secular Government, Politics
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [29]
|
|
| Wednesday, August 20, 2008 |
|
The Preciousness of a Finite Existence
By Gina Liggett @ 1:17 AM
[Originally posted to Politics without God, the blog of the Coalition for Secular Government.]
Most religious or "spiritual" values include the belief in eternal life, such as an afterlife in heaven or reincarnation into another life after death. The common theme is the idea that each person has an eternal soul that lives beyond the physical body after death.
Meanwhile, in the here and now, a key goal of modern religious activism is advocacy for what many faithful call the "sanctity of life". Believers are taught that life is given by and belongs to God, and therefore we must not meddle in the godly matters of life and death.
This is the biblical basis for prohibitions against abortion, euthanasia, and stem cell research, even though these practices are for the purpose of relieving suffering and improving the lives of living individuals. (And it is also the moral basis for the Colorado ballot proposal to grant rights to fertilized eggs.)
But when the religious interpretation of the "sanctity of life" is the law of the land, people are forced to endure suffering. For example, a woman who is impregnated by a vicious rapist must forever live with the psychological and social burden of raising a child she doesn't want. A terminal cancer patient with agonizing pain only has the option of withering away using ever-increasing mega-doses of pain drugs rather than being allowed the choice of ending his life with dignity. These examples demonstrate the opposite of respect for the sanctity of life.
How do the faithful psychologically tolerate these indignities? By believing in an eternal life: that when it's all over, one's soul will live on. It may go to heaven to be with God in a state of eternal bliss, or it may reincarnate and advance to a "higher plane" of existence with "lessons learned" from the previous life.
But this belief comes at a high price: believing in an eternal soul essentially renders one's life in the here and now expendable. If you live forever, it doesn't ultimately matter if you suffer in this life. All that matters is that humans must not "play God" by taking ownership over their own their lives.
One of the most difficult truths we face as humans is that our existence is finite. This is something we have to learn to accept and cope with. The religious belief in an afterlife is a total evasion of this blunt truth.
The fundamental fact that we all die means that it is this life that is sacred. Therefore, we must have a society that protects the unique, finite and precious life of each living individual. Such a society based on rational egoism has a moral code founded on the realities of our finite existence and the requirements of human life.
But a faith-based society that unquestioningly accepts the idea of an eternal soul can rationalize doing anything it wants to individuals in the name of God, because people get eternal life anyway.
A proper sanctity of life is for the living. It is not for potential life, a dreamy "eternal" life, or for God.Labels: Ethics, Politics, Religion
|
| |
E-mail Gina Liggett
PermaLink ()
Comments [97]
|
|
| Wednesday, August 13, 2008 |
|
China, Collectivism, and the Olympic Opening Ceremonies
By Brandon Byrd @ 1:24 AM
Like many of you, I had been anxiously and ambivalently awaiting the beginning of the Olympic summer games in Beijing. On the one hand, I love the exhibition of raw human potential at some of its most actualized. The games offer a rare chance to glimpse the efficacy of human choice and loyalty to values, as the world beholds athletes who have been training their entire lives to achieve almost unimaginable feats of strength, speed, and agility. That I find the Olympics inspirational is an understatement. I celebrate the Olympics for showing me the height of what's possible and giving me the knowledge that it can be made actual. Despite my enthusiasm for the genuine value I find in the Olympic games, I had some considerable difficulty making sense of the extravagant opening ceremonies in Beijing this past weekend.
While watching the opening ceremonies, I found myself totally confused as to what I thought or felt about the spectacle that was unfolding before me. It was undoubtedly sensational, a grand event that dazzled the senses and left one's head reeling in wonder as to how it was all being accomplished. I heard that China spent something equivalent to roughly $300,000,000 (doesn't seeing all those zeros concretize the magnitude of the expense?) to produce the ceremony, and one can see that they got their money's worth. In the run up to the games, it was not infrequent for commentators to argue that the 2008 Olympics is “China's coming out party” and that the games would set the stage for China to gain recognition as a serious political and economic player. And indeed, this seemed to be largely the theme of the ceremony's presentation. Much of the pomp and circumstance was directed at the end of both celebrating Chinese culture and emphasizing the idea that China wants to cooperate with the rest of the world.
The celebration of Chinese culture went something like this: once upon a time there were Chinese who invented gunpowder and fireworks, had huge drum circles, fashioned incredibly ornate dresses, made some incredible paper and printed on it, and who philosophized at roughly the Pre-Socratic level of scope and sophistication. (The pre-Socratics [Western philosophers before Socrates] were the first group of Western philosophers and their interests primarily revolved around how to explain the metaphysical phenomenon of change (and how things persist through change without changing their essence). They typically did so through claims about how opposites [light and dark; night and day; hot and cold; atoms and void] interact. All this is also distinctive of much Chinese philosophy, as I understand it.)
Were these not the basic features of Chinese cultural greatness that were presented to us in the ceremonies? Perhaps the Chinese also demonstrated that they could get really large groups to do things precisely by drilling them for months on end. But what these massive demonstrations of precise collective action were used to demonstrate were the cultural products of Chinese civilization. Truly, these are not small change in the grand scale of human achievements, and I appreciate these things in the same way that I appreciate their Western analogues. To the extent that these things were done well, they represented significant advances in the human condition.
Upon reflection, however, I viewed the ceremonies as essentially a ploy to use some of Chinese culture's greatest offerings (in terms of its art, innovation, and philosophy) as a symbol for the greatness of the current Chinese regime. My reasons for believing that this is so largely because of a recent admission by certain Chinese officials about a memorable event during its supposedly glorious opening ceremonies.
Today the New York Times reports that there has been a bit of a recent scandal related to the opening ceremonies. The article reports that one of the most touching and memorable elements of the performance actually involved a bit of deception.
At one of the key moments in the ceremony, an adorable 9 year old Lin Miaoke stood center stage, replete with red dress and 'cute-little-girl hair,' and sang a song called “Ode to the Motherland.” (A video can be found on YouTube here. [Link Fixed]) Some time into her performance, the national flag of China enters in grand, Party-Approved fashion (the song is basically an ode to the flag, making it the perfect choice for a 9 year old girl to understand and communicate) and the whole world goes “Awww! Let's all be friends with China.”
However, this event was not everything it seemed. The NYT reported that the voice we heard was not Miaoke's, but instead that of another girl, Yang Peiyi. It was Yang Peiyi who had the vocal range and skill to sing the Ode to the estimated billion viewers of the opening ceremony. She had the voice of the girl who should sing the song,
But not her face. Photos posted online showed a happy girl with imperfect teeth, hardly an uncommon problem in China. “Everyone should understand this in this way,” Mr. Chen [general music designer of the opening ceremony] said. “This is in the national interest. It is the image of our national music, national culture, especially during the entrance of our national flag. This is an extremely important, extremely serious matter.”
As the Joker might ask, “Why so serious?” The article explains:
Miaoke’s song was considered critical because it coincided with the arrival of the national flag inside the massive National Stadium, known as the Bird’s Nest. In his radio interview, Mr. Chen said that a member of the ruling Communist Party’s powerful Politburo, whom he did not identify, attended one of the last rehearsals, along with numerous other officials, and demanded that Miaoke’s voice “must change.”
By Tuesday, the Chinese media had already pounced on the story, instigating a national conversation that government censors were trying to mute by stripping away many, but not all, of the public comments posted online. The outrage was especially heated over the cold calculation used to appraise the girls. Let me summarize: China's ruling party is censoring Internet traffic because it demanded that the general music designer of the opening ceremony fake a performance designed to glorify the Chinese nation. It was dissatisfied with this element of the ceremony, since at the end of the day they had to decide between a cute girl with insufficient vocal chops, and a less cute girl who had the voice to sing the song. Why choose? Why compromise Chinese national self-image (and thus cast doubt upon the Communist Party's ability to govern an international event? THIS IS SERIOUS! Though they could not choose between Miaoke and Peiyi, they could rebuild them; they had the technology (thanks to Western innovations in audio and video processing software).
Why China faked the ceremony and why they oppressively censor online comments is essentially the same reason: the Chinese regime is nationalist. At root, the opening ceremonies were meant to be a nationalistic demonstration of a nation's power on the world stage, showing how Chinese competence could produce a magnificent ceremony. That is, it was viewed by Party members (who had the power to shape the final form of the ceremony) as an expression of political prowess. It was China's coming out party, and nothing could blemish its reputation – not even an orthodontic travesty or a flat note here or there. Any expression of weakness or failure is an indication of national failure, of China's inability to succeed. The state, the people, the NATION must look good at any cost, even if it means engaging in deceptive behavior that manipulates children (who may or may not have known about the lip-synching at the time of the performance); even if it means selecting potential Olympic gymnasts at the age of three... even if it means placing stringent government controls on what can and cannot be said through electronic media.
Whenever I speak of Chinese collectivism, given their communist legacy in the 20th century, I often am met with a response like “Oh, China... sure they're ruled by a communist party, but they're not really communists. Look at all of their economic reform and liberalization!” This response seems to miss the mark altogether. The distinctive feature of communism was the view that individual interests could be curtailed for the sake of promoting class interest. Under Mao and his communist successors, collective interests took priority over individual rights and the liberties they secure. This view is precisely the same view held by the current Chinese regime, though they're replaced “class interest” with “national interest.” The principle that one can see manifested everywhere throughout contemporary Chinese politics and public policy is the same collectivist principle invoked by the communists: that individuals exist to serve the state, that the interests of the state take priority over the interests of the individual.
It was indeed China's coming out party, and the opening ceremony was supposed to communicate a message of friendship, cooperation, and human unity. It was supposed to show how China was willingness to engage in civilized participation with the rest of the world. It included a performance by 810 figures in Han-dynasty era clothing, who joined together to communicate the question “Isn't it great to have friends coming from afar?” and sent “All men are brothers within the four seas.”
Despite the inclusion of elements like this, I couldn't find myself convinced that the opening ceremonies should be viewed positively. Regardless of all the razzle-dazzle, what we witnessed was a calculated attempt by an oppressive government to justify itself through a mesmerizing performance on the world stage. It's a variation on the old Roman “bread and circuses” theme, except, of course for the bread (think how many capital goods $300,000,000 could buy to increase worker productivity and thus help to alleviate the wide-spread poverty in China). The ceremonies were a debut ball for China as a nation, with all this implies for a country ruled by a nationalistic authoritarian regime; they were a thinly-veiled celebration of the state. In this respect, I found the 2008 opening ceremonies eerily similar in tone to the 1936 games in Berlin.
All this is to say, I found China's ceremonial pleas for friendship and and cooperation to be disingenuous. To the extent that a person, culture or political system preaches collectivism, its hostility to individual human life makes it necessarily “unfriendly” (to say the least). A friend is someone who shares our values, and one cannot genuinely befriend anyone who advocates the destruction of individual liberty for the sake of the state. A friendly nation is one that does not oppress and censor its citizens. No amount of fireworks or electronic displays could change that.
To drive home this last point, (that spectacle is no substitute for achievement), I'd like to contrast China's grand debut ball with another debut ball, the one given for Dagny Taggart in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. It, like the Chinese opening ceremonies, was an extravagant event of considerable cost, designed to celebrate Dagny's entrance into adult society. The following passage sets the scene:
The ballroom of the Wayne-Falkland Hotel had been decorated under Mrs. Taggart's [Dagny's mother's] direction; she had an artist's taste, and the setting of that evening was her masterpiece.
"Dagny, there are things I would like you to learn to notice," she said, "lights, colors, flowers, music. They are not as negligible as you might think."
"I've never thought they're negligible," Dagny answered happily. For once, Mrs. Taggart felt a bond between them; Dagny was looking at her with a child's grateful trust. "They're the things that make life beautiful," said Mrs. Taggart. "I want this evening to be very beautiful for you, Dagny. The first ball is the most romantic event of one's life." Dagny's enthusiasm for her debut ball wanes as the event drags on. By the end of the event, her initial excitement has turned into a dull complacency, the spark of the celebration now gone. She asks:
"Mother, do they think it's exactly in reverse?" she asked.
"What?" asked Mrs. Taggart, bewildered.
"The things you were talking about. The lights and the flowers. Do they expect those things to make them romantic, not the other way around?"
"Darling, what do you mean?"
"There wasn't a person there who enjoyed it," she said, her voice lifeless, "or who thought or felt anything at all. They moved about, and they said the same dull things they say anywhere. I suppose they thought the lights would make it brilliant.
Dagny's analysis seems totally applicable to the Chinese opening ceremonies. The ruling Communist Party seemed to believe that if it surrounded itself with a remarkable, perfect display, it could claim perfection for itself and thus enhance its legitimacy. That is, the Party believed that the lights would make them seem brilliant. But as the world knows, the Chinese government has little to celebrate.
I'll spare you the familiar complaints about the government's shortcomings and summarize my view as follows: It is only after the Chinese government abandons its authoritarian, collectivist ideology and adopts ideals of individualism, individual rights, and capitalism that we can recognize the People's Republic of China as a true friend.
It is only then that they will have reason to celebrate in as grand a fashion as they did on 8.8.08.
[Edited 2:46 EST on 8.13.08 with new YouTube link]Labels: Culture, Politics, Sports
|
| |
E-mail Brandon Byrd
PermaLink ()
Comments [14]
|
|
| Tuesday, August 12, 2008 |
|
Airtight
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:36 AM
[Originally posted to Politics without God, the blog of the Coalition for Secular Government.]
In a totalitarian society, individuals lack any kind of private life. Individuals are only a means to the end of society, everything -- from one's purchases to one's friendships -- is the province of the state.
That same totalitarian impulse is present in American churches today, as illustrated by this news story on a pastor's prophetic sermons:
Last Sunday, pastor Irwin Alton, 62, preached against several specific sins during his sermon. Some people in the audience gasped with recognition. "When he talked about skipping mid-week service to go to the lake, and buying a new boat when you haven't tithed, I felt nailed to my pew," said one man. "It was like the Holy Spirit was speaking right to me."
But it wasn't the Holy Spirit -- it was the man's own blog where he had posted photos of himself and his buddies on his new boat on a Wednesday evening.
Pastor Alton, who cultivates a reputation as a computer illiterate techno-phobe, is actually an avid reader of MySpace pages, blogs and personal websites of the people in his congregation. "I appear, shall we say, un-hip," he says. "Therein lies my advantage."
Though he publicly refers to the Worldwide Web as the "Worldwide Waste" and e-mail as "sin-mail," in his home office is a bank of computer screens with more than 170 bookmarked sites -- personal web pages, blogs, Twitter, MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, Digg, Flickr and more. Each week Alton surfs the sites for hours to find evidence of questionable behavior by people in his church. He jots offenses down and incorporates them into his Sunday sermons.
He even checks the blogs of friends of people in his church. That's where he found photos of Emily Dotson, 31, at a local sports bar. During the service last week Alton paused mid-sermon to say, "Some of you have been visiting places you shouldn't be seen in as a Christian, drinking establishments and the like." Emily was taken aback.
"He was speaking right to me," she says. She came forward and repented for being at the sports bar, even though she'd been celebrating a girlfriend's birthday. "I knew I shouldn't have lingered in that environment," Emily says. "I could have gone in, said hi and left." [Update: Doh! It's actually a satire, even if a bit too close to real life for many Christians.]
Liriodendron quotes a portion of that article, then writes the following:
As for my own personal experience, I spent one year in a church that was dangerously close to Pastor Alton's. Right after college, I accepted a teaching position in a private Christian school in south Florida in order to take a year off from my education. In my incredible naivete, I assumed that the school would be as free-thinking as my Christian college had been, and I was assured that I would be able to teach evolution. Nevertheless, the school that I taught at was incorporated along with the church. As a condition of our employment, we were required to attend church weekly, "voluntarily" tithe 10% of our pre-tax income to the church, and serve on at least one church charity or ministry project. As someone who accepted the premise of altruism [at the time], I had no problem with these rules.
My students got a good dose of actual education about evolution, but not without some parents discussing this matter with the administration. It became apparent that I was only to teach evolution from the standpoint of exposing its supposed fallacies. My most important lesson was learning what a consistently Christian life was all about. If your life is lived consistently according to religious values rather than your own implicit values, it becomes an agonizing web of deceit and dishonesty -- both with oneself and others. It was the worst, most stressful year of my life. There were several aspects of my personal life that I kept very secret, dreading the day when some church member might find out about it. One day I was confronted by the school/church administration for using the word "crap" in my classroom -- a student had reported that. I can't possibly hope to communicate with others who think Christianity is benign how oppressive a consistently Christian life is. It is something you must experience for yourself. If Christians choose to live in such personal confinement within the bounds of their own church, that's their right. However, they have no right to use government force to herd the rest of us into a such confinement via controls on obscenity, drinking, drugs, blasphemy, abortion, birth control, homosexuality, dress, and the like.
For those of us who reject Christian morality -- who regard Christian values of faith, sacrifice, suffering, and submission as positively immoral -- such a life would be intolerable. That's precisely why I formed the Coalition for Secular Government: I do not wish to attempt to eke out an existence in an airtight Christian world.Labels: Politics, Religion
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [15]
|
|
|
