Western Civilization: Christianity as a Unifying Force Within a Secular State Part One; Religion in the Colonies

While there is continued debate over whether the United States is a "Christian Nation" (with debate even over what the term itself means) or whether its founders were Christians and whether it was founded upon "Christian principles", it is not arguable, however, that the majority of people in the United States identify as Christian and that Christian values, broadly defined, have shaped our culture. The European colonizers were overwhelmingly Christian, although there were Enlightenment-influenced strains which merely gave lip service to Christianity. There were small numbers of colonists and their descendants who were of other faiths, and of course there were the religious traditions of the native peoples, but Christianity was by far the religion of the majority. So, in some respects, the United States could be viewed as a Christian nation and Christianity could be viewed as a unifying force and foundational to our culture. But only if these terms are defined broadly.

There is some disagreement regarding just how Christian the early colonists were. The popular image of pre-Revolutionary War Americans largely comes from what we know of the Puritan and Pilgrim settlers. The areas that they colonized in New England were founded as religious refuges and were self-consciously religious in character. There was no separation of church and state - the church was the state. This image of the ultra-religious super-Christian early colonist is engraved in our consciousness, but the other colonies, despite some of them having established churches, were not as devoted to their faith as an everyday part of life as were those in Massachusetts and the other New England settlements. There was also the matter of disagreement, often violent disagreement, over what precisely constituted Christianity and who was a Christian. To the majority of Protestants, the Catholics practiced a false religion, Quakers were subversive due to their pacifistic views; various denominations anathematized other denominations and the Puritans thought everyone else was wrong and would gladly have a government that enforced that view.

Looking back over 300 years we sometimes mistake what people meant when they used the words "God" or "Creator". Actual atheists were rare back then, non-religious people, including those who rejected or ignored Christian ritual and mythology, often still believed in a creator of some sort, even when disbelieving in that creator's intervention in human affairs. Some of these people were the Deists, who formalized the language of disbelief and gave it a philosophical basis, but many more simply ignored religion altogether, while still vaguely acknowledging a "God".

There were undoubtedly a lot of Christians in the early days of European settlement, surely a majority, but many of them were Christians in name only, and even among the committed, there was such disagreement that one could hardly call it a unifying force.

Western Civilization: Individual Liberty Part Two; North America Origins

Founded by a bunch of people who didn't want other people telling them what to do, the people of the United States, soon joined by more people who didn't like other people telling them what to do, had what seemed like unlimited opportunity to actually get away from people who were telling them what to do. Of course many of these early Americans were unaware of the irony of shouting "freedom" at every opportunity while enslaving black Africans, putting various other people into indentured servitude and killing off native people (or at least forcing them off their land) - but, you know, freedom is for white people (male, landowning white people!) While Enlightenment principles undoubtedly influenced European nations which in turn influenced the American colonists, it was in North America where the opportunity to really be free from other people telling you what to do could be realized in practice. What North America had that Europe didn't was a vast, unexplored (by whites) continent where a man could strike out on his own and make his own way, free from little or any government interference.

Settlement by England of North America was spurred by two main reasons: religion and commerce. England had a policy of mercantilism, i.e. the goal of colonies was the enrichment of Britain itself. Various companies and individuals were given rights within the areas that the British government claimed. These rights were utilized to set up profitable enterprises, including cash crop plantations in the southern areas. Religious freedom was the other incentive to colonization. In Europe the religious wars were still raging; even in England the favored state religion could easily change if a monarch professed a different faith than his or her predecessor. Pilgrims and Puritans, the former who advocated separation from the Church of England and the latter whose goal was to reform and "purify" it, both were early settlers unhappy with the status quo of the state church. The early colonies were very much a haven for those who wanted to get out from under the control of "the man", secular or religious. As far as they were from London, eventually local governments began to resemble governments everywhere and  started to infringe on individual freedom as some envisioned it; even the religiously founded colonies, ostensibly birthed as cradles of religious tolerance, weren't so tolerant of other religious views, spawning other colonies, allegedly to escape the intolerance of those who preached tolerance.

The war for independence fought  by the thirteen colonies was in large part about "stopping other people from telling us what to do". Even after independence from England, there was a great resistance to a central government; it was only the chaos and weakness engendered by the Articles of Confederation setup that spurred the writing of a constitution with a strong central government, but even then there were challenges to its ability to "tell people what to do" up to at least the Civil War. Even then, there was for a long time a safety valve for those who were extreme individualists: the frontier.

"The frontier" was, up to possibly the late 1800's, an alternative for those who just had to live totally free of authority - Daniel Boone settling in Kentucky, the Mormons settling Utah, the English-speaking settlers of Texas, the gold-rush in California and Alaska, the uncounted pioneers throughout the West...until civilization finally caught up with them. The initial borders of the United States were continuously expanded through negotiation and through conquest, new areas opening up one after the other. All of this set a pattern for an American attitude that persists to this day. Based on Enlightenment principles, but with a uniquely American stamp.

Western Civilization: Individual Liberty Part One; The Enlightenment

One of the hallmarks of Western culture is the emphasis on the individual rather than the group, tribe, nation or religion. Or so we like to think. I reality, our culture is a mixture of individualism and adherence to societal norms, varying in degree among different Western nations and even within each nation.

It is evident that the rights of individuals was something that evolved and was not the state of early societies. In tribal society, too much individualism could kill off the tribe. "I'm sorry chief, but I don't want to be a hunter, I'd rather study theater" - gives a more literal meaning to "starving artist". While some aspects of individual rights date back to the era of Greek city-states, we will start by looking at some of the ideas of The Enlightenment as the basis of the Western idea of individual liberty.

In the 1600's, the rule of monarchs in the secular realm and of established churches in the spiritual was the norm. The monopoly by the Catholic Church had been broken by the Protestant Reformation in the mid 1500's, although the various Protestant denominations claimed the same authority within their territories that the Catholic Church previously did. In general, each reigning monarch decided which brand of Christianity would be "established' in his realm. This changed slightly with the Peace of Westphalia, which although it codified the right of monarchs to decide which church would be established in their territory, individuals received the right to choose a different denomination. Between Westphalia and the Reformation the hold that authoritarianism exercised over Western civilization and culture was weakened.

The next phase of the move toward individualism in Western thought was the broad movement called The Enlightenment. Pioneered by philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire, Rene Descartes and Baruch Spinoza, the overarching ideas of The Enlightenment was an establishment of a society based on science and reason, rather than religious faith. Some, like John Locke and Isaac Newton sought an accommodation between science and religion. There were several subcategories that were addressed as part of this movement:

• Science: the scientific method, whereby ideas were tested by experimentation, grew to be the scientific standard during this time. 
• Law & Politics: the idea of a "social contract" between the rulers and the governed, as opposed to the "right" of the rulers to rule was promulgated; the idea that for power to be legitimate, it must be representative of the people; the essential equality of all citizens; the idea that that which was not explicitly prohibited by law was allowed; separation of powers in government
• Religion: separation of church and state saw its first stirring during this time; as did the idea of Deism

The ideas of The Enlightenment were at their peak during the colonial period and were expressed in several of the founding documents of the United States. It can be seen in the section in the Constitution that forbids religious tests for public office and the prohibition on a national established church. The amendments referred to as "The Bill of Rights" codified Enlightenment ideals regarding individual freedoms. 

One of the ideas set forth by John Locke was the idea of "natural rights". These are not rights that spring from laws or a culture, but rights that are, as the term implies, natural to the state of man, and therefore universal and inalienable. He posited that no one can lawfully infringe on another's natural rights, since every man is equal and has the same natural rights. 

These ideas had widely different applications in different European nations and in the eventually independent colonies that they founded. In France, a bloody revolution overthrew the old order, in Great Britain a gradual eroding of the privileges of the kings, in other places it took until the aftermath of the First World War for the monarchies to be replaced by representative republics. Ironically, while Western nations at least gave lip service to the idea of individual rights and equality, this ideal was not extended to the areas which they still clonized: much of Africa, India-Pakistan, Southeast Asia and, after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, the Middle East. 

Western Civilization: The Nation-State Part Four; Is the Westphalian Model Still Relevant or Sustainable?

There are several things happening in modern times to undermine the principle of territorial sovereignty and secular rule set down in the Peace of Westphalia, pulling the system in different directions:

• Globalism, or the tendency for cultures to become homogeneous across national borders, including global commerce and interlocking economic systems
• The rise and increasing influence of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) including multinational corporations
• Nationalistic Self-Determination, or the tendency of non-state ethnic or national groups to desire their own states, or at the least, autonomy within an existing state
• The breakup of several multi-ethnic states (USSR, Yugoslavia)
• The growth of Pan-Islamic movements (some terroristic) as well as other "liberation" movements in other countries

Some of these things are pushing us in one direction: greater centralization, i.e. "One World Government", others are pushing in the opposite direction, i.e. greater Balkanization. 

Globalism is linked with the expansion of multinational corporations, whereby many of the truly powerful groups and individuals have a greater incentive to support their own diverse interests than the interests of their native country. Relocating to a country that has more favorable tax laws, or outsourcing labor to a region with lower average wages may benefit the corporation but hurt the country that is losing the jobs and tax revenue. This, in combination with the international influence of organization like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the G-20, G-7, G-8 etc, various United Nations agencies, as well as regional trade treaties (NAFTA, TPP) and security alliances (NATO) combine to incentive large groups of people to be more concerned about the big picture, the global picture over against the local, national one. This is reducing internal national sovereignty to a great degree, but it is too soon to say how far this will go. There is a lot of resistance by politicians, at least in their rhetoric, to ceding any sovereignty at all, but who they accept money from tells a different story.

The other direction involves the fragmentation of existing nations. The USSR and Yugoslavia broke up two decades ago, both into internal "republics" that were set up along ethnic lines. Since then there have been separatist movements not only in the newly independent republics but in the remainder of Russia; Yugoslavia endured civil war as Serbia primarily, but to a lesser extent Croatia, attempted to incorporate their ethnic cohorts from other republics under their umbrella, savaging Bosnia and Herzogovina in the process. Kosovo went next. Scotland had a vote for independence last year (failed) and Catalonia in Spain  is working on doing the same thing. The Kurds are agitating for their own state, Tibet is perpetually talking about independence and Native American tribes think the U.S. government actually gave them meaningful sovereignty. Pan-Islamic notions are a hybrid of local autonomy movements and ambitions of world conquest. At once they're trying to separate from the local "legitimate" governments while at the same time trying to set up their own uber-government.

Something is going to change. Likely, in my opinion, is a fragmentation of the world into micro-states representing the myriad ethnicities, each "people", each "nation" getting their own borders and territory, getting to use its own language and flag, but the real power flowing to the regional umbrella groups like the European Union or even to a world government descended from the U.N. - possibly within hegemonies dominated by China, Russia and the United States in an interim state.

Is this a good thing? What is likely to happen? Fragmentation, consolidation, domination by corporations or regional behemoths? Religious ascendancy? Starting with religious jihad: I believe that eventually the recent movement of fundamentalist, extremist Islamist groups will eventually, sooner or later, collapse under its own weight and its own lack of the ability compromise. Even now the different factions are battling among themselves. Fragmentation is likely or at least the appearance of it. There may be a self-determination trend right now, but many of these small nations could hardly survive on their own. Many believe that Scotland could never survive as an independent entity, and the former Soviet Republics in the Caucasus are barely self-sufficient and are themselves plagued by separatists movements of their own. I envision many of these small nations being in the same legal no-man's land as the Native American Nations in the United States: they are technically sovereign nations, but for all practical purposes they are part of the United States and dependent on it for all but the smallest symbolic gestures of independence. Worldwide consolidation, as much as I think it a bad thing, will probably eventually come to pass. One of the benefits of there being a multitude of nations with a variety of legal systems is that there is always somewhere else to go when things get too hot or the government intrusion becomes too much. There's always another place for refugees to run to. We have enough problems keeping our own country "free", what greater challenge would there be if we were all under one national umbrella - the world?

Perhaps there needs to be some tweaking and adjustments of borders in the former colonial areas. But internal sovereignty, without external interference, territorial integrity and religious neutrality is the soil in which our Western values will continue to grow. In short, the Westphalian system, despite its drawbacks and misapplications, is probably the best system available to maintain Western cultural values.

Western Civilization: The Nation-State Part Three; Exporting the Westphalian Model

The European powers, back in 1648, decided that they needed to tweak the system. Little did they know that in about two and a half centuries there would be monarchs in name only and the Westphalian system would sweep all the ruling monarchs out of power. Over the intervening centuries the European nations, who had begun colonizing less developed parts of the world, also brought with them the Westphalian system. In most cases, the colonies were considered property of the state, not the property of the monarch. In some instances nations attempted to claim whole continents simply by proclaiming it to be so. A notable example is how Spain and Portugal split the New World between them with the Pope's blessing. Colonialism was not only conducted by the European powers - the Ottoman Empire and the Chinese Empire could be construed as colonizing adjacent territories, but we are mainly focusing on Western civilization.

Starting well before the Peace of Westphalia, the European powers began colonizing portions of North & South America, Africa and parts of Asia. They imposed borders without any regard for pre-existing tribal, religious or "national" affinities, based entirely on their own economic and political needs, and of course what they could reasonably control. Colonial empires weren't fully dismembered until the middle of the twentieth century, after World War II, although the process had started way back in the late 1700's with the United States, but the borders that they drew became enshrined for the most part in international law, causing many, many problems down the road. While the borders that were drawn in the wake of the Peace of Westphalia followed "nations", i.e. ethnic/cultural/language groups in the main (there were exceptions of course - a few multi-national empires still existed: the Russian Empire [which became the USSR in the early 1900's], the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire) the borders in former colonial lands cut across natural divisions. Sometimes nationhood was conferred upon the territory of a favored local monarch or warlord (Kuwait was separated from the rest of Iraq), sometimes dissimilar ethnic groups were thrown together (all over Africa)and other times they were separated by new borders (the Kurds in Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran). Some families got to supply rulers to several former colonies (the Hashemite family in Jordon, Iraq and Syria even though they originated in the Arabian Peninsula - which was awarded to the Al-Saud family).

To use the Middle East as an example of what is applicable elsewhere, after the Europeans left their former colonies, in general kings, dictators or military juntas took over. After the United States and its allies deposed Iraq's Saddam Hussein it was evident how fabricated the borders were. The Kurds set up an autonomous zone in the north, threatening the status quo in neighboring Turkey. The Sunnis and Shi'ites, freed from Saddam, remembered just how much they disliked each other, followed by the horror of the so-called Islamic State, which controlled territory spanning the Iraq-Syria border. Countries like Somalia have devolved into chaos with no functioning government.

In summary: what a mess!

Next: is this system the best way to organize nations, maintain international relations and if not, what is the alternative/

Western Civilization: The Nation-State Part Two; The Peace of Westphalia

The Peace of Westphalia was series of treaties agreed to in 1648 that ended the Thirty Years War as well as other related conflicts in Europe. The Thirty Years War started out as a war of religion among the various Germanic states as the Holy Roman Empire attempted to enforce religious uniformity throughout the empire.

The Holy Roman Empire, derided by Voltaire as "neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire" was a collection of duchies, principalities, kingdoms, Catholic dioceses, independent cities which had its beginnings in AD 800 when Charlemagne, King of the Franks, was crowned as "Emperor of the Romans" by the Pope. The territory controlled by Charlemagne's successors waxed with conquest and waned with losses in war. The custom at the time was also to divide a man's property equally among his heirs. This applied to kings as well. Charlemagne had three sons and they each inherited a portion of his "empire". The sons and their heirs fought among themselves, causing the size of the empire to change depending on the ambition and ability of the various sons and grandsons. Eventually the successors of Charlemagne began claiming that they had inherited the supreme ruling power from the long defunct Western Roman Empire. While an empire in name, in practice it was a loose confederation of sovereign monarchies.

The Catholic Emperor put down a rebellion by Protestant monarchs which spurred Sweden and Denmark to come in on the side of the Protestants. Spain, which was ruled by a member of the Hapsburg family came in on the side of their Hapsburg cousins, the rulers of Austria (part of the Empire) as a pretext for putting down a rebellion in the Netherlands, then ruled by Spain. France, a Catholic kingdom, came in on the side of the Protestants, fearful of being encircled by the two Hapsburg kingdoms, diluting the religious reasons for the conflict.

You can do your own reading on the convoluted alliances and crisscrossing and shifting loyalties, as well as the strategies of the combatants, but suffice it say that Europe was one big, bloody mess by 1648. The conflicting allegiances engendered by the primacy of dynastic ambitions laid bare the truth that the political system pre-war was a confusing mess!

What we know as The Peace of Westphalia was a series, or a grouping of, treaties among the various combatants to end the war(s). But, when viewed in retrospect, it had much more far-reaching consequences. The arrangements laid out in the Westphalia treaties laid the foundation of the modern nation-state. Fixed territorial boundaries were set, irrespective of dynasties and succession crises. The relationship of subjects to rulers changed as well, with the primary allegiance to be to the laws and edicts of the state, not to any other religious or secular authority. Equality between states was another principle arising out of The Peace of Westphalia. There was no hierarchy of empire, kingdom, duchy on down.Of course this was merely a theory at first, but it was the foundation upon which later systems were built. The principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of another state was also set. While these treaties did not do away with changing borders due to war, nor with the influence of royal families or religion, it established a norm whereby deviation from it became something which caused international upheaval, rather than the ever-fluid changes which were everyday occurrences previously.

This is the framework upon which our modern system of nations, with borders and internally sovereign governments is built upon. It is the system which, during the age of colonisation, European powers imposed upon the areas of the world which they conquered.

Western Civilization: The Nation-State Part One; Precursors

In modern times we take for granted that the world is (and should be) divided into entities variously called "countries", "nations" or "states" (not to be confused with the subdivisions called states in the United States and Australia). Occasionally we see the borders of a country change, like recently when Russia annexed part of Ukraine, and previously, when the old Soviet Union broke up into its constituent "republics" and Yugoslavia followed suit a few years later. But these are looked upon as anomalies; the default position is that national borders are inviolable and, while adjustments do take place, it is usually frowned upon in international circles. But has this always been the case? Where did this notion start and under what conditions? First let's look at how people were organized before the advent of the nation-state.

Early organization of people into "a people" likely started out as family and clan groupings, sometimes with a designated leader, sometimes not. Nomadic groups would have had no concept of a fixed homeland, still less, borders. Eventually as agriculture and domestication of animals became the norm some idea of land that collectively belonged to a group formed. But this didn't necessarily indicate any concept of nationhood. A group's land was where they lived and they used any limits or borders would be fluid based on changing needs, population, food abundance or scarcity. At some point a warrior culture took hold, possibly as an outgrowth of a hunter/protector class. The biggest, baddest warrior, either as a result of his own battle prowess or his ability to command the loyalty of other warriors, set himself up as the chief. As chief, he would have authority over others, would be their "ruler".

As time went by, some chiefs extended their authority over other tribes, eventually being considered "kings" or "high-kings" over large geographic areas or of ethnic or cultural groups. Most of these kingdoms were considered the property of the king's family and were passed down (either wholly or in pieces) to the king's heirs. Sometimes a kingdom's ruling dynasty lost their kingdom due to war or just dying out, but the idea that the kingdom was the personal property of the king did not change. The extent of a kingdom did not translate into "borders" the way it does in a modern nation. If a king could not control a part of his kingdom, it was usually taken over by a rival or neighboring kingdom. During the age of feudalism, a kingdom remained intact only for as long as his subordinate nobles (dukes, counts, earls etc.) remained loyal. You see a lot of shifting loyalties in the early days of the English and French monarchies, especially after the Norman Conquest, where dukes and counts in France wavered in their loyalty between the English and French kings. As the 1600's opened, Europe was a bewildering patchwork of kingdoms, duchies and principalities. Some concept of "borders" were beginning to take hold, as well as some nascent ethnic nationalism, but the idea of the kingdom as the property of the king was still dominant. There were exceptions, non-monarchical areas ruled by councils of some sort, or even religious leaders, but they were the minority. In addition to the dominance of kingdoms, there was the phenomenon of empires.

In simple terms, empires were generally multi-ethnic or multi-national entities made up from formerly separate kingdoms joined to together by one ruler. Frequently the entities that made up the empire kept their own laws, customs and language, but all answered to the same central authority.

Many of the wars during this period were wars of succession, when there was a dispute regarding who the legal heir to a throne was. various royal families vied for control of different parts of Europe, with a reigning monarch often having no real ties to the "country" that he ruled over.

This began to change with The Peace of Westphalia.

Western Culture

Immediately after the terrorist attacks in Paris the other day I became involved in a discussion, one in which a tangent involved Western, i.e. European and American, culture and how it was under attack. The Paris killings were presented as an example of this. There were also discussions of how to properly respond to terrorism, mainly in military terms, but I would like to  ruminate a bit on Western culture, what it is, what's good about it, what's bad about it and what can be done to maintain it (or whether we should just let it die).

Let's start by listing a few things that define Western culture - some of these things might overlap with other cultures, and some might be in name only, but let's start:

• Importance of the nation-state as opposed to the ethnic or tribal state (Westphalian sovereignty)
• Importance of individual liberty as opposed to that of the group
• Christianity as the religion of the majority within a secular state
• Rule of law
• Liberal democracy as a form of governance (liberal not as defined by American political dichotomy, but as in an open society)
• Roots in Greek & Roman philosophy, Judeo-Christian ethics, and Renaissance/Enlightenment Humanism
• Independent Judiciary
• Capitalism as the primary economic system
• Exceptionalism
• Use of science to understand the world and to create new terchnologies

I'm sure that there are more, and there might be some disagreement over some of the entries, but this is a start. Some of these relate to the way a Western state is governed and some to the mindset of the people within the Western nations. There are also aspects of Western Civilization/Culture that at one time were dominant, but have since faded away. One example is the idea that Europeans were superior to all other "races". The Age of Exploration and its attendant colonialism was based on the idea that there were "lesser races" and it was right and natural that the Europeans would dominate them. This led to slavery, in its extreme manifestation and European colonialism in its more common form. What's left of this can be seen in the exceptionalism mindset of some peoples: Americans and Russians in particular. 

I'll be devoting posts to one item [maybe more than one post] and will likely be adding items as I go along. 

DUI Stops (Even if you haven't been drinking)

Not too long ago I was stopped at 2:00am on a Sunday morning after making an illegal right-turn-on-red. Before long I found myself blowing into a Breathalyzer after doing the humiliating field sobriety test. I knew that I would check out okay before I started - it turned out that my blood alcohol level was 0.01% - 1/8 the legal limit, but it was an aggravating and frustrating experience nonetheless. Since then I have done some research on ones rights when stopped by the police.

1. Before you can be stopped, an officer must have "probable cause". This can be a vehicle defect, such as a broken tail light, or a traffic violation, such as an illegal turn or failure to yield. Erratic driving will also get an officer's attention and provide "probable cause" for stopping you. I was once stopped on a rural highway because I swerved to avoid a dead animal (which the officer did not see) in the road. 
2. Once you have been stopped, you are not required to answer any questions, other identifying yourself. You are required to hand over your license and registration in Nebraska (laws in other states may differ). Officers will often ask you if you'd had anything to drink. You are not required to answer this, although lying is not a good idea either. By admitting to drinking any alcohol, you are, in effect, testifying against yourself, and making half of the officer's case. http://www.duianswer.com/library/what-to-do-if-youre-pulled-over-and-arrested-for-dui.cfm. What throws a lot of people off is that officers are often extremely polite and are trained to put you at your ease so that you will voluntarily answer their questions. Once you have admitted to drinking at all you have given the officer a reason to proceed to the next step: the field sobriety test. 
3. You are not required to submit to a field sobriety test http://dui.legalhelp.org/nebraska/field-sobriety-tests-in-nebraska/. I was not informed of this, although I did not think to ask either. They are very unreliable and are subject to the interpretation of the person administering the test. When I took the test I had been awake for 22 hours, had put in a full day at work, officiated at a wedding, driven an hour each way to my son's birthday get-together, sat out in the heat at an outdoor music festival, and worked 3 hours at the end of it as a bartender. Part of the test involved a bright light being shined in my eyes. Add in the fact that it was dark and I'm not especially coordinated anyway, there's no surprise that I failed to pass some aspects of the test. If you "fail" the test you have provided additional evidence against yourself and given the officer probable cause to administer a breath test. There are no legal or administrative penalties for declining a field sobriety test. 
4. Breathalyzer tests are a little more tricky. http://dui.drivinglaws.org/resources/dui-refusal-blood-breath-urine-test/nebraska.htm. http://statelaws.findlaw.com/nebraska-law/your-omaha-dui-case-the-basics.html They are included under the umbrella of blood, chemical or breath tests. If you have been arrested for DUI in Nebraska you cannot refuse the test without incurring a penalty: the suspension of your license for one year (one website said 90 days, another said one year). This is an administrative suspension by the DMV and is completely separate from a DUI conviction. This is called "implied consent" - you agree to this as a condition of having a driver's license. Lack of breath tests results does not guarantee that you won't be convicted - conviction for DUI does not rely exclusively on blood test results. If you have not yet been arrested, you can still be asked to take a preliminary breath test. Refusing the preliminary test can lead to arrest and a fine of $100. Yes, you have the right to refuse, but there are the penalties mentioned above and you'll be arrested and be spending the night in jail or detox, so there's really no upside to refusing at this point. 

One might say that if you have not been drinking, or have had few drinks, then you have nothing to fear. But it behooves us to know our rights and keep police on the straight and narrow. I voluntarily gave up my rights because I was ignorant of what they were.

School Shootings - School Prayer

I finally saw a great response to the stupid meme that ignorantly suggests that God could not stop the latest school shooting (I've seen it show up at previous school shootings too) because he is "not allowed in school". I'm not sure who the original meme is responding to: religious people who genuinely do not understand how a loving god could allow this to happen or non-religious people questioning the omnipotence of a god who allows this to happen. But the originator of the meme, and those who stupidly share it are using another gun tragedy to make a point about the long-established fact that public schools are not supposed to support religion or prayer. When it was pointed out to me the other day that this stupid meme had made an appearance again, my response was that anyone posting or sharing it was a moron. Or maybe I said "idiot". You get the point, right?

Here's why I think it's moronic: First, the cartoon character asking why God did not prevent the shooting is basically a strawman argument. While a lot of people regularly question why God allows bad things to happen (there's even a name for it - "The Problem of Evil"), it's usually religious people who agonize over it. An atheist might typically bring it up in a response to a believer who cites prayer as a reason that an individual survived a tragedy. A believer in God might be conflicted over the contradictions between a loving god and the existence of evil. I doubt that you could find many people using a mass shooting as an "in" to make their arguments about the non-existence of God (or at least the apathy of God). So it's a strawman, it's adressing an argument that's either not being made, or is an altered, weakened version of an actual argument.

The response itself is beyond ridiculous. The only thing, in this context, that has ever been banned from schools, is official, teacher or administration-led prayer. Schools are not allowed to teach religion, lead prayers or endorse religion. Anyone, teachers or students, can pray. Kids can "pray at the flagpole" in groups, pray for each other on the playground, or before tests (especially if they haven't studied) - all freakin' day long! The reality is that school-sanctioned prayer still happens anyway, often during football practice, but is illegal, despite the fig leaf that it is voluntary and students can opt out.

And finally, the argument that the meme makes, that if only we hadn't banned prayer in public schools, hadn't kicked God out of the schools, then the almighty could have and would have stopped these tragedies is stupid on the face of it. The supposed presence of God hasn't stopped churches from being shot up for example.

The meme is stupid. Stop sharing it. Stop being stupid.

Inoffensive Potato Salad

This is my attempt at an inoffensive, non-controversial blog post: my recipe for my world-famous potato salad. Despite my intentions, I realize that it might still end up offending potato salad purists, but so it goes.

You start off, obviously, with potatoes. Yukon Golds probably have the best taste, but Russets work the best for texture. Yukons can get mushier than I want them to...although, after boiling the shit out of them, it probably doesn't make much difference!

The quantities for any of the ingredients depend on how large of a batch you are making, and how much you want the different tastes to stand out. So here we go:

• Boil the shit out of the potatoes
• While boiling the potatoes, boil carrots and celery in a separate pot
• Also while boiling the potatoes, sautee an onion or two. Generally I drizzle some olive oil in a frying pan, toss in the onions and sprinkle black pepper on them. 

(I'm not really sure what the pepper does, but my father cooked very few things, but pepper on onions was one of the things he showed me...unless I dreamed it)

• Drain the water from the boiled potatoes
• Do not drain the water from the carrots & celery, pour the whole pot, water and all, over the drained potatoes
• Dump the sauteed onions over the potatoes
• Let the liquid from the vegetables soak into the potatoes for...I don't know, how much time do you have?
• When you feel they have soaked enough...hey! I said I don't know for how long! Drain the liquid out and dump the whole mess into a big bowl
• Cut up some bell peppers of various colors and toss them in: this adds crunch and color
• Next, drain the liquid out of a can of corn, preferably white, or white & yellow mix and add the corn
• Add mayonnaise (no, you may NOT substitute Miracle Whip!) until you get a creamy texture; the amount will vary according to taste and size of the batch
• I used to add some Doroth Lynch dressing as well, but haven't done this in a while; you can also add poppy seed dressing or whatever you feel adds to the experience
• Stir
• I recommend having some while it is hot, but you can let it cool in the refrigerator for later

This comes out a little different every time I make it...it's not so much a recipe, but a process

Black Lives Matter

It should be evident to anyone who keeps up with the news (even if it's just on Facebook) that there has been a lot of coverage of police officers shooting (and sometimes killing) unarmed black men, often without any clear indication that they were presenting any danger whatsoever to the police. In the wake of several of these killings, the phrase "Black Lives Matter" spread throughout the media, both mainstream and social. Pretty quickly a backlash developed, with "All Lives Matter" and "Police Lives Matter" springing up in some kind of counterpoint. Assuming that you're not a bigot who is offended that the "niggers" are getting "uppity" - you really should have understood that saying that black lives matter is not a suggestion that only black lives matter, it's a reaction to the perception that, due to the seeming epidemic of unarmed black men being shot, black lives don't seem to matter. Perhaps they could have said "Black Lives Matter Too"- but they shouldn't have had to.

Offensiveness - Part II

Disclaimer: Nothing in this post is intended to be a commentary on any actual situations in the author's place of business or personal interactions, but are intended as general observations

In a previous post I discussed my view on the trend of belittling people who point out insulting language and situations or who take issue with bigoted statements in the media or general culture. I asked why it had become offensive to be offended. I've observed a tendency to make pointing out offensiveness the problem, rather than the offensiveness itself. This doesn't mean that I think that it is always warranted to be hyper-sensitive to the words and actions of others. There is indeed a balance between each of us being responsible for what we say and for the hearer to be responsible to not over-react or misinterpret. Context, tone of voice, facial expression and intent are all important. Not every ill-thought-through comment, joke, facile observation or smart-ass remark is cause for a trip to the legal compliance officer or a brawl in the backyard. So why do people quit jobs, take legal action, punch people out, change churches, engage in high-level passive-aggression, decapitate journalists and post ambiguously on Facebook?

Much of what we communicate is ambiguous; partly due to the imprecision of the English language and partly due to our own sloppiness in using the English language. There's also the tendency of people to not listen to the actual words being said (or written) and let their emotions determine not only the meaning of the words, but the actual words themselves. I'll give an real-life example:

My ex-wife and I were having an argument about something and I was asking a lot of questions that she didn't want to answer and she asked me why I was asking so many questions. I replied that I lived there and I wanted to know what was going on. (The argument probably had something to do with what our kids were up to) In recounting this conversation to someone a few days later she reported my words as "This is  my house and I'll ask the questions here", adding an aggressive tone that was not included in my original statement. 

What she did was take my words, superimpose what she thought I meant and unconsciously changed my actual words to reflect this perceived meaning. This is not unusual, we miss details of what is being said all the time and our brains fill in the missing bits, or we didn't take the time to accurately remember what was said and recreate scenarios based on what ought to have happened. Written communication has its own problems. While the issue of misremembering isn't there, neither is the mitigating effect of tone of voice, facial expression and body posture. The inherent ambiguity of our language could even be amplified in written communication.

Some of the problem arises when people just refuse to give others the benefit of the doubt, and assume an evil or hurtful intent when the words and what was behind them were innocuous. Granted, sometimes what people say is hurtful and is said with maliciousness, but I believe that malignant intent should be the supposition of last resort

Fighting to Make Us Free?

Oftentimes we hear praise for those who serve in the U.S. military as those who "make us" or "keep us" free; or alternately, that we "owe our freedom" to those who wear the uniform. While intending no disrespect for military veterans and active duty personnel, this is not strictly true. While I would have little argument with anyone who would say that the military has kept us safe, in what way does a military presence keep us "free"? The military is not some loosely organized posse of altruistic Americans hunting down and fighting against injustice like some comic book superheroes. The military, collectively, is an agent of the state and as such carries out the will of the elected leadership of the state. One of the functions of the military is to defend against attacks on the United States and to go on the offensive against those attackers to prevent further attacks. How many actual attacks have been made against us? Other than individual acts of terrorism (which is the bailiwick of the FBI in any case), not many. The British attack on Washington, D.C. in the War of 1812, The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 and the 9-11 attacks (arguably FBI territory, not military). One might add some isolated German attacks on coastal installations in World War II and the "war" with Pancho Villa in the early part of the twentieth century. One could argue that the military acts as a deterrent to attacks as well. Fair enough, preventing attacks also keeps us safe. But could any of these actions be categorized as an attempt to take away our freedom? The 9-11 attacks arguably could, but should more logically be classified as an act of terror - retaliation against our actions in the Middle East; the Pearl Harbor attacks were a preemptive strike in an ongoing war (for the Japanese). Many of our other interventions, Vietnam, Korea, the Gulf War, were in the role of "The World's Policeman" and could only be looked at as "maintaining our freedom" if one took a long, and extremely speculative view.

So what makes us free? What keeps us free? Religious people would credit their respective gods. But what people are responsible for instituting and maintaining our freedoms?

What is "freedom"? Loosely defined, it means to be in a society absent coercion or oppression, to be able to "do what you want" without outside interference. A more nuanced definition would recognize that one person's freedom of action cannot impinge on another's freedom. In other words my freedom to expand my business cannot include using my neighbor's yard to build a new storeroom. So, in reality, freedom is not anarchy. The rights and freedoms of all a society's individuals and groups must be balanced. What we as a nation consider to be the correct balance of freedoms has changed many times in our history. Early on, our definition of freedom included the freedom to take land from the original inhabitants. This was not unusual at the time; the history of the world is the story of successive waves of war and conquest and displacement of those who lost. We included the freedom to enslave others, and denied full freedom to a host of groups, including women. Later, as the industrialisation took hold, workers had no rights and business owners had the freedom to treat them as they would. Laws are written to restrict the "freedom" of people to pollute so that others may be "free" from pollution; to require certain safety rules in the workplace to that workers can be "free" from being injured at work..etc.

Who "made us free"? Who "kept us free"?

We could start with the nation's founders, the first group to break from the colonial system that had defined the world since the days of Columbus. Or we could even go back to the great minds of The Enlightenment, upon whose writing the Founders based many of their ideas. Freedom, or its loose synonym, liberty, was not a concept that was very popular prior to the 18th century. Most nations were still ruled by monarchs or oligarchies and the idea of individual rights had not caught on. The great thinkers of the American Revolution really set the tone for freedom.

We could continue with the abolitionists who fought to outlaw slavery. Despite the high-minded pronouncements in the Declaration of Independence, we not only had legal slavery, but the native people were not even considered "people" within the meaning of the law. We often hear that slaves were considered 3/5 (60%) of a person. Actually, slaves were considered 0/5 - 0% a person. The 3/5 number was only in respect to the census. Northern states did not want to count states at all while Southern states wanted to count slaves for the purpose of congressional apportionment.

How about adding environmentalists to the list. Derided as tree-huggers and environmentalist wackos, these are the people that you have to thank for clean air, clean water and (along with Teddy Roosevelt) national parks.

Early union organizers were also among those who fought to make us and keep us free. While modern-day unions are perceived as greedy and out of touch, and most unions these days represent public/government employees, employment pre-union was often dangerous and abusive. Think you work your butt off 40 hours each week? How about seven days a week, ten-twelve hours a day? How about unsafe working conditions? So much of what we take for granted now was fought for by union men and women.

What about whistle blowers and investigative journalists? The effect that a free press has in keeping politicians honest cannot be overstated. And those who have braved loss of income and blacklisting to bring government abuses out into the light of day should be recognized for their fight to ensure our freedoms as well.

And lest we think that abolition meant that freedom was achieved  for blacks, part of our freedom is owed to those who fought, and sometimes died, for civil rights regardless of color. This includes the big names like Rev. King, the revolutionaries like the Black Panthers and Malcolm X, the quiet resisters like Rosa Parks and the ordinary people who marched across bridges and were set upon by dogs and police with fire hoses. Civil rights struggles continue today - even though the Supreme Court has ruled for marriage equality, it is still legal to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity in most states.

There are many, including those who serve in the military, who have contributed to the safeguarding and expanding of our freedoms in this country, to all of them, we owe a debt of gratitude.

Believing vs. Knowing

Religious believers often deride other religious believers for their beliefs. Most religious people hold their own beliefs to be "truth" while what other people believe is just "religion". I have heard people from a variety of religions insist vociferously that their religion is most definitely not a religion, but "the way of a father with his children", "a way of life" or "we don't believe, we know". People hold certain beliefs or follow certain religions for a variety of reasons: maybe it was the religion that they grew up with and saw no reason to change; maybe it was the religion of the community or culture and societal pressure made it impossible to even consider anything else, let alone change; maybe someone trusted and respected convinced you that their religion was the way to go; perhaps a traumatic or emotional event spurred belief in a specific path. Some view their religious faith as something private - nothing will convince them to discuss it; others cannot be convinced to shut up about it! What I have found to be a common thread among believers of all religions with whom I have encountered is the inability, or perhaps refusal, to discuss  or question the underlying premise of their belief. In other words - you believe in God, or fairies, or Scientology - why do you believe? What evidence has convinced you that what you believe rises above opinion and moves into the more solid realm of knowledge?

Some of the arguments for the existence of God rely on the supposition that there must have been a "first cause" or creator. There are many variations of this argument: that the complexity of the world/universe/living things indicates that it could not have happened by chance and therefore, logically, something or someone must have created it. Who would that be? Why, God, of course. Let's set aside, for a moment, all of the reasons why complexity could have resulted from mutations, random chance and billions of years of opportunities to evolve and grow. Let's stipulate, for the sake of argument, that the universe couldn't have come about by evolution, mutation or chance and that it necessarily is the product of a creator. Who or what is that creator? What are its (his, her?) attributes?

For those who accept the premise that their must have been a creator, the default identification is the dominant god of the culture. For most Americans, that would be the god of the bible, for many Hindus in India, it might be Vishnu or Shiva. Other cultures would identify different entities as the creator. For those within a given culture, it would not even occur to them that the creator might be different than the god (or goddess or pantheon for that matter) that they grew up believing in. This, when considered logically, adds another layer to the matter: assuming that there had to be a creator, which of the numerous religions and mythologies describes that creator? So, the argument from complexity or the argument from nature, if accepted, really only addresses whether or not a god or gods exist, but does not address the nature of deity.

Another argument for the existence of God is one of personal experience. This one varies widely: sometimes the experience is a miracle, sometimes it is an audible message, sometimes just a "personal relationship" or a feeling "in ones heart". Maybe it's got something to do with angels, or an "answer" to a prayer. Prayer results can actually be measured, so I will get back to that later, but feelings and messages are somewhat different. This one is a little fuzzier than the "need for a creator" argument, because generally, people are loathe to be specific about what they mean when they talk about God in their hearts, talking to God, or having a personal relationship with God. As with the "creator" premise, let's accept for the sake of the discussion that people who say that they are experiencing these things are really experiencing them. This is not the same as accepting that there is an objective, measurable phenomenon going on, but that those who are claiming to experience the presence of the divine are feeling or experiencing something that is real to them. Again, this is more difficult to address than the previous "evidence", since it is personal and subjective and those who claim it often get defensive about even being asked about it. But the question that the skeptic has is similar to the question asked of those who use  nature and its complexity as evidence: how do you know that what you are experiencing is God (or Allah, or Vishnu)? Like the previous argument for God's existence, cultural conditioning comes into play. You're going through a rough time, looking for answers, or maybe just comfort, and in your hour of deepest despair you feel like you are being enveloped in warm, unconditional love, maybe you even hear a voice confirming that you are being enveloped in warm, unconditional love. Like the previous scenario, if you are a Hindu in India, you may attribute this to Krishna, if you are a Wiccan, to the Earth Mother Goddess, if you are an American - it's probably God or Jesus. How do you know that the feeling or message that you are receiving is from the deity or entity that you think you are receiving it from? My opinion is that people have feelings or experiences that they have no scientific, rational, logical explanation for, and interpret them in light of what they already believe about the supernatural and the spiritual.

Then there are incidents where people walk away from horrific accidents, are barely missed by out of control cars, or recover from a life-threatening disease or injury. Like the other examples, believers will attribute these "miraculous" results to the god of their own upbringing or culture.

Finally, there's prayer. There's some disagreement about what prayer actually is. Some will define it as praise for God or talking to (or hearing from) God, but for the purposes of this essay, we'll define it as most people practice it: asking for something from God, whether it be healing, financial prosperity, finding lost objects or getting a good parking space. Granted, there are things that get prayed for where the result sure looks like an affirmative answer to the prayer - the resolution being so statistically unlikely that attributing it to the divine seems reasonable. The problem with saying that prayer works or using answered prayer as an indication of the existence of God is the sheer unreliability of the thing. Even people who are utterly convinced that prayer works will usually admit that sometimes they do not receive what they prayed for. Weasel words are then employed: sometimes the answer is "no", God works in mysterious ways, God gives us what we need, not necessarily what we want and on and on. If any of these rationales for non-answers to prayer are true, why bother to pray at all? The other issue is the confirmation bias of those who believe. Positive results are played up, while negative or non-results are ignored.

The bottom line for all of this is that sometimes things happen that we don't understand, that may be supernatural, but that we choose to interpret in light of what we already believe about the world. These unexplainable events may be the god of the bible, (or any other god or spirit) but objectively there's nothing to indicate that this is a surety, that our decision to believe in a certain interpretation of events indicates objective knowledge, but is anything but merely belief.

Is Being Offended Worse Than Being Offensive?

When did it become a bad thing to be offended at something? When something is offensive, shouldn't the reasonable, rational, logical reaction be to be offended? Yet we read, all over the Internet, blogs and comments mocking people who are offended and denigrating the very idea of being offended at something. People who point out offensiveness are belittled as "butthurt" or vilified as promoting "political correctness". Should the default position for our society be "I'll say anything that I want and screw you if you don't like it"? How about we recognize that there is a difference between "I don't like or agree with what you say" and "What you're saying is hurtful and offensive"? An example of some things that I don't agree with:

• Christianity (or the religion or philosophy of your choice) is the only true way
• Socialized medicine would be bad for our country
• Midwestern culture and values are the best way of life
• Being a Nebraska Cornhuskers football fan

I disagree with all of the above, but I don't find them offensive in any way. They're just opinions. I'm not going to publicly attack you for being a member of a religious group, or espousing conservative political views or praising a regional way of life or being a sports fan. Examples of things that I find offensive:

• "You're an evil immoral person if you don't believe the way I do"
• "Jews, Blacks (or Whites for that matter, pick your group) are inferior or unworthy of civil rights"
• Use of racial or ethnic slurs
• Use of symbolism that represents racist ideas or philosophies

I find these things offensive. I believe that these kind of beliefs and points of view have no place in public discourse. I in no way advocate for people being restricted from expressing their offensive opinions, but those who promote offensive ideas should expect others not only to be offended, but to express their offense out loud. Some people will respond to expressions of offense by becoming even more offensive, ranting about how they don't care what anyone else thinks, but some will reconsider their words and see things from the other guy's point of view. 

Being offended at offensive words and actions is the correct response. 

Pointing out how expressing offensive opinions hurt real people is entirely appropriate. 

If you rail about how worthless Food Stamp recipients are I'm going to let you know that I was once a Food Stamp recipient

If you pontificate about how all morality is based on the Bible and those who don't follow it are morally bankrupt I'm going to tell you that I'm not a Christian

If you wax self-righteous about how all the illegal immigrants are criminals I might bring up the unsavory aspects of the arrival on these shores of at least one of my ancestors

I'm going to ask you to think

Do you want to see fewer people being offended? Stop being so damn offensive

Protected Classes

This isn't an opinion piece, just informational. Nothing to get excited about! 

Often you here the term "protected class" misused, even by people who should know better. You might hear a business owner shy away from disciplining a member of a racial minority because he (or she) is "in a protected class", as if minorities had rights and protections that the majority didn't have. You also hear this "protected class" language applied to women as well as religious minorities.

In United States Federal anti-discrimination law, a protected class is a characteristic of a person which cannot be used as a basis for discrimination. In other words, "class" does not refer to a group of people at all. An example of a characteristic might be "hair color". Every person has hair color (at least those who have hair!). If hair color was a protected class, it would be illegal to discriminate based on the color of someone's hair. 

One real example of a protected class is "race". Everyone has the characteristic of belonging to a certain race (setting aside for legal purposes the non-scientific basis and of race and it's perpetuation as a social contruct). Discrimination therefore is illegal if it is based on a person's race; not that people of certain race have special protections that members of other races do not have. The same goes for the other protected classes, some of which are: color, religion, national origin, age (over 40), gender, pregnancy, and citizenship status. 

When is it Okay to Refuse to Serve Someone Based on Your Religious Beliefs?

Is it okay for a religious person to refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding if they object to same-sex marriage on religious grounds? If it's not, then is it okay for a person to refuse to bake a cake for a religious group that wants "God Hates Fags" written on the cake? I think that no matter which way you go, you're setting a bad precedent, because you can't write laws that favor one group or point of view over another. Because if you're going to compel a conservative religious person to bake a cake for a same-sex marriage, which they believe is a sin, then by the same legal logic you will have to force a gay, or gay-supportive, baker to make a cake that promotes an anti-gay message. It would be difficult to craft a law that makes it illegal for the religious person to deny service to whomever they choose while allowing non-religious people to similarly discriminate.

One argument that I hear fairly often is: "Why would I want to do business with someone who looks down on me?" Frankly, as a consumer, I should have that choice. I can decide that I don't want to do business with Barbie's Biblical Bakery if I hear that they take stands that I find abhorrent, but it's another thing altogether if I show up to order my cake and they decide not to serve me because of their religious beliefs. As a consumer, I should be able to go into any place of business and not be confronted by bigotry against my lifestyle, sexuality, religion (or lack of it), race or anything else. Now, I'm not talking about overt displays of religious belief. I have no problem with a Christian business indicating that they are a business run by Christians, even though there is a good chance that by advertising this, they believe that I am destined for Hell, as long as they keep their opinions to themselves and treat me as any other customer.

I don't know if this can be done legally, but here's what I think would be equitable: make it illegal to refuse to serve someone because they are gay, or refuse to supply a product or service because it will be used in a same-sex wedding. In other words, add "sexual orientation" as a protected class regarding discrimination. If a religious merchant who is against same-sex marriage on religious grounds is asked to participate in a same-sex marriage (e.g. officiant, deejay) or to produce messages (i.e. on a cake) that are clearly designed to offend, or that foment hatred, then they may demur. There have been some conservative Christian groups who have been targeting bakeries run by gays, asking them to bake cakes with anti-gay messages on them (some overt, some more subtle) - clearly being provocative. I have seen accusations that gay rights groups are targeting Christian bakeries in like manner, but haven't seen anything in legitimate media.

Since making this kind of discrimination illegal is either unlikely or will have unpleasant consequenses, let's not rule out the time-honored strategy of the boycott. A local bakery refused to do business with you because of their religious convictions? And it's not illegal? Fine; boycott the heck out of them; shame them on public media; picket their business. Make it plain that you (and anyone who joins you) find their practices to be morally and ethically wrong, despite their legality.

There is more than one way to fight injustice

Take the Confederate Battle Flag Down Because It's Offensive?

A strawman argument occurs when, instead of taking on an opponent's actual argument, one attacks a position that was not in reality advanced by one's opponent, but makes an easier target. By disproving a position that has not really been advanced, the illusion has been given that one's opponent's argument has been successfully refuted. This is a common logical fallacy in politics and other public discourse.

One of the strawman arguments put forth by supporters of the Confederate Flag (technically the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, but hereafter referred to simply as "The Confederate Flag") is that (1) opponents of the flag want it banned because (2) it is offensive. This is incorrect on both counts. In general, those who oppose the use of the Confederate Flag do not want to ban its sale or private use. While reserving the right to characterize those who glorify it as glorifying racism and treason, they are seeking to stop its use in official government capacities. In other words, "Cooter" can still sell his Confederate Flag memorabilia and individuals throughout the country can still parade either their ignorance of its symbolism or their outright racism, but that official, that is, government, use and approval of this flag must stop. The second part of this is that the objections stem from Confederate Flag opponents simply being offended. Many of the Flag partisans reply that they are offended by the rainbow flag. This isn't about beong offended. This is about the appropriateness of giving official government sanction to an image that originated in an armed insurrection against the United States that had its roots in the desire for human beings to own other human beings.

Same-Sex Marriage: Objections?

I've seen a lot of comments today against the Supreme Court's ruling, making all bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Many, if not all, of these comments are based on religion. the main objection seems to be that marriage was instituted by God and God said it was between a man and a woman. This is either untrue or irrelevant on several fronts.

Our country is not a theocracy. Even though the majority of our country as always been at least nominally Christian (at least after the European colonists had killed off or converted enough of the original inhabitants), and some argue that the Founders set out to found a Christian nation, i.e. a nation based on Christian values. None of that makes this country a theocracy. The First Amendment to the Constitution, among other things, forbids the establishment of religion. There has been and will continue to be debate over precisely what this implies, but it has been interpreted broadly to remove religious views as a basis for any of our laws.

But I would be willfully ignorant to pretend that there aren't many, even among the judiciary, who believe that this is a Christian nation wherein the laws must conform to Christianity.

The main contention among those who wish their religion to be the deciding factor in marriage laws is that God instituted marriage and that it was to be between one man and one woman.

So, let's look at that position. I think that it can be demonstrated that many civilizations other than the ancient Hebrews had marriage as part of their culture and that it definitely, unarguably, predated Christianity. Biblically minded people may counter that marriage was instituted in Genesis, and that nothing predates that. Okay, let's examine that argument. While there are many examples of biblical marriage being between one man and one woman, there are many more where marriage is something different: between one man and multiple women; between one man, one woman and her slave; between one man, two women and two handmaids; between one man and the woman he raped (as long he paid off her father). My point is that our cultural definition of what marriage is has changed. Few would argue that a marriage should include slaves or handmaids and virtually no one would argue that a rapist can buy his rape victim from her father; well, it's changed again people!

Many people are now in an uproar, believing that somehow the rights of the religious believers are being trampled upon. If your religion teaches that homosexuality is a sin, you're still free to believe that; your ministers will not be forced to conduct same-sex marriages; churches will still be able to define who meets the requirements to be married under their auspices. It doesn't affect you in any way whatsoever.

Some have brought up the examples of religious bakers or caterers "forced" to supply cakes or to cater at a same-sex wedding. To those people I ask whether you so assiduously police all the so-called sinful actions of people that you potentially do business with. probably not.

Many states have had legal same-sex marriage for years now and have not turned into Sodom & Gomorrah; think about Iowa, a decidedly conservative Midwestern state.

We've moved forward...move with us

Sometimes, We Just Change Our Minds

Growing up, if I knew any gay people, I didn't know that they were gay. It wasn't exactly safe to be "out" back in the seventies. I heard and repeated anti-gay slurs without much thought and was oblivious to the implications of the casual bigotry that surrounded me and I was a part of.

I made it all the way to 1988, when I was thirty years old before I met someone who was openly gay, or at least until I became aware of such a person. I remember being mildly surprised that these people were "regular people", but quickly got over whatever residual prejudice that was lurking in my brain.

Several years before this I moved from my native New York City to western Nebraska, where I was part of a religious group that was unpopular with the mainstream churches. Due to my membership in this group I and my roommates were subject to discrimination in jobs and housing and the targets of verbal (and sometimes physical) abuse. As a card-carrying member of the majority, I had never experienced this before, and growing up somewhat sheltered, had never even witnessed it. The treatment that I received was shocking to me. But what stuck in my mind was, despite all the hatred that was targeted at me, nothing would have happened if I had showed up in town  and gone to one of the local churches, or simply kept my mouth shut about my religious beliefs. In short, I could have passed. If I had one day renounced my membership in this religious group, I would have been accepted. But what about racial minorities, or gender discrimination? Some people just couldn't "pass" for members of the majority. My experiences in western Nebraska set the tone for my attitudes about discrimination and prejudice for the rest of my life.

Except for an interlude of a few years in the nineties.

This same religious group underwent a radical change in the late eighties and early nineties. The group's leader, who had succeeded the group's founder several years earlier, became extremely vocal in his opposition to homosexuality. He became more and more adamant about how homosexuality was the lowest of the low of sins and how acceptance of homosexuality was undermining "the ministry" (one of the ways our religious group identified itself). I am ashamed to say that I bought into it. Oh, not at first. When it first began I questioned why homosexuality was singled out, but eventually my objections were drowned in my desire to align myself with what I thought were biblical truths.

In 2000, in the aftermath of scandals that caused this leader to resign in disgrace, I became disenchanted with the group and eventually was asked to leave after it was discovered that I was posting on a website hostile to the group. It didn't take long for my opinions to "snap back" to the positions that I held before the anti-gay hysteria of my former group once the fog of religious dogma was lifted from my eyes.

Those days are times that I am not proud of and I cringe at some of the things that I said and the way I acted. But for the most part, my defining experience was that of experiencing discrimination and I never want to be on the side that delivers it ever again.

The Confederate Flag

It took me about 6 seconds to find an offensive image for this blog post about the Confederate flag (technically The Army of Northern Virginia battle flag). And make no mistake about it, I find this flag extremely offensive. Firstly, it is one of the flags used by those who fomented armed insurrection against the United States. Before I go on about why I find the flag offensive, I want to be clear that I am in no way advocating that we ban  private use of the flag or its design on clothing, hats, or orange cars. But I find it ironic that many of those who shout about how much they love 'Murica, and how patriotic they are and how great our country is, and how "libruls is all traiters" proudly display a flag that is a symbol of those who sought to tear this country apart.

Those who display this flag have various rationales. Some are just Southerners who rationalize that it's a symbol of their heritage, distinct from that of the rest of the nation, some rationalize that it's a symbol of standing up to an oppressive government, some are just Dukes of Hazard fans. Some are simply honest about their racism.

Many supporters of flying the Confederate flag bolster their "southern pride" rationale by maintaining that the Civil War wasn't about slavery, but economics and states' rights. Well, yes. It was about the economy that was based on slavery and the rights of states to continue slavery. The founders of the Confederacy were very clear about that.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/19/1394560/-So-The-Confederacy-Didn-t-Go-To-War-Over-Slavery#

It's not arguable that the Confederate states didn't secede because of slavery and the flags of that short-lived rebellion (including the one we're discussing) are representations of that mindset. Arguing that a Confederate flag stands for anything other than armed rebellion against the United States in support of maintaining a racist institution is willfully ignorant of the facts.

So...it's okay to shoot me if I'm a criminal...if I run...if I look threatening?

First off, I'm not defending the people who looted their cities and towns as part of protests against police killings. I'm not defending the people who killed those two cops in New York (or anywhere else). I'm not defending criminal activity or suggesting that they get a free pass because they live in poverty...or are the "victims" of racism. I'm not minimizing the tough job that most cops have and the split second decisions that they have to make in the line of duty. And I'm not talking about incidents where the police shoot someone who is trying to kill them or an innocent bystander.

I'm talking about when police shoot unarmed people who may or may not have committed a crime.

In the aftermath of some recent police shootings apologists for the police have excused the shootings with variations of "he wouldn't have gotten shot if he had just done what the police said", or "don't break the law and you've got no problem" or "why was he running?". This suggests that it is open season on anyone who has a criminal background, that any infraction puts your life at risk and that disobeying a police officer is a capital crime.

In a few places that I checked, lethal force is justified if the officer is defending himself or a third party against lethal force. In other words, police are authorized to shoot to kill in order to defend against being killed or to protect another from being killed. In some jurisdictions, it is also acceptable to shoot someone to prevent their escape from custody when the officer reasonably believes that the person they are shooting at has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury. 

You can't shoot someone just because they are running away, you can't shoot someone just because they may have committed a crime, you can't shoot someone just because you might get beat up. In 1985 the Supreme Court ruled that a fleeing felon, unless there is a significant threat of death or serious injury, cannot be stopped with deadly force.

But the law puts a lot of weight behind a police officer's perception of the threat, rather than the actual threat. While this takes into account the split-second decisions that police have to make and gives them the benefit of the doubt, it's not very helpful to kids with toy guns, Walmart shoppers checking out firearms or anyone who makes a given cop nervous. This is why so few cops are indicted and even fewer are convicted: what is going on in their minds is more important legally than what is going on in the real world.

So, not only do we have to not be a criminal, not ever run away, not ever disobey a police officer, not look suspicious...but we have to completely avoid every cop's possible misperceptions as well. Because it doesn't matter if you're unarmed and innocent, if I cop says that he thought that you were armed and dangerous...you're dead.

Free Speech vs. Just Not Being a Moron

By now, most people "know" that observant Muslims believe that one should not depict Muhammad in a drawing or picture. Technically, the Qu'ran prohibits idolatry, as does the Old Testament, and a blanket prohibition of images cannot be found there. However, in the hadith, stories about the life of Muhammad, can be interpreted as banning images of humans and other living beings. This has been interpreted in a variety of ways over the centuries, with the norms changing depending on the sect, the culture and the theologians doing the interpreting. Generally, most Muslims avoid making visual representations of God and of Muhammad. In addition, most Muslims would be offended if an artist created an offensive or disrespectful image of Muhammad, much as many Christians were offended at Robert Mapplethorpe's images of a crucifix in a jar of urine. The cartoons in the French publication Charlie Hebdo were not just innocent depictions of Muhammad, they were specifically designed to be offensive. Several Muslims took their offense at these cartoons to the extreme of killing the cartoonists. In Texas recently two Muslims were shot and killed by law enforcement after attacking a security guard at a "Draw Muhammad" gathering. They apparently were outraged and offended that someone would have the audacity to draw a picture of Muhammad.

I am not about to presume to judge Muslims sensibilities or their hurt feelings over the lack of respect their religion receives in certain quarters. What I will presume to do is judge the appropriateness of their reaction: killing people because they offend your religion is extreme, it is deranged, it cannot be defended in any way, shape or form.

While I understand the thinking behind some of these "Draw Muhammad" events - it's a logical reaction against those who use violence to essentially terrorize others into falling in line with the tenets of their religion - I also wonder whether it's being unnecessarily provocative. Is it really appropriate to insult and offend religious believers in an organized fashion like this in order to make a point against the violent extremists among their coreligionists? I think it's pushing it, but being that we have (generally) freedom of expression in this country, I do not think that these events should be stopped. I don't think that the protests that the idiotic Westboro Baptist Church conducts should be stopped either and I think that they're way beyond offensive and provocative. Whether we like the "speech" or find it offensive, the First Amendment guarantees the right for it to be said.

Recently a group in Phoenix Arizona has moved beyond free speech to threatening, even terroristic action. Putatively described as a "free speech rally" the events included a "Draw Muhammad Contest" in a restaurant parking lot. So far, so good: stand up to the crazies who want to kill you for a cartoon - take a stand and declare that we don't put up with that nonsense in the United States. But it didn't stop at that. The participants in this "rally", many of them openly carrying firearms, surrounded a mosque, not just to stand up for free speech, but to protest against Islam itself. Fortunately for all concerned, none of the weapons were fired and no violence ensued. But what about next time? Is that what we consider a proper exercise of our First Amendment rights? Threatening our neighbors because we don't like their religion? And make no mistake, this was not just some citizens expressing their opinions, this was calculated to intimidate, to provoke.

What would you think if you walked out the front door of your church one Sunday morning to find a crowd of armed men shouting at you, wearing t-shirts and carrying banners and signs with offensive messages like "Fuck Jesus"? Without a doubt you would feel a bit threatened. Free speeech? Okay, but how about not being an idiot?