Long before the issue of "gayness" could raide its head in my dealings with the Boy Scouts, they lost my respect and support.
Back in the day (circa 1967) I joined the Boy Scouts. I was fun, it was a social interaction, it was guidance and a "moral" teaching group. I was not an outstanding member; I didn't want to be a leader, I didn't expect it to be a lifelong involvement. I did complete several merit badge projects, but that was soon seen as a futile activity. The problem was that they deliberately discouraged independent and critical thinking. The whole aim, it seemed, was to identify a few select individuals to mark as leaders, and train the rest to support them and not to rock the boat.
From a young age, I was encouraged to question things, to think for myself and to find out the "whys" of a situation. The answer "just because" was unacceptable and was a mark of intellectual sloth. My parents spent a great deal of time explaining why the rules were the way they were, and clearly identified the occasional "because" as a sign of injustice and as something that might have to be endured and targeted for change in the future.
To many, this sort of an attitude is clearly at odds with the BSA politik. The leadership was not equipped to handle such discussions.
It was while working on one of the "Citizenship" badges that I came to a head for me. At this point I don't recall exactly how the religious issues came into focus, but the historical prejudices that supported segregation, and the nascent civil right movement that was bringing integration to the area collided head-on in my project. It was Durham, NC in 1967; the schools had been forced into integration the year before I moved there, and having always attended integrated schoold in New York where I came from, I did not comprehend or support the lingering racism of the time.
The report I had to prepare came at the issue from a very different perspective than that held by the scout review board at the church it was affiliated with. For a variety of reasons, my report was ruled "unacceptable" for getting the merit badge. I appealed to the district xouncil and demanded to know why it was unacceptable. As it turned out, the politics of the situation were such that the district was *not* going to reverse the church's decision.
The accuality of the politics only became apparent to me years later -- after I had left the church and scouts far behind -- but at the time it forced me to the decision to part ways with BSA forever. I won't name names or give more specifics -- some of the involved are still around and most regret their positions at the time -- but the politics of the BSA is still following the mold of that time. There was never an apology, never an admission that, even maybe, there might be merit in my arguments.
The BSA finally did integrate, grudgingly, but without apology. They are still dealing with the current "gay" situation in the same manner, and without honor. Some day they might open their eyes and see that the times are changing, but they wont apologize if they do change.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Monday, June 18, 2012
Internet freedom and media consolidation
No doubt about it: the Entertainment/Industrial Complex is here, and it seeks to control the information you see.
In the manner of the Military/Industrial Complex -- the small group of companies that provide the majority of the military infrastructure to the government -- there is an Entertainment/Industrial Complex that owns and controls the overwhelming majority of the services that provide entertainment to the American consumer.
This is practically all of the music, television, news, internet, newspapers, and magazines that are available. The connections between these media giants are concealed under a web of names, interlocking directorships and relationships to the corporate controllers of the American economy.
Historically, America enjoyed a diverse and independent, and competitive environment of information providers. Every community had its own competitive and independent group of newspapers, radio and TV stations, movie theatres, and music companies. There was a real choice and variety in sources. As recently as the 1960's the major markets had lots of independent providers, and a healthy diversity of opinions and policies. Now, however, we are faced with a limited set of choices and a severely limited set of policies and points of view.
This consolidation becomes obvious when one looks at the limited points of view provided for our perusal. Unpopular opinions, especially diverse political or social viewpoints, have a hard time getting attention. Independent music, movies and television programming are forced to conform and join one conglomerate or the other in order to have a chance to appear in the market.
As an example let me demonstrate with some history of the markets for karaoke song tracks: Prior to 1995, I knew of about 20 domestic licensees of English language karaoke CDs. There were multiple choices available since the original songs were provided on a non-exclusive basis from a relatively large number of music companies or from the artists themselves. Since 2003, however, the number of domestic US producers of karaoke tracks can be counted on one's fingers. (Off the top of my head I can think of only 5. There are probably a few more, but many of the older companies are no longer around.) Additionally, while there are karaoke producers overseas, they are no longer legally available to the US market as a result of the power of the music labels' contractual conditions which restrict the use of the copyrights they control.
This is but one example, drawn from a field I happen to follow with a personal interest. My readings on the 'net lead me to observe that similar limitations are found in the domestic US popular music distribution, movie distribution, television distribution, and news sources.
This consolidation has a consequence of begetting a linkage with the polarization of political discourse happening recently. With only a limited number of outlets, with a limited number of biased policies, non-aligned opinions and events that don't fit in with the approved agendas get lost in the outer darkness.
The World Wide Internet provides a less controlled market, and it gives us the means to see the diversity of opinions that exist outside of US control. So far, the worldwide reach of the internet based information providers gives the digitally-enabled information consumer a distinct advantage in the effort to have a broad-based picture of current events. Unfortunately, I fear that the US internet is moving toward a situation similar to that seen in China -- an state-run firewall that attempts to restrict what is available to a pre-approved set of information that meets the agendas of the controllers. The only difference is that here it will be a corporate oligarchy that controls it, preserving an appearance that it is not as oppressive as the state doing the censorship. (I know, this sounds like a conspiracy/crackpot theory, and I hope that the situation can be changed by asserting our individual powers and rights to self-determination. Examine the fallout of the "Citizens United" situation for the basis of this fear.)
Already, the FBI is complaining that they fear losing the ability to track the sources of internet traffic due to advancing technology. The major internet service providers in the US are fighting for the ability to control of the traffic they carry by favoring those sources that are willing to pay a premium for the use of their bandwidth (this is the "net neutrality" fight.) The United Nations International Telecommunications Union (UN/ITU) is seeking to gain control of the Internet names and numbers infrastructure, away from its US-centric, freedom favoring, pro net neutrality foundation (ICANN) to a group controlled by member states such as China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and others who are opposed to net neutrality and unrestricted use (ITU).
As always, it is a question of those who have the gold making the rules. Be aware that these fights are shaping your future.
In the manner of the Military/Industrial Complex -- the small group of companies that provide the majority of the military infrastructure to the government -- there is an Entertainment/Industrial Complex that owns and controls the overwhelming majority of the services that provide entertainment to the American consumer.
This is practically all of the music, television, news, internet, newspapers, and magazines that are available. The connections between these media giants are concealed under a web of names, interlocking directorships and relationships to the corporate controllers of the American economy.
Historically, America enjoyed a diverse and independent, and competitive environment of information providers. Every community had its own competitive and independent group of newspapers, radio and TV stations, movie theatres, and music companies. There was a real choice and variety in sources. As recently as the 1960's the major markets had lots of independent providers, and a healthy diversity of opinions and policies. Now, however, we are faced with a limited set of choices and a severely limited set of policies and points of view.
This consolidation becomes obvious when one looks at the limited points of view provided for our perusal. Unpopular opinions, especially diverse political or social viewpoints, have a hard time getting attention. Independent music, movies and television programming are forced to conform and join one conglomerate or the other in order to have a chance to appear in the market.
As an example let me demonstrate with some history of the markets for karaoke song tracks: Prior to 1995, I knew of about 20 domestic licensees of English language karaoke CDs. There were multiple choices available since the original songs were provided on a non-exclusive basis from a relatively large number of music companies or from the artists themselves. Since 2003, however, the number of domestic US producers of karaoke tracks can be counted on one's fingers. (Off the top of my head I can think of only 5. There are probably a few more, but many of the older companies are no longer around.) Additionally, while there are karaoke producers overseas, they are no longer legally available to the US market as a result of the power of the music labels' contractual conditions which restrict the use of the copyrights they control.
This is but one example, drawn from a field I happen to follow with a personal interest. My readings on the 'net lead me to observe that similar limitations are found in the domestic US popular music distribution, movie distribution, television distribution, and news sources.
This consolidation has a consequence of begetting a linkage with the polarization of political discourse happening recently. With only a limited number of outlets, with a limited number of biased policies, non-aligned opinions and events that don't fit in with the approved agendas get lost in the outer darkness.
The World Wide Internet provides a less controlled market, and it gives us the means to see the diversity of opinions that exist outside of US control. So far, the worldwide reach of the internet based information providers gives the digitally-enabled information consumer a distinct advantage in the effort to have a broad-based picture of current events. Unfortunately, I fear that the US internet is moving toward a situation similar to that seen in China -- an state-run firewall that attempts to restrict what is available to a pre-approved set of information that meets the agendas of the controllers. The only difference is that here it will be a corporate oligarchy that controls it, preserving an appearance that it is not as oppressive as the state doing the censorship. (I know, this sounds like a conspiracy/crackpot theory, and I hope that the situation can be changed by asserting our individual powers and rights to self-determination. Examine the fallout of the "Citizens United" situation for the basis of this fear.)
Already, the FBI is complaining that they fear losing the ability to track the sources of internet traffic due to advancing technology. The major internet service providers in the US are fighting for the ability to control of the traffic they carry by favoring those sources that are willing to pay a premium for the use of their bandwidth (this is the "net neutrality" fight.) The United Nations International Telecommunications Union (UN/ITU) is seeking to gain control of the Internet names and numbers infrastructure, away from its US-centric, freedom favoring, pro net neutrality foundation (ICANN) to a group controlled by member states such as China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and others who are opposed to net neutrality and unrestricted use (ITU).
As always, it is a question of those who have the gold making the rules. Be aware that these fights are shaping your future.
Anonymity and the public internets
There is a pervasive myth that the public Internets provide anonymous access. This implication of an ability to say anything you want without being able to be identified causes some people to do and say things they wouldn't otherwise. The current situation is such that this isn't really true, but the future is upon us.
The Internet, that collection of autonomous networks using the IP protocols, is not, and never was, a place that one could just hook up a computer and go without having to ask permission. The requirement that each machine has to have a unique numerical ID number in order to communicate with any other machine means that there is a traceable means of finding the source of the traffic. There are some anonymous nets out there, via The Onion Router (TOR) and similar methods, but even there, there are certain vulnerabilities that can reveal the real IP address of the source in some cases. Additionally, somewhere on the other side of TOR, there is a real IP address that the machine has to use before it gets into the cloud.
A little history may be in order. The original ARPAnet, from whence sprang the Internet, was strictly regulated. Sites had to have a reason to get a connection, and the rules required some rather tight controls on the users who were to have the privilege to use the net. (I almost got to use ARPAnet, a site I was associated with was due to get an ARPAnet IMP just about the time it morphed into the Internet; subsequently that site was one of the early additions to the public internet and I was an early participant in that.) Even so, the machines and users were enumerable and recorded.
As the internets grew, each additional machine and its administrators signed contracts and authorizations that provided a traceable authority structure. Even today, one doesn't just get on the net without someone accepting a delegation of authority to ensure that the rules will be observed. That someone may take a great deal of risk -- such as in the case of "free Wi-fi" in a restaurant or bar -- but there is a delegation of authority on record for all the connections. For another example, I am sitting here at home connected to Google Blogger using an IP connection. I have a contract with the Internet Service Provider who gives me the IP address, and they keep track of the amount of traffic I use; they also have logs that show each time my modem connects and gets the IP address. They may not know exactly where I am physically, but they know how to get in touch if they need to do so.
If one were to egregiously break the law (for example post "child pornography") the state could exert its authority and catch up with the perps eventually. The perps could use an anonymizing service to hide in the "Dark Net" but they had better be damn careful to not let any clues leak that would let the authorities make a connection to their real IP. It is more a matter of there being too much information to sift through that keeps the authorities from spending the resources to find the perps.
The current version of IP addresses (IPV4) is limited to a single 32-bit number, providing over 4 trillion possible addresses. This seemed to be big enough back in the 1970s, but here we are in 2012 and the IPV4 address space is exhausted. There are stopgap methods in use that allow the continued growth of IPV4 addresses; right here at my place there are 10 devices sharing the one IP address given to me (and I could actually have several million addresses in my private space, but it would not be efficient or fast.) This gives some inkling of the vastness of the numbers.
The next generation of IP addresses (IPV6) expands the size of the number to 128-bits (about 3.4 x 10 to the 28) and the whole of the IPV4 address space is adsorbed into it. This amplifies the problem the authorities face in having too much information -- the FBI and the UN/ITU are whining already. They are, however, insisting that method have to be developed to assist them in their attempts to keep up with the technology. In many places the state will seek to control the deployment in such a manner so that they can preserve (an illusion of) control.
I wish them the best of luck in their efforts, they need all the help they can get.
The Internet, that collection of autonomous networks using the IP protocols, is not, and never was, a place that one could just hook up a computer and go without having to ask permission. The requirement that each machine has to have a unique numerical ID number in order to communicate with any other machine means that there is a traceable means of finding the source of the traffic. There are some anonymous nets out there, via The Onion Router (TOR) and similar methods, but even there, there are certain vulnerabilities that can reveal the real IP address of the source in some cases. Additionally, somewhere on the other side of TOR, there is a real IP address that the machine has to use before it gets into the cloud.
A little history may be in order. The original ARPAnet, from whence sprang the Internet, was strictly regulated. Sites had to have a reason to get a connection, and the rules required some rather tight controls on the users who were to have the privilege to use the net. (I almost got to use ARPAnet, a site I was associated with was due to get an ARPAnet IMP just about the time it morphed into the Internet; subsequently that site was one of the early additions to the public internet and I was an early participant in that.) Even so, the machines and users were enumerable and recorded.
As the internets grew, each additional machine and its administrators signed contracts and authorizations that provided a traceable authority structure. Even today, one doesn't just get on the net without someone accepting a delegation of authority to ensure that the rules will be observed. That someone may take a great deal of risk -- such as in the case of "free Wi-fi" in a restaurant or bar -- but there is a delegation of authority on record for all the connections. For another example, I am sitting here at home connected to Google Blogger using an IP connection. I have a contract with the Internet Service Provider who gives me the IP address, and they keep track of the amount of traffic I use; they also have logs that show each time my modem connects and gets the IP address. They may not know exactly where I am physically, but they know how to get in touch if they need to do so.
If one were to egregiously break the law (for example post "child pornography") the state could exert its authority and catch up with the perps eventually. The perps could use an anonymizing service to hide in the "Dark Net" but they had better be damn careful to not let any clues leak that would let the authorities make a connection to their real IP. It is more a matter of there being too much information to sift through that keeps the authorities from spending the resources to find the perps.
The current version of IP addresses (IPV4) is limited to a single 32-bit number, providing over 4 trillion possible addresses. This seemed to be big enough back in the 1970s, but here we are in 2012 and the IPV4 address space is exhausted. There are stopgap methods in use that allow the continued growth of IPV4 addresses; right here at my place there are 10 devices sharing the one IP address given to me (and I could actually have several million addresses in my private space, but it would not be efficient or fast.) This gives some inkling of the vastness of the numbers.
The next generation of IP addresses (IPV6) expands the size of the number to 128-bits (about 3.4 x 10 to the 28) and the whole of the IPV4 address space is adsorbed into it. This amplifies the problem the authorities face in having too much information -- the FBI and the UN/ITU are whining already. They are, however, insisting that method have to be developed to assist them in their attempts to keep up with the technology. In many places the state will seek to control the deployment in such a manner so that they can preserve (an illusion of) control.
I wish them the best of luck in their efforts, they need all the help they can get.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Is the USA becoming a "police state"?
In the follow-on to the Occupy movement, the draconian rules laid on by the Charlotte, NC City Council in advance of the Democratic National Convention, and a variety of other reports passing by on the various social media streams, some folks are claiming that the USA is becoming a "police state."
This claim, to me, is putting the cart before the horse. While there are disturbing trends toward excessive use of force by the state in response to low level disobedience, what is happening is not yet to the level of a real police state.
History reveals that there is a periodic pattern in USA history that moves from tolerance of dissent to intolerance and overreaction. Following the Civil War there was a period of intolerance, during World War II it got intolerant, in 1968 the reaction of the Chicago police was extreme, and the NYPD is, at the moment, overstepping its proper authority.
I submit, however, that these abuses do not rise to the level that would define a real police state. Look at Iran, China, Nazi-era Germany, any any other example that is held up as a police state. The statistics simply don't support a conclusion that the USA is approaching that level.
The "average" citizen is still allowed to exercise the right to speak out and carry on their activities and associations without a certainty of being punished for those activities. There may be paranoia that notes are being taken and lists are being made (with some justification!) but the vast numbers of Americans can carry on without the trepidation of certain retaliation.
I am encouraged, for example, by the reaction of the Ninth(?) Circuit Court in the suit challenging some of the provisions of last year's NDAA. (The NDAA is one of those annual traditions that Congress and the White House have developed in the 20th century.) Sure, the repressive possibility of detaining civilians by the military is there, but the courts are telling the government that they can't be quite so caviler about it. This is merely the latest posturing that the government has issued claiming such powers. I feel pretty sure, though, that if the government were to attempt to actually use these claimed powers on a widespread basis, the attempt would backfire and cause a second revolution that would reassert the rights reserved to the people.
This is (another) one of the situations in which the American experiment in government is required to maintain a careful balance between itself and the people that is laid out in the Constitution and subsequent laws and court decisions. (A notable other example is the tension between religion and the government.)
There are abuses, to be sure, but we need to take a longer term view and act to maintain those balances.
This claim, to me, is putting the cart before the horse. While there are disturbing trends toward excessive use of force by the state in response to low level disobedience, what is happening is not yet to the level of a real police state.
History reveals that there is a periodic pattern in USA history that moves from tolerance of dissent to intolerance and overreaction. Following the Civil War there was a period of intolerance, during World War II it got intolerant, in 1968 the reaction of the Chicago police was extreme, and the NYPD is, at the moment, overstepping its proper authority.
I submit, however, that these abuses do not rise to the level that would define a real police state. Look at Iran, China, Nazi-era Germany, any any other example that is held up as a police state. The statistics simply don't support a conclusion that the USA is approaching that level.
The "average" citizen is still allowed to exercise the right to speak out and carry on their activities and associations without a certainty of being punished for those activities. There may be paranoia that notes are being taken and lists are being made (with some justification!) but the vast numbers of Americans can carry on without the trepidation of certain retaliation.
I am encouraged, for example, by the reaction of the Ninth(?) Circuit Court in the suit challenging some of the provisions of last year's NDAA. (The NDAA is one of those annual traditions that Congress and the White House have developed in the 20th century.) Sure, the repressive possibility of detaining civilians by the military is there, but the courts are telling the government that they can't be quite so caviler about it. This is merely the latest posturing that the government has issued claiming such powers. I feel pretty sure, though, that if the government were to attempt to actually use these claimed powers on a widespread basis, the attempt would backfire and cause a second revolution that would reassert the rights reserved to the people.
This is (another) one of the situations in which the American experiment in government is required to maintain a careful balance between itself and the people that is laid out in the Constitution and subsequent laws and court decisions. (A notable other example is the tension between religion and the government.)
There are abuses, to be sure, but we need to take a longer term view and act to maintain those balances.
Religion, Science and the nature of faith
Don Lemon of CNN interviewed Jay Bakker on the proof of God. I don't like web videos, so I haven't seen the interview, but the usual Facebook mish-mosh of replies consists of the usual Christian parroting their religious teachings; the atheists condemning the fairy tales; and a smattering of liberal religious voices calling for respectful dialogue.
My take is that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of "proof" and the meaning of faith.
Science is a method of using rules of logic and deduction and induction, applied to observed facts, yielding testable hypotheses and theories. When these rules are properly applied and confirmed using a method of "proof" the results may be used to further construct theories and more science.
Religion, using philosophical methods of argument, deals with emotional feelings to construct a structure that seeks to explain the world in an emotionally comforting manner. Religion, particularly, seeks to deal with the philosophical questions of origins, moral rightness, and the question of death of self.
These two definitions should not be terribly strange to the intellectually curious. They are not exact, but outline the broad strokes of each realm of inquiry. Each realm claims to deal with self-evident truths based on the observations made by the human mind. Science, on one hand, self-limits its claims of application, while religion, on the other hand, claims authority of all of human experience. This, obviously, sets up a conflict between the two.
Step back a bit, though, and notice that they are both claiming to be based in observations made by the human mind.
I'm not going to get involved in the philosophical history that makes the observations of our minds highly suspect. (See Philosophy, especially the deconstructionism of Hume and others, for more on that.)
I would prefer to concentrate on an observation that both realms of endeavor depend on that article known as "faith."
Religion revels in its dependence on the concept. One doesn't need to seek further for explanations because the premises of their authority are "givens" and should be accepted on faith. Most religions reward their followers who accept this faith uncritically with promises of ultimate rewards at the end. There are some religions, however, that encourage followers to examine their faith in the light of reason, all the while encouraging them that to correct conclusions will be rewarded in the end. In this situation, "atheism" becomes a religion, in that it encourages the practitioners to see that there is an "end" that is illusory and this belief -- that there is nothing, rather than something good -- has become and article of "faith"
Science disclaims the authority which the radical atheists thrust upon it, and self-limits itself to explaining the observed phenomena in a consistent manner. But is should be noted carefully that a lot of the basic observational data, the postulates, that science relies on are still accepted as true without further evidence, as a matter of definition.
I contend that this is no less "faith" than religion's basic postulates.
Both sides are aghast as such a characterization, yet both appeal to "self-evident truths" as their foundations. To me it has become a matter of quibbling, in much the same manner that major Christian schisms are the result of quibbling about the translation of particular words in ancient discussions.
A rapprochement between religion and science can come, without "accommodationism" by recognizing that the realms of endeavor are deliberately non-overlapping, but ultimately based on "faith" in their foundations.
My take is that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of "proof" and the meaning of faith.
Science is a method of using rules of logic and deduction and induction, applied to observed facts, yielding testable hypotheses and theories. When these rules are properly applied and confirmed using a method of "proof" the results may be used to further construct theories and more science.
Religion, using philosophical methods of argument, deals with emotional feelings to construct a structure that seeks to explain the world in an emotionally comforting manner. Religion, particularly, seeks to deal with the philosophical questions of origins, moral rightness, and the question of death of self.
These two definitions should not be terribly strange to the intellectually curious. They are not exact, but outline the broad strokes of each realm of inquiry. Each realm claims to deal with self-evident truths based on the observations made by the human mind. Science, on one hand, self-limits its claims of application, while religion, on the other hand, claims authority of all of human experience. This, obviously, sets up a conflict between the two.
Step back a bit, though, and notice that they are both claiming to be based in observations made by the human mind.
I'm not going to get involved in the philosophical history that makes the observations of our minds highly suspect. (See Philosophy, especially the deconstructionism of Hume and others, for more on that.)
I would prefer to concentrate on an observation that both realms of endeavor depend on that article known as "faith."
Religion revels in its dependence on the concept. One doesn't need to seek further for explanations because the premises of their authority are "givens" and should be accepted on faith. Most religions reward their followers who accept this faith uncritically with promises of ultimate rewards at the end. There are some religions, however, that encourage followers to examine their faith in the light of reason, all the while encouraging them that to correct conclusions will be rewarded in the end. In this situation, "atheism" becomes a religion, in that it encourages the practitioners to see that there is an "end" that is illusory and this belief -- that there is nothing, rather than something good -- has become and article of "faith"
Science disclaims the authority which the radical atheists thrust upon it, and self-limits itself to explaining the observed phenomena in a consistent manner. But is should be noted carefully that a lot of the basic observational data, the postulates, that science relies on are still accepted as true without further evidence, as a matter of definition.
I contend that this is no less "faith" than religion's basic postulates.
Both sides are aghast as such a characterization, yet both appeal to "self-evident truths" as their foundations. To me it has become a matter of quibbling, in much the same manner that major Christian schisms are the result of quibbling about the translation of particular words in ancient discussions.
A rapprochement between religion and science can come, without "accommodationism" by recognizing that the realms of endeavor are deliberately non-overlapping, but ultimately based on "faith" in their foundations.
Saturday, June 16, 2012
The US First Amendment and Religious Sensibilities
I'm going to open with some observations on the First Amendment to the US Constitution with regards to some folks religious sensibilities.
Recently, the Franklin County, North Carolina Commissioners, in a rare show of legal sensibility, decided to remove any formal prayer from the high school graduation ceremony. (see NBC 17 coverage) In the ensuing discussions, I found myself face to face with a real NC Tea Party supporter. I will admit I got fed up too easily and let my frustration show, but it did impel me to start this blog.
The First Amendment states. among other things: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
It seems simple enough, no particular religion can be preferred by the government as a policy. Not Christianity (in any of its multitude forms), nor Jewishness, nor Islam, nor Hindu, nor paganism, nor atheism, nor any other religion may be preferred. Furthermore, Article VI requires: "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Clearly, the Founders had concerns about the topic.
The history of the state religions of Europe and the rest of the world, as available to the Founders, showed that such entanglements caused discrimination and tyrannical suppression of the out groups and minorities. They did not want the new nation to fall into a similar trap, nor did they wish to have religions impose or influence the new nation. (Start reading at Wikipedia for a good overview.)
It seems, however, that the intellectually lazy American Christians I was dealing with, think that they deserve a privileged position and that their religion is somehow an exception to the notion. This brought me up against (once again) the claims of "historian" David Barton (see at Wikipedia for a beginning). The clueless devotees of Barton's distorted claims of America's Founders' Christianity are falling into the whole religious trap of thoughtlessly accepting the doctrines of their religious leaders.
At this juncture, I must point out that I am not an atheist. What I am will show up elsewhere, but I carefully accept the label of being a religious person. My personal religion is informed by reason and a requirement that I be able to defend my positions in a reasoned discussion. (Unfortunately, I don't suffer fools gladly. If I lead them to the facts and they can't think for themselves, I'm too likely to make a cutting remark and sign off from the debate.) I also strive to speak carefully and avoid in initial encounters the trap of stereotyping people by any of the usual categories.
I am actually somewhat sympathetic to the Christian's claims of being suppressed, but in order to not suppress others, one has to accept some constraints on personal behaviour in order to participate in the benefits of society. One may not slander, incite violence, nor may one shout "fire" in a crowded, non-burning theatre. One may also not suppress other's religious or non-religious preferment. The precious American freedoms are not a license to anarchy, and these limits are applied to the government itself as well. One consequence is that the state, in any of its compelling roles, is not allowed to promote religious practices.
It would be expected, by a reasonable understanding of this principle, that religious institutions are also required to limit their speech accordingly. The rules that the government applies to the tax-exemptions granted to organized religious institutions carefully follow this principle. They may speak freely about the issues and doctrines they feel compelled to follow, but to preserve their exemptions, they are not allowed to advocate or direct their adherents to act in a religiously dictated manner. The state is not allowed to direct that religious practices include required acknowledgements of its power. (Of course, religious organizations may voluntarily pray for or acknowledge the state or its officers.)
There is a fine balance involved here, and it has lasted fairly intact for 230 years or so. There are some lapses that have and continue to occur, but so far we are persisting in our experiment.
Recently, the Franklin County, North Carolina Commissioners, in a rare show of legal sensibility, decided to remove any formal prayer from the high school graduation ceremony. (see NBC 17 coverage) In the ensuing discussions, I found myself face to face with a real NC Tea Party supporter. I will admit I got fed up too easily and let my frustration show, but it did impel me to start this blog.
The First Amendment states. among other things: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
It seems simple enough, no particular religion can be preferred by the government as a policy. Not Christianity (in any of its multitude forms), nor Jewishness, nor Islam, nor Hindu, nor paganism, nor atheism, nor any other religion may be preferred. Furthermore, Article VI requires: "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Clearly, the Founders had concerns about the topic.
The history of the state religions of Europe and the rest of the world, as available to the Founders, showed that such entanglements caused discrimination and tyrannical suppression of the out groups and minorities. They did not want the new nation to fall into a similar trap, nor did they wish to have religions impose or influence the new nation. (Start reading at Wikipedia for a good overview.)
It seems, however, that the intellectually lazy American Christians I was dealing with, think that they deserve a privileged position and that their religion is somehow an exception to the notion. This brought me up against (once again) the claims of "historian" David Barton (see at Wikipedia for a beginning). The clueless devotees of Barton's distorted claims of America's Founders' Christianity are falling into the whole religious trap of thoughtlessly accepting the doctrines of their religious leaders.
At this juncture, I must point out that I am not an atheist. What I am will show up elsewhere, but I carefully accept the label of being a religious person. My personal religion is informed by reason and a requirement that I be able to defend my positions in a reasoned discussion. (Unfortunately, I don't suffer fools gladly. If I lead them to the facts and they can't think for themselves, I'm too likely to make a cutting remark and sign off from the debate.) I also strive to speak carefully and avoid in initial encounters the trap of stereotyping people by any of the usual categories.
I am actually somewhat sympathetic to the Christian's claims of being suppressed, but in order to not suppress others, one has to accept some constraints on personal behaviour in order to participate in the benefits of society. One may not slander, incite violence, nor may one shout "fire" in a crowded, non-burning theatre. One may also not suppress other's religious or non-religious preferment. The precious American freedoms are not a license to anarchy, and these limits are applied to the government itself as well. One consequence is that the state, in any of its compelling roles, is not allowed to promote religious practices.
It would be expected, by a reasonable understanding of this principle, that religious institutions are also required to limit their speech accordingly. The rules that the government applies to the tax-exemptions granted to organized religious institutions carefully follow this principle. They may speak freely about the issues and doctrines they feel compelled to follow, but to preserve their exemptions, they are not allowed to advocate or direct their adherents to act in a religiously dictated manner. The state is not allowed to direct that religious practices include required acknowledgements of its power. (Of course, religious organizations may voluntarily pray for or acknowledge the state or its officers.)
There is a fine balance involved here, and it has lasted fairly intact for 230 years or so. There are some lapses that have and continue to occur, but so far we are persisting in our experiment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)