This post will be explaining why the separation of Church and State is absolutely vital to the American government- but in order to do that, everyone needs to be on the same page, which begs the question: what exactly is the separation of Church and State? The separation of Church and State has three main tenants:
The government shall not favor one religion over another in any meaningful way: This means that, for example, the government cannot give tax breaks to Christian churches, but not to Islamic mosques.
The government shall protect the freedom of religion of its citizens: The government must protect the ability of its citizens to practice a religion of their choice to the best of its ability, until the practicing of that religion causes an obvious harm to others. For instance, blood sacrifices are illegal, even though they are sometimes religiously mandated, due to the harm they cause.
The government shall protect the freedom from religion of its citizens: This means that the government must ensure that no one is required by law to obey any religious mandate purely because it is religious- in practice, this means that the government cannot outlaw bacon because Allah says so, but it can outlaw bacon because bacon is poisonous.
The Christian perspective
So, what is the alternative to a government with complete separation of Church and State? A flawed/untrue Theocracy. A true Theocracy is basically Bible times Israel. What happens to the country, how it fares, its successes and failures, are all directly cause by its relationship with God. An untrue Theocracy is any form of government in which the ruling person, or legislative bodies, or family, or whatever claim to have direct divine inspiration from God- and make policy based on what 'God' tells them to do. This form of government- the untrue Theocracy- ultimately violates all three tenants of Separation of Church and state, as they are rarely- if ever- truly divinely inspired. So, why should Christians care about these tenants?
The government shall not favor one religion over another in any meaningful way
This is admittedly the least important tenant from a Christian standpoint, however it is still very important. Why?
Not upholding it opens the door to religious prosecution (no guys, Christians are not already being prosecuted. That's ridiculous). Once the Government decides to make concrete policy that treats Christians better than Muslims, or Hindus better than Jews, or any religion better than any other religion, that is religious prosecution. I hope I don't have to explain why prosecution is bad. Actually, if you're someone that doesn't understand why prosecution is bad, you can go ahead and get off my blog, because you need to go crack a history book. Or any book, really.
The government shall protect the freedom of religion of its citizens
I'm going to ignore all the arguments for freedom of religion in and of itself here- instead I'm going to talk about why forcing Christianity is unbiblical, does not create more Christians, and belittles God- why a mandated Christianity is counterproductive.
First, mandated Christianity defies the example of God. Throughout the Bible, God/Jesus calls people to him, tells people to obey, to be righteous, etc- but it is never forced. Jesus never forced obedience to him. Why? Christianity is all about true repentance and love. The government can't do that. The government doesn't have this magic bottled morality that it can make people repent and come to Christ with. At best, the government could force people to pretend to be Christians out of fear, which would only cause those people to grow angry and resentful at the Christian faith. It would alienate the very people it hopes to save.
Second, God directly speaks on freedom of religion, and advocates it: But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord. (Joshua 24:15 NIV)
Finally, mandated Christianity diminishes God. The government passes one simple bill, and the U.S. is now a better country, somehow a more Christian country. That is the mindset of a Christian theocracy. It doesn't work. One can’t seal up magic Bible juice, sprinkle it on the constitution, and fix America. The idea that the government can convert people, the idea that God somehow needs the government to punish people for not worshiping Him. This idea that God somehow needs the government to help him with his religion... This idea is wrong, and is borderline blasphemy!
The government shall protect the freedom from religion of its citizens
For the Christian perspective, every argument for freedom of religion applies here as well. Morality enforcement is bad- it is contrary to the Bible, creates false morality, and diminishes God.
The secular perspective
One could write an entire book on this, which I do not intend to do. Instead, I'll only be going over one or two strong arguments for each tenant.
The Government shall not favor one religion over another in any meaningful way
Violating this is the first step towards a Theocracy. It is important that a government recognizes each religion as equally valid or invalid, lest it pass policy based on a favored religion. I'm pretty sure every Atheist can agree with me- Theocracy bad.
The government shall protect the freedom of religion of its citizens
First and foremost, this is a freedom of opinion/belief issue. Religion is a very intimate and personal belief choice, that ought to shape one's entire life. For the government to attempt to regulate or mandate your very beliefs is a violation of Human Rights, and indeed rather Orwellian.
Second, historical precedent shows us that not protecting freedom of religion is bad. In the middle east we can see that a lack of religious liberty only results in bloodshed- as we can see in ancient Rome and Egypt. Look, guys, this never turns out well, mkay? It is worth noting, however, that religious freedom/liberty only goes until it does harm. There's a reason we don't let cults sacrifice virgins on grounds of religious freedom.
The government shall protect the freedom from religion of its citizens
Both arguments from the above point apply here. In addition, the violation of this tends to infringe on the other two tenants- you're not going to simply force someone to have a religion, you're going to force them to follow a specific religion.
I intend to do a followup post on this topic once someone like Ted Cruz starts yelling about how we need to uphold Christian values and blah blah blah.... But, until then, this encompasses the main points of separation of Church and State, as well as the main reasons it should be upheld, particularly from a Christian standpoint. I didn't put a lot into the secular section of this post, as I'm pretty sure all Atheists can agree on this one. Perhaps if I see something that suggests this needs further elaboration I'll do a followup post, but I find that unlikely.
Next I'll probably write about, hmm. Maybe welfare? Or global warming? Or maybe I'll try to find the most recent stupid thing said by some presidential candidate, and do a post on that. We shall see.
Anyways, thank you to the three people that read this, and if you have any disagreements with my points, feel free to comment or message me.
Monday, June 8, 2015
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
The War On Marijuana: Institutionalized Evil
First things first: Throughout this post, I will be using the term drug war, as shorthand for the war on marijuana. This post does not refer to the drug war as a whole, rather, it deals with the illegality of marijuana. One more detail to note: I am assuming my audience is familiar with the events that take place at Homan Square and other blacksites throughout the country. If you're not familiar with this, please take a moment to familiarize yourself with these events here.
My stance: While marijuana use should not be actively encouraged, the drug war is an evil example of institutionalized racism and harm, and thus should not exist. Further, the medicinal uses of marijuana are plentiful- but this is not a major point of this post.
Perhaps this isn't the best subject to start off with, because I believe that this is one case where there is a large volume of overlap between Christian argumentation and secular argumentation. In light of this, I'll start by establishing arguments that should appeal to both Christians and Atheists, then I'll go into specifically Christian of specifically secular points, if I can think of any.
Racism of the drug war: This is fairly simple- the following is a quote from Harry Anslinger, who was head of the DEA from 1930-1962:
"Most marijuana smokers are Negros, Hispanics, jazz musicians, and entertainers. Their satanic music is driven by marijuana, and marijuana smoking by white women makes them want to seek sexual relations with Negros, entertainers, and others. It is a drug that causes insanity, criminality, and death - the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."
Because, ya know, Satan obviously loves Jazz and black people. The racism of this quote ought to be self-evident, so I'll move straight to the part of the quote that could have actual impact: does marijuana really cause any violence or criminality?
According to the ADAI, marijuna has a sedative effect on most users, making them far less likely to engage in violent activities than, say, alcohol. However, marijuana can, on rare occasions, cause short-term paranoia, fear, and/or aggression - at times resulting in a violent outburst. That settles it, right? Marijuana causes violence? Not by a longshot. First, no definitive correlation can be found between aggression and marijuana in adults. More importantly, however, Violence in anyone, including marijuana users, often has a multicausal explanation, with numerous factors impacting behavior, such as increased life stress, aggressive personality traits, multidrug use, or a history of violent behavior. Marijuana is also part of the global illegal drug market, which may increase the chances of violence occurring in some social interactions. Additionally, withdrawal symptoms my include aggression, however studies have not found an association between withdrawal symptoms and aggression among those without a history of violence.
So, no, it really doesn't. The quote by Mr. Anslinger sums up the original justifications for the drug war, which are all obviously ridiculous. So, what? You may ask, drugs are still bad, so we shouldn't let people have them. Well, yes, we should. This brings me to the harmful effects of the drug war. There are too many to talk about in one post, so I'll focus on the big one: it gives police an excuse to torture, kill, and anally rape anyone they want.
Now, I will be presenting several incidents of evil being committed in the name of the drug war, however they represent a larger, systemic problem of police using the drug war as a mechanism to quite literally get away with murder.
An ex-drug cop testified in court that he-among other things-was ordered to illegally plant drugs too many times to count. Why? Personal revenue generation/stealing. Planting drugs is bad. Stealing is also bad. Therefore, an institutionalized system that promotes these things is also bad. Very simple.
Yes, this is crack, not marijuana, however it still shows the institutionalized incentive to plant drugs and beat people senseless. Planting drugs is still bad. If there were no drug war, there would be no monetary incentive to plant drugs.
Finally, more evidence of the racism and double standard of the drug war: DEA agents were told not to enforce drug laws in rich communities.
What's more, the drug war is inherently paradoxical and insolvent. Remember when alcohol was illegal? Remember why that was insolvent? In case you don't here's a quick history lesson: National prohibition of alcohol (1920-33)—the “noble experiment”—was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America. The results of that experiment clearly indicate that it was a miserable failure on all counts. The evidence affirms sound economic theory, which predicts that prohibition of mutually beneficial exchanges is doomed to failure. Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became “organized”; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition.
Look, I don't think that recreational marijuana is a good thing- it does have adverse effects- but the drug war is even worse. No one of any religion or lack thereof, should be able to advocate this monstrosity that is founded on racism and overblown rhetoric, that encourages institutionalized stealing and planting of evidence, and that can justify pretty much any police action! Even raiding a home on a bogus tip, finding nothing incriminating, and killing the grandfather!
What I find so disturbing, is that many conservative Christians advocate this drug war, which is nothing but a perversion of morality. This must stop.
Further reading about problems with the drug war: http://www.forbes.com/sites/artcarden/2012/04/19/lets-be-blunt-its-time-to-end-the-drug-war/, https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201106/why-the-war-drugs-has-failed.
My stance: While marijuana use should not be actively encouraged, the drug war is an evil example of institutionalized racism and harm, and thus should not exist. Further, the medicinal uses of marijuana are plentiful- but this is not a major point of this post.
Perhaps this isn't the best subject to start off with, because I believe that this is one case where there is a large volume of overlap between Christian argumentation and secular argumentation. In light of this, I'll start by establishing arguments that should appeal to both Christians and Atheists, then I'll go into specifically Christian of specifically secular points, if I can think of any.
Racism of the drug war: This is fairly simple- the following is a quote from Harry Anslinger, who was head of the DEA from 1930-1962:
"Most marijuana smokers are Negros, Hispanics, jazz musicians, and entertainers. Their satanic music is driven by marijuana, and marijuana smoking by white women makes them want to seek sexual relations with Negros, entertainers, and others. It is a drug that causes insanity, criminality, and death - the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."
Because, ya know, Satan obviously loves Jazz and black people. The racism of this quote ought to be self-evident, so I'll move straight to the part of the quote that could have actual impact: does marijuana really cause any violence or criminality?
According to the ADAI, marijuna has a sedative effect on most users, making them far less likely to engage in violent activities than, say, alcohol. However, marijuana can, on rare occasions, cause short-term paranoia, fear, and/or aggression - at times resulting in a violent outburst. That settles it, right? Marijuana causes violence? Not by a longshot. First, no definitive correlation can be found between aggression and marijuana in adults. More importantly, however, Violence in anyone, including marijuana users, often has a multicausal explanation, with numerous factors impacting behavior, such as increased life stress, aggressive personality traits, multidrug use, or a history of violent behavior. Marijuana is also part of the global illegal drug market, which may increase the chances of violence occurring in some social interactions. Additionally, withdrawal symptoms my include aggression, however studies have not found an association between withdrawal symptoms and aggression among those without a history of violence.
So, no, it really doesn't. The quote by Mr. Anslinger sums up the original justifications for the drug war, which are all obviously ridiculous. So, what? You may ask, drugs are still bad, so we shouldn't let people have them. Well, yes, we should. This brings me to the harmful effects of the drug war. There are too many to talk about in one post, so I'll focus on the big one: it gives police an excuse to torture, kill, and anally rape anyone they want.
Now, I will be presenting several incidents of evil being committed in the name of the drug war, however they represent a larger, systemic problem of police using the drug war as a mechanism to quite literally get away with murder.
An ex-drug cop testified in court that he-among other things-was ordered to illegally plant drugs too many times to count. Why? Personal revenue generation/stealing. Planting drugs is bad. Stealing is also bad. Therefore, an institutionalized system that promotes these things is also bad. Very simple.
Yes, this is crack, not marijuana, however it still shows the institutionalized incentive to plant drugs and beat people senseless. Planting drugs is still bad. If there were no drug war, there would be no monetary incentive to plant drugs.
Finally, more evidence of the racism and double standard of the drug war: DEA agents were told not to enforce drug laws in rich communities.
What's more, the drug war is inherently paradoxical and insolvent. Remember when alcohol was illegal? Remember why that was insolvent? In case you don't here's a quick history lesson: National prohibition of alcohol (1920-33)—the “noble experiment”—was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America. The results of that experiment clearly indicate that it was a miserable failure on all counts. The evidence affirms sound economic theory, which predicts that prohibition of mutually beneficial exchanges is doomed to failure. Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became “organized”; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition.
Those results are documented from a variety of sources, most of which, ironically, are the work of supporters of Prohibition—most economists and social scientists supported it. Their findings make the case against Prohibition that much stronger.
To support the drug war is to ignore morality, ignore historical precedent, and support a racist system. All of those things are supposed to be bad, regardless of what you would infer from certain conservative politicians *coughclimatechangecough*.
Look, I don't think that recreational marijuana is a good thing- it does have adverse effects- but the drug war is even worse. No one of any religion or lack thereof, should be able to advocate this monstrosity that is founded on racism and overblown rhetoric, that encourages institutionalized stealing and planting of evidence, and that can justify pretty much any police action! Even raiding a home on a bogus tip, finding nothing incriminating, and killing the grandfather!
What I find so disturbing, is that many conservative Christians advocate this drug war, which is nothing but a perversion of morality. This must stop.
Further reading about problems with the drug war: http://www.forbes.com/sites/artcarden/2012/04/19/lets-be-blunt-its-time-to-end-the-drug-war/, https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201106/why-the-war-drugs-has-failed.
Introductions: What, Why, and Who
What is this? I will be writing about a number of political issues over the life of this blog, perhaps indefinitely. I intend to write on each issue from two viewpoints in each post, or perhaps in separate posts if the issue is particularly large. These viewpoints? Secular and Christian. The Secular viewpoint will assume there is no such thing as God, and will be written as if to an Atheist audience. To draw my conclusion in these segments, I will be relying purely on legality, logic with almost universally accepted premises, and universally or almost universally accepted morality- simply argumentation that does not appeal to any religious mandates. The Christian viewpoint will assume Christianity is the true religion, and be written as if to a Christian audience. This does not mean I cannot use secular argumentation where appropriate in this section, it simply means that I will be focusing on proving my stance is Biblically morally correct.
Why am I doing this? Because, frankly, I find modern conservative 'Christian' politicians immensely upsetting. Modern 'Christian' conservatism has strayed so far from what is right (see what I did there?) and true, I need somewhere to write about it. However, this does not explain why I would include secular argumentation in my posts. I aim to include secular argumentation in my posts due to the separation of Church and State. Basically, the Government can't do something because the Bible says so- in order for my policy advocacy to be valid, it must be secularly true. (I intend to do a post regarding the separation of Church and State in the near future, maybe in multiple parts.)
Who am I? I am a super political minority! I'm a Christian, homeschooled, Liberal teenager. I don't see any more detail as particularly relevant to my posts, so I'll leave it at that for now.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)