On Healthcare Reform, Atheism and the Nature of Debate

I’ve been thinking about and discussing two important topics lately, atheism and the proposed healthcare system reform.  On the surface there doesn’t seem to be much in common with these two trains of thought and they generally don’t come up at the same time.

However, I’ve been struck and frustrated by a tactic used by proponents of the Democrats’ reform that relates to tactics theists use to justify their irrational beliefs.

Proponents of this healthcare reform package might point to the number of people uninsured (or life expectancy or pre-existing condition exclusions, etc.), assert there is a problem and that the solution is legislation authorizing massive restructuring that must be passed quickly.  All while characterizing opponents as merely obstructionists, in the pocket of evil special interests who hate poor people.

Fundamentalist theists might point to out of wedlock births (or divorce rates or teen violence, etc.), assert there is a problem and that the solution is legislation authorizing prayer in school.  All while characterizing opponents as merely people who don’t love God,  worshipers of the Devil who hate the traditional family.

I may agree that there are problems and pressures affecting the American family.  As an atheist, I clearly don’t love gods, nor do I worship devils and my wife and two kids argue against my hatred of the traditional family (although I have no issue with non-traditional families per se).  And even though I may not have a complete solution to teen violence or kids having kids, I will still fight to keep prayer out of the schools because I think it is wrong.

I’m not going to argue the merits of healthcare reform here.  I just want to comment on the nature of the debate.  The Democrats have asserted that the status quo is unacceptable.  I may or may not agree with that completely, but let’s assume that is true.  As the minority, Republicans have few options in shaping the bills especially if there are stark ideological differences.  The proposed legislation is less a question about what kind of reform there will be and more a question of if it will pass.  And although the Republicans don’t have the power or the votes to pass the kinds of reforms they think might agree with, their fight to stop something they see as wrong is still valid.

My point in all this is not to anger the liberal atheists out there by comparing them to fundamentalists (or worse still, Republicans).  My point is to say that proponents of this healthcare reform, since it is their proposal and since they have the Presidency and both houses of Congress, have the burden arguing their position is right and will work.  While attacking opponents of reform as the “Party of No,” feels good and score points with people that agree with them, it does nothing to help them meet their burden and further their argument.

I’ve been very disappointed with our political discourse lately.  Logic and reason seem to give way all too easily to emotion and demagoguery.  Those of us who embrace reason and rational thought must take a step back, dial down the rhetoric and assume that everyone involved is truly working to make our country a better place.

-Jay

Atheists in Mississippi, WTF!?

Updated August 13, 2009:  I learned that my outrage was somewhat misplaced and addressed the new information in an update below the Original post.

I learned something shocking today.  A provision in Mississippi’s state constitution barring people involved in a duel from holding public office was repealed in 1978.  Prior to that, Article 3, the Bill of Rights, Section 19 read:

“Human life shall not be imperiled by the practice of dueling; and any citizen of this state who shall hereafter fight a duel, or assist in the same as second, or send, accept, or knowingly carry a challenge therefore, whether such an act be done in the state, or out of it, or who shall go out of the state to fight a duel, or to assist in the same as second, or to send, accept, or carry a challenge, shall be disqualified from holding any office under this Constitution, and shall be disfranchised.”

So I guess the dueling community got tired of not being able to be represented in the Mississippi Legislature and worked to get this constitutional hurdle out of the way.  (More likely is that this reference to dueling in the constitution was an embarrassment and the legislature decided they really didn’t need the provision anyhow.)

Whether or not Mississippi needs to keep duelists out of office is not the point.  I use it as a counter point to: Article 14, entitled General Provisions, Section 265 states, “No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.”  It’s not ambiguous.  It isn’t buried in legalize.  That is the entire section!

Are you telling me that not once, since 1890, has an atheist even tried to hold office in Mississippi and challenged this provision?  Is there really a constitutional argument that allows the state have this religious test that flies directly in the face of Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution?  That article states in part:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

I can’t think of a more basic religious test than the one that asks if you’re religious.  I’m tempted to move to Mississippi, run for dog catcher or something, just so I can publicly fail this test and bring this abomination out into the light of day (that and they have casinos).

I’m not typically an activist.  But this is something that really seems to need some activist activity devoted to it.  Bus campaigns and Out Campaigns are all well and good, but seeking elected office is fundamental participation in civic life that in which atheists should be allowed to engage.

I said in a previous post that atheists are not a suppressed minority and laws don’t need to be enacted or changed to protect my point of view.  I’m officially amending that.  I still don’t consider myself suppressed or oppressed, but obviously laws do need to be changed.

-Jay

August 13, 2009

Commenter Brian Westly pointed out that this question has been specifically addressed by the US Supreme Court in the 1961 decision Torasco v. Watkins.  I won’t go into the details of the case (follow the link to the Wikipedia entry) but the crux of the unanimous decision written by Hugo Black is this:

There is, and can be, no dispute about the purpose or effect of the Maryland Declaration of Rights requirement before us - it sets up a religious test which was designed to and, if valid, does bar every person who refuses to declare a belief in God from holding a public "office of profit or trust" in Maryland. ... We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

So the Mississippi Constitution’s provision is moot.  It still begs the question of why it hasn’t been removed, but I’m guessing that has more to do with politics than with equal protection and the law of the land.

-Jay

Being “Out” is so Gay

I detest hearing people say something “is so gay” when they are talking about “stupid” or “dumb.”  That kind of thoughtless use of language continues to make members of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bi and trans-gendered)community feel disrespected and can foster an environment where real bigotry occurs.  But let’s face it, when most people think of being “out” or “coming out,” being gay or lesbian immediately springs to mind.  As it should.  The experience is often one of the most important and traumatic a homosexual person will ever go through and living as an openly “out” gay or lesbian means learning how to deal with small mindedness and bigotry on an almost daily basis.

Which brings me to my point.  I’m uncomfortable with the term “out” when used by atheists going public about their world view.  I understand and agree with the basic premise of Richard Dawkins’ Out Campaign.  Greater acceptance, lessoning of fear, political consideration and a willingness to listen and understand an atheist’s point of view are all worthwhile goals.  I just don’t like riding on the coat-tails of the LGBT movement.

We, as atheists or skeptics or free-thinkers or what have you, are not engaged in a civil rights struggle.  Atheists are not a suppressed minority and laws don’t need to be enacted or changed to protect my unpopular point of view.  (And before anyone talks about changing laws to get Intelligent Design out of the science class room, that needs to happen, not to protect my non-religious world view nor because it offends me, but because it is bad science.)  So let’s not minimize the real struggle and real progress made by the LGBT community.

We don’t need to be so gay.

-Jay

What Does it Mean to be Out as an Atheist?

I’m an atheist.  I’ve joined Atheist Nexus.  I’ve affixed the Scarlet “A” from OutCampaign.org to this blog. I read and comment on other atheist-centric blogs.  My friends and family know I don’t believe in gods (some with more acceptance than others).  And I’m raising my children to be open minded and skeptical of dogma, no matter what the source.

But is that really “out?”

I’m not part of any local group.  I don’t have a Darwin “fish” on my car.  I close my eyes if someone with whom I’m in a group wishes to offer a prayer.  My children went to a religious preschool and their maternal grandmother takes them to church when she has the chance.

Maybe I’m just not “out” enough.

But hell, I don’t even care for the term.  It draws a parallel between a gay or lesbian acknowledging his or her own biological reality and me acknowledging a philosophical and intellectual point of view.  That parallel makes me uncomfortable because I think it diminishes the importance of the gay rights movement.

Being an atheist is important to me, but it doesn’t define me.  I hope that is not what it takes to be considered “out.”

-Jay

Is Obama Creating an Enemies List?

This disturbing directive comes from the official White House blog:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.  These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

This didn’t come from a political activist group or a fact checking organization.  The White House, the President, the people with the ability to use the full force of the IRS and the FBI want to know what “disinformation” is being spread about a policy they support and, I can only assume, who is doing the spreading of that “disinformation.”  What President Obama’s administration plans to do with this is unclear from the blog post.  Maybe they just want to be able to answer people’s concerns and shoot down wild, untrue rumors.  Or maybe they intend to punish the originators of the rumors. 

The scariest part about this request is the Big Brother aspect of it.  Now if you forward an email that someone on your list thinks might be full of rumor and speculation, that email as well as your email address, the email addresses of who else it was sent to as well as the email addresses of who sent it all go into a database.  And who sent them that information?  Your neighbor or co-worker or activist aunt.  If you thought domestic spying was bad when the government engaged in it, wait until the spies are literally everywhere.

-Jay

Lifting the fog and revealing the Light

I have been meaning to post something about atheism for quite a while but hadn’t really decided on a topic.

I thought I might compare these two ad campaigns:

Answers in Genesis

and

NYC Atheists Bus Campaign

But after watching the video below I know there is no point…it’s all so clear to me now. Enjoy and be educated.

-Jay

Stupid is as Stupid Does

Last night President Obama made a little news.  No, not in that 55 min filibuster about healthcare reform.  That was a muddled mess that really didn’t add anything new to the conversation. 

No he said very clearly, when talking about his friend Henry Louis Gates, who was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct, “The Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.”   That seems like a very specific and completely defensible position to take even though there is some question as to facts of the case.  Regardless, it was a direct and bold thing to say.

Or was it?

Today on Air Force One, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs clarified Obama’s remarks like this, “He was not calling the officer stupid. The situation got out of hand.”

So the only clear and direct statement from the President last night doesn’t mean what it sounded like it meant.  I guess with that logic it will be easy for Mr. Gibbs to talk about the comprehensive reform plan detailed in the news conference.

Great Afternoon…

Yesterday was fantastic.  I was able to get out of work a little bit early (although not as early as I would have liked) and go sailing with my parents for a few hours.  Despite a bit of trouble with the rigging that made raising the main sail a bit of a chore and possibly breaking a toe on the deck, I still had a great time.  A perfect way to end a work week.

-Jay

No matter what the illness...

...we can count on the same prescription.

At least when Dr. Obama is trying to cure the economy. Steve Chapman over at reason.com writes in his post today:

Students of the Obama economic policy will also note a curious consistency in its approach to economic issues. Some problems, like the near-collapse of General Motors and Chrysler, came about because competition worked very well at serving consumers and punishing poorly run companies. Some problems, such as high health insurance premiums, came about because competition allegedly didn't work so well. In both cases, the administration proposes the same solution: more federal spending and a bigger federal role.

And there are other examples of this "solution" as well. Executives in the financial industry making too much money? That's easy, we'll create a government entity to control their pay. Banks buying loans without knowing the risk of default? People mortgaging homes without being able to make the payments? No sweat, how many billions do you need?

Too be fair, government expansion is not a new phenomena. But the scale of this expansion is unprecedented. And insidious. I was listening to Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi this morning on NPR. He said that the federal stimulus money that his state received was laden with "strings."

For example, in this economy, with tax revenue falling, because Mississippi got stimulus money specifically for education, the education budget is 7.2% higher than its ever been while the public safety budgets are taking a 6% cut. Sounds OK, right? I mean do you really need that many State Troopers on the highway? But beyond the disparity between priorities, what happens when tax revenues stop their slide and level off. No need for new stimulus, but now the bar has been set for the education budget in Mississippi by the Feds. Imagine the political fight that is going to ensue once that funding has to be reduced or more likely replaced by higher taxes? Obama doesn't have to deal with the consequences of funding his national priorities year after year, he only has to do it once. From that point forward, if a state government wants or needs to return to a budget that can be paid for without federal largess, special interests can easily cry foul and accuse responsible public official of "cutting" spending and "hurting the children." If I were a conspiracy nut I might think that was a plan to get Democrats elected all along.

And that is what is so dangerous about government expansion. Once a dollar has been spent or an agency created, it is nearly impossible to remove it from future budgets. We need to be aware and concerned about these "emergency" actions Congress and the Obama administration are taking. We may never be able to undo them.

-Jay

Random Thought

The world is made of matchsticks but America won't burn.

I couldn't sleep last night. I think it must be from stress. It looks very likely that the company I work for will close and I'll be out of a job again.

Anyhow, while I was laying in bed not sleeping I was thinking about the issue of flag burning and how I would protest a law banning it (I don't know why, maybe it had something to do with seeing the protests in Iran). While I was deciding if it would make a bigger impact to burn a flag on public or private property, the above phrase popped into my head. I don't think I've heard it anywhere before so I wanted to put it someplace so I don't lose it. Maybe I'll use it in the future if I need to write an essay about freedom of expression or flag burning in particular.

-Jay

Edit: 06.24.09

One more thing...I have two band names I'm going to use in Rock Band: "Secular Taliban" and "Wolves of Self Reliance."

Whew...

Eighty degrees. That's what the radio told me the current temperature was at 5:39 this morning; before sunrise.

We've had several days of +95 degree temps and several more on the way. Looks like we'll get a break toward the end of the week though...it's supposed to only be in the lower 90's.

-Jay

Now where did I put that sickle...

Okay, when I started this blog I didn't really think I'd be writing about weighty matters all the time and especially not on a Friday. But this is too fresh in my mind and too outrageous to let go without comment.

Yesterday, in Wisconsin, President Obama gave a speech about health care reform and uttered this, "If the private insurance companies have to compete with a public option, it will keep them honest and help keep prices down."

Are you kidding me?! Set aside the wonderful care our veterans get through the VA and the stellar financial shape of Medicare , the administration is going to, yet again, pick winners and losers in Corporate America.

Just to recap in the last two weeks we have:

• the New GM and Chrysler backed by tax dollars competing with Ford (and Honda and Toyota, etc.)
• a new Czar that is going to start with limiting the compensation of executives working in the bailout funded section of the financial industry (he'll get to the rest of the financial industry soon and then see if you are making too much money after that)
• and now a proposal to use the backing of law and the largess of the US Treasury to compete against the health insurance industry

This isn't tinkering around the edges of economy. This is evidence of supreme mistrust of our capitalist system. Obama even explicitly says he doesn't trust the market. "If the private insurance companies have to compete with a public option, it will keep them honest and help keep prices down." Do you really think this desire to keep private companies honest through competition with a "public option" is limited to the health insurance industry? Why not all insurance companies? Or health care providers for that matter? Government doctors wouldn't have any incentive to order unnecessary tests. Maybe credit card companies? Reasonable rates, the Treasury makes a bit of a profit and if you don't pay up, Uncle Sam just takes it out of your tax refund...

All its going to cost you is some liberty. Don't get me wrong. I'm not some kook that thinks Obama is trying to take over and become a dictator. But capitalism is the manifestation of our freedom and independence from the government. It's vital that we protect it and reject the steps toward central planning and socialism.

We don't have to go ask our lords and masters to give us anything. We make it. We buy it. We sell it. We trade it. We make a profit and use that profit to enrich our lives. We make mistakes and we fail. We innovate and improve. This is what has made our country the richest and most free in all the world.

-Jay

You can't spell crazy without C, Z, A & R

According to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the federal government is concerned about what companies pay their top executives.

"We need to help encourage substantial reforms and compensation structures, particularly in the financial industry," he said.

Of course you're thinking, "But Jay, these companies are getting tax payer money in the form of bailouts from TARP." True, and I don't have much heartburn with telling the CEO's of AIG, GM, Chrysler and the dozens of banks that took bailout money that they deserve a pittance of pay until the money is all paid back to the Treasury. But we're not just talking about that. According to this story from the not particularly right wing Marketplace radio program (distributed by Public Radio International) we have this to look forward to:

But the government's push to limit compensation may not end with companies receiving taxpayer help. Members of the administration are also talking about reining in pay in the financial industry as a whole. They'd like to replace the current bonus-heavy system with one that pays people for long-term performance.

President Obama is set to appoint a "Pay Czar" to carry out the administrations reform of compensation. Beside the fact that this is an extra-constitutional position accountable to no one except the President. I am deeply troubled by ease of this power grab. Are we just going to stand by and allow the federal government to decide not just how much to tax the highly paid, but how high that pay should be? The argument for this "reform" is that the bonus structure encourages high risk for short term gain and is therefore poses a "systemic danger" to the stability of our financial system.

Suppose the next issue the government wants to tackle is the potential for housing price bubbles. Having solved Wall Street's problems with a new, fair compensation plan for the financial institutions, the Pay Czar asks, "Is it reasonable to cap amount a realtor can make by commission selling a home so they don't have an incentive to 'artificially' inflate the price?" It almost sounds reasonable doesn't it? That's why its so dangerous.

The United States is not like France. We won't have massive strikes that shut down cities with people demanding social safety programs from the government. It isn't that obvious. But what we are experiencing right now is a well intentioned administration doing things that seem reasonable leading us down a path to socialism.

If we are going to walk this path, let's at least do it being led by people who are accountable to us and must get elected on a socialist plan, not these "czars" that are appointed without review of the Senate and answer to no one but the President.

-Jay

Na na na na na na na na, Na na na na na na na na....

MAN CAVE!

I was reading a friend's blog post the other day and he was talking about getting his own space back.  I wish him luck in this.  I'm one of the lucky guys, in that I have (finally) been granted a space where I can fully display my beer bottle collection, my old swords and knives and other various nick knacks (yes guys can have nick knacks).  The problem is I don't really take care of it the way it deserves.

The washer and drier are in the same space (although hidden behind a black curtain) and I let that fact spoil the awesomeness that could be my Man Cave.  But no more!  Sean has inspired me once again claim what was (so generously (love you Babe!)) given to me and let it be a glorious testament to one of my favorite vices.

Speaking of favorite vices.  Alabama has passed the Gourmet Beer Law (thanks to the good folks at Free the Hops) that allows the sale of beers with a higher alcohol content.  What that means is that I will finally have local access to some of the micro brews and European brews that were denied me because of silly post prohibition era hand wringing.  The beer bottle collection pictured above (behind the laundry basket) contains about a hundred unique bottles whose contents have all been personally consumed.  I plan on cataloging the collection and posting it here so all you good people in other parts of the world can see what I'm missing and fill in the holes.  Send me a beer!

On that happy note....Cheers!

-Jay

I want to be a better Dad...

Not that I think I'm a bad one now, but there is always room for improvement.  The trouble is, one way I want to improve my parenting is running headlong into not only conventional wisdom but the comfort level of my wife.

I came across a concept called Free Range Kids that perfectly articulates something I felt but didn't really have the education and awareness to implement.  The concept is that we, as parents, not only can but SHOULD let our kids have the same kinds of freedoms and responsibilities we had as children.  Not every stranger is a danger and not every risk needs to be avoided.  The benefit of this parenting style is two fold.  One, parents can relax a bit and not worry because you don't have eyes on your children every instant, thus gaining some time for themselves.  Two, and much more importantly, we teach our kids to rely on themselves, develop and trust their instincts and live a childhood full of adventure.

Here's the rub.  I've bought into this.  I want to give my kids these skills and let them practice them.  However, I'm running into resistance from The Mrs.  I know she wants the best for the kids and she gets plenty of ammunition for being worried from the news.  The Nancy Grace's of the world have poisoned her outlook into seeing every one as a potential abductor ready to snatch up the children as soon as they walk around the corner.

But I'm going to forge ahead anyhow.  Starting tomorrow the kids are going to get an education in how to handle themselves in the big wide world.  Knowing how to cross busy streets, making sure they know how to contact us, knowing who to go and ask for help if they get lost or feel uncomfortable.  I may not be able to let them be Free Range Kids, but I'll work toward Free-er Range Kids.

-Jay

Note: If you're a parent you really ought to check out the link and get to know Lenore Skenazy. 

Movin' on Up....

Toady my son is having his "Moving On" ceremony, a mini graduation complete with cap and gown from kindergarten.  Maybe I'm a curmudgeon, but doesn't this strike anyone else as a silly cheapening of a real and significant life event?  I mean by the time a kid gets to the real deal, he could have heard "Pomp & Circumstance" 3 or 4 times and might have a rack full of caps and gowns.

Don't get me wrong.  I am very proud of my son.  This has been a rough year and a rough adjustment for him (I think we are both glad to have it over).  I just don't think this kind of ceremony is the most appropriate way to express that pride.  Besides, I bet the kids enjoy the ice cream part afterward a lot more and it will mean more to them.

-Jay

That Didn't Take Long...

It didn't take very long to have a somewhat controversial topic to write a post about.  The California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 that defines marriage as between a man and a woman only.  While I disagree with the substance of the California constitutional amendment, I think their Supreme Court made the right decision.  It is not their place to decide if something right or wrong, it is their place to decide if it is constitutional.  It's pretty hard to argue that a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional.

I'm not sure, but I believe the argument made by opponents of Prop. 8 was that the process of amending the constitution was flawed.  Again, I don't think the judicial branch has the authority to change that.

The real target of those who want gay marriage in California needs to be the people of California.  Hopefully the 18,000 married gay couples living and working in California will dispel some of the ludicrous notions that gay marriage is a "threat" to traditional families.

So the short of it is: Kudos to the California Supreme Court for following the law.  And to those who want equal rights for all the citizens, you've got more work to do.  Put a smile on your face and get to it.  If you need my help, just ask.

-Jay

Plunging in Again

I should be working. It seems, however, the long weekend and the quiet on this side of the building have sapped what little enthusiasm I have for getting things off my desk.  So instead I've decided to carve out a little piece of cyberspace to call my own (again).  Although I'm calling this place "Rationally Right" (the name I used on a previous blog dealing with atheist topics), I'm not going to be particularly rigid with topic selection here.  I liked the name though and didn't want to give it up.

-Jay