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