Topic: Announcements
I have received several questions about the January 15th speaking event so I will provide a summary of it.

The event went very well. About 30-35 people attended, which is what we planned for. My presentation was about an hour and a half long, accompanied by PowerPoint. We had about a half hour of questions and discussion after the presentation.

Pretty much everyone that attended was non-religious from what I could tell. The presentation was strictly historical and I did not get into personal opinions on religion or make any claims about religion itself. The presentation was about the major thinkers and ideas that have challenged religion in Western Civilization over the past 500 years, and the contribution of religious criticism to the development of modern society. I also discussed the role of the Cold War in contributing to the current religious climate in America today.

I also had a table full of historical objects, such as "pre-In God We Trust" money, old pictures of major religious critics, and many old books from religious critics, such as works from Robert Ingersoll, Thomas Paine, etc.

The average age of those attending was probably about 45 years old, with several seniors in attendance, but the range of ages was pretty broad. Some of the questions that were raised during the question and answer session were:

> What were Einstein's views on religion, I have heard many people say that he believed in God?

This came because I mentioned Einstein as a prominent religious critic during the Cold War. I explained that Einstein often used the term "God" when confronted with questions about his religion, but he always explained that he considered God to be "the physical universe", and science was "his religion". Einstein was trying to reconcile faith and religion, but he did this by trying to infuse the materialist worldview with "religious wonder". Einstein, however, was always a materialist and a determinist, and on several occasions he denounced Western religion and criticized Christianity and Judaism, including in his self-authored obituary.

> Though there is much less religious belief in Europe, are those people still just as irrational as Americans and do they believe in other things, such as alien abductions, etc., in other words, did one form of irrationality just get replaced with another.

My comment was that I did not think this was the case, because scientific education is much better in most parts of Europe than it is here, and the materialist worldview is more broadly held there than it is here. Of course there are "quacks" everywhere, but no I do not think that Europe has just as many "people of faith" as America, simply under a different label, I think that Europeans have more fully embraced a scientific world outlook.

> Someone commented on how they think that the fact that industrialization and the "fruits of science" have resulted in some negative things caused people to get disillusioned with science and that that was why there was a religious resurgence in America after World War II.

I said that I agreed that that must have had some effect, however, the same trend did not occur in Europe or Japan. There are always many factors that contribute to large social trends, but I believe that the Cold War and the institutionalized association between "godlessness" and "evil commies" played the dominant role in shaping American religious views after World War II.

There were a few other questions as well.

Several people thanked me after the presentation.

Overall it was a great event and I enjoyed it. I will be speaking at another event as part of a panel on February 12th, for Darwin Day.

Topic: Announcements

History of Religious Criticism in Western Civilization
Sunday, January 15, 2006, 1:00 pm

Abstract
While a significant number of people in America are disillusioned with, or critical of, religion, few people are aware of the historical role that religious criticism has played in shaping modern Western Civilization, or the degree to which people have challenged Western religion in the past. Furthermore, many Americans are unaware of the degree to which the Cold War has impacted religious attitudes in the United States. This is the case, to a large degree, because religious criticism is not taught in schools, nor is it discussed in the mainstream media. All history that is presented in America is a Christianized, or at least Christian sensitive, version history. The only way to be exposed to non-Christianized versions of history in America is to actively seek out alternative information, which can be complex and time consuming. The objective of this presentation is to provide a basic understanding of religious criticism and an overview of the past 500 years of Western history in the context of religious criticism, showing that religious criticism has played a central role in the development of modern Western Civilization and that the Cold War has had far reaching effects on religious attitudes in America.

Presentation Outline

• Introduction


• Types of Religious Criticism
  
• The Renaissance (1500-1650)
  
  • The Protestant Reformation (1517-1555)
  
  
• The Enlightenment (1650-1790)
  
  • English Empiricism
    
  • French Materialism
    
  • American Revolution
  
  
• 19th Century German Atheism (1800-1900)
  
• The Golden Age of Freethought (1870-1917)
  
• 20th Century Communism
  
• Anti-Communist Reaction (1919-1945)
  
• Religion during the Cold War (1945-1992)
  
• Religious Criticism Today
  

Additional Information
Location: Tigertail Lake (BCC’s Water Sports Facility)
580 Gulfstream Blvd., Dania Beach
(west of I-95 south of Griffin, east of Ravenswood. By the Fishing Hall of Fame)

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/fll/

Topic: Commentary
There is decreasing support for the war in Iraq, and there are increasing calls to bring the troops home. President Bush has also begun hinting toward the idea of bringing troops home “if things go well” in Iraq. The recent elections in Iraq have been hailed by president Bush as a flowering of democracy and “freedom” in the Middle East, but what is really going on here?

The group that came out on top in the recent Iraqi elections is that of the Shiite Muslims who support Islamic theocracy in Iraq. This is the group of people who are most closely aligned with Iran.
Earlier this year Iranian democracy brought Shiite fundamentalist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to presidential power.

Now lets get a few things straight.

The press and the President keep telling us that the “insurgency” is fueled by Muslim extremists and the Sunni minority of Iraq. Here is the thing though, the Muslim extremists are in the majority in Iraq and the Sunnis are much more secular than the Shiites. In practice the Sunnis are the moderates and the Shiites are the extremists, and the Shiites are the ones gaining political power in the government. Yes the Sunnis ruled with somewhat of an iron fist during Saddam’s reign, but much of that was in order to prevent the more radical Islamist Shiites from dominating the country with religious fundamentalism. Iraq was one of the few places in the Middle East where women could go to the university, drive cars, own property, etc.

What exactly happened when America invaded the Middle East?

Well, despite the fact that there was a movement in Iran to open up towards the West and become a more liberal society, when America invaded Iraq and Afghanistan this pushed the Iranians to adopt a much more conservative, anti-American, anti-Western, nationalist stance. With America invading the countries next door the Iranian people felt threatened and when election time came the country shifted far to the Right and elected the fundamentalist radical Ahmadinejad.

In Iraq we deposed one of the most secular and socially moderate regimes in the Middle East to bring religious fundamentalists (who are ideologically sympathetic to Iran) into power.

Now, both Iraq and Iran have Shiites in power. Meanwhile Iran is still perusing nuclear capabilities and their leader is shouting ridiculous threats about Israel. Democracy in Afghanistan has yielded a parliament that is thought to be about 60% warlords, many of which are former or current members of the Taliban. Not only that but the Taliban insurgency is increasing in Afghanistan as well.

Anyone who thinks that America can bring the troops home from this situation is kidding themselves to say the least. There is no way that American troops can “come home” from the Middle East any time soon. In fact even a minor draw down in troops seems unlikely.

The Bush administration is talking about brining troops home because that is what people want to hear, and, once again, people are allowing themselves to be led by what they want to here. Americans are now believing that it’s actually possible to extricate ourselves from the mess in the Middle East. It’s not. We are going to have relatively high levels of troops in the Middle East for years and years to come. Ten years from now we are still going to have over 100,000 troops engaged in military operations in the Middle East. Now that we have gone in, it’s quicksand, there is no way out.

Topic: Commentary
With the recent execution of Stanley Williams there has been a lot of discussion of the death penalty, with many people opposing it. I myself am a strong supporter of the death penalty, and in fact I consider a criminal justice system without a death penalty to be unjust and unethical. I also find the mentality of people who would eliminate the death penalty just to see people live their lives in prison to be reprehensible. This is essentially creating more victims just to keep one's own conscience clean. The first thing that the opponents of the death penalty need to accept is that this issue is not about them or their feelings of guilt or their feelings about humanity, it is about the convict and the victims. We should not refrain from killing others just to keep blood off our own hands.

Many opponents of the death penalty claim that "killing them makes us as bad as they are". This is false, but it also demonstrates the selfish attitude of the opponents because their real desire in opposing the death penalty is to absolve themselves of the act of carrying out justice.

When discussing the death penalty there are two completely different and important factors to consider.

First: Is the death penalty justifiable at all? In other words, in cases where there is 100% certainty that the person convicted is guilty of the crime that they are convicted of, is the death penalty appropriate?

Second: Is the death penalty justifiable given the consideration that people may wrongfully be convicted?

I hope to show here that the death penalty is justifiable on both of these counts.

Establishing the first point is essential, because if there are no cases where the death penalty is justifiable then there is no point even discussing the second point.

Is the death penalty justifiable in any case, and if so, what cases?

I would say that the death penalty is certainly justifiable in cases of "cold blooded" murder and torture. If someone kills another human being for "no good reason", then this person should be put to death. What constitutes "no good reason"? Intentionally killing someone for enjoyment, out of callous disregard for their life, or in order to cover-up another crime.

Killing someone in self defense, even while committing a crime, should not warrant a death penalty because this is a case of natural self preservation, despite the fact that it is ultimately a result of another initial crime. Small crimes can escalate beyond what the perpetrator anticipated and result in the killing of someone that the criminal had no intention of killing originally. This should not warrant the death penalty.

I do not think that any crime of passion should warrant the death penalty, because these are emotionally enraged acts of violence that most likely don't reflect on the person's overall demeanor or intentions. Crimes of passion are not justifiable, but they are understandable.

Why is the death penalty justifiable in the cases mentioned? Because the person committing the crime has broken the most essential social contract. The most essential social contract is that we will not kill each other senselessly. You are free to live on this planet as long as you abide by the rule that you don't kill other people for no good reason. Once you violate that rule, then your time is done - you have demonstrated that you do not deserve to live. Killing individuals who are a threat to society and who themselves have callous disregard for life is perfectly natural and part of maintaining a healthy population. Rehabilitation or not makes no difference. What good works can be done to undo the killing of people for no good reason? None. Nothing can redeem that act, and there should be no reason why we should keep people alive or allow people to live who have broken the most important social contract, which is not to kill other people without cause.

Killing a killer does not "make you as bad as the killer".

Forcing society to pay for the maintenance of the lives of killers indefinitely is a crime against society. That the family of the victims of murder have to pay for the meals and medical care of the person who killed their loved ones is a crime. Literally what is happening with a life sentence is that someone's loved ones are killed, and then they have to give up a portion of the value that they produce every day to the person who killed their loved one. It's like if you are a farmer and someone murdered your child for fun, and then you had to take a portion of the food that you harvest every day and give it to that person for the rest of your life. That person's murder of your child then makes them a dependent of yours. That's exactly what prison is and how prison functions. Prison punishes the victims as well as the criminals, because we all have to pay for it.

If you are a part of society (which everyone who is in contact with any other human is) then you have an obligation to society not to murder people. When you make the choice to kill another human being for no good reason you have given up your right to life. It's a very simple rule.

Now for the second point. Many people claim that we should not have a death penalty because the justice system is not perfect and we inevitably condemn innocent people to death. People get wrongfully convicted all the time. It is a tragedy of life that is so far impossible to solve. The reality, however, is that people who are given a death sentence are far more likely to have a wrongful conviction overturned than anyone else. The fact that it is a death sentence means that these people receive extra attention. Wrongful convictions where there is a death sentence are more likely to get overturned than life sentences.

All wrongful convictions are an injustice. Serving life in prison if you didn't commit a crime is hardly less a tragedy of justice than being put to death if you didn't commit the crime. The fact is that if you are actually innocent of the crime you stand a higher chance of having your conviction overturned and being set free if you are on death row than if you are serving life in prison.

Furthermore, it has been demonstrated many times that the death penalty can be a useful bargaining chip to get defendants to cooperate with an investigation. The threat of the death penalty has been shown many times to lead to cooperation by murderers that helps to solve the crimes that they have committed.

People who have committed senseless murder deserve to be put to death. In fact, in cases where there is 100% certainty that the conviction is correct I think the death sentence should be carried out within weeks. In cases like those of Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer, etc., there is no reason that the death sentence should not be carried out almost immediately.

Not only is the death penalty completely justifiable, but it actually increases the accuracy of the justice system. I do feel, however, that the death penalty is not correctly used in America today. First of all, there are dozens of people on death row who have been sentenced to death on crimes committed as juveniles. Most of these people killed a male, often their father or step father, who was abusing their mother. These conviction are an outrage. To sentence a teenager to death for killing the abuser of their mother, or the sexual abuser of them self or a sibling, is a complete reversal of justice, yet this is the case in our justice system today.

Secondly, the death penalty is unevenly applied based on race, and this is an outrage. The problem, however, is not the death penalty itself, but rather the laws and the justice system. The fact still remains that wrongfully convicted blacks are more likely to be set free from death row than from a life sentence due to the extra scrutiny of their cases.

I support the death penalty and actually think that it's use should be expanded, but the inequities and injustices in the system definitely deserve much attention and need to be corrected.

As for Stanley Williams, if he was guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted, then he deserved the death penalty. His execution should serve as his ultimate lesson to the youth he claimed to be committed to helping. The lesson is simple. This is not a game, and being in a gang and committing crime is not cool or a means to fame and you aren't going to be forgiven if you kill people. Don't get involved and don't do the crime, because you aren't going to be a hero, you are going to be executed. It's not glamorous, it's real. Stanley Williams is not a hero. The heroes are the guys and girls that grew up in the same neighborhood as Stanley and went on to become successful and productive members of society, who are now raising their own families, instead of destroying families. Those are the real heroes, not Stanley.

Topic: Semi-random Thoughts
Bill O'Reilly and other conservatives are continuing to spread the 50 year old "War on Christmas" myth. They claim that "secularists" are trying to undermine the Christian roots of the Christmas holiday, by using phrases like "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", etc.

First of all, as an atheist I can tell you that I, and my like minded acquaintances, am perfectly happy with Christmas. I have always celebrated Christmas and will continue to do so. I say Merry Christmas and I have a Christmas tree.

The irony is that so much of Christmas isn't Christian in the first place. That the "War on Christmas" crowd complains about the use of the phrase "Happy Holidays" is also quite ironic because the word "holiday" comes from "Holy-Day". "Holidays" used to all be "Holy Days" in the Roman tradition.

First of all, virtually every part of Christmas comes from "pagan" tradition, not Christianity. About the only part of Christmas that is "Christian" is the name.

The date of Christmas comes from the Roman celebration of Natalis Solis Invictus, a.k.a. Saturnalia. The holiday was a celebration of the rebirth of the Sun God after the winter solstice. This was the major holiday in Rome, and it was co-opted by Christians who lived in Rome because it was a traditional Roman celebration. Once Christianity became the religion of Rome the holiday became officially adopted by the Christians.

That's just the beginning. All of the following traditions come to us from "pagan" (pagan just means non-Abrahamic) culture:

• Christmas Trees
  
• Mistletoe
  
• Poinsettia
  
• Holly
  
• Wreaths
  
• Exchanging gifts
  
• Elves
  
• Santa Clause
  
• Bell ringing
  
• Caroling
  
• Yule log
  
• Fruit Cake
  
• Magical reindeer
  
• Winged angels
  

All of these aspects of Christmas are originally from the winter solstice celebrations of various "pagan" cultures. So as you can see, Christmas was never very Christian in the first place.

Additionally, after the Protestant Reformation most Protestant groups, especially those from England and early America, rejected Christmas as a pagan practice.

Christmas was actually made illegal in many American colonies by the Puritans and Pilgrims. Where it wasn't illegal it was still not popular.

Christmas didn't become a nationally recognized holiday until after the Civil War.

As much as Christians now lament the "commercialization of Christmas", it was actually the commercial interests that made Christmas popular in America in the first place. In the late 1800s department stores and other businesses are the ones who made Christmas what it is today. Christmas in America has ALWAYS been highly commercial, largely secular, and mixed with a wide variety of cultural traditions.

The other irony is that guys like Bill O'Reilly are really complaining about the effects of free-market capitalism. They complain about the fact that Christmas has become too commercial and that terms like "Happy Holidays" are becoming more widely used.

Well, Christmas is so commercial because we live in a capitalist society, which Bill O'Reilly claims is God's gift to mankind. Which is it Bill, are you pro-capitalist or anti-capitalist?

Likewise, terms such as Happy Holidays are being used because corporations want to include as many people as possible and not be exclusive. It's another product of a free-market system. As a company do I want to market only to Christians, or also to Jews and people of other faiths (since just about every culture and religion celebrates around this season)?

Don't forget that many of the country's major department stores are based out of the major cities like New York and L.A.

These cities tend to be much more cosmopolitan than "red state America", and thus the people who set policy for these department stores are much more sensitive to multiculturalism.

Why is our country run by multiculturalists from the "blue states"? Because of free-market capitalism. Free-market capitalism is both liberalizing and centralizing. The free-market tends to move towards inclusiveness and new ideas. Capitalism tends to centralizes economic means and power. What the conservatives are really railing against with their "War on Christmas" rants is free-market capitalism.

Why don't people like Bill O'Reilly and other Christians just come out and admit that they are anti-capitalists?

At any rate, as an atheist I am perfect happy and comfortable with Christmas, as well as Christian Christmas carols and nativity scenes. I mean, since all the nativity scenes are built wrong anyway, what is the harm?

All nativity scenes are anti-Biblical, since the Bible says that when the wise men (the Bible doesn't say how many wise men) visited Jesus he was living in a house and was a young boy. The Christian nativity scenes just prove again how little they read their own holy book. It seems that Christians can't get anything right about their religion and few of them have any knowledge of it. Maybe a good Christian activity for Christmas would be to read the Bible and try to find inspiration for their Christmas celebrations there, where they can see that there is no such celebration in the Bible and that all of their traditions are either wrongly practices or are pagan traditions.

All the while, I will happily sing Christmas songs, and decorate my Christmas tree, and enjoy the holiday season.

There is no war on Christmas. The reality is that Christmas never was what the Christians claim that is was. It was never a Christian holiday in the first place, and it was made popular in America BY commercialism, not as a religious holiday.

Merry Christmas!!!

Topic: Commentary
As I am sure everyone knows, the Bush administration has been heavily defending its use of "intelligence" leading up to the war. They continue to claim that they were looking at all of the same intelligence that everyone else was, and that everyone who voted for the war came to the same conclusion that they did, because the intelligence at the time indicated that Saddam had weapons, weapons programs, etc.

Furthermore, the Democrats have responded by claiming that they didn't really have "all" the "intelligence", insinuating that if they did have all the intelligence they would have voted differently.

Shame on both parties.

Yes, it is true that the Congress didn't have every last drop of information that the President had, but they had more than enough information to know that the Bush justifications for war were bogus.

I know for a fact that any reasonable person could see that the Bush justifications for war were flawed before the war started, because I took the time to document the Bush justifications for war before the war started, which led to the creation of this web site.

When President Bush made the statement that the Iraqis were trying to buy uranium from Africa in his State of the Union Address I was flabbergasted, because I, a normal citizen, who only had access to publicly available information, already knew that the uranium story had been refuted.

There is no possible way that I could have known that the uranium story was false and Bush didn't know that it was false, no possible way. All you had to do was read the news to know that half of what Bush was saying was false before the war even started. Granted, you couldn't find the information in the mass media, but there were news sources that carried the information.

Every major claim that the Bush administration made about going to war based on a threat posed by Saddam Hussein was proven false BEFORE the war started.

Where were the Democrats on this at the time? They were cowed by public opinion is where they were. They didn't want to be called unpatriotic, anti-American, "extreme leftists", terrorist supporters, etc. during the height of Bush's approval, when every major news organization was running programs calling "Hollywood liberals" traitors to the country because they opposed the war. The Democrats were afraid of getting the "Dixie Chick" treatment.

Now, I can forgive the Democrats for this, but they need to admit it, instead of doing what many of them, like John Kerry, are doing and falsely claiming that the only reason they voted for the war was because they didn't have all the intelligence and they were mislead.

Bull crap! Yes, the president was trying to mislead them, but they had the information needed to see that he was wrong and they failed to act. They should admit that they voted for the war because it was popular instead of doing what John Kerry is doing, which is further distorting the facts to make it look like they couldn't have known better.

The Democrats are now just as guilty as Bush in trying to cover up their tracks and perpetuating lies and distortions about how we were pushed into this irresponsible war.

The truth is that the Bush administration was pushing, and the Democrats were too weak and afraid to stand up to him, and that's how we got into this war. Yes, the Bush administration is mostly to blame, but the Democrats must take some of the blame as well, because they were too afraid to stand up for what was right at the time.

Shut-up, fall in line, get behind the leader. That's all they did, and now they are trying to have it both ways.

To be honest, I think that the American public would gain much more respect for the Democrats if they would just admit that they were wrong and that they bowed to public pressure. Becoming a partner in the crime of distorting the historical record is no way to be a part of the solution and to oppose the Bush administration. Their approach leaves them fighting with one hand tied behind their backs, because they can't bring the best evidence to light, because the best evidence will show that the Democrats had enough information to know that the justifications for war were false before the war started.

For references to claims made by the Bush administration that were known to be false prior to start of the war see:

The Bush administration has repeatedly lied to support the war

Topic: Semi-random Thoughts
With the nomination of judge Sam Alito to the Supreme Court by George Bush much is being discussed about his "judicial philosophy". In these discussions the issue of State's Rights often comes up with commentators stating that his position on State's Rights is one of the aspects that defines judge Alito as "a conservative".

"State's Rights" is actually neither a "conservative" nor a "liberal" issue. In all of the comments I have heard on the State's Rights issue from sources ranging from NPR to the New York Times to MSNBC to FOX News, none of the commentators, including supposed Constitutional experts, seemed to have any understanding of why the issue of "State's Rights" has been interpreted as a "conservative" vs "liberal" issue. In fact, several went on to give explanations of why interpreting the Constitution in such a way as to reserve rights to the States is "conservative", while all of them failed to address any of the real history of the issue of State's Rights.

Having said that, I will now explain why the issue of "State's Rights" as been interpreted as a "conservative" vs "liberal" issue.

First it is important to note that there is nothing inherently "progressive" or "conservative" about at which level laws are made, State or Federal. The laws themselves are what are either progressive or conservative.

The reason why conservatives have generally advocated for State Sovereignty is that the Federal government has generally been more progressive than certain State governments, especially in the South. There are several different major times when these issues were very significant.

When the United States Constitution was written there were major conflicts between the interests of the State governments and the Framers of the Constitution. The Framers of the Federal Constitution were liberal progressives who spent a lot of time and effort making sure that there was division of powers written into the Federal Constitution and that there were many protections for individual rights written into the Constitution.

The Framers, especially James Madison, viewed many of the State governments as oppressive. While the Framers took great care to dilute power at the Federal level, many of the State constitutions were written to concentrate power. Many of the States were like small kingdoms.

That most of us carried into the Convention a profound impression, produced by the experienced inadequacy of the old Confederation, and by the monitory examples of all similar ones, ancient and modern, as to the necessity of binding the States together by a strong Constitution, is certain. The necessity of such a Constitution was enforced by the gross and disreputable inequalities which had been prominent in the internal administrations of most of the States.
- James Madison from letter to John G. Jackson, Dec. 27, 1821

Besides, some States have no bills of rights, there are others provided with very defective ones, and there are others whose bills of rights are not only defective, but absolutely improper; instead of securing some in the full extent which republican principles would require, they limit them too much to agree with the common ideas of liberty.

...

I wish also, in revising the constitution, we may throw into that section, which interdict the abuse of certain powers in the State Legislatures, some other provisions of equal, if not greater importance than those already made. The words, "No State shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law," &c. were wise and proper restrictions in the constitution. I think there is more danger of those powers being abused by the State Governments than by the Government of the United States. The same may be said of other powers which they possess, if not controlled by the general principle, that laws are unconstitutional which infringe the rights of the community. I should therefore wish to extend this interdiction, and add, as I have stated in the 5th resolution, that no State shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases; because it is proper that every Government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights. I know, in some of the State constitutions, the power of the Government is controlled by such a declaration; but others are not. I cannot see any reason against obtaining even a double security on those points; and nothing can give a more sincere proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security I have now proposed; because it must be admitted, on all hands, that the State Governments are as liable to attack the invaluable privileges as the General Government is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded against.
- James Madison, Introduction of the Bill of Rights (1789)

The colonies were ruled, after all, mainly by governors that were appointed by the King of England, at least at some point in their history. The State rules were often very protective of their powers and it took great work to get the States to cooperate and allow things like free trade between States etc. Many of the States wanted the ability to use tariffs on interstate trade as a way to fill the State coffers, etc.

Furthermore, there was the issue of slavery. Most of the Federal Framers wanted to abolish slavery, but many States made it known that they would not give up slavery in order to enter the union. Basically, slavery was a deal breaker issue for the Southern States. In order to get around this issue the Framers decided to adopt this concept of how State's Rights were originally interpreted.

The Framers didn't want slavery and they didn't want the Federal Constitution to be supportive of slavery, yet they knew that they also had to allow it in order to make the new government work. The solution was to leave slavery issues mostly out of the Federal Constitution and state that any rights not granted in the Federal Constitution defaulted to the States. This put the "responsibility" for slavery on the shoulders of the States.

The Framers wanted the Bill of Rights to overrule State law, such that the States would not be able to pass any laws that contradicted the Federal Constitution, and we also know that the Framers wanted the Federal government to have more power over the States than what it had because they saw the Federal Constitution as more protective of liberty than many of the State constitutions, some of which they considered to be dictatorial in nature.

Nevertheless, the slavery issue had them in a bind, so they had to allow more States rights than what they thought prudent in order to absolve the Federal Constitution from responsibility for slavery. The way States rights were interpreted was like a nod and a wink to the States to say "we don't like slavery or want to support it, but we know that we can't stop you from having it, so as long as the Federal Constitution doesn't say that you can't, then you can assume that you can."

So, from that point, the proponents of slavery were the major supporters of "State Sovereignty".

The next major conflict between State's Rights and the Federal government again relates to slavery. The Civil War. The Southern States said that they were succeeding because their State Sovereignty was being usurped by the Federal Government.

After the Civil War the 14th Amendment was passed, much to the chagrin of the Southern States. The 14th Amendment did what James Madison wanted done originally, extended the power of the Federal Constitution over the States.

The actions of the Federal government were seen negatively in the South, where the Federal government was the one that forced Reconstruction policy on the South that the Southern States didn't want, like allowing blacks to vote and own property, etc. Again the Southern conservatives complained about "State's Rights".

This continued on.

In the 1940s anti-lynching laws were passed by the Federal government and "forced" onto the States.

In the 1950s the Federal government forced the Southern States to integrate their schools and other public institutions, again usurping "State's Rights".

In the 1960s the Federal government put an end to the Jim Crow laws in the South with Federal legislation.

It is from these acts that the conservatives have come to defend "State's Rights". On all of the really major issues in American history, the Southern conservative States have tried to hide behind "State's Rights" in order to defend their own abuse of State power to oppress minorities and regulate society. The Founding Fathers detested this abuse of State power, and its a major reason why the Federal Constitution was written in the first place, instead of just keeping the Articles of Confederation.

The liberal Founders wanted to ensure that they created a secure Constitution that would guarantee rights to people and protect freedom, because they knew that many of the State constitutions did not protect freedom, indeed they abused power.

Now, whether a policy is set by the State or the Federal government is not a "liberal" or "conservative" issue. Who sets the policy has no impact on the effect of the policy, other than making it regional or national. The policy itself is what is either liberal or conservative. It is just the case that in the history of the United States the Southern conservatives have often found themselves at odds with the Federal government, and thus they have been supporters of "State's Rights", because that served their cause at the time (or rather it failed to serve their causes because they lost on every count).

If the policy that the Federal government seeks to enact is conservative, however, then the conservatives will want Federal law to trump State law. There is every reason to believe that if a bill were signed into law that made abortion illegal nationally that the far-right would support Federal law overruling State law such that States could not even make it legal if they wanted to, just like States cannot make cocaine use legal even if they want to.

So, I find all of this talk of how "State Sovereignty" is a conservative characteristic quite absurd. There is nothing inherently conservative or liberal about State Sovereignty. If a State passed laws that made gay marriage legal, allowed public nudity, made recreational drugs legal, and required that all public officials be atheists, and then the legislators argued in favor of State Sovereignty they wouldn't be considered a conservative just because they were favoring State's Rights.

Likewise, the fact that conservatives have been the ones trying to stop progress by hiding behind State's Rights doesn't actually make State Sovereignty a conservative issue.

Topic: Semi-random Thoughts
The Bush presidency is an absolute disaster. The worst part is that we actually have no idea how bad it really is. We have recently learned about the incompetence of Michael Brown as director of FEMA, but how many more Michael Browns are there still at work in the administration? We do know that George Bush has made more political appointments than just about any other president in history. He has put his friends and relatives into positions of power throughout the government and these people have no real experience or ability to do the jobs needed.

Even worse, however, are the competent people that he has put into government positions, for they have been busy dismantling and undermining our government institutions for the past 5 years. The Environmental Protection Agency is a prime example. This agency has been turned from an agency that is used to protect the environment into an agency used to help corporations exploit the environment at the public expense.

The budget deficits that have been reported are really nothing compared to the full extent of the debt that is being created by the Bush administration. The National Debt is now $8 trillion, and the 2005 budget deficit is projected to be $319 billion.

This doesn’t really tell the whole story though, because the Bush administration has completely wrecked the government, and the cost to repair the damage that he has done could easily be in the hundreds of billions as well.

This has been one of the most secretive, if not the most secretive, administrations in the history of the country. At the same time the Bush administration has engaged in the most significant restructuring of the federal government since the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s.

Where is the oversight? There is none! The press? Yeah right, the press isn’t doing any investigative reporting, they just “report” on press releases. All the press does is sit there and wait for government agencies and corporations to send them information; they don’t go out and get any information. If the press is reporting on this government as good as they reported on Enron, as I suspect that they are, then we will be in for a huge surprise when a new administration comes in and pulls the covers off the works of the Bush administration.

Other government agencies? Yeah right, all of the dissenters are continuously silenced by the Bush administration.

No telling what kind of nonsense and destruction is taking place within our government institutions, and from the little we have been able to learn, what is taking place is ill conceived, poorly done, counter productive, or is an act of dismantling.

When Bush leaves office we will find that the government he has left in his wake is going to be one that is even more bankrupt than what anyone has yet reported.

What really needs to be done, aside from impeaching Bush for deception in leading the nation into war and incompetence, is that an independent audit of the federal government needs to begin right now! This won’t happen of course, but what will happen is that the next administration that takes office is going to face monumental challenges and will likely have to spend its entire time just repairing the damage done by Bush.

I honestly don’t see how the Bush administration can stay in power of three more years. The level of incompetence that has been publicly exposed at this point is extremely troubling, and what is even more troubling is that we are likely only seeing the tip of the iceberg.

Topic: Commentary
The Movie: Good Night, and Good Luck

I saw Good Night, and Good Luck last night and I was disappointed with the film. For one thing the sound track has a highly annoying background buzz that goes on throughout the movie, which is supposed to make it sound like an old movie, but to me it was just a complete distraction and created unneeded tension.

I don’t care for those types of techniques, because regardless of whatever artful quality there may be to it, its impractical. When art gets in the way of utility that’s a problem. There were many elderly people watching the movie and I can imagine that it made it quite difficult for them to hear and understand, especially when the talking was low.

Moving on to the screenplay itself, I didn’t care that much for the movie because I feel that it comes far short of being a good historical account of the McCarthy era, yet it also failed to have much of a dramatic storyline as well.

In other words, the movie is really only about McCarthyism, but it doesn’t really give a very full account of McCarthyism, so, to me, it was like the worst of both worlds. It was less informative than a documentary and less entertaining than a drama.

What caught my attention most in the whole movie was actually a small address from Eisenhower towards the end. What struck me, however, was the irony of the fact that what Eisenhower said was completely wrong. The statement Eisenhower made was the following:

"Why are we proud? We are proud, first of all, because from the beginning of this Nation, a man can walk upright, no matter who he is, or who she is. He can walk upright and meet his friend - or his enemy; and he does not feel that because that enemy may be in a position of great power that he can be suddenly thrown in jail to rot there without charges and with no recourse to justice. We have the habeas corpus act, and we respect it.

The statement was presented as Eisenhower saying the “right thing” and condemning McCarthy’s tactics by pointing out how “un-American” McCarthy’s tactics were themselves.

However, this statement reflects one of the biggest problems in all of American society - the American inability to honestly address or even comprehend our past. What Eisenhower said sounded good and noble, and when he said it he was doing so to condemn judicial injustice, which is a good thing, however it is not true that every man and women has known justice in America, and the even greater irony is that grave injustice existed in America at the very time he was making that statement.

To say that from the founding of the nation all men could walk upright and be proud of who they were and face their enemies is to completely ignore the reality of slavery and Native American genocide. As he made that very speech there were millions of blacks in America who were not walking upright and proud of who they were, and they were not able to face their enemies.

One of the major problems with white society in America has been the continuing inability to really understand the full history and full nature of American history and society. To reflect positively on American society of the late 1700s as if everything were well and good is to completely ignore that 20% of the population of the country were slaves at that time and that hundreds of thousands of Natives were being systematically disenfranchised and exterminated.

On a message board about this movie a self-described conservative was talking about how he supported capitalism and opposed communism because the Founders were capitalists, which isn’t even true. Capitalism didn’t even exist when America was founded and the Founders were almost all slave owners whose wealth was generated on the backs of slaves. I consider most of the Founders to have been good people in bad times, but for this conservative to idealize the economic roots of America only goes further to show how out of touch Americans really are with our own history and the realities of our own society.

I just found it ironic that George Clooney put the clip of Eisenhower in the movie to make a statement that the actions of McCarthy went against the “history of freedom” in “our great nation”, but in reality all it did was show how deluded we really are, because what was said wasn’t even true in the first place, it was just one more example of the depths of American mythology.

Topic: Commentary
The "Intelligent Design" case currently being tried in Pennsylvania courts is being billed as Scopes II, but in reality it's more like the Inquisition because the trial isn't about the facts, it's about protecting certian beliefs. Just like during the Inquisition, even the defenders of evolution are trying to protect themselves by claiming that the teaching doesn't contradict "the faith".

Interestingly, the promoters of "Intelligent Design" claim that ID is not a religiously based view, and that it is a scientific "theory". In reality it could only be considered a scientific hypothesis at best, but nevertheless the questions and comments in the trial keep going back to religion anyway.

The climate is so religiously hostile, in fact, that the supporters of evolution are bending over backwards to present evolution as compatible with Christianity.

The Miami Herald reported:

Faith and reason called compatible

"An expert witness who has sharply criticized the teaching of the 'intelligent design' theory of life's origins testified Tuesday that faith and reason are compatible."

"'I believe not only that they are compatible but that they are complementary,' said Miller, who earlier told the court he was a practicing Roman Catholic.

Miller also backed off a statement in a 1995 biology textbook he co-wrote that said evolution was 'random and undirected.' Miller said he missed that reference by a co-author and that he did not believe evolution was random and undirected."

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports:

Court test is near for 'intelligent design'

"But Americans in general, and conservative Christians in particular, are much less convinced.

In a recent survey,... 64 percent - supported the teaching of creationism along with evolution."

"[Barry Lynn, of Americans United for Separation of Church and State] said that for students to be told that 'evolution is true and your silly Bible stories are false would also be unconstitutional.' Religion, in either a positive or negative manner, has no place in a science classroom, he said."

"The American Scientific Affiliation, an organization of scientists who are Christians, does not support or oppose intelligent design, said executive director Randall Isaac. He said a false choice had been created in the debate over evolution, making it seem that one cannot believe both in evolution and in God.

'You don't have to pick between one or the other,' Isaac said. 'Evolution is very important to be taught in the schools. But we really need to ensure that a public school doesn't denigrate anyone's religion.'"

Actually, this is the problem with the American education system. The problem with American education is that we have taken the position that we can only teach in a way that does not contradict anyone's religious beliefs, yet the history of progress is the history of knowledge over religious belief.

America is now the most religiously diverse country in the world. People here hold all number of different, and often absurd, religious beliefs. To claim that our education system shouldn't "denigrate anyone's religion" is to completely give up on the purpose of education.

The purpose of education is to teach people what is true and help them understand the real world. If someone's religious beliefs contradict what we know about the real world (as virtually all religious beliefs in the history of mankind have done) then we have to be able to teach them, and be able to prove to them, how and why their beliefs are wrong. If we fail to do this then we fail to educate.

Indeed we have failed to do this in America, and this is the primary root cause of the demise of the education system in America.

After World War II the United States was able to become the world leader in education because of our vast resources and the fact that every other major country in the world was in turmoil. What we never did in this country, however, was provide our children with a consistent worldview. In America we teach our children a disconnected collection of facts, and we do it in a way that no real conclusions about life can be drawn from the facts. We actually go out of our way not to provide our children with a worldview out of "respect" for everyone's different and independent worldviews.

The result is that Americans are growing increasingly disconnected and feeling increasingly lost. Americans try to wield secular knowledge within a religious framework, and ultimately this results in not making sense of either the religious world or the real world.

Looking at the other countries of the world, however, we see a consistent pattern. All of the most well educated countries in the world are also the least religious.

A study released on September 27th showed that the United States of America is continuing to fall behind other countries of the world in education. CNN reported that top performers in education include Finland, South Korea, the Netherlands, Japan, Canada and Belgium.

U.S. world position in education slipping

Below is a graph of the most atheistic countries in the world. As you can see, Finland, South Korea, the Netherlands, Japan, Canada and Belgium are also among the most atheistic countries in the world and America has the least atheists out of the top 50.



This isn't a coincidence. As science and human knowledge continue to progress the United States is going to continue to fall farther and farther behind in education unless Americans are able to embrace non-religious worldviews that correspond to the facts and reality of the world around us.

Furthermore, research has shown that the countries in which evolution is most widely accepted are also the countries with the lowest rates of social dysfunction. Crime, abortion, murder, poverty and teen pregnancy are all lowest in the most atheistic countries where evolution is fully accepted and people have atheistic worldviews. Not only do these countries have better functioning societies, but they are also advancing in education, technology, and understanding at rates that are leaving America farther and farther behind.

Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'

To contradict this fact many people will claim that America still has the most advanced research institutes and universities, however the fact here is that the majority of scientists in America are atheistic and the majority of grad students in the fields of science and engineering come from Europe and Asia.

Right now over half of the grad students in engineering in America are here on visas from a foreign country. America cannot produce its own scientists and engineers because we don't provide our children with either a school system or a culture that is capable of actually giving them the knowledge and understanding needed to excel in the sciences.