Think, Think AgainConsidering and reconsidering at its best …

Flooded with emails, Facebook posts, and headlines, I’ve been asked too many times where I stand on the “Mosque at Ground Zero”. If this were a matter of clicking a “yes” or “no” survey designed to cash in on my email address, it wouldn’t be worth weighing in. But it isn’t, so I will.

Our response to events is more telling of what is going on than the events themselves. Many arguments lay between questionable assumptions and generalizations bordering on bigotry.

Our very words betray our sentiments. The building in question is a rennovation or replacement of an existing building, not “at” but NEAR Ground Zero. Semantics? Yes, not without import. Conversely, the building is being rebranded as a cultural community center, though it will be used as a mosque as well. Semantics? Yes, and well played PR, but not untrue. Is it being funded by the likes of fanatic imams? Perhaps.

Whatever its purpose, it is why people THINK it is there that seems to count — what it represents. Given the public’s association between 9-11 and Islam, is it insensitive? That’s in the eye of the beholder. But to challenge a quickly spreading analogy, why NOT build a Shinto shrine on the banks of Pearl Harbor? It’s not like placing an American airbase on the ruins of Nagasaki. Or is it? A community center built by people following a religion claimed by extremist adherents as the motivation for the attack does have the air of an enemy planting a flag in victory.

But the larger historical context eludes us. “Islamofascism” is part of a realtively modern, regional, post-colonial resentment toward the West, making up a few small yet influential groups among the 12% of Muslims that are Arabic. But those responsible claimed to act in the name of Allah, so Islam is the flag we see in our minds, not Al Qaeda.

We forget that the targets were chosen deliberately, and why. The World Trade Center was emblematic of the financial, not cultural center of the entire West. A Cathedral wasn’t on the list, though Capitol buildings were targeted, since in the minds of most people from East to West, Washington is the center of political power among the perceived oppressors of the Middle East.

Yet Muslims died in those towers along with people from more countries than I can name — the act was as indiscriminate as our present attitude toward an entire world faith. The religious rationalizations for the attack are now eclipsed by our rationalizations against Islam in general. I have heard all the arguments quoting the Qur’an I can bear, and have to bite the few fingers I type with not to remind my Judeo-Christian brethren of the condoned genocides of a wrathful Old Testament G-d giving license to a chosen people over their neighbors. Maybe the lesson we should agree on is that “even the Devil can quote scripture for his own ends”, so judging people by the books they cherish is less than fair.

Even so, the role of Islam cannot be ignored. The question is if it was an excuse or a cause — if Islam breeds terrorism, or was hijacked by it. Throughout all history, people have justified the most condemnable actions with religion. And political ideology. And retribution for social injustice. And a call for everything from genetic purity to elbow room for a superior, and therefore entitled race. I’m sadly confident we’ll come up with even more creative excuses in our new century. But we are stuck arguing about the “true nature” of Islam with examples from early conversion by the sword to the PLO, yet other centuries of peace and tolerance shame Europe’s Crusading and Inquisitorial pursuits. No one wins this battle.

But what are we really afraid of? Is there really a “stealth jihad”? In the minds of some calling themselves devout Muslims, I’m sure that is their secret hope. But how can a quarter of the world’s population, crossing most nations and cultures, be involved in a conspiracy for world domination? It is much like saying Christianity is trying to convert the world because a few million Jehovah’s Witnesses are going door to door explicitly for proselytization. Most Christians don’t want a global theocracy; most Muslims would rather live in the West than blow it up.

Is the institution of Sharia law a concern? Of course it is. It SHOULD be. Heck, we’re still getting rid of old “blue laws” still on the books. But exclusion and resistance to a religious demographic shift in our culture undermines any ideal of pluralism. Can we protect all people’s Freedom of Religion if we create a selective “freedom FROM religion”? In Whatever We Trust, religion as a basis for exclusion is a bigotry between or against religions, and a deplorable game for a culturally diverse society.

I strongly question if anyone can know for certain the full intentions and consequences involved in this building. Strong opinions and fears abound. Let’s take a step back, and consider how the psychological game of culture clash was first set.

Who started the notion that Middle Eastern terrorism is a war between religious ideologies? The terrorists. Why? To foster sympathy for their cause by cultivating extremisim. The whole point of connecting actions with a strong part of cultural identity (religion) is to garner attention and support. And if large numbers of us can be influenced to mentally and then physically take sides in a war (or perceived war) the extremists then can rise from the fringe to great power. It’s a sadly familiar story, isn’t it?

SO WHY ARE WE BUYING INTO IT?

Propaganda based in Muslim fundamentalism strikes a chord with those in the West who are highly ethnocentric, and not just those Christians who reject all outside their flock as damned. Whatever the form it takes, many of us can’t help ourselves respond with an equal but opposite reaction.

It is all the easier since we do have ammunition above scriptural interpretations and historical “proofs”. Some feel other Muslims haven’t condemned their alleged brethern’s actions strongly enough. After all, people are building near the location of a tragedy caused by those claiming to represent those people’s religion. But this is another issue. Being aware we cannot control what ohers think or say, we can still check our own attitudes and reactions.

The base emotional concern for us is that if we let it be built, the terrorists win. And it burns our buns that extremists will likely gloat it as a victory. They take anything they can get.

But what if we don’t let them build it? We can mask our agreement to play the culture wargame with charges of preserving architecture or finding a way to legislate and adjudicate what is and is not bad taste. But it will require us to ignore that “them” is only by exaggerated association the same “them” that brought down the towers. Ironically, this path means the terrorists, in fact and not merely perspective, win. We will have subscribed in action to the rules of their game.

We will not only have given up varying degrees of privacy, movement and rights for the sake of security. We will have given up something far more precious — the ability to decide for ourselves who is our enemy and administer justice selectively according to actions, not wholesale according to cultural identity or association. And we would be exchanging it for institutionalized prejudice, fear, and diminished religious freedom — in my opinion an extremely poor trade.

{Originally Published August 2004}

Suppose your child came home sick from school. Suppose you found out the school nurse treated his fever with a cold shower and his sweaty brow by wiping it dry.

You’d be outraged, because that’s just responding to symptoms. You know that to solve your child’s problem, you must find the cause and treat it.

Congratulations! You know more than most people who complain about globalization.

The latest protest comes from a tech union in Washington, Microsoft’s home state. The word is out that Microsoft plans to let foreign coders work on the next release of Windows®. The union’s solution? Make Microsoft hire Americans. Treat the symptoms, don’t worry about the cause.

Sometimes the truth hurts. Microsoft, the world’s most successful company and an American success story, now believes that some of its software development can be done better and more cheaply overseas. What exactly is going on here?

Some of it is the unavoidable economics of the industry. Microsoft’s
product is information, which thanks to the Internet now zips around the globe at the speed of light. In an economy where national borders matter less and less, work flows towards the most efficient place for it to be done. In the
long run, that benefits everyone.

But even so, there are a lot of financial advantages to hiring close to home.
There was even a time when most software developers were American. When I was in school, companies looking for the best and brightest programmers were desperate for access to American university graduates.

What went wrong? How come programmers in other countries can do better work for less money? The answer lies in understanding that the quality issue (better work) and the quantity issue (less money) are symptoms of the same disease.

American technical professionals are demanding wages out of sync with the
world market for skilled labor. Unfortunately they have to, because it’s
more expensive to live here.

But if we want to solve that problem, we don’t do through protectionist
legislation. That just helps some Americans by hurting others.

Instead we must ask about the oppressive levels of taxation American businesses and citizens bear, the countless regulations that drive up our cost of living, and the unchecked entitlement programs that mortgage our future.

These are painful questions with painful answers. That’s why we don’t hear much about them.

But we also have to think about the quality issue: how other countries are catching up with us in the race for technical excellence. To do that, we’ll have to face up to the abysmal state of American math and science education.

I teach computer science at a world-class university. It’s tough. Even at schools with outstanding students like mine, less than half those who attempt the challenge will graduate with a computer
science degree.

A large part of that is poor math preparation, along with a declining sense of the excitement of math and science among American high school students. This is the exact opposite in Asian countries, where mastery of math and science is seen as a noble goal worth striving for.

Until this problem is solved, we’ll continue to fall behind in the race toward a promising high-tech future.

We can fix the high cost of living in America and our problems with high-tech jobs, but only if we recognize that they both spring from the same bad ideas.

The beliefs behind higher taxes and more regulations are the same ones convincing people that Microsoft’s software belongs to Congress.

The sense of entitlement that funds our bloated federal budget also encourages social promotion in schools and reduces educational rigor.

The ethic that is afraid to make distinctions between right and wrong answers is the same one that tells our brightest students math and science aren’t worth the trouble.

These ideas all need to disappear. We must replace our casual disregard for property with respect for what others have created, even if it’s worth billions. We must replace our collective sense of entitlement with one of personal responsibility, even if the short-term consequences are painful. Finally, we must learn to value earned achievement over unearned self-esteem, even if the results don’t correspond to some arbitrary notion of “fairness”.

Let’s get to it.

{Originally posted September 2004, grammar modified slightly}

George Weigel, a Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, is a Roman Catholic theologian and one of America’s leading commentators on issues of religion and public life. He is the director of the Catholic Studies program at EPPC.

I came across one of his articles, “Defining ‘marriage’ prevents further dismantling of moral culture” in the March issue of the WNY Catholic, which after research found was also published in numerous other publications under different titles.

There are so many commentaries on the subject, but thought it would be a start to go through one of them, by someone who is esteemed in the field of Ethics. I am publishing it here for research purposes only and not to infringe on copyright, and am making attempt to contact the author to join in the discussion.

Just a Note …

I, myself, am a “straight” and married Roman Catholic who came from a traditional family. However, I am in no way homophobic, and respect people of other religions, cultures and lifestyles regardless of differences from my own world-view and circumstance. My approach to such discussions is to attempt understanding of an argument such that the conflicting premises bring themselves out for closer examination, and then, well, examine them! With a formal education in Philosophy and Ethics, and having studied scripture my whole life, along with dabbling in Anthropology, History, and various sciences, I do not shy from debate with anyone, regardless of credentials, for two reasons.

(1) I may learn something or even change my mind for the better.
(2) Credentials are meant to weed out silly debate, but by themselves have little or no weight in the validity of a logical argument. If the objective is truth, the playing field between any two people is even.

Enough said … The article can be found in a couple places online, including HERE.

Let us break down the content and structure of his arguments.

1. It’s not an accident that the proponents of “gay marriage” want to claim the word “marriage.” Gay activists understand that ideas, which have consequences, are formed by words. Everyone knows that, whatever the benefits conferred and whatever the rhetorical chaff surrounding those benefits, a “civil union” is not a “marriage.” Defending the right meaning of words is more than an exercise in semantics; it’s a defense of a public moral culture which recognizes that there are moral truths built into the human condition. …

And also …

2. Culture is made of ideas-shaped-by-words. One of the ways communism tried to destroy civil society and democratic culture was through verbal mendacity: “people’s democracy” was the communist euphemism masking the reality of totalitarianism. If the word “democracy” and what it means was worth defending (and it was), so is the word “marriage.”

This is the point of the article. The definition of “marriage” (or any other word) creates boundries and a framework by which not only people can discuss things, but by which law can be developed and clearly understood. We had enough trouble with giving women the vote when our Declaration of Independence (a political, and not a legal document mind you) declared all MEN equal. And apparently this didn’t mean slaves either, but I digress.

How the word marriage is defined will in many ways dictate the formation and interpreation of civil law. In this point all can be in agreement. I am confident this is why Gay Rights activists won’t settle for “union” status, but equality in words means legal claim to those words and all resulting consequences.

And us philosophers must agree on definition to have a meaningful conversation, as they by default become our premises. So here it is, the rest of argument #1:

One of those truths is that “marriage” – an institution millennia older than the modern state – is “exclusively a union of one man and one woman.” The law’s recognition of that truth is no small thing. If “marriage in the United States is exclusively a union of a man and a woman,” then those who wish to defend the primordial institution of marriage will not be contradicted by the law when we do so.

But this is the problem – there is not agreement on the definition of marriage if we assert one of two things.

(I) Marriage always meant something that does not exclude by its nature such a relationship between same sex individuals.

(II) The definition of marriage has somehow changed or must change to allow for such a relationship between same sex individuals. (This is similar to the problem with the constitution and women’s sufferage.)

We will come back to this, as it appears to be the crux of the entire matter.

3. It’s important that the law help keep public discourse about marriage honest. Doing so strengthens the hand of other institutions committed to defending and promoting stable marriages – institutions like families, churches, synagogues, schools, and voluntary associations. These institutions of civil society are, arguably, even more important than the state in building what Maggie Gallagher of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy calls a “marriage culture.” Their work would be undercut if the legal meaning of “marriage” is changed, i.e., distorted and debased.

This point explains that the problem seen by the author of defining marriage is a cultural and not merely legal one. I think most people would agree, as marriage was a gereally understood phenomenom well before there were distinction between the civic and religious aspects of a community.

Originally, the early Church did not perform marriages (for various reasons) for nearly two centuries. If you were Christian and insisted on getting married, you went to the Roman magistrate. Over the centuries of Christianization (and in the vast majority of the rest of the Western and Near Eastern world), where governemnts were at least partially theocratic, recognized marriages were done by the power of the Church, and looked at (by many to this day) as a God-given institution and even Sacrament.

Strangely, today, the battleground regarding marriage laws is only that – a legal issue. People may banter about in an effort to enforce religious-type mores through a majority in both Houses, but no one brings in the subject of religious freedom as a CONFLICT with law. The Church (in any denomination or religion) does not have final authority over such matters – at all. You simply cannot have a state-recognized marriage without first being granted a civil licence by the municipality in which the service (religious or otherwise) is performed. Why no one questions this is beyond me, but then again, we as a culture (and by law) have a history of placing the taboo on some people being married, a taboo enforced by law.

No, I’m not talking about same-sex marriage (pardon the use of the yet-to-be-agreeably defined term), but of the use of blood tests and other examinations to disclude from such a union the physically and mentally handicapped. I would not doubt there are still laws on the books in many states regarding this.

In any case, we can agree that marriage is an overall SOCIAL phenomenom, with both legal and religious aspects, although the author makes it clear which side of the fence he is on by presupposing a definition that is up for debate, “stable marriages” which, as Weigel’s argument follows, by inclusion of same-sex participation makes the definition of marriage “distorted and debased”. We will deal with this in the course of the discussion.

4. When gay activists talk about the “benefits” of marriage, they’re talking about entitlements granted by the state.

This may be true. But if one would ask why, I don’t think it unreasonable to assume it is obvious. Same-sex couples cannot receive recognition (and the important aspect of equality under the law) any other way, as they cannot find acceptance in mainstream churches or even whole social communities.

Again, I am surprised this issue has not (yet) created a religious schism, or at least an outcropping of new “gay-enabled” denominations such that the state would be compelled to recognize same-sex couples “married” by a church in virtue of basic religious freedoms protected by the Constitution.

However, the author continues this point which almost contradictorily allows for a definition of marriage people on both sides could agree on. Here is the rest …

When advocates of “marriage” rightly understood talk about the “benefits” of marriage, we mean, at least in the first instance, something different. As Gallagher puts it, we mean “the good things that happen when husbands and wives are joined in permanent, public, sexual, emotional, financial, and parenting unions” – we mean the good things that happen to couples, and to the children who grow up in stable families. Legal “benefits” are secondary to these goods, which are public goods, not just state-conferred private goodies.

Only if one assumes the “gay marriage” concept is a fad or political ploy would one think that same-sex couples do not wish the same as the rest of us, namely joining in “permanent, public, sexual, emotional, financial, and parenting unions”. This assumption is spurious at best.

It cannot be denied that there are religious homosexuals in every major denomination, “in the closet” or not. In spite of their second-class status in the supposedly blanket “we are all sinners” category, many are active in the Church. However, many homosexuals denouce formal religion in retaliation of judgement, becoming “Godless” in the eyes of us so graced with religious affiliation, which is our own self-fulfilling prophesy at best.

But back to the point, it is reckless to assume that same-sex partners are some other breed of human that does not have the same physical, financial, emotional, and other familial needs. So this differentiation between definitions of marriage (i.e. “two people” vs. “a man and a woman”) simply does not exist. The difference must lie in other aspects of the word “marriage”.

And yes, I overlooked one other point, that of parenting in a “stable family”, which is a major issue and will be discussed shortly.

5. If the advocates of “gay marriage” succeed in legally claiming the word “marriage,” the notion that sexual love is simply a matter of satisfying personal “needs” will be further enshrined in our law. We’ve already gone too far down that road, thanks to an out-of-control U.S. Supreme Court and misguided initiatives like “no fault” divorce. To lose the word “marriage” is to lose more than the word “marriage” – it’s to lose any idea of sexual love as an expression of sexual complementarity, permanent commitment, and generativity.

This does not follow logically, unless you read it carefully.

Why does changing the gender roles of the participants affect the notion that sexual love is selfish? Is not marriage already an excuse for guilt-free sex? No, I am not suggesting that as a wholesale statement, but while many do beleive this, the opposite is also true – if marriage in our society was about sex, then why all the “living in sin” and otherwise non-marital conujugation? Perhaps this points to a “modern” view (definition?) of marriage not dependent on sexuality of any (particular) kind, but that is at the fringe of the scope of my argument here.

The author’s point follows logically because of his presuppositions about sexual love, in particular in that it is an expression of generativity, which one cannot deny. However, this quality is assumed by the author to be necessary and intrinsic, not as an optional quality.

This is the traditional (Western Judeo-Christian-Islamic) view of marriage. Marriage is for having and raising children. Period. To this day, the catechism of the Catholic Church states there is an “inseperable connection” … “between the unitive significance and the procreative significance” of “the marriage act.” (2366, in fererence to Casti connubii by Pius XI)

We can agree on both sides of the fence in principle but not as an absolute, because in either case are faced with couples (same-sex or opposite-sex) who cannot reproduce. The Church has no remedy for this, as either children come out of the specific act itself or not at all (Catechism, 2376). Instead are words that may seem shocking in tone to some. “The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil” and should “give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.” (Catechism, 2379)

This sets the tone for what I beleive Weigel is implying as the basis for a “stable family.” However, it gives what cannot be taken back. In SOME way, shape, or form, the ability to have children naturally is NOT a pre-requisite for marriage in and of itself.

Are “civil unions” a good idea? No, they’re not. But to cite Maggie Gallagher once again, while “civil unions are one unwise step down a path way from a marriage culture,” so-called “gay marriage” is “the end of the road.” The question of “civil unions” can be dealt with on a state-by-state basis, by legislatures rather than by arrogant courts. The question of what “marriage” means requires a binding and unambiguous national solution in which the word “marriage” reflects the human and moral reality of marriage.

This is a political observation, and apart from the assertion of a negative value judgment, is correct in and of itself. A binding and unambiguous national solution should reflect the human and moral reality of marriage. BUT THIS IS WHAT THE DEBATE IS ABOUT! If we assume that defining marriage to include same-sex couples is morally wrong or inconsistent with human nature, then Weigel is absolutely right. But if we do not challenge and honestly evaluate this assumption, we run the risk of alienating a whole segment of God’s people, forcing them to unecsessarily live a lie or contradiction in their faith, as well an depriving them of a sacrament and formal committment that would eliminate the need for non-marital relations.

Yes, this is a moutful that some will applaud and others cover their mouths in shock. It is not a purely logical argument as much as a plea. But it is a legitimate position that cannot be ignored.

So let’s get to work …

Defining “marriage” for what it is is a good in itself. Defining “marriage” for what it is is good for children. And defining “marriage” for what it is erects a barrier to the further dismantling of a public moral culture that, by recognizing the truths embedded in human nature and human action, is capable of sustaining democracy.

We can all vote for that (except I have NO idea what the author means to tie in the viability of democracy with the nature of marriage in social structure), but THE DIFFERENCE is in what we believe is “good for the children” and what are the “truths” embedded in human nature and action.

These are not “plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face” axioms. If they were, there would be little or no debate. There is a LOT of debate. There are a lot of people who do not take for granted Weigel’s commonly-held assumptions about human nature and the nature of marriage. This is what we must explore.

Defining Marriage

I am asserting here that it is a viable position to say the “traditional” view of marriage is NOT consistent with history, anthropology, or even scriptural study. It is a product of the Christian West and is based in a particular form of marriage used by the Jews at the time of Christ.

All three disciplines agree that polygamy was acceptable (at one time or another), as was concubinage and even slavery. I am not making a moral judgment about any of these – I am stating a fact.

Sidenote: Christ, who respected marriage covenants in the utmost, when confronted over the “legal” nature of marriage (religiously and socially, mind you), merely brushed it all aside as nonsense, saying “At the resurrection, people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” (Matthew 22:30, NIV) But as this can be interpreted as not pertinent to our current temporal existence, I leave it only as food for more metaphysical thought.

The fact is that from time immemorial, marriage as a unified definition over these disciplines can only be seen in one of two ways, both denying Weigel’s claim that marriage, “an institution millennia older than the modern state” is “exclusively a union of one man and one woman.” (Argument #1) Here are the two possible natures of a definition based on history, anthropology, and scripture.

(1) Marriage is extremely inclusive in that the ideal has not changed, but has expressed itself in many different ways in many different cultures over the centuries, such as polygamy, marriage simply as sexual consumation, concubinism (for child-bearing or pleasure). Other forms of marriage, though not recognized by traditional (Western) religion are also the norm in many other cultures and societies, and in light of evolution, we can find such varied reflections in the social structure of higher primates or any other creature.

(2) Marriage evolves or changes to suit the needs of man’s societies. This is similar to the concept that God does not change, but theology does.

Either of these could be true, but denial of same-sex participation is usually accompanied with even worse premises, namely that homosexuality itself is a mental illness, unnatural, and or unhealthy in both relationships in general and families in specific.

Here are the facts by which to judge these premises, which are otherwise mere socially acceptable opinions and prejudices:

Homosexuality is found not only in every culture of the world, but also in most other species’ behavior, including primates. It can mean dominance or sexual gratificalion, which aren’t necessarily virtues we wish to extoll as humans, but that is not the question. If it occurs in nature and occurs consistently in HUMAN nature, moral or not, it is natural.

The question of morality is a complex one that could entail endless discussion, so let us assume (for now) that all other things equal, homosexuality is amoral. We can deal with that at the end.

On an important sidenote, we are not all created (born) male and female – a small segment of the human population clearly has characteristics of both or neither, with unusual chromosonal content to boot. Do these people have a place to share in the sacrament of marriage? Such cases may or may not be in the extreme, but worthy of entering into the equation somewhere.

The writers of earlier versions of the DSM classified homosexuality as an illness. Along with many other errors, this was corrected in more recent versions. Psychological problems related to homosexuality are in the form of stress caused by guilt, a social response. The activity itself causes no more harm than masturbating supposedly causes blindness.

Physically natural and psychologically not problematic, there is still much debate over the roles of nurture versus nature in the homosexual individual, but counselling to “turn” people “straight” are currently attempted both pharmaceutically and by behavioural conditioning.

However, most people agree that a child needs to grow up with both male and female parental figures. This is a society-wide problem where there are countless single-parent households. However, where an orphanage would logically be considered an evil by people who hold fast to this rule, there are other figures in these children’s lives. Many single parents raise children with the help of a grandparent, uncle, or some other stable person in their lives. Many others don’t get even that, and it has nothing to do with same-sex parenting.

So I am not defining marriage here, but establishing that a definition must be based on something other than the false assumptions above, expressed emphatically by Weigel and held loosely yet widely among the masses.

Which brings us for now to defining “stable marriage” …

Defining Stability in a Marriage

For practical purposes, let us subtitute the term marraige for “family unit”, as the two are interchangeable by many people’s definition of marriage.

A stable family unit usually consists of two committed individuals raising one or more children over the course of their lifetime, usually with some additional support from family, friends, and Church.

As mentioned above, this is often not the case due to unwed mothers, divorces, and abandonment. In fact, the divorce rate still hovers at around 50% last time I checked.

So, can a same-sex parenting situation (by adoption, etc.) be stable? There are no statistics I know of regarding same-sex “marriages” as they are not recognized. It is also more difficult to adopt when two people aren’t legally married. But what is known is that many homosexuals form life-long solitary partners, “monogamous” if you will spare me the use. Every gay couple I have ever met has made a long-term commitment they have kept, often much longer than the average lifespan of a traditional marriage.

But I beg for data on this. I may research it as I am able, but appreciate any input from others who have done so.

But I do not blindly accept any stereotype where gays are any more promiscuous or otherwise sexually deviant than the general population. Fornication is a cultural norm (sadly, if I must place a moral value upon such a thing), but is part of the human condition, not a “gay” thing. This is similar to the fact that the percentage of child molesters in the Catholic priesthood is no greater than any other segment of society. For those who have studied this latter phenomenom, the problem is not in correlation between sexual lifestyle and sexual abuse, but one of how the situations have been handled politically within the Church.

Lastly, it is important to note that homosexuals (as teachers, parents, care-givers, etc.) are statistically less likely to engage in the sexual abuse of children.

Apart from a staunch belief that homosexuality is wrong, why would anyone want to discourage fidelity and emotionally stable family units by banning same sex unions of any kind? That is why it seems hypocritical (to those who do not beleive homosexuality is inherently wrong) to the cause of preserving the family under the elimination of a form of “marriage” demanded by a segment of the population.

So a family that prays together and stays together and raises a child (having male and female figures in their life as in any other circumstance) cannot be a bad thing, unless we cannot accept the homosexual lifestyle at all.

Conclusions

I am not proposing a definition of marriage here because this is not my intent. My intent is to bring sound judgement to the discussion and beg consistency between our varied assumptions and our conclusions.

The arguments that a clear definition of marriage be set for the benefit of law and cultural integrity is a common ground. It is the definition itself that is up for debate, and one’s definition is often based on some understanding (or assumption) of history, anthropology, scriptural study, and even psychology, as well as convictions of morality.

(1) When marriage is defined in relation to procreation, same-sex inclusion in the marriage definition is similar to circumstances where opposite-sex couples cannot have children biologically, and there are no known disadvantages to the stability of a family by the presence of a same-sex couple. “Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life in full meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfullness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1654)

(2) Gay marriage is not necessarily about special privelages (legal rights and benefits) or condoning the expressing of sexual love, at least not any more than with any opposite-sex couples. It is about choice to have a life-long commitment as consistent with Gallagher as quoted by Weigel, “the good things that happen when husbands and wives are joined in permanent, public, sexual, emotional, financial, and parenting unions”, differing only where the two people are of the same sex.

(3) Opposition to homosexuality is faulted if it is based solely on misconceptions of nature, pshychology, or common prejudices.

From these points I am suggesting that the only legitamate grounds for not including same-sex couples in an agreeable definition of marriage is on the basis of belief in the immorality of homosexuality itself.

It is a harsh accusation, and I stand by it. This is not about the children, the family, or some hypothetical devaluing of people who are married in opposite-sex unions. Comparable to the pains to racially diverse couples not so long ago, it is not about cultural identity or promiscuity. This is about the acceptance or unacceptance of the homosexual lifestyle. It is undeniably one of moral judgment alone. (Again, it is not my point to argue that here.)

That is why I beleive the issue is falling on the courts. It is not about a denial by homosexuals that what they are doing is immoral and an attempt to win anyway, but rather that because the judgment has already been made in our Churches and many a community, that they require a venue that is idyllically impartial toward particular moral understandings.

If we are to take sides, we must be honest with ourselves as to our true intentions. Our options for same-sex inclusion in the marriage definition are similar to our choices in other debated topics.

(1) We can be against it for moral reasons but not attempt to legislate morality. We may even ensure rights to those who disagree with our moral understanding.

(2) We can be against it and wish to legislate morality, through interpretations and definitions.

(3) We can be for it, and not allow attempts to legislate a particular morality, and if possible, legislate to protect one’s choices in the matter.

I beleive that only the first and last options are consistent with a democracy such as ours, and the safest course in spite of socially natural resistance to change and acceptance of such a non-traditional lifestyle. I do not accept fear of losing traditional Christian or other values in our society as a legitamate political viewpoint. It is a personal one, a religious one, or a cultural one, but we live in a great country whose identity by its amazing nature is not dictated politically by any one religion or culture.

The playing field is then even, and any thing immoral shall crumble under its own decay in time, or be proven good and true when sustaining itself, left unimpeded in the light of day.

And the problem will not go away – ever – by any other means.

{Note: Correspondence made in 2004 to reach George Weigel for a rebuttal or documented debate regarding his article went unanswered.}

{July 22, 2004}

If you look inside the latest issue of Scientific American, you’ll see the smiling face of an old high school pal of mine. John and I were cosalutatorians of our class. Our GPAs were a few thousandths of a point apart, so the principal let us both give a speech.

I haven’t seen John since my wedding, but I keep tabs on
what he’s up to. Last I had checked, John was building the Tomato of Tomorrow. Now it looks like he’s moved on to grain. 

John works on the Flax of the Future because he’s a plant geneticist at a biotech company.  A first-rate scientist with a sharp wit and a keen mind, John has no doubt about the value of the work he does. If only the rest of the world felt the same.

Drop the phrase “genetically modified food” at a party sometime, and watch the sparks fly. You’ll hear long tirades about the evils of corporate capitalism, the horror of shaping nature for private profit, and how any grocery store that keeps “Frankenfood” on its shelves is not welcome in this town, thank you very much. Check out the web sites for the Sierra Club and Greenpeace to see what I mean.

Their views are, I believe, horribly mistaken. If put into action, millions of people will die needlessly. Biotech holds the promise of feeding humanity in a way nothing else can. It really is that simple.

When raising concerns about genetically modified food, we forget that human agriculture has always involved designer genes. It’s called breeding. Our ancestors identified plants with traits that they preferred (better taste, bigger fruit, easier harvesting) and tried to make more of them. That’s how they could stop being hunter-gatherers and start building civilization.

Experimenting with nature is what we do. In a very real sense, changing nature is human nature.

That’s one of John’s points: The plant fossil record shows the mark of man’s craftsmanship. To our benefit, I might add.

John’s team is working on a technique called marker-assisted breeding. If successful, it could knock years off new crop development time. It means we won’t need to introduce DNA into plants through bacteria, and blows the objections to transgenic crops out of the water. Markerassisted breeding combines centuriesold farming techniques with modern DNA analysis technology. Sort of like “Green Acres” meets “CSI”.

This idea could save millions of lives, and help us get through humanity’s last growth spurt before world population stabilizes around the year 2050. It won’t happen without the efforts of people like John, the capital provided by his company, and the expectation of profit for investors. As tough as this may be for environmentalists to swallow, capitalism will save humanity. Get over it, Greenpeace.

Scientists aren’t usually considered heroes, but maybe they should be. Some of you may have seen Penn and Teller’s TV series on Showtime. In one of their episodes, they play the card game “Who’s the Greatest Person in the World?”.

Penn picks the first card. It’s the creator of the “Green Revolution”, a series of crops adapted to the needs of developing countries. Penn immediately bets everything he has because he can’t lose. Teller could be
holding a pair of Gandhis or three Mother Teresas. It doesn’t matter. He hasn’t got a chance.

I think Penn is absolutely right. Gandhi and Mother Teresa are way up there on the goodness scale, but the Green Revolution saved millions of lives. Maybe someday, every school child in America will know the name of Norman Borlaug, the scientist who made it happen. Maybe someday they’ll know the names of those who are continuing to fight the good fight.

I’m proud to know the name of one. John, we once shared the podium on an Oklahoma high school stage. If I’d known back then you were going to be involved in something like this, I’d have given you the floor.

It’s been twenty-six years, but better late then never. I’d like to ask everyone in the audience to open up their copies of Scientific American, and turn to page 42. John, here’s the microphone.

{From 2004}

Just reading a recent issue of Infoworld, an article by Jon Udell caught my attention with a tagline of something like “If Google Ran Your Desktop”.

I tend to find articles all the time in IT periodicals that scream out “someone is using more than common sense here”, showing insight into real life problems. Not programming or engineering problems, mind you, but problems realted to the way humans actually need and use computers.

This particular topic was more concerned about the rational implementation of a dynamic taxonomy to describable data and the social implications both from and onto actions within a networked system.

In other words, how a large number of people categorize things (such as letters, photos, programs, whatever) is both determinable by group dynamics and determines the efficiency of the organizational system. The fact that this is all about using computer networks is almost incidental.

In fact, information technology is nothing more than a useless toy without people who understand psychology enough to make it work for a human being, sociology to make it work for large numbers of human beings, and philosophy to be able to consolidate all of these issues in a way that is both technically possible AND desirable. And if it isn’t possible, it is THIS and not the technology itself that will drive the necessary innovation.

So, YES, I AM using my Philosophy degree in what I do for a living.

{July 2002}

I like living in Colorado Springs because we take ideas seriously. What should people dedicate their lives to? What is government for? How should children be educated? Our city wrestles with these and other Big Questions every day. Living in a town with such natural beauty and so many communities of faith, it’s hard not to.

I thought about the Big Questions when I looked at the pictures from NASA’s Cassini probe. Titan, Saturn’s moon, is a wondrous thing to behold. The universe is wondrous for having such things in it, more wondrous still for having creatures that can reach toward it across millions of miles.

As a scientist by training and a Jew by birth and practice, I know there’s no real conflict between science and religion. And yet I get drawn into such conflicts from time to time.

Like I said, this is a town where Big Questions matter.

Colorado Springs has faith healers, a Shroud of Turin Center, New Age Festivals, pet psychics and all sorts of others who claim scientific support for their views. As Cassini gives us our first flyby of a world like Earth billions of years ago, it’s important to remember what science can and can’t do.

Discussions about science and religion often generate more heat than light. That’s because they use the same words to mean different things. When a scientist says she “knows” something, she means that’s the best explanation she has right now. She’ll change her mind if the evidence says she should.

But when a religious believer “knows” that his faith is true, it means he’s had a deeply personal experience that is beyond testing by experiment. We may learn two ideas are so different that we shouldn’t be using the same word to describe them. No wonder dialog is so difficult.

Or take a word like “belief”. Science advances by knocking down established beliefs in the face of new evidence. Failure to abandon a cherished belief is considered a moral failing.

But in religion, embracing a belief under trying circumstances (like a difficult life situation or even the threat of death) is considered noble. Neither view is better than the other, they’re just different.

Similar confusion comes from words like “truth”, “theory”, “proof”, and even “real”. Much of the conflict between science and religion is a battle over who gets to define those words. It’s a battle that will continue for quite some time.

If there’s a way to make peace, it lies by recognizing science and religion as equally human activities with different purposes.

Science is the best way humanity has found to learn what is true and what is false about the natural world. In that realm, science reigns supreme. Religion is concerned with questions beyond the natural world. On those questions, science must be silent.

So if you’re religious, don’t say that science shows supernatural events surrounding the resurrection of Jesus. Don’t try to use science to show that Nostradamus could predict the future, or that the Book of Mormon is correct, or that faith healing is real, or that the Koran is the True Word of God. You may be right, but science can’t help you.

On the other hand, if you’re critical of religious belief, don’t say that science “proves” there is no God. Don’t say that science shows no purpose to the universe, no point to life on earth, or that miracles are impossible. Again, you may be right, but science isn’t in your corner. Of such matters, science can say nothing.

The Cassini probe will give us data about outer space for years to come. I like to think, though, that it will also tell us something about inner space. Cassini is sending us bits of data on a billion-mile journey, to be reassembled by computer into artificially colored pictures tailored for human eyes.

If we humans can add a sense of wonder and awe to the palette of Cassini’s colors, we may learn more about the relationship between our two most important and uniquely human activities. We may learn to argue less about them, and perhaps even to argue less with one another. That would be just as valuable as any new scientific knowledge.

Maybe more.

{February 2004}

This essay is a bit crammed, trying to address such a complicated topic, but I think this may bring some fresh insight into the validity of judging extreme beliefs and those who believe them. Please forgive my omitting the many additional explanations and peripheral proofs that ought to accompany this, but instead read it with a mind to get the main points. Also, please note I am not a sociologist, but I hope that these observations and arguments will stand on their own merit.

Prejudices Against Incredulous Beliefs

A lot of people make fun of beliefs far from the mainstream, such as Scientology’s belief about humans being infested with imprisoned spirits brought to Earth from other worlds that are the source of pathology. The Church itself neither denies it nor acknowledges it, as it is considered a secret within the higher levels of the organization. I believe it is reasonable to consider this an accepted fact based on so many consistent accounts of ex-members over many years. I hear that even Tom Cruise was surprised to find this story was true, and created a temporary crisis of faith for him.

But let’s separate our prejudices from our discernment. A lot of people believe a lot of improbable things, or even things that are blatantly and factually wrong from an empirical perspective. Some create volumes and universities full of bad science to prove the earth isn’t billions of years old. Some revise their understanding of their scriptures, such as Mormonism coping with the now-verifiable genetic history of Native Americans. Others believe in channeled spirits or beings bestowing otherwise unknowns truths, with followers placing themselves in the hands of the medium, having no way to prove anything except by what some would dismiss as parlor tricks. Some chain themselves mercilessly to the written word of whatever scripture they follow, or rather the interpretations of others, even if they claim it is just what the book (God) says. Some just follow an organization or guru, allowing them to be rewired for a belief system that ironically may even claim to be a release from all belief systems. On a pessimistic level, it’s all about filling needs and placing trust in something else to avoid the responsibility of personal error. But I’m being a bit harsh, and that is not at all my point.

I myself am guilty under my own decree. I believe that God walked the earth as a man and rose from the dead. Not talking about Mithraism, silly, but Christianity. And being Roman Catholic, I share in the eating of His Body and Blood on a regular basis. And my personal belief is why I capitalized all those words in the last sentence. I also believe that Jesus was married, even though there is no real evidence either way. My beliefs are my choice, and some are based in religious experiences. (Experiences create belief and belief creates experience — it’s a two-way process. The problem occurs in how consistent our own beliefs are with the world around us and with other belief systems, including religion, psychology, science, etc., but that is not the point of this essay.)

The point is that beliefs like L. Ron Hubbard’s are off the scale on what someone would just decide one day to believe. He may have made it all up, or he may have had a psychological or religious experience – a flash of vision or an understanding that crept from the exploration of his consciousness, as if a primal memory had slowly become focused on the screen of his mind. Maybe he was visited by extra-terrestrials. (I wholeheartedly believe in the probable existence of aliens capable of visiting us, though I am suspect of anyone who claims to have had lunch with them.) But we all have our reasons.

Ideologies and Truth

So where am I going with this? I used the juicy word “Cult” in the title, right? Here’s the disappointment. Beliefs, no matter how foreign to our own view of the world, be they exceptional revelation, delusion, or downright contrived deception, do not make a belief system a cult. In fact – barring the more prejudicial connotative uses of the term these days – a belief system cannot be a cult. A cult – if there even is a qualitative or quantitative way to measure such a thing as a “yes” or “no” designation – is a sociological phenomenon. “Joe’s Cosmic Temple of the Tao” might be a cult; Taoism is not.

The word also religion causes confusion. It’s used in the formal sense of the social group, i.e. a “church” or “sect”, but also refers to the system of beliefs as a cohesive intellectual framework to deal with and understand life, along with the expressions of those beliefs, such as rituals, traditions, rules, or other processes. So to avoid confusion, I will use “belief system” for creed and “organization” for belief- defined social group instead.

Belief systems – religious, political, whatever – are called “Ideologies” when they reach a high internal consistency. They are tautologies. They are all true within themselves. They cannot be proven wrong because their premises reach their conclusions like a serpent eating its own tail. And different ideologies have different underlying assumptions that cannot be removed from the systems, so people such as atheists and theists really have nothing to say to each other. Leftist and rightists have different assumptions and fears about human nature and the place of things like business and government, and wonder why they can’t get along. And then you have the spiritual and the materialist-secular, debating into infinity whether the world ought to be measured in GNP or World Peace. But that’s an essay for another time.

Any good ideology works, even if it has hard-to-believe truths (subjective use of the term “truth” here, something I abhor, but is apropos). And if we are to judge a belief system or an individual belief, it must be in light of its benefit. Does believing in a Loving God bring me peace? Does believing in an impartial universe bring me solitude? But one more time … that’s not the point. The point is that the expression of a belief system, which includes our conduct as well as our psycho-emotional health, can be valid even if the underlying assumptions are questionable. If Noah didn’t have two of every creature on the ark, or Mary wasn’t a virgin, does my faith fall apart? Maybe for some, if you even want to call that faith. But let’s ask a more helpful question: if Jesus wasn’t God, does that really change his message of “Love one Another”, or expose that maybe we are looking for credibility on something that is true or good anyway? If you decide you don’t like the messenger, should you tear up the message?

So let’s use Scientology as the helpfully extreme example. Should we dismiss the usefulness or wisdom of the belief system, even if Hubbard when all is said and done proves to be a delusional liar and Son of Satan? Should we cart away sincere believers as cultists because we don’t buy it?

I don’t think it’s a true or false question, but the wrong question. Sure, we could say some beliefs are dangerous or unhelpful, such as sanctions against playing the flute at one time in Ancient Rome or Rock-N-Roll music a few generations ago. Let’s not go crazy. How do we try to judge objectively what are dangerous beliefs? WE DON’T. It’s the WAY beliefs are handled that can be dangerous. The Crusades. 911. Nazism. Jim Jones. Heaven’s Gate. And all these things bring us to … drum roll please … cults.

Brainwashing

So what’s a cult? A cult is what it does. Nah, that’s not helpful, so let’s start from the beginning. “Cult” meaning more than just “religious sect” is a relatively modern term, and is often a label slapped on any fringe group – they are small, different, and we just plain don’t lik’em. Sure most people “know one when they see one” but that’s not what I mean. Put aside the term “cult” as a rubber stamp and switch gears.

Something is cultic in as much as it can compel someone to believe something they might not otherwise, and without them realizing it. Okay, I know what you’re thinking. That’s called “advertising”. Well that’s only half the pie. The other half is the indoctrination of beliefs that completely seal in the first set of beliefs. By that I mean creating a belief within the individual that anything contradicting what they believe is to be avoided. People who do not believe what you do or accept your group are wrong, evil, deceivers and deceived, ignorant, close-minded, whatever. Once you are convinced of that, you and your views are infallible; or rather you believe you are.

This is a practical definition of the perhaps over-used term for coercion – “brainwashing”. Sure there may be physical components to reduce “resistance” and rational thinking to accept some premises unquestionably, such as sleep deprivation, low protein diet, long sessions of psychological exercises, etc., and there are social ones such as conditioning by reward and punishment (even if in the form of loving open acceptance and subtle shame), but can be as insidious as repeated suggestion and emotion-driven testimonies.

Also, like the modus operandi of a psychopathic liar, they will often test your willingness to believe by stating things that are somewhat believable and make sense (or are neutral or harmless enough not to initiate rational discernment on your part). Then they keep pushing the envelope on what you will believe because it is no longer such a stretch. I’ve lived this – it’s hard not to spot afterward either with an individual or in a group once you’ve been there.

So now you know – all organizations and people do brainwashing. Just kidding.

We do it to ourselves. Or blame the media. Or our parents. We were born with a set of arguments. Or we leaned them from our Political Science teacher, or a Jesuit, or a mentor. That’s called “learning.” But eventually we add another set of arguments that prove why criticisms of our position are wrong. And then we start to take offense when challenged, or even become offended that other people can’t see (read “accept”) our point of view. Even people in the middle are just as bad or part of the problem in our view. That’s extremism. And when our surety is complete, we can even write off OTHERS as being brainwashed. That’s brainwashing at its pinnacle. The sane are insane to the most disturbed, and can almost never be shown they are insane, any more than someone in Love can believe their beloved be cheating on them. They have to figure it out for themselves, or be “brainwashed” into some other view. Perhaps this is what “deprogramming” is about.

Cultism and Brainwashing

Now let’s go back to social groups. What I find is that there are many behaviors and thought processes that contribute to building this wall between your beliefs and the rest of the world. Many religious groups, marketing schemes, social clubs, lodges, and even companies engage in some of these things. Sometimes it’s on purpose, sometimes it’s harmless, but the danger can be measured in result, which in turn is hard to measure, so we are stuck with keeping an eye out for “red flags” and go in with our eyes open.

I intend to someday itemize, explain, and give examples of these “red flags”, but that isn’t my point here, and if you can Google through all the casual anti-cult nonsense, you’ll find some helpful lists. Most perspectives gauge destructiveness by level of control, but I’m going after the cause and not just the result – it starts with beliefs. So let’s go full circle and address those related specifically to unusual beliefs.

A strange belief may or may not have any negative impact on a person by itself. How strongly they believe it may or may not interfere with their ability to function in society. Theological beliefs such as what are “sin” and the nature of the Holy Spirit are more the framework of a belief system, and so I’m not talking about those. And many beliefs, such as my example of Jesus being married, or if Lao Tzu lived to be hundreds of years, are arbitrary and inconsequential when compared to waiting for the mothership or the rapture. So I’m talking about things that someone who doesn’t share a belief would consider not just “historically inaccurate” or “superstitious” but downright outlandish. Which brings us to Scientology’s pre-earth epic of the God Xenu and the Galactic Confederacy.

Shouldn’t we just let the baby has his bottle? Yes and no. The question of cultism in this particular essay arises when you look at the MECHANISM by which people are willing to take on an incredulous belief within a group. It’s not the belief itself – the only reason I’m picking on Xenu is to explain why such beliefs CAN be a warning sign of cultic tendency or tactics. In fact, we can even assume Scientology’s tall tale is the absolute truth, and it has no effect on whether or not it has cult issues. Even very cultic groups aren’t necessarily right or wrong in their beliefs, and we shouldn’t dismiss them because of it. We should dismiss them because they are dangerous to our intellectual autonomy.

How it’s Done

So other than bringing someone up in a belief system – where nothing could ever seem strange except to outsiders – how do you get everyday people to believe something outlandish? After all, for people to accept truth that’s hard to accept, it has to be done for their own good, right? Here’s how it’s done, using the Scientology example.

Have secret beliefs. That’s pretty much half of it. You can disguise or rationalize it as protecting knowledge from people who aren’t ready, or as a trade secret process to attain enlightenment or motivational success or whatever. The problem is that when the cat is out of the bag, an organization can neither deny nor confirm them. Sucks to be them. Except that secret beliefs, techniques, and other mysteries are still cool. Learning them makes you part of something special, something elite. You are no longer a freshman, but a senior – and the principal’s pet if you are a good learner (read “model of adoring acceptance”).

The other half is slowly indoctrinating a person, not by adding beliefs, but by changing they way they look at their beliefs. So it’s not just swapping furniture, but getting your walls to move around so only their furniture fits. Don’t get me wrong – being aware of how your beliefs affect your life and being able to choose and change them and how they affect you is a big step up in personal development and provides many self-help tools. But it’s like a kid playing with matches. With long hair. And lots of flammable hair gel. You get the idea.

Another aspect of this cult tactic is the bait-and-switch. They told you it was just a personality test. They said it was just an awareness seminar. One moment they said “we’re not a religion” and the next they live up to the title “Church”. And it turned out to be all those things and more. A lot more. In fact, so much more, you’d never have started if they would have had the “other” stuff in their promo literature. They have to catch you early, and before you find out, or tell you “never mind that” if you come across warnings from other people. Knowledge and opposing views are the ultimate grounding tool, and is bad news to anyone who wants you to buy into a hard-to-believe belief system.

Anyway, the job of indoctrination is by itself is just business as usual for any system of thought. But to work toward getting someone to believe something that in casual conversation would make people avoid you, scare your family and friends, or just make people wonder, it is required to break down previous intellectual frameworks in order to build the new one. And I mean demolition of such frivolous structures as common sense, healthy doubt and suspicion, and anything else that might conflict with your new spiritual dream house, courtesy of Scientology (or another person or group). Even if you can convince yourself of many things, that sort of thing can rarely be achieved by yourself. And they’re more than willing to help.

Up the Bridge, Over the Edge

The more you are in the indoctrination process, and the more invested financially with your wallet and emotionally with your dreams and hopes, the more you come to trust your lifeline to what you question less and less as being the ultimate truth. It’s how they represent their narrow path to truth, and you grab it “willingly”. After all, you’re starting to “get it” where non-believers like yourself previously did not. They just couldn’t understand, and if only they could experience what you have, they would KNOW. I’ve heard it too many times. As a perfect analogy, all religions have miraculous healing stories, but cultic ones that use it as proof of their own righteousness deny the miracles of others or pawn them off as deceptions of demons. And they will not see it otherwise.

In all fairness, cult processes in any organization may either arise naturally or be put in place on purpose. Just having secret beliefs doesn’t require brainwashing. But it helps. The people who enforce or act out these things see themselves as doing a great good, and aren’t aware of using such tactics. And if they realize it on some level, they excuse it or deny the dangers against the free will of others, many of which are just desperate for something to believe in. They are ready to please.

And if someone past the “point of no return” read this article and start to believe it applied to them, I will probably personally be dismissed as unqualified or having an axe to grind, without addressing any of the actual concerns or arguments. They might summon emotions against my deep, dark intentions to threaten their faith, or pick apart every definition and phrase instead of taking it as someone who might really have something. Oh well. You can’t win them all. – or sadly maybe not any of them.

Forgiveness but not Tolerance

People who use cult tactics are not men in black hats or reddish imps with horns and tails, even if the person who first instituted the tactics MAY be. The next time you make fun of what many people call a cult such as “Scientology”, don’t criticize their followers for their bizarre beliefs. Criticize their organization for their tactics. We all have our personal experiences and people need to believe what they choose to. But feel free to point out the process by which everyday people would eventually believe something that otherwise they would not. To sum up my advice: Hate the cult aspects, not the belief system or people who hold it dear.

{Originally published at the Independence Institute July 2003}

I love the Colorado Springs Sky Sox. A day with my family at Sky Sox stadium is a real treat: great seats, beautiful scenery and a wonderful atmosphere. It’s a terrific way to spend a summer afternoon.

So when I heard that the Colorado Rockies might look for another affiliate, I got upset. I understand they don’t like our stadium. Fair enough. But now I hear talk about using public money to build one.

That’s going too far. When it comes to using taxes to build a ballpark, all true baseball fans should just say no. Let me take off my baseball cap for a moment and put on my think tank hat.

Public finances are supposed to finance public goods: things for which equal access is efficient and necessary. This might include law enforcement, national defense, and clean air, but it doesn’t include baseball. Taxing people is essential to build armed forces, but you don’t have to make people pay for a ball game. People can either buy a ticket or stay home. What’s the problem?

All right, so maybe fielding a team isn’t like fielding an army. What about jobs and growth? Maybe baseball subsidies create jobs: some people say so. But look who’s shouting the loudest: team owners who want a subsidy, politicians who want to get re-elected, and people who really like baseball. If you look at the scientific studies, the conclusions are very different. The impact of public subsidies for sports is either too small to measure, or in some cases even negative.

But good works are done with both the head and the heart, so let’s put our Sky Sox caps back on for a moment. Maybe we’re missing something.

Regardless of the policy issues, does taxing people for baseball feel right? Not to this baseball fan.

What makes baseball so terrific is its uniquely American emphasis on the individual. Sure, it’s a team sport, but it’s individuals who matter. Unlike football, you can see every player’s face clearly: that’s how fans connect with players.. And there is no other sport where individual performance is tracked so carefully. When a batter comes to the plate, his numbers are displayed on the scoreboard for thousands to see. When a pitcher takes the mound, the whole world knows his numbers.

Can you imagine having a job with that kind of accountability?

What would work be like if everyone knew how many deals you’d closed last month? How many successful surgeries you’d performed? How many houses you’d built? It boggles the mind.

That’s what I like about baseball: it reminds us that individual performance and accountability matter. Want to make it to the big leagues?

Give it your best shot. Put up the numbers, get some key hits, and make the clutch saves. It’s up to you. What great lessons for my kids to learn on a Saturday afternoon!

All that goes out the window when you mix public money with baseball. Why should investors risk their own capital, when they can soak taxpayers for it? Who cares about individual players and fans, if baseball now belongs to “society”? What kind of freedom-loving conservative could possibly support such blatant corporate welfare, the kind liberals so rightly criticize us for?

Maybe I’m fighting a losing battle. After all, sports stadiums are built with public funds all the time. Clearly America has far more pressing issues to worry about. And yet, I can’t shake the feeling that these things matter.

Standing up and saying no to public funding, as my community has done, sends a message. It says my town is not afraid to make hard choices. It says my town will not take little from many and give much to a few. Just like baseball, my town values individual achievement and accountability.

It values them so much that it lets people make their own decisions about supporting the greatest game there is.

Great lessons for a Saturday afternoon. Or any time.

In November 2004, I published my “Personal State of the Union Address”. It was election time, and the BS was flying at least as much as usual. I didn’t reveal who I was voting for, but brought up good and bad reasons people were voting for either man. I gave my opinion, trying to cut through the fog of rhetoric surrounding various issues.

I defended national debt (quite pertinent today), talked about the environment, military intervention, and of course, the economy. My predictions regarding homeland safety and personal freedom were dead on, while others’ prophesies of doom that would manifest if Bush were reelected failed to materialize.

But this isn’t election time. It’s Independence Day. I won’t dwell on the questionable sanity of state and federal government or specific arguments and issues thereof. I won’t lament the uncontested armed invasion of our country from the south while earmarks and pork fly like the wind in Washington. This is not my state of the “Union”, meaning a nation, but of my country, America.

But first, a confession. There was a time when I scorned patriotism, unable as most to distinguish it from nationalism. At a college semi-formal, I even refused to have portraits taken until they removed the red, white, and blue background. It was the first Gulf War, and the patriotism seemed contrived. After 9-11 I felt the same way — I didn’t change my colors like a lemming. It wouldn’t have been sincere … it didn’t feel right.

But now I fly the flag proudly, work with vets, and the anthem still brings me to tears. I’m not sure what changed. It certainly wasn’t confidence in our leaders (of this or that administration) that swayed me. If anything, it was a simple awareness of history, a growing appreciation for the “Grand Experiment”. It was the achievements of a People and Country in spite of the imperfections of our collage of ideologies and the humanness of politics.

I even vote now, where I honestly used to be proud that I hadn’t previously. I write legislators. I keep up on and engage in political discourse. I have even collected signatures to put people on the ballot in one party and canvassed in a primary for another. Believing the People, businesses and communities are the answer versus participation in the democratic machinations of government is not an either/or, though battle lines seem to have been drawn between them in many people’s minds.

I still abhor nationalism. I am a Citizen of the World and can have pride in my own country — it’s diversity of culture and values — without the need for imperialism or losing a belief in individualism. We insist – at least up to now — on a government that for the most part entitles its citizens to be selfish or wrong rather than compelled what to do, and yet people have aspired, for the most part, to be the best in all things anyway. This is even more of a paradigm in that we have allowed these notions to be challenged by foreign ideologies that are more cynical toward the nature of the individual, yet oddly idealistic regarding artificial social controls that have no precedent for anything but oppression.
So this is my address, directed at the Spirit of the People — our past achievements, present sentiments, and future challenges. Here politics are the backdrop, not the play, and I speak not so much the facts of our lives so much as how we perceive them.

Conflict of Ideologies

We live in a strange time, where tyrants of the globe praise our leaders, and free countries are scratching their heads wondering what the hell is going on over here. I almost miss the days when the US was considered the playground bully … almost.

We’ve taken the reigns from England as the despised global power, yet inspired countless millions with regards to human rights, our most precious export. We’ve fought — and won — our own battles of civil liberties, and there are a few more hurtles to go. But freedom of speech and press in this information age is everything, with near ubiquitous access. We’ve been the frontrunner in this as well.

We’ve taken for granted a banking system that has been the basis for a rising tide of prosperity everywhere in the world. In spite an unambiguous victory in the Cold War over communism and socialism, we pretend not to see a free market that has raised up more first-generation millionaires than perhaps any time or place in history … adjusted dollars and all.

Instead of counting our blessings, and celebrating America as the first Meritocracy, we still parrot the straw man arguments against individual prosperity from European leftists who lived in a different world, in a time long gone.

Today, Socialism is either a rough accusation or no longer a bad word, depending who you talk to. And just as few people as ever have any handle on what it really means. But something good is coming of all this liberal supermajority bulldozing — it is causing the middle class to lose complacency, fearing we’re moving toward a wholesale dependency that will, if anything, instigate a class war the left is supposedly trying to end.

The big question of the role of government has come to a head. The simple color-coding of states — a solidified product of the times in my last address — is falling away. The lines are being drawn multidimensionality and not along two columns of stances on every issue. People are starting to talk and be passionate, even over the yelling of fanatics.

Like always, the fanatics come out of the woodwork. Under Bush, the worst of the left showed it’s face; not it’s the worst of the right. But something is different. Not just the crazies are protesting any more. People know there is something fundamentally wrong — more than usual — and it can be heard if you listen closely, underneath the din of talking heads.

People are starting to articulate the issues of mass entitlement and government dependency on a large scale, no longer the grumblings of some necessary evil, but a condition strong enough to overcome the complacency of the average Joe. After all, the conditions of complacency — a predominantly decent standard of living — have been threatened. Ironically, the threat comes from the actions of those who think it’s their moral imperative to play (a less discriminately thieving) Robinhood to bring such a thing to every last person our society considers unacceptably poor, whether or not they want or deserve it.

The New “Man”

We’ve come full circle, where the generation that fought for civil rights and rocked the establishment now wants to legislate and enforce some “social contract”. They fought “The Man” and now they are The Man. In my lifetime, I saw them trade in their hemp clothing for a professor’s elbow pads, and now they wear the suits of senators.

They are telling the next generation they know better, forgetting past echoes of the exact same message from conservative counterparts directed at them, just outside recent memory. Perhaps it’s some subconscious generational oedipal retribution. Either way, it is a sort of self-righteousness equal to the most fervent religious fanatic, selling a new generation the illusion of progress as a moral imperative that can only be met by a majority vote to sacrifice liberties.

Even the law of the land has been buffeted with bad arguments, and where it served us well in the past, it’s a thorn in the side for others who either think it defends their point wrongly, or think the whole document is outdated, as if human rights and common sense were no longer relevant.

And no one seems to know why we argue over pieces of paper so much. We simply can’t or won’t take the time to look closely and share an all-important missed distinction: the Bill of Rights is unlike the mountains of modern legislation in that it was constructed to RESTRICT government’s role in relation to individual rights, not expand it for some misinterpreted “general welfare” where the majority decides our destiny in a million little ways.

The Breaking Point?

The backlash of the pendulum swinging too far this time isn’t coming from college campuses or the hard streets, but from the Middle Class and Middle America — not residents of the Ivy Towers but the companies and their workers who keep building our country. And these people are measured not in words of debate or pages of union clauses, but by their free will contribution to America. Or not so free will, which is the problem.

Taxation on one end and social programs on the other are the measure of national housekeeping, and it’s reaching proportions unimagined by our ancestors. The Tea Party and similar efforts — no different in tenor from the “anti-war” protests of earlier in the decade — are craftily dismissed as radical, when in fact they are a response to radicalism being mainstreamed. Some of us never thought we’d be so close to the precipice of dangerously intrusive government and the rest of us think we’re over-reacting. The benefits of a planned society somehow justify everything — at least to some.

Intuition is merely logic that hasn’t reached out conscious mind. Even the best-intentioned government “salvation” has a cost. But of what? The price is the same premise that underlies fascism — that the end justifies the means. But I don’t think it will come to fascism, at least not any more than any government exists in the end by force. We are more of a lobster slowly boiled, where protestations against incremental change can be more easily dismissed by many and swallowed by the rest.

Again, some of us see it as a clear, no longer ignorable circumstance. Many who aren’t usually alarmed are starting to be, and not irrationally. Rhetoric of some vague notion of revolution, even couched in the language of physical or even armed action, is no longer the voice of the few on the edge. Our society in general is too polite to speak loudly about it — and the idea of violent revolution isn’t on the table, yet — but the desire for REAL change, combined with a lack of confidence in government being rehabilitated by due process, is brewing in the masses, not the fringes.

I say we’re both divided and confused, and our future could go in any direction because of it. Our whole country is showing signs of a mid-life crisis. Will our old age be an affront to the greatness of the generations that came before us, or will we age gracefully as a continued free country and prosperous people while other citizens of the world have their chance in the spotlight of history?

Conclusion

In every time, we see ourselves at a seemingly important crossroads, and in every time there’s at least some truth to it. We must ask ourselves at what point did the dominant voice of the American Colonists migrate from fringe extremists to calculated revolutionaries.

I don’t think we’ve yet been pushed too far, but I suspect in my lifetime, this will be the time people look back and say this is when the basic conflicts of ideologies have come to a head. Will it be the seeds of a tax revolt, or worse, devolving into cycles of escalated descent and oppression through paranoia against what would be labeled “home grown terrorism”? I hope not.

My hope is that this will be seen as a time where the hard questions are finally asked, distinctions being made, and implications clarified.

At the heart of this, the class war issue must be settled once and for all — not by being so foolish to think we can solve it by forced redistribution, but by returning to our roots of Meritocracy and shedding our pick-and-choose prejudices regarding success. We still have a chance to learn how to foster and protect the Pursuit of Happiness, instead of despising the ideal result, or pretending it can be taxed and granted.

My hope is that the People can find their way back into relevance to our leaders through peaceful yet powerful actions, remaining at all times open to dialog, much like the existing “Coffee Party” intends. This can only be done by breaking ALL conflicts of interest with special interest groups, which necessitates serious campaign reform and independent oversight.

My hope is that We the People do something, perhaps without precedent, and that something is to force our leaders by sheer numbers, public outcry — and yes, a little fear that the 2nd Amendment wasn’t just for hunting — to truly reform the system in fundamental ways. We have the technology and existing freedoms of press and speech — at least for now — to create a responsive, accountable leadership.

My hope is we can get on with building and growing our communities from the ground up according to our own conscience, and have unfettered freedom in our individual pursuits of happiness.

{Originally written in 2004, the rule that media creates harm more than reports it when if comes to economy rings true today. It is my belief that the DNC’s efforts alone to win the presidential election in 2008, fueling the barrage of gloom by the media, amplified and expanded what should not have been a national recession, and certainly not a “crisis”.}

I am sick and tired of all the armchair economists who never set foot in a college classroom, or those that did and never ran their own business or so much as intentionally invested a penny in the stocks, bonds or mutual funds.

Every economist actually IN THE GAME says the economy has been improving (against amazing odds in my opinion), and only politicians with axes to grind are nitpicking it. And the REAL economists don’t go out of their way to attribute negative or positive economic realities to specific candidates or policies, except where a relationship actually exists …

If you want to understand what’s going on, talk to your investor if you have one. Here’s an except from the latest “Legg-Mason” investment newsletter:

Addressing Tough Questions in the Current Environment

Q. Is the economy performing better?

We believe there is little doubt that the U.S. economy is experiencing a transition to slower, but more sustainable, growth. Growth in the economy is also changing from the exclusive beneficiaries of low interest rates and tax cuts. The median forecast for the economy this year is for GDP growth around 4%. The risk to this forecast comes from a continued rise in energy prices and acts of terrorism that reduce economic activity.

Q. What about jobs?

Job creation has been slower than originally expected. Economists cite reasons that include productivity growth of the existing workforce, which is subduing the need for additional hiring, and higher healthcare costs for employers, which is causing them to be hesitant to add new workers. The economy has created 1.5 million jobs in the last 11 months and the employment picture is poised to improve with a moderately growing economy. The major risk to employment conditions is a slowing economy.

Q. What is the outlook on oil prices?

Energy prices have become a pivotal driver in financial markets. Growing demand and fears of supply disruption are pushing crude oil prices higher. Crude oil production is increasing and is expected to exceed demand in the fourth quarter of 2004. However, capacity utilization of existing production is estimated at 97%, the highest level in decades, and leaves a thin cushion if supplies are curtailed for just a modest period.

Based on past relationships of demand, production, and inventories, crude oil would be expected to sell for $30-$35 per barrel versus the present range of $42-$47. The price difference is based on the fear of disruption as well as speculators attracted to the trading volatility of crude oil. The risk to the supply of crude oil is from the instability of the major oil-producing regions in the Middle East, Russia, and Venezuela.

…

And an unrelated article excerpt:

Since the beginning of the year 2000, we have experienced several “big” events that have had a significant impact on financial markets. From the bursting of the technology bubble and September 11th to the corporate scandals and the war with Iraq, negative events have eclipsed positive ones. The upcoming presidential election and its focus on the negative aspects of each candidate has followed suit. This negativity has led to investor uncertainty…

That says it all. The propaganda machine is hurting economic growth, moreso than the events themselves. So if you’re going to vote, don’t do it on the grounds that the economy is bad, or that Bush should take credit or blame for things beyond a president’s control. USE YOUR HEAD!

I’m not George W. Bush, or John Kerry … and I approve this message.