Monuments Not to History, But to Values

A favorite argument of the Confederate monument defenders is that those who are trying to take them down are destroying history. They we are whitewashing it. That we are making future generations ignorant of history by destroying them, and that they will be the poorer for it.

My governor, Governor Abbot of Texas, just weighed in on this issue on Wednesday.

“But we must remember that our history isn’t perfect,” Abbott added. “If we do not learn from our history, we are doomed to repeat it. Instead of trying to bury our past, we must learn from it and ensure it doesn’t happen again. Tearing down monuments won’t erase our nation’s past, and it doesn’t advance our nation’s future.

What my governor, and all like him overlook, is that these monuments were never about history.  History is best taught in museums, in schools, in books, in articles, on historical tours, all of which can provide the context and details that will allow a person to understand the history.

A stone or metal statue can and does do none of that.  What they do instead though is show what values a society values   They provide a tangible form to intangible societal beliefs and ideals.

This is something that those who created and raised these monuments understood.  It is why they so often have inscriptions that make this very plain, such as that that once was on the Battle of Liberty Place monument (taken down in 2017).

McEnery and Penn, having been elected governor and lieutenant-governor by the white people, were duly installed bb this overthrow of carpetbag government, ousting the usurpers, Governor Kellogg (white) and Lieutenant –Governor Antoine (colored).

United States troops took over the state government and reinstated the usurpers but the national election of November 1876 recognized white supremacy in the south and gave us our state.

Values, not history is what is being shown here.

The same holds true for the vast majority of other statues and monuments. When not explicitly inscribed in the monument, it is explicitly inscribed in the words of the newspapers and speeches of the time on why this or that confederate monument was raised.   A testament to white supremacy.  A testament to white superiority.

This should be something so obviously true that there should be no dispute. A monument to honor the Confederacy – an almost country created to preserve and protect the ideal that whites can own blacks as easily and as morally as they can own a dog and the ideal that whites are supreme race – can be nothing else.

These were not monuments to men and history. They were monuments to the ideals of white supremacy. Their primary intent was not to remind people of a historical person or event, but rather to remind both whites and blacks of their place.

These monuments were raised to promote the values of the Klu Klux Klan. They were raised to promote the values of Jim Crow.  They were raised to promote the values of white supremacy.

Those values are, or should be, our shame now.

 

Anti-Choicer’s Demeaning View of Women and Doctors

I was reading about the current Supreme Court case over Idaho’s abortion ban and the Federal Law requiring hospitals to provide emergency abortions.   Idaho’s ban only allows abortions to save the woman’s life and not to protect her health.  The issue is that this is not an easy nor clear cut call.  It is often a judgement call.  Further, letting a health issue go on can also result in the woman’s death.  Just maybe not at that moment. 

Reading this and considering the similar issue we had here in Texas in which the Texas Supreme Court supported a draconian understanding of the abortion ban, it struck me that the anti-choice people, in addition to having a poor knowledge of the medical side of abortions and why they might be needed, also have a very poor and unrealistic view of both women and doctors.   The way they try to strictly limit any decision making on the part of either also makes me think that they believe that abortion is popular with both.

For example, unlike in any other medical question, they try to take this judgement call totally out of the hands of the doctors and their patients.  During the time our Texas ban was being played out in court I saw several Anti-choicers say that the mother’s life was not in immediate danger and so she did not qualify for the exception.   Or that it was not certain that her life was in danger.  That the abortion should not be given until the mother’s end was certain and soon. 

From such things I get the impression that the Anti-Choicers believe that every woman actively wants to have an abortion.  They go out and get pregnant just so they can then get an abortion.  Some, the real thrill seekers, will wait until their eight month or so to get one.  After all, everyone knows how much fun being pregnant is.  And then the rush of having that abortion after carrying that child for 8 months!  After all, it’s my body and I’ll do what I want with it, and I think having an abortion would be fun!

Oh, and the doctors.  I get the impression that instead of trying to do what is best of the woman they think doctors just love to give abortions.  Oh dear Mrs. Watson.  You have a bad case of acne.  You need an abortion.  I’m guessing that they think doctors get frequent abortion points from the AMA.  Or that they have an oh, I need extra money to buy a new car, so let me find a pregnant woman to perform an abortion on.  Gotta find pregnant woman,  gotta find a pregnant woman. 

While probably not this consciously bad, the way they approach this in regards to the pregnant woman and the doctor displays a startling lack of trust and respect for both parties; treating both more like disobedient children who act without thought and without good reasons.

This becomes especially clear when the decision on getting an abortion is contrasted with any other medical condition, question or need.  This level of scrutiny is not present for heart surgeries, kidney transplants, tonsillectomies, knee surgeries, and any other medical procedure.  For all other medical issues the assumption is that the patient and doctors are acting in good faith and are capable of making good choices.  Not so for abortion though.   

In no other medical condition is there this level of disrespect, disregard, and distrust for both the patient and the doctor.  It is insulting to both.  Then add to that the bounty hunter provisions that so many of these laws have, actively looking for any who dare transgress what the Anti-Choicer believes. 

This coupled with their refusal to understand (it is not ignorance for many, but a refusal to see the clear implications and reality) the biology of pregnancy and abortion as well as impact on women in all aspects of their lives, is why their views and campaign based upon those views are so dangerous.  Both to the women who are pregnant and to society at large.  As we can see playing out now. 

There is the IVF controversy resulting from the Alabama Supreme Court ruling finding that embryo’s are people and deserving of the full protections of the law for people.  A ruling based upon those refusals to understand biological reality that so many of the Anti-Choice have.  And this from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.    

Black women are three times as likely, and Hispanic women twice as likely, to seek abortions than white women. And half of all women who get abortions live below the poverty line—many of them in states that limit or are seeking to limit abortions, explained Bell. 

Being denied an abortion comes with substantial health risks—especially for vulnerable groups. The risk of maternal death is 15 times higher for carrying a pregnancy to term than it is for abortion, and pregnancy-related complications are 2 to more than 25 times higher for pregnancies ending in birth compared to abortion, Bell explained.  “We have maternal mortality rates that are in some cases twice as high in restrictive states as they are in supportive abortion states,” said Bell—and those restrictions undermine the delivery of basic services, Bell added

And then there are the financial and social costs to the individuals, their families, their communities that abortion causes. 

All because a group of people with flawed views of biology have decided to totally disrespect both women and medical professionals.  And just as with similar flawed thinking with the COVID and vaccination deniers, nothing good is coming of this.  People are being hurt financially, in regards to their health, and even dying.

This is another example of how resolute ignorance always harms both individuals and society. We seem to be having more and more of such examples lately.

Motivational Sayings; Partial Truths Sleeping with Partial Lies

Due to the many ongoing challenges that living even the most routine of lives routinely presents, there are many times when we need to hear something positive, something to help us focus on things that are good and true.  Things that can help convince us to continue to carry on. 

From this was born the motivational saying. Such sayings which were then quickly joined to sunny, positive memes.  For many they do help and do good.  However, for myself, while they can help at times, most often I think of how while emphasizing a partial truth they also tell a partial lie.  And I can’t help but wonder if sometimes that embedded partial lie does more harm than the good done by the partial truth. 

To show what I mean, here are three motivational sayings with a short discussion of each. 

Whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. 

This is one that I do “oh hell no” on. 

Often, frequently, and even possibly mostly, events that come close to killing you – physically, emotionally, intellectually, morally – leave behind harm, often making you weaker in some way without the solace of making you stronger or better in any way.  That’s not even considering the fact that they can, and have, broken people while still leaving them alive. 

For example, years ago I once played chess with a man who, due to a serious workplace accident, was a quadriplegic.  He could not move his arms or legs. He also could not talk.  He had learned to point with his eyes at different boards to communicate though.  When I played chess his wife, of necessity, was there to translate. 

He would communicate to her what his next move was to be and she told me.  Before the accident he had been a healthy middle aged man.  Now he was nearly helpless.  It was common for him to break down several times during our play, especially when I tried to engage in conversation – short, simple and to the point with easily signaled answers.  He was not made stronger by his accident. 

His experience is not uncommon.  Further, disease and accidents are not the only parts of life that can still make you weaker and not stronger.  Consider spousal abuse and child abuse.  Some manage to overcome.  Others do not and, instead, become less than they could have been.  Dysfunctional to a greater or lesser extent.  Or consider the number of suicides that occur every year.  People who were not able to deal with what life has tossed them even though it did not kill them.   

Sometimes this saying is true.  Often it is not. 

If you do  work that you love then you will never work a day in your life. 

Now this one, as well as its many variants, is a fail for me for two reasons. 

First, often what you love to do isn’t something that brings in enough money to survive on, especially with a family.  Further, even if it is possible there often is not enough demand to support all who love it and try to make a living at it. 

Second, even the most loved thing can, at times, become drudgery and work.   For example, many parents passionately love being parents.  But there are times when they are frustrated by the work of caring for their children and want a day or week off. 

When one door closes another one opens. 

No.  Just no.  The universe does not work like that.  There is no tally keeper saying that Joe here had this door closed so lets open up this door for him.  Further, is the door opening into something as good as the one that closed?  Will it open to something they love doing so that it won’t be work?  Can a door closing on better pay, better opportunities, and better working environment be considered the equal of a door opening on to a job with less money, boring work, and poor working environment?    

I think these three illustrate my point, one that holds for all motivational sayings.  Namely that they do not express reality.  Not fully, and often not even mainly. Which then brings up the question of why they are then so popular and ubiquitous?  The reason they are is that they provide something more important than reality. Hope. 

Humans are primarily emotional creatures.  And one of our most powerful emotions, a need even, is for hope.  Without hope nothing is possible.  Motivational sayings fill that need.  A quick note – saying that without hope nothing is possible is NOT the same as saying that with hope all things are possible.  The latter is another unrealistic motivational saying.  But one that highlights an important aspect of most, if not all, motivational sayings. 

As I wrote earlier, there is usually some truth in motivational sayings.  Some doors closing mean that a person has the time and need to explore other options that they may not have otherwise done.  And in so doing find something better. 

Something that doesn’t kill you can, at times, make you stronger.  Make you find new ways to cope and grow. 

And if you can find work that you love, then you are indeed in a much happier place going to work than those who do not love their work.  Because of that it might be a good idea to look a bit more and a bit more deeply at what you are doing, what you love to do, and what possible opportunities there are.  When times are rough we can all use words that help in moving through those times. 

Motivational sayings point to a possible aspect of reality.  They highlight that things could get better and provide a reason to continue on.  Where the problem comes in is when people take these sayings as reflecting more of reality then they actually do, and so wind up blaming themselves when times are hard and do not go their way no matter their trying. 

A popular saying is that the universe does not care about you.  That saying is true, the universe does not.  However, that lack of care cuts both ways.  It is not acting for you, but neither is it acting actively against you.  It is an equal opportunity non-carer.

This means that with a modicum of luck, effort, and hope you have a chance to have a good life.  In fact, for most people this is possible.  Motivational sayings, for all their lack of reality and problematic nature, help.  Especially when the uncaring universe displays its lack of caring in truly terrible ways. 

Does Circumstances Make Morality Irrelevant?

I have been engaged in an interesting conversation with an individual in regard to the war between Israel and the Palestinians (actually more akin to a slaughter than a war due to the huge disparity in power).  During this discussion the individual refused to condemn any of Hama’s actions.

Their reasoning was that due to what the Palestinians have suffered, not just now but for decades, and due to the almost hopeless situation on October 7^th, 2023 in regards to finding other ways to receive justice, correct wrongs, and make their voice heard, that the those of us who were not in that same situation were therefor not in a position to pass judgement on what Hamas did.  When I brought up the immorality of some of Hamas’s actions their response was that because of this oppression and hopelessness morality does not matter in this case.  They would neither promote nor condemn these actions.  My impression of the argument is that if the oppression is so bad and so long then it is in a category by itself and it is not for anyone outside to pass any moral judgement on the actions the oppressed think necessary. 

I was rather struck by the idea that in certain situations morality does not matter. Or perhaps, it is not as relevant. It is the first time I have ever had someone seriously argue this.   After some thought and research – for which I am grateful to this person for motivating me to do –  I found that both my thoughtful consideration and my initial reaction were in accord –  I disagree.  While understanding why an action was done is important, the why does not shield it from being evaluated for its morality.  Nor should it.

The reason why I disagree is because we are highly social creatures.  In fact, this is essential to our nature.  It is one of the two reasons why our species has survived and flourished, our ability, indeed our need, to form groups.  Coupled with our high intelligence and our ability to form not just groups but very large groups, morality is an essential part of forming and maintaining any and all groups.  It helps provide the guidelines and standards necessary for the formation of any group.   To disregard the morality of any given action is to ignore an essential part of being human. 

Some will say that morality is largely subjective, and dependent upon a particular culture and society.  That to view the actions of one group through the moral lens of another, especially that between an oppressed people and the oppressor, is wrong and flawed.  To which I would acknowledge that there is an element of truth to that.  But not the whole truth. Or even most of it. 

Morality is a fuzzy thing.  However, it is a fuzzy thing that has an objective basis.  This basis is twofold – the traits we evolved to cause us to be social creatures, such as empathy, reciprocity, a sense of fairness, etc.  And then those social structures resulting from these traits form and shape those traits and, with trial and error wind up promoting good societies that can survive. Something that is on always on-going project, especially given the size and complexity of our societies.  

I am not going to go into all the  intricacies of morality.  At the end of this blog there are some references for your reading pleasure should you wish to pursue further.

Instead though I am wanting to emphasize that it is our ability to form societies that has led to human survival.  Without that we would be extinct.  And our morality is an essential part of that survival trait.  To say that morality has no role to play in evaluating the actions of humans in some situations is to say that we cannot use our common humanity to evaluate human actions.  That seems nonsensical to me. 

I think this is clearly seen if we take this idea that no judgement can be made on the actions of an oppressed people who are fighting their oppressors to its logical extreme. 

Imagine that one of the many groups of Jewish partisans in Nazi Europe decided to start kidnapping German citizens who had no connection to the military, politicians, war industries, or law enforcement.  They kidnap whole families, including children and babies.  Then then they stripped them, make them labor on short food and water for weeks with frequent beatings before packing them all into gas chambers.  Would their actions be moral?  Should we avoid condemning these actions because the Jews were most definitely oppressed during this time, to the point of being almost rendered extinct in Europe?

This points towards another aspect of the necessity of moral judgements.  Solutions are going to have to be moral, and just. Otherwise, the problem will continue on and only the veneer will have changed.  In trying to atone for their treatment of the Jews over thousands of years, Europe and the US created another injustice and immoral act. Which is why we have our current bloodshed.

Two final points on this. 

First, immoral actions never make other immoral actions moral or right.  The immoral actions committed by Hamas on October 7^th do not justify the current actions of Israel.  Not in the slightest. 

Second, while saying a given action is immoral, understanding why it was done is just as important in deciding how to act and react to that immoral act.  In ignoring the cause of Hamas immoral actions – the decades long series of injustices being committed by the Israel against the Palestinians – no true solution will be found.  Only more pain and suffering and needless deaths.  Only more immoral actions and immoral reactions.

Some interesting reads on a very complex subject.

“Seven Moral Rules Found Around the World“, Oxford

“Is There a Universal Morality? Introduction and Overview of Responses“, Prosocial World

“Culture and the Evolution of Human Cooperation“, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

“The Evolution of Morality“, Evolution; education and outreach

Solving One Injustice by Creating Another is No Solution. Israel and It’s Creation

In several of my discussions about the war in Gaza I have had those defending Israel’s actions bring up some variant of the argument that the Palestinians had their chance to vote when Israel was created, but chose not to.  Saying in effect that the Palestinians had a chance to peacefully resolve this on day one, and chose not to.  However, that is very much a perversion of history.  Israel’s creation was immoral and unjust.  Period. 

Now, before going further into why this is true, let me say that after having existed for 75 years now, and the vast majority of its citizens having been born and raised there, often being the second or even third generation, to try to destroy it or undo it now would be to create an equally great immorality and injustice.   You do not correct one injustice by committing another. 

So, now on to why it is wrong to say that the Palestinians had a choice in the beginning to be part of a great compromise, and that everything that has happened since is due to their refusal to be a part of that.  And that Israel has a moral and legal right to be created. 

Now, moving on to why the creation of Israel was wrong, a good starting point is the Palestinian Mandate.  The Palestinian Mandate was created by the League of nations in 1920 and ceded control of Palestine, which had originally been under Turkish control, to Britain.  It required Britain to put into practice the Balfour Declaration with the goal of creating a Jewish state.  One that would exist alongside the Arabs.  I should mention that the Balfour Declaration was very much the work of European Jews, and not those still living in Palestine.

The drafting of this mandate was done without any – repeat, without any input from Arabs.  Or the people living on the land.  In fact, at least four times a delegation from 4th Palestine Arab Congress, composed of people who actually lived in the Palestine, tried to present their views that the Balfour declaration was wrong and should be struck down, that favoritism should not be given to European Jews, and that any state in the Palestine area should be affiliated with other Arab states.  All of these objections were rejected. 

In looking at the wording of this mandate, the intention was also for Britain to then help create a country ruled by the majority Arab population in Palestine.  This mandate stated that once the area has “… reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.” 

This was widely understood to mean an Arab nation by those living in the Palestine area.  The Palestinians took some hope from that.  Based on what happened soon after though that hope was totally misplaced. Instead of creating an Arab state, Britain, with the help of the UN,  eventually gave it over to European Jews. 

Fast forward to 1947.  The UN passed a resolution, Resolution 181, creating a Jewish state and setting up what it called a “compromise”.  However, I will point out that it too was created without the input from those already living in Palestine, and over their objections.  Further, it gave 56% of Palestine to the European Jews, and only 43% to those who had been living on the land for generations.   Even though there were twice as many Arabs living in Palestine as Jews.  Even though the Arabs owned the majority of land in Palestine. And as the Palestinians and other Arabs said at the time, this violated the principle of national self determination that said the people living on the land should be the ones who determine their own fate.  I should also mention that the Arabs who did not become citizens in the Jewish part were to be evicted. 

Some defenders of Israel say that the residents of Palestine did not even bother to vote on this compromise.  But why should they?  The residents of Palestine would not have been voting on whether to allow these outsiders in.  They would have been voting on the best way to divide up the land for these foreigners to come in.  And that was not what they were wanting.   Before voting on a “compromise” there should have been a vote among those already living in that land on whether they would allow European Jews to come in and create a new country out of land the Palestinians were living on. That never happened. There was no consent. Just a “compromise” offered after the fact.

Does that strike you as just?  

Let me now provide a what if analogy to help make this injustice even clearer, I hope.  An analogy based upon American history. 

I am not sure if you are from the United States or not but let me illustrate why it is not using some American history. 

In the 1830s the United States wanted the land the Cherokee tribe was living on.  There were several reasons for this desire.  Gold had been discovered in that area.  It was also prime farming country.  Add to this the growing  US population, slavery, and the fact that the Indian nations were independent of state control, well, it became obvious that the Cherokees had to go. 

The Cherokees fought it in court but lost.  In 1838 President Jackson ordered their expulsion from their land – that covered part of Georgia, Alabama, as well as part of North and South Carolina – to go to the new Indian Territory in Oklahoma.  This expulsion is called the Trail of Tears due to how many Cherokees died on this journey.  Out of the around 17,000 forced to leave their homes, approximately 6,000 men, women and children died on their march to Oklahoma. 

So, let’s move forward to today.  Imagine that some Cherokees have petitioned the UN to be given some of their land back due to the extreme poverty of their reservation and the discrimination that still goes on against them.  They want a homeland set up in their ancestral homeland where they can better control their fate.  In addition to it being their homeland, they also point out that there are still a few Cherokees still living in that area. 

The UN then comes up with a Resolution that gives Cherokees some of their land back – the part that covers northern Georgia and northeastern Alabama.   After all those areas are their ancestral homeland.  As part of this resolution any Americans living within that area would have to leave, no matter if they and their families had lived on that land for over a hundred years.  No vote is taken among the Americans now living on that land. No consent given.

How do you think those Americans would react?  Do you think they would participate in any vote on this?  I imagine they would say hell no, no one is voting to kick me off mine and my families lands. 

This would be similar to that in regards to Palestine. But with Palestine it is much worse.  The vast majority of the Jews entering into Israel at this time – and I mean the massive majority – came from Europe. Their ancestors had not lived in Palestine for hundreds, even over a thousand years.  And they would be displacing people who lived in that land now. Whose families have lived in that land for many generations going back hundreds if not thousands of years.  This compromise of two states is rather akin to asking would you rather get knifed in the stomach or back.  Most would say I vote for neither. 

The creation of Israel was not right, it was not just, it was not moral.  And it set up the current conflict. 

Now, let me also say that I do not blame the European Jews for going.  After having been persecuted for thousands of years, a persecution that culminated in the Holocaust, the idea of their own country where they would be safe from such atrocities  is overwhelmingly appealing. 

No, I don’t’ blame them for choosing this, although their choice was wrong.  More wrong though was Europe and America’s treatment of the Jews, and how they then decided to rectify that by creating a homeland for the Jews.  A homeland is a good idea, but it should not involve the involuntary removal and displacement of those already living there.  Look to the lands the European countries already owned and work out something there instead of what they actually chose.  As I have said earlier in this blog, correcting one injustice (their treatment of the Jews) with another (against the Palestinians) only creates more problems.  Usually larger ones. And we are seeing that play out now, with those consequences made even worse by many other bad choices along the way.

Healthcare – We Chose … Poorly

For the past couple of weeks, I have been busy enrolling in Medicare Part B.   As I do so I am once again amazed at the choice we made as a country to not implement a universal healthcare system.  Universal healthcare is far superior to what we do here in the US by almost every measure.  It is cheaper, it provides support for all citizens, it provides greater freedom to take risks in work, and is fairer in that healthcare does not just become something that only the well off can afford.

Before going further, let me just provide a brief synopsis of our current healthcare system in the United States.  It is usually provided by the employer- but not all employers.  Almost all employers have the employee pay part of the cost of the insurance monthly.  This is in addition to any co-pays and deductibles the person has to pay.  All to receive coverage whose final approval is done not by the doctors with the individual, but by for profit companies.  Companies who might and probably are genuinely concerned about providing good healthcare, but whose highest priority is creating profit. 

So, given this, why do so many oppose universal healthcare.  Let me list and deal with the ways. 

1.   People do not want the government to control their healthcare. 

Insurance companies control which doctors a person can go to.  They control what medications are covered and which are not.  They control if a given procedure is paid for or if numerous other steps have to be done first.  Extra steps done not because they might provide better healthcare service to the individual but that could possibly get results for cheaper and help save the bottom line for a for profit industry.  Insurance companies make both the company and the individual pay.  Essentially, it is a private tax.  And both the company and individual are now out of money that could have been better spent elsewhere. 

A government is more responsive to the people than private companies. 

2.  People do not want to wait for their needed medical procedures. 

People in countries with universal healthcare do not wait longer than in the US.  On average, some are longer, but many have shorter wait times.  From World Population Review:

“A common misconception in the U.S. is that countries with universal health care have much longer wait times. However, data from nations with universal coverage, coupled with historical data from coverage expansion in the United States, show that patients in other nations often have similar or shorter wait times.”

This report from the OECD iLibrary gives a bit more detailed breakdown.

Let me at this point mention something that many who are against universal healthcare do not seem to realize.  There is not just one system to achieve this.  Each country has it set up and financed differently.  Some are totally government paid for.  Others are a mixture of government and private. The commonality is that all citizens can get quality healthcare regardless of income.   And without all the massive amounts of paperwork (administrative savings alone would be hundreds of millions of dollars a year).

3.  People do not want to have inferior medical care. 

They do not receive inferior medical care under universal healthcare.   We pay much more for healthcare – in 2022 US paid $12,555 per person whereas the next highest spending on healthcare, Switzerland, only spent $8,049.   And the results of the care are essentially the same.  In fact, in some areas such as life expectancy, untreated diabetes, infant healthcare – the US does worse than those countries with universal healthcare. 

I misspoke when I said that the results of the US healthcare system and those countries with universal healthcare are essentially the same.  One significant difference, they do not have people dying or suffering due to not being able to pay medical bills, they do not have people going bankrupt trying to pay their medical bills, they do not have people forgoing needed healthcare because they could not afford it.  Which is why I imagine our infant healthcare numbers, untreated diabetes, and life expectancy are worse. 

Now, lets look at the flip side.  Why we should have universal healthcare. 

In those countries that have it, it has proven more cost effective than our system.

In those countries that have it, medical care is as good as in the US.

In those countries that have it, the medical decisions are between the patient and the doctor.  No one else. 

In those countries that have it, since individuals do not have to worry about healthcare, they are more willing to open and start new businesses or change jobs. 

In those countries that have it, there is far far less paperwork in getting needed medical care.  

In those countries that have it, businesses do not have to provide healthcare to employees, freeing up that money for other areas within their business. 

In those countries that have it, people do not die because they cannot afford healthcare. 

And in those countries that have it, things such as in this link do not happen, where a woman who worked as a middle school counselor and had insurance wound up in a coma for five weeks and now needs extensive medical care, but is unable to afford it. This is causing the family and friends to beg for donations and help through a Go Fund Me page.  Something seen far too frequently in the US.

Final Questions/Objections

What about personal responsibility? What about freeloaders? 

The personal responsibility part comes in choosing to use it, or not.  In choosing to get medications, or not.  In choosing to follow, or not, what the doctor recommended. 

As for freeloaders, access to good healthcare is something that should be the right of all citizens. Doing so provides a benefit for society and for the government.  And for businesses.

A 2020 Lancet study found that:

We calculate that a single-payer, universal health-care system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national health-care expenditure, equivalent to more than US$450 billion annually (based on the value of the US$ in 2017). The entire system could be funded with less financial outlay than is incurred by employers and households paying for health-care premiums combined with existing government allocations. This shift to single-payer health care would provide the greatest relief to lower-income households. Furthermore, we estimate that ensuring health-care access for all Americans would save more than 68 000 lives and 1·73 million life-years every year compared with the status quo.

A 2022 PNAS study on what the effects would have been of having a Medicare for all system in place during the pandemic concluded this:

The fragmented and inefficient healthcare system in the United States leads to many preventable deaths and unnecessary costs every year. Universal healthcare could have alleviated the mortality caused by a confluence of negative COVID-related factors. Incorporating the demography of the uninsured with age-specific COVID-19 and nonpandemic mortality, we estimated that a single-payer universal healthcare system would have saved 212,000 lives in 2020 alone. We also calculated that US$105.6 billion of medical expenses associated with COVID-19 hospitalization could have been averted by a Medicare for All system.

In addition to individuals universal healthcare would also benefit businesses, as discussed in this link to the Economic Policy Institute. 

“Specifically, it could:

• Boost wages and salaries by allowing employers to redirect money they are spending on health care costs to their workers’ wages.
• Increase job quality by ensuring that every job now comes bundled with a guarantee of health care—with the boost to job quality even greater among women workers, who are less likely to have employer-sponsored health care.
• Lessen the stress and economic shock of losing a job or moving between jobs by eliminating the loss of health care that now accompanies job losses and transitions.
• Support self-employment and small business development—which is currently super low in the U.S. relative to other rich countries—by eliminating the daunting loss of/cost of health care from startup costs.
• Inject new dynamism and adaptability into the overall economy by reducing “job lock”—with workers going where their skills and preferences best fit the job, not just to workplaces (usually large ones) that have affordable health plans.

Produce a net increase in jobs as public spending boosts aggregate demand, with job losses in health insurance and billing administration being outweighed by job gains in provision of health care, including the expansion of long-term care.

Universal healthcare is one of those areas where the whole society benefits.  Even if there are freeloaders, although I am not sure what that term means in this context, the benefits for all are worth it.  Just as with public education, public libraries, police, the military, and so forth.    

Universal healthcare is better for the individual, for society, for businesses, and for the government.  We have taken a wrong turning in our choices of healthcare systems.  That’s understandable. Mistakes happen.  What is not understandable is that we continue to choose this, and even praise it at times, instead of changing to something that is not only better but badly needed. 

Forgotten Atheists: Matthias Knutzen

I just realized that it has been a bit over a year since I last did a Forgotten Atheists blog.  Well past time for another one, my fifth. 

“Moreover, we deny God, we despise authorities from above and we reject the churches together with all ministers.”

Who was the first explicit atheist in history?   That is a more challenging question than many assume.  After all, many who were called atheists were, instead, believers but believers who believed differently than most.  And then there are the many who were not totally atheist, but instead, semi-atheist.  Or those whose ideas about the universe easily lead to an atheistic view but who never chose to go that far and were, instead, agnostic.  Early examples of atheists that many promote are like this – Epicurus, Lucretius, etc.  They did not deny that God or Gods existed.  Only that they did not work in the affairs of humans and the world and so could be ignored.

For the purposes of this blog, and in order to discuss this forgotten atheist, I am looking at who the first person was who explicitly said, under their own name and not a pseudonym, that God did not exist and argued against his or her or their existence.  A person for whom this was a main message.  In which case, I give you Matthias Knutzen (1646 to sometime after 1674), founder of the Conscientiarians, as being the first modern form of atheist. 

Consider these testimonials.  In 1677 the German theologian Tobias Pfanner said that Knutzen’s work surpassed the infamy of all the enemies of religion known until then.  In 1697 Pierre Bayle included Knutzen in his Dictionanaire hisotirque et critique.   In 1789 Thomas Mortimer’s “Students Pocket Dictionary of Universal History had this about Knutzen, “The only person on record who openly professed and taught atheism.” 

Matthias Knutzen was born sometime in 1646 in Oldenswort, Germany, near the river Elder.  His parents were Berend Knutzen, an organist in Oldenswort, and Berend’s wife Elisabeth.  While still very young he lost both of his parents and was sent to live with his uncle, also an organist, in Konigsberg. 

There is no man who, faced with the passages reported in Knutzen’s letter, will fail to judge for himself that all these objections are utterly weak, and that this man became an atheist from the corruption of his heart, and not because of the lights of his mind

From “Entretiens sur divers sujets d’historie et de religion” by Mathurin Veyssiere del la Croze in 1711

Matthias enrolled at the University of Konigsberg in 1664 and in 1668 studied theology at the Lutheran seminary at the University of Copenhagen.  Although it does not appear he actually graduated.  During this time he earned money as a private tutor and in 1673 became a village schoolteacher and auxiliary Protestant preacher in the Kremper Marsch.  

Also in 1673 he was dismissed from this position due to him criticizing the religious authorities during his sermons.  In 1674 he went to Rome and from there to Jena, distributing handwritten atheistic pamphlets.  After Jena, records fail.

If you now think you will convince me and my co-religionists with your Bible, we’ll no more accept it as a judge than a Jew would the New Testament.  We Conscientarians believe nothing unless established by science or reason, not of only one (who might be insane), but of many; not that of small children, but that of grown men, in harmony with our joint conscience.

From “A Conversation Between a Chaplain, Named Dr. Heinrich Brummer, and an Educated Pattern-Printer”, by Matthias Knutzen. 

Where and when and how he died is unknown.  There is a story that he died in an Italian monastery.  Given his actions and beliefs, this would seem to be a strange place for his last days.  Which is why many think this may have been put about in order to discredit him.  And possibly the Catholic Church. 

Regardless of when and how he died, he was the culmination of thousand of years of skepticism and incipient atheism within Greek and Roman thought.  In addition, he was also informed and influenced by heretical Christian thought such as Socinianism (the belief God is unitary, not a trinity; that Jesus was human and did not pre-exist, and that God could not predict that actions of people with free will).

As can be seen, detailed information about the life of Matthias Knutzen is scarce.  He did not marry (which may not be all that surprising given his views on marriage, see quote below).  He did not have known children.  However, he did leave behind three written works, the aforementioned pamphlets that he distributed in several German cities:

Epistola amica ad amicum:  Letter for a Friend to a Friend. 

Gesprach zwischen einem Gastgeber und drei Gasten ungleicher Religion;  Conversation between a Host and three Guest of different Religions. 

Gesrpach zwischen einem Felprediger names Dr. Heinrich Brummern und einem lateinischen Musterschreiber: Conversation between an Army Chaplain called Dr. Heinrich Brummern and a Latin Pattern-Writer. 

With these writings he proclaimed what he called the conscience people – Conscientarians.  Knutzen claimed that there were followers in Hamburg, Jena, Paris, Amsterdam, and Rome.  However, it is most likely he their numbers were smaller than he claimed.

This man, after completing his studies in Konigsberg, in Prussia, decided to travel the world, and set himself up as a new apostle of atheism…..he sought to establish under the name of the Sect of the Conscientarians, that is, men who would profess in all things to follow the laws of conscience and reason only.  However, this wretch denied the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, and the authority of Holy Scripture, as if, with the loss of these truths, the least trace of conscience could remain in man.

From Entretiens sur divers sujets d’historie et de religion” by Mathurin Veyssiere del la Croze in 1711

As for what he taught and advocated, he did not believe that God, the devil or immortal souls existed.  He not only believed they did not exist, he publicly argued that they did not while also pointing out the Bible’s many contradictions to show that it was not a trustworthy source of morals or knowledge. 

He also argued that since there are no such immortal and divine beings and with the Bible having proven itself untrustworthy by its many contradictions, then reason and conscience should be the guidelines for human behavior.  Religious authority is not only not necessary but should be dispensed with.  As should secular authorities.   

First, there is neither a God nor a devil; secondly, magistrates arc not to be valued, churches are to be despised, and priests rejected; thirdly, instead of magistrates and priests, we have learning and reason, which, joined with conscience, teach us to live honestly, to hurt no man, and to give every one his due; fourthly, matrimony does not differ from fornication; fifthly, there is but one life, which is this, after which there are neither rewards nor punishments; the holy Scripture is inconsistent with itself.

Letter to Rome from Matthia Knutznen

“Moreover, we deny God, we despise authorities from above and we reject the churches together with all ministers.” 

Knutzen in Amicus Amicis Amica!

As can be seen in this last quote of his, in addition to being an atheist he was a proto anarchist. 

For Knutzen, the most important and guiding rule was: “Live honestly, do not harm anybody and give everybody what they deserve.” 

Not bad words to live by, not bad at all for an immoral atheist.  One who was willing to disturb the status quo under his own name. 

Breaches in the Wall of Separation

Currently we are riding a wave of threats to our liberties coming from the religious right. A woman’s right to control her body, struck down.  Tennessee passing a law allowing public officials, government officials, to refuse to perform gay marriages due to that official’s religious beliefs.  And Alabama’s ruling that a fetus is a person, even using quotes from the Bible as part of its reasoning. 

Given all of this I thought it appropriate to again go over why the separation of church and state is not only important but also critical to the protection of all our rights.  I did so once using history to show why.  This time I plan to use current examples, namely China, India, Israel, and the US. 

China

Some, perhaps many, will be quick to point out that China is not religious.  It does not endorse Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, or any other religion.  It is an atheist state.  Which is exactly the point.  It proclaims a position on something considered religious – whether God exists.  While in one definition of the term secular China is indeed secular.  However, in another definition, the one I am using, it most definitely is not. 

What many do not realize is that there is a difference between being secular and being atheist.  Secular actually comes in three types.  However, in regard to government, it means that that government takes no stance on purely religious issues. They neither promote nor discourage any one religious view.  Even atheism.  And it is that meaning that I will be referring to in this blog when I say secular.  Let me also mention that as with all human institutions, there is no perfection.  There are several secular governments but some are more secular than others.  And many proclaim themselves to be secular but are not.

China though is not a secular government.  It officially describes itself as being atheist.  And although they recognize five religions – Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism – party officials have to be atheists.  And even the officially recognized five religions are closely monitored and restricted.  And if your religion is not one of these five – well, good luck. 

Through the years Chinese actions in regard to religion have changed.  However, they have always been regulated and those considered dangerous condemned and outlawed, while atheism has always been favored. 

The current government of China is “urging all religious groups in China to adapt to socialism by integrating their doctrines, customs and morality with Chinese culture.”  They also have to pledge loyalty to the state. 

They have tightened controls on all the official religions – detaining Uyghurs (Muslims) in Xinjiang and cracking down on underground Quran study groups,  reinforced its ban on unauthorized Protestant worship sites, forcing house churches to join a state-run association and detaining Protestant religious leaders who refuse to cooperate and other actions.  They have though been more lenient towards the native religions – Buddhism and Taoism, allocating money for different projects relating to these two religions. 

So, unlike in secular governments, religion and religious thought and belief is heavily regulated.  Limits are applied to speech and to associations.  All flowing from the lack of separation of church and state.

One point of interest here.  Laws against homosexuality are often said to be related to religious beliefs. Yet, in China, an atheist state, while it is legal to be gay it is still illegal for them to marry or to have civil unions.  Further there are no protections against discrimination in regard to housing and employment, conversion therapy is allowed, gays are not allowed to donate blood.  And can only adopt a child if they are single.   

India

India is officially a secular state.  It says so in its Constitution.  However, in that same Constitution the government is allowed to interfere in matters of religious belief and actions.  Some of this though was necessary and good, such as the abolition of the untouchable caste, and opening up the Hindu temples to lower castes.  Others though, such as the partial funding of religious schools as well as religious buildings are not, are dangerous cracks in the wall of separation. 

An even more dangerous crack in that wall is their allowance of the individual states to make their own laws regulating religious institutions.  And unless they conflict with the central government laws, they stand.  This has led to a variety of laws in regard to religious rights within India, and greater breaches to the wall.  These laws include 11 states outlawing religious conversions.

This mix means that India is more of a quasi-secular state than an actual one.  And just as in the US, there is a conservative religious movement working to have India declared a Hindu nation, with motions to have their Constitution reflect this.  It is no surprise that there has been a rise in religious violence, – Muslims mainly, but also against Christians and Dalits.  As exemplified by the many violent acts during the recent inauguration of the Hindu Ram Temple. 

Israel

Israel is not a secular state.  It proclaims itself a Jewish state and Jews are favored over other groups within Israel.  It does not allow civil marriages and non-religious divorces, the Chief Rabbinate controls all Jewish weddings, divorces, conversions and answers questions on who a Jew for purposes of immigration is.  The ministry of education oversees both the secular and religious schools of all faiths, giving them only a limited degree of independence along with a common core curriculum.  And although it protects some faiths, others are not so favored.  Including some Jewish groups. 

However, despite all of this, it does come closer to realizing the protections within its political structure for other religions than either India or China.  But that is trending downwards. Especially the rise of the religious right in Israel, the rights of non-Jews is becoming more precarious.

Even worse it is this religious belief on the part of the Jewish religious conservatives that is one of the main reasons why Israel continues to expand into the West Bank and controlling Gaza, with the claim that they both are part of the Israel in the Bible. 

Finally there is the fact that their religious identity conflicts with their identity as a democracy.  Currently that is not a pressing issue. Although it means that if Israel does formally make the West Bank and Gaza strip part of Israel they will be faced with a decision.  Name do they allow the Arab and mainly Muslim inhabitants to vote with the very real possibility that items related to Judaism and government may be changed?  Do they also formally make them second class citizens without the right to vote?  Or do they do a massive deportation?   None of those are good options, but that is what Israel will be facing someday, even without annexing the West Bank and Gaza. 

The United States

I came across this description of the state of secularism (from the above link about secular) in the United States and liked it.

“The United States is a secular country in theory, but it falls short in actual practice. The U.S. is a self-described secular state and is often considered to be constitutionally secular. The U.S. Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Additionally, keeping with the lack of an established state religion, Article Six of the U.S. Constitution states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

On the other hand, many official U.S. materials still include clear references to religion. The Pledge of Allegiance includes the line “one nation under God,” which is undeniably non-secular. Also, the phrase “In God We Trust” appears on all United States currency (both coins and paper bills) and became the official United States motto in 1956. While religious references such as these are common in many countries, their presence inspires understandable debate about the separation of church and state, as well as whether the U.S. is truly devoted to secularism.”

There are many threats to rights from many different directions and with many different motivations and causes. Breaking the wall separating religion and state though is a common route for such threats to become reality.  That is because it involves matters of conscience and morality, and beliefs that most consider very important.

Once a state starts to identify with a religion then anyone not of that religion becomes, at the very least, slightly suspicious since they are not a good “insert name of state here”.  Worse case, they are persecuted.  Their speech is limited, their ability to associate with others limited, their ability to build houses of worship limited, their ability to hold office limited, their ability to marry and raise children limited.  Eventually these limits turn into being jailed, or forced to move to camps. 

When religions is used as the primary basis for passing laws then we see what we are seeing play out in the US – book bannings increasing, restrictions on bodily autonomy, making the fetus equal in the eyes of the law with a person, allowing government officials to refuse to marry gays, etc. 

The separation of church and state is not only important for the right of individuals to believe as they think best but also to protect us against unnecessary laws based upon other’s conscience. It is why there has to be a secular basis for laws.  It may coincide with a particular religious view – in fact it most often will. With several religious views in fact. But the basis for the law has to be secular not religious 

People look at the small things that encroach upon that wall of separation –  police cars with “In God We Trust”, a cross in a public school classroom, allowing students to fly the Christian flag on the public school flagpole, opening public meetings with a prayer, etc. – and think this is minor.  It is not a big deal.  However, it is through such small things that rafts are created that lift some people above others – those of the right religious beliefs.  The rest get left behind to swim, or more likely, sink. 

As a bit of an aside, for those who call us a Christian nation and who say our country was founded upon Christianity, you need to consider why I chose this time to write my blog.  My idea for this blog actually came about when listening to a Christian religious talk show discussing how the government of India was no longer protecting the religious rights of non-Hindus and of the dangers of “Hindu Nationalism”.  I think they should have used a mirror during that discussion. 

Making Lies True

There is a saying that a lie told often enough becomes the truth for way too many people.  That seems to be the tactic of the Republicans recently.  And it is, unfortunately, working for them.  They have done this on the election with their repeated lies that trump lost due to fraud and a fraudulent election system.  Because of this they are hard at work making our election system more partisan and less fair, and so making their lies a reality.  However, they are also doing this on another issue.  The border. 

In regard to the border they claim that we are being “invaded” and that our border is an open one. This particular lie is made stronger by the fact that, unlike the election lie, there is a grain of truth to it.  Yes, our border system is broken.  But no, there is no invasion.  Nor is there an open border. 

INVASION!!!! 

Let’s start examining this lie by considering what an invasion means.  For the vast majority of people, an invasion involves violence and the intent to change or take over.  However, that is not what is happening.  There is very little violence involved, with the vast, vast majority of these immigrants acting and being peaceful. 

Yes, some do commit crimes after entering the US.  But so do some legal immigrants.  Further the number of crimes are committed by illegal immigrants is less than those crimes committed by US citizens.  And yes, some are not fully vetted before entering.  However, that is a problem of not having enough resources to do so.  Something that was true in the previous administration and the one before that and the one before that. 

But none of this is the same as an invasion.  Not even close.  Broken, yes.  Invasion, no. 

As for taking over the United States and changing it – no.  The vast majority of illegals are fleeing broken countries with high violence, extreme political instability, and extreme poverty.  They do not want to take over, they want to take advantage of what the US has to offer – stability, peace, and economic hope.  They want to receive what America ha promised.    

OPEN BORDER!!!!

What do most people think when they hear the word Open Border?.  They think that there is nothing stopping them from freely entering. People just walk in without challenge, without difficulties, without any attempt to stop and monitor.   And yet a quick look at these facts show this to not be true. 

• During the month of December US officials processed – please note that word here – processed 300,000 immigrants crossing – checking databases for health records and criminal records.  Whether the processing was thorough enough is a matter of debate, but these immigrants were not just walking in and being ignored. 
• The US Customs and Border Enforcement removed 142, 000 people in 2023. 
• In addition there have been more than 3.6 million removals, returns and expulsions from President Biden’s first month in office to September 2023.  
• These alone show that the problem is not that we have an open border but an overwhelmed one.  One that does not have the resources it needs in terms of agents, judges, staff, facilities, supplies, medical staff and training to deal effectively, efficiently, quickly and humanely the numbers trying to enter. 
• What is needed is not rhetoric portraying good people as being evil villains intent on doing harm to America invading through open borders.  Nor is it concertina wire and military with rifles and guns.  Nor walls. Judges, agents, and facilities, not walls and concertina wire are what is needed. 
• Several attempts have been made to increase funding for these necessary changes.  Each time the Republicans blocked its passage.  The most recent being this month on a Senate Bill that would have done all of this – a bill that hewed closer to Republican’s positions than Democrats but that Democrats would have held their nose and voted for anyway.  But then the Republicans killed what would have been a win for them because it would have also helped the border situation while the Democrats still controlled the Presidency and Senate. 

This article highlights some of the things I just discussed.  What is happening on our borders is not an invasion.  It is people desperately looking for safety and for an opportunity for them and their families.  Even the concertina wire is not a deterrent.  It also highlights that many are processed – they are not entering untouched and without notice. 

The day before, this reporter witnessed a similar scene. Dozens of migrants, including young children, crawled into the U.S. through a small breach in the concertina wire. While some women cried, a mother helped pull other migrants, including a boy, underneath the wire. At the same spot, a man pushed his young son through the wire before handing his daughter, a toddler, to her brother. As the daughter cried, the boy helped his father get past the wire….

These dire scenes have become a daily occurrence near the Texas border town of Eagle Pass, now the busiest sector for illegal crossings alongside the remote Tucson sector in Arizona, where smugglers have been cutting parts of the border wall to let migrants into the U.S.

Undeterred by the razor wire assembled by Texas state officials, stretches of federal border wall and Biden administration policies designed to reduce illegal entries, migrants have been crossing the U.S.-Mexico border in unprecedented numbers in recent days.

In just five days last week, Border Patrol processed nearly 50,000 migrants who entered the U.S. illegally, with daily apprehensions surpassing 10,000 thrice, up from the 6,400 average last month, according to federal data obtained by CBS News. Roughly 1,500 additional migrants are being processed each day at official border crossings under a Biden program powered by a phone app.”

For those who want to understand instead of succumbing to the lies and fearmongering, this article from the Migration Policy is a good place to start.

The Question

The real question is what sort of nation do we want to be?  One that tries to live up to the words on the Statue of Liberty, one seen as a beacon of hope for those in need and danger; or a nation who builds a fortress to keep out the “…. tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door! The Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation, Inc.”

If the latter then that wall needs to be erected not only along the border with Mexico, but between the Liberty Island with its Statue of Liberty and New York.  And we will be much the poorer for it in so very many ways.   From our beginnings we have prided ourselves on being a beacon of liberty.  Now it seems that many do not want to deal with what that means, and so want to create darkness instead.  Creating lies to do so seems appropriate somehow.

Governmental Birds and Bees – Where Do Rights Come From?

Where do rights come from?  Are they God given?  Arise from Nature?  The whims of government or humans? From religion?  The answer is none of the above.  Rights are, instead, social constructs meant to foster more stable societies, ones that are likely to lead to more general satisfaction among its members. 

Before explaining this let me first make a prediction.  Many are going to say that this definition of rights is nothing more than whims of government and people.  That it is totally subjective without anything objective to it. 

No, it does not mean that. 

I am always slightly amazed that people think that if something doesn’t have a physical body and is not composed of molecules and atoms it is not real. Or that if something does not have a hard and fast trigger – like gravity and stepping off a cliff – then it is not real.  Or if something has fuzzy edges and can change it is not real and has no objective existence.  Sorry, but reality is both bigger and more complex – and more wonderful – than that limited view.  Being objectively real does not come in just one form. 

So what are rights and in what way are they real.

One relevant aside here.  Many people have a hard time wrapping their minds around the concept that something can have fuzzy edges and be without hard and fast triggers and yet still be real and objective.   Let me give an example of exactly this by using individuals. 

People like to stay warm.  When it gets cold, they wear more clothes, stay inside more, turn up the heat.  Now, none of those actions are hard wired.  People can still choose not to do any of those things.  Yet it would be a safe bet to predict that the vast majority of people will chose to at least one of those things. 

Those actions are not hard wired into our nature.  What is hard wired though is an aversion to being cold.  The reason that is hard wired into us is because those of our ancestors who did not have this aversion froze and died. 

What specific temperature people will find cold will vary – it is fuzzy.  How they react and what they do will vary.  Again fuzzy.  No hard and fast triggers, but variable ones with variable responses.  But a very limited variability.  And the fact that the very vast majority will act in ways to be less cold is an objective fact.  Fuzzy without hard and fast triggers, yet still objectively real. 

So too with so much else of human beings, especially those regarding our constructs such as ethics and morals.  Including as well the idea of rights.  And just as creating clothes and wearing them, as well as using fire and finding homes that provide cover arose partly as a response to our hard wired need not to be cold, so too did our creation of rights arise from our hard wired evolutionary nature of being social animals. 

Rights are human constructs, arising from our evolutionary derived human nature. Without humans there are no rights.  Just as without humans there are no books, no religion, no science. 

Further, rights are specific to governments and the relationship between a government and its people.  And just as with humans, without a government there are no rights. 

Finally, governments are necessary.  Humans are social animals.  That is one of our primary survival strategies.  Without forming and living in groups humans would be extinct.  And when there are groups of differing people living together there has to be some means of resolving disputes, assigning work, distributing resources, and providing supports.  These means can be informal and implicit, or more formal and explicit.  With the increase in size of these groups from a collection of family groups to tribes to cities to city states to nations these systems became, of necessity, more formal and complex. 

These large groups are a recent thing in our history – out of homo sapiens 200,000 years on this planet only in the last 12,000 years have we as a species developed larger groups than the kinship groups.  As a result we are still figuring out the best ways to create and maintain such large groups.  What worked for smaller kinship groups did not work for the larger mixed groups. 

While our need to form social groups is part of our nature, the specifics of how to do so is not.  We are not ants or bees.  That means that we find out through trial and error what ways of forming and maintaining large groups work and what doesn’t.  Find out what ways to reduce and resolve inevitable conflicts both within the group and outside of it.  Ways to provide supports and needed services to those who live within that group.  It is a messy process and one that is still very much on -going.  One fairly recent innovation in doing all of this is the rise of various types of democracies.  And along with democracies came the concept of Rights.   

The function of both, broadly speaking, is to protect those who are members of that society, and to allow them a voice. In a way this is actually something that our original societies already had, consisting as they did of smaller family groups.  Everyone’s voices could already be heard and considered by the others.  That got lost though as larger societies were created.  Not purposely so, but just as a result of the changes needed to unite different kinship groups with different beliefs and ways of doing things into one identity. 

However, the traits that caused us to form groups in the first place – empathy, a sense of fairness and justice, and others – also caused governments, these larger groups, that did not find ways to listen to the voices of their people and did not protect them to become unstable and difficult.   And their citizens to suffer.

Rights then are human social constructs meant to protect those things that people have found of overwhelming importance, as well as those necessary for the support and promotion of a democracy.  Or of their government even if not a democracy – although off the top of my head I cannot think of any other type of government that is not a democracy that has a good record on rights or that does more than just give lip service to Rights.

Rights are also still in the process of becoming.  And I think, given time, will eventually be not only given lip service to but also applied and followed by almost all the countries in the world.  It has only been 12,000 years since humans first started forming large groups.  Only a few hundred years since the concept of human rights really started to gain ground (there were precursors to this that go back almost 3,000 years).  This is short by the standards of life and history.  For being such fuzzy and imprecise human creations, they are doing well.  

I should, though, also mention in closing that though human rights, in a sense, are inevitable, that the when and where they become real differs.  And gains can be lost.  Remember this, Rights are a human creation and need to be promoted and protected by humans.  The moment they are not they die.  Furter, remember that we as individuals live human lifespans, and not that of history and evolution.  If we want our moments and those of our fellow humans to be good and well we need to act and not become complacent that history is on our side.  History is dependent upon our actions. 

Democracy Does Not Trump Rights

The other day I came across this story about how a small school district in Texas, the LaPoynor school district, had been raising a Christian flag up the school flagpole every day.  When challenged on it, and told it violates the separation of church and state and was thus unconstitutional, they, reluctantly, took it down.  However, after a great deal of protests by many of their students the school district came up with another idea that would still allow them to fly the Christian flag most days.  From the Texas Tribunes article: 

“After the controversy about the Christian flag, the district formed a group of students to serve as a committee that selects what flag flies on that third pole. The group is made up of the student from each grade level with the highest grade-point average and meets on a monthly basis under the supervision of a district parent, according to Superintendent Marsha Mills.

The group has chosen different flags, including one for Breast Cancer Awareness Month and one with the district’s mascot. It raises money to purchase any new flags, Mills said. But the Christian flag seems to be a frequent choice.”  

There are several important problems with this reasoning though. 

First, the equating of Breast Cancer Awareness and mascots with religion.  Religion and religious beliefs have a much more emotional and greater importance to people and their lives than the other causes mentioned.  It is why there is a freedom of religion.  It is why wars have been fought in which religion played a prominent role.  Religious belief is why people were and still are persecuted, exiled, martyred, and killed.  Supporting Breast Cancer awareness is not and has never been a reason for such. 

Further, this guise of fairness and democracy is actually a disguise. One that hides a push for making one religious view dominant over all others.  Consider, how many Jews, Muslims, atheists, Hindus, and other religious beliefs do you think there are in the student body?  Some, yes.  But not enough to have the numbers to vote against the raising of the flag.  Further, given the sentiment within the school and community, and in the face of possible/probable harassment, condemnation, bullying, would they dare do so?  Think about the meaning in practical terms of those who differ of the following statement from the article: 

But back in East Texas, there does not appear to be enough concern over the flag for students to mount such a battle. Parents in the district say they are in support of the Christian flag and do not know of anyone who is upset about the religious symbol.

“I believe in Jesus Christ, and I would not let my children go to school somewhere that does not believe in Jesus Christ,” said Ashley Hamby Brauher, who has three children in the district. “I support the flag 100%.

This tactic of using voting to overcome Constitutional Rights, especially the separation of church and state, is one that is also in play in another area in schools – counselors.  The Texas Legislature recently passed a law allowing school districts to vote on allowing chaplains to serve as school counselors.  Chaplains who are not required to be trained as counselors.  However, as many of its supporters have said, since they are helping bring God back to the school they will obviously improve it, and reduce the amount of violence and drugs.  Their words reveal their real motivation, the promotion of a particular religion.

This all illustrates a very basic and deep misunderstanding of what rights are and how they relate to democracy.  Rights are there to put limits on democracies.  Limits that protect the words and actions and lives of citizens.  This protection cannot be overridden by voting.  Otherwise, it becomes mob rules, with those, the often many those, who are not part of that mob either politically, religiously, socially, becoming its victims. At best relegated to second class citizenry in which they are not free to speak their minds, to associate, to promote their candidates and views, to practice their faith or lack of faith.  At worst, they are persecuted, jailed, exiled, or killed. 

Those of us living in the United States all identify ourselves as Americans.  It is an identity that is supposed to transcend religious belief , social status, politics, and the rest.  By the way, transcending does not mean that it is more important to a person than a particular belief, only that they can hold and practice that belief and also be an American.  This is one reason the separation of church and state is so important.  Otherwise, anyone who is not a Christian would not be a true American.  You do not foster unity and identity by excluding unnecessarily. 

Here is a small personal example from my wife of how it feels when it doesn’t.  It happened just after 9/11.  She was working for the city of Fort Worth at the time and the city decided to hold a memorial service to both provide support for its employees and to foster unity in the face of this tragedy. 

She and a couple of her workplace friends attended.  One of them was Hindu.  American diversity in action.  Until a pastor took the stage to lead everyone in a prayer.  It was a very Christian prayer, complete with references to the Bible and Jesus and ending in an in Jesus’s name.  No other prayers were given.

Both she and her Hindu friend felt excluded.  They were shocked at this and no longer felt a part of a greater whole.  That their beliefs were seemingly not as important and were not as American as this particular version of Christianity.  They seemingly did not need to be supported by those who were the right sort of Americans.

Perhaps a small thing you might think.  But of such small things larger attitudes are created.  That cultures are created. Exclusionary ones that will eventually lead to persecution.  Imagine how such small things accumulate – Christian flags at school, Christian prayers at school, untrained pastors as school counselors, and so forth.  The message received that it is only Christians who are allowed this and no others. 

It is through such things that us becomes divided into us and them. And them eventually become seen as a threat to the state since they are not of the same religion as the state.  A look at history clearly shows this.  Instead of a United States of America we would become a United Christian States of America with anyone who was not Christian not considered a good American and viewed with suspicion. 

And this is why Rights always trump democracy.  And always must. 

Of course, if rights must be protected from the whims, thoughts, and actions of the majority, that brings up the question of what are rights?  Interestingly enough, that is the subject of my next blog.