"Belief" in FREEDOM as opposed to RELIGION

This post is meant as a kind of an in-depth answer to some of the questions poster Duta raised in her comments to my last post. One of the great things about having a regular poster [like Duta] who thinks about things completely differently from you and who comes from a totally different school of thought, is that they will inevitably frame things in a way, or pose a question that, from your point of view, comes from so far out in Left Field that you hadn't ever remotely considered it.  In my experience conservatives don't really appreciate those kinds of points (or people) so I feel like I owe it to both myself and her to try and address these points in greater detail.

The first question, and the easier of the two, was:

What about the muslims in Europe and other places of the western world, making a minimal effort to respect and to adapt themselves to the norms existing in the hosting countries?

It's a pretty common talking point in the United States as well, and it applies not only to Muslims, but spills over into the broader immigration issue as well.  (Applied to Mexican migrant who don't speak english, for example.)  The word most commonly used in the American Right Wing talking point is "assimilation."  IOW: "Why should we accomodate people who aren't making an effort to assimilate?"

In the first place, personally, I don’t see any INHERENT good in assimilation. Don’t get me wrong, when I go to a foreign country, I try to learn some of the language, eat the local food, participate in the customs, etc… I mean, yeah, that’s the whole POINT. But I DO NOT believe that anyone should have to forego something as important to them as their religious practice, or for that matter be forced to participate in another’s religious practice (a sin in most religions) because of it. If you were to visit Iran, for exmple, just I as I feel it would be bullshit for you to be REQUIRED to wear the head covering (etc...) and participate in their prayers and rituals, I think it is equally bullshit to expect them to leave all that behind when they leave their country. Even though most DO... usually as soon as the airplane is outside of their country's airspace and the laws no longer apply. But if they don’t wish to? They shouldn’t HAVE to. That's just how I feel about it. “Assimilation” is just another word for “conformity.” And I’ve never seen any inherent good in conformity. Learn the language. Fine. Try the food. (Unless it is specifically taboo.) But ALWAYS be true to yourself.

And the other side of this is that "American" culture formed by assimilatring aspects of cultures from all over the world.  Primarily Europe, yes, as we are a majority of European descent.  But there is no longer any denying the influence of Asian, African, Latin American and increasingly Middle Eastern cultures as more immigrants for those regions come here.  Is that GOOD? Is that BAD? It's neither, really. Or rather it depends on your point of view.  The fact is that NO immigrant group completely left their culture behind when they came here.  At one point in this country's history, violence between the Irish and the Italians was far worse that any anti-muslim or muslim instigated violence is today.  (Putting aside 9/11, I'm talking day-to-day here.)  My point is that America will absorb some of any new culture.  And in doing so it will only grow stronger. 

What stops something like radical islam from comign in ataking over? Simple: FREEDOM.  Our Constitution.  OUR culture of TOLERANCE.  And the guarenteed Freedom of Religion that comes from the seperation of the church and the state.  In time any group will "assimilate" here, because that which is different becomes part of what "America" means.  That happens becuase America is an entire country of immigrants.  Ironically it is the native American culture that arguably has the least infuence of American culture.  In European countries it is harder to adapt like this, because the idigineous population is homogenius and has a more singularly established culture.  Likewise, those elements in America who fear change, and fear anything that's different, and fear anything they don't immediately understand also have a hard time accepting this.  But the greatest law of nature is that a species that can't adapt will die off.  The world around us is constantly changing, and no amount of conservatism will ever change that.  America thus has an advantage that Europe doesn't have: Since nothing "American" (other than Jazz and Rock & Roll) doesn't come from somewhere else, adaptation is what we do best.  So we'll take the best easpect of middle eastern culutre, and the worst aspects of it will, as in many other cases, be addressed and will eventually die off.  Their "assimilation" will involved both their own felxibility as well as ours.  And, just as in many other cases, it can take a few generations to accomplish this.  But it can happen.  My parent's marriage (Irish to an Italian) would have been unheard of in their parent's youth.  The growth in inter-racial marriage that we're seeing now was unheard off in their day, and actually still ILLEGAL in many states.  In another generation or two?  You won't see the muslims as all that different.  Well... YOU will... but your kids or grandkids won't.  That's just how it goes. 

*phew* I spent a lot longer on that than I'd intended! Sorry, about that!

The other point you made, the one I thougt was more prfound, though which I might end up haveing less to say about was:

You claim you're not religious and yet you seem very reigious about certain words such as Freedom.

Interesting.  So, I'm forced to ask myself if I have a “religious” belief in freedom. It’s an interesting use of the word, "belief.". The problem is that “belief” can have tow different meanings, both of which can be applied to both religion and freedom.  But I tend to mean one with Religion and the other with Freedom.

When I say that I DON’T “believe in Religion” this means two things. First of all there is the value judgment: I don’t believe in the inherent goodness of religion. Second, there is an existential question. To me, “Being religious” means that you believe that by participating in certain rituals (mass, prayer, fasting, worship, drum circles, etc…) you bring about a change that you can’t percieve or meausre, in an object (your soul) that you can’t percieve, measuire or  even prove exists, brought about by the will of a being… that you can’t percieve, measure, adequately define, or prove exists. Well… as I don’t believe in God or Souls (or Heaven and Hell,) as you’d likely define them, in the existential sense. So I REALLY don’t believe that I’m invoking any magical change in the universe by participating in these rituals. If YOU DO? And YOU get something that you feel is tangible out of it? Fine, go right ahead. Not only will I not try to stop you, I’ll fight for your right to do so. Because…


I believe in FREEDOM.

Now, the funny thing is, I don’t believe in freedom in the existential sense either! Actually, I’m positive that the kind of freedom I talk about, as I define it, doesn’t exist ANYWHERE. So when I say that I “believe” in it (religiously, as you put) it is only form the pointof view of a value judgment. I DO believe in the inherent goodness of the freedom of all mankind. I believe, as I’ve defined in the doctrine of choice, that pretty much all moral issues can be resolved almost trivially by respecting individual freedom (choice.) If religion make you happy? Practice it. If you, as I do, believe that THIS LIFE is all you get? Better enjoy it. Better make the most of it. Better do whatever you can to pursue the most happiness you possibly can! And there is only one limitation that I think should ever be put on that: Your happiness is not more important than anyone else’s. So you cannot pursue your happiness at the expense of another’s. As I said before: If religion make you happy? Practice it. But respect the fact that not everyone feels as you do. And if not everyone feels as I do? Fine. You don’t HAVE to be free. You can voluntarily give up as much of your own freedom as you wish. (Like I said: Practice Religion, for example.) But I will stop short of allowing anyone to compel other to do the same. To me the inherent goodness of this is self evident. And I haven’t really be challenged in a way that has ever shaken my belief in this. 

My faith in the Bible, OTOH, was shaken when I was FIVE YEARS OLD. That’s how long it took. Two weeks in Sunday school when the Nun couldn’t reconcile the existence of Dinosaurs with the “true” story of Genesis in a manner that was satisfactory to a five-year-old. From that point on I pretty much knew it was almost all bullshit. And the more I learned about OTHER religions as I matured? The more I learned that every claim to fame of Christianity (virgin birth, resurrection of the dead, divined incarnates, miracle, eternal life, etc…) had been made just about every OTHER religion on earth – IOW every Religion I had either already rejected or was being encouraged by Christianity to reject? I realized that there was not reason NOT to reject the claims of Christianity (or ANY religion) as well.

And what's more, there is nothing of inherent value in any religion that isn’t already part of the secular humanist philosophy or my own doctrine of choice. You don't need religion to tell you that we shouldn’t killing each other, or lying to each other, or stealing from each other or having wars. And considering how many wars have been fought and killing has been done BECAUSE OF religion… I am forced to see it as no more than unnecessary at it’s best, and a destructive force at it’s most common.

But the more I learn about freedom, the more I THINK about freedom, and the more times I’ve seen that philosophical doctrine WORK when it comes to resolving societal problems… the more I come to believe it.  Because it has failed me in only ONE instance: abortion. That’s the only issue it can’t resolve, and then only because it hinges upon when we consider life beginning, when the rights of one entity finally overide the rigths of another.  Outside of that one issue, I've seen no issues that this doesn't satisfactorally resolve.

At least... In my humble opinion.

-------------------------------------------------------------

And BTW... "Freedom" is NOT "the jungle." Freedom, "as [I] see it" is NOT found in the jungle.  Not at ALL.  In "the jungle" might makes right.  "The jungle" only the strongest have their rights protected, and the weak get exploited.  What I advocate for is practically the opposite of the jungle: It is a society that guarentess the protection of the rights and liberty of ALL it's citizens, limiting them only enough to prevent demonstrable harm (the taking of a choice) from another.  Protecting an unpopular minority is as far from the jungle as you can get.  So you're just flat out WRONG there, though the failure may have been a lack of clarity lately on my part,

The Doctrine of Choice

(I'm still working on Keynes, so here's some more brain droppings of mine) (Thanks George!)

The Doctrine of Choice is a pompous name that I've given to a very simple idea that guides my legal, moral and political philosophy more than anything else. At it's simplest it is this: People should be allowed to do whatever they provided that they're not harming anyone else.

A lot of people CLAIM that's what they believe, but I bet they'll fail the test on more than one thing, and on many things if they're a social conservative. Stated a little more specifically it goes like this:

1) Everything is legal, unless it victimizes someone else. To be a crime, something MUST have a victim. (And no, "Society," doesn't count. A tangible victim.)

2) The threshold for someone being a victim is for them have a choice they are otherwise entitled to usurped or taken form them by another.

Now... #2 may sound a bit odd, but it's actually a very low threshold for crime when you think about it. Does someone have to be killed, receive bodily harm, lose a certain amount of monetary valuables? Well, those WOULD qualify, but I set the bar pretty low. All they have to lose is their choice. Now you'd think that setting the bar for crime so low, that I'd end up outlawing many more things than the social conservatives would. But the opposite is true. So let's test this system, first against some easy ones...

MURDER

When you and I woke up this morning, we had a clear choice to make. Face another day, or slit our own throats. Putting the drama aside, obviously, most of us, on most days will choose the first option. But if someone comes along and SHOOTS me? They are taking my LIFE, yes, but they really only need to be usurping MY CHOICE (to live) for this to be crime. (The ADDITIONAL loss of a LIFE is really only relevant to the SENTENCING portion!)

THEFT

I can do whatever I want with MY [after-tax] MONEY. Buy stuff, lend it to a friend, invest it, put it in the bank, give it to a homeless guy, burn it... WHATEVER I WANT. But if someone, say the guy from the previous example, were to STEAL my money, well... That's tantamount to making the decision fore me: and the decsion was forced to give the money to him. Regardless of how much I've lost, it's all a crime because the choice was MINE, and he usurped it.

RAPE

I can have sex with whomever* I* want*, and I can abstain as I wish as well. But someone who's raping me, say, again that slimeball from the last two examples, is saying, "No. It's not YOUR choice, it's MINE. And I SAY, you're going to have sex with ME!"

*Point of clarification: CHOICE in this case DOES imply CONSENT on the part of all parties involved. And CONSENT implies all parties are legal, [human] adults. All parties must be legally able to GIVE consent, which rules out both animals and the underaged. In each case, we do not recognize consent, and a choice is thus usurped still.

So... You get the idea. Here are some more knotty ones...

FRAUD is a crime because it means that the person's choice was not INFORMED. You have usurped the choice in this way by withholding information that otherwise may have resulted in a different choice. In anyway they've been cheated of their choice.

SOME DRUGS remain illegal, but not all. To qualify as a controlled substance something must be both synthetic (meaning that it is consumed in a form that has been chemically altered from it natural form) and addictive. Addictive is important, because addiction is what represents the usurpation of choice here. NOW... the CRIME is on the part of the DEALER. Why you ask, when the USER in fact CHOSE to use drugs? Very simple. It's a case of unbalanced information. Prior to becoming addicted the user has no REAL idea, no real information about how horrible addiction is, what it REALLY does to every aspect of your life and how likely he is to even become an addict. And most who are or have been addicted would have made different choices had they had the first hand knowledge of these things back when they started, but they didn't. How could they know? But the DEALER? HE's got a pretty shrewd idea what's in store for his customers. He peddling addiction via fraud. So anyone dealing addictive synthetic substances (crystal meth, crack, cocaine, heroin, opium, ecstasy, roofalin) is going down. But Tobacco, marijuana, coca leaves, betel nut, 'shrooms... it's all good, baby. They occur in nature, and you just can't outlaw something that's ALREADY THERE, on it's own. If we didn't invent it, how the hell can we outlaw it? REGULATE it? Sure. (18 and over only.) TAX it? You best your asterix. But why throw someone in jail who picked something up off the ground and chowed down or smoked it? No reason to. None at all.

The exception, and it should be obvious at this point, is Alcohol. I say: grandfather it in, and leave it legal. I have no justification for this in my model, other than the fact that it is consumed in moderation without issue (even some health and social benefits) buy almost everyone on the planet. So we'll draw the line HERE, and outlaw anything ELSE that fails the above tow tests.

Also... I say controlled, rather than illegal, becasue I still wouldn't outlaw those other thigns. Should we find that their is some medical use for them, in some small, safe dose? I won't let the law in the way of the medical research. And before you scoff, you should realize that most presciption anti-despreseant and pain-killers are checially very similar to many narcotics. Paxil is almost identical to cocaine in structure but also in the effect it has on the brain. It's just kept in a REALLY SMALL does - miligrams being swallowed insetad of grams being snorted. But you CAN get hooked if you abuse prescription medicinces. Just ask Rush Limabugh.

Now for some tricky ones:

GAMBLING

As long as the game is fair, meaning not FIXED, and everyone understands the rules and the odds? (IOW no fraud involved) Why the hell not? Just regulate it to insure fairness, the way we do today in places that allow it, and keep it to certain ZONES in a given town or city. No one wants a Casino in their NEIGHBORHOOD, but downtown, or on the outskirts? Why not. Let each town decide for themselves. No reason for the STATE or FED to say no.

PROSTITUTION

As the now immortal George Carlin once pointed out: Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal? Again I don't care WHAT goes on between consenting adults and neither does out current system of law enforcement... until money changes hands. WTF? Why should THAT matter?! You name me ONE OTHER THING that's it's legal to GIVE AWAY but illegal to SELL and I'll take it all back. But IMHO prostitution is NO CRIME. And thus should be LEGAL.

REGULATED, to be sure. And this is actually the BEST way to address the (faux) concerns that people, usually conservatives, express for the workers in the trade and use as justification for criminalizing it. Disease? Require (and have employers pay for) regular check-ups and condom use to keep your license. (Yes, you'd need a license! How else could you regulate it?!) Customer don't want to pay? Legal contract: Girl can SUE. Assault? Not likely if it all takes place inside the brothel, which has bouncers. This also addresses the next concern: We don't want hookers soliciting on the street, in the neighborhood, at the schools, etc... Well, just like with the casinos, this is merely a ZONING issue. Discreet advertising, discreet signage, and an off-the-beaten-path location, should satisfy any reasonable person involved. We'll never make it into an admirable profession, but there's just no rational justification for criminalizing it.

DRUNK DRIVING

This includes ALL forms of intoxication, not just alcohol, so don't bother using DRIVING as an argument for criminalizing cannabis. That's just stupid. You can't drive drunk, high, low, or whatever. Stay home or call a cab. Why? Because everyone else on the roads made their choice to drive assuming it was safe. Or at least that weren't any reckless drunks out there, bombing around, which is as the law promises them. Plus you have no right to risk anyone ELSE'S life, other than your own. So it's simple. This fails the test.

HOMOSEXUALITY / GAY MARRIAGE

See 'prostitution.' As for the marriage part... again WHY THE HELL NOT? Show me any other legal contract ANYWHERE that I can enter with a member of the opposite sex, but not the same. There isn't one. And as far as the LAW is concerned with marriage that's all it is: a LEGAL CONTRACT. So if you have a problem with this one, all I can say is, "GROW UP."

RELIGION - The meaning of religious freedom should be obvious, and I'm stunned how many people try to say otherwise: (1) the separation of church and state. The above doctrine (as an interpretation of our Constitution) should drive our laws, not religion. PERIOD. (2) The prohibitions of any religion shall only apply to it's VOLUNTARY adherents. (So, "No" to these idiotic Catholic (etc...) pharmacists who won't dispense Birth Control. The church forbids YOU to use it. It has no authority over anyone else, and neither do YOU.) And anyone can leave any church at any time. (3) That also means no teacher-lead prayer in school. This violates YOUR choice to bring you child up in a given faith. Don't care about respecting OTHER PEOPLE'S faiths? Well what if the teacher was Muslim**? THEN would you want them preaching to your child or leading them in prayer? Didn't think so. Freedom for ANY ONE, necessarily means freedom for ALL, as well as the right to NOT believe or practice as well. It's pretty simple and, as far as I'm concerned, self-evident. I'll never get why so many people can't understand this. (And don't be an idiot an think this means that NO ONE can pray in school. THAT would be a obvious violation of their right to practice, which IS and WILL REMAIN 100% proteted. Only teacher-lead prayer in banned!)

**I ask it this way, because in THIS country, it's usually the CHRISTIAN funny-mentalists who don't get it. If we were having this discussion in IRAN, obviously I'd say "Christian" instead of "Muslim" in the above example.

Anyhow, THIS is how I interpret the spirit of the Constitution, and the Rights it grants. This is how I define FREEDOM and LIBERTY. The only laws that are needed would those that arbitrate situation in which one person choices would usurp another's. And it's usually pretty clear in these cases who's right and wrong. Except one.

There is one issue that this philosophy is USELESS to make any headway on.

Abortion.

Because abortion (arguably) involves two entities, both of whom may or may not be having a choice usurped. And one side clearly believes that the rights of one win out, while the other just a clearly believe it's the rights of the other. And you know what? I'm not sure there a "win" here either way. I just don't see this as anything other than lose-lose one way of the other.

So I'll cop-out on this one, but I promise to take up abortion at a later date. I might actually surprise some of you conservatives with my views on abortion, but I'm sure you'll come away disappointed anyway. LOL. The thing is... so will many liberals! You just can't WIN an argument over abortion!

If you are curious how I would interpret any other, just let me know. So far I've never been stumped. (Other than abortion, attmitedly.)