Whip it out for us, would you?

A transgender man, Tristan Broussard, is suing his former employer, Tower Loan, after he was fired for refusing to present female at work.  His former employer said that if he ‘had some surgeries and we can see some results we would consider hiring you back’…  

“Could see some results?!” 

So… Lemme get this straight... Apparently now, whipping it out and plopping it down on your boss’s desk is hot NOT to get fired?! 

WTF, Tower?!

Civil Disobedience?

No, not really.

I was looking at some of my blogs numbers, to try and find where my recent uptick in readership was coming from, and I noticed something interesting:

4/8/2015 to 4/15/2015

Apparently, behind the United States, I'm getting the next highest number of page-views from RUSSIA.  

Now, in light of their "Law" prohibiting "pro-Gay" or "Homosexual Propaganda," and in consideration of the many pro-Gay Rights and LGBT+ positive posts I've made over the years, it would appear that I'm helping people break that particular law, or am breaking it myself. (Yeah, I know: Assuming they can even SEE all of my blog, and the State isn't managing to block it.)

All the same, that really amuses me.  It pleases me greatly that I might be playing some nanoscopic role in helping people thumb their nose at Vladimir Putin and his absurd little scum-puddle of a censorship law. I certainly hope so, anyway!

So, in short, if you or your comrades are reading this: Fuck you, Putin! 

:P

How to Determine If Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions

Reblogged from HuffPo, because SOME PEOPLE (*a-hem* william) don't seem to know the difference.

1. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to go to a religious service of my own choosing.
B) Others are allowed to go to religious services of their own choosing.

2. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to marry the person I love legally, even though my religious community blesses my marriage.
B) Some states refuse to enforce my own particular religious beliefs on marriage on those two guys in line down at the courthouse.

3. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am being forced to use birth control.
B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.

4. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to pray privately.
B) I am not allowed to force others to pray the prayers of my faith publicly.

5. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse.
B) I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity.

6. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to purchase, read or possess religious books or material.
B) Others are allowed to have access books, movies and websites that I do not like.

7. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious group is not allowed equal protection under the establishment clause.
B) My religious group is not allowed to use public funds, buildings and resources as we would like, for whatever purposes we might like.

8. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Another religious group has been declared the official faith of my country.
B) My own religious group is not given status as the official faith of my country.

9. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious community is not allowed to build a house of worship in my community.
B) A religious community I do not like wants to build a house of worship in my community.

10. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to teach my children the creation stories of our faith at home.
B) Public school science classes are teaching science.

Scoring key:

If you answered "A" to any question, then perhaps your religious liberty is indeed at stake. You and your faith group have every right to now advocate for equal protection under the law. But just remember this one little, constitutional, concept: this means you can fight for your equality -- not your superiority.

If you answered "B" to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others. This is the point where I would invite you to refer back to the tenets of your faith, especially the ones about your neighbors.

Dear RW Christians,

I present to you, the Law of Unintended Consequences:



...OR, we could just allow the Separation of Church and State to become the residing principle by which we protect everyone's Religious Freedom.  You know, that way NO ONE will end up saying, "Why are you exposing MY KIDS to this nonsense?" no matter which religion they follow, or don't.

This insanity can end any time you want it to, Christians. What's it gonna be?

...And they just keep coming!

WHAT A DAY FOR CONSERVATIVES, HUH?!

LOL

NASCAR decries Indiana Law! NASCAR! Fucking NASCAR!!! If the Right has lost NASCAR, then the culture war is over and WE WON!

Companies are actually Boycotting Indiana!  COMPANIES!  Not Liberal, LGBT advocacy groups but COMPANIES! JOB CREATORS! 1%'ers!  How far gone are the Republicans that they are now alienating BUSINESSES?!

Here's the Facebook Page of Memories Pizza in Indiana, who now proudly discriminate against Gays. Why don't you drop on in and offer a "review?" I did. I recommend that everyone does. (Not to be confused with memoriespizza.com, which they apparently never thought to secure the rights to.)

12 Sign that the Republicans are actually insane

HERE'S a Pastor who knows what Jesus stood for!

I'll leave you with these images that I snagged off of Facebook:

Because everyone knows that Fox viewers ARE, in fact the most INFROMED of anyone!

And, finally, because Zinnia Jones is so fucking awesome:

You really need to look that up. because that's funny as shit!

What's wrong with Indiana?

With regards to the following piece from Daily Kos, all I can say is...

Bravo. Probably the best post I've ever read from them, and I read them every single day.

What Do Conservatives Want When 

They Say "I Want My Country Back?"

Equal rights for all: Women, Minorities, all Religions, Atheists, LGBT folks, etc... Nothing short of this is acceptable. And yet states like Indiana and Arkansas and Georgia and Nevada and too many others are doing their damnedest to go in the wrong direction.

These laws have long since ceased to be about protecting religious freedom, because nobody's "religious practices" are threatened by doing business with a gay person. (Or a black person, or a Jewish person, etc...)  If you are in the business of selling bread for $2 that costs you $1 to make, you are not HARMED if a gay person buys some: You are $1 ahead. End of story. It's THAT SIMPLE. It is not a burden to anyone to expect them to do business, in the very business that they went into business to do! It benefits them. Tangibly.  Expecting someone to drive farther, pay more or go without IS doing harm.  It imposes a burden on that person, a tangible, economic burden that is the precise, legal  DEFINITION of harm.

Arguably the stupidest defense I hear of these laws was the following:

Governor Pence? That's ALL JESUS DID. His ENTIRE LIFE was about WELCOMING SINNERS! That's pretty much ALL HE DID!  Also?  (you ignorant fuck) WE ARE ALL SINNERS.  And should anyone say otherwise they are automatically committing the sin of PRIDE.  For you to claim that this law is what Jesus wants is to take the Lord's name in vain, to the highest degree.  

MARK 2 13-17 JESUS IS A FRIEND OF SINNERS!

And you, sir, are no friend to mankind, or to civilized society.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, 

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Does that sound familiar Governor? It should: You put your right hand on the Bible and swore to uphold it (not the other way around!) when you were sworn into office.  How about:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, 

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, 

that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Pretty "American" sounding, no? What part of that suggests that we discriminate?  What part of that says that people should be limited in their choice of who they love? Or marry?  What part of ANY of this allows one person to use their "deeply held religious beliefs" to harm another?

YOUR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ENDS AT THE TIP OF MY NOSE.

And your law is a disgrace.

It is NOT like so many others - established to protect ACTUAL religious practices, particularly those of minority religions and Native Americans. It is a perversion of those laws, twisted to amount to no more that a political backlash against the progress that's been made against the bigotry that holds us back from bringing TRUE equality under the law to all people.

In closing couldn't say it any better that Steven D. did in the Kos article that I linked to:

I don't want my country back.  I want a better country.  One that truly provides liberty and justice for all people.  And I certainly don't want a country where anyone can discriminate against anyone else of whom they do disapprove and escape liability for that immoral and otherwise unlawful act under any pretext, be it freedom of religion, racial superiority or traditional values. 

I never want to go back to the country that existed when I was born. The one that exists now needs far too much improvement as it is.

Bravo, Steven. Bravo.

The outrage meter still works apparently...

Just when I thought that the Right Wing could sink no farther into the slime, one of pieces of shit comes along and recalibrates my outrage meter.  Today this service comes compliments of editorialist venomous Right-wing hack, Ann Coulter.

Speaking on Hannity last night, Miss Coulter explained that the Kent State Massacre in May of 1970 was "justified" because...

"That's what you do with a mob."

Now... I'm going to repeat that, because it bears repeating, but before I do, here's a refresher course in case anyone forgot what happened. (And shame on you if you did.)

On May 4th of 1970, an estimated 2,000 people gather on the Kent State University Campus in Kent, Ohio in protest of the Vietnam War.  Specifically they were protest President Nixon's decision to expand the war despite having won the presidency in 1968 running on a campaign promise to end it. What's more they students, mostly children (and members) of working and middle class families who were being unfairly targeted by the draft as those from wealthy families could better afford to pay the $300 commutation fee to essentially exclude themselves. 

Just before 12:30, with the crowd refusing to disperse after four days of protest, and having lobbed the National Guards' own tear gas canisters back at  them, the National Guard opened fire on the crowd, shooting 67 rounds in 13 seconds.  When the smoke had cleared, four students lay dead:

Jeffrey Miller, age 20
Allison Krause, age 19
William Schroeder, age 19
Sandra Scheuer, age 20

I can't find which was which, but it is worth mentioning that one or two were merely watching the demonstration, and were not part of it, and one was hit by a stray bullet as she walked to class.

Three days after the event, even Vice President Agnew describe the action as murder.  (Though, ever the lawyer, he did add, "but not first degree" since there was "no premeditation.")  Still - that from the guy who's administration was being protested against.

But to Ann Coulter? Having the United States Military gun down American Citizens for exercising their First Amendment Rights on American Soil was justified. 
"That's what you do with a mob."


We've long known that Miss Coulter talks a pretty good game, at least in Right Wing circles, when it comes to "supporting the troops."  Too bad she can't ever seem to muster any "support" for the FREEDOMS those troops are risking their lives to protect.

(Deep breath...)

Now...
In the past I've made no secret of my hated of both misogyny and hypocrisy, but I've got a "get - out - of - hypocrisy - free" card in this case, since what I am about to say reflects not my own true feelings, but rather serves as an example to Miss Coulter of what it might look like if someone treated her they way she seems to treat every human being to her Left. (Which... is almost all of them.)  There is no more hypocrisy inherent to giving someone a taste of their own medicine than there in inherent to basic (or poetic) justice.  That being said, I'd like to see someone go up and give Ann Coutler a hard, back-handed slap to the face. Because...

"That's what you do with a mouthy bitch!"

A Test of our Principles

The worst part about being an atheist might be knowing that some people will, in fact, not have hell to look forward to.

The most despised man in America is getting his day in court.

The Right Scumbag Reverend Fred Phelps is arguing before the Supreme Court that his protesting at Military Funerals, waving signs saying “Gods Hates Fags” and so forth, is in fact Constitutionally Protected Free Speech, and that he should not legally or civilly penalized for this (at issue is a $5 Million Dollar suit against the Westboro Baptist Church) and that he cannot be other wise prevented from doing so.

You have absolutely no idea how hard it is for me to write this, so please bear that in mind as you read this and respond, but…

I hope he wins.

My hands were almost shaking and it made me feel ill to type that just now.

Because I hate Fred Phelps. I hate him and his entire band of inbred mutants at the WBO with a venomous passion that I can taste in my balls. There is almost no way in which this disgusting little boil on the ass of humanity doesn’t inspire a nigh murderous rage in me. I’m sure by now, that I don’t need to burnish my credibility in terms of gay rights issues. To put it plainly: I fully support every single aspect of the “radical gay agenda” that has ever actually been presented to me. (Most of the RW nightmarish fantasies about the homosexual community are just that: Fantasy.) To me, there is nothing at all radical about wanting to be treated just like every other human being; nor about asking that society stay the hell out of their way as you pursue happiness on their own terms, especially as nothing but tolerance is asked of anyone else as they do so. On transgender issues, I’ll admit that I have been less certain about my position in the past, but the more I’ve read and the more I’ve come to understand, the more I’ve come to realize that they don’t ask any more than the gay community or any other persecuted group of people does: They simply want to be allowed to be who they are, and live their lives without being punished for being who they are by a society that they ask nothing of but tolerance. I fully understand that now, and am shamed for ever having doubted that. And, if it were even possible, the more I’ve come to hate Fred Phelps.

It is also self-evident that his brand of Religion - aside from being no more that a near transparent veil for his raw, naked hatred of his fellow man - embodies every one of the all of the worst aspects of Religion in general. Because he doesn’t just hate homosexuals (and anyone else he feels he can brand as a “sodomite”) but has every bit as much hatred for those who don’t SHARE his hatred for them. “Sodomite enablers,” as he calls them, are every bit as bad as the Sodomites. Worse, apparently, because the Military funerals these pieces of white trash picket are no for gay soldiers! He pickets the Military simply because, as I’ve stated previously, America stands for tolerance, not bigotry; for religious freedom, not Christian theocracy; for equality, not discrimination; and for freedom and liberty, not the Government climbing into your bedroom.

And he can’t stand that!

He can’t stand any disagreement with his radical doctrine of hatred. He is not merely intolerant, but intolerant of tolerance. Intolerant of that almost uniquely, all-American value: dissent. Basically he is intolerant of anyone who is not Fred Phelps.

Quite frankly, I can think of no more despicable American than this man. There are arguably more dangerous Americans in the public forum: Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck come to mind, not to mention Rupert Murdoch and the entire brand of merry GOP Propagandists on his payroll. But there is no more despicable American that Phelps. None. Jack Chick is so distant a second that Phelps appears to occupy the entire “bottom ten” (or twenty) all on his own. To find another HUMAN BEING more despicable, you have to leave the country, and find some member of the Taliban, or Al-Shabaab, or Al-Qaeda... IOW: the Middle-Eastern, Muslim version of Fred Phelps and the WBC. And those guys are only “worse” because, as far as I am aware, no one from the WBC has ever actually killed someone.

So… why the fuck am I ROOTING for this ass-pit?

Well, I’m not really… I’m rooting for freedom.

It may seem trite, but how many times have you said, or heard a free speech advocate say, something like, “I believe in free speech. I’ll even defend the rights of the Ku Klux Klan to march, protest, etc...” (Or some such thing.) The POINT being that we are willing to defend the right to speak, even for those with whom we disagree. Or, as Voltaire put it:

“I disagree with what you say but I will defend to death your right to say it."

And we use groups like the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazi’s, etc… as examples because:

1) They’re groups that pretty much EVERYONE disagrees with. So we reveal very little about our own personal politics and thus risk very little in using them.

2) They’re groups that don’t have much of a presence anymore, politically, and don’t pose much of a threat to our sense of well being. They’re kind of a cartoony caricature; a phantom example that we can use without any fear that our statement will ever REALLY be put to the test. They’re insignificant CLICHES that no one really takes all that seriously.

So we risk even less (nothing really) in using them as examples. And one could also argue that since most of us (in America, and in its media) are white and are likely having these discussions with other whites and these are groups that mainly hate minorities, there is a racial element as well that even further reduces our risk of using these examples. Two white people talking about the Klan? That’s hardly a test of their 1st Amendment principles, since neither is likely to ever be targeted by the Klan, even where it not basically a joke. They will never have to experience the Klan in their lives.

But Fred Phelps has managed to go beyond that safe, cartoon villain mold and become not only a significant public figure, but one that’s venomously despised by, everyone: Liberals, for his general message of hate; Conservatives for his Unpatriotic, Anti-Military rhetoric and tactics. (That… and there’s little that pisses of a Christian Conservative more than a serious allegation of being either a “fag” or a “fag enabler.”) So he hates - and pisses off - Gays and Straits, regardless of race, religion, political orientation, etc… There is no one in this country who is not a relevant target of his venom because this man, quite literally, hates America.

You may recall that George W. Bush – no great defender of free speech, IMHO – actually passed a law banning protests within a certain distance of military funerals. He may as well have called it the “Fred Phelps is an Asshole Law.” Most of my liberal and moderate friends applauded it at the time, concluding it would never effect more than the activities of Fred Phelps himself. Then I asked them: What it, many years from now, what if George W. Bush if granted a State Funeral by some future Republican President? This law could be used to prevent them from quietly standing along the route, holding a perfectly respectful sign expressing your personal regret that our nation went to war in Iraq, for example. Because that could also, very reasonably, be interpreted as “protesting at a funeral.” One can argue that it’s not a “Military Funeral,” but why exactly would an official State Funeral for the former Commander in Chief of the U.S Military, be excluded? I certainly don’t think it would. This DID get them to see the law in a different light, but I am afraid that with most of them, their hatred of Phelps continued to cloud their judgment on this most basic of freedoms.

If the protesters were protesting against the war - as opposed to against our national status as 'fag-enablers?' While many of them would still agree that this kind of protest takes things way too far, the ISSUE at hand would have been more relevant to them, and I’m pretty sure this might have changed some of their judgments about the law. But you’ll be hard pressed to find many people willing to defend Phelps that aren’t being paid to do so and in a purely legal capacity. So Phelps gave Bush an apparently reasonable way to close off a potential venue of Anti-War protests. So no one batted an eye, mainly because most Liberals are generally more decent than that by nature and wouldn’t consider picketing a funeral, as a family buries their child, anyway. But it was still a curtailing of our freedoms. A curtailing of dissent, even as that message came in the most offensive, possible form.

Certainly no man has ever wanted to express a more hateful message. Certainly no man has ever found a more despicable way of expressing that inherently hateful message. In short, no man has even gone farther to TEST THE LIMITS of his freedom of speech.

But that is exactly what makes this the perfect, if not the only really valid test of our principles. If we say that we support freedom, but not freedom for those who would abuse it, or use it irresponsibly? Then we don’t support freedom.

Pure and simple.

If we start getting into the business of deciding where people can speak, and what messages might be “too harmful…”

Then we don’t believe in free speech.

The fact that this diseased little toad have made every effort to break every single boundary of human decency makes him the perfect test case; maybe the ONLY real test case. Because if we say that “decency” can used as a limit on our speech? Then we don’t have free speech. If speech must “respect the feelings of others?” The we don’t have free speech. If certain kind of speech can be limited in certain places by our Government, or if Civil Penalties can be levied because to the (perfectly legitimate) mental duress that someone’s speech has caused?

Then we don’t have free speech.

Because concepts like “Offensive” “Decency” and “Respect” have been used, without a scrap of extremism or logical reaching whatsoever, to limit all manner of freedoms since the dawn of mankind. And American history, especially within the last Century, is replete with examples of this. As soon as you want to authorize judgment of the message, or it’s method of delivery, you allow the government to limit speech. Period. There’s simply no way around (or off) that slippery slope.

We needn’t be tolerant of intolerance in our personal lives, but we MUST stop short of allowing – and in some case encouraging – the Government to take away our freedom. Because right of someone to live their lives as a homosexual or a transgendered person is the same right that Phelps has to live his life as an asshole. And the way to protect freedom is to do just that: PROTECT FREEDOM.

I really am sick over this. I really am.  And win or lose, I will likely shed a tear about it either way. Either for there being one more nail in the coffin of our personal liberty, or for the necessary victory of such a vile, hateful, thoroughly despicable little man in order to protect that liberty. But that’s what it means to have principles. You must hold true to them, even when it pains you to do so. And my support of free speech absolutely goes that far, even as it makes my sick to say it.

And for putting me in the position of have to defend something so vile that it almost makes me nauseous to do so; and for possibly having to do so to against my friends; people with whom I am otherwise allied with, socially, politically, and philosophically and for whom I hold is such high regard and with the utmost respect? In the words of John Hammond, “I really hate that man.”

All the same…

I hope he wins.

And I sincerely ask for your forgiveness for this.



(I'm going to go wash my hands now and try not to vomit.)

"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,

Why should Corporations NOT have free speech?

There are TWO items from my last post that I felt needed some 'splainin.

First of all... that crack about applying the second amendment "six times" on those who keep forgetting about the first amendment? That was really beneath me. I'm not MUCH better than that, but I AM better than that. Now, don't get me wrong: If Anotin Scalia walked out of the courthouse and was struck by lightning I'd laugh my fucking ass off and pop open a bottle of champagne. But I would not see even a Government and Supreme Court overrun with Tea-Bagging Klansman "fixed" by violence and revolution. If someone WERE to kill a Supreme Court Justice, or any other public official, they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. I refuse to be the "Ann Coulter" of the left. Hopefully no one took that LITERALLY.

The OTHER was a clarification on why I do not apply my vehement and unconditional support of free speech to Corporations. Why would someone as zealous as I am about free speech want to put a limit on Corporate Speech?

First of all, let's be clear what we're really talking about. I don't care if a corporation wants to advertise, nor do I think it's the Government's job to make them prove their claims, etc... Outside of pharmaceuticals, which are regulated for obvious reasons, I don't care WHAT businesses say within the course of DOING BUSINESS. Nor do I really even care if they want to run ISSUE ads - if ExxonMobil wants to try and make the case that Oil and Gas are preferable to Solar? Go right ahead. That's really not much different than advertising anyway.

What I'm talking about here, is PARTISAN and ELECTORAL issues. If ExxonMobil wants to say "Vote for Palin" or pay for some Anti-Abortion ads (or any issue that DOESN'T have anything to do with their course of business) I have a problem with that. In fact, I'd go even beyond Austin. Forget regulating it, and treating it a political contribution, I'd be in favor of outright BANNING it. There are two reasons why.

The most commonly used reason is that corporations, with all their vast resources, can (and do) drown out the voice of the individual. So allow their free speech allows them to prohibit ours. I agree with that. I think it's reasonable, and it's why I support both the Fairness Doctrine and Net Neutrality.

But there's another way in which corporations act even more insidiously when they "speak." First of all, you have to realize that corporations don't really SPEAK. They SPEND MONEY to get a certain message put out there. And that money is, of course, the property of the shareholders. So who decides what the Corporation wants to "say?" Well, that's the board of directors, who are elected by the shareholders. Typically this includes several of the BIGGEST shareholders. Now, if assume for the moment that since most boards, consisting of very rich, very white, men and their proxies, the "shareholders" are "electing" people to put out Conservative, Corporatist, Republican message. And if they were polled according to their shares of the company, you might find rations reaching 90-some percent in favor. BUT, when you consider how many people own stock - usually though a 401-K - and that most of that stock is owned through MUTUAL FUNDS, and most Blue Chips are carried by pretty much every Mutual fund, you'll conclude that something like 90+% of the electorate owns SOME miniscule percentage of... ExxonMobil, for example. And if you were to poll that group BY PERSON, I submit that you would find their political demographic matches the general public pretty closely - IOW: It would cover a broad spectrum, with almost equal representation of Liberals and Conservatives, Republicans and Democrats.

Now... Why is that important?

Simple: Because corporate speech results in the ULTIMATE "winner takes all" approach to political speech! A dozen or so men decide what the Corporation will say, and end up speaking for literally Tens of Millions of Shareholders, not to mention Hundreds of Thousands of EMPLOYEES, many of which may not feel that the Corporations POLITICAL message matches what THEY want to say. So now, not only is the moneyed interest drowning them out... WORSE: They actually using assets partially OWED by that person to put out a message contrary to their beliefs! And I mention employees, because I do believe that they are stakeholders in a Corporation every bit as much as the shareholders are. One might also consider the CUSTOMERS to be stakeholders as well. After all, I give MY MONEY to that corporation. What right do they have to use it to put out a message that I don't agree with? OK, of course I can't just take my business elsewhere, but I think you're getting the idea.

When a corporation "speaks" it does on behalf of shareholders, employees, customers, and arguably other stake-holders as well. And it does so WITHOUT REGARD to those people's wishes. And THAT to me is why it's not the same thing. They don't just drown me out, the SPEAK for me, using assets that I own a piece of, to say something that I wouldn't say.

One more thing, regarding corporate boards. Those members that didn’t just BUY their way on were elected by the shareholders to RUN THE BUSINESS. If I'm a voting shareholder, then I want to vote for the guy who's going to make me the most money, all else being equal. I shouldn't feel as though I need to vote for someone I believe to be the less competent person because of political considerations. If you restrict corporate "speech" to those areas that are directly relevant to their business, then I don't HAVE this conflict.

ANYWAY, that's why I don't consider Corporate Speech to even fall under first amendment protection.

The National Day of Prayer.

It doesn't surprise me that Conservatives largely favor the National Day of Prayer... They've never really been all that invested in actually SOLVING problems or DOING anything about them.  So "prayer" fits into their agenda nicely.

The National Day of Prayer was established in 1952 - the same era that added "Under God" to our Pledge of Allegience, and did any number of other uncostitutional things all while fearmongering about the Commies.  And I have basically no respect for the view of the 1950's, and their Red-Scare McCarthyism, as the "Good ol' days."

The 1950's? Really?

You had segregation and the hula hoop.

We've got gay rights and the internet.

The '50's sucked.  'Nuff said.

I enjoyed very much hearing the exchange on NPR today between Annie Laurie Gaylor, Representing the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and a certain Reverend Hunter (which would be a GREAT name for an atheist, wouldn't it?) who was defending - pathetically, I might add - this unconstitutional nonsense which is the National Day of Prayer. OK, I'll admit that my postion on the matter is hardly an objective one, but IMHO she mopped the floor with him, while he tried repeating the same old, tired and irrelevant arguments that the Federal Appeals courst has already ruled aginst.

BUT - lest you think that this is no more than another purely atheistic tirade - let me say that the very best argument AGAINST the National Day of Prayer that I've ever read comes not from an Atheist, or even from a Constitutional Scholar, but rather from a man of the cloth!  I encorage everyone to read, and THINK about, Reverend Barry Lynn's April 20th Article fro HuffPo.  THIS is my real problem with the National Day of Prayer.  As Rev. Lynn  points out, it actually UNDERMINES Religious faith and true practice.  And THIS is what the Religious Right in this country just doesn't get - or doesn't care about.  Because the Religious Right has NEVER been about Religion.  It's has always been about POWER and MONEY.  Or, more specifically, using RELIGION to get the religious to put them in POWER, so they can take their MONEY.

...And if there was any signifciant population of Christinas in this country who had any sense of real Christian principles, there's no way we'd have, "In GOD we trust" printed on so base and material thing as our MONEY.

But that a rant for a different day.

Happy National Day of Prayer. 

(I'm going to celebrate MY "religion" by continuing to think and act rationally.)

Orwellian Language Part Two: Freedom

I'm not sure what's worse: Hearing the right talk about how their the party of freedom and liberty, or hearing them say that the liberals want to take you're freedom away. With all of that utter nonsense in mind, I give you:


Part Two: Freedom

The next word I want to discuss that the Right has co-opted is “freedom.” (I will no longer refer the Right as “conservatives” to avoid confusion and maintain consistency with Part One.) Now there is one part of the Right that truly loves “freedom.” It’s the libertarian wing of the Republican Party. Unfortunately, to avoid conflict with their Religious Funny-mentalist wing, these libertarians have largely given up their dedication to individual liberty, and for the most part they now only really care about corporate freedom, or the freedom from government regulation for large corporations. Individual freedom to the Right is defined fairly narrowly and applies almost exclusively to right to own guns, and first amendments rights only so long as it fits their agenda. IOW – Freedom of Religion when it comes to putting prayer IN schools, in support of THEIR religion, but not as it applies to respecting OTHER religions but keeping prayer OUT of schools and maintaining the Separation of Church and State. They also claim first amendment rights when they post the names and addresses of abortion providers on the Internet, yet at the same time have tried to ban the distribution of information over the net to those trying to GET an abortion, as well as any objective or (god forbid!) pro-choice leaning commentary on the matter. I’m not suggesting that the Left never does this, only that I think their abuses are far less egregious. For my part, I believe the ALCU are the truly principled defenders of freedom in this country, as they have defended the freedom of both the far left and the far right and everyone in between. It is only the Right’s mental disease of religious absolutism that makes them view the ACLU as a decidedly Left-leaning or “liberal” (*their use of the word, not mine!) organization. The fact that the Left in this country largely supports them, despite the ACLU’s defense of many on the Right (Neo-Nazi’s, the Ku Klux Klan, Rush Limbaugh, Oliver North, many Religious Groups and Individuals, just to name a few) to me, only shows that the Left has a far more principled view of freedom than the Right does.

There are two key planks in the Rights platform that undermine it’s claim to be the party of “freedom,” even as they’ve used both in an absurd attempt to bolster it: Religion and States Rights. But before we look at those, let me propose a very simple working definition of “freedom.” It is the ability to do stuff. LAWS (and other prohibitions) can thus ONLY reduce you freedom: They can only reduce the amount of stuff you can do. The libertarian’s viewpoint is that the only laws that are needed are those that determine who’s “freedom,” or “rights” supersede. IOW, it’s very similar to my doctrine of choice that I previously laid out. With that in mind, let’s take a look at the two aforementioned Republican pillars: Religion and States Rights.

Religion. Hoo-boy, where to even start? First of all, don’t let ANYONE tell you that “[insert religious icon here] will set you free.” This is bullshit. Big-time, major-league, gold-standard, grade-A, five-star, BULL*SHIT! No two ways about it. Every single religion has it own collection of taboos and prohibition that come with it. So while they may claim you’ll be “free from sin,” in reality, you simply be prohibited to sin. IOW: There is less stuff that you will be allowed to do, above and beyond what the law already restricts. Now… It can be argued that this is a “better” or “more moral” way to live, and that’s fine – you are “free” to decide that for yourself. But when religion intermingles with government, the only result will be MORE prohibitions, MORE laws, LESS stuff you can do. As for the idea that the Left will take away your religious freedom? That’s nonsense. An outright lie in fact. The Left only wishes for the separation of church and state, so as any person can belong to any religion they want, as well as be free from the prohibitions of any religion they do not belong to – even if, or especially if, they choose to belong to none. They ONLY way you can have freedom of religion is to have freedom from religion. And the complete separation of church and state is the only way you can achieve that. Enough has been written about that, so I’m just going to leave it there. If you can't accept that at this point in human history, then you have been brainwashed by religion.

Now… supporting “states rights” sounds like a pro-freedom agenda no? After all “rights” is just another way of saying “freedom” right? Bill of “Rights,” “Freedom” of Speech, Religion, Press, etc… (Sidetracking for a second, it sure make you wander how ‘pro-freedom’ the right can be when you hear conservatives arguing against the government (or the judiciary) “making up new rights.” Well… what’s wrong with that?! New rights = more freedom, no? But I digress…) But let's look at what States can do, and have done with their ‘rights.’ Medical Marijuana laws not withstanding, a State cannot make anything or any activity legal that the Federal Government has deemed illegal. (And if they think mary-jane has been legalized, the fact is that federal agents can still come in at any time and arrest anyone they want to for both dealing and possessing marijuana. They don’t, largely because they are supporting states rights in one of the very few instances in which they increase our freedom, but they still reserve the right to do so! I imagine the Fed won’t however since it might lead to a Supreme Court case that would likely (1) erode the power of the fed (good for the Right, as long as they control the State Houses, and remain in the Minority in Congress) but also (2) lead to broader legalization of marijuana, which they don’t want.) But with that lone exception, all a State can do with it’s power is to pass MORE laws: IOW – further reduce the amount of stuff we can do beyond what the federal government already prohibits.

Now I’m all for states managing their own fiscal affairs – levying taxes as they see fit, managing their public services, etc… But when it comes to LAWS, what kind of useful laws do states ever really pass? You can’t buy liquor on Sunday before noon. (Michigan.) You can’t buy alcohol, including Beer and Wine, in a supermarket, only in a state-licensed liquor store (Massachusetts); You can only buy liquor, excluding beer and wine, in a STATE-OPERATED, “ABC” Store (Virginia – a ‘red’ state taking a rather ‘communist’ approach, no?); You can only stock liquor in tiny “airplane” bottles (North Carolina, until recently); You can’t buy liquor on a Sunday at all (Connecticut – what a boon for neighboring New York on Sundays, huh?). This is just one example, but its illustrates fairly well what States do with their rights: PASS REALLY STUPID, POINTLESS LAWS! (The so-called "BLUE-LAWS" were a PRIME example, as was segregation... but I digress.)

Let me put it a different way… If something is not bad enough to be made illegal everywhere (murder, theft, rape, etc…) then why should it be illegal ANYWHERE?! And LOCAL laws get even worse! Now you have prohibitions on top of State Laws AND Federal Laws! Dry counties?! WTF?! If you don’t want to drink that’s fine, by where does 51% of a county get off telling the other 49% that they can’t?! And yet the Right, who claim to be all about “freedom” LOVE their states rights… except, you know… in the case of medical marijuana, when states have used their rights to actually increase our freedom. But restricting abortion, restricting alcohol consumption, restricting religious freedom (whenever a prayer-in-school or am intelligent design bill comes up, it’s ALWAYS at the state or local level!), restricting access or information about contraception or family planning, even restricting GAY MARRIAGE!

Oh, and how they've they criticized the states that allow it! But then they make a “states rights” argument for why the federal government shouldn't compel states to recognize it! WTF?! Hypocrisy anyone?! The rights of two men or two women to marry takes nothing away from anybody else. This is NOT the case of two people or groups with mutually exclusive rights here. This is about one group imposing their religious views on another. As a strait, (hypothetically) Christian Male, I can still marry, or remain single as I choose. I am free to do as I wish – which would not include marrying a man, as that would be prohibited by the church I chose to belong to. That situation does not change when two other men marry. My rights are not diminished in any way! This only extends increased freedom to them, as well as to me (though I would likely continue to choose not to exercise that freedom.)



Gun Ownership is about the only area that the Right supports states rights in an area that DOES increase our freedom. For the record, I’m OK with this. I like the fact that the decision of whether or not I own a gun is mine and mine alone. I DON’T own a gun. I DESPISE guns and I feel that a gun is a coward’s weapon… But I cherish that the choice is MINE.

BTW… Here are my weapons of choice: (LOL)

(And yes, they work.)

So again… You can follow a pro-religion political agenda, and sing all the praises of ‘states rights,’ that’s fine. But THIS “liberal” is NOT going to let you do that and then get away with any claims about protecting personal liberty.

For that? I’ll stick with the ACLU.

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.)