The Taliban's Ignorance of Justice

Yesterday, I wrote on the components of a proper apology.

In writing that essay, I assumed a case in which an apology is actually owed. The second and third component of a proper apology requires that the agent (2) specify what he or she did that was wrong, and (3) explain why it is wrong.

Yet, often, people are called on to apologize when they have done nothing wrong.

In some cases, it will be necessary to comply with this demand. However, this is true in the same way that it may be necessary to turn over one's wallet to a thug with a gun who might otherwise do worse harm if one did not obey.

The scope of this blog is not concerned with the practical matters of going along with the demands of evil people with power. This blog is about ethics - right and wrong. In this case, it is about the relationship between the concepts relevant to a proper apology and the more general concepts of justice – concepts that people in some parts of the world obviously do not understand.

It is legitimate to demand an apology in a case where an agent has done something wrong - that the agent recognizes was wrong - and that the agent truly cares to make amends for and to prevent in the future.

These conditions also roughly describe a case in which it is permissible to harm someone as punishment for a crime. First, they must have done a crime. Second, one must be able to describe the reasons for which punishment is justified.

The range of cases in which an apology is appropriate is substantially the same as the range of cases in which the concept of justice is applicable. An apology is often appropriate in cases when it may be appropriate to condemn and, in severe cases, to punish an agent.

I can illustrate some of the concepts and relationships that I am referring to here by pointing to a group of tribal barbarians living Afghanistan and Pakistan who have demonstrated themselves to be masters of incoherence and injustice - known as the Taliban.

This is a hypothetical case. I do not know the actual motivation for the American soldier in this case. However, neither does the Taliban. It does not seem to matter to them. As a result, examining the case in light of this hypothetical motivation makes sense.

An American soldier sneaks out of camp, kills 16 Afghans, then returns to camp and surrenders to authorities. The Taliban, then, demand revenge against all Americans.

A proper understanding of justice would tell you that the guilty should be punished and the innocent should be left alone. However, these moral Neanderthals seem to think nothing of killing innocent people - rationalizing varnishing their moral crimes with the word "justice" (because "murderer" - though it would be more honest - carries something of a social stigma).

The person who it would be appropriate to punish is one who is in a position where they owe an apology. This means that the person is one for whom it is possible (rather they do so or not) to state that an action that they did that was wrong, and an explanation for why it is wrong.

However, the Taliban are not interested in confining their violence to the guilty. By their statements, they seem willing to kill just about anybody. Personal guilt or responsibility are irrelevant - or are assumed in spite of the fact that those who are to be killed performed no action for which an apology would otherwise be due.

In fact, these Taliban have proven themselves morally worse than the soldier that they condemn.

For the sake of illustrating a point, let us assume that the soldier thought he had the right to go out and kill innocent people - including children - who are not guilty of any wrongdoing. He may have acted to punish them because some other Afghans killed a friend of his.

Even where this is the case, this soldier still recognized that his actions were one that would require that he sneak out of his camp, and one in which he would have to surrender to authorities to answer for on his return. At least he recognized that his culture was one that condemned the killing of innocent people who had nothing to do with whomever might have caused his grief.

Whereas, in the case of the Taliban, we have a group of people who condemn this soldier for his actions – yet proudly support and defend the principle that one may go out and kill innocent people in response to some (perceived) crime. They condemn the person, while they praise and threaten to practice the principle that, in this case, the soldier may well have acted on.

In the case of the mass murderer - the American soldier - we fully recognize the need to confine and punish such a person.

Well, first we recognize that it is wrong to do harm to innocent people, which is why we require that his guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. These safeguards for protecting the innocent appear to be one of the principles of civilized society that the Taliban is having a hard time grasping.

However, once it has been determined that a person is guilty, then we recognize the right and the need to confine such a person, to condemn him, and to punish him - as a way of promoting an aversion to such actions in others. These are a part of the way that civilized society maintains itself.

Now, consider this: If we have good reason to confine, condemn, and punish the American mass murderer, what does this imply about the attitudes we should have towards Taliban leaders whose attitudes towards justice are actually worse than those of the soldier who committed this crime. What should we do about Taliban leaders who promise to do the very types of actions that, in the case of the soldier, we take to provide justification for condemnation, confinement, and punishment?

Ultimately, the pre-moral culture of the Taliban is one in which they simply are not given an understanding of the fundamental rules of justice, and where reason must be an utterly foreign concept.

I have mentioned my support for the Reason Rally. I am hoping that it will serve as a tool for saving lives and reducing suffering. One of the ways that I hope that it will do this is to organize people into providing an answer and promoting alternatives to the hypocritical, violent, revenge-driven murder of innocents that seems “justified” in certain primitive cultures.

We cannot have peace where mass murderers such as this American soldier go free and unchallenged. Things are worse when whole tribes proudly, incoherently, and hypocritically boast that they embrace principles that would support the very types of actions that this soldier performed.

You cannot have peace - and you cannot maintain a civilized society - where that society is filled with people who can so easily talk about killing innocent people. There will always be unnecessary death and suffering so long as those types of ideas go unchallenged and unanswered. One of the outcomes of the Reason Rally, I would hope, is the beginnings of an organization that will seek to find ways to end that suffering.

Of course, that answer would have to be consistent with the principles described here - the very principles that the Taliban leadership apparently fails to comprehend. This is that a person is to be assumed innocent until proven guilty and that guilt requires that some action has been performed - a type of action for which a proper apology would be possible even if it is not actually given.

Where these principles are in place and enforced, civilized society is a possibility.

The Pennsylvania Atheists and the Makings of a Proper Apology

It appears that the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Atheists not only needs lessons in graphic design and marketing. They also need a moral lesson on the makings of a proper apology.

Hint: "I am sorry that you are all such idiots" is not an apology.

Their apology referred to a billboard they put up that showed a black slave and the Biblical command, "Slaves, obey your masters." The billboard was taken by many to be an offensive statement against blacks. In light of the controversy that followed,they offered this apology:

I want to say that I'm truly sorry that many people have misunderstood this billboard. It was never our intention to use race as our message itself.

(See: Atheist Billboard Controversy Stirs Racial Tensions in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania)

This pretty much falls into the general category, "I am sorry that so many people misunderstood our message" fits in the category of, "I am sorry that there are so many idiots out there."

Here are the five elements of a proper apology illustrated with sample text:

(1) The apology itself.

I am truly sorry.

(2) A statement of personal responsibility. where the agent describes exactly what he or she did wrong.

We created a billboard that was so poorly designed that a casual observer could take it as an endorsement of black slavery when, in fact, it was meant to condemn slavery.

(3) An explanation as to why the action was wrong - demonstrating that the agent understands the nature of their mistake.

Slavery was a horrendous institution and the last thing we would want to do is give any impression that those horrors can be justified. That is actually why we decided to put up this sign. When the Pennsylvania legislature declared this the Year if the Bible, they effectively endorsed a book that contained this commandment to slaves, "Slave, obey your masters." They endorsed it. We opposed it.

For nearly the whole first century of this country's existence, Southern slave owners not only used this to justify slavery. They taught it to their slaves as a way of coercing those slaves into obedience even when their earthly masters were not looking. They told their slaves, "Even when I am not watching you, God is. When you do not fear me, fear Him."

We find it to be abhorrent that the Pennsylvania Legislature would make such an endorsement and sought to express our abhorrence with this sign.

However, we messed up. We messed up. We made a sign that, to somebody who encounters the sign without knowing its context, appears as an unpleasant reminder and a potential endorsement of the institution of slavery. It looks like a sign that some Southern plantation owner might have put up on the slave house wall. That is the last thing we wanted to do. That fact illustrates another fact that, in communication, context is important. We did not consider the fact that a lot of people who saw the sign would not know its context. I repeat, we messed up. I understand now - what I should have understood a month ago - how that sign might appear to somebody who saw it in a different context.

(4) A statement of the steps that will be taken to prevent similar events in the future.

We accept that it is our responsibility to make sure that our message is clearly understood. In the future, when we condemn those practices that contributed to and supported slavery - and we will continue to do so - we will make sure that we use a message that clearly condemns slavery. Unlike the Pennsylvania Legislature, we have no interest in even appearing to endorse those practices and institutions used in the defense of slavery. We will see to it that our future actions reflect that standard.

(5) A statement about how one intends to make up for the mistake.

In the light of these events, I am asking for a meeting with the leaders of the local NAACP and other leaders of the black community in order, first, to convey my apologies in person. And, second, to discuss how we may avoid similar mistakes in the future, and how we may better serve goals that are important to both of us - goals that include a fair and just treatment of all Americans regardless of race.

This is what a proper apology would look like.

Atheists are fallible human beings. We are not perfect. The practice of making an apology is well designed to reduce the damage that come from those imperfections and setting things quickly onto the right track again. When we make mistakes - as we certainly will - we should be quick to recognize them, and to put into practice those principles of apology that can quickly put things on the right track again.

The Reason Rally: Avoiding the Bigot's Fallacy

Those who are opposed to the Reason Rally have done a remarkable job of changing the subject whenever it gets uncomfortably close to talking about the costs of some of their policies in terms of human lives and well-being.

For example, they will come forth with a claim like, "But look at all of the good that religion has done," or "You have not looked at all of the religious views out there."

Some atheists and secularists try to respond directly to this type of comment.

However, I have a different response.

My response is:

Therefore . . . what?

Therefore . . . I should not protest the practice of stoning a young woman to death for the crime of being raped or for having sex outside of marriage – while she lays there as a bleeding pulp of flesh?

Therefore . . . I should not care about the child who dies from the lack of medical care because a simple procedure that could have saved his life was frowned on by his parent's religion?

"Therefore, I should not care about gangs going around torturing and killing teenagers who even look gay?"

"Therefore, I should be content to let hundreds of millions of people die an early death or endure prolonged suffering and disability who could have been helped by medical treatments that religious factions forbid?"

"Therefore, I should be happy that children are being taught to hate and fear science, where science gives us the best ability of predicting and, thus, avoiding future harms?"

"What are you driving at here? Why are you telling me this?"

If the answer is, "Well, I'm not talking about those things," my response is, "But I am!"

If the answer is, "Yes," then they should be made to say so. To stay in the conversation, they should say, "Yes, my arguments are meant to conclude that you should be content with these harms and injustices, just as I am."

However, these objections to the atheist claims are often - almost always - made without a thought as to their implications or relevance. What is worse is that, after the theist gives this irrelevant response, too many atheists go chasing after these red herrings and forget all about the need to save lives and reduce suffering.

To be honest, some secularists and atheists have made it easy for others to change the subject. They routinely make a specific logical error that leaves an opening for just this kind of move - and the consequence of changing the subject.

Yes, I am saying that some secularists are not the model of logical perfection that some want to believe themselves to be.

The mistake I am referring to involves making illogical and unwarranted leaps from premises that are true of "a religion" or "a set of religious beliefs", to conclusions about "religion" in general.

These are instances of the fallacy of hasty generalization - an informal logical fallacy that a lot of atheist leap right into.

This is a mistake for three reasons.

First, it is illogical. If we are going to hold that reasonable thinking is a virtue - which seems to be at least a part of the message of the Reason Rally - then we must shun and condemn violations of reason. These derogatory overgeneralizations are an example of that. Are we for reason and rationality? Or are we for unwarranted leaps of logic whenever they appear it gets us to a desired conclusion?

Second, this is how a bigoted mind thinks. It jumps from some wrong done by a subset of a group to derogatory generalizations about the whole group. When secularists and atheists make this mistake, they are showing themselves to be unreasoning bigots more interested in promoting dislike of a target group than rational discussion of relevant social issues. We do not need that type around here.

Third, it causes human suffering. It allows people to change the subject away from behavior that risks likes, promotes suffering, and allows religious interference with the peaceful lives of others. As a result, it provides a smoke screen behind which those practices can continue. Furthermore, it allows the manufacturers of this smoke screen to present the case that the atheist claims are logically invalid and morally hypocritical. As such, they are able to undermine everything else the speaker is trying to advance.

So, don't do it.

For example, if the subject of conversation is a set of beliefs that results in people denying life-saving medical care to children, then keep the conversation on that topic. Do not allow it to morph into a conversation about "religion". This is because some religions are not involved in denying life-saving medical care to children. That is a different subject.

If your opponent gives any answer like those I wrote about at the start of this post, or anything else that ultimately fails to address this issue, snap your fingers and say, "Over here. Focus. I am trying to save some lives here. We are talking about children dying or suffering permanent injury as a result of these bizarre beliefs. Are you interested in helping me save these children? Or do you think we should just let them die or continue to suffer while you go off on your tangent?"

Speaking Up Against Irrational Policies

This week and next, I am writing in support if the Reason Rally.

I think it is important.

Imagine being in an airplane at 10,000 meters with two others who have decided, by means of a majority vote, that the three of you are going to jump - without parachutes. They claim that it is perfectly safe - the air will slow you down and you will all land safely.

You answer, "You'll hit the earth at approximately 175 kilometers per hour. That is terminal velocity. It is our lives that will get terminated."

They laugh. They say, "Approximately. See, you do not even know. Besides, listen to that emotion. You are really as bad as those religious fundamentalists - insisting that you must be right and utterly intolerant of any opinion that differs from your own. You are an arrogant bigot, Ms. Scientist. We have freedom of speech as well as freedom of religion on this airplane. This means that you must not say anything that questions or contradicts our faith. You must stay silent or, at least, give our soft-landing theory equal time along side of your terminal velocity theory which is, after all, just another theory. It's the only fair thing to do."

For centuries, we have been allowing these people to lead, politely deferring to them because - well, they have a habit of copping an attitude whenever somebody questions their judgment or beliefs. In some cases, they get violent. It is an effective defense mechanism. Our response has been to throw up our hands in surrender.

But this has gone on long enough. The time for giving a passive sigh and going along for the ride has ended. People are being killed and maimed. They are being made to suffer serious and long-term harms. They are being denied the opportunity to pursue the things they value by those whose primitive superstitious beliefs command them to stand in the way of the happiness of others.

It is time to put one's foot down.

"No! This has gone on long enough! Do the fracing math! My beliefs rest on a foundation that employs a method of making a constantly improving set of predictions about the effects of our actions. We ignore those facts at our peril."

They answer, "You have been wrong in the past. Even you admit that you can be wrong now."

Answer: "What part of 'constantly improving set of predictions' are you failing to understand? Yes, we scientists admit to the possibility of error. You cannot have a constantly improving set of beliefs without admitting that some old ones might be mistaken. You should try it."

The critic responds, "You can't prove that no God exists."

My answer to that is, "Don't change the subject. The subject is jumping out of a plane without a parachute. I can predict what will happen and it will not be pretty. Do you want to talk about God's existence? Land the plane and we'll discuss it."

They say, "There are other ways of knowing besides science."

Answer, "None of that is relevant to the prediction of what will happen if we jump out of this plane. Quit changing the subject."

It really is time to say, "Stop! This has gone on long enough!"

We really must live in a society in which everybody has a say. This is because we all gave different interests. Denying some group a say in how things are run almost inevitably turns those who do not have a say into the unwilling servants of those who do.

Furthermore, there are very good reasons to hold that the only legitimate response to words are words - and never violence. The only legitimate response to a political campaign is a counter-campaign - a conflict of words and ideas rather than a conflict of bombs and bullets.

However, this civic right comes with a civic responsibility - a responsibility to think - to use one's head and the powers of reason to reach responsible conclusions. People who lead have an obligation to lead intelligently. People who vote have an obligation to vote intelligently. The people who will vote have an obligation to choose intelligent, thinking, reasonable and rational leaders.

It is not the case that the majority is always right. There is a real world out there that does not yield to our fantasies - no matter how large the majority that holds them. Convincing 300 other airplane passengers that it is safe to jump out of an airplane at 10,000 meters without a parachute will only change the number of people who die when they hit the earth.

If you are going to the Reason Rally, please take the time to think of this. You are on that airplane. You are surrounded by others whose actions - grounded on their faith - will have an effect on some that is quite literally the same as throwing them out of the airplane at altitude.

Isn't it time to say something?

The Reason Rally and the Crybaby Atheists

Are you going to the Reason Rally next weekend?

If you are undecided, I would like to offer a small shove in the direction of going.

I can't go - I have a job to attend to and live quite some distance away. However, for those who are on the fence, please consider climbing off the fence on the side of attending, and encouraging others to do the same. The greater the number of attendees, the greater the impact.

If you cannot go, I would still like to recommend that you support it socially (Facebook, Twitter, blogs, water-cooler conversation, comments).

I will be doing this – starting today.

I am going to have the audacity to suggest some things to focus on - and to avoid - with respect to the Reason Rally. It is wise to plan ahead. You know all of those things you wish you would have said or done but you didn't think of them at the time? Now is the time to work on avoiding that.

For example, political and social opponents of the Reason Rally are already at work defining the Reason Rally in their own terms. They will seek to minimize, trivialize, denigrate, and belittle the event. They have a political and social incentive to push secularists to the margins of society. Failure to recognize the fact that this gives them reason to act would be naive.

We are already seeing attempts to brand the Reason Rally as a bunch of cry-babies whining about how oppressed they are. Atheists are not being rounded up and herded into gas chambers, sold into slavery, lynched by bands of citizens in white sheets or hoods, or being beaten, tied to fence posts, and left for dead. So atheists should quit their whining and go home.

Right?

Now, here is a lesson in how to control another group's agenda. You offer a mass of complaints and protests that define the group in your own terms and assigns to them the identity you want to them to have. Human nature will entice them to respond to the criticisms directly. This is what they will do naturally – unless they are savvy enough to have prepared a different response. When they respond as predicted, you will have been effective at picking the subject of the conversation. In this case, the subject is that of a bunch of cry-baby atheists playing the oppressed card on the national mall thinking themselves the modern equivalent of the Civil Rights movement.

My first recommendation is to be aware of this form of political manipulation and prepare for it.

Have an idea of what you want to accomplish, and do not let your opponent take you off of your message and define the Rally in their own terms.

I would suggest that you go the Reason Rally with the intent of saving lives and reducing suffering that spring from actions founded on beliefs that are simply unreasonable.

This is for the people who suffer and die because they find themselves surrounded by people who accept primitive bigotries and superstitions and who act on them in ways that are harmful.

Yes, the atheists are among the victims - theists have hijacked the Pledge and the Motto and other social and political rituals to create a climate utterly hostile to atheist political candidates. In doing so, they act to reserve political power for themselves and fellow believers.

However, atheists are only one set of a long list of victims.

That list also includes the sick and injured - people suffering from any number of diseases and injuries for whom treatments are being blocked by unreasonable people wed to primitive superstitions. Worldwide, these people number in the hundreds of millions - and some of their suffering is extreme. If you attend the Reason Rally, or address it in your writings and conversations, do so with the intent to help clear the superstitions that keep these people from obtaining the medical treatment that would ease their suffering and save their lives.

Do you think that the person who spends her life in a wheelchair when she could be walking around because some evangelical demands that she stay in her chair is a whiner who has nothing to complain about?

Do you know somebody who fits this description? If so, you should see if you can get her to the Rally.

We are talking about honor killings and exorcisms to drive out demons, and parents withholding life-saving medical treatment from young children because they have fallen into some faith-healing cult that shuns science and modern medicine. Some of these children die. Others suffer permanent damage. Is this not worth complaining about?

We are talking about committed couples denied the legal and social means to form a life together for no reason other than people from a church they do not belong to think that their God values nothing more than denying these people a quality life. Many of these religiously motivated bigots shun all other discussion and all other issues, because nothing to them is more important than denying happiness to this group of people.

There is news today of religious gangs in Iraq hunting down, torturing, and killing teenagers who even appear gay. (See: CBS News: "Emo" and gay kids targeted, killed in Iraq

Let us not forget the young girls stoned to death for the crime of being raped.

Let us not forget the diseases spreading through Africa and other parts of the world, in part caused by religions that block attempts to promote the most useful methods of preventing the spread of disease because those methods conflict with their primitive mythologies.

We have children growing up ignorant of the real world because their parents want them to continue to accept the superstitions of the Dark Ages and have taught their children to hate and fear science. Because of this, they cannot understand, nor can they contribute to forming a sound social policy on real-world concerns.

Reality matters.

You can have all of the faith in the world that the train coming down the tracks is not real, but that will not prevent you and your children from getting splattered all over the tracks when you decide to go ahead and step onto the tracks.

Science gives us the ability to predict the future. It gives us the ability to see the trains that are heading our direction before they get here so that we – human civilization - can avoid being splattered all over the tracks. Having such a huge voting block that hates and fears science and denies its conclusions on faith will cost lives and cause suffering. Reality simply will not yield to their fantasies.

We have religious leaders who are seeking access to nuclear weapons who think that their god gives them permission to start lobbing them at infidels. We have other religious leaders who think that they can bring about the End of Days and the second coming of whatever Lord they believe in by bringing about their religion’s version of some great conflict between good and evil – who, of course, think that they are on the side of goodness.

This is only a partial list of issues that are worthy of our concern.

If you are going to the Reason Rally - or if you are writing about it - please do so with an eye firmly fixed on the goal of saving lives, easing suffering, giving people the liberty to pursue their one and only life in this universe untrammeled by primitive superstition. Make those objectives known. And do not let critics and opponents distract you from those worthy goals.

Do not let them change the subject.

Changing Definitions and Ending Civilization

Cardinal Keith O'Brien's protests against gay marriage are utterly silly and laughable if not for the fact that human beings use such a stupid argument to cause harm to others.

If same-sex marriage is enacted into law what will happen to the teacher who wants to tell pupils that marriage can only mean – and has only ever meant – the union of a man and a woman? Will that teacher’s right to hold and teach this view be respected or will it be removed? Will both teacher and pupils simply become the next victims of the tyranny of tolerance, heretics, whose dissent from state-imposed orthodoxy must be crushed at all costs?

(See: The Telegraph, We cannot afford to indulge this madness.

See, not long ago the American Astronomical Union changed the definition of "planet". Under the new definition, Pluto would not qualify. There were some protests and complaints about it - particularly from people who were sentimental about the idea of Pluto being called a planet. However, I can imagine that Cardinal O'Brien must have been entirely beside himself!

If this new definition of 'planet' were to become accepted by the International Astronomical Union, what will happen to the teacher who wants to tell pupils that 'planet' has always meant - and and has only ever meant – a large ball of rock or gas orbiting a sun that is naturally round. Will that teacher’s right to hold and teach this view be respected or will it be removed? Will both teacher and pupils simply become the next victims of the tyranny of tolerance, heretics, whose dissent from state-imposed orthodoxy must be crushed at all costs?

Gad! The horrors of it all! The very essence of civilization and all of our human rights are bound up in the fact that the meanings of words cannot change! Allow the meaning of a word to change, and the next thing you know you have absolute tyranny! Never before, in all of human history, has a civilization been able to survive the re-definition of a term!

Well, we will ignore the fact that 'malaria' used to mean 'bad air' - and was used to refer to a disease that people simply assume was caused by . . . literally . . . bad air. Ancient caretakers of the sick would wear these long flowing robes with hoods that had long pointed snouts soaked in perfume to sweeten the air that the wearer breathed. It was assumed to keep those who wore them from breathing in this bad air and getting sick. However, one of those midevil doctors complained that the only thing these robes were good for was to keep the mosquitos off.

Then there was the time that chemists changed the definition of "atom". In its original meaning, "atom" meant "without parts". It was thought that matter was made up of a smallest particle that, itself, had no parts. After all, you couldn't split matter indefinitely into smaller and smaller parts. It had to have an end somewhere. The name they used for this smallest and unbreakable particle of matter was "atom".

Then some people came up with this absurd theory that the particles they had been calling atoms since the days of the ancient Greeks actually had parts. The new theory said that atoms had a nucleus made up of protons and (usually) neutrols, and was (usually) circled by one or more protons. Atoms could be split!

Now, as we well know, as soon as the definition of atom changed, this brought in a new era of tyranny and oppression. Freedoms were thrown out the world over as those who once used the term 'atom' to mean 'without parts' were forced to their knees to yield their very lives and freedom to those who said that hanceforth, atoms had parts.

That era of great tyranny is now known as . . .

. . . as . . .

Sorry, I can't think of it right now. I am sure it must have happened, just as Cardinal O'Brien says.

The ability of these primative superstitious beliefs to clog rational thought on matters where people do harm to others is amazing.

I would hold that a decent, moral person gives others the benefit of the doubt. I would hold that others be given the freedom to decide how to live their own lives as they see fit - that a presumption always be given in terms of liberty - and that liberty is only to be restricted when the evidence is such strength that it compels us to remove it.

The primative superstition of the Catholic Church has brought them to come up with the most absurd and irrational defense of denying others the life those others will choose for themselves. O'Brien writes that we are about to bring down civilization itself, merely because a word changes definition and people are given the liberty to harmlessly pursue a relationship they judge to be suitable to their nature.

It does not matter that the Catholic Church declares that gay marriage is not suitable to human nature. To the Catholic Church, It is not your life - and thus not your decision to make for others. Leave these people alone.

The Hypothetical Atheist Candidate - The "Religion" Speech

Assume that there was an atheist candidate running for public office.

One of the things that candidate will have to do is give a speech on religion. Kennedy - the first Catholic President - had to do it. Romney had to give one as well -and he substantially blew his. People will have questions, and the candidate should be ready to answer them.

Well - in imagining such a speech, I imagine it going something like this.

I believe that there is no god. Some of you disagree with me on that point. The reason I am here is to talk about that disagreement in the context of my candidacy.

The first thing I want you to do is to turn to the person to your right or your left. It does not matter who that person is. It could be your spouse, your child, or your parent. It could be your best friend since the fourth grade, or the army buddy who saved your life and whose life you saved a dozen times. It could be your identical twin. It does not matter. I guarantee that there us some matter on which you and that person disagree.

If there is anybody who cannot get along with others with whom they disagree, that person is going to have a sad and lonely life. And, probably, a short life. Look at how many ways we depend on each other just to survive.

We all disagree with each other on something.

Here is another thing I can tell you with near certainty. If we make a list of the things on which we disagree, I guarantee you that there will be at least one item on that list where you are right and I am wrong. I guarantee it.

I do not know what those mystery facts are. If I knew, I would change my mind, and they would no longer be points of disagreement.

That is why it is important for me to listen.

This is why freedom of speech is so important. It is utter arrogance for anybody to say that they are so absolutely infallible that they have permission to use a gun, or a bomb, or the law, to silence those who disagree with them - or to force others to act as if they agree. I need to hear what others have to say. That is the only way that I can learn.

Freedom of speech requires a freedom to criticize. Some people seem to have gotten the idea that freedom of speech means a freedom FROM criticism. They address criticism by saying, "You have no right to question my beliefs. When you question my beliefs, you show me disrespect. Showing me disrespect is wrong. Therefore, you must not criticize."

I do not agree.

In fact, I think that the position I just described is absurd. How can anybody possibly come to the conclusion that the right to freedom of speech means that all critics must sit down and shut up. Criticism IS speech. The right to freedom of speech IS the right to criticize the beliefs of others. Taking away the right to criticize is not protecting freedom of speech - it is destroying freedom of speech.

So, between me and every one of you, we are bound to find a list of things over which we disagree. In some of those cases, inevitably, there is at least one in which you are right and I am wrong. The only way for me to know what those cases are is to listen to what you say. A person should never silence their critics. A person should never be so arrogant so as to say, "If you criticize my beliefs, then you disrespect me as a person; therefore, you must not criticize my beliefs."

The next question to ask, when there is a difference of opinion, is whether that difference is important . . . or, more to the point, whether that difference should be considered important.

I have a little story to tell that will explain my answer.

Let us assume that we were all in an airplane together. We are flying across the Pacific. We are off course. We crash on some island and there is no hope for an immediate rescue.

What are our priorities?

Priority number one: Come to universal agreement on whether a god exists and, if so, on the properties of that god.

Right?

Wrong.

Take care of the sick and injured, find water, find food, obtain shelter, and provide for our security. We need to protect ourselves and each other from nature itself - hurricanes, earthquakes, fires and freezing temperatures. We may need to protect ourselves and each other from hostile tribes. We definitely need to protect ourselves and each other from the predators and parasites among us.

It is best that we divide into teams and that jobs are assigned to those with the best skills and appropriate education. Those with medical experience start tending to the sick and injured, those who know plants can take a team to harvest plants, we can send out a hunting party, and send a team to capturing rainwater or collect water from a stream and boil it, or to dig a well.

A fire . . . Yes. That is important. We will need a source of energy - a source that will last, one that will not destroy our food and water supply or destroy our health.

Speaking more generally, one of the things we will need to do is to make sure that we will not run out of things we need. We will need to care for our environment to make sure we can continue to live off of it in the future.

We can debate God when our chores are done.

Well, there is seven billion of us crash-landed on this island in space called Earth. We need to take care of the sick and injured, obtain clean water, food, shelter - some more than others. We have not met any potentially hostile tribes - and, with luck, we never will. But it remains a possibility. However, we do need protection from nature, and we need protection from the predators and parasites among us.

As your candidate, these are my priorities. This is what I believe we should focus on.

You have a right to know how my beliefs will impact my decisions on how we obtain these goals.

Well, I will ask the scientists to look around us. I will ask them to tell us where we can find clean water or how we can make it. I will ask them to tell us which plants we can safely eat, and which will help us to care for the sick and injured. One of the things that scientists are great at is making predictions. I will ask them to establish systems to warn us when nature is about to strike, and when our actions have potential long-term costs. I will ask them where we can find sources of energy and how to use it efficiently. I will also ask them to tell me how we can identify predators and parasites among us, from DNA testing to polygraphs to psychological profiling.

And I will listen to what they have to say.

You have a right to know how my beliefs will affect my policies.

I believe that we live in a universe that does not care about our survival. It could wipe us out in an instant without a twinge of regret. We can destroy ourselves - there is no supernatural force protecting us from us. Some people claim that we can be reckless - as a species - because God will save us from the worst that could happen. No, that's not true. We must be careful. We must learn about the universe so that we can see these threats before they strike and so that we can prevent the harms - and harvest the benefits - they contain.

We can make mistakes. There is nothing out there that will save us from our own folly. We need to know and understand the real world. We need to discover the forces that threaten us while there is still time to prepare a response. We can make horrible mistakes - mistakes of commission, and mistakes of omission. We need to make sure that we avoid those mistakes.

You have a right to know how my beliefs will affect my policies.

I believe that markets work. Markets carry information - allowing people to react to more data faster than any political system could dream to match. Let us assume that a new technology is announced tomorrow at 9:00 AM eastern time that will double the efficiency of solar cells and halve their cost.

It will take the political system a considerable amount of time to respond to this new information - if ever. And the response will not necessarily be positive. There will be entrenched special interests with more of a desire to suppress this new technology than to support it.

However, if this technology were announced at 9:00, the market itself will start to respond by 9:00:01. What does it take to build these solar cells? The market will immediately start to bid those resources away from the least useful alternatives for those resources - which means identifying the least useful alternatives. It will immediately provide an incentive for people to go out and find more of those resources. It will immediately stop investment in more expensive alternatives - directing money and resources into producing the products that this new technology makes available.

Markets work, where they are allowed to operate.

But markets are not perfect. There are some problems with markets.

Sometimes, it is just too expensive to create a market and we have to live with the fact that some goods are public goods. The oceans, the air we breathe, and the climate are public goods - like it or not. We cannot divide the climate into chunks of private property and bid for them on the open market.

Also, markets allow those with a great deal of money to bid resources away from those with little money - even though the people with little money have a more highly valued use for those resources. A rich person can bid a bottle of water to use to shampoo her dog away from a poor person would have used it to care for her sick child. The rich person's willingness to spend $2000 for that bottle of water does not prove that the shampooed dog has more overall value than the relief of a sick child's thirst where the mother only has $2 to spend.

I believe that markets are vitally important in directing the use of resources. I believe they are not perfect. You have the right to know that.

Do I care that you pray or go to church?

There are more vital things to worry about.

On the question of whether or not some god exists, I disagree with what some of you believe. And you disagree with what I believe.

However, I hope that we can agree on the need to work together to provide clean water, good food, medical care, energy, security from the forces of nature, and security from human predators and parasites among us. I hope we can agree that solving these problems requires a right to freedom of speech that includes the right to freedom to criticize. It requires using the ability of free markets to transmit information and to respond to changes faster than any bureaucracy can hope to match, and the wisdom to know that, for some vital resources, we cannot efficiently set up markets and markets create a few problems we need to watch out for.