Congress Dims the Future of Human Space Flight

I have long seen space as a significant source of materials for solving many of the problems on earth - not the least of these being the problem of preventing our extinction of a species. It's huge quanities of material and energy - the ability to "create" the equivalent of 30,000 Earths in surface area to live on from the material in the asteroid belt alone, and all of the energy from the sun, suggests great potential.

So, I have followed the space program looking for it to release that great promise.

President Obama's space budget showed that potential. It was marketed poorly - as a "cut" in NASA and an abolution of its moon program. Yet, what was "cut" were huge money sinks just like those in the past that have taken huge amounts of money and accomplished little. Obama's budget would take that money and spend it on projects that promised to deliver substantially more.

Well, the Senate and the House have substantially rejected Obama's budget in exchange for continuing more of the same that has given us so little in the past 40 years.

And some people are working to change that.

(See: Space.com, Commercial Spaceflight Supporters Rally to Stall Vote on NASA Bill)

The main difference between the two options is: Will NASA pay private companies to deliver its cargo and crews into space, or will it do this work itself?

The main difference between the two options:

If NASA is buying these services from commercial space companies, those same companies have the option of selling similar services to other customers. These options include space tourism, science flights for commercial laboratories, people interested in space-based solar power, and other interests.

What we get from this is a program that takes the $6 billion from NASA and adds it to whatever these entrepreneurs can get out of other customers to create a $6 billion plus $N space program.

Furthermore, these companies have an incentive to find more efficient ways to get material into space (or to reduce costs by using material already in space) - at least for the sake of their private customers, if not for the sake of servicing a government contract.

What we get from the old tried and true "big NASA project" system (a.k.a. the Constellation Program) is what we saw with the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station is a project that funnels money to a small number of big companies where delays and cost-overruns means that a $10 billion project ends up costing $100 billion and accomplishing half as much as originally promised.

As somebody who has already waited too long to see some of the promises of space development, I prefer the first option over the second.

Unfortunately, the companies that benefit from the second option appear to have done enough lobbying to Congress to get them to vote for that option instead. And the new, young, commercial space companies who have been engineering rockets rather than engineering elections are being outmaneuvered on the political front.

Given history, I am quite certain that if we continue the Constellation Program as the House version of the NASA Budget suggests, we will see delays and cost overruns that will have NASA spending tens of billions of dollars accomplishing almost nothing in the way of manned space development.

For a while - from the time Obama announced his space budget in February until just a few days ago - I was thinking that I might actually get to see the type of space developments that I have wanted to see for a long time. Now, I fear that I will instead see headlines about NASA contractors wanting billions of more dollars which the government will provide, along with plans to significantly reduce or delay the goals for those projects. It's going to be another disappointing 10 years in the area of human space flight.

Follow-Up: August 1, 2010

It appears that the policial entities favoring the commercial space option have won a delay in the vote, giving them an opportunity to lobby the legislators for a better space bill.

It's to be expected that the companies that have, over the years, made billions of dollars each year on space projects are not going to be happy with a bill that gives the money to small commercial companies instead. They have reason to spend a huge amount of money on lobbyists and other political influences to say, "Don't take this 6 billion away and give it to them. Keep giving it to us instead?"

But what they will give us - what they have given us in the past - is cost overruns and delays. Whatever the announced objective of the BIG NASA PROJECT are at the start, we can expect it to cost 4 times that much in order to spend four times as long to accomplish half as much.

It is time to explore another option.

Apollo +50: Mercury-Atlas I

In this blog, I have been tracking the 50th Anniversary of events leading up to the Apollo moon landings.

The reason I am tracking these events in this ethics blog are (1) because I am interested in space travel and this is my blog, and (2) it demonstrates the power of the method of knowledge that relies on experimentation, observation, and hypothesis.

At no time in the Apollo program did researchers look for supernatural explanations. If a rocket blew up, the cause of the accident was never found to be because of God's anger or the presence of supernatural entities. The engineers looked for the cause of failure in the the material rocket itself and the environment it was working in.

Fifty years ago today those engineers would make their first test flight of the rocket that was supposed to put Americans into orbit - the Mercury Atlas rocket.

In 8 years, 11 months, and 17 days they would be going to the moon. Today, they just wanted to go into orbit.

It failed.

One minute into the flight, there was a "structural failure at the forward end" of the rocket. As a result, the rocket became eratic and was destroyed.

The capsule that would have been carrying the astronaut crashed into the sea in pieces. However, information from the rocket showed that an abort signal had been given as soon as the structural failure became evident. The abort system itself had been intentionally disabled to prevent a failure in that system from destroying the test - as had happened on earlier test flights.

Armed with the data from this test failure, the engineers went back to the drawing board.

The next test flight in the Mercury program is more than 4 months away - on November 8th.

The Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life - Part 12

A member of the studio audience has asked that I comment on the Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life, a product of the World Atheist Conference: God and Politics.

I said near the start of this series that I would present my own declaration when I was through.

Before getting to it, I am obligated to declare that there is a bit of “apples and oranges” comparison here. The Copenhagen Declaration was a political document that required a number of votes to approve and aimed at getting the approval of a large and general public. As such, it is an instrument of compromise.

If I were presenting my declaration below to a committee for approval, I have little doubt that they would reject some of its claims and reword others. In the end, every one of us would face the question of whether or not to vote to endorse something with which none of us completely approved.

However, this is my document. There are not votes to be taken other than my own. Therefore, it does not contain any elements of political compromise.

Here it is:

(1) There is morality that is independent of law against which laws are to be measured. Without it, there can be no such thing as a just or an unjust law.

(2) The works of scripture are as poor a source of information about morality as they are of physics or astronomy. They represent the prejudices and superstitions of people who died long ago. It is infinitely more foolish to take their words as the words of a all-knowing morally perfect deity as it would be to take the words of a typical preschool-age child as being the precise calculations of a nuclear physicist.

(3) For different religions specifically, and different schools of thought generally, to live together in peace, they must reach for a set of rules that crosses religions and schools of thought. Insisting that all the rules can be found within their own schools of thought is the antithesis of learning to live in peace with others.

(4) One rule essential for maintaining a peaceful and civilized is an extremely high aversion to using violence, including state violence, against others even if one thinks that they are wrong, and to limiting oneself to words, private actions, and peaceful political activities to persuade others of their errors without violence.

(5) There is a moral right to freedom of speech, and just law respects this right. This right is a right to immunity from violence or threats of violence for what one says (or draws). However, it is not a right to immunity from criticism or even condemnation for what one says. In fact, criticism is one of the forms of speech that is protected under this right. It is as unjust to subject the critic to violence or threats of violence for what he says as it is to subject any other speaker to violence or threats of violence.

(6) It is not an “attack,” in any morally objectionable sense, to say of somebody else’s beliefs, “You are wrong.”

(7) The power of the state rests ultimately on the fact that the state has at its disposal instruments of violence. Appeals to faith as a justification of law is the same as an appeal to faith as a justification for violence. It consists in nothing less than saying, “You deserve the violence that I would use against you – or call upon the state to use against you if you do not obey - for no better reason than that I have faith that you deserve the violence.”

(8) The types of evidence that are morally admissible in debating the merits of a law before the legislature is the same types of evidence that it are morally admissible in determining the guilt of the accused. Whereas no person may legitimately take the stand and assert that he has faith that the accused is guilty and, therefore, the accused is guilty, no citizen may legitimately go before the legislature and assert that a law conforms to his faith and, by that fact alone, he deems it to be a good law.

(9) The best defense against tyranny is to give each person who would be subject to the law a voice in what the law says. The best defense against a tyranny of the majority is recognition of individual rights that limit what majorities may impose on minorities. The mere fact that a majority of people wish for a certain law to exist is no guarantee that the law is just and not, instead, an exercise in the tyranny of the majority.

(10) Judges should do their best to base their decisions on the rules agreed upon by the society in which they are a judge, rather than their own views of what those rules should be. This is the essence by which we understand the distinction between a country governed by the rule of law, and a country governed by human whim.

(11) We recognize that some private attitudes can have public consequences. Where those public consequences are dire enough, they give people a reason to call upon the state to regulate those private attitudes. For example, society has good reason to impose sanctions against gladiatorial fights to the death and the public broadcasts of such fights, even between consenting adults.

(12) We condemn the practice, rampant in many religious communities (and some that are not religious) of exaggerating - and sometimes inventing - dire social consequences to “justify” restrictions on the freedoms and opportunities of other people that, in truth, are grounded on nothing but religious prejudice. This is a form of perjury or bearing false witness that would be repulsive to the citizens of a decent and just society.

(13) We further condemn the practice, rampant in many religious communities, of taking scripture as the final word on whether others should be harmed, regardless of the evidence that can be mustered in their defense. This pre-judging of others of deserving of harm or sanctions and blindly dismissing all evidence is the very antithesis of justice.

(14) Parents have a duty, and the state has a legitimate concern, in seeing that children are indoctrinated into those values that are essential for a civilized society. This includes such things as a respect for honesty over deception, kindness over cruelty, justice over injustice, liberty over tyranny, and a respect for rights such as a right to freedom of speech that prohibit violence or threats of violence as a response to mere words (or drawings).

(15) It is inevitable that we are going to disagree over what makes a better society. Because of this, we need to respect a presumption in favor of a liberty that allows people to pursue their own ideas in this regard without infringements on their liberty. However, like all presumptions this one can be overridden when evidence demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt these private moralities are harmful to maintaining a civilized society.

(16) Raising children to get along with others in a peaceful and civilized society is best accomplished by giving them practice at living with an interacting with others who are different from them. It is a legitimate interest of the state to see that children are provided with these skills and to make it a requirement of any form of education that the state is paying for.

(17) True beliefs matter. To believe something is to be disposed to act as if that thing is true. Whereas we have legitimate reason to be concerned with how people are disposed to act, we have legitimate reason to be concerned with what they believe. However, that legitimate concern does not translate into a right to use violence against them. It translates into a right to criticize and to condemn beliefs that tend to be associated with harmful action.

(18) Sound reasoning techniques are those techniques that have been proven to be reliable ways of reaching true conclusions based on the available evidence. This skill is essential for making sound social policy. It also is necessary to prevent unintended harms. People generally have legitimate reasons to see that children are taught the sound reasoning and to demand that any education paid for through the state give citizens these skills.

(19) Science classes are classes devoted to the study of methods for making increasingly accurate predictions of events in the observable world. This skill is essential in protecting people from harm and in making plans that promise to be successful at securing social benefits. Options that cannot demonstrate an ability to improve predictions of events in the observable world have no place in a science class. There are other classes in which that type of information can be presented.

(20) There should be one set of rules governing religious and non-religious non-profit organizations alike. There is no justification for giving religious non-profit organizations special benefits not available to other non-profit organizations (e.g., tax immunities for key employees) nor for imposing on them special burdens.

The Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life - Part 11

A member of the studio audience has asked that I comment on the Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life, a product of the World Atheist Conference: God and Politics.

Today: Proposition 11:

We support the right to secular education, and assert the need for education in critical thinking and the distinction between faith and reason as a guide to knowledge, and in the diversity of religious beliefs [9]. We support the spirit of free inquiry and the teaching of science free from religious interference, and are opposed to indoctrination, religious or otherwise.

Indoctrination

To start with, this part about being "opposed to indoctrination" is pure nonsense.

Not only am I not opposed to indoctrination, I hold that any parent not engaged in the indoctrination of their children is - and is creating - a social menace.

Think of the parent who tells you, “I am not going to indoctrinate my child to think that the Holocaust or racial slavery was wrong. I am going to stay silent on these matters, and let my child make up her own mind when she grows up whether other races are to be enslaved or exterminated. She should be free to make up her own mind."

We can similarly imagine a parent leaving it up to the child to decide to adopt kindness or cruelty, whether to embrace the saving of lives or the taking of life, or whether to deal with others honestly or to be malicious and deceitful.

Parents not only have a right, they have a duty to indoctrinate their children into those values that are essential for a civilized society.

Besides, indoctrination is not only a right and a duty, it is inevitable. It would actually make as much (or as little) sense for a parent to say that he is not going to indoctrinate his child as it would be to say, "I am opposed to teaching children any language. I think it is wrong for adults to impose their language on children. Instead, children should be raised in a language-neutral environment and then, when the child grows up, the child can decide for herself what language she is going to adopt."

Go ahead. Give it a shot. Let me know how it works out (though I think I can guess).

Children will be indoctrinated. That is how a child's brain works. If you are not doing the indoctrinating, then you are leaving it to somebody else.

Of course, endorsing the indoctrination of children into a language or into particular social norms is not the same as saying that all indoctrination is of like value. It is NOT the case that, "It does not matter what indoctrination you give to a child, as long as you are engaged in indoctrination."

Some subjects of indoctrination are better than others.

Having said that, it is also the case that we are never going to have perfect agreement over which indoctrinations are better and which are worse. While we may agree on some major values and concerns, disagreement on specifics is inevitable. What we need are a set of rules that will prevent these disagreements from erupting into civil unrest or, worse, civil war.

These are rules that allow for free and open debate where each can express their opinion on the proper limits of indoctrination without violence or threats of violence, and an agreement to abide by the results of peaceful methods for arbitrating disputes such as by ballot and by vote. We are to indoctrinate children against reaching for guns if a vote does not go their way, but instead to confine themselves to working within the political process to change society for the better.

The values to indoctrinate children into include the sentiment that they are to limit forms of persuasion to books, speeches, civil lawsuits, and political campaigns – and not to bullets or bombs except under the most extraordinary circumstances (e.g., those who use bullets and bombs against them).

Not only do parents have an obligation to indoctrinate children into these values, the state has a right and a duty to participate. The peace that is generated through these activities are a benefit to all, and as such they are something that all people have a right to implement through the actions of the state.

Public Education

Quality education is a public good.

By this, I mean to say that public education is a good that provides benefits beyond those who are being educated to the public at large. My neighbor not only benefits from obtaining an education, but I also benefit from having an educated neighbor.

This means that education is subject to a free-rider problem. Since I benefit from having a neighbor who is educated, then perhaps I should be contributing a little to the cost of my neighbor's education. Otherwise, I am a free rider - obtaining benefits as a result of my neighbor's actions without paying for those benefits.

Because of free-riders, societies tend to under-fund those activities that generate these types of public goods. There is would be less education going on in a society with free riders then there would be in a society in which people who obtain the benefit pay those who, by educating themselves, provide a benefit.

Another service experiencing a free-rider problem include the military, where it is not possible to protect one house from enemy attack without protecting the house next door. Yet another service subject to free-riders is a system of police and courts. It is not possible to lock up a criminal so as to provide a benefit to those paying for the service that does not benefit all potential victims regardless of whether they pay.

Thus, education falls into the same general category as military and police protection as services where state involvement is necessary to capture the benefits otherwise lost through free-ridership.

This education is justified in virtue of its being a benefit to all. Thus, it should include indoctrination into those values mentioned above - values of freedom of speech, respect for others, and respect for the rule of law that are essential to maintaining a civilized society.

Education: The Diversity of Religious Beliefs

Ultimately, one of the goals of this education is to raise children into adults capable of living in peace with others. One of the essential tools for doing this would be to teach children about those "others" with whom they are to live in peace. The state has good reason to make it a required part of any education it pays for that those children are educated in "the diversity of religious (and non-religious) beliefs - at least those that are common within that society.

The best form of education on this topic, of course, is to actually have children interact with other children from different backgrounds. As such, the state has a good reason to demand that the education it pays for not only allows children to learn about other groups from books – effectively learning nothing more than the teachers’ (or the teachers’ employer’s) prejudices, but to actually require a certain amount of interaction with members of other groups.

Any school that limits its student body to children of a particular race, gender, or religion is a school that is teaching ignorance of those subgroups of the population not represented in its student body. Any school that teaches ignorance is a school that is not providing the type of education that states have (or, actually, the general citizenry of a state has) reason to pay for.

No matter how much book-reading one does, no matter how many diagrams a teacher puts on a blackboard, none of this is going to teach a child how to ride a bike. He will learn HOW to ride a bike by getting on a bike and riding it. Similarly, no amount of classroom lecture is going to teach a child HOW to live in peace with others. Learning how to live in peace with others requires the practice of interacting with others peacefully. One of the best places to learn this lesson is at a school with a diverse population of students.

If a school is limiting a child’s exposure to other types of citizens, then that school is neglecting an important interest of the government and, as such, fails to qualify for any legitimate expenditure of government money.

Education: Science and Critical Thinking

Science is the practice by which we come up with systems of thought that are capable of making accurate predictions of events in the observable world.

In raising children to become adults who are a benefit to the societies in which they live (and humanity in general), it is useful to raise them to understand and to put to good use these systems for making accurate predictions of events in the observable world.

It is difficult to understate the social utility of this skill.

Every one of our lives depends on this skill of making accurate predictions of events in the observable world. From predicting the paths of hurricanes and volcanic eruptions, to predicting the ability of certain architectural designs to withstand earthquake, to understanding the effects of certain chemicals on the human body, to locating and deflecting asteroids potentially aimed at Earth, each of us individually, and all of us collectively, depend on this skill for our survival.

This is what science classes are for.

If people become confused on this matter, then rename the science class as the "ever improving capability of making accurate predictions of events in the observable world" class and make its function explicit.

Anything that does not have a role to play in making increasingly accurate predictions of events in the real world has no place in a science class.

Prove that you have a way of making more accurate predictions of real-world events, and the doors of the science classroom are open to you.

However, if your systems are those that run independent of the observable universe - if it makes predictions that cannot be observed and makes no contribution to accurate predictions of what can be observed - then it has no place in the science classroom.

If you want to assert that there are ways of knowing other than science that are equally valid, I answer that there are also other classrooms in the school that you can present thim in. This classroom is for the ever improving methods for accurately predicting events in the observable universe.

Conclusion

So, the indoctrination of children will happen, and responsible parents (and a responsible government) see to the indoctrination of children into those values that are essential to maintaining a civilized society. This includes teaching them the wrongness of responding to words with violence, respect for the rule of law, how to get along with others who are different from them mostly by giving them opportunities to practice these skills, and the techniques the techniques for accurately predicting events in the real world that are essential in choosing right actions.

Previous Episodes:

Proposition 1: We recognize the unlimited right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and that freedom to practice one’s religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others.

Proposition 2: We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reason, not by dogma.

Proposition 3: We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.

Proposition 4: We assert that the only equitable system of government in a democratic society is based on secularism: state neutrality in matters of religion or belief, favoring none and discriminating against none.

Proposition 5: We assert that private conduct, which respects the rights of others should not be the subject of legal sanction or government concern.

Proposition 6: We affirm the right of believers and non-believers alike to participate in public life and their right to equality of treatment in the democratic process.

Proposition 7: We affirm the right to freedom of expression for all, subject to limitations only as prescribed in international law – laws which all governments should respect and enforce [6]. We reject all blasphemy laws and restrictions on the right to criticize religion or nonreligious life stances.

Proposition 8: We assert the principle of one law for all, with no special treatment for minority communities, and no jurisdiction for religious courts for the settlement of civil matters or family disputes.

Proposition 9: We reject all discrimination in employment (other than for religious leaders) and the provision of social services on the grounds of race, religion or belief, gender, class, caste or sexual orientation.

Proposition 10: We reject any special consideration for religion in politics and public life, and oppose charitable, tax-free status and state grants for the promotion of any religion as inimical to the interests of non-believers and those of other faiths. We oppose state funding for faith schools.

The Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life - Part 10

A member of the studio audience has asked that I comment on the Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life, a product of the World Atheist Conference: God and Politics.

Today: Proposition 10:

We reject any special consideration for religion in politics and public life, and oppose charitable, tax-free status and state grants for the promotion of any religion as inimical to the interests of non-believers and those of other faiths. We oppose state funding for faith schools.

It seems to me to be inconsistent to say that religion ought not to be allowed to have any special benefits, but that it is permissible to impose on it special burdens.

Unless reason can be found for an exception, non-profit religious institutions ought to be allowed to function under the same rules as non-profit non-religious institutions. If there are provisions in the law for non-profit charitable or educational groups to obtain tax-free status, then non-profit religious groups should also be free to obtain the same type of tax-free status.

A specific instance of this is that there should be no lines on the tax code giving any special benefits to members of the clergy - allowing them to claim income without having it taxed, for instance.

However, where such a line exists, we have two options. We could either vote to repeal that special consideration. Or we can vote to expand that consideration to cover all non-profit charitable and educational organizations. If a priest's income can be tax-free, then so can a physican working for Doctors Without Borders, or a scientific researcher working for the World Wildlife Federation.

In an earlier post, I argued that atheist and secular organizations should start to put together Community Resource Centers. These institutions would serve to collect the best scientific information on issues relevant to a number of social issues and to put them to practice dealing with concerns such as drug and alcohol abuse, crime, poverty, education, family counseling, child abuse, prisoner rehabilitation, and the like.

The idea was to build the Community Resource Center into an alternative to the maga-churches that exist in some communities. It would have to be built up slowly. However, if it provides a valuable community service - if it truly does do a good job, then it should be able to convince contributors in the community to donate to its cause and grow as an organization.

If a secular group were to form such an organization, then it would be better to argue that its directors be granted the same tax benefits given to priests, then to argue that the benefit given to priests be taken away. Such an organization would be providing a community service, and it just makes sense that the community has reason to promote and encourage its success.

This issue ties in with the free-rider problem that justifies other government expenditures. A "free-rider problem" exists when the list of people who will benefit by an act is greater than the number of people who pay for an event.

For example, the benefits of crime protection cannot be limited purely to those who contribute money to its cause.

Assume that we lived in a community where all police force was private. If you want to be able to call the police to respond to a crime, you must be a paying customer in good standing with one of the various private police companies.

If such a society were to exist, there is no way to limit the benefits of crime prevention - including the capture and imprisonment of criminals - to just those who pay for the service. People outside the company client base will also benefit. However, they benefit without paying. If people can obtain a benefit without paying, they tend to under-pay. The amount of money that the industry can receive is significantly less than the value of the social benefit it provides.

Law enforcement, military, and education are three clear examples of areas where a free-rider problem exists. A private military cannot defend three customers on a city bock without defending the city block. The benefits of having an educated public extend not only to those who are educated but to everybody who must interact with an educated person (or suffer the interaction with an uneducated person).

Because institutions that suffer a free-rider problem tend to be under-funded, it is reasonable for the state to get involved and subsidize those industries, so that society can then obtain their benefits. This is one argument for having the state pay for such things as a police force and criminal justice system, a military, and a system of education (so long as the education system is teaching fact rather than fiction - the latter provides no social benefit).

A community resource center dealing with such things as drug and alcohol abuse, crime, poverty, and the like is going to provide benefits outside of the group that actually receives the services. So this, too, will fall into an area where there is reason to provide such an organization with special benefits - so that society can obtain the social benefits of such an organization.

One of the things it can do is to allow that the executives of non-profit educational and charitable organizations - such as a church or a Community Resource Center - be tax free. Its property and income can similarly be tax free.

There are naturally going to be disputes over the merits of different organizations. Some are going to accuse others of "teaching" myth and superstition or of using charity to promote a doctrine that others do not agree with. We have two ways that we can respond to this.

One is to refuse to have the state give any type of subsidy to charitable and educational organizations (whether in the form of a government payment or a government immunity from particular burdens). The other is to allow the government benefits, but to be tolerant of the fact that some of the benefits will go to organizations whose work one does not approve of.

I suggest that the former option - the option of barring any government support for an activity as long as there are citizens who disapprove or question its validity - would be socially ruinous. There would be no activity that qualfiies. The latter course, then, represents the better option. I may object to what you are doing, but I will not support legislation that bars government support merely because there exists somebody who objects. The objection has to come with good reason, and the merits are to be discussed in the open forum.

Previous Episodes:

Proposition 1: We recognize the unlimited right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and that freedom to practice one’s religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others.

Proposition 2: We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reason, not by dogma.

Proposition 3: We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.

Proposition 4: We assert that the only equitable system of government in a democratic society is based on secularism: state neutrality in matters of religion or belief, favoring none and discriminating against none.

Proposition 5: We assert that private conduct, which respects the rights of others should not be the subject of legal sanction or government concern.

Proposition 6: We affirm the right of believers and non-believers alike to participate in public life and their right to equality of treatment in the democratic process.

Proposition 7: We affirm the right to freedom of expression for all, subject to limitations only as prescribed in international law – laws which all governments should respect and enforce [6]. We reject all blasphemy laws and restrictions on the right to criticize religion or nonreligious life stances.

Proposition 8: We assert the principle of one law for all, with no special treatment for minority communities, and no jurisdiction for religious courts for the settlement of civil matters or family disputes.

Proposition 9: We reject all discrimination in employment (other than for religious leaders) and the provision of social services on the grounds of race, religion or belief, gender, class, caste or sexual orientation.

The Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life - Part 09

A member of the studio audience has asked that I comment on the Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life, a product of the World Atheist Conference: God and Politics.

Today: Proposition 9:

We reject all discrimination in employment (other than for religious leaders) and the provision of social services on the grounds of race, religion or belief, gender, class, caste or sexual orientation.

I have a question.

Is it legitimate for me to consider my doctor's beliefs when choosing a physician?

If a doctor believes that malaria is caused by exposure to foul-smelling air, or that the best way to treat a patient who has a high fever is through bleeding, or that blood transfusions result in the mixing of souls which causes further medical complications, am I engaging in some sort of illegitimate bigotry on the basis of belief?

I can understand how it would be wrong for me to choose a doctor based on race - there is nothing about race that entails any particular medical decision. Similarly, there is no inference from gender, class, caste, and sexual orientation, and medical opinion either. If I use these items to evaluate doctors then I am being unfair and unjust in appealing to qualities that are entirely irrelevant to the practice of medicine.

However, to claim that there is no implication from belief to medical opinion is fundamentally absurd. Medical opinion is nothing but belief. In choosing a doctor, I am interested almost to the exclusion of all else how the doctor will come to her beliefs about my health and that she has beliefs that are accurate.

Beliefs are important. There is no sense to saying that one race is better than another, or that one gender is better than another, or that one sexual orientation is better than another. However, when it comes to beliefs, true beliefs are better than false beliefs. It matters that a belief is true in ways where it doesn't matter if one is white, or female, or lesbian.

Imagine a rule that says that, in the next election, it would be wrong for you to base your vote on the beliefs of the various candidates. In the same way that it is wrong for you to allow skin color or gender to influence your vote, your vote cannot be based on the candidate's beliefs. If he believes that the Holocaust was not real and evidence for it is a Jewish hoax, that isn't relevant. He is entitled to his beliefs and we may not discriminate against him on the basis of those beliefs.

There is a problem in that atheists in the United States are almost entirely prohibited in holding public office due to widespread bigotry (propagated through such things as the national motto and pledge of allegiance). One of the popular responses to this is to say that voters ought not to consider a candidate’s beliefs when casting a vote. Yet, the bigotry is not found in considering the candidate’s beliefs. The bigotry is found in having a prejudicial attitude towards what the atheist believes, and about how those beliefs affect the atheist’s ability to judge and act as a moral agent.

Beliefs matter.

The objection to voting against an atheist candidate and in favor of a religious candidate is not that it is wrong to base a vote on the candidate's belief. It is that the theist candidate is flat dead wrong on a lot of issues that are of deep social significance. He's getting his political and moral advice from a bunch of substantially ignorant and bigoted tribesmen who have been dead for centuries, and that is a very poor foundation for 21st century social policy.

The task is not to convince voters that it is wrong to discriminate based on beliefs. The task is to convince voters that the beliefs that the opposition candidate will base their votes on are flat dead wrong, and to the degree they are flat dead wrong is the degree that his votes will deviate from sound social policy.

Now, the theist could well be right on other things, and the atheist might have a substitute belief system that is even more wrong than the theist alternative. Some theists push the superstitions and prejudices of people long dead far into the background and base their decisions instead on modern evidence, and some atheists have adopted philosophies that are more bizarre and distant from reality than the most fanciful religions. Each candidate needs to be judged on his or her merits.

Yet, I would suggest that the second most important quality to use in discriminating between two candidates is their beliefs (the most important quality being their desires).

I suspect an immediate objection that will jump into some minds is, "Why are you talking about choosing a doctor or a legislator? The principle does not concern choosing a doctor."

The fact is that whether I choose a doctor, a plumber, or an employee, I am choosing somebody whose performance as an employee is going to be heavily influenced by his or her belief. If I am hiring a secretary, am I to disregard the beliefs of a secretary who thinks that all words end in the letter 't' (because it represents the cross and, as such, is an attack on Christianity)?

I will grant that some beliefs that an agent may have are not relevant to their job performance. The laborer who believes that there is a race of gremlins who live in attics need not have a belief that concerns me. If I fired her on discovering that she believes there are gremlins that live in attics, one could reasonably ask how I can justify the termination based on this quality.

However, if we imagine that I am in the business of sending laborers out to clean attics, or that the employee tends to share this belief in attic gremlins with customers, I may be hard pressed to come up with an employment-related justification.

One employment-related justification I can come up with is that, if a job requires that an employee examine the evidence and come to reasoned conclusions, I would have reason to ask how well the employee does that. If the employee has a long history of reaching unjustified conclusions, then I have reason to worry whether he can reach reasoned conclusions in the performance of his job. In this case, while a particular belief need not have job-related implications, they may call into question the employee's ability to come to a reasoned conclusion.

More important than any of these considerations, however, is the nature of the job that I am hiring a person to fill.

Let us say that I am a religious leader, and I want to hire a secretary and a receptionist. It is an undeniable fact of the matter that secretaries and receptionists are better for my business if they can establish a casual relationship with existing and potential clients. It is also an undeniable fact that secretaries and receptionists can better establish a casual relationship with existing and potential clients if they have certain things in common - if they share certain beliefs and desires. As a religious leader, I would insist that every member of my staff share those beliefs that would allow for casual interaction between themselves and potential clients.

If I had jobs in a back room for people who never talk to potential or actual clients, I may be less concerned with their beliefs. However, I have legitimate reason to be concerned with the beliefs of others, even if they are not religious leaders.

The same principle applies here as would apply to hiring a salesperson. I have good business-related reason to hire salespeople who love the product and who sincerely think that the customer will be better off buying the product, then one who hates it and thinks she is doing a disservice to every customer she convinces to buy it.

This is no less true when my product - what I am trying to sell - is church memberships.

And every employee who comes into contact with actual and potential customers - which means every employee - must be considered a potential sales person.

If I were to create an organization dedicated to promoting desirism, I would want the liberty to discriminate in favor of employees who embrace desirism. I would want employees who are enthusiastic about desirism. It would be essential to the success of my organization that this be the case.

The reason for religious tolerance ultimate is as a safeguard against violence. Human history is filled with one religious group taking up arms against another religious group. Where belief is based on faith and there is no independent evidence to appeal to, there is no other form of persuasion available other than the force of arms.

So, we adopt a rule, "You cannot use violence against people who do not share your religion." This is already captured in the principle I discussed earlier that a right to freedom of speech and of belief is a right to immunity from violence. But it is NOT a right to immunity from criticism. Nor is it a right to condemn people whose private acts reflect their own beliefs - people who hire and fire based on the competence of the employee.

This includes state violence. This includes a prohibition on calling on the people with guns to close down churches or to close down organizations devoted to atheist philosophies (communism, Objectivism) that one disagrees with. To get people out of those organizations, we are not going to use the force of arms. We are going to limit our tools to words and private (peaceful) actions instead.

So, we will allow freedom of religion. But we will preserve and protect the right to criticize peoples' beliefs using words as well as private actions - that is, to discriminate based on beliefs in their non-violent choices.

Previous Episodes:

Proposition 1: We recognize the unlimited right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and that freedom to practice one’s religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others.

Proposition 2: We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reason, not by dogma.

Proposition 3: We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.

Proposition 4: We assert that the only equitable system of government in a democratic society is based on secularism: state neutrality in matters of religion or belief, favoring none and discriminating against none.

Proposition 5: We assert that private conduct, which respects the rights of others should not be the subject of legal sanction or government concern.

Proposition 6: We affirm the right of believers and non-believers alike to participate in public life and their right to equality of treatment in the democratic process.

Proposition 7: We affirm the right to freedom of expression for all, subject to limitations only as prescribed in international law – laws which all governments should respect and enforce [6]. We reject all blasphemy laws and restrictions on the right to criticize religion or nonreligious life stances.

Proposition 8: We assert the principle of one law for all, with no special treatment for minority communities, and no jurisdiction for religious courts for the settlement of civil matters or family disputes.

Comment Moderation

Because of the tireless efforts of DM, I have instituted comment moderation on this blog. DM, of course, was quick to discover this, and it seems to have upset him some.

Alonzo: We have orders to EXTERMINATE you and your entire family if continue to talk about GOD and RELIGION the way *you do*. do you got the msg, you stupid little fucker?

Well, the message speaks for itself. Okay, now, back to Copenhagen.

The Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life - Part 08

A member of the studio audience has asked that I comment on the Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life, a product of the World Atheist Conference: God and Politics.

Today: Proposition 8:

We assert the principle of one law for all, with no special treatment for minority communities, and no jurisdiction for religious courts for the settlement of civil matters or family disputes.

I do not see how "one law for all" is even possible, let alone whether it has ever been practiced.

There are laws that prohibit people from performing certain actions unless they have a particular license or certification. Military veterans are entitled to considerations and privileges that others do not have. Of course, the laws treat children different from adults in terms not only of types of punishment but even the types of actions that are considered illegal.

Of course, we could loosen our definition of "one law for all" so that it captures all of these types of exceptions. We could say that "one law for all" is not violated by laws that state, "if you are a licensed physician, then you may prescribe drugs."

However, when we loosen up the definition of "one law for all" to this extent, then there would be no violation of this principle to have a law that states that, "If you choose to be a Muslim, then you shall be subject to the courts of the Muslim religion on all matters of concern to that faith."

Having said this, these exceptions and qualifications written into the law in the cases I described are not to be put there for random or arbitrary reason. There special powers and immunities granted because it serves a social purpose - because it makes sense to treat these situations differently. We grant licensed doctors the power to prescribe drugs because they have (allegedly) demonstrated a level of knowledge and concern necessary to do so competently and in ways that serve the public interest.

There is no such argument to be made in defense of religious courts.

The establishment of religious courts consists of nothing less than giving the leaders of a church the ability to summon state violence against the members of this church.

This is the fundamental nature of both criminal and civil courts. In each case they render a verdict backed by people with guns such that if those who come before the court do not obey the judge, then they will be made to suffer at the hands of people with guns.

I want to stress this point because I think it falls squarely under the category of, "I hope they do not notice this part." The fundamental characteristic of a religious court is to give religious leaders - those who take it upon themselves to interpret religious text - to summon state violence against church members who do not follow their interpretations.

We can well understand why the leaders of churches would wish to be able to call upon those with guns to enforce their decisions on the members of the church. However, there is little reason to understand what public service this would provide for the rest of us.

Church leaders already have the option of playing the role of voluntary arbitrator to those who are having a dispute. People already have a right to ask a religious leader, "What should I do?" and then decide whether or not to accept the suggestion. No religous court is necessary to exercise this particular freedom.

If church leaders actually do wish to summon state violence against those members who do not behave as the leaders think they should behave, there are already mechanisms available to accomplish that. They can have their church members enter into a contract whereby, in exchange for the privileged of obtaining certain church services, the member agrees to abide by a certain set of rules.

Then, the church leaders would have the power to summon its members before the court on the charge of breach of contract.

And members would have the same power to do the same thing to the church leaders.

This latter part is probably the part of the equation that the church leaders would be uncomfortable with. It also explains why the church leaders would like to run the court and appoint the judges, rather than appeal to a civil court that is outside of the jurisdiction of the church. When comparing the option of appearing as equals before and independent and impartial tribunal, and appearing before a tribunal that is under one's direct authority, there is little reason to marvel at the fact that there are church leaders asking for the second option.

Another problem with the contract option, at least from the point of view of religious leaders wanting the power to summon state violence against members who misbehave, is that it can only be applied to competent members who willingly sign such a contract.

First, the church leaders might have difficulty finding many people willing to sign such a contract.

Second, many of those who do sign will almost certainly seek to negotiate terms that are in their interests, and that impose duties and costs on the church leaders.

Third, contracts come with escape clauses whose only condition is that the person wanting to escape cover the reasonable costs of the other parties to the contract.

It is far better, at least from the point of view of the church leaders, to impose a contract on its members where the leaders get to dictate the terms and appoint the judges that interpret the contract.

As a tax-paying member of the general public, my answer is, "No, you may not have the power to call upon the state-run instruments of violence that I help pay for to use against those members of your congregation that you judge to be misbehaving according to your interpretations of scripture. Whatever relationship you have with your church members, it is one you must try to maintain without the aid of the instruments of state violence."

Previous Episodes:

Proposition 1: We recognize the unlimited right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and that freedom to practice one’s religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others.

Proposition 2: We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reason, not by dogma.

Proposition 3: We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.

Proposition 4: We assert that the only equitable system of government in a democratic society is based on secularism: state neutrality in matters of religion or belief, favoring none and discriminating against none.

Proposition 5: We assert that private conduct, which respects the rights of others should not be the subject of legal sanction or government concern.

Proposition 6: We affirm the right of believers and non-believers alike to participate in public life and their right to equality of treatment in the democratic process.

Proposition 7: We affirm the right to freedom of expression for all, subject to limitations only as prescribed in international law – laws which all governments should respect and enforce [6]. We reject all blasphemy laws and restrictions on the right to criticize religion or nonreligious life stances.

The Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life - Part 07

A member of the studio audience has asked that I comment on the Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life, a product of the World Atheist Conference: God and Politics.

Today: Proposition 7:

We affirm the right to freedom of expression for all, subject to limitations only as prescribed in international law – laws which all governments should respect and enforce [6]. We reject all blasphemy laws and restrictions on the right to criticize religion or nonreligious life stances.

Question:

What are we supposed to do if international law comes to include a law against blasphemy?

Let us imagine that the international community becomes so heavily dominated by the religious that they decide to pass laws against blasphemy. They make it illegal to "insult" or "attack" any religious beliefs - construing statements such as "your prophet was just a man" and "Your scriptures are substantially fiction and no God had input in their creation," as attacks on their religion.

According to this principle, we would not be able to affirm any right to freedom of expression that violated international law. We would also have to condemn anybody who made those types of statements. We would be calling for the respect and the enforcement of those laws.

Which, of course, is an absurd position to take.

If our rights are determined by what has or has not been made illegal, then we have no rights. When we start to use the law to determine what is just and unjust, then there can never be anything as an unjust law. Even a law calling for the execution of whole populations becomes just if we make the right to life subject to "limitations only as prescribed as international law."

If we were to argue that international law would never permit such mass exterminations, I would have to ask, "Why not?"

The guidance provided in this principle is to look to international law to determine whether international law should contain a prohibition or an endorsement of those executions. When we ask the question, "should such an endorsement be written into international law," Principle 7 gives us nothing to go on.

The fact is, it does not matter what international law has to say on the matter, blasphemy laws and legal prohibitions on criticizing religion are immoral. If international should ever come to contain laws against blasphemy, then international law itself has become unjust and unworthy of the respect all decent people. If international law should embody prohibitions on the criticism of religion, then it has adopted laws that no government should enforce.

I have defended the proper scope of the freedom of expression in discussing the first proposition. Each person has a right to freedom of expression. This freedom of expression is not a right to immunity from criticism or condemnation for what one expresses. It is only a right to immunity from violence or threats of violence - including state violence in the form of censorship.

It is absolutely absurd to interpret the right to freedom of expression - as some, mostly religious people want to interpret it - as a call for a prohibition on expressions of the form, "You are wrong. Not only are you wrong, no decent person would ever hold such a view. That, too, is an expression - and it is a form of expression that each of us has a right to make.

Imagine the neo-Nazi telling us that his right to freedom of expression implies a prohibition on anybody else condemning the Holocaust. "We have a right to our views, and that means none of you may say anything that would belittle or denigrate those who hold that the holocaust was a great idea and a job that we definitely need to finish."

Yet, these are the implications of adopting the proposition that a right to freedom of expression implies a right to immunity from criticism.

If the advocates of "the right to freedom of expression implies a right to immunity from criticism" should get their view written into international law, their position would still be wrong, and those who held it would still be deserving of condemnation.

They can make criticism and condemnation illegal, but they cannot make it immoral.

Previous Episodes:

Proposition 1: We recognize the unlimited right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and that freedom to practice one’s religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others.

Proposition 2: We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reason, not by dogma.

Proposition 3: We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.

Proposition 4: We assert that the only equitable system of government in a democratic society is based on secularism: state neutrality in matters of religion or belief, favoring none and discriminating against none.

Proposition 5: We assert that private conduct, which respects the rights of others should not be the subject of legal sanction or government concern.

Proposition 6: We affirm the right of believers and non-believers alike to participate in public life and their right to equality of treatment in the democratic process.

The Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life - Part 06

A member of the studio audience has asked that I comment on the Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life, a product of the World Atheist Conference: God and Politics.

Today: Proposition 6:

We affirm the right of believers and non-believers alike to participate in public life and their right to equality of treatment in the democratic process.

Well, I have to say, I have little to comment on with respect to this principle.

We have to remember that a right to participate in public life is not a right to hold any public office. It is a right to an immunity from government regulations prohibiting one from running for public office.

In this respect, even the KKK member or neo-Nazi, or Al-Quida sympathizer, or has a right to participate in public life. That is to say, he has a right to announce his candidacy for public office, to announce his platform to the voters, and to collect votes in a free election.

He has no right to WIN that election - and no decent and moral community would elect such a person as one of their leaders. Yet, this fact is not an infringement on his right to participate in public life. That right only grants one the liberty to run, not the liberty to win.

This applies as much to voters as it does to candidate. The person who would cast his vote for KKK or neo-Nazi candidates may not be barred from voting simply because we disapprove of who he would vote for. He has a right to cast that vote. Our only legitimate recourse to preventing that person's candidate from winning is to find a better candidate and to campaign to see that the better candidate gets the most votes.

The same is true of equality of treatment in the democratic process.

It would be unjust for the government to create two different sets of rules when it comes to participating in the political community. A rule that says that one must collect signatures from 5% of the registered voters to get one's name on the ballot unless one is a KKK member or neo-Nazi, in which case 7% of the registered voters is required, would be unjust. The same rules should apply to everybody.

Correspondingly, a state that created different levels of entry into public office for those who believe that a God exists and those who do not. It is particularly true of any state that has legal restrictions on who may hold public office grounded on belief in a God.

By this, I refer to any government whose constitution states that those who do not affirm the existence of a deity may not hold public office, or that makes it a social or political requirement to swear an oath to a deity. This would include any state that makes it a requirement for public office that a candidate pledge allegiance to "one nation under God", or where the oath of office contains a non-optional reference to a God.

A state also violates this principle if it makes a statement suggesting that those who hold a particular attitude towards the existence of a God have a special place in the community. For example, it is a violation of this principle for a government to adopt a national motto that says something to the effect of "we trust in God", so as to say that if one does not trust in God then one is not really to be thought of as belonging to the group understood as "we".

These types of statements are a government's invitation to the people, and a government endorsement of the attitude, that those who trust in God are better than those who do not. This stands in direct violation of the principle that the government should treat those who believe in God and those who do not with equal respect.

It is only rational to expect that these types of endorsements will affect the public attitude, and their votes. As such, these types of measures are only a half-step short of passing a constitutional amendment or a law that states, "No person shall hold public office who does not affirm support for a nation under God or who does not trust in God."

So, with respect to this principle, I have no objections. I have nothing to offer but to express more clearly what the proposition says, and what is implied by the just and fair application of this principle.

Previous Episodes:

Proposition 1: We recognize the unlimited right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and that freedom to practice one’s religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others.

Proposition 2: We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reason, not by dogma.

Proposition 3: We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.

Proposition 4: We assert that the only equitable system of government in a democratic society is based on secularism: state neutrality in matters of religion or belief, favoring none and discriminating against none.

Proposition 5: We assert that private conduct, which respects the rights of others should not be the subject of legal sanction or government concern.

The Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life - Part 05

A member of the studio audience has asked that I comment on the Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life, a product of the World Atheist Conference: God and Politics.

Today: Proposition 5:

We assert that private conduct, which respects the rights of others should not be the subject of legal sanction or government concern.

Great! We're going to fight for legalized incest and fights to the death in Madison Square Garden (for consenting adults only, of course).

Of course, the gladiator events will be televised, and there will be youth gladiator leagues - that do not quite involve killing people, but which gets the point across and helps to train kids to become professional gladiators.

Then we will have to ask - what if the endorsement of professional gladiator events and youth gladiator leagues have the effect of making it psychologically easier to commit murder? What if legalized incest and having open and casual acceptance of incestuous couples makes it psychologically easier - and thus more common - for adult parents or step-parents to pressure their children or step-children into having sex?

One of the questions that we need to ask ourselves regarding the legislation of private conduct is, "What type of people would we have to be to react to that type of private conduct with indifference?" Then, we have to ask the follow-up question, "What type society would people like that have to live in?"

There is good reason to create a society that promotes such an aversion to the killing of other citizens for entertainment that we simply will not tolerate "fights to the death" as a form of entertainment. Nor do we allow our children to join "gladiator leagues" as children so that they can grow up to be well-trained adult gladiators. We have good reason not to live in a society that shuns and condemns those attitudes. Doing so promotes a respect for life that makes all of us safer - and the safety we acquire from a society so averse to killing are reasons for action to promote such a society.

One could argue that there is something intrinsically wrong with limiting purely private actions. However, intrinsic wrongness does not exist. When somebody finds evidence of intrinsic wrongness, invents an intrinsic-wrongness detector, shines his detector on the act of prohibiting gladiator events, then I will change my views on this matter.

However, I suspect that no such intrinsic value detector will ever be invented. What we have, in place of an intrinsic value detector, are reasons for action that are grounded on desires.

These reasons for action argue in defense of indivisible liberty, particularly in private actions that do not directly affect others. To the degree that we lack freedom, we lack the capacity to act so as to fulfill our desires. When other people act to restrict our freedom, they are inevitably putting the fulfillment of their desires above that of the people whose freedoms are being restricted.

So, we should have an aversion to restricting freedom. However, an aversion is simply a reluctance to do something that can be overwhelmed by other concerns. My aversion to public speaking prevents me from getting up in front of audiences and speaking publicly. However, I have given interviews and speeches in the past and may do so again, when the concerns addressed by giving the speech outweigh my interests in avoiding this.

So, while we have good reason to argue in favor of a reluctance to allow legal sanction and government concern with private actions, we must allow that there are some cases - such as the casual and celebratory killings associated with gladiator events - where the hazards of "being the type of person who would tolerate such things" are such that they argue in favor of legal sanction and government concern.

The same analysis applies to the problem of incest. A substantial portion of incestuous relationships are abusive. In order to prevent abusive incest, one of our best tools may well be to have a society that condemns incest generally, without exceptions.

In some cases, this general aversion to incest might be the one think that is stopping somebody from having sex with his daughter or step-daughter - the one psychological hurdle that tilts the psychological balance in favor of keeping his hands to himself. If, instead, we socially remove this barrier and tell people that they should feel comfortable with incest, then in some cases the psychological barrier to abuse may well be lowered enough that a "hands off" relationship becomes "hands on."

The reasons for action that people have for preventing the incestuous rape of children and murder generally may well be strong enough and common enough to argue that, in these instances, society had good reason to command legal government and government involvement in condemning and prohibiting these activities.

Of course, this same argument can then be used to condemn such things as prostitution, pornography, violent video games, violence on television, and similar private conduct that has the effect of lowering our aversion to things people have good reason to promote aversions to.

Promiscuous sex leads to sexually transmitted disease and, when condoned in the community at large, makes it more difficult for a parent to create aversions in a child that would otherwise protect the child's health and even her life.

Violent video games and violent programs on television may well lower our aversion to violence generally to such an extent that people generally find it easier to inflict violence on others - violence that others have many and good reason to promote aversions to inflicting.

I am not saying that it is the case that these private actions have these social costs. What I am saying is that the question of whether the sentiments associated with private actions has social costs is a relevant question to ask and answer. If the effect of having gladiatorial fight-to-the-death entertainment is that we make it easier for some people to commit murder, these facts matter. These facts may well give people many and strong reason to condemn violence until death even among consenting adults in private.

If violent video games and television shows make it more likely that my niece will be a victim of violence, then my interest in protecting her from violence gives me legitimate reason to condemn and to get the government involved in reducing exposure to violent video games and television shows.

If song lyrics or other performances encourage impressionable children to engage in behaviors that expose them to long-term health risks, then a legitimate concern for the well-being of those children justifies calling on the state to take action to reduce those risks.

On the other hand, we also cannot ignore the fact that a great many people motived by religious dogma, massively distort and sometimes invent social costs to try to justify the use of state violence to force their religious prescriptions on others. Their claims about the social consequences of permitting homosexual marriage or removing prayer from the classroom have no factual basis. They embrace these claims because not because the evidence supports them, but because it feeds (and is feed by) their religious bigotries.

For example, because of bigotries and prejudices that they have picked up from their religious community, they are likely to embrace any and all claims that would suggest that permitting homosexuality has huge social costs, regardless of how well backed up those claims are. They relate permitting homosexuality with permitting child molestation when the inference from permitting homosexual acts among consenting adults and child molestation is exactly the same as the inference from permitting heterosexual acts among consent adults to permitting child molestation.

They may even go so far as to claim that allowing homosexual parades makes a city vulnerable to hurricanes that would destroy levies and flood the city, or that removing prayer from the school will help a group of religious fanatics hijack airplanes and fly them into sky scrapers by removing God's protective hand.

Outside of the realm of religion, they embrace and exaggerate every scientific claim that suggests that what is religiously prohibited might have social costs, while dismissing out of hand any claim that the prohibition itself comes with huge social costs - for example, that it promotes suicide and self-destructive behavior such as drug use among the targeted group.

The worst form of this prejudice are those who take scripture as being literally true. From this, they argue that any evidence that the allowing the target behavior has social costs must be true because it is in agreement with scripture, and any evidence to the contrary must be rejected as false because it disagrees with scripture. These people are taking the prejudices and bigotries of people dead for centuries and using them to judge the validity of contemporary scientific discoveries. They have put the target group in a position where they refuse to listen to new evidence concerning the target group merely because ignorant people long dead were prejudiced against them.

So, in summary, private conduct that respects the rights of others may still be the legitimate subject of legal sanction or government concern when the attitudes behind that conduct risks dire social consequences. However, this does not change the fact that it is a too common and contemptible practice among many who are religious to invent or exaggerate social costs in order to "justify" their call for state violence to be used to impose ancient bigotries and prejudices on others.

Previous Episodes:

Proposition 01: We recognize the unlimited right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and that freedom to practice one’s religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others.

Proposition 02: We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reason, not by dogma.

Proposition 3: We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.

Proposition 4: We assert that the only equitable system of government in a democratic society is based on secularism: state neutrality in matters of religion or belief, favoring none and discriminating against none.

The Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life - Part 04

A member of the studio audience has asked that I comment on the Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life, a product of the World Atheist Conference: God and Politics.

Today: Proposition 4:

We assert that the only equitable system of government in a democratic society is based on secularism: state neutrality in matters of religion or belief, favoring none and discriminating against none.

We dealt with democracy in the previous post, since it was also included in the third principle. This gives us reason to ask whether this redundancy serves any useful purpose.

As a reminder, in discussing Principle 3, I argued that democracy has its moral limits - basically, constraints on what the majority may morally do to any minority. These limits are typically expressed in terms of rights.

There has been a long philosophical discussion of what rights are. Many conceive of "rights" as "intrinsic moral qualities" and, from this, argue that rights do not exist.

Desirism conceives of rights as aversions that people generally have reason to promote universally - aversions to the use of violence in response to things said and written, an aversion to punishing the innocent, a desire for liberty, and the like. Rights, under this conception, do exist.

However, to say that "the only equitable system" is "based on secularism", where "secularism" is defined as "state neutrality in matters of religion or belief, favoring none and discriminating against none," generates a lot of problems.

We are not going to discriminate against religions that say that a woman may be stoned to death for the crime of being raped?

We are going to be neutral to the practice of flying airplanes into sky scrapers as a way of expressing disapproval over the desecration of one's holy lands by having them protected in war by infidels?

We are going to turn our backs on parents who refuse to give their children life-saving medical care because they believe that prayer is the only form of medicine required?

Are we going to require that women sacrifice themselves on their husband's funeral pyre or allow the execution of apostates by religions that adopt this practice?

If you pay attention to the rhetoric, this conception of religious freedom gets a lot of air play from those whose interpretation of scripture calls for the use of state or private violence against others. "You are interfering with our religious liberty - you are "attacking *insert name of religion here* when you do not allow us to engage in the violence or inflict the harms on others that our religion demands."

Let us admit to at least one thing.

We are not now, nor are we ever, going to tolerate "secularism" if "secularism" is defined as "state neutrality in matters of religion or belief, favoring none and discriminating against none."

No sane person would ever adopt such a rule.

State neutrality on matters of religion or belief is substantially indistinguishable from anarchy. It is a claim that there will be no state - no regulation of behavior - because every human action is an event grounded on the "beliefs" of the agents.

An intentional act is one in which the agent seeks to fulfill the most and strongest of his desires given his beliefs, so state neutrality on matters of belief implies state neutrality on all matters of intentional action.

We are not going to tolerate all matters of religion. We must at least be honest with ourselves and put that fact on the table.

Because we are not going to allow state neutrality on all matters of religion and belief, we must confront a real and important question of where we are going to draw the boundaries of our intolerance.

I would not define secularism as state neutrality on matters of religion and belief. I would define it instead as a strong presumption of liberty in matters of religion, and the same right to freedom of belief that I described earlier.

The right to freedom of belief as I have defended it is NOT an immunity from moral criticism for what one believes. People's beliefs can be very much subject to moral condemnation - as with the person who believes that all Jews should be rounded up and executed. However, the right to freedom of belief means that individuals shall enjoy an immunity from violence so long as their immoral and contemptible beliefs are expressed only in words and not actions.

As for a presumption of liberty in matters of religion, this states that a heavy burden of proof shall be placed on those who would argue that a particular religious practice (such as the killing of homosexuals and atheists) is to be condemned.

However, this burden of proof is not so high that it cannot be met.

In fact, the very instant that a religion calls for violence against another whose actions are not, themselves, violence, the burden of proof has been met. The state shall not be neutral with respect to those religious practices. In fact, the state shall take a very hostile stand against them, identifying people who engage in those practices, arresting them, and, upon proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, subjecting them to punishment proportional to the degree of wrongdoing.

This means an utter ban on religions that include violent practices. It means engaging in a state project of shutting down those religions and putting their adherents in jail.

Now, this project has its limits. Among these limits is the one that I mentioned earlier. People shall enjoy an immunity from violence (including criminal penalties) so long as their beliefs are expressed in words alone and not actions. A group of people who get together to express certain religious beliefs shall be immune from punishment. But where they believe in the legitimacy of violence against those who are not violent, they shall be legally prohibited from practicing their religion.

Previous Episodes:

Proposition 01: We recognize the unlimited right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and that freedom to practice one’s religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others.

Proposition 02: We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reason, not by dogma.

Proposition 3: We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.

The Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life - Part 03

A member of the studio audience has asked that I comment on the Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life, a product of the World Atheist Conference: God and Politics.

Previous Episodes:

Proposition 01

Proposition 02

Today: Proposition 3:

We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.

The Rule of Law

I want to start with the "rule of law" because this principle actually has some substance to it.

To put a society under the rule of law means that we are going to get together and adopt a set of rules that are going to bind all of us - leaders and subjects alike. When one of us thinks that another - even a leader - has violated a rule, we are going to collect our evidence and present it to an impartial judge or jury that has no stake in the outcome, who will decide which position is better supported by the evidence.

This is in contrast to a rule of men...and, historically, it has almost always been men. This system holds that in all disputes we are going to appeal to some person - a sovereign - who is often one of the parties in the dispute. This person will decide the case, not according to some agreed upon rules, but according to his own wishes and interests.

On this account, there are many and good reasons to promote the rule of law over the rule of man. Men given such power tend to become quite tyrannical and abusive of those over whom they have power.

The system of the "rule of law" calls for the establishment of an impartial judiciary whose primary interest is simply to determine if the accused broke the agreed-upon rules.

An important part of this is that the judge might not like the rule he has agreed to uphold. He might think that society was foolish to adopt that particular rule. However, if she should decide the case according to the rules she likes rather than the rules agreed upon, then society has taken a step away from the rule of law and towards the rule of man (or woman).

There is a group in California called Better Courts Now that is trying to put judges on the bench in California with an explicitly Christian bias. This is a group of people who wish to abandon the rule of law and replace it with a rule of man, where men sitting on the bench get to decide cases, not in accordance with the rules, but in accordance with their own interests and concerns.

Wisely, California voters recently overwhelmingly rejected their first attempt.

In spite of its merits, there is still a problem with the rule of law which is: How are we going to make sure that the laws are good laws - that they are fair and just and provide the greatest overall benefit at the least social cost?

We can trust that if a monarch determines the rules, he will adopt those rules that best serves the interests of the monarchy. An oligarchy of elite families will adopt rules that best benefit the elite families. It would seem that the best way to get a set of rules that benefit the people generally is to have the people generally agree on the rules. Thus, we get the principle favoring democracy.

Democracy

I wrote in the previous section on the rule of law that the way we create the laws will say a lot about the types of laws that we crate. A monarch will create laws that benefit the monarchy, and a church (theocracy) will create laws that benefit the church.

I suggested that the best way to get a set of laws that benefit everybody generally is to have everybody generally pass judgment on the rules.

To some, this seems to suggest a democracy . . . but not quite.

A democracy is not a state where people generally approve of the rules or laws. It is a state where the majority approves of the rules. If we follow the line of reasoning above, then the majority is not going to adopt the rules that benefit everybody. The majority is going to adopt the rules that benefit the majority - at the expense of the minority.

There is a general problem with majority rule widely recognized as "the tyranny of the majority" where minorities can be completely subject to serving the interests of the majority. Fifty-one percent of the votes translates into 100% of the power.

This is an evil widely recognized as a tyranny of the majority.

Fifty-one percent of the people may well acquire 100% of the power, but they do not acquire 100% of the moral rights.

To combat this tyranny, we recognize a concept of minority rights. This means that even if 51% of the people want to do something, it can still be wrong - an inappropriate use of power. It means that for the rule of law is fair and just it is not enough that it be agreed to by the majority. It also requires rules limiting what the majority may agree to impose on everybody else.

We often hear complaints against activist judges who overrule the will of the majority and make some unpopular decisions in favor of some minority. Yet, this is one of the things that judges working within a rule of fair and just law are supposed to do. They are supposed to stand above the fray and be able to say, "Um . .. majority . . . sorry but in this case you are abusing your power and establishing a tyranny of the majority. You may want this, but your want does not give you the right to acquire it."

These facts are the facts that lead us to the prospect of rights.

Human Rights

Whenever I hear the term Human Rights I think of a line in Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country. An earthling, sitting at a table with a group of Klingons, says, "We hold that everybody is entitled to basic human rights."

The Klingon, Azetbur, answers, ""Human rights. Why the very name is racist. The Federation is no more than a homo sapiens only club."

The term is, in fact, unjustly discriminatory.

We probably share the universe with beings who are not human - some of whom will be large enough and powerful enough to sweep us earthlings aside like w sweep aside a colony of ants. Hopefully, the groups we encounter will have advanced to the stage that they no longer define morality in terms of their species' interests. They no longer thing in terms of "Rigelian rights" and the such.

We definitely share the planet with a number of species that are not human, but that nonetheless have interests (desires capable of being fulfilled or thwarted). They give us an opportunity to practice thinking in terms other than human rights.

The concept of rights fundamentally stand as a check on tyranny - including a tyranny of the majority and a tyranny of the powerful, limiting what they may do to those who lack the ability to protect their own interests. The fact that we have the power to inflict certain harms on animals and they have no means with which to protest or object does not imply that we have the right to do so.

The same applies to the tyranny of the majority. Its power to enslave and exploit any minority simply by voting to do so does not provide it with a moral right to do so. When a judge declares that the majority has stepped over the line and sought to exploit or abuse a minority, this is likely to be met with protests that the judges are subverting the will of the majority. However, a fair and just society sometimes requires this.

A Secular Society

This provision also states:

History shows that secular societies are the most successful.

Where in heck did this piece of garbage come from?

It raises two questions. The first is: "Is it true?" My understanding of history tells me that every successful society from 3700 BC to 1800 AD was sectarian. What does it say about how successful sectarian societies are when, over a span of 5,500 years, not a single successful sectarian society came into existence.

Even if one wants to focus on modern nations, there is a still a question of whether history shows them to be most successful. 5700 years in which sectarian societies dominated history compared to 200 where secular governments had an edge hardly supports the claim that history has given a clear verdict to secular government.

Second, even if it is true, it is irrelevant.

History shows us that every president of the United States has been male. This doesn't imply that we should oppose any attempt to elect a female President. Even suggesting this betrays a prejudice.

One might well be able to come up with a theory as to why secular societies would be more successful. If we do, we can appeal to history to verify or falsify that theory. But the conclusion does not come from history. You cannot get the conclusion by looking at history in the absence of such a theory and simply asserting that history sides with secular governments.

It is also possible that history might show that secular cultures do better than sectarian cultures in general, but also that there is one specific sectarian culture that outshines them all. At best, history can only show that secular cultures that have been tried are more successful than sectarian cultures that have been tried. This says very little about what type of cultures will ultimately be the most successful.

Even if it were true, we what was it is about there being a history of something that implies it ought to be done in the future. A history of slavery does not justify slavery, Neither does a history of denying people a right to vote. A history of successful monarchies does not justify monarchies.

This particular proposition is pure nonsense. If here is a case to be made for secularism, then let that case be grounded on evidence and reason. It defeats the entire position when the proponents of evidence and reason abandon it when given an opportunity to present, in its place, the secular equivalent of dogma.