Church and State

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

First Amendment of the United States Constitution

Note: I started working on this a while ago stuck it in a drawer and came back to it so the timeliness of it is a bit off.

Alright so on ABC's This Week a few weeks ago Rick Santorum took a controversial stance on the concept of church and state. I figure I would discuss what that concept generally is.


First off the concept of separation of church and state isn't actually formalized. That phrase is nowhere in the United States Constitution. However the constitution does have evidence of it. I'll get to that in a bit. Really it's one of the many vague legal and political concepts we as Americans have just come to adopt and accept. There are others as well such as Judicial Review, legal precedence, the executive cabinet, and the two party system. The point I'm trying to make is that just because it's a vague concept that does not make it unimportant or ignorable.

Let's go.

For those not in the know we more or less ripped off most of our "American Values" from John Locke.



Locke was a 17th Century enlightenment philosopher who like I said came up with a number of the concepts that were integrated into the United States Constitution as well as the Declaration of independence and American legal and political theory in general.


If you want the true founding father he's it.


I had to do it.

Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station willfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.

John Locke
Second Treatise on Government

Like I said Jefferson and Madison pretty much blatantly ripped him off. Why is this important? Well one of those legal and political theories he came up with that was ripped off was the separation of church and state.

Nobody, therefore, in fine, neither single persons nor churches, nay, nor even commonwealths, have any just title to invade the civil rights and worldly goods of each other upon pretense of religion. Those that are of another opinion would do well to consider with themselves how pernicious a seed of discord and war, how powerful a provocation to endless hatreds, rapines, and slaughters they thereby furnish unto mankind. No peace and security, no, not so much as common friendship, can ever be established or preserved amongst men so long as this opinion prevails, that dominion is founded in grace and that religion is to be propagated by force of arms.

John Locke
A Letter Concerning Toleration

He believed pretty much that if you don't you end up with this.



Now in terms of the constitution supporting separation of church and state, people point to the establishment clause of the first amendment,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." There are a couple of ways to read this. The most obvious is that the United States can't have and official religion, like the English and the Anglican Church. But over the years we've also taken it to mean that the government cannot and should not do anything to validate or privilege one religion over others. The government should be as religion neutral as possible.

The concept was further expanded upon by Thomas Jefferson in an 1802 letter.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect,

Thomas Jefferson
Letter to the Danbury Baptists

Furthermore in there is also the Treaty of Tripoli ratified in 1797 under the Adams administration.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Treaty of Tripoli

I could go on all day with presidential quotes and you might see a few more before this is through but for now let's talk about the courts.

Now the problem with virtually all legal, political or any theoretical idea really is practicality. How is it implemented law implement it. That's what I love about the constitution by the way. It took all these high political ideas floating around and implemented them.

And that by the way is the role of the courts. Figure out how a bunch of words on paper affect people. So let's talk about how they've interpreted separation of church and state.

The first big case was Reynolds v. United States in 1871.

Lets talk about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints also known as those wacky Mormons for a bit.

All About Mormons
Get More: SOUTH
PARKmore...

While it shies away from it now, back in the day the Mormon church was big into polygamy. The rest of the country however wasn't, which lead to the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act. Now due to the country having larger issues at the time it wasn't really enforced.



As a result the Mormons mostly ignored it. After a certain obvious tumultuous period in American history, polygamy became a social issue again. And the government wanted to actually start enforcing it. So a this test case was brought to the supreme court. Guess what? You can't legally marry more than one person.

The court basically decided you can't use the "that law is against my religion" as a legal defense. And boy howdy would the universe be wacky if you could.

Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

Chief Justice Morrison Waite
Court Opinion on Reynolds V. United States

Legally this guy would be within his rights.



The law has to be blind to religion or else any num nuts could claim that he was doing stuff because god told him so.

The next biggy is Everson v. Board of Education. Let's talk about states' rights. When the constitution of the United States it mostly dealt with the federal government. That is to say it outlined how the Federal government would operate. States adopted their own constitions. Most of them are blatantly modeled off the U.S. constitution, but there are differences, especially when it comes to the first 10 amendments that pretty much cap what the government can do. Yeah there are a lot of "shall make no laws"s in the bill of rights.

Eventually as a result of the, "obviously tumultuous period in American History," congress decided to nip that shit in the bud, and adopted the 14th amendment.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

U.S. Constitution

14th Amendment Section 1

Most legal scholars take it basically to mean that if a state law couldn't pass legal muster under the Bill of Rights, states can't do it. The establishment clause is part of the bill of rights and thus applies to state law.

One of the roles of state government is to oversee education. In Everson v. Board of Education the U.S. Supreme court ruled that state governments could offer funding to religious schools if those schools don't get preferential treatment. That is to say if there is a program that funds schools in general it can also fund religious schools. A law and funding granted to the general populous can affect religious institutions.

Separation of Church and State is an important concept that deserves to be discussed and interpreted in the American Political Sphere

(Yeah I know that was tacked on but it's been a few weeks.)

Getting Meta: Objectivity

Alright so every now and again my Mother will ask me why for the most part I try not to write what I think about the issues at the city council meetings. Rather than write about fiction this time I'll give Mom an incredibly long answer about objectivity.

What is Journalism
Alright so the jury is out on whether I'm a journalist or not. I go to meetings and record them. Is that journalism? Make your call. Regardless journalism is important, and objectivity is a cornerstone to the modern notion of journalism. So I guess I should say what to me is journalism.

When I was trying to get through JRN 300 the roughest class I took at MSU, I boiled down what I was trying to do into two categories, finding interesting and important stuff out, and telling it to people so they would listen in a way that was, honest accurate and efficient. I still believe that at its core journalism is finding stuff out and telling people. Everything else is about the best way to do that.

When people think of journalism they mostly think of the public affairs stuff, but that not all of it. I am a magic nut. I use Evan Erwin's Magic the Gathering Show previews to gauge how much cash I should save for a set. It might not be as important as the debt crisis, but I rely on him to find out info I use. He's a gaming journalist.



Like I said to me it's just finding stuff out and telling folks.

Why is Journalism Important? (Well this part is going to be quick)
There was a time where you could find out all the info you needed to navigate your world from your friends and fam'. Those times are over. They've been over for a while. The world grew. The vast majority of the info I use to just get through the day originates from somebody I don't personally know. How do I know that the Lions are actually doing alright this season? (Yeah really avenge the '08 season. Avenge it I say!) The Free Press. How did I find out Rick Perry was in the presidential race? CNN. How did I find out aliens had landed and decided to make us their slaves? The Earther times. (One of these things is not like the other. Just so there are no misunderstandings that was a joke. Laugh. I said LAUGH!)



What is Objectivity?
In a nutshell objectivity is the idea that reporters should not have bias.

Why do we need Objectivity?
Most of the ideas we have regarding the modern day press's responsibility to the public arose out of the Hutchin's Commission, which is largely responsible for the concept of the fourth estate. in order for democracy to work the electorate needs to be informed. Journalists perform this role.

Now days, everybody and their uncle has a public relations team. Sure you can find out what's going on from a number of places but you always have to keep in mind that most of those places have an interest in affecting what you think. Journalists are suppose to be independent entities that don't. Journalists aren't supposed to care if you vote one way or the other. They're just suppose to care that you have enough info to cast an informed ballot.


Why is it Hard
Sounds simple doesn't it. Until you realize by the time you're in you're in your mid 20's, you're no longer a tabula rasa. You already have your own set experiences and opinions. It's human nature. Once you feel you have enough information to make an informed opinion, chances are you are going to.

Furthermore how far do you want to take it. My general line is that I try to be aware of my biases and write around them, admit them to both myself and my readership, try to at least be fair to anybody I don't particularly agree with and try to touch upon the best of their arguments.

Then there are those who believe that being objective means you shouldn't show any bias in anything ever. It's not uncommon for editors to strongly discourage their reporters from voting. That's a school of thought I find somewhat extreme, though understandable. Journalism is all about trust and bias ruins trust.

Also bias doesn't just affect what you report but how you report and what you don't. This can subtle affect what the news cycle looks like.

This is especially true when journalists don't know what their biases are.

Criticisms of Objectivity
Before I get a bunch shoes thrown at me, most of these don't have to do with the basic concept of objectivity, but how it's practiced.

First off, objectivity can sometimes be a used as a tool to project authority, which sucks because in my mind the entire point of objectivity is that the journalist is no wiser than any other citizen. People confuse being objective with being reasonable, close but no cigar. They're related no doubt but they are not the same thing, and the semantics of objectivity can be used to manipulate the public in the wrong hands.

Secondly, as previously mentioned we are an opinionated species. If we delude ourselves into believing we aren't and that we are completely impartial, not only are we swayed by our biases, but we are swayed by them without realizing it. If you're aware of your bias you can autocorrect, but if you are too stubborn to admit you have them you can't.

Thirdly when you are too overly (Note the word too there. it's important. Just in case you don't get my meaning, I'll also say overly, though it's redundant) concerned with being objective it gets harder to know when to stand up and say the emperor is naked. It gets harder to know when the public is deliberately being misled and when, yes, you should put your foot down, and call someone out.

Fourthly, and this is just me being petty and whiney, the writing tools of an objective tone are just plain boring. If you let it, J-school will beat the prose right out of you. Hell, that's half of their job.



The Interwebs
Many of the notions involving objectivity came about at a time when peoples sources of news were far more limited. Our grandparents had the big three networks, a local newspaper and a handful of radio channels that were probably owned and operated by the other two. That's not the case today. If I hear something interesting I'll probably read 4 or 5 different stories from different sources about it.

My point is this. Objectivity arose partially because the news industry wanted to take responsibility knowing that what they said was more or less what people had to go on. The environment has changed. For the most part the Free Press is no longer the only source of news people will look at in their day. That does not mean the they should abdicate any sort of journalistic responsibility, but it does mean that the power a single news source had to change the world, and potential for abuse of that power is somewhat diminished.

There are those that would argue because of that diminished potential for wrongdoing, the concept of objectivity is not as important as it once was.

All that said this objectivity thing is still personally important to me because I have to believe people aren't morons.
I am a flag waver. Sure I rip on America a lot, but that's only because I think we seldom live up to our ideals. When I was a kid in my history classes a chapter after reading about the Bill of Rights I was reading about the Sedition Act.

Despite all that I believe in the American ideal, self governance, due process, free market, freedom of speech and all that good stuff. What allows me to believe all that is an even deeper core belief that people aren't morons, or to put it in more of a Lockeian way.




If people are well informed they can be trusted to make reasonable decisions.




If I stop believing that I'll end up having a nervous breakdown and emerge from it not as Greg Miles the guy who believes that as long as people don't hurt anyone, they should be allowed to do and believe whatever the hell they want, but Lord Krieg an evil sadistic fascist dictator who believes that anyone who doesn't see things his way should be repeatedly shot until they see reason or stop breathing, whichever happens first.

I don't know if you're getting this but I don't like Lord Krieg. I think he's kind of a dick.



Evil me scares me. Joking aside, on my bad days I think the world consists only of cruel, shortsighted selfish idiots who would shot each other in the face if they thought there were three bucks in it.




And that anything to restrict our baser instincts to keep us from that anarchy is a necessary evil.



Lord of the Flies didn't have to try that hard to win me over.



I don't want to be that guy, the cold stone misanthropic cynic, who feels he must forcibly impose his will upon others, so I choose to believe that people, if given enough information to make a reasonable choice, will. I have to believe that if given free will we will not devolve into a bunch of apes bashing each other in the head. I have to believe that freedom is worth fighting and dying for.



If someone is being a jackass I have to trust that people will see jackass in their words and actions without me pointing and screaming at the top of my lungs "Jackass!" I have to believe that we are intelligent enough to see truth, justice and reason without it being forced upon us by some totalitarian entity. I have to believe that democracy can and does work.



Ultimately I want to be a man who believes that intellect and romanticism can triumph over brute force and cynicism.

The Changing Workforce

As I said in my Eden of the East post I liked it because it talked about NEETS (Not in Education, Employment, or Training) in a way that wasn't the knee jerk, "They're lazy reaction." That reaction is a pet peeve of mine. Not necessarily because it isn't true. Indeed some individuals occasionally even myself are lazy jerks. The reason why I liked it is because it talked about or at least hinted at the fundamental ways the labor market is changing. What annoys me about that knee jerk reaction I mentioned is that it represents a classic ostrich syndrome.

I will say this again. The fundamental way the labor market works is changing. That affects everything, and as a society we cannot afford to ignore it. Whether it is good or bad, it is something that needs to be examined.

I don't just mean it's hard to get a job. I mean that both what employers and employees expect from each other is completely different than what it was in the past. Heck, what employees and employees expect from each other is starting to become completely different depending on which side of the office desk you sit on. Because of this our entire concept of work is changing.

Telecommuting is becoming more possible and prevalent meaning that less people spend work at work. A contingent workforce of freelancers and independent contractors that holds little loyalty to individual companies is factor. More and more college students and graduates are taking internships that offer very little monetary benefit. Employers are more reluctant to provide employee benefits as well as job training, expecting employees to handle those sides of the equation themselves.

These things are happening yet how individuals think about work and are educated regarding that concept work has not changed or at least has not changed as much as the practiced employee employer covenant. For now these changes are subtle, and therefore ignorable but sooner or later we as a society are going to have to reexamine the relationship between labor and management, the individual and the corporation.

These changes are difficult for everybody, but especially difficult for those, such as the younger generation, attempting to break into a workforce where the rules are in flux. It's no longer as simple as graduate, find a job, come to work on time, get paid.

Many don't find work for the next few years, but for the next few weeks. This especially true for writers, programmers, and designers. It takes an acquired skill set of self-marketing that is seldom mentioned let alone taught.

None of this excuses laziness, however it does postulate that there are new challenges in our labor market that are often not being considered and in some cases are completely ignored.

Note: NEET is not a US government classification, but I felt it could be used descriptively.

P.P.S. Note: I am not using the Japanese definition of NEET rather the name on the tin definition.

On the Black History Month Thing (Hey maybe I should start doing all my editorials like that)

Some of the people who checked out my opening to my Black Rock Playlist told me it was a cop-out on me talking about black history month. Yes, Yes it was. I really don't care about black history month. I'm black so I don't have or like to believe I don't have the option of ignoring black history. For me it's a 24/7/365 thing. It colors, no pun intended damn it, my paradigm. I remember the old stories Grandma and Dad told me about racism. I remember that the first blood shed in the American Revolution was a black's.


Aside: That said though I'm glad of the result, America the beautiful, if I were living at the time I would have been a loyalist. You can't tar and feather people, throw stones at soldiers, lynch public officials, or destroy crap tons of property just because you have a few political differences with the current head of state and his legislative body. George was right to bring in the troops, damn it. )



My politics, and identity are closely tied to my being black so I don't have to wave a flag this time of year, that flag was already flying high on the mast a long time ago.

Now, there is a movement to get rid of Black history month that makes a similar argument. Black history is American history and should be integrated into the rest of it.

Just for the record I'm not part of it. I'm on the "if you don't want to deal with it don't" side which is a fancy way of saying. I really don't give a damn one way or the other. I don't like politicizing race if I don't have to.

That said whether or not we should keep black history month depends on how far you think this country has come in terms of race relations. I have a pretty pessimistic view on that.

People assume, and yes I already made this point in another essay, that just because we don't talk about race it doesn't affect society. I believe converse, that we refuse to talk about race proves that it still does affect society. And because we refuse to talk about it we end up making a bunch of blanket assumptions that wind up making everyone look like asses. Yes even in the Detroit area there is a black middle class. Yes some blacks did fight for the confederacy. And as mentioned in this post part of the point of Huck Finn is to show slavery as having been wrong.

Now as if I weren't pissed off enough I will show you clips that make me want to throw a chair. Yes despite the ehhhhggh cuteness of Heidi. The Littlest Rebel made me want to punch Shirley Temple in the face.





While I love Bones I would like to forget this episode ever happened.


Dr. Temperance Brennan: [after describing rap music as tribal] African-Americans aren't the only ones with tribal heritage.
Female Dancer #1: You sayin' we're natives of some tribe?
Dr. Temperance Brennan: Anthropologically speaking we're all members of tribes.
Female Dancer #2: You better shut your mouth.
Dr. Temperance Brennan: Hip-hop mirrors the direct visceral connection you see in tribal communication.
Male Dancer: What?
Dr. Temperance Brennan: After the Cartesians split in the 17th century we separated out mind from our bodies, the numinous from the animalistic.
Female Dancer #1: Are you callin' me an animal, fool?
Female Dancer #3: No, fool. She's using Descartes's philosophy to say she's down with the music.


But I can't. Bring the brain bleach. Bring the brain bleach!!! BRING !!! THE!!! BRAIN !!!!BLEACH!!!!! So wrong in so many ways!!. Brain Bleach.

And now for the first major feature length film in America that because of that status will never be forgotten. It's also arguably the most racist film in American history.

Yes foam at the mouth young Miles. Feel the rage. MHAAAAAA. I can feel your anger. Give in to it.



No, For I am a jedi like my father before me. Though I can do with cool black leather robes, and force lightning would be cool, and being able to choke a dude from 10 feet with my mind ...Okay I admit being a sith lord is a hell of a lot more appealing than being a jedi knight. But... I AM CHAOTIC GOOD.



My nerd is showing.

I am tired of trying to prove my Blackness... And for that mater my Nonblackness A.K.A. the stereotype light switch.

Note: I actually wrote the majority this in mid to late 2009. I am breaking my general policy of dating things when I wrote them because I want this and my decision to post this to appear together.

In the first week of my senior year, my parents visited me. My father came to my new home and he then said to me, “Why don’t you have any posters of Dr. King?” Of the posters in the room most of them were of video games or movies I liked. Honestly I prefer Sin City to Superfly.

I am tired of having to prove my blackness. I live my life by a simple code. Within reason, be who you are and do not apologize for your identity. Do not cower and beg forgiveness for being the man you long ago decided to be. I, like a damn fool, tried to bring up examples of black books and movies I brought with me, rather than just saying I am black and proud, but do I need to say it loud. I feel a furious searing rage about slavery, the lynchings, the hoses, and the dogs, but the trials and heroes of the previous generations are not mine. I am a new beast entirely.

You see folks, we here in America have a new race problem, on our hands. One I think is more important. You see we as a nation will at least reluctantly admit that those other problems exist, and might even try to make progress on them. It’s not fair that cops can and do pull over black people for no real reason. Yes, there is a wealth disparity between black and white that is partially due to the 200 year head start they had in legally owning property, which by the way included us. Yes black people receive little to no credit for the stuff we do relative to white people. Yes the light bulb was invented by a black man. (To be fair, every mad...eccentric scientist and his uncle was experimenting with the light bulb damn near simultaneously but Edison gets credit. In all honesty Edison, was more of a businessman than a scientist and generally gets way more credit than he deserves about "his" various inventions.)The Chuck Berry/Little Richie vs. Elvis King of Rock and Roll thing still sticks in my craw. (Again this is mostly because Elvis generally gets way too much credit for the birth of rock and roll. His style had been done at the time by several artists and both Blue Suede Shoes and Hound Dog are covers. All that said I generally like Elvis.)







Sorry for the aside but I'm a music nut. Anyway... (By the way the last three asides and youtube inserts are 2010 edits.)

But you know what we won’t admit? There is a stereotype light switch that works on both sides. Now to be fair I think that this transcends being black and is a problem for every minority. I read a book called No- No Boy written by a Japanese American for my lit class and had the revelation while trying to think up a thesis for my lit paper. The guy was pulled a part because he felt he couldn’t be both Japanese and American.

You see America, yes that is me proving my blackness with a Bernie Mac reference, you can be black, and you can be a part of white… ahem mainstream America, but you can not be a part of both Black America and mainstream America. Ask Dave Chappell.

When I am around Black people, if I exhibit any opinion, or habit that conflicts with Black America, but adheres to White… I mean mainstream America’s culture I am an Uncle Tom.

In an attempt to keep the white man from giving us an identity we have given ourselves a group identity and any individual who deviates from that group identity will be called an Uncle Tom.

I hate Obama, mind you not the man, not the president, I actually think he’s doing an okay job, but the racial myth that he represents. You see the guy exacerbated the problem. I was kind of apathetic during the campaign. As long as Bush was gone I was happy. But that wasn’t enough if you were black, nooooo. This guy is the first black president. The sign that we finally made it. You couldn’t just go into the voting booths and silently vote for the guy. You had to be ecstatic and God help you if you weren’t.

You know whats worse. If I happen to conflict with the negative sterotypes about black Ameica even slightly I’m all of a sudden put on a friggin’ pedestal. I’m not perfect and don’t expect myself to be, and I do not appreciate all the friggin’ pressure of being the poster child for the entire friggin’ race. That is so not fair to me. You know what I want. I want to be a guy with a regular job who makes just enough to scrap by because otherwise I wouldn’t have time to enjoy myself. I do not want to be an engineer, lawyer or doctor. I don’t want to be the perfect Cosby father figure, mostly because I know I can’t stand the dependency needs of kids. Daddy, could you take me to the bathroom? But sweetie Daddy is on the last level of Halo, you know the part where you have to memorize and then execute a fairly complicated escape plan in 5 minutes. Interruption means certain failure. But Daddy.

Okay so I’ve talked about Black America’s self prejudice but as the Animated Huey Freeman said. “I can’t blame this one on the white man. What am I saying. Of course I can.”

White people are fine and willing to believe that not all the stereotypes about black people are true, until they see one of them. They see you playing basketball of course you have to be awesome at it. You become slightly pissed off and all of a sudden you’re the angry black guy. Which brings me right back to Obama.

You see people, Obama doesn’t have the liberty of being black. He can look black but he can’t be black. Do you seriously expect Obama to give a serious and candid speech on race relations that’s not scripted? He tried … a little, yes it was stupid, and we all know how that turned out.





See black people talk about America’s racial history all the time. Sometimes I want to take my dad, shake him and go “all the slave holders died at least 2 generations before you were born. Isn’t hell, eternal pain and eternal torment enough. (I thought when I said hell I was being clear that I wasn't exonerating slave holders. People who read this on paper didn't get that message so let me just flat out say it. I believe there is a very special and by special I mean agonizingly painful place in hell for slaveholders and treasonous traitors i.e. confederates. Johnson presidential pardon my ass. If you bear arms against the U.S. government especially if you are a citizen or former citizen of the U.S. I say get the rope except for maybe John Brown. Okay I'm a history nut too. History aside over) Sure sometimes I want to go all Nat Turner, or more like granddad’s version of Catcher Freeman with the machete to be honest, but there isn’t anyone left to go all Nat Turner on.

If I decide to publicly say slavery was wrong, lychings were straight up murder, and America still has some racial issues, whit… ahem mainstream society labels me a black radical screaming for reparations.

Ultimately I’m pissed at both sides. I’m tired of hiding who I am, because of racial politics. I am who I am, and I will not cower or apologize for being the man I long ago decided to be. And at the end of the day that’s what all those previous generations were fighting for, for me to have the freedom to hold my head high and say this is me and I will not kowtow to anybody to assuage any racial crap they may be feeling.

Possibly Losing My Religion

In my lifetime religion has grown more and more intermingled with politics. This has caused me to think deeply on not only my religious beliefs but also how those beliefs should be practiced. If religion can be named responsible for some of the blights of my country does it have any redeeming qualities? If it does not should I shed my religion altogether? Just because religion can be blamed for some of the ills of the world does not mean that religion itself is evil. However, religion can be used to manipulate and blind people.

Several people in my family are deeply religious. Some of my ancestors helped found a church. At every family reunion there are about five pastors to say grace. My mother is very religious. She is also one of the kindest people I know. She is my primary example in life on how to deal with people. Although I often disagree with her, my opinion of her is not lessened by her religiosity. In fact her connection to religion redeems it in my eyes. It is easy to look at corrupt televangelists and bigotry that uses religion as its rational and use that as evidence that region is for the insane but my mother is proof that it possible to be religious and still be a good person.

It is hard to deny that religion is responsible for many aspects of American culture. Many positive historical events and movements can be linked to religion. Although I think that religion is beginning to permeate politics too much it is hard for me as an African American to deny that religion can cause positive political changes. The Civil Rights movement was not only lead from a church but also lead by a Reverend. What is the line that I draw? It is not necessary for a person to be religious to be moral however often times a persons values stem from religion. If a legislator were to vote for rehabilitation programs for convicts because of a belief in God’s mercy I would support that. How ever I do not support a ban on gay marriage and similar logic would seem to be the reason behind that vote. Why do I feel differently about these two issues? Sometimes Christianity sends conflicting messages.

There are aspects of Christianity that speak of equality, redemption and mercy. At the same time it speaks of war prejudice and self-righteousness. Many of the religious people I speak to say that in order to be a true Christian I must believe and follow the entire bible. For them a true Christian does not cut and paste the bible. Part me believes this. When I think of the idea of love, admittedly I’ve never been truly in love, I think that you must love somebody completely that despite the things you do not like about some one you must accept all of them both the good and the bad. It is this kind of devotion and compromise that makes love beautiful.

As I said part of me feels the same way about religion. If I nip and cut away at he bible chose to ignore parts of it and disbelieve others can I still call myself a Christian? If I chose to lose my religion would it be so horrible? Why do I hesitate to make that declaration? Although I do not necessarily believe the entirety of the bible, I do believe that there must be a divinity. In my eyes the world is far too ordered for all of human and natural events to be forged by mere chance. I refuse to believe that all that his occurred, all that exists merely exists. Something must have started the universe on its path. Something must have guided times arrow. I choose to call myself Christian for two reasons. The first is my belief in a God. The second is belief that at the very least a man named Jesus walked the earth and was crucified.

Despite this belief I am unsure if I should call my self Christian. Although it is posible to be religious and a good person the religion is starting to put emphasis more and more on ideas that I am not sure I support. Although I believe that all things must eventually come to an end, I am not worried about an oncoming apocalypse. For me the world is a dark place.

There is a war and part of me feels like I have not sacrificed for it. I feel conflicted because at the same time I do not support the reasons my nation has gone to war. Despite this it is impossible for me to deny that the military, in order to accomplish its goals, no matter how ambiguous they are needs more men. There is political as well as ecological strife. I still believe that the strife caused by the war and natural disasters is a result of the folly of man not the wrath of God. Mankind through its greed and shortsightedness has caused the crisis that my
generation must solve. These things are horrible but the world will go on. Although I am, a pessimist I have a faith that mankind will find a way to survive. There will be no thousand years of darkness, no holocaust that causes all of humanity to go extinct. We will survive.

During the last century religion has been used as a way to extend human rights. The Enlightenment, The Civil Rights Movement, Transcendentalist Movement The Renaissance, all had roots in religious thought. However, over last few decades people have begun to worry about the righteousness of the nation. Fearing that America has lost the favor of God they have begun to strip away some rights that were hard fought for as well as denied rights to those who had not gained them yet. Part of the bible talks about forgiveness and that God is the ultimate judge of men. Why then do we feel the need to condemn and persecute those who are different? A person’s relationship with the divine can not be fully understood by another person.

Despite the bigotry and negativity that religion may cause it is an important part of culture. For better or worse much of American society has be forged around religion. Although today people may take religion too far it is hard to deny that many of the social values of the country have steamed from religion. I do not mean to say that to be moral is to be religious and to be religious is to be moral, but it is hard to look at the values of the people around me even atheists and say that those values did not come from anywhere. I believe that one of the reasons my mother is so kind is because of her religious views. I am not as religious but through her religion she has taught me how to treat the rest of humanity.

Okay I will now start to ramble as thoughts come to me. As a starting point since I am watching the matrix at the moment so I will start with a quote. “Its the question that drives us.” Its not the known laws but the idea of a God that drives me to think on the matter. What is the nature of God? Why did the creator create the world in the mater he or she did? What is the point. All life ends. What is the point of tonight’s candle. If the candle is blown out, if the world ends, will God create something in its place? Is God by his very nature a creator. Does he wish for things to exist? If he does why do things die? Is there a such thing as an immortal soul or is now, here all we have.


Sometimes I think what I would believe if I gave up Christianity. If I went into the woods and thought on the mater, what would I believe about God? Is God within all living things? Is it possible to gain a spiritual connection with God through mere thought and meditation? Shall I follow the examples of Buddha and Thoreau?


I often have the thought that what I think about God is irrelevant. The absence or presence of God does not suddenly change my world. Every day I still have to wake up, put my pants on and go to class. Why do I even want to ask myself is there a God.

Regardless of the existence of an afterlife, my primary concern will always be my current life. I need no eternal punishment or reward; for both come in this life. Its what I do here and now that matters. Whether it is the ties I make or the ties I break the ties I have here matter. Maybe I say this because eternal spiritual life may last forever but the physical life is fleeting.

I think that there are several problems with religion. It can be used to justify horrible things. There have been several man made tragedies that have been the cause of religion. These include the crusades the Salem Witch Trials as well as 9/11. I believe partially this reason that religion must remain personal. My ideas about God are my own. I do not wish to preach. I am unsure about the nature of God. Perhaps that is the point. That God is merely the unknown. If God is the unknown perhaps, it is impossible to know him.

I do not know what I believe or even it maters that I don’t know what I believe. Life goes on. I will continue to think about these things but they will only be in the back of my mind. I must deal with the present. I must deal with tangible issues and not allow my self to be distracted by religion, Things need to be done. Despite my religious beliefs or the lack there of I must live in a world where God walks above man not among him.

A Young Black Man’s Treatise on Government

It is my personal belief that my nation is on a precipice. We lie on a knife’s edge of losing ourselves. The previous two elections have cast doubt in my mind about the practicality of the government of the United States of America. However, I believe that although there are flaws within the republic, we must attempt to maintain it. I fear what the alternatives may bring. No government on earth is perfect. I have lost hope that utopia will ever exist, however I believe that if my countrymen do not demand more from their government, it will fall as the republic of Rome has, long before my nation was even a thought.

But this leads me to a series of questions. What should the citizens demand of their government? What is its purpose? Why do governments exist in the first place? What gives them their authority? Why would several million people choose to follow the laws of a few hundred or in some forms of government one person? The answers to these questions that I choose to believe has and will continue to form my political ideology.

I believe that an excellent way to understand the function of an object is to understand its nature. This is the base that all of my other ideas of government will stem. The problem however is that there are multiple forms of government. What I am about to say does not apply to all or even most of them. However, I would like to believe that the reasons why republics as well as democracies are formed have to do with the nature of man. Human beings are social creatures; however at the same time we are egoists. We will take advantage of each other given the proper opportunity. In Beyond Good and Evil Nietzsche says, “It so happens, said a moralistic pedant and pettifogger, that I respect and honor a selfless man, not because he is selfless but because he seems to me to have a right to be of use to another man at his own expense.” (Nietzsche) I believe that most human beings do not like to be taken advantage of. How are individuals protected from other individuals. I believe that the answer lies in society and government. Society and by extension government consists of a group of individuals who band together imposing rules, punishments, and rewards upon one another for the sake of protecting each other against the vice of the individual as well as advancing goals that the individual could not.. It is due to the self-interest of man that governments are formed.

If republics and democracies are formed by the needs of the collective of individuals to protect and provide for themselves, then the government is formed by these individuals, or “by the people”. Even if it is not the people who run the government if they are the ones who created it, the government must be held accountable to them. I believe that there is an unspoken agreement between a government and the people who follow it. As long as the government functions, keeps its duties, and does not abuse the power that the people have invested in it that the people will provide for the government (in the form of taxes) as well as keep the law of the government. It is the people that hold the government in place; for if they refused to do these things the government would not operate and in a way cease to meet the criteria I have previously raised.

Many philosophers have tried to explain the relationship between people and the government. There are many philosophers whose ideals I have tried to integrate into my political ideology upon the relationship of the people and their government. John Locke, Thomas Pain, Henry David Thoreau, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, have in my mind provided excellent ideas on the duties of the citizen to his government and the government to their citizens. The relationship between people and government has been previously called the social contract. In Jean-Jacques Rousseau Social Contract he states,

But, as men cannot engender new forces, but only unite and direct existing ones, they have no other means of preserving themselves than the formation, by aggregation, of a sum of forces to overcome the resistance. These they have to bring into play by means of a single motive, and cause to act in concert.

He is in general saying that for self-preservation human beings band together and form societies. Rousseau goes on in the document, disusing how leaders arrive in these societies. In order for them to work, there must be a higher power. Someone or something, which he calls the sovereign, must be able to make decisions for the group. He later states that,
“I hold then that Sovereignty, being nothing less than the exercise of the general will, can never be alienated, and that the Sovereign, who is no less than a collective being, cannot be represented except by himself: the power indeed may be transmitted, but not the will.”(Rousseau)

He is here stating that although the decision making power of rule may be put in the hands of a single person, the rule of government is the general will of the people, and that the will of the people will always remain with the people. I believe that the mechanism that allows governments to function is the people’s submission to them.

A counter argument to this is that it is God who imbues power onto the heads of government. Many monarchs throughout history have traced their lineages to the divine or were put into power by the heads of the church. Even now pastors will actively seek to sway the votes of their parishioners. This however seems contradictory when a monarch, such as King James II of England, seems to do something that goes against the will of the divine.

Government and law are abstract concepts that are formed by our perceptions of what they are. A physical object will not cease to exist if it fails to fit into the description of it. If I decide that, my boot looks more like a gym shoe than a boot the physical object still exists however, an abstract idea may not. If I am feeling angry but my emotion changes, the anger no longer exists. Governments are formed by the people. If a government is to operate or even to exist it requires some sacrifices by the people. A king without subjects cannot call himself a king. A government without people cannot call itself a government. A rule or a law that is not followed is not a rule. If a ruler is someone who rules, and he does not he is not a ruler. I consider these things true due to my concept of what they are. I have previously put forth a definition of government. If the power of the government is imbued with power by the people and if it is put into existence by the people, then if the people refuse to give power to the government the government will cease to exist. If government is nothing more than the exercise of the will of the people than it cannot exist with out that will.

Therefore, in order for government to exist power must be transferred from individual to the larger entity of society. We do this in a number of ways. We recognize the authority of the larger entity by following laws. If I choose, I could break the law, but it’s the law that makes a government a government. Is it possible for a government to exist without law? Part of the reasons why governments exist is to impose law upon the governed. If a government is formed because the people have deemed it necessary to create one the people have a duty to follow the will of the collective. It is the duty of the individual to keep to the will of the collective because in doing so the individual is contributing to the continued existence of the government. People should support and acknowledge their government. If the government was ignored it would cease to exist. There is no legal reason for the United States to exist instead of the British Colonies. The only reason it does is because the collective of individuals make a choice to ignore the laws of the United Kingdom and acknowledge the laws of the United States. Why does England exist instead of British Rome? Why did Rome exist instead of Etruscan civilization? The people stopped supporting these governments.

John Lock in his Two Treatise on Government has stated

The first power—viz., of doing whatsoever he thought fit for the preservation of himself and the rest of mankind, he gives up to be regulated by laws made by the society, so far forth as the preservation of himself and the rest of that society shall require; which laws of the society in many things confine the liberty he had by the law of Nature. (Locke)

In order for government to be sustained, the individual gives up certain rights. The right which John Locke is saying the individual gives up is the right to make and follow wholly his own rules. We choose to follow the laws prescribed by our Government, by the collective will.

The people support the government by doing more than following its laws. We also provide for it. We pay taxes to ensure that it can carryout its duties. When there is a need we protect it through military conscription. It still surprises me that the draft has not been raised in my generation. With these acts, the people do two things. They ensure the continued existence and provide a means for the government to carry out its duties.

If the government is the collective will of individuals it is also the duty of those individuals to remain informed of the circumstances and decisions of the collective and if they must change it, in order for a government to operate,

It is unreasonable to expect the individual to voluntarily give up his freedom, money, and possibly his life for his government and not expect something in return. If the individual is to keep his duties to government, the government must keep its duties to the individual. The reason why the individual sacrifices his freedom is because he knows others are doing the same. The government must set laws in place and enforce them providing, a justice system where citizens can peacefully settle grievances between each other and society. I believe law is one of the primary benefits of government. It prevents the individual from being robbed, murdered or raped. If law is set by the government, and the government is the collective will of the people then law is set by the collective will of the people. (Locke)

I believe it is also the duty of the government to protect the lives of it citizens. The government is instilled to protect the interests of the people. Survival is a primary interest of human beings. The government is put into place partially to ensure the survival of the governed.

I am a socialist. When people are not in a clear and present danger of extermination, and when the population is sufficiently large they tend to expect society to provide basic services. These include education of the youth, a decent road system, as well as safe drinking water. If government is composed of the will of the people, it should advance their interests. The collective of individuals can do far more than a single individual could. Therefore, government should do for the individual what the individual cannot do for himself. I feel that individuals are capable of quite a bit but its unreasonable to expect one man to build an entire highway or an aqueduct. However if communal monies and resources are used, the things the government chooses to do should have a communal affect (maybe I shouldn’t use the word communal sounds to much like that quirky economic system) The problem with this argument is determining what the individual cannot do for himself. I do not believe in communism. However, I am in favor of a more moderate welfare state. This welfare state should provide for the people’s general welfare through public works, as well as provide a safety net in times of natural disaster or economic depression.

I believe that the government, at least in part, is responsible to seeing to the people’s general welfare. In a typical society, it is inevitable that some people will be impoverished but if the vast majority of the people are in this state the government is at fault due its inactivity in seeing to the peoples best interests. As I previously stated the reason why the people allow the government to exist is so that it will protect their interests

If part of the reasons why governments exist is to limit the freedom of the individual to harm other individuals, and the government is given the power to enforce the laws that enable it to limit individuals the government by its nature will limit the individual. This is necessary in order for government to function. However if the prime directive of government is to protect the individual’s interests it should not be able to go against them. Time and time again governments do this however. They censor, kill, and steal from the people. They advance the interests of one group of individuals at the expense of others. While some of an individual’s freedoms are taken away from the government the rest should be ensured by it.

The ideas of limiting the powers of government are relatively new. Up until this point, I have spoken of the government, as an extension of the people’s will. However most governments, for practical purposes, put the decision making power of government in the hands of a sovereign, a power above the people. I have also spoken of the duty of the people to remain informed of the operations of the government. However if the people become indifferent to the state of their government they give the sovereign, who they have, invested their freedom and money, free reign over them. To protect the people from the sovereign, who may abuse the power invested in it as well as to allow the people some power over the sovereign several mechanisms should be put into place.

The first is the direct election of the sovereign. In the United States there is the direct election of senators as well as representatives. This makes them accountable to the people. If they make decisions for their own benefit rather than for the peoples there is a fair chance that they will be replaced after the next election. I believe that the Electoral College is a mistake that needs to be rectified by the American people. In the year 2000 AD in an election, the head of state was put into office against the will of the majority of the people. This shows one of the flaws in the Government of the United States. That should not have happened.

The next limit of government is a constitution. The sovereign should not be able to change the government on whim. There should be a legal document stating the processes for enacting and altering the law. This document should be made public so the people may examine it. It should also, on paper, list the powers that the people have given their government. It should also list powers, which the government under no circumstances should assume.

The third mechanism is one that I believe is failing the American people. In order for the people to protected from the sovereign they must understand what decisions the sovereign is making. If the people are to oversee and watch the sovereign they must be informed. Journalism is a pillar of the republic. The people must be trained to ask questions and demand answers. The government is accountable to them only if they hold it so.

Despite these safe guards a republic ruled by the people has several flaws. If the individual is fallible, then to must a collective of them. Though it is entirely possible and morally wrong, I might add, for the for a majority of the collective to act towards the disadvantage of minority of it the minority must not have the ability to work towards the disadvantage of the majority. America is divided by several races, religions, and creeds. This is neither good nor bad. This is simply the way of things due to the nature of the nation’s history. However these divisions allow for factions to arise. In the “Federalists Papers” #10 and #9 Alexander Hamilton and James Madison discuss factions. Special interests of factions can cause a government to act contrary to the peoples will. At the same time the majority of people may wrongly persecute the members of a minority of the group. The government should some how secure the rights of a minority, while at the same time insuring the rule of the majority.( Madison) ( Hamilton)

Governments must not stay the same. The will of the people is fickle. It changes not only from generation to generation but also from year to year. Five years ago I would have said terrorism is a military problem now I and several people believe it to be a policing problem. Governmental policy must not remain static or eventual it will fail to serve the will of the people. The government must constantly evolve.

These changes must come gradually or abruptly but they must come. If the sovereign does not change with the will of the people, a time may come where the people no longer accepts its rule. When the change comes suddenly, it normally comes violently. Sudden change is also often followed by a time of anarchy. The absence of government goes against the interests of the people. Because of this, it is better for the changes to come slowly.

A good government must have mechanisms for changing not only the law, but the processes under which the law is created. The people must be able to freely express that change is needed, and the sovereign must be able to freely enact change. If either fails in these things government will become stagnate and the change will be sudden.

The Government is to be held accountable to the people at all times. It is the people’s power that allows government to exist. As a result, the government is responsible for the people’s general welfare and common defense. However, the people must at times be protected from the government they created. The government must be flexible.

Choice

Freedom is the existence of choice. Whether or not humanity has choice is obvious. We do. The question should be how much choice and in extension how much freedom do we have. Can I choose what my opinion is. My favorite color is red. Out of all the colors of the world why did I choose it? To quote the matrix. I already know the choice I’ve made now I have to know why. Were the reasons why I chose the color red as my favorite color under my control or maybe there were reasons outside of my control. My mother’s favorite color is red. Red is one of the three patriotic colors. It also happens to be a color assoiciated with a lot of symbolism. I had no control over these facts. Did they take the choice out of my hands.

The opposite of freedom is fate. Fate is the lack of choice. How much of existence is due do the choices that individuals made or factors that were out of their control such as the weather or an unexpected event. This is a debate theologists and philosophers have dealt with for centuries. How much free will did God give us.

Apart from God there is also society. Do I believe murder is wrong because of my own conclusions or because society says its wrong. I like to believe I make up my own mind on maters like this but my environment does play a role. How much of a role does it play. Everybody has things they would kill for. A mother would kill to protect her child, and a soldier will kill to protect his or her country. Are these archetypical ideals shared throughout humanity or are they cultural.

Family, patriotism, self preservation how much of what a person does in these situation is instinctual. Some people believe that humans don’t have much left, but we still have compulsions that we can’t control. We wish to live, mate, eat, drink, sleep. Biology takes choice away from me. I can chose not to eat for a day but eventually hunger will enter my mind like a gnat gnawing on a leaf. Eventually I would become to feel irritable. Then I would start to feel fatigued. These feelings strongly encourage me to eat every four to six hours. The only control I have over them is to avoid hunger.

This brings up another point, consequence. Is the choice between a rock and a hard place a choice? If I do thing A and thing A gives me a beneficial result and if I do thing B and thing B gives me a negative result I am more likely to repeat thing A than I am to repeat Thing B. Is this a choice?

Ultimately I believe that freedom is limited. I can make choices but I am not always in control over the factors that affects those choice.

My Manifesto on War

We would like to believe that we are just in war, that we are benevolent liberators. Bull Shit. War is hell. There are always atrocities, many of which we commit. Why? Let us not forget that the horrid state of war is horrid. Grant knew it. Jackson knew it. MacArthur knew it. Tyler knew it. God Damn Sherman knew it. Patton did not say show ‘em heaven he said “Give ‘em hell”. They are not called the rabbits of war. They are not called the cute fuzzy hamsters of war. They are called the fearsome dogs of war. A people can not participate in war and in some way not sacrifice their humanity, their ideals.


War is evil so that two armies will never again want to make a killing charge into each others lands. But time and time again we forget this lesson. We win. Arrogant we forget the men we lost to Britain, Spain, and Mexico. We believe we can handle the demons of war, when in fact we become the demons of war.

War is not a game to be played lightly. Millions of lives are touched in said game. Families are destroyed. Brilliant soldiers die in a crimson pool of blood, sweat and tears. And most, they don’t die. They get carved up loosing legs and arms. Why, for our damned national pride, because no president wants to be known as the one who lost a war. The one who bowed and showed we are not bullets but people.

Wait. What about appeasement. Germany ripped right through France. Show no weakness, no hole in the defenses. Yes, but don’t rush into an ambush. Don’t act like you want a long bloody war. This is not the west of the movies this is international politics.

P.S.

Put a stop to selling our weapons over seas. That is what got us in trouble in the first place. Reconstruct from the ground up public education. Don’t just patch it. Offer awards to those who prove to be innovative to give rise to science and Art.