So the United Nations agreed to impose a no-fly zone over Libya in order to prevent Ghadafi from using air strikes against the rebels.
Now everyone is talking about whether the United Nations should arm the rebels. The rebels will need a full spectrum of ground combat weapons and training. It will take time to arm them, train them, and wait for their victory. And while we wait, we have to pay for their expenses and for what it costs us to maintain the no-fly zone.
Why not just send in a professional military to defeat Ghadafi and hand the country over to the rebels? We can achieve victory faster and spare the lives of many Libyan citizens in the process.
There's also no need to maintain a United Nations "peace keeping" force there later - just issue a warning to all countries that if they attack Libya during its reconstruction phase the United Nations will defend Libya and counter-attack the attacker's country - not just to get them out of Libya but to disable the attacker's own military for a significant enough amount of time that the attacker would be vulnerable to attack by their own neighbors. Such a warning is a good deterrent - and if it's tested a decisive follow-through will ensure that the next such warning will be an even better deterrent.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Copyright Infringement for Network Software
Game maker Blizzard sued bot maker MDY Industries for copyright infringement because MDY sells subscriptions to bots that allow Blizzard's customers to play the first few levels of the game automatically. This capability was in demand by gamers who like to skip to the really exciting gameplay, I guess, without spending a lot of time on the first levels that they feel are uninteresting after playing them too many times or if they are too lazy to master the first levels and want to cheat. Using bots is against Blizzard's published terms of use of its game software.
I think that copyright law should be about making copies, not about rules for using legitimately purchased copies. I agree with Blizzard that if they set terms of use for the network servers and their customers are violating them using the client software that Blizzard can terminate access to those customers. I disagree that copyright law has anything to do with it.
Should it be illegal to create software for the explicit purpose of helping a person violate one or more specific agreements? Maybe. This can cause an undue burden on the violated party to enforce their agreement. Customers who don't want to abide by the agreement should just cancel it entirely and stop doing business with the other party instead of circumventing it.
Should it be illegal to create software that can be used by a person to violate any agreement? This one seems too broad and presupposes a fixed set of agreements into which people may enter. This is not the case. Tools are routinely used for something other than their intended purpose and this should not create any liability for the manufacturer or the software company. Even if a tool has been clearly created for a specific purpose, the software industry standard is to disclaim any liability for its use. So when people use it for some purpose, it's those people who should be sued for violating the agreement, not the makers of the tools they used.
Should it be illegal to create software for the explicit purpose of helping a person violate one or more laws? Maybe. A hardware analogue would be: should it be illegal to create hardware for the explicit purpose of helping a person violate one or more laws? My first thought was cars and guns but these are not good examples; cars guns aren't made specifically for the purpose of breaking laws - laws are made to regulate the use of cars and guns. Lockpick kits? These are made for picking locks but is there a law against that? I don't know. What if a person needs to pick a lock to get into his own property because he accidentally locked the key inside and prefers not to drill out the entire lock? Dubious but possible. This actually happened to me and I chose to drill out the lock. But then should a drill be illegal to use since it allows people to break and enter into property? Clearly this line of thinking doesn't result in a sensible rule.
Blizzard should have sued for violating their terms of service, not their copyright.
However, a judge, after seeing numerous cases of people being convicted for using a specific set of tools to commit a specific crime or tort, and not seeing any other lawful use for those tools at all, even after making a determined effort to uncover lawful and non-damaging uses, may order the manufacturer of the tools to pay a fine for creating something that has been used exclusively to hurt others. That fine should not be in the amount of damage caused because that is the liability of the individuals who used the tool. That fine should be for the amount of profits made by selling that tool from its first sale until the day the fine is ordered. The fine should be applied towards the justice system operating funds. The company is free to continue creating tools, and should not be ordered not to make this tool or that. But after having to give up the profits -- not gross income, just profits -- from making that tool, it may be prompted to re-evaluate if it wants to continue making it, or if it wants to restrict who can buy it from them in order to ensure that it isn't used to damage other people. Such actions will not free it from future liability for items sold after the fine is ordered, but they may prevent damage from being caused by their tool which would allow them to continue making it without being fined.
I think that copyright law should be about making copies, not about rules for using legitimately purchased copies. I agree with Blizzard that if they set terms of use for the network servers and their customers are violating them using the client software that Blizzard can terminate access to those customers. I disagree that copyright law has anything to do with it.
Should it be illegal to create software for the explicit purpose of helping a person violate one or more specific agreements? Maybe. This can cause an undue burden on the violated party to enforce their agreement. Customers who don't want to abide by the agreement should just cancel it entirely and stop doing business with the other party instead of circumventing it.
Should it be illegal to create software that can be used by a person to violate any agreement? This one seems too broad and presupposes a fixed set of agreements into which people may enter. This is not the case. Tools are routinely used for something other than their intended purpose and this should not create any liability for the manufacturer or the software company. Even if a tool has been clearly created for a specific purpose, the software industry standard is to disclaim any liability for its use. So when people use it for some purpose, it's those people who should be sued for violating the agreement, not the makers of the tools they used.
Should it be illegal to create software for the explicit purpose of helping a person violate one or more laws? Maybe. A hardware analogue would be: should it be illegal to create hardware for the explicit purpose of helping a person violate one or more laws? My first thought was cars and guns but these are not good examples; cars guns aren't made specifically for the purpose of breaking laws - laws are made to regulate the use of cars and guns. Lockpick kits? These are made for picking locks but is there a law against that? I don't know. What if a person needs to pick a lock to get into his own property because he accidentally locked the key inside and prefers not to drill out the entire lock? Dubious but possible. This actually happened to me and I chose to drill out the lock. But then should a drill be illegal to use since it allows people to break and enter into property? Clearly this line of thinking doesn't result in a sensible rule.
Blizzard should have sued for violating their terms of service, not their copyright.
However, a judge, after seeing numerous cases of people being convicted for using a specific set of tools to commit a specific crime or tort, and not seeing any other lawful use for those tools at all, even after making a determined effort to uncover lawful and non-damaging uses, may order the manufacturer of the tools to pay a fine for creating something that has been used exclusively to hurt others. That fine should not be in the amount of damage caused because that is the liability of the individuals who used the tool. That fine should be for the amount of profits made by selling that tool from its first sale until the day the fine is ordered. The fine should be applied towards the justice system operating funds. The company is free to continue creating tools, and should not be ordered not to make this tool or that. But after having to give up the profits -- not gross income, just profits -- from making that tool, it may be prompted to re-evaluate if it wants to continue making it, or if it wants to restrict who can buy it from them in order to ensure that it isn't used to damage other people. Such actions will not free it from future liability for items sold after the fine is ordered, but they may prevent damage from being caused by their tool which would allow them to continue making it without being fined.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Modern-day slavery?
From a story on CNN: "But how widespread is what many experts call modern-day slavery?"
It's still slavery. Why is any expert prepending the words "modern-day" to a concept that isn't any different now than it was a hundred or a thousand years ago?
It's still slavery. Why is any expert prepending the words "modern-day" to a concept that isn't any different now than it was a hundred or a thousand years ago?
If they just mean slavery today, they should call it early 21st century slavery. That way the label will still work in 50 years when the definition of modern day changes.
US Embassy websites
US Embassy website domain names generally look like countryname.usembassy.gov. That's good.
But some embassies have a second website. For example, we have mexico.usembassy.gov and we also have www.usembassy-mexico.gov. Why??
Then we have US Mission websites. We have "missions" to the UN, EU, etc. These are generally assigned domain names like www.us.usmission.gov. First, there's really no point in putting "us" in front of the mission name. It's already a US mission because it's under a US government TLD - .gov. There should absolutely not be any other country's missions or embassy websites under our TLD. So they should just be un.usmission.gov and eu.usmission.gov, or spelled out like unitednations.usmission.gov and europeanunion.usmission.gov.
But some embassies have a second website. For example, we have mexico.usembassy.gov and we also have www.usembassy-mexico.gov. Why??
Then we have US Mission websites. We have "missions" to the UN, EU, etc. These are generally assigned domain names like www.us
Monday, March 7, 2011
Excessive Government Power
Government is just a collection of individuals. They have roles. They have ambitions. Governments can have many forms but ours is a form that is currently seeking more and more power. Surveillance. Mandatory insurance. Definition of marriage. Mandatory back-doors for security systems and built-in taps for communications systems. Some of it is in the name of saving every sick individual. Some of it is in the name of protecting us from every crime and every enemy. For making the government the un-defeat-able, all-powerful guardian of citizens.
But government is just a collection of individuals. With so much power, it inevitably draws very ambitious individuals to itself. And what if some of these individuals become the enemy of the people, using government power for their personal gain? Who will defeat them?
Do you think it never happens? How do you think dictatorships all over the world past and present come to be? They don't arise by themselves, they are products of ambitious individuals and the governments that preceded them.
We have to change our ethos.
We know that sometimes people behave badly, and regarding crime the government must be the minimum necessary to keep our bad side in check. That's all it should be.
Government should protect every citizens right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, just as our founders wrote in the constitution.
In this role it must simply punish anyone who violates the rights of others. It is not the government's role to prevent crime, although fear of the punishments and some practical measures such as guards may do a lot to deter it.
To get into the business of preventing, rather than punishing, requires a lot more resources. It requires a way to find out what people are doing before they do it. It requires invasion of privacy and it will drive back the threshold of punishable action to merely talk so that trials may be conducted before a person has committed a real crime - a person will be guilty merely of thinking or talking about a crime. That is how crimes will be prevented if we allow it. And we must not allow it. It's not worth the risk to us all. All talk about establishing or guaranteeing security is a smokescreen designed to exploit our human frailties, our fear of violence and death, in order to blind us to what is being done in the name of our safety. It's wicked.
We have to decide that our right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness means the right to make decisions and to succeed or fail on our own merits. To be more responsible about our decisions and not to throw our arms up in the air and demand that the government protect us from this or that.
The government should only control what individuals cannot - punishing crimes, regulating the use of the environment in order to preserve it, encouraging research in useful new directions, and the building of infrastructure.
That means no government bail-outs of big companies that failed because they made bad decisions, because that is a wasteful use of everyone's hard-earned tax money. That means no mandatory health insurance, because people should have a choice of how to spend their money. That means no definition of marriage, because that's between individuals and their society.
To be accountable to its role, the individuals who form the government must be fallible. And in order to be fallible they must not possess extreme powers over the people.
But government is just a collection of individuals. With so much power, it inevitably draws very ambitious individuals to itself. And what if some of these individuals become the enemy of the people, using government power for their personal gain? Who will defeat them?
Do you think it never happens? How do you think dictatorships all over the world past and present come to be? They don't arise by themselves, they are products of ambitious individuals and the governments that preceded them.
We have to change our ethos.
We know that sometimes people behave badly, and regarding crime the government must be the minimum necessary to keep our bad side in check. That's all it should be.
Government should protect every citizens right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, just as our founders wrote in the constitution.
In this role it must simply punish anyone who violates the rights of others. It is not the government's role to prevent crime, although fear of the punishments and some practical measures such as guards may do a lot to deter it.
To get into the business of preventing, rather than punishing, requires a lot more resources. It requires a way to find out what people are doing before they do it. It requires invasion of privacy and it will drive back the threshold of punishable action to merely talk so that trials may be conducted before a person has committed a real crime - a person will be guilty merely of thinking or talking about a crime. That is how crimes will be prevented if we allow it. And we must not allow it. It's not worth the risk to us all. All talk about establishing or guaranteeing security is a smokescreen designed to exploit our human frailties, our fear of violence and death, in order to blind us to what is being done in the name of our safety. It's wicked.
We have to decide that invasion of privacy is a crime, and that the government isn't allowed to invade our privacy in the name of preventing one thing or curing another.
We have to decide that we are willing to risk some safety in order to guarantee freedom.
We have to decide that our right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness means the right to make decisions and to succeed or fail on our own merits. To be more responsible about our decisions and not to throw our arms up in the air and demand that the government protect us from this or that.
The government should only control what individuals cannot - punishing crimes, regulating the use of the environment in order to preserve it, encouraging research in useful new directions, and the building of infrastructure.
That means no government bail-outs of big companies that failed because they made bad decisions, because that is a wasteful use of everyone's hard-earned tax money. That means no mandatory health insurance, because people should have a choice of how to spend their money. That means no definition of marriage, because that's between individuals and their society.
To be accountable to its role, the individuals who form the government must be fallible. And in order to be fallible they must not possess extreme powers over the people.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Burkas in France
Last year France passed a law that bans the public wearing of full head & body coverings. The law provided for 6 months of announcements of the new law before it takes effect (next month).
Approximately 80% of French citizens support the law.
Amnesty International claims it violates the right to freedom of religion of Muslims in France.
Compared with places like Saudi Arabia, which doesn't even allow Jews to enter the country (actually they backtracked on this after some pressure from the USA but they still don't allow anyone with an Israeli stamp on their passport), and has no tolerance AT ALL for any public appearance or practice that is not Muslim, France is still very, very free.
The burka is just a style of dress, and there are dress codes in every place in the world. I think French citizens have a right to say that in THEIR country they don't want to see people wearing burkas. Maybe it's painful for them because of everything that burkas are associated with. Maybe it's a first step in forcing Arab immigrants to assimilate to French culture instead of living in their own enclaves isolated from society.
And forcing assimilation is not a bad thing - if the immigrants want to live just as they did at home, well, then they should go back home. There's a REASON they immigrated to France. Whatever that reason is (and let's assume it's not to execute a peaceful takeover by simply outpacing the French birthrate) it will be best leveraged by assimilating to the French culture.
And since French people don't wear burkas, the immigrants shouldn't be either - yet they do, and they're isolated, and they're teaching their kids to behave in ways that are contrary to French law, and it's caused a lot of friction with the rest of French society - hence the new law against burkas.
Arabs have countries where they can force all people to behave like Arabs and refuse to allow certain kinds of people to even visit... so they shouldn't complain that the French want people in France to behave like the French.
Amnesty International should respect that.
The biggest lie of modern history is that religion can be completely separate from state and politics. Religion teaches politics! Every religion teaches how to behave towards other people. Every religion is based on some ideas of what is best. And all the religions that I've studied define what is a crime and prescribe some reactions to people who commit crimes. And what do states do? States define crimes and prescribe some reactions to people who commit crimes. Many modern states have values that stem from the dominant religion of the people within the state. Some states acknowledge their values stem from religion, and other states pretend that their "secular" values stand apart from any religion. Notice that in states that claim to allow freedom of religion, they still prosecute people whose religious practices happen to be a crime in the state. For example: animal sacrifices, honor killings, polygamy, sodomy, child molestation. How is that freedom of religion? It's not - it's tolerance of religion as long as its practice stays within the bounds of the state law.
In France, by the way, young Muslim men have caused quite a lot of trouble. It seems that their religion, as practiced by them, is not very compatible with French law. I remember stories I read a few years ago about young Muslim men in France raping girls who they thought didn't dress conservatively enough. Now, other men in France have raped too, and France has a law against this, and rapists who are caught get punishment. But it's interesting to note that only the young Muslim men actually cited their religion and conservative cultural practices as reasons to rape a girl. This is what I mean when I say their religion is incompatible with French law.
And that's why it's a good thing that France is passing laws to force Arab immigrants to assimilate. By mixing into society more they are more likely to learn French values and trim their religious practices to the subset that is compatible with French law.
When in France, do as the French do.
I think it's strange that Amnesty International, a group devoted to the defense of freedom of religion and opinion, should choose to defend people adhering to a religion that, when fully adopted by a state, is the source of the most oppressive regimes in world history.
Approximately 80% of French citizens support the law.
Amnesty International claims it violates the right to freedom of religion of Muslims in France.
Compared with places like Saudi Arabia, which doesn't even allow Jews to enter the country (actually they backtracked on this after some pressure from the USA but they still don't allow anyone with an Israeli stamp on their passport), and has no tolerance AT ALL for any public appearance or practice that is not Muslim, France is still very, very free.
The burka is just a style of dress, and there are dress codes in every place in the world. I think French citizens have a right to say that in THEIR country they don't want to see people wearing burkas. Maybe it's painful for them because of everything that burkas are associated with. Maybe it's a first step in forcing Arab immigrants to assimilate to French culture instead of living in their own enclaves isolated from society.
And forcing assimilation is not a bad thing - if the immigrants want to live just as they did at home, well, then they should go back home. There's a REASON they immigrated to France. Whatever that reason is (and let's assume it's not to execute a peaceful takeover by simply outpacing the French birthrate) it will be best leveraged by assimilating to the French culture.
And since French people don't wear burkas, the immigrants shouldn't be either - yet they do, and they're isolated, and they're teaching their kids to behave in ways that are contrary to French law, and it's caused a lot of friction with the rest of French society - hence the new law against burkas.
Arabs have countries where they can force all people to behave like Arabs and refuse to allow certain kinds of people to even visit... so they shouldn't complain that the French want people in France to behave like the French.
Amnesty International should respect that.
The biggest lie of modern history is that religion can be completely separate from state and politics. Religion teaches politics! Every religion teaches how to behave towards other people. Every religion is based on some ideas of what is best. And all the religions that I've studied define what is a crime and prescribe some reactions to people who commit crimes. And what do states do? States define crimes and prescribe some reactions to people who commit crimes. Many modern states have values that stem from the dominant religion of the people within the state. Some states acknowledge their values stem from religion, and other states pretend that their "secular" values stand apart from any religion. Notice that in states that claim to allow freedom of religion, they still prosecute people whose religious practices happen to be a crime in the state. For example: animal sacrifices, honor killings, polygamy, sodomy, child molestation. How is that freedom of religion? It's not - it's tolerance of religion as long as its practice stays within the bounds of the state law.
In France, by the way, young Muslim men have caused quite a lot of trouble. It seems that their religion, as practiced by them, is not very compatible with French law. I remember stories I read a few years ago about young Muslim men in France raping girls who they thought didn't dress conservatively enough. Now, other men in France have raped too, and France has a law against this, and rapists who are caught get punishment. But it's interesting to note that only the young Muslim men actually cited their religion and conservative cultural practices as reasons to rape a girl. This is what I mean when I say their religion is incompatible with French law.
And that's why it's a good thing that France is passing laws to force Arab immigrants to assimilate. By mixing into society more they are more likely to learn French values and trim their religious practices to the subset that is compatible with French law.
When in France, do as the French do.
I think it's strange that Amnesty International, a group devoted to the defense of freedom of religion and opinion, should choose to defend people adhering to a religion that, when fully adopted by a state, is the source of the most oppressive regimes in world history.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Honesty about Separation of Church and State
I believe that our government favors certain religions. It has values and ideas embedded in it that come from Christianity. Some of these values and ideas were in turn derived from Judaism and that, I believe, is the reason that Jews and Christians get along so well in the United States, along with Hindus and many others. I also believe that, while we claim that we tolerate all religions here, in reality we only tolerate compatible religions. There may be some of us who truly tolerate every religion even if it's to the detriment of our society as a whole, but I believe that most of us do draw a line, even if we aren't aware of it. I believe that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with the values and ideas of the United States. However, I also acknowledge that millions of Muslims do live here and the vast majority of them seem to do alright - and in my opinion they only way they are able to conform to American culture is by deviating from their religion.
I believe that to create a government that truly allows freedom of religion, we would have to remove from it some of our core values and beliefs because they are uniquely Jewish and Christian. I believe that we wouldn't want to have such a government if we were able to attain it. I also believe that we are better off being honest with ourselves about what we do tolerate and announcing to the world that anyone who can conform is welcome, all others beware.
The religious values embedded in our government are exposed by our laws. Murder is not allowed, and government prescribes a punishment. Theft is not allowed, and government prescribes a punishment. Adultery is not allowed, and government prescribes a punishment. Buying alcohol on Sunday is not allowed in some states, and they prescribe punishments. At one time we even had a national prohibition on alcohol with prescribed punishments. These are distinctly religious rules and they favor the values of some people while discriminating against others. The special and holy day of the week for Jews is Saturday. A Jew should be able to buy alcohol on Sunday, but this is not the case in Arkansas, Georgia, Minnesota, and more. In some places we have laws prohibiting other kinds of business on Sunday and we pretend that it's for a non-religious purpose. I believe that a comparison of our laws to Christian religious beliefs and practices would show a very strong correlation. I believe the state of the union is not consistent with our claim to separation between church and state.
If our government truly allowed people of different religions to live their lives in accordance with their religious beliefs, then it would have to allow for completely different sets of laws as well as for laws governing interactions between members of different religions. I think that in order to get this right, it needs an abstract treatment with as few distinctions as possible. I propose the following distinctions: crimes against a person of the same religion, crimes against a person of a different religion, crimes against society or against the environment, violent crimes in each of these categories, non-violent crimes in each of these categories, and victim-less crimes. When I say religion I also mean to include in the discussion people who are atheists or who otherwise wish to set themselves apart from people of any known religion.
When a person from one religion commits a crime against another person of the same religion, should their religion and its institutions be solely responsible for administering punishment according to its own values and sense of justice? Do we all want that kind of autonomy for our own religion? Do we sincerely believe that each religion is a system of government and that they should all be allowed to function as designed in order to bring about some greater good?
If the religious punishment for said crime is murder, can we accept that? After all, if a person doesn't want to be held accountable to those laws they could convert to another religion. What if the religion has a punishment for converting away from it?
Does geography matter? If a person from one religion commits a crime against another person of the same religion, but this happens in an area dominated by a second religion, should the authorities there apply their own laws? Or the laws of the religion of the criminal and victim? Can we trust people from one religion to apply laws from another religion? I think not, mostly because the legitimization of justice requires people to believe that the administrators are experts in the law. So should the authorities send the criminal to his own people to be tried? There may be several nearby communities of that religion, so how would the local authorities choose to which community they will send the criminal to be tried? Should the local authorities contact the closest religious community of the criminal? Is it possible that community will refuse to accept the criminal for trial? Should the local authorities then try the next possible religious community or should they then try the criminal by their own laws? Should they keep the criminal imprisoned until they find a suitable court?
If a person commits two or more crimes before being caught, and one of them is against another person of the same religion but another is against a person of a different religion, should they be processed in the order they occurred? Or should they be processed in the order of their seriousness? Do we compare the seriousness of the crime or the seriousness of the punishment? Is it possible this order might differ for different religions?
If a person commits a crime against a person of a different religion, which law applies? Should the criminal be tried according his or her own religion or according to the religion of the victim? Allowing the religion of the victim to handle the crime could be a deterrent against people of a lax religion committing crimes with impunity against people of other religions. In such a system, ignorance of the law cannot ever be an excuse for a crime. People must know the laws of their own religion and, at a minimum, the laws of other religions that could have serious consequences, or else they must tread very carefully. Such a system might encourage a religion to develop very severe punishments in order to deter crimes against its members. Also, it is possible that some religions may have hypocritical laws, where they themselves distinguish between committing a crime against a member of the religion or against a non-member, and between a member of the religion committing a crime and a non-member of the religion committing the crime. If the religion of the victim has hypocritical laws, should the government demand application of the laws as if the criminal was a member of the victim's religion? Or would such hypocritical laws be abandoned in a system of government that already handles inter-religion issues?
What should happen to govern two people of no religion? Should the law should be applied as if they were from two different religions? So if the victim is a member of an atheist organization that is equipped to handle crimes, should the criminal be handed over to them?
Having multiple religious organizations, each with their own infrastructure for handling criminals, may result in a significant waste of resources. It may also allow a sort of denial-of-service attack against minority religions by committing many crimes in a short period of time against members of that religion and then turning over the actor-criminals for handling, overwhelming the judiciary capacity of the minority religion. Having multiple religious organizations handle their own criminal justice systems also means that some religions may be at a significant disadvantage when handling certain kinds of crimes. How would a religion that forbids certain technology or practice handle a crime committed using that technology or practice? They probably wouldn't have the forensic experts to discuss the evidence.
Should the government provide a complete criminal justice system and a national police force that handles temporary imprisonment and allows different religions to supply judges for their own cases?
If we were to change our government to allow such a large degree of autonomy to different religions, would we place limits on what can be considered a religion? If a group of people organize together and declare that they are following the teachings of some person, alive or dead, and create rituals and codes of conduct, and call it by some name, shall they be recognized as a religion and allowed the same autonomy as other religions?
If any of the religions have practices that are barbaric, discriminatory, or inhumane, can we live with that? And by asking this question I'm of course identifying myself as a person who thinks that his own religion is not one of these. It's convenient to say that a person in such a religion living in a free country could just convert or relocate but the reality is that abusive communities tend to have systems in place to keep people in place. And even if the systems themselves didn't force people to stay, as our founding fathers said over 200 years ago, "all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed". If I can't stand idly by, knowing that some people in my own country are being abused in a way prescribed by their own religion, then I cannot support a system of government that allows true freedom of religion.
I think that when we talk about religious freedom we mean freedom within some bounds that are shared by most of us and by the founding fathers (and mothers). And I think that when we talk about religious tolerance we mean tolerance for anything that conforms to our basic values. Anything outside of these bounds might receive lip service when it's at a distance but I think we would not really tolerate it here at home.
I think we should be honest with ourselves and say, our religious beliefs are part of the state and we like it. We think it's good. We prefer our religion to other religions, we prefer our culture to other cultures. We want to keep it the way it is or make it better, in accordance with our beliefs of what better might be. Our beliefs, not others' beliefs.
The way I know that I live in a Christian country is that some states and counties forbid selling alcohol on Sundays, which is a special day for Christians but not for Jews or Muslims or Buddhists or many others. Yet I don't know of any state or county that allows selling only Kosher foods. In our constitution, Article I, Section 7, it is written: "If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law...". Sundays excepted - but not Saturdays! Since every 7-day week has a Sunday, any span of 10 days will include at least one Sunday and some spans will include two Sundays. Therefore, could not the founding fathers have simply said that the President has 12 days to sign a bill? They could have, but they were Christian, so it didn't occur to them. I do acknowledge some religious freedom, such as not being forced to go to church, and a very religiously permissive and accommodating environment in many schools across the country. So I am happy to say that I live in a free country, with our own special definition of free, and a tolerant country, so long as as I live within the bounds of the dominant culture.
I may prefer increased separation of church and state, and I may prefer more honesty about what we really do here, but I think I would not like for any religious group to have complete autonomy here. It's better for the world to be divided up for that sort of thing. Each land should have only one set of laws. I believe that these laws should be the minimum required for people to get along. In a country that claims separation of church and state, that minimum must be carefully considered.
We have our own set of values, American values. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Equal opportunity and treatment before the law based on merits, evidence, and without shallow discrimination on race, gender, religion, or age. Due process for justice. Safety. Privacy. Our sense of liberty has evolved since the writing of the Constitution - it used to mean just white people, now it means everyone. Our sense of equal opportunity has evolved - it used to mean just men, now it applies to men and women.
I think that we should have courage and say that anyone who shares our values and abides by our laws is welcome, and all others must find a home elsewhere in the world or face the consequences of breaking our laws, regardless of their religious beliefs. And I hope that our sense of separation of church and state will evolve - from limited separation to greater separation, to mean that we will secularize or abolish national laws that are specific to Christianity, keeping our American values and system of government separate from Christianity's specific beliefs and practices.
I believe that to create a government that truly allows freedom of religion, we would have to remove from it some of our core values and beliefs because they are uniquely Jewish and Christian. I believe that we wouldn't want to have such a government if we were able to attain it. I also believe that we are better off being honest with ourselves about what we do tolerate and announcing to the world that anyone who can conform is welcome, all others beware.
The religious values embedded in our government are exposed by our laws. Murder is not allowed, and government prescribes a punishment. Theft is not allowed, and government prescribes a punishment. Adultery is not allowed, and government prescribes a punishment. Buying alcohol on Sunday is not allowed in some states, and they prescribe punishments. At one time we even had a national prohibition on alcohol with prescribed punishments. These are distinctly religious rules and they favor the values of some people while discriminating against others. The special and holy day of the week for Jews is Saturday. A Jew should be able to buy alcohol on Sunday, but this is not the case in Arkansas, Georgia, Minnesota, and more. In some places we have laws prohibiting other kinds of business on Sunday and we pretend that it's for a non-religious purpose. I believe that a comparison of our laws to Christian religious beliefs and practices would show a very strong correlation. I believe the state of the union is not consistent with our claim to separation between church and state.
If our government truly allowed people of different religions to live their lives in accordance with their religious beliefs, then it would have to allow for completely different sets of laws as well as for laws governing interactions between members of different religions. I think that in order to get this right, it needs an abstract treatment with as few distinctions as possible. I propose the following distinctions: crimes against a person of the same religion, crimes against a person of a different religion, crimes against society or against the environment, violent crimes in each of these categories, non-violent crimes in each of these categories, and victim-less crimes. When I say religion I also mean to include in the discussion people who are atheists or who otherwise wish to set themselves apart from people of any known religion.
When a person from one religion commits a crime against another person of the same religion, should their religion and its institutions be solely responsible for administering punishment according to its own values and sense of justice? Do we all want that kind of autonomy for our own religion? Do we sincerely believe that each religion is a system of government and that they should all be allowed to function as designed in order to bring about some greater good?
If the religious punishment for said crime is murder, can we accept that? After all, if a person doesn't want to be held accountable to those laws they could convert to another religion. What if the religion has a punishment for converting away from it?
Does geography matter? If a person from one religion commits a crime against another person of the same religion, but this happens in an area dominated by a second religion, should the authorities there apply their own laws? Or the laws of the religion of the criminal and victim? Can we trust people from one religion to apply laws from another religion? I think not, mostly because the legitimization of justice requires people to believe that the administrators are experts in the law. So should the authorities send the criminal to his own people to be tried? There may be several nearby communities of that religion, so how would the local authorities choose to which community they will send the criminal to be tried? Should the local authorities contact the closest religious community of the criminal? Is it possible that community will refuse to accept the criminal for trial? Should the local authorities then try the next possible religious community or should they then try the criminal by their own laws? Should they keep the criminal imprisoned until they find a suitable court?
If a person commits two or more crimes before being caught, and one of them is against another person of the same religion but another is against a person of a different religion, should they be processed in the order they occurred? Or should they be processed in the order of their seriousness? Do we compare the seriousness of the crime or the seriousness of the punishment? Is it possible this order might differ for different religions?
If a person commits a crime against a person of a different religion, which law applies? Should the criminal be tried according his or her own religion or according to the religion of the victim? Allowing the religion of the victim to handle the crime could be a deterrent against people of a lax religion committing crimes with impunity against people of other religions. In such a system, ignorance of the law cannot ever be an excuse for a crime. People must know the laws of their own religion and, at a minimum, the laws of other religions that could have serious consequences, or else they must tread very carefully. Such a system might encourage a religion to develop very severe punishments in order to deter crimes against its members. Also, it is possible that some religions may have hypocritical laws, where they themselves distinguish between committing a crime against a member of the religion or against a non-member, and between a member of the religion committing a crime and a non-member of the religion committing the crime. If the religion of the victim has hypocritical laws, should the government demand application of the laws as if the criminal was a member of the victim's religion? Or would such hypocritical laws be abandoned in a system of government that already handles inter-religion issues?
What should happen to govern two people of no religion? Should the law should be applied as if they were from two different religions? So if the victim is a member of an atheist organization that is equipped to handle crimes, should the criminal be handed over to them?
Having multiple religious organizations, each with their own infrastructure for handling criminals, may result in a significant waste of resources. It may also allow a sort of denial-of-service attack against minority religions by committing many crimes in a short period of time against members of that religion and then turning over the actor-criminals for handling, overwhelming the judiciary capacity of the minority religion. Having multiple religious organizations handle their own criminal justice systems also means that some religions may be at a significant disadvantage when handling certain kinds of crimes. How would a religion that forbids certain technology or practice handle a crime committed using that technology or practice? They probably wouldn't have the forensic experts to discuss the evidence.
Should the government provide a complete criminal justice system and a national police force that handles temporary imprisonment and allows different religions to supply judges for their own cases?
If we were to change our government to allow such a large degree of autonomy to different religions, would we place limits on what can be considered a religion? If a group of people organize together and declare that they are following the teachings of some person, alive or dead, and create rituals and codes of conduct, and call it by some name, shall they be recognized as a religion and allowed the same autonomy as other religions?
If any of the religions have practices that are barbaric, discriminatory, or inhumane, can we live with that? And by asking this question I'm of course identifying myself as a person who thinks that his own religion is not one of these. It's convenient to say that a person in such a religion living in a free country could just convert or relocate but the reality is that abusive communities tend to have systems in place to keep people in place. And even if the systems themselves didn't force people to stay, as our founding fathers said over 200 years ago, "all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed". If I can't stand idly by, knowing that some people in my own country are being abused in a way prescribed by their own religion, then I cannot support a system of government that allows true freedom of religion.
I think that when we talk about religious freedom we mean freedom within some bounds that are shared by most of us and by the founding fathers (and mothers). And I think that when we talk about religious tolerance we mean tolerance for anything that conforms to our basic values. Anything outside of these bounds might receive lip service when it's at a distance but I think we would not really tolerate it here at home.
I think we should be honest with ourselves and say, our religious beliefs are part of the state and we like it. We think it's good. We prefer our religion to other religions, we prefer our culture to other cultures. We want to keep it the way it is or make it better, in accordance with our beliefs of what better might be. Our beliefs, not others' beliefs.
The way I know that I live in a Christian country is that some states and counties forbid selling alcohol on Sundays, which is a special day for Christians but not for Jews or Muslims or Buddhists or many others. Yet I don't know of any state or county that allows selling only Kosher foods. In our constitution, Article I, Section 7, it is written: "If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law...". Sundays excepted - but not Saturdays! Since every 7-day week has a Sunday, any span of 10 days will include at least one Sunday and some spans will include two Sundays. Therefore, could not the founding fathers have simply said that the President has 12 days to sign a bill? They could have, but they were Christian, so it didn't occur to them. I do acknowledge some religious freedom, such as not being forced to go to church, and a very religiously permissive and accommodating environment in many schools across the country. So I am happy to say that I live in a free country, with our own special definition of free, and a tolerant country, so long as as I live within the bounds of the dominant culture.
I may prefer increased separation of church and state, and I may prefer more honesty about what we really do here, but I think I would not like for any religious group to have complete autonomy here. It's better for the world to be divided up for that sort of thing. Each land should have only one set of laws. I believe that these laws should be the minimum required for people to get along. In a country that claims separation of church and state, that minimum must be carefully considered.
We have our own set of values, American values. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Equal opportunity and treatment before the law based on merits, evidence, and without shallow discrimination on race, gender, religion, or age. Due process for justice. Safety. Privacy. Our sense of liberty has evolved since the writing of the Constitution - it used to mean just white people, now it means everyone. Our sense of equal opportunity has evolved - it used to mean just men, now it applies to men and women.
I think that we should have courage and say that anyone who shares our values and abides by our laws is welcome, and all others must find a home elsewhere in the world or face the consequences of breaking our laws, regardless of their religious beliefs. And I hope that our sense of separation of church and state will evolve - from limited separation to greater separation, to mean that we will secularize or abolish national laws that are specific to Christianity, keeping our American values and system of government separate from Christianity's specific beliefs and practices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
