The War On Bullshit

Recently, a police officer has engaged me in a debate about whether police are justified in using Tasers on individuals who nonviolently refuse to cooperate. I think we all agree that anyone who attacks a police officer deserves the asskicking that follows (most of the time); however, the issue is murkier where the “perpetrator” gives no threat or indication of violence, but simply refuses to comply. The aforementioned police officer argued that police are totally justified in use of force were civilians are noncompliant; I disagree.

It seems a major assumption underlying this argument is whether or not John Q. Public should trust the police by default. A major tenant of the justice systems in western countries seems to be that the police are trustworthy. This is bullshit. Here are 5 good reasons civilians should not be expected to trust the police.

1. Rodney King. History speaks for itself. So do videos.

2. Legalized Entrapment. In New York, police leave purses with credit cards in them lying around and cart off to jail whoever picks them up whether or not he or she intended to return the purse intact.

3. “No-knock” warrants. Man hears someone break into his house. Man gets 18-month-old daughter down on the ground, hides behind bed. Man sees armed assailant break into bedroom, shoots and kills him in self defense. Assailant was actually officer who didn’t bother yelling “police!” upon busting in. Man is now on death row.

4. Extraordinary rendition. If the US government suspects that you might have information that could lead them to someone who might be a terrorist, they can kidnap you out of an airport, deport you to a secret location in another country and torture a false confession out of you. This is not a conspiracy theory: Washington has officially apologized to a Canadian citizen treated in this manner. Hello thought police.

5. Legal ignorance. Whether or not you support open carry laws, if the law says that you can walk around carrying a gun, the police should know that and not hassle you. In many places, you are not even required to give police identification but try telling an officer that.

Conclusion

Obviously, this doesn’t mean that there aren’t any good cops. All I’m saying is, at the group level, assuming that everyone should trust the police and always cooperate doesn’t make sense in the face of historical and current events. Why should I trust a group of people known for violating individual rights, not knowing the laws they’re supposed to uphold and inciting unnecessary violence?

Related Articles: 5 MORE Reasons Not To Trust the Police

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights defines freedom of religion as follows: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.”

The constitutions of many nations (for example: Canada, USA, Germany, Britain, etc), grant their citizens the right to freedom of religion (FoR). In a previous article, Six Reasons to Burn the Bill of Rights, I suggested that FoR was neither good nor possible. To be more specific, freedom of religion encounters two problems 1) freedom of religion is impossible, and 2) limited versions of freedom of religion cause social problems. Here are 8 reasons freedom of religion should not and cannot be granted.

NOTE: I am not saying that all religious people are bad or that any particular religion is bad. This is a philosophical discussion about the ethical/legal notion of freedom of religion, not an attack on any particular religion.

1. Freedom of religion is inconsistent with itself

A simple thought experiment supports this point. Freedom of religion implies that each individual has the right to choose what, if any, religion s/he practices. Suppose part of practicing a religion involves indoctrinating (i.e., brainwashing) one’s children into one’s religion before they have developed the analytical thinking skills to choose a religion (if you can’t think of a religion that does this, look to your own). The contradiction should be obvious: if society allows the brainwashing, the child’s right to freedom of religion is violated; if society disallows the brainwashing, the parent’s right to FoR is violated. Because granting freedom of religion creates this logical contradiction, freedom of religion is impossible.

2. Freedom of religion is inconsistent with itself - AGAIN

FoR implies that people will not be discriminated against based on their religions. Again, a simple thought experiment reveals the difficulty: suppose a religion mandates discriminating against other religions. If you allow members of religion A to discriminate against members of religion B, you violate the rights of members of B. If you disallow said discrimination, you violate the rights of members of A. Thus, yet again, FoR creates this logical contradiction and freedom of religion is impossible.

3. Freedom of religion is inconsistent with itself - ONE MORE TIME!

FoR says that anyone can change your religion anytime. What if one’s religion forbids changing to a different religion (or says your family is to kill you if you try). Here again, whether or not changing religions is permitted, society violates freedom of religion.

4. Reasonable limitation to freedoms impossible

To summarize the above three points, FoR is impossible because religions violate the clauses of FoR. Often, a free society is considered one in which people can exercise their rights as long as they don’t violate the rights of others [quote UDHR]. So you might be thinking, that the above points are invalid, because people can have freedom of religion and just keep it to themselves and not interfere with others. I’m sorry, religions don’t work that way. Society doesn’t get to say, “you are free to practice your religion as long as we approve of it.” That’s not freedom of religion. Religions involve the systematic manipulation of others, especially children.

The above reasons explain why freedom of religion is impossible. Even if it were possible, (or if I haven’t convinced you) here are some reasons freedom of religion is socially undesirable.

5. Immoral Religious Practices

Some African religions practice scarification and female genital mutilation. The latter is among the most despicable practices I can imagine. Many religions actively subjugate women and persecute homosexuals. Many people argue that the Jewish custom of circumcising babies is immoral, citing evidence that penile sensitivity is reduced in circumcised men. Islam recommends beating children and, in some interpretations, killing those who renounce their faith. Many religions support forced marriages (a euphamism for continuous legal rape. Freedom of religion means permitting religions practices whether or not you agree with their morality, and I for one am not OK with this. Now, you might argue that people shouldn’t be able to break the law in the name of religion, but they would argue back that any law that violates their right to practice their religion should be struck down as immoral or against the country’s constitution. Dear US Citizens, how do you feel about the neighbors mutilating their children because the so-called brilliant founding fathers said freedom of religion is a basic human right? Dear Christians, if you think that all the immoral religious practices belong to other religions, go reread the above discussion of brainwashing children. And if you think that following your religion cannot be immoral because the religion defines morality, read the next section.

6. Religion corrupts notions of morality

I’m not going to present arguments for this, I’ll let various religious texts speak for themselves, and the reader can make up his or her own mind.

“Thus saith the LORD, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt: And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts. And there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt…” (Exodus 11:4-6) - God executes the premeditated mass murder of innocent children of innocent parents to punish their rulers. Sounds like terrorism to me.

“whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words… It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.” (Matthew 10:14-15) - God will destroy anyone who does not listen to Jesus and his disciples - do you listen to homeless people ranting about God?

“Allah chargeth you concerning your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females” (Quran 4:11) - Men should get twice as much inheritance as women.

“tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or
… or their slaves” (Quran 24:31) - their slaves???

“for it (America) is a choice land, saith God unto me, above all other lands” (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 10:19) - God prefers the USA to all other countries.

7. Religion as a human rights blank cheque

Societies go to a lot of trouble trying to figure out what rights, freedoms and privileges to bestow on citizens. Then comes FoR. Religions are made by people. More specifically, religions contain sets of practices, mandated by people. When a society grants freedom of religion, it grants the creators of religions the power to make up whatever additional rights they want. If your religion says you can’t work on Saturdays, then forcing you to work on Saturday is illegal. What if your religion says you have to burn large wooden crosses and have a public orgy once a year? What people seem to forget is that religions are just sets of practices and beliefs that some individual made up. By granting freedom of religion, you write people a blank cheque to make up their own rights. If you don’t think some whacko can just invent his own religion, you might look into the Church of Scientology…

8. Atheism associated with better societal health

So here’s an interesting idea: religious leaders sometimes try to demonize atheists by arguing that atheism is associated with disintegrating morals in society, but the evidence is all to the contrary (Zuckerman 2005) (http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521842709):

“High levels of organic atheism are strongly correlated with high levels of societal health, such as low homicide rates, low poverty rates, low infant mortality rates, and low illiteracy rates, as well as high levels of educational attainment, per capita income, and gender equality. Most nations characterized by high degrees of individual and societal security have the highest rates of organic atheism, and conversely, nations characterized by low degrees of individual and societal security have the lowest rates of organic atheism. In some societies, particularly Europe, atheism is growing. However, throughout much of the world – particularly nations with high birth rates – atheism is barely discernable.”

While this does not demonstrate that atheism causes societal health, it dismisses the myth that atheism somehow undermines society.

Conclusion

Freedom of religion is impossible because it is inconsistent with religions themselves. Even if it were possible, it would be folly because religious practices have the potential to be, and often are immoral and barbaric. When theists argue that lack of religion causes societal degradation, their claims are simply groundless. It makes no difference whatsoever whether you think these are fair criticisms of your religion. If you think any of the points above could apply to any religion that currently exists or could exist in the future, the argument still holds.

The recent swell of support for US Presidential candidate Ron Paul is astounding. And I can see why: he’s anti-war, anti-torture, anti-taxes and anti-government-screwing-with-individuals. In other words, he’s not a sadistic, subhuman, nut-job radical like Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney. But when you probe a little deeper, and I just mean read the Wikipedia entry on his positions, you might be vexed. Here are 10 disturbing political positions of Ron Paul.

For: Constitutionalism

While I think most would agree that ignoring your county’s constitution like the Bush Administration is a bad idea, being a staunch constitutionalist is equally dangerous because the constitution is an historical document that gets out of date. Sensible countries rewrite their constitutions once in a while, but we all know the USA is not a sensible country. Doesn’t it seem reasonable that some things that made sense centuries ago might not make sense anymore?

For: Gun Ownership

The arguments for gun ownership are bogus. In the U.S., the second amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” For you gun-happy rednecks out there, I’ll try to put this simply: Since a well regulated Militia is no longer necessary for U.S. security, the right to bear arms must be re-evaluated. As for the “I have the right to defend my family argument,” has it occurred to anyone that if the bad guys think you have a gun, they’re a lot more likely to shoot you then if you they think you’re unarmed? Increasing the number of armed civilians does not act as a deterrent, it just escalates the cycle of violence. I dare you to show me just one scientific study that shows that having a gun will deter a crackhead from robbing you. There is just no evidence that people are safer in a gun-toting society, and it’s no good to point at safe gun-happy societies because that does not show causality.

Against: Federal Department of Education

I don’t know if anyone’s noticed, but the US education system SUCKS. I don’t give a damn whether the constitution says education is a state matter, the system is broken and needs to be fixed. Education is a global concern so I don’t see why it can’t be addressed at the national level. While I agree that this No Child Left Behind thing is a joke, that’s no reason to scrap federal education programs.

Against: Separation of Church and State

Now this is just stupid. Tolerant Christian society is an oxymoron. Religions are intolerant by nature: they set out a bunch of rules, supposedly derived from God, and then do not tolerate violations. Besides, if the church is going to have some say in government, which church will it be? Catholic? Anglican? Methodist? Mormon? Quaker? How about all of the above? How the hell is that supposed to work? What about the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs? They have just as much right to vote and participate in the pseudodemocracy as the Christians? Why not throw in a few reps from the Church of Scientology? If Tom Cruise could speak in the senate at least the viewership might improve; we’ll just need to bring in a couch.

Religion has no place in politics. Religion plus politics equals the crusades, witch trials, persecution of minorities, subjugation of women and laws against blow jobs. Oh it all sounds good with all the talk of God loving you and a few days off for Christmas, but wait until you get a few laws against birth control, premarital sex and oral. Then see how you like.

For: Voluntary School Prayer

Ron Paul says if people want to pray in school, let them. That sounds good right? Wrong. Allowing prayer in school will quickly stigmatize anyone who does not pray when their classes do. This facilitates the brainwashing of children into a particular religion. If you inculturate a child into a religion before the child has fully developed critical thinking skills, freedom of religion (or freedom of thought for that matter) is impossible. This is precisely how Islamic terrorists are developed. I suppose you rednecks out there somehow figure that brainwashing children into Islam is bad, but brainwashing them into your religion is OK. Would it surprise you to learn that many Muslims think the same thing?

Libertarianism

A libertarian (like Ron Paul) is someone who believes that everyone should be free to do as they please, as long as they don’t interfere with the rights of others. This has some cool consequences, like how corporations would not be permitted to pollute the air or neighboring properties. Unfortunately, Libertarians generally promote free market capitalism. A simple thought experiment shows why this is folly: the free market treats everyone fairly in the sense that everyone can bid their money, goods and services for the money goods and services of others, e.g., if you want police protection or medical care, you can pay for it. The problem is that not everyone can bid, particularly children and people who have not yet been born. Thus, under a free market structure, future generations are subjected to the myopic despotism of the current generation. Because the impacts of environmental destruction are long term, the people who will be most affected can’t bid (they’re children or not yet born), and environmental impacts are undervalued by the free market. The underlying assumptions of free market capitalism are quite obviously invalid.

For: Privatized (Free Market) Health Care

Privatizing healthcare is evil. Here’s just one reason: children born to rich parents get good care, and children born to poor parents get no care. Would anyone like to stand up and argue that the medical care provided to a sick child should be determined by the income of its parents? I didn’t think so.

Against: abortion

Opposition to late term abortion I understand. Opposition to early abortion I do not. If life begins at the moment of conception, then practically every woman who is trying to conceive is a mass murderer because not all eggs attach. This doesn’t make sense. Why don’t people understand that when a woman doesn’t want a baby, there’s usually a damn good reason?

Pragmatically speaking, abortion is beneficial to society. Economist Stephen Levitt (author of Freakonomics) became famous for showing that the legalization of abortion caused the rapid decrease in crime in the US in the late 90s. Moreover, one of the greatest threats to the continuation of the human species is overpopulation, so a few less babies is probably a good thing.

For: Withdrawal from the United Nations

I cannot fathom why Ron Paul wants out of the UN. Someone please enlighten me so I can annihilate the argument.

For: Federal Regulation of Marriage

Why is it that Ron Paul wants to get rid of federal regulation of education, taxes and Homeland Security and just about everything else, but not marriage? Why is it that Ron Paul thinks people should be able to do what they like, unless they’re Gay? Same sex marriage does not interfere with anyone’s rights, so how in the hell can a self-confessed libertarian be against it? This doesn’t make any sense, unless Ron Paul is just anti-gay.

Conclusion

Come to think of it, I don’t think there’s anything in the U.S. constitution that denounces hate speech, Nazism, burning a cross on a black person’s lawn, bribing a judge or child pornography. Do you endorse these things Ron Paul? If not, why should we have laws about child porn but not prayer in schools? Child porn is a bad thing, but religious brainwashing of children leads to ethnocentrism, terrorism, global conflict, persecution of women and gays and countless murders. Not even child porn can compete with that for evil.

How do you make up your mind, Dr. Paul, when the constitution doesn’t comment? Can’t you see the terrible consequences of massive deregulation in a country full of radicals, rednecks, racists, right wing whackos, warmongers and Bill O’Reilly?

To all you Ron Paul supporters, are you sure this is where your country ought to go?

On to Part Two –>