We Don't Need Simple Answers To Complicated Questions

"I think we need to re-evaluate our gun policies. We can consider imposing stricter gun regulations without throwing out the spirit of the second amendment."

"Well, where does it end? If you outlaw a certain type of gun, or limit a magazine, that's all well and good in theory. All law abiding citizens follow that. What of the criminals? How are you going to enforce that law? Go house to house? You can't be so naive!"

Perhaps you've had a similar conversation in which you propose an idea that would objectively make the world safer or better overall only to have someone respond with an hyperbolic, dooms day what-if scenario that's ultimately one big red herring.. And it's concluded with 'you're just being naive'. When did thinking big picture become naive? When did proposing an idea become 'why don't you have a complete action plan fleshed out?' I feel this has become a popular tactic for people who see the world as black and white to dismiss positions that they disagree with. Why is this? When did 'being a realist' become a viable option? When did realists ever change the world?

I get tired of outlandish hypothetical situations being drummed up in response to perfectly rational observations or proposed solutions to serious societal problems. I've come to the conclusion that it's the last gasp of a failing argument. They can't dismiss the validity of the proposed policy, but they hold onto their preconceived notion of what's right and wrong. So they ask how you would enact said idea. This question is not without merit. Certainly, eventually, you need to come up with an actionable plan, but often times this is not the goal of the objection. The goal is to render the proposition as only being viable in some liberal, socialist, utopian, hippie commune. And it's summed up with that one word: naive.

The problem is laziness. Humans want a simple solution. The problem is, in our current society, we don't have the luxury of simple solutions. We are faced with complicated problems. Abortion, stem cell research, individual freedom vs. the greater good, gun control. These issues aren't solved by a quick glance and a one liner. They take real contemplation and real debate. It's what the proper application of ethics and morality are about. We don't get the answers from a book. We don't get the answers in an hour or a day. We don't get them from our friends. They take thought and they may require adjustments along the way. We should embrace the evolution of laws and accept that the road to the right answer is a long one. It's not easy and it shouldn't be. Would it be worth it if they were? To be a realist is to resign to the fact that there's nothing you can do. To be a realist is to know the right answer and give the wrong one in the name of expediency. To be a realist is to give up. The solution to complicated questions is to acknowledge that they aren't black and white. I would rather gradually obtain the correct answer through increments than to come to the wrong answer because it's the answer at hand. That type of thinking actually prolongs our journey to solving problems. Don't be afraid of solutions that require effort. There's an objectively right answer for every moral question. There has to be. One answer always provides a more positive outcome than the next. You may not have the ultimate answer now, but be 'naive', think big picture, and one day all of us will get there. But, certainly, for all our sake, don't be a realist.

A Happy Solution

I was thinking recently about the controversy surrounding the placing of a “cross” made of steel beams in front of the World Trade Center memorial and it occurred to me: Why, in the name of tolerance, cohabitation and fairness to all belief systems, haven’t we come up with a symbol to represent all humans, regardless of faith, that we can display even in the government sector? Instead of having to include either all symbols of faith or none at all, we could display this all-encompassing sign of unity and love. Wait! I know a sign like that! It is a symbol, representing all humans, that emphasizes secularism and cultural pluralism; completely representative of the values of the United States of America (sounds patriotic, too). The sign I would like to propose is, of course, the Happy Human associated with the philosophy of humanism. With this symbol, we could end this destructive conflict and rule the galaxy as father and son… I mean…we could avoid tedious lawsuits and controversies related to religion in the government sphere. We could honor the memories of everyone, no matter their faith. This could be one more step towards eliminating unneeded divisions among humans. It’s okay. You can say it. Genius!
Humanism is defined by dictionary.com as "any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values, and dignity predominate". I like this particular definition because it is broad enough to be all-encompassing. A symbol of humanity cannot be too narrow, or it will cease to incorporate all humans. The goal is to make life better for humankind. Human rights, equality, elimination of poverty and hunger, and the showing of mutual respect are of universal importance. Every human, no matter his or her special religious beliefs, can subscribe to such an ideal. The problem I have with organized religions is exactly that they establish norms and values that are too narrow; and therefore end up excluding people who have different opinions. There are some norms and values that just don't need to be dictated. Our society does not need any more divisions. We need universal value placed on solving real problems. Fighting to make an exclusive religious symbol the symbol of society is a step in the wrong direction.

Atheism, Antitheism, Secularism, and Woo

"Atheism and secularism are increasing in each new generation." A fact long acknowledged by nonreligious and religious alike, it is a statement that provides encouragement to countless atheists around the United States. We're a threat AND we're growing! But are polls and statistics being misinterpreted and, consequently, are the numbers being inflated by including people that don't belong? I recently came across an article on AlterNet entitled "Goodbye Religion? How Godlessness is Increasing With Each New Generation" in which the author, Adam Lee, attempts to explain the reasons leading to atheism's growing popularity, especially in recent decades. While the increasing numbers within atheism are undeniable and atheists should be excited about the future, the studies, facts, and ambiguous, sometimes conflicting terms used in poll questions seem to bring anything but clarity to this topic. As I read this article and others before it, I can't help but wonder if false correlations are being drawn from polls and studies which unintentionally muddy definitions of important terms and then, in turn, are combined with other similar, yet unrelated studies to produce the perception that atheism is ascending faster than it really is. The specific problem I have with this article (which you should have read by now, it will make it easier) is that it takes one study citing growing numbers of young people identifying as atheist, agnostic, and nonbeliever, a second study outlining the 'nonreligious', and yet another discussing the rate of young adults leaving the church, and wrapping it all into an expanding atheist movement.

The article posits that social liberalization is the main catalyst for the observed drop off in church attendance amoung young adults. Greater tolerance and support for issues such as gay rights, marriage equality, and reproductive rights have led to a growing distrust of the authority of established religions.  Statements such as "polls find that most common impressions of Christianity are that it's hostile, judgmental, and hypocritical" and "it's no surprise that people who've grown up in this tolerant age... simply walk away" accurately illustrate the growing disconnect between churches and modern, progressive thought. But does that really translate into atheism? Possibly, in many cases. But in most? I'm not convinced. For instance, a statistic is presented that "91% of young non-Christians say that Christianity is 'anti-homosexual'." Okay. What does that mean? Outsiders will view other religions negatively regardless and if it's being suggested that many of these are EX-Christians, and taking into account that only 25-30% of twentysomethings identify as having no religious affiliation, there appears to be quite a gap in the numbers becoming atheists. Additionally, evangelical Protestantism has fallen to 17%, according to Lee. These numbers raise an important question. Are young adults fed up with religion or religious institutions? How many times, have you encountered an astoundingly tedious argument from a theist who explains that he agrees with you about the negatives of organized religion only to claim some absolute trust that there is still a god. All the while, he has no knowledge of what his holy book says, what experts and scholars say about his god, and just how much more complicated he has made the existence of said god without any outside reference whatsoever. Dissatisfaction with religion does not necessarily break people of their religious habits. It has simply forced them to come up with yet another answer they don't have. It has caused many to embrace a wishy washy, vague, 'spirituality' that can't be pinned down or quantified.

Catholics seem to be one of the Christian denominations getting hit hardest. With abusive priests, issues with contraception, an AIDS epidemic in Africa, and an overall losing of touch with modern society, who can blame those fleeing for something that makes more sense? But, for me, the statement, "One in ten American adults is a former Catholic" with a majority citing discontent in the church's teachings only conjures up memories of encounters with ex-Catholic-now-liberal-Protestants or ex-Catholic-now-self-taught-Christians who feel free to cherry pick Christian teachings to fit their own conscience and rattle off some distorted message reminiscent of something one would hear at Haight-Ashbury. The bottom line is we need to recognize that much of conservative religious dogma is simply driving people towards new age, woo-woo spiritualism as they try to bridge the gap between their own progressive ideals of equality and justice and the archaic ones from their church, promoting divisiveness and bigotry.

Lack of belief and opposition to established religions are two completely different matters. As stated by Lee, "Seventeen percent of Americans say they have no religion," and "between 25% and 30% of twentysomethings today say they have no religious affiliation." The difference in those two statements should not be ignored. Young people are, in fact, more tolerant when it comes to LGBT rights, abortion, women's rights, and so on. They recognize the oppressive teachings coming from conservative Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim leadership as well as anti-gay rhetoric spewing from the evangelical right for the hateful, antiquated worldviews that they are. This does not seem to dimish a belief in an all loving god. It only draws people away from 'man-made religion, corrupted by bad people'. I was recently told, rather condescendingly, by a believer that my atheism can be explained by the fact that I'm simply angry (as he is) because of what 'organized religion' has done to societies around the world throughout history. Yeah! That's why I call myself an antitheist in addition to an atheist. There is a difference. One deals with belief, the other deals with actions. Obviously, the two can be mutually exclusive. As is secularism. Lee concludes by attributing the falling numbers of churchgoers to the "secularizing wave" that's sweeping the U.S. This, in my opinion, is the most important aspect of any movement concerning religion in this nation. Separation of religion and government. But that's all it means. Secularism does not mean atheism. Or skepticism. Or rationalism. These words should not be used interchangeably because, as we have seen, it confuses matters a great deal.

Many of us have been in too many discussions with theists who have no connection to a church or even the Bible, who dredge up utterly meaningless statements like 'Jesus was about peace', 'God is love', 'God is energy', 'I just believe in Jesus'. And that's it. Can I honestly be asked to believe that all these people leaving the church are miraculously losing their faith and becoming staunch advocates of skepticism? Or should I instead take into consideration the countless, unfounded, bullshit claims thrown at me more often than not? I think the most important thing to keep in mind when attempting to interpret these trends is to keep the studies in context and to understand how poll questions are worded and how that can effect the answers. Is religious attendence on the decline? Yes. Is atheism on the rise? No doubt. But, are christians with some unrecognizable self defined spiritualism on the decline? I'm not so sure. Don't get me wrong. I love the fact that I will be dealing with fewer claims of mysticism and magic the older I get. Religion will have less and less influence as the years pass. But, let's not be too hasty in claiming everyone who doesn't go to church or has a beef with the religion they grew up in as an atheist. Let's keep things in perspective. And keep pointing out the flaws in their arguments.

When Dealing With Lobotomized Baboons, Pick Your Battles

By now, most people have heard about The Response, Texas governor Rick Perry's prayer and fasting summit that will be held on August 6th at Reliant Stadium. The Response is a specifically Evangelical Christian meeting organized to save our nation's economy and society by appealing to Jesus for a solution. Yeah. Jesus. Apparently Rick Perry has looked at the current economy and said, "I've got nothing." The Response is mostly funded by the American Family Association, a racist, bigoted organization that blames the Muslim and homosexual communities for society's ills. This group has been labeled as a hate group, equal to groups like the Ku Klux Klan, by the Southern Poverty Law Center for their comments concerning the LGBT community. The AFA hosts numerous radio shows nationwide, notably one by Brian Fischer, who has blamed homosexuals for the Holocaust. Simply look up Brian Fischer and The American Family Association on Youtube should you be inclined to subject yourself to the astoundingly hateful rhetoric spewing from this organization. Rick Perry has remained unfazed by the criticism of his involvement with this organization.

This article, however, will not delve into any of these matters. The problems caused by the AFA and it's followers are plainly obvious to anyone with half a brain. The issue I have is with the Freedom From Religion Foundation, an organization I often support. Last week they filed a lawsuit against Rick Perry attempting to stop The Response from occurring. The FFRF asserts that Rick Perry has violated the First Amendment, specifically the Establishment Clause by promoting and participating in this event. They claim that Perry's participation in the event gives the impression that the government endorses evangelical christian beliefs over other religious beliefs. His video inviting all citizens to join in prayer was shot from the Texas Capital and is posted on the governor's website. Additionally, they seek to have the use of the Texas state seal in promoting the event to be ruled unconstitutional. While Perry is using private funding to pay for this event, these actions are indeed a violation of separation of church and state. And that's the problem with this lawsuit.

Perry's promotion and participation concerning this event obviously push the boundaries of the establishment clause where secularists are concerned. The problem is they don't necessarily break the letter of the law, but they certainly clash with the spirit of the law. My fear concerning this lawsuit is that it doesn't have a 'smoking gun'. This isn't a slam dunk case. The problem that arises is when these types of lawsuits get turned down. Every time a case involving the establishment clause has a ruling against it, it sets a legal precedent. This stands in the way of stronger lawsuits in the future. An example of this is several of the Michael Newdow cases concerning the mention of God in the pledge of allegiance and on U.S. currency. Even extremely liberal justices ruled against him simply because courts had previously determined these religious statements to be constitutional.

I fear this case is overwhelmingly weak. The Establishment Clause does not prohibit a politician from holding religious beliefs as well as speaking about them. In my opinion, Rick Perry's video promotion is a violation of the first amendment as long as it is posted on the official governor's site. Does this, however, differ from the President of the United States proclaiming a national day of prayer? That case, also filed by the FFRF, is still being appealed. Will a lower court judge take this into consideration? You'd be a fool to conclude otherwise. The problem here for the FFRF and the rest of us, is not that Perry violates the First Amendment. It's that it's not a strong enough case to risk a precedent being set against us.

This is where the FFRF has gone wrong. In being overeager to do what's right according to the Constitution, they have risked setting their own movement back. When a government official blatantly violates the Establishment Clause, by all means, take them down. But when it's something as trivial as a governor of a state posting a video on his website, please for your own sake, stay quiet. Yes, you're absolutely right. The Constitution has been violated. This is a disgusting, shameful abuse of office by a politician and a nauseating display of arrogance by a fundamental Christian. But you most likely won't win in the current political climate and in the current society in which we live. Go for the cases you're absolutely sure of, not the feel good long shots based on principle. The chance to make a statement is not worth the chance of setting precedent that will hinder your mission in the future. Please, for everyone's sake, pick your battles more carefully. 

Having said that, here's hoping Rick Perry goes down... and goes down hard.

Why I'm a Progressive Democrat...

When one looks at the two predominant parties in our system, as say an independent or as someone who cares very little about politics, you may think they are two sides to the same coin. One might assume that if our current governing system is the center of the political spectrum that each party is only slightly to the left or right of that dividing line with Democrats to the left and Republicans to the right, and that both sides for the most part like our government. This, however, is not the case.

Despite the rhetoric you hear from the right saying that liberals are the ones that hate this country, the Republicans despise almost everything about our government. Republicans demonize taxes and government spending. They don't care about a social safety net (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) or health and safety organization like the EPA and FDA. They hate any and all regulations put on private industry with regards to polluting, fair business practices, or working conditions. They don’t like the concept of public schooling and hate the idea of giving grants for education and research.

Democrats on the other hand, feel that while some Americans will make more money than they will ever need to live several lifetimes, a large portion of the population will not have millions of dollars saved up for retirement. This is why we have decided as a country to ensure that past a certain age you will not have to worry about working to keep food on the table or cover increasing medical bills. And for those who get the worst life has to offer, Medicaid will make sure you don’t have to suffer needlessly. They understand that private industry has proven that it cares more about a bottom line than providing safe food and drugs, or keeping the water and air clean. They understand that education is an important and fundamental right of every citizen.  They also feel that this education should be based on honest and relevant topics without biased agendas.

Republicans want to cut the knees out from under the government.  They say they want to cut taxes, cap the deficit, and balance the budget. This sounds like a good idea from a simple numbers standpoint.  But let’s not forget how we ended up with our deficit and doubled national debt in the last 10 years. First we took a budget surplus and decided to cut taxes, instead of pay on the national debt. Then we decided to enter two wars without finding a way to pay for them. We deregulated the banking/lending system that led to a housing bust, and had to bailout companies that were deemed too big to fail. The slumping economy then hit the auto industry, which required its own bailout. Understand that with roughly the same government spending on social programs we turned a budget surplus into a deficit. Now republicans want to blame the deficit on the social programs that have been in place and working for 70 years. The Republicans are using this economy and our current budget issues, as well as the ignorance of the population on the topic and its history, to scare the country into slashing away all we have worked hard to accomplish as a whole. They want to make it really easy to cut taxes, but impossible to raise them. Republicans think all government spending is bad aside from national security, of course.

Democrats understand that the national debt in the short term is not a problem. In reality government debt creates a stable investment for everyone. This is because the government historically has always paid its bondholders. Government bonds are the most reliable investment available.  Bondholders range from pension funds to private business looking for a steady reliable return. This will not be true if we decide not to raise the debt ceiling. Deficit spending has been the model for economic recovery since the great depression, and it works. You have to spend money on things like infrastructure, so that when you come out of the recession you are a stronger country. Democratic government spending has spearheaded many of the major technological advancements in this country. Think about the following list of achievements that were only possible by government funding: The Transcontinental Railroad, the Interstate Highway System, the Hoover Dam, the Panama Canal, the Space Race, and the Internet.  Every one of these projects has benefited private sector job growth. No private entity has the capital or longevity to benefit from these as privately funded project. The government has the longevity and stability to accomplish any goal of any size. Why is it bad to think that health care reform should be our next space race? Why should we cut social security so millionaires can get a tax cut? Why should we let our bridges and highways deteriorate so we can fight a war we never should have started? Don’t be fooled, Republicans want you to think they care about your financial well being, and that if we shrink government it will magically get better.

Another way of seeing how the two differ is by their respective news outlets. Conservative news media is about scaring you into voting for the Republican Party. They bully guests and interject warped reality into almost every situation. It always boils down to how the liberal progressives are out to destroy the country. They are often angry, ignorant maniacs like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, or Rush Limbaugh. These people don’t just disagree with their democratic counterparts, they hate them. Conservative media will often exaggerate, mislead, and even lie to make a point.

The reality is liberals don’t want to destroy the country; they only want to work to make it slightly better than it currently is. Republicans want to destroy the very essence of this country, our government. That’s not an exaggeration. Ask them if they like the size and role of our current government. Then ask yourself: Has it ever done anything negative to our economy or our way of life? Of course some will argue that liberal media is just as biased as conservative media, to which I say, maybe, but hardly ever are they misleading or untruthful. Having a political opinion is far different from spinning the facts to fit that opinion. I challenge anyone who thinks that MSNBC is just as bad as Fox News to actually sit down and watch it. You may be surprised. Although, if you lack even the slightest bit of empathy, you may not.

Finally, the Republican Party has made it almost impossible for a sane, honest, educated person to run for office under the republican flag. As a Republican you are not allowed to compromise for the greater good. Politics isn’t about having a rock hard ideology and never wavering from it. Raising taxes can be a necessary agenda if we have out of control deficit. Regulations on private business are usually helpful in preventing the exploitation of workers, consumers, and the environment. Gun control has its place, and can be done in a way that still preserves the second amendment. Healthcare is and ought to be a fundamental right for all Americans. And sometimes the billionaire who helped you get elected may not be worried about the best interest of the people. The next time someone tells you that raising taxes on the rich will cause them to leave the country in search of lower taxes, I say let them go. They won’t find another country as great as ours to live in, one that cares about all its citizens, not just the rich ones. A country built around a strong supporting government. A country that cares about education, clean air, and clean water. A country that can look at scientific facts about global warming and be proactive in trying to preventing a global catastrophe. Or at least that’s the country I hope we live in.

What's Going On Here?

Welcome to Communication Breakdown! This is a blog created by three people who fear the responsibility of providing a sufficient amount of content individually. Together, the three of us, one guy from Austin, Texas, one from College Station, Texas, and another from Denver, Colorado will come together to create one whole blogger! We are liberals, atheists, skeptics, and all around evil, secular progressives, among other things. Our primary aim is to provide not so humble musings on politics, religion, and the interaction between the two, although other unforeseen topics are certain to pop up. So, thank you for checking out our blog and we are on our way in getting our first posts out. We hope you enjoy this blog and find it entertaining and thought provoking!