“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.  To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”

-Colin Kaepernick

I’ve heard a lot recently about how a professional athlete’s refusal to honor the American flag and anthem before a sporting event is probably the most indecent thing any American citizen can ever do.

I’ve heard it from friends, acquaintances, co-workers, and many multitudes I’ll never know through articles and social media posts.

To all those so quick to condemn actions they may not even understand, or worse yet, refuse to attempt to comprehend and see only the pale surface of what they think is going on I have a few things to say of my own, starting with this: Calm the fuck down.

If you are among the offended, which is your right incidentally, ask yourself a few simple questions to determine if your outrage is genuine or simply a product of our never-ending and ever divisive new media culture.

Question One: When watching a televised sporting event, or when listening to one on radio, do you demand silence from yourself and your viewing/listening partners for the duration of the anthem or pledge?

Question Two: Again, when watching TV or listening on radio, do you put down your beer or your bowl of chips, standing reverently in silence, hand over heart, staring at the televised image of the flag?

Question Three: Do you heartily condemn others as a regular part of your life when you notice them not honoring the anthem or pledge as much as you’ve done so in this case or do you give people “a pass?”

Question Four: Do you even own an American flag? And if so, do you display it, honor it, treat it reverently?

Question Five: Do you object to the image of the flag on sports helmets or uniforms?

(EXTRA CREDIT)

Question Four: Do you have any knowledge of the history behind the pledge, or the fact that “Under God” was only added to the pledge 50+ years after it’s original conception, and only then to bolster the “red scourge” of McCarthyism in American politics, a time of irresponsible witch hunts in American society?

Question Five: Were you aware that there are additional verses to the national anthem that specifically rejoice the subjugation of African-Americans?

I don’t really need to hear your answers to these questions, they are simply for you to reflect upon as you bask in your righteous indignation at one man’s refusal to honor a symbol in the same way you choose to. But I’m going to take a shot in the dark here and assume that (a) you don’t put down your beer or silence your football guests; (b) you don’t generally berate strangers who aren’t standing at attention during the anthem or pledge; (c) you’re probably not aware that flag code prohibits flag patches on athletic uniforms or costumes; and (d) that your actual knowledge of American flag and anthem history is limited to something you heard briefly in grade school. And actually, that’s all OK.

What isn’t OK is to demonize another American citizen for exercising their constitutional rights of freedom of speech, which includes peaceful protest. What isn’t OK is to fine a person for that same activity or to threaten their livelihood or personal security. Agreeing to disagree, even over closely held personal beliefs, without resorting to threats or violence or retribution….now that IS the American way.

America, while a fantastic country with immeasurable freedoms and remarkable opportunities, also has a dark and torrid history, especially for people of color which includes African-Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans, Latin Americans….basically anyone who isn’t a white male with a particular religious association. Sadly, much of the dark parts of our history are either ignored or glossed over in our schools. When confronted with this reality, the reality that America is not now, nor has it ever been a perfect example of humanity, some people ask how to make it better while others simply pretend the opposite is true. When given the opportunity to learn and understand the serious issues still facing our culture and to seek common solutions that live up to the spirit of the words in the preamble of our Constitution, some will shine a light on injustice while others will don shades.

This particular protest is not about dishonoring the people who fought in wars (some just, some not so much), or stirring up controversy for fame. It’s about one more man calling attention to a problem that never seems to go away in a way that will make some people take another look at what they believe and why they believe it. If your flag and anthem mean so much to you, if the freedom they purport to embody has any real meaning at all, understand that they hold the same freedom for everyone, they propose the same promise to us all, and that when the reality doesn’t match the rhetoric perhaps you too are obligated to call attention, to make a stand, to right a wrong. The symbols are meaningless if they are simply icons of blind allegiance.

Whether or not you agree with how a person makes a statement is less telling than how you react to their statement. If you do not understand their intent, ask for clarification instead of putting forth condemnation. We are all here together. We have a long ways to go towards perfection.

Far right religious institutions claim incursions onto their faith by the government where none really do exist. They seem to forget, or rather ignore the fact, that our constitution is a secular document, creating a secular government, where no religion has priority over any other in the public sphere of influence. Despite this, Christianity has an outsized role of favoritism within US government led institutions and laws that has existed since the early days of our nation.

Churches aren’t taxed. Religious schools and affiliated businesses are exempted from health statutes to excuse their desire to provide specific women’s health care matters. Traditional religious holidays are legislatively recognized national holidays. Every single politician concludes major speeches with affirmations to the Christian deity and many legislative bodies open sessions with prayers. Religiously connotated euphemisms are liberally laced into our common vernacular as to be ubiquitous.

It’s almost as if the far right evangelical wing of Christianity isn’t really concerned with following the professed teachings of their founder so much as retaining control over the lives of their congregants through fear, and attempt to rein in the rest of the country by proxy. This doesn’t sound like the religion of love and forgiveness so much as the religion of do what I say or pay the price. We see the extreme revelations of these kinds of religious doctrines playing out today in other parts of the world, under different banners, but with the same chilling underpinnings.

I’m not a Christian, but I’ve been around it in all its forms my entire life. I recognize that many, many followers do not ascribe to the darkest elements of their ministers. But they are the silent followers, the ones more likely to realize that their faith is just that- theirs, and not one that needs to be force fed to all. They eschew the proselytizing doctrine in favor of living by example. They seek not to control those they disagree with but rather to live in harmony and, in their words, “let God sort it out.” They accept equality for all regardless of color, creed, sexuality. They may reject elements of secular society for themselves while allowing others to make their own choices. And yet these voices aren’t the ones being heard and expanded by a media too eager to create divisions and stoke the sparks of foment.

Hear me now, you on the far right fringes of Christian faith- your fervent attempts to continue public policies that force a distorted value system on a nation created to extend fairness and equality to all people shall be seen by history as another darkness upon the evolution of humanity. Your ever louder cacophony of demonization and efforts to prop up the tyrannical voices of oppression in the name of your misguided interpretation of religion shall not win over the hearts and minds of mankind. You may bathe yourselves in the righteousness that your way is the only way to an afterlife of glory, but the rest of us equate your actions to those of any other zealots and we reject your efforts.

Your leaders in your churches, your supposed champions in politics, they are all using you as pawns to retain their hold on your minds and your wallets. They seek power through your hard work and sacrifice and what do you gain? In this world they keep you under their thumb, they offer excuses for your continued financial suffering, even while they spend your tithings on fanciful excesses of their own, yet they promise you eternal redemption which is neither theirs to give or decide upon, at least not under the teachings of your faith. Yet look at the overarching pillars that your messiah has laid out for you to follow: love each other, judge not your neighbor, seek peace, turn away from violence and hatred, let God decide who is worthy of eternity. These ideals are supposed to be left out of their hands, out of your hands, and into the hands of your savior.

Were these separatist religious points of view held in abeyance from the greater society it might not be much to worry about. Sadly, this is not the case. Your extreme religious minority has somehow hijacked one of the two major political parties in this country and in the attempt to wrest and retain political power, an entire generation of politicians now seek to pander to get your vote, to find earthly power and to hold it tight, and to punish the majority through legal machinations. Trust me when I tell you that these politicians don’t care about your religious beliefs so much as being in charge. They, and your highest religious leaders, are antithetical to the ideals your religion professes. They are everything your bible says they should not be. And yet you follow them to the pit of social upheaval, gleefully it seems, as if your earthly task is to punish rather than to prosper peacefully.

Now we are again at a crossroads in public life- a place where your deeply held religious ideals are being used to demonize your neighbors, your friends, your relatives. You are being asked, once again, to legitimize hate and bigotry and war. You are being told it is your duty to God to turn away from policies that promote equality and love and peace. You are being played against the ideals which are the foundation of your faith. And for what? For earthly advantage, something which should be furthest from your spiritual plane of interest anyhow?

I implore you to examine what it is you truly believe and then vote accordingly. If you truly believe that your faith demands you to deny healthcare to the poor, to withhold aid from the old, the infirm, the needy, to demonize people of different faith or gender or sexuality, then I suggest that you aren’t really a Christian at all and that you should continue to reward those who bastardize your faith for power and personal gain.

But if you reject hate and divisiveness, if you feel that your place is not to judge and condemn but rather to love and help others, then choose another path in the election booth. No matter how you feel about the human faces attached to the ideas, look at the ideas themselves. While neither major candidate is someone to embrace, the values they represent are what matter most. For once, you on the right side of the aisle, look deep into your faith to determine who best represents your morality and the morality of your savior.

Obama rightly debased the rationale of the previous administration for many of the actions they took over the last 8 years, but he did so in a way that was not (to me at least) designed to inflame partisan passions. Rather, he presented this information as a way to cause us to reflect on what America is supposed to be, how it was designed by our framers, and how it can be so easily derailed by weak minded officials faced with problems too big for them to handle and hard nosed ideologues whose only goal is to exert unopposable power without regard to moral and legal right and wrong. Obama also spread the blame for the savage departure from American values and ideals of the last 8 years to all politicians left and right-for the truth of the matter is that we, the American people, were let down on all sides by cowardly politicians and even more cowardly bullies. For 8 years, our elected officials threw out their responsibilities of due diligence and oversight in favor of political posturing. The actions, and inactions, of those who held elective office during the Bush administration and helped create the national nightmare or did nothing to prevent the fall into the abyss, has caused this country great harm both domestically and abroad. The blame is shouldered equally, and recent partisan bickering only further cements this as fact, for those who protest to their own defense most loudly are likely also those whose actions may seem most detestable.

“Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. And I believe that those decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that – too often – our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too many of us – Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens – fell silent.

In other words, we went off course. And this is not my assessment alone. It was an assessment that was shared by the American people, who nominated candidates for President from both major parties who, despite our many differences, called for a new approach – one that rejected torture, and recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.” (Obama-5-21-09)

Obama has a tough road ahead. Calls from the left scream for investigations and “truth” commissions. Calls from the right demand an “end to persecution.” This balance is hard to manage while retaining the desire to right the wrongs of American governance. But again, Obama takes the right path, for he is the president, not the judge and jury of this nation. While recognizing the wrongs committed in our names, he also understands that to rectify those wrongs requires a return to rationality and legal principals that this country was founded on. It is not for the president to declare guilt or innocence or to demand trials for grevious wrongs done in the name of “freedom.” That is why we have a Justice Department and a court system and a Congress with investigatory powers. By promoting direct legal action, Obama would be unnecessarily politicizing what is in effect a legal matter, albeit one that goes to the heart of what it means to be America.

“That is what I mean when I say that we need to focus on the future. I recognize that many still have a strong desire to focus on the past. When it comes to the actions of the last eight years, some Americans are angry; others want to re-fight debates that have been settled, most clearly at the ballot box in November. And I know that these debates lead directly to a call for a fuller accounting, perhaps through an Independent Commission.I have opposed the creation of such a Commission because I believe that our existing democratic institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability. The Congress can review abuses of our values, and there are ongoing inquiries by the Congress into matters like enhanced interrogation techniques. The Department of Justice and our courts can work through and punish any violations of our laws.

I understand that it is no secret that there is a tendency in Washington to spend our time pointing fingers at one another. And our media culture feeds the impulses that lead to a good fight. Nothing will contribute more to that than an extended re-litigation of the last eight years. Already, we have seen how that kind of effort only leads those in Washington to different sides laying blame, and can distract us from focusing our time, our effort, and our politics on the challenges of the future.

We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two opposite and absolutist ends. On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: “anything goes.” Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants – provided that it is a President with whom they agree.

Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist, and they don’t elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty, and care, and a dose of common sense. That, after all, is the unique genius of America. That is the challenge laid down by our Constitution. That has been the source of our strength through the ages. That is what makes the United States of America different as a nation.” (Obama 5-21-09)

At the end of the day, it’s not just what he says that marks this president as a class above his predecessor, but the way he says it, and the way he understands his role in American government. Obama embodies the difference between being president and being presidential- a difference as marked as that between being the class leader and the class bully. Perhaps the juxtaposition of these two quotes is the best illustration of all.

“I’m the decider, and I decide what’s best.” George W. Bush

“In our system of checks and balances, someone must always watch over the watchers – especially when it comes to sensitive information.” – Barack Obama

It’s nice to have a real leader back at the helm.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

If you ever watched Seinfeld, the title of this essay will immediately reveal the nature of the topic. For those of you who haven’t, this essay is about homosexuality and its quest for equal recognition under the law. As previously inferred in the essay Sex, Morality, and the Law, the practice of homosexuality in and of itself should not be, and is not, of any legal importance to the well being of society and as such, has no business being legislated. Homosexuals are no different from anyone else, except for their sexual preferences. They eat, breathe, work, sleep, think, feel, and love just as any other human being does. They look just like other people. They sound like other people. They are our friends and neighbors and family members. Yet for some reason, they are set apart from the heterosexual majority, as if they deserve less from this country and less from our laws.

What arguments exist that makes this segregation seem reasonable? Those who condemn the gay lifestyle typically use one of several justifications for discriminating against homosexuals: religion, nature, or family values. One of the oldest, yet still quite popular, justifications used is that of religion. Early religious doctrines outlawed homosexual behavior as abominations in the eyes of god, a concept based in part on the assertions that sex is bad, and though sex is bad, it’s okay if it makes more babies who will grow up and worship god. The corollary being that god only allows sex to make babies, and since homosexual activity will never result in offspring it is wrong. But more than just wrong, it is an affront to god to abuse his method for perpetual glorification by using the gift of life for mere pleasure. From this logic comes the dictum that homosexual behavior is a sin and should be outlawed.

The obvious flaw with this argument lays not so much in the description of how babies are made, but the idea that sex equals babies is universally held and therefore deserves legal status. But this is often the mistake with arguments based solely on theological reasoning, because the nature of our religious institutions prevent them from admitting any fault with their religious doctrine, keeping them from recognizing the contradictions within their own holy texts regarding the treatment of people as free individuals while insisting that their actions are free only if god doesn’t object, which he pretty much always does. Since the religious argument’s only justification is to please god, which is highly subjective, this argument is not sufficient for denying legal status and must be dismissed.

In a similar vein, those who would argue that homosexuality “just isn’t natural” have a hard time making that claim stick. Their main premise is identical to the religious premise, only without the god part. Basically, the argument relies on the notion that sex is basically a procreative behavior, and that sexual encounters that can’t possibly produce offspring are therefore against the natural design that clearly gave male/female opposites the complimentary parts for achieving this end. Though less judgmental regarding the pleasurable effects of sex, this only applies to heterosexual behavior, being fringe benefits for helping nature run her course.

The problem with this argument is that when it is examined further along the lines of “natural design,” it could be argued that homosexuality in itself is of natural design too. After all, if humans are creatures of nature, then our variations are natural as well. If among these variations one results in homosexual behavior, then isn’t that by natural design also? As it must be so, then homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality or bisexuality or even asexuality. The mere fact that homosexuality constitutes a minority of the population is irrelevant in this context, since the percentages are also set by natural design. If we know anything about the natural world, it is that in all species, variation abounds. This argument actually proves itself wrong when allowed to run a logical course, so it is not sufficient for denying legal status and must be dismissed.

That leaves us with the last ditch effort to find a reason for justifying the segregation of homosexuals and equal recognition under the law. The “family values” argument. This argument begins with the premise that for children to be raised to become productive citizens, the family unit should contain a man and a woman. This is the most important facet of the family values argument. As long as there is a man and a woman together as parents, the family values requirement has been satisfied. Since homosexual couples can’t meet this requirement, the can’t become a “real family.” Since a “real family” is the only way to properly raise children, for the good of society, all legally recognized families must be of this basic design.

The family values argument pretends to preserve the family unit, but makes no other real efforts towards solving the actual problems in today’s families. What is more harmful to the cohesion of family units: divorce or two parents who love each other and want to stay together, but happen to be the same sex? Which is more damaging: the lack of parental participation or having two moms’ at the mother/daughter tea? Which is more debilitating for a child: an abusive natural parent or seeing his two dads’s kissing? The family values argument makes no real effort to encourage heterosexual families to create and maintain secure, stable, emotionally supportive families for children, which would better reflect the concept of valuing the family. Instead, they only seek to prevent homosexuals from participating in one of life’s great joys and endeavors, the task of parenthood. Because the real truth about the family values argument, the dirty little secret, is that this argument is based on plain old bigotry, dressed up in its finest clothes. It’s discrimination in its purest form and when it’s hypocrisy is revealed, it proves to be the least sufficient for denying legal status and must be dismissed.

As this leaves us with no other arguments that can justify the unequal legal status homosexuals currently endure, it is the duty of this government to remove any barriers that prevent homosexual couples from enjoying the same legal status heterosexuals have with regards to marriage, adoption, taxes, work benefits, and on and on. Science seems to support the assertion that homosexuality is a natural occurrence, something hardwired into a person’ genetic code. Religion and bigotry (not always the same, mind you) insist that it is simply a behavioral issue that can easily be repressed or reformed or outlawed into extinction. The scientific view has more going for it, in terms of common sense, and it has the added benefit of not legislating religious morality by proxy.

Removing the barriers for homosexual couples has no effect on individual couples’ relationships. How many people do you know that would throw away their hetero relationships the minute gays could get married because now their own marriage was worthless? Allowing gay people the chance to share thei
r life with someone they love does not weaken the bonds of monogamy and child rearing. It only adds to the number of people finding individual happiness together and passing that happiness to future generations. And it strengthens the bonds of society through the continued affirmation in the belief for freedom and equality for all citizens.

The religions that guide humanity tend to teach us that life is sacred, something to be cherished and protected. These religious beliefs hold that life is a gift from God and it is only God that can determine when a life should end. For many religious individuals, the concept of taking ones own life is usually looked upon with great disdain, and the act of suicide promises eternal damnation in the ever after. There are no exceptions to this rule, no provisions for those whose quality of life has been degraded by health concerns or by circumstances that delete all happiness from life itself. (Readers may note that some forms of religion are currently encouraging suicide as a means of political expression, with their goal to take as many “infidels” to the grave with them as they can. I assert that the people who commit these types of suicidal acts are not doing so to relieve their own suffering, but rather are murderers.)

Despite modern advances in medical technology, there are people among us who’s lives become either too painful to continue living or that are, due to an unrecoverable illness, not worth waiting for the inevitable, at least in their estimation. Shouldn’t those individuals have the right to choose an end to their lives that would afford them the least amount of continued pain? According to the laws of society, the answer would be no. But does the prohibition against suicide, in all forms and under any circumstances, truly represent the values of a society based on the concepts of personal freedom and personal happiness? Does society even have the right to determine what constitutes happiness? Provided that the ending of ones own life does not also cause the end of another’s, what right has society to dictate when an illness renders life unlivable?

While it may be true that for cases of depression, suicide is often less a desire to end life than it is a cry for attention, for those suffering from a fatal illness, the desire to end life on ones own terms is often a well thought out decision to reduce the pain that their illness is causing themselves and their family. Society has the duty to respect these desires and to allow the suffering individual a legal option for ending their life, without punishing them or their survivors through punitive or criminal means. Society has the obligation to allow individuals, their families, and their physicians the option of bringing an end to their suffering in a way that is acceptable to them. With that in mind, laws prohibiting suicide for the terminally ill should be amended or abolished altogether.

Terminally ill people, should they decide to end their lives in order to spare themselves the increasing physical pain of illness or their families the mental pain of watching a loved one deteriorate before their eyes or their survivors the financial ruin often associated with the long term medical costs of prolonging a painful illness, should be allowed the option of ending their lives in a manner of their choosing, if they so decide. There should be counseling programs available that educate these folks on the least painful methods of ending their lives as well as offering ways to mitigate the anguish of their survivors. With the diagnosis of terminal illness, a person has many choices to make, and the fear of financial or legal retribution for themselves or their survivors if they decide to end their lives should not be among those that dictate what path they choose to take. This decision should rest with the affected person, their doctor, and their family.

Similarly, removal of legal restrictions regarding this kind of suicide would prevent the actions of disinterested parties (government) or non-nuclear family relatives from artificially prolonging the life of someone rendered incapable of making the final choice to end their life. Today’s Living Will provisions could be strengthened to include the circumstances whereby a person could assert the desires of a loved one to end life in cases of severe incapacitation, provided those directions were clearly set out prior to the cause of permanent injury, regardless of the religious prohibitions of other family members or the possible future medical remedies that may be years or decades away, if they ever appear at all.

Opponents of the concept of the right to die most often insert their religious doctrines into their reasoning for their objections. But just as often, opponents cite fears of suicide or euthanasia becoming just a means to rid society of the elderly and the infirm. They claim that terminally ill individuals will be pressured into prematurely ending their lives to spare their families the financial costs associated with long-term terminal care. However, due to the religious beliefs that are held by so many, the instances of this kind of practice would likely be only a small percentage of those suffering from terminal illness. Just as with other relaxations of so-called morality based legislation, the mere legalization of an act does not mean that many millions will choose this as a course to follow. In fact, Oregon’s Death with Dignity law (the nation’s first legal assisted suicide law) shows statistics of only 129 cases of this kind of suicide from 1998 to 2002. Surely, many more than 129 people were diagnosed with terminal illness in Oregon in those years. The argument is hollow when the facts are revealed. Simply making this option available does not mean that it will become the preferred choice for those facing imminent death.

Suicide is never an easy decision, and in cases not related to terminal illness, society has the obligation to try and treat those whose suicidal thoughts stem from depression or temporary malcontent. But for those whose time has run out, or is running out, due to disease, properly crafted laws that allow them to choose death on their terms would go a long way towards ensuring that the right to die is included in the other “inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

This is not to say that sexual behavior should not have some restrictions that become codified into social laws. But it is important to remember that sexual norms are a constantly shifting paradigm, varying from one culture to the next and from one era to another. While certain prohibitions regarding sexual behavior are necessary for the well being of society, these taboos should reflect a sense of social safety needs, rather than religious values. Criminal sexual behaviors such as rape, child molestation and non-consensual sexual acts are abhorrent forms of expressing ones sexual desires because they deny the rights of the individual or take advantage of one who is not in a position to make an informed choice regarding the contact. These acts are, and should remain illegal, carrying serious consequences to those who violate the legal codes and inflict their sexual desires on unwilling victims.

Any other regulation of sexual behavior should not rise to the level of illegality simply because one or another religious group feels that it should be. To do so inflicts the moral values of one upon another and denies people the freedom of choice to experience sexuality as they see fit. For most people, sexual behavior does not remain static throughout their lives, since as their own goals for finding sexual partners changes, so too do their views on appropriate sexual behavior. As such, society has no right to dictate what constitutes acceptable sexual activity beyond those acts mentioned above.

In that vein, it seems ridiculous to have laws prohibiting acts like prostitution, adultery, consensual sodomy, oral copulation, homosexuality, and even displays of nudity when in the privacy of your own property or the property of like-minded individuals. Indeed, most sexually related laws stem from a puritanical religious morality rather than from any actual threat to society at large. Furthermore, such laws, many of which are wholly unenforceable, only serve to congest the legal codes and processes, waste precious public funds for spurious enforcement, and detract the public from issues that more appropriately belong in the public realm.

It’s not surprising that our most popular forms of entertainment- movies, music, television, and literature- are filled with sexual innuendo. After all, sexual behavior has many positive benefits, such as the ones listed at the beginning of this essay. What is surprising is the double speak with which society addresses the disparity between what we show and what we allow. It seems as if society is saying on one hand that sexuality and sexual behavior is okay to display in fictional or commercial terms, but not in actual, practical, real life situations. This dichotomy leads to confusion among the young who are experiencing their own sexuality for the first time as well as creating an environment for harmful sexual behaviors among the adult population.

A better solution would be to repeal all sexual laws except for those directly addressing rape, molestation of children, and other non-consensual sexual acts that actually infringe on a persons physical security. Society may have the right to create restrictions regarding appropriate locations for sexual activity and perhaps the authority to mandate age restrictions for consensual sexual activity, but not much else. I can hear the moralists begin to stammer now, with protestations about the impropriety of certain acts that, if legalized (or at least de-stigmatized), would likely lead to wide-spread orgies in the street, dehumanization of women in general, and random acts of sexual mayhem. But such statements are, of course, ridiculous. Simply making an act legal does not ensure that all public decency would be thrown out the window. The moral guidelines for sex should be passed down within our homes and churches, not in our legal codes, thus allowing people to choose what is acceptable to them without restricting the actions of others. And, comprehensive, factual education should be implemented regarding the physical and mental consequences of engaging in sexual activity before one is emotionally able to accept the results of sexual practices

So what are the benefits to society if sexual laws are repealed? For starters, the decriminalization of prostitution would allow for its practitioners to join the public workforce in a constructive manner, leading to an increase of taxable employment and a decrease in enforcement, prosecution, and incarceration costs. These funds could be funneled back into the public coffers to help pay for social programs and governmental obligations. The relief upon law enforcement would allow them to better spend their time protecting society from violent criminals instead of harassing sex workers. It would also protect those in the sex industry from the unscrupulous practice of sexual slavery by removing them from the dominion of pimps. Eliminating the stigma attached to the world’s oldest profession and requiring sex workers to engage in mandatory physical check-ups could improve public health issues. This might also reduce the instances of forced sexual activity by providing people a legal option for obtaining casual sex.

The elimination of adultery laws, admittedly rarely enforced already, would allow single people to enjoy and experiment with sex without having to commit to a serious relationship before they were ready, leading to a decrease in failed relationships borne from social pressure to “get hitched before getting it on.” The removal of taboos on certain sexual practices would free people to enjoy their sexual preferences without being ostracized. Relaxing the bans on public nudity, in appropriate locations, would negate the feelings of shame that many wrongly associate with evil but instead is the natural state of the human body. And proper education could limit the instances of teen pregnancy, which in itself contributes to a multitude of societal upheaval.

We should leave it to parents and pastors to impart sexual morality to their children and let society provide the educational material necessary to make good sexual choices. Leave it to individuals to discover what sexual behavior best suits their needs at a given point in their lives. Reduce the social stigmas attached to sexual activity and you increase the odds of couples engaging in healthy sexual behavior that is conducive to the creation of stronger intimacy and personal ties. And attach certain social and legal obligations to any sexual behavior that results in the creation of new life, ensuring that with sexual activity comes the responsibility to properly take care of that new life.

Much like the laws against drugs, laws against sexual behavior only assure that more people will attempt to push the envelope of healthy behavior and act in ways that are more harmful to themselves and to society in general. Only through their elimination coupled with comprehensive education can we guarantee that people are able to experience individual freedom without draining the public resources or encroaching on the most personal behaviors of us all.

Today we have the War on Drugs. Though not enacted through a constitutional amendment, our prohibition on the use of some drugs has had the exact same result as the prohibition on alcohol, only more so. According to the Federal Prison Bureau, nearly 60% of convicted inmates are serving sentences for non-violent drug offenses. According to the DEA, nearly 40 million Americans use some type of illegal drug each year. In 1995, the federal government spent over $13 billion just for enforcement of the nations drug laws. This figure does not include the costs of incarceration, treatment programs, or arrogant foreign policy. Nor does it take into account the number of families torn apart by the arrests of people whose only crime is ingesting something into their own bodies for their own sense of pleasure. Despite these draconian figures, drug use has remained fairly constant, with the only real negative effects being those caused by the laws themselves Obviously, there is something seriously amiss in these policies.

I could write pages and pages regarding the historical and political machinations that have been employed to create the current state of drug laws in this country, but several good works have already documented these facts. (You can find some of this yourself at www.druglibrary.org or by reviewing The Emperor Wears No Clothes by Jack Herrar, among others.) Instead, I will discuss how the current anti-drug regime contradicts the notions of common sense governing and inhibits personal responsibility and freedom. Suffice it to say that the War on Drugs has become a marriage between religious morality and big business and is more about maintaining money and power than about public safety. Drug laws are arbitrarily applied and lacking the scientific and practical evidence necessary to back up the claims used to maintain their illegality. In fact, the current regime of drug laws creates a self-perpetuating cycle by making criminals out of ordinary citizens for the purpose of rationalizing their very existence. And the economic windfalls realized by private incarceration, treatment programs, defense lawyers and testing centers exert pressure on the politicians to maintain the status quo.

Why then do we allow the current drug laws to remain? Study after study shows that the application of drug laws is unevenly enforced. Sentencing of drug offenders is not commensurate to the act, especially when compared to the penalties given to violent criminals. Our overburdened prisons and overtaxed public finances can’t keep up with the demands created by these drug laws, and the loss of otherwise productive citizens from the social and economic grid creates staggering consequences for families and business alike. Further, potential harmful effects of drug use are infinitesimal compared to the harm caused by legal drugs like alcohol, nicotine, and pharmaceuticals. While I can concede that on an individual level, drug abuse can have grave consequences for the user and their close family members, on a societal scale, drug use is of no concern to a free nation, except when it causes great harm. In that context, the real criminals are the drug laws themselves.

The only logical answer is to follow the same course that ended the prohibition of alcohol. From both a social and political standpoint, the eradication of the War on Drugs provides a way to strengthen moral values without legislating them, while reducing the drain on government funds and the strain on society.

From a social standpoint, decriminalization of drug use and sales would put an end to the scourge of broken families that incarceration creates. The stigma surrounding drug use would lessen and the user would no longer have to feel threatened or need to hide from society because their actions would no longer carry criminal penalties. Similarly, drug manufacturers and sellers would no longer stand to make great profits through the underground market, thus eliminating the criminal element from the economic side of drugs. Society benefits through the reduction of street gangs vying for territory and market share, creating safer neighborhoods for everyone. The absence of criminal status would further reduce the instances of people using drugs simply because they were taboo, because the element of danger would be eradicated as would the so-called “coolness” factor that accompanies such actions.

On the governmental level, the amount of tax money saved by the reduction of enforcement, prosecution, and incarceration costs could be funneled into educational efforts that provided honest information to students regarding the effects, uses, and potential problems associated with drug usage, as well as providing a proper social context for their use. Further, the legalization of drugs would allow for increased tax revenue to be generated by the creation of a new legal product that could in turn be used to fund social programs that benefit everyone. Also, the need for ever increasing prison space would become a non-issue, allowing for violent criminals to be kept incarcerated until such time as they could be rehabilitated rather than releasing them back into society due to lack of prison space.

For those who claim that legalized drug use would lead to an increase in crazed individual’s who would be more likely to commit crimes to support their drug habits, I would support strict criminal penalties for anyone who commits a criminal act while under the influence of a drug, much like we do today with the alcohol laws. Through increased public education, without the propagandized scare tactics, citizens would grow up knowing that drug use as a recreational endeavor is not an excuse for unacceptable or dangerous, anti-social behavior. Finally, by allowing drugs to be sold in the open market, society could regulate the quality, potency, and purity levels of a given drug, much like we do with alcohol, tobacco, and the legal pharmaceuticals today.

While the use of drugs may seem morally unacceptable to some people, that is not reason enough to maintain a legal prohibition. The War on Drugs has proven itself to be ineffective at preventing drug use, financially unsupportable and wasteful of tax dollars, and constitutionally questionable with regards to personal freedom. It has created a violent sub-culture of distributors and manufacturers and has caused otherwise productive citizens to become a drain on the social coffers. Never mind the implications of legislating individual morality; these reasons alone are enough to put an end to it.

First, it is important to understand that while many of our founders followed some tenet of Christian faith, they recognized the importance of maintaining a separation between religion and politics. By creating this separation between the Church and the Government, they were trying to ensure that certain religious tenets would not be the driving force behind the creation of legal codes. This common sense approach to religious tolerance in the midst of religious diversity showed a distinct maturity of thought. Their creation of the independent judiciary and their charge of it to ensure that the laws of the land were impartial to all, regardless of religion, was another stroke of genius on their part, and lucky for us. For in today’s religiously charged political and social atmosphere, such a foundation would not necessarily have been included.

Secondly, in order to fully appreciate the proposals that I am to set forth, it is absolutely necessary to recognize that our religious differences, while important to many, are not in themselves sufficient to create and enforce social norms or laws. In any government system that purports to recognize certain individual freedoms as innate and irrevocable, the freedom to worship a god of your choosing is just as important as the freedom to engage in certain behaviors that others may find reprehensible, so long as those behaviors do not present a danger to society.

And thirdly, since each of the worlds major religions profess to be the only true and accurate religion for humanity, it is wholly impossible for all of them, or perhaps any of them, to be one hundred per cent correct. Simply asserting that one’s own god is the true and only god does not make it empirically so, nor are the religious texts that accompany each religion and provide that religion with the rules of god able to be empirically attributed as having come from the mouth and mind of god itself. The mere fact that religious texts are filtered through the mouths and minds of men ensures that some distortions will be present and some prejudices included.

Morality then, in both a religious and legal form, is a kind of double-edged sword. As members of society, we can agree on the morality of certain acts and create laws to prohibit them. Such acts like murder, theft, and rape are moral issues that transcend most religious beliefs and can therefore safely be legislated. The Christian religion, or for that matter the Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or any other religion, does not have any sovereign claim to these kinds of moral issues, as they are readily accepted by most of humanity as being wrongful acts that need to be outlawed. But other beliefs and actions are not universally held, and therefore can’t be legislated without trampling the freedoms of others, despite the perceived religious prohibitions against them.

In accepting these facts, we can only conclude then, that any laws that reflect moral judgments other than the ones overwhelmingly accepted by a near universal majority should not be included into our legal codes. So, in creating a society that respects individual choice and freedom of expression, it is imperative that we agree to remove certain behaviors beyond the reach of legal justice and instead agree to disagree on their eternal consequences, if any exist at all.

Before I go on much further, let me make clear that I am not decrying the role of religion in our world, nor am I implying that our laws have no basis in religious history. To do either of those things would assure you that you should read no more of what I have to say because I would clearly be a fool. Religion, of some kind, is one of the few, near universal conditions of mankind. To deny its role in the daily lives of people is ridiculous. Many hundreds of millions seek and receive some kind of guidance and comfort through the practice of their religious beliefs. But these beliefs should continue where government ends, providing answers to eternal questions and providing spiritual relief when there is little in the physical world. In fact, it is these very aspects of religion that make it such a varied and complex system. And that complexity assures that society will never see eye to eye on certain behaviors. But rather than criminalize these behaviors, we should work together to minimize those behaviors that offer the greatest possibility of individual harm; rather than legislate with religion, we should educate with facts.

As such, it is time to take religious based morality out of the political equation. Our country is not a theocracy, nor was it intended to be one. We have enough to agree on, and enough to improve upon, that to waste our time on bitter debates about personal behavioral matters serves no purpose other than to allow ourselves to be divided unnecessarily and to keep the politicians wheeling and dealing out of sight. But agreeing to take these issues off the table, so to speak, is not to abandon your own personally held beliefs. I think that everyone should be encouraged to believe in their religion, to practice their religion, and to teach their religion to their children and others who are interested. But this does not mean that your religion should become governmental rule. We have to accept the fact that everyone doesn’t believe in all the same things, and that it is these differences that should be most respected, so that your beliefs are respected in kind.

With those thoughts in mind, my next several essays will examine the impropriety of the current illegality of drug possession and use, prostitution and consensual adult sexual behavior, gambling, suicide and euthanasia, homosexuality, and abortion. I will explain why our government has no need to insert itself into these types of behavior, except where they infringe upon the safety or financial security of society in general. Further, I will show how the current imposition of laws in these areas needlessly expend tax resources that could be better spent to promote general social welfare or reduce the public tax burden.

In so doing, I am in no way attempting to altar your own personally held religious views on these issues. Rather, I am asserting that your religious views, even if shared by thousands of similarly minded people, can not be forced upon the public simply because your holy texts say they should be. To do so would be a total contradiction to the freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution and conveyed upon all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof. This doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be guidelines for public behavior, and some consequences for individuals who allow their personal peccadilloes to become public hazards. We should have some rules regarding proper conduct in public. But if we really want to move forward and repair the rift in our country we must remember these rules first: Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you; and, live and let live. Meaning, if we can’t overwhelmingly agree on whether a moral should be law or should remain in the religious realm, we shouldn’t be too quick to force our religious beliefs on the rest of society.

Unfortunately, in our legal system today, civil matters often fall to the wayside when it comes to getting their fair day in court. Because our criminal courts and civil courts are combined, and because criminal matters are tantamount to keeping society safe from abhorrent activities, civil matters often get pushed to the end of the line when it comes to getting them resolved in the court system. The result is a multi-year process for resolving civil complaints, driving up the costs for individuals and delaying disposition of the matter at hand. This frustration can lead to individuals taking matters into their own hands, creating the potential for civil matters to turn into criminal matters. This is a cycle that has to come to an end.

Just to be clear, when I refer to “civil justice,” I am talking about things like contract law, property disputes, product liability, family issues, community ordinances, building codes, malpractice, and other activities not specifically covered by misdemeanor or felony criminal codes. These are the kinds of legal issues that ordinary people deal with when they encounter the court system. But because of the structure of our civil court system, individuals that attempt to right a wrong against them are faced with an astounding challenge, both financially and legally. Our civil codes are filled with nuances of procedure that enable lawyers and large, financially secure corporations to draw out the process and essentially bleed an individuals ability to gain justice by driving up costs. This creates an inequity in the system that is supposed to be available to all citizens. Further, the number of questionable legal suits brought into the system by citizens and businesses needlessly clog the courts, creating a backlog too large to get through in a timely manner. Justice should be fair and efficient, or it is hardly just at all.

So what can be done to make our civil justice system more responsive to the needs of society? The first step would be to establish two layers of civil justice: one layer that deals with disputes between individuals only, and another that handles any disputes involving businesses and government. The need for this is simple; individual disputes are often less complicated to resolve, and therefore don’t require all of the accoutrements of a full-blown legal trial. Rather than be held hostage to expensive attorney fees, overbooked court calendars, and endless delays, personal civil disputes could be remanded to binding mediation, similar to what is available in many areas today, but with a few changes.

This type of mediation would be required for any disputes that could result a possible financial reward under a defined dollar amount or to resolve other, non-financial problems. A three-member panel of ordinary citizens who serve in that capacity for a defined length of time, and then are rotated out and replaced (similar to convening a jury pool) would hear disputes. Each party would represent themselves at mediation and agree to be bound by the panel’s decision. Panels could be established based on population numbers so that there would be plenty available to handle disputes in a timely manner. This would allow for all citizens to have access to mediation for minor civil disputes without having to pay high court costs, filing fees, attorney fees, or having to wait for an extended amount of time for redress. Decisions would be final, eliminating endless appeals and allowing people to move on with their lives.

In addition to speeding up the process for resolving minor disputes between individuals, binding, mandatory mediation would result in lower overall costs associated with the legal system, and greater participation of the citizenry in the legal process, furthering each persons understanding of the necessity of involvement with societal needs.

For civil matters involving businesses, government, or for individual disputes with a higher potential financial reward, civil courts should be established that are independent of the criminal court system. This is necessary to increase the speed with which these kinds of disputes can be resolved and thus avoid the high costs associated with these types of trials. Like the criminal court system, civil courts can be established at the state and national levels, housed in the same buildings, and sharing the same procedural guidelines. The state courts would be responsible for solving disputes between parties residing in the same state, while the national courts would work on matters that involve parties from different states. A national set of procedures and rules would govern how the courts would operate.

In order for this type of division to work, national civil codes would have to be enacted, similar in nature to the national criminal code, so that every citizen, business, or government entity would understand what kind of conduct was acceptable and what would likely result in being brought to court. Unlike our current cadre of civil codes, these would not vary from state to state, but would be consistent throughout the country, except in cases where geographical concerns dictated slightly different policies, with similar restrictions regarding what constitutes illegal civil conduct. Further, appropriate guidelines for jury awards should be developed to put an end to outrageous awards that tend to get passed on to the public through higher costs. Finally, any type of pre-trial settlements involving product liability, malpractice, or governmental misbehavior should be made public to prevent the same actions from occurring over and over again. Privately made back room deals should not be allowed, preventing non-disclosure contracts that keep the public from being aware of potential problems resulting from poorly made products or policies.

While it has become commonly accepted that the only way to get someone’s attention is by hitting them in the bank account, civil justice should not be viewed as some sort of lottery pool, whereby individuals can strike it rich by claiming damages or concocting dubious claims. Verifiable economic damages should be shown before awards are handed out. Potential economic damages should be based on statistical averages based on the harm done and the loss of potential economic earnings, if appropriate. Intangible damages should be handled in other ways if possible. More importantly, parties on the losing end of civil trials should be made to rectify their errors by correcting the problems that led to the court action. They should be held accountable for repairing and replacing the faulty products, rewriting poorly thought out policy, or standing by their written contractual agreements.

The final piece of the puzzle concerns the legal profession itself. Rather than act as public servants, lawyers have gotten a negative reputation by reaping in more than they recover for their clients and by elongating the legal processes in order to drive up billable hours. The whole point of having legal representation is so that individuals don’t have to learn all the fine points of law in order to stand up for themselves. Simplifying the codes would go a long way in eliminating this problem, but so would limiting the amount of a winning party’s award that a lawyer could claim. This is not to say that attorneys should work for free, but as an integral part of the justice system, they have a duty to advocate for the individual more than they have a right to get rich.

The integrity of the justice system depends on its opacity and its ability to produce equal justice for all parties involved. It should operate on the least amount of money possible while maintaining its integrity as a bastion of truth and honor. In any democracy, the rule of law is one of the pillars of strength by which that democracy will stand or fall. If society can’t look to its justice system and feel confident that anyone, at anytime, can find recourse within it, then it is a broken system and could lead to eventual mayhem. We are edging ever closer to a system that is jaded and increasingly viewed with suspicion. This is not justice at all.

To begin with, it is important to recognize the fact that current legal codes are often infused with religious morality issues that are not equally recognized by all individuals and not evenly applied to all citizens. This almost guarantees that our laws create criminals simply by the fact that they exist as laws. Any national or state legal code should reduce the number of criminal acts to include only those acts that are nearly universally accepted as harmful to others, regardless of religious or personal spiritual beliefs. Such acts would be clearly accepted and recognized by all citizens as just laws enacted to reduce instances of harm to others or society as a whole.

Such acts as have been described in previous essays would include the obvious crimes of murder, rape, robbery, assault, destruction of property, destruction of the environment, fraud, kidnapping, counterfeiting, bribery of public officials, immigration violations, and the willful disregard for the safety and well-being of others. We have laws dealing with all of these actions now, and it is hard to argue that the existence of these laws is anything but just. Still, there is room for reform within these laws that can lead to their being strengthened to better protect society and hopefully reduce the frequency of their being ignored.

Take our laws against murder, for example. It is widely accepted that the action of ending the life of another person is a criminal act in all cases except for self-defense or during the execution of legal military operations. But, in an effort to account for the variety of ways in which a person can end another’s life, we have created laws that include varying degrees of murder, each with different penalties ranging from a death sentence to less than a year of incarceration. This system can be manipulated in such a way as to appear to lessen the severity of the act of murder from one of depravity to one of mere carelessness. Society is not better protected from those who would commit murder by having such divisions in the legal code, but rather the criminals are insulated from the seriousness of their actions.

I use murder as an example to demonstrate a point. Murder, or the ending of another’s life, is usually considered to be the worst of all possible crimes. The horror it brings to the victim and the pain it unleashes onto the victims families is among the hardest to imagine. How then, can the taking of another’s life have different degrees of depravity? To me, it is irrelevant whether a murder is planned in advance, occurs during the commission of another crime, or is the result of completely irresponsible and thoughtless behavior. A life is still extinguished, a family is still left behind, a child may grow up without their parent, or a mother may bury her own child. Murder, unlike accidental death (which can occur through acts of natural disaster, medical complications, or unforeseeable chain reactions), can be avoided simply by not killing someone or by not performing acts that could reasonable lead to someone getting killed. As such, murder laws should be reformed to include any act that causes the death of another person through negligence or by purposeful design. The only exceptions for taking another’s life would be instances of actual self-defense, where your own life, or that of another, is in danger of being taken. Period.

Similarly, the legal codes for rape or sexual battery, serious assault, willful destruction of the environment, and kidnapping, among others, should be rewritten to exclude the various levels of severity, as these crimes reduce the security of society in addition to irreparably harming the victims of those crimes. By eliminating the different levels of criminal severity, society would be sending a message that these kinds of acts are intolerable and would receive the harshest punishments. There would be no wiggle room for the convicted criminal to move away from the consequences of their actions, and could result in less instances of these acts occurring.

Some criminal behavior though, can be stratified, depending on the amount of harm that is actually done. Non-violent criminal acts such robbery, destruction of property, fraud, immigration violations, counterfeiting, and bribery are not all equal in nature and so some classification is in order. Still, these crimes are anti-social by nature, and demand to have their place in any criminal code that is established. And, as they are all serious in nature, in that they affect a persons financial livelihood or society’s stability, they should be limited in their classifications to just a very few divisions, based upon either the value of the financial destruction or the amount of societal upheaval that results in their having been committed. These divisions would determine whether an individual would be tried under the national laws, state laws, or in some cases of minor petty theft or property destruction, at the local level.

Absent from a revised legal code would be any restrictions on how individuals treat their own (non-living) property or their own bodies. This would necessarily include laws that prohibit voluntary use of drugs or alcohol (unless their use results in harm to someone other than the user), laws pertaining to consensual sexual activity between adult individuals, suicide laws, and laws that mandate specific personal safety requirements. These kinds of laws are established not so much in an effort to keep the whole of society safe, but rather to regulate behavior that is morally objectionable to certain portions of society or to save society money by reducing instances of physical harm to the individual. Rather than create established legal codes to prohibit these behaviors, society can reduce their instances through honest educational efforts about the possible harm that can occur to individuals engaging in these behaviors. Further, certain legal waivers and restrictions can be created that will release society from incurring the costs that may occur when these behaviors lead to individual harm. Citizens wishing to engage in these acts would have to take full responsibility for any harmful individual effects that may result due to their participation in these activities. Society should also establish stiffer than normal penalties if citizens engaged in possibly self-harming actions commit of an actual crime.

All other acts not established as national or state crimes would necessarily fall into the category of misdemeanor, civil violations, or non-criminal, and could be amended by future generations.

Such a common sense approach to creating laws would have several benefits to society: reduction of confusing criminal code and streamlining existing violations; better enforceability of the crimes that remain; reduced costs for enforcement by redefining what constitutes criminal behavior; and a consensus regarding criminal behavior versus non-criminal behavior.

The actual revision of the legal codes can’t possibly be discussed completely in just one essay, but I think that the basic tenets for reform are here. Common Sense should be the hand that guides the reform movement when making the actual changes. And it is important to remember that we are only discussing criminal legal code in this essay. Other legal codes have to exist to regulate civil behavior of corporations and individuals that provide a basis for non-criminal public conduct in order to ensure that the needs of society are met, but these too should be limited in scope. Reformation of the civil justice system will be the topic of my next essay.