Democracy is a concept of government whereby the general population consents to abide by rules of society set in place by elected representatives. In a democracy, everyone is supposed to have a chance to speak their mind on any given issue through their vote or through direct petition to the government. In a democracy, government is entrusted with enforcing the laws and protecting individual freedoms. In a democracy, everyone can follow whatever religion they want to follow. Democracies thrive upon individuality, innovative thinking, integrity, and cooperation. Above all, democracies are flexible, allowing room for change with calm transitions. Democracy is the recognition that all people are equal at birth, and that all people have the right to find happiness in their own way, so long as they do no harm to another.

Theocracy is a concept of government where adherence to a specific religious belief is compulsory. The rules of society are taken from a holy book or relayed through religious leaders as interpretations of scriptures or updates from the god. In a theocracy, challenging the government is akin to challenging the god and is often met with harsh retribution. In a theocracy, individuals are expected to follow the laws of the church, with individual freedoms having less importance than acquiescence to the will of the god, and by extension, the government. In a theocracy, religious intolerance reaches its peak, because religious homogeny removes threats to the government’s power, especially when the religious leaders run the government. Theocracies thrive off of conformity, faith (or at least the appearance of it), fear, and exclusion. Theocracies are inflexible and accept change only through explosive confrontation. Theocracy aims to keep earthly power in the hands of the few and exploiting the lives of the many, while using religion as both a pacifier and an object of control.

Given the choice, which would you prefer?

For most Americans, the answer should be pretty obvious. The United States was founded as a democracy from the very beginning. Our Constitution clearly establishes a democratic form of government with provisions relating to the election of government representatives by the citizens. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a reference to religious law. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a reference to a god, save for the common usage of the word “lord” in the signatory paragraph when referring to the year it was signed. The Constitution mentions the word religion one time, but not in an attempt to infuse it with government. In fact, it is just the opposite. The very first sentence in the Bill of Rights reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

What exactly this means is that the government itself is prohibited from embracing and impressing any specific religion upon the citizenry, and government is enjoined from prohibiting any specific religious beliefs from being practiced, at least so far as those beliefs do not include ritualistic murder, rape, theft, or other antisocial activities. Government cannot promote one religion over another through legislation or appropriation. Even if every person in the country followed a single faith, laws based on religious dogma, especially those that restrict individual freedom, are not allowed under the Constitution.

It’s all there in black and white (or maybe brown and yellow due to age), so why does there seem to be a push within certain segments of society to align our government with a specific religion, namely Christianity. Claims of America being founded upon Christian principals are hard to prove, though endless debates have raged on about the subject, usually referencing various writings of the original politicians. Regardless of the personal faiths of the founding fathers, the fact that they specifically declined to advance one religion over another is evidence that they believed that government and religion would be best left apart. In their wisdom, they sensed that promotion of a certain religion above others would immediately negate the promise of freedom for anyone not believing of the state approved god, and instead would amount to the eventual creation of a theocracy and destruction of democracy. They must have felt that the governance of man, while he lived on this earth, should be directed by other men, and be flexible enough to accommodate the changing tides of history. Further, since the cost of government must be borne by all citizens, government belonged to all citizens, and must be accessible to all citizens, regardless of their spiritual beliefs. Religion, and all its trappings, belongs not in the public realm so much as to the individual. Faith, of whatever flavor, makes us who we are but it does not permit us to make others think like we do.

We talk about theocracies as if it could never happen here, but under certain conditions, it could. With public apathy at high levels, and a high number of American’s professing to be of the Christian faith, a slow but steady reversal of laws could erode the freedoms granted us by our social contracts. Our shortened attention spans and sound bite mentality make it easy for minority fringe politicians to inject bits of legislation here and there that set the stage for religious interference. At the very least, America could become a hybrid democratic theocracy where our political leaders seek guidance from religious leaders whose adherence to organized religious dogma always seeks to divide humanity instead of connecting it together. Religion is an individual salvation, but government rules our day-to-day lives and is supposed to be based on the rule of man’s law. We need to keep it that way.

Religion should be defined as a relationship between a person and their god, whether that god is a single supernatural being or a multi-faceted force of life or a really tall evergreen tree. Religion, in this form, can be a powerful force for good in a persons life, offering them comfort in times of trouble, advice in times of confusion, calm in times of frenzy. And as long as one’s religious beliefs and practices cause no harm to others, this individual concept of religion offers the most direct path between a person and their god, and therefore, the best chance for a fulfilling religious experience. It is a quintessential form of freedom to be able to worship one’s god as one sees fit. Unfortunately, religion does not exist in this individual form, at least not for the majority of religious practitioners. Instead, the practice of religion has been subverted, taken away from the individual and institutionalized, then returned to the masses like a nicely packaged gift. Historically, and even today, organized religion has been used by the elite to control the general population through mystery and fear, to consolidate a certain religious point of view while demonizing all others, to eliminate differences in belief and behavior, to amass power, and as a motive for aggression. Where religion seeks to connect a person to their god, organized religion seeks to keep a person at arms length (or more) from their god and from each other.

At the heart of most religious thought is a concept of God as either an actual entity or natural force that is responsible for the creation, proliferation, and continuation of all life on this planet. (Further references to “God” should be viewed as referring to either version of god without regard to which one is chosen.) God is benevolent, omniscient, and the only true source of pure love or harmony. God is also unpredictable. Humans, according to religious theory, exist to serve God through reverence to the wonders of life and through acts of peace towards each other. Simply put, God is good and giving. God loves peace and kindness. God wants people to be good and kind too. We also need to please God because God is unpredictable. If we are not good or kind or peaceful, if we are not good stewards of the planet and its life, then God may punish us. Therefore, we should be good and kind and peaceful in order to please God. If this represents a kind of universal definition of god, then any arguments between schools of religious thought must necessarily be less substantial than would appear at first glance, focusing not so much on the concept or substance of religion itself, but rather on the human qualities of it; the rituals, the rules of worship, the mythology or history of each particular sect.

If religion is what you get when man and god commune, organized religion is what you get when men commune about god, and then decide that their ideas are the only right ideas, at least as far as God is concerned. In truth, organized religion is nothing more than another form of politics. By seeking to control not only the image of God, but also the method of communing with God, organized religion seeks to control humanity by closing the door to individual interaction and replacing that with a “gatekeeper” mentality. By establishing a human theological hierarchy, organized religion asserts that humans can have a relationship with God only by adhering to specific ritualistic actions that are designed to keep believers attached to the church (or mosque, temple, shrine, etc.) Further, specific religious doctrine relating to the characteristics of God as well as proper human behavior were developed to differentiate belief systems from each other, serving to establish human rivalries regarding religion. By insisting that only through the constructs of organized religion will people be able to find a relationship with their god, religious leaders are able to consolidate their power and influence over the lives of individuals who need the concepts of religion to complete their own journey through life, but were convinced that they could not realize that goal outside the larger umbrella of organized religion. (Strangely enough, the original religious prophets of many major religions actually did just that- they set out to find their own version of God for themselves. I wonder how the adherents of the faiths they helped organize would perceive their actions today?)

Organized religion teaches people that there is only one path to god and all other ways are false. Organized religion often offers ways to make amends for transgressions in our lives, either through some form of penance or payment, thereby excusing us from our negative behavior without serious consequence or remorse. But organized religion is not a construct of a god, it is a construct of mankind, and therefore is filled with all the negative character flaws inherent in mankind. By insisting that one’s brand of organized religion is the only true way, it is a short step to determine that all other religious thought is false at best, or just plain dangerous. In truth, the only real danger lies in the loss of power for those who seek to lead their respective religions and societies.

Organized religion is the conformation of the masses under one religious ideology for the consolidation of power over public behavior. Organized religion is about reinforcing religious theory through continual repetition, acceptance over substance, and absolution over actions. Organized religion is a contract between the rulers and the ruled, allowing the rulers to maintain the reins of power while the ruled can maintain their human existence without losing a chance at eternal joy. Organized religion is not really about promoting religion at all. Organized religion is about keeping people in the fold.

In the three main monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, no new major revelations from God have been received for centuries, if not millennia (with the exception of the Christian offshoot, The Mormons, who ascribe prophet status to their founder, Joseph Smith.) Therefore, all changes or reinterpretations of the original words of those long-ago prophets, be they Moses, Jesus, or Mohammad, are not changes from God, but adaptations made by man. One wonders if the words of God can be so easily adapted without changing the underlying concept of God then perhaps the words were never really those of God at all, but just of men trying to establish organized religions. But if all three prophets did receive “the word” directly from God, why would the message be different to each of them? Especially when they all share a common concept of whom or what god really is?

If we get back to the concept of religion being an individual journey, the need for organized religion becomes moot. Even the concept of needing a “house of God” for worship and reflection is one borne not from the religious concept, but from the desires of man to congregate with others of similar belief systems. Organized religion seldom achieves what it professes to achieve. It does not offer freedom of religious thought or enlightenment. It does not offer a barrier free path to commune with God. It does not provide assistance to the downtrodden with “no strings attached.” In all cases, organized religion seeks to use the concept of a higher power to control humanity. In most cases, organized religion succeeds in convincing humanity that different religions are not only wrong, but are dangerous. The desire of man to consolidate power through the use of religion has caused more pain and suffering that any other human institution, from the Inquisitions to the Intifadas, from the Holy War to the Holocaust. In essence, these and other conflicts merely used religion as a way to consolidate power and wealth into the hands of a few while keeping the many appeased and at bay.

The hypocrisy of organized religion is probably the most troubling aspect of all. While religious doctrine describes expectations for human behavior, organized religion creates exceptions to all of those rules. No killing, except for infidels. No stealing, except from the public coffers. No idolatry, unless you worship power or money. The list could go on, but the point is clear.

Perhaps it is time for organized religion to release its grip on humanity and allow a return to individual religious experiences. After all, the rituals and specific allegories of the prominent religions of the day serve not so much to answer the burning questions of life and death, nor do they seek to connect people to each other or to God. Perhaps it is time for less emphasis to be placed on particular religious theories and more on a universal concept of God and behavior, a concept that embraces many different paths to a higher force and that not only espouses the concepts of peace, compassion, and connectivity to each other and the world, but that actively pursues those lofty ideals.

Religion, in its purest form, is an individual quest for the answers to life’s most elusive questions: How did we get here? What happens when we die? What is the purpose of life? Is there a higher being or greater power than ourselves? To what do we owe our existence? What do we owe each other? Man is a thinking creature, and it is in his nature to seek answers to all that he can know. But for those things that he cannot find conclusive proof, man ascribes the answer to a force bigger than himself, often called God. Over the course of humanity, different groups of people have found different answers to these questions, and through their interpretation of their world, have created their own version of God. The result is a smorgasbord of religious thought and theory, passed down through the millennia, ingrained in the culture and societies of our world. And as the cultures of the world began to engage each other, either through trade or through war or through serendipitous encounters, the constructs of religion were put to the test.

Because religion provides an answer to things that can’t be proven with tangible evidence, and because mankind has an insatiable appetite to understand why things are, once a culture has embraced its religious theories it is hesitant to accept the religious thoughts of other people as valid. And because the gods are assigned with such power and reverence, it is considered unwise to go against the common practices. Still, over time, religious concepts have changed as man himself has changed, and what was once the prevailing religion of the day is now relegated to mythology status or, even lower, superstition.

It is undeniable that religion has played a major role in the development of our cultures, and that it still does today. The desire to ascribe the miracle that is life to a higher power is as much a part of humanity as our need for oxygen or water or food. Our eagerness to please the gods helped shape behavioral actions into what we now know as morality. Religions seek to bestow favors on their gods in reverence for the gift of life and nature that the gods surely provide. Such rituals reinforce religious thought and become part of the standard practices of daily life. But religion is also used as a tool for controlling the people and for creating enemies where none need be. Religion is used to divide people from each other, in spite of their otherwise common ground. On one hand, religion offers peace and purpose. On the other, it invites only misery and disdain. How this dichotomy is even possible would be a mystery were it not for one thing: the ideals of religion are simple; it is man who screws it all up.

The simple fact that there are so many variations of religious thought should lead a rational mind to conclude that either all of them are completely wrong, or all of them are at least partially right. Indeed, a quick review of varying religions’ basic tenets offers a surprisingly common premise, that the purpose of life is to attain happiness and appreciation of the world and all that it has to offer, and that to live a purposeful life one should treat others well and strive to do more good than harm. If, in fact, all religious teaching focused on these basic ideas, there would be much less strife in the world today. If the end result is the same, at least in terms of the way people relate to each other, does it really matter the manner in which these ends are met? The reality should be that the method of belief is secondary to the desired goal, which is peace with oneself, one’s world, and one’s neighbors. Whether you get there by praying to a single god, through offerings to multiple, minor deities, through meditation and introspection, or by secular means should be irrelevant, provided that you cause no harm to others in the practice of your chosen religion.

Of the existing major religions in the world today, you could probably divide them into two major sub-groups: the one’s that believe in an actual God, and the one’s that ascribe supernatural traits to the natural world itself. (Interestingly enough, to an objective mind, even these distinctions are not really that different. Whether you believe in a single “God” or a natural “force,” the omniscience ascribed to it often yields the same consequences. The real difference is in the description.) Those that believe in a single God are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In fact, the “God” of all three is the same god, and all three groups trace their ancestry to a single man, Abraham, and his sons. Judaism is the oldest of the three, going back some 4,000 years. Christianity could be describes as Judaism 2.0 and Islam as Judaism 3.0 (or Christianity 2.0), both chronologically and ideologically. Those religions that take a more naturalistic view towards religion include Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Daoism, and Confucianism. Hinduism, the oldest of these, some 6,000 years old, confers multiple minor deities with various traits and powers that taken together become a kind of natural pantheon of completeness. Buddhism branches from Hinduism. Daoism and Shinto view connection with all things and nature as essential to reaching a state of perfection.

Each religion believes it has found answers to the questions that have no answers, at least none that can be proven. Each religion knows the way to eternal paradise. But just as there are many different doors to an opera house, so too may there be many different ways to human completeness. For some of society, no religion is necessary at all.

The promise of religion to the individual is one of knowledge and peace. Unfortunately, religion is not taught to us with that in mind. Rather, religion is ingrained into us from an early age, and whatever our particular religion may be, we are taught it to the exclusion of all others. And to a point, I suppose that’s fine. But eventually, it becomes important for us to learn a little bit about other people’s religions and ideas, if only to reaffirm our own teachings for ourselves. To learn another’s point of view does not have to jeopardize your own beliefs, nor does it need to lead to prejudice or hate. What difference does it make what I believe, so long as I am not harming you or anyone else? How is my choice of religion any more offensive than the color of my hair or the kind of car I drive? Why should someone’s religion cause them to be my enemy when I’ve never even met them?

Of all the things that can divide mankind, religion should be the last. It is not a limited resource like water or oil or food. It is not an environmental or biological concern, like pollution or disease. It does not concern itself with territory or power or fortune. Religion, at the individual level, seeks none of those things. Even at a local, congregational level the purpose of religion is for a community to share their similar religious beliefs and rejoice in their common bonds. Religion, at its heart, is about peace and purpose. To use it in any other way is to negate any good it has and to spit on the very gods it worships.

Religion fascinates me. As a child of the western world, my practical exposure to religion has been of various Christian denominations with a smattering of Judaism mixed in here and there. All I know of the other main religions (and some minor ones as well) has been learned through reading, or talking with practitioners of other faiths. I have never visited a mosque or shrine, and while I’ve been to many, I do not attend church. I often feel that organized religion tends to indulge the worst facets of humanity while only professing to strive for the best. But whether I follow a specific brand of religion, or none at all, is irrelevant to the bigger topic at hand. What’s more important is to understand why religion has become such a divisive force in our world and what we can do to change that. I hope you stay tuned, because this conversation isn’t over yet.

The world in which we live is steadily becoming increasingly cynical, or at least it seems. We’ve come to expect our politicians to be corrupt and dishonest. We’ve come to see our businesses as greedy and unsympathetic to the plights of their workers. We view each other through tinted lenses that paint us as red or blue and we assume all strangers are inherently dangerous. We’ve lost our trust in our leaders and in each other. And as the level of trust breaks down, a self-fulfilling prophecy is born. We expect a politician to be corrupt and when we find one who is it validates our premise, reinforcing our view and perpetuating the impression. Trust further erodes. It is the same with how we view corporations, or teachers, or policemen, or neighbors, or each other. But the stitching that holds together the fabric of our society, of any society really, is an ability to trust each other. Without trust, society becomes nothing more than masses of people in the same spot, each looking out only for themselves.

But what is trust? How did we lose it? And more importantly, how do we rebuild it again? Although their are different levels of trust, the basic concept of trust can be defined as having a sure reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing to do that which they have been tasked to do. Whether one is referring to a trust between a parent and a child to adhere to a rule or provide care or implying the duty of an elected official to place the community needs above their own personal aspirations, trust relies upon individual honesty and integrity. We learn, through actual or vicarious experience, who we can trust. As children, we are brought into this world with an instinctive trusting nature. In order to survive, we must trust our mother to care for us, to nurture us. And unless this trust is breached early in life, we gain a capacity to learn to trust those around us. We also, as we age, gain the capacity to evaluate whether the recipient deserves the trust we give so freely. Those who promise things they can’t deliver soon lose our trust, whether they are our sibling, our employer, or our governmental leaders.

For most people, trust is not an absolute condition. Indeed, it is probably difficult to name more than a few people you might consider completely trustworthy. Human nature, being what it is, almost guarantees that at some point in our lives, we will damage a relationship of trust with someone, either purposely or unconsciously. A friend needs help desperately and we promise that we will lend a hand, but at the hour of need, we are called away to something else. The trust has been damaged. We may not lose the friendship, but we’ll probably not be asked for assistance again. Your friend may still trust you to pay your share of the dinner tab, but it may not go much farther than that. Efforts to rebuild that trust require us to go above expectations and work twice as hard to regain what may have previously been an unquestioned facet of a relationship.

Trust between friends or family is the first layer of trust that builds and stabilizes a society. Without this basic level of interpersonal trust it is impossible to expand the concept of trust into society at large. Societies are held together by a common goal and a trust that each person is working towards that goal with their own contributions. So as we learn to trust on a personal level, and as we acquire those traits that enable others to trust us, each individual becomes responsible for becoming a contributor to the greater society through employment or public service, by paying taxes and adhering to common laws, and by doing that which they are tasked and have agreed to do. But just as we learn to expect integrity from the people around us, we also expect integrity from the social institutions that make our society great. We expect our employers to treat us decently and pay us fairly. We expect strangers to obey the laws and we expect the courts to enforce the laws. We expect corporations to follow the law too, and to offer goods or services that deliver what they promise. We expect our schools to educate our children with the facts of science and mathematics and language. We want to trust that these entities, these non-human organisms, will adopt the trust engendering traits of the humans who operate them, and that these organizations, once in possession of our trust, will not betray it.

When it comes to government and other social leaders, gaining and maintaining trust with the community is an even more complex matter, one that today seems to have been deemed unnecessary at best, non-existent at worst. Political cynicism is at great heights, in large part because of decades of the polarizing and demonizing tactics of the political parties, but also because of the lack of integrity in elected officials, and the corruptible nature of money, power, and access traded between corporate heads and politicians. A half-decade or more of seemingly unending corporate meltdowns coupled with a political class that is increasingly out of touch with its constituents and completely ensconced in its own PC spin machines has left a bitter scar on the trust between the governed and the governors. (These same problems of trust can be applied to the geopolitical world of international politics as well, or to the fissures caused by religious differences around the world.)

And yet there are levels of trust within each of these layers of trust. We can reasonably trust that certain conditions will be met by our employers, but we can’t reasonably trust that those conditions will remain throughout our career. We can have security in our trust that the government will continue to provide a measure of public safety services, but we can’t always be sure that they will be effective or adequately funded. We may trust certain things about each other or from our leaders, but not others. To a degree, that may be a healthy trait, for blind trust requires no effort from the recipient and is easily and often abused. But trust is a two way street. In order to get trust, one must earn trust. And trust is earned with honesty and the ability to follow through on ones promises to the best of ones ability.

It’s pretty hard to trust our politicians these days. Regardless of your political ideology, members of both parties are tainted with the corruption of our electorate system, practically forcing them into the beds of special interest groups and corporate donors in order to feed the cash cow of political success. They hide their real motives behind flowery obfuscations and ineffective programs while positioning themselves or their benefactors to reap the bounty of the nation’s efforts. They espouse semantics as an effective rebuttal to wrongdoing while continuing on the present course of business as usual. Yet as citizens, we are not much better. We ignore elections in droves, apathetically assuming that nothing can change. We dissect every aspect of a candidate’s life whether it has relevance to the desired office or not. We live for the scandal. We drink up the distractions. We feed the flames.

So what is the solution? If the trust between everyday people and the leaders of our country- business, social, and political- has become stretched to the breaking point, what steps can we take to rebuild and eventually maintain the necessary levels of trust for society to flourish? Although we have become a pretty cynical society, there are still many basic levels of trust operating fairly well across the board. And although there are many Common Sense reforms that could strengthen those levels of trust, a simple reckoning between the government or business or social leaders and the general public would be a great start.

People want to trust each other, if for no other reason than that it makes life a whole lot easier. But trust requires honest information, and it is long past time that we begin to demand an unadulterated accounting from our government and our corporate heads with regards to their true intentions, plans, or goals for our society. We must be prepared to replace those sitting in the chairs of power if they refuse to act with honesty, either at the election box or with our wallets. Further, we must hold these people to their word and expect that they will follow through with what the say they will do. No longer should people in power be allowed to claim undeserved credit or ignore the will of their constituents. (A caveat here would be that elected officials would first have to ensure that their constituent’s wishes do not run contrary to the principals of individual freedom or social cohesion.) As citizens, we must shed our cloaks of apathy and return to the political arena. We must support meaningful election reform (to be discussed later) and encourage more candidates to run for office. We must quit buying in to the politics of divisiveness and instead embrace Common Sense.

Maintaining trust and even expanding it will require hard work, vigilance, and enduring cooperation among all the members of society, from the schoolhouse janitor to the President of the United States. It may well mean a complete overhaul of our political class in favor of untainted, public minded individuals without ties to the lobbyists. It may well mean radical campaign and election reform. It may well mean taking a serious look at who we are, where we want to be, and how we want to get there.

Honesty builds trust. Integrity builds trust. Success builds trust. It’s just simple Common Sense.

We all need a vacation now and then, and my time has arrived. I will not be posting again until the 24th of July. In the meantime, I encourage you to take a look through the archive listing for some thoughts you may have missed or visit some of the links from my Blogroll. I welcome comments to archived essays, but won’t be able to reply until my return. Until then, happy reading, commenting, and I’ll be back soon.

Archived Essays are listed here by date and title. To access a specific post, simply correspond the essay date with the weekly archive dates at the right. Click on the weekly link that your chosen essay’s date falls into.

(Introductory Essays)
1-4-05 “A Return to Common Sense”
1-5-05 “What is Common Sense?”
1-6-05 “America, America”
1-8-05 “Not My Party”
1-10-05 “Freedom Isn’t Free”
1-13-05 “Making a Case for Rapid Reform”
1-16-05 “Specific Steps You Can Take Now”

(Reforming The Judicial System)
1-18-05 “A False Sense of Security”
1-20-05 “Reforming Our Justice System”
1-24-05 “Criminal Justice Reformed”
1-27-05 “A New Day in Criminal Court”
1-30-05 “Making Crime Pay”
2-1-05 “Is That Really A Crime?”
2-3-05 “And Justice For All”

(Reforming the Legal Code)
2-6-05 “Morality and the Law”
2-9-05 “Ending the War on Drugs”
2-10-05 “Sex, Morality, and the Law”
2-13-05 “The Right to Die”
2-16-05 “The Abortion Debate”
2-18-05 “Not That There’s Anything Wrong With That…”

(On National Security)
2-21-05 “WANTED: National Security That Makes Sense”
2-24-05 “A Line in the Sand”
2-27-05 “Foreign Relations Roulette”
3-2-05 “Wielding a Big Stick”
3-6-05 “You Call That Intelligence?”
3-9-05 “The Effects of Immigration on National Security”
3-12-05 “Brother, Can You Spare A Gun?”

(Discussing Infrastructure)
3-16-05 “The Framework of Society”
3-19-05 “Man vs. Earth (A Fight to the Finish?)
3-22-05 “The Future of Energy”
3-28-05 “Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle”
4-1-05 “Mayberry or Metropolis?”
4-5-05 “From Here to There and Back Again”

(On Social Programs)
4-10-05 “Social Consciousness Or Social Charade”
4-13-05 “The Purpose of Public Education”
4-17-05 “A Nation of Teachers”
4-20-05 “Realistic Expectations For Successful Education”
4-24-05 “School Funding and Local Control”
4-28-05 “Poverty, Homelessness, and Hunger”
5-3-05 “Defining Social Security”
5-6-05 “Crafting a National Pension Plan”
5-9-05 “The National Whole Life Pension Plan”
5-13-05 “Salvaging Social Security’s Retirement Benefits”
5-17-05 “Is There A Doctor In The House?”
5-22-05 “Your Money or Your Life- the Costs of Health Care”
5-26-05 “The Doctor Will Be With You Shortly…”
5-30-05 “ Affordable Health Care Does Not Mean Free Health Care”

(On Politics I)
6-4-05 “A Necessary Digression”

(Cultural Issues)
6-8-05 “Society and Politics”
6-13-05 “A Tolerant Society”
6-17-05 “Are You Really A Victim?”
6-22-05 “Family Values?”
6-26-05 “What Every Kid Needs to Know”
7-1-05 “Some Thoughts on Philanthropy”
7-5-05 “The New Fourth Estate”
7-10-05 “That’s (Mass) Entertainment

As the father of a young child, I am often dismayed at what passes for family entertainment these days, at least insofar as the mass media is concerned. Finding television shows that are not laced with violence, gratuitous sexual innuendo, foul language or rude behavior is almost impossible. Listening to the radio in the car is always a crapshoot too, especially when your musical preferences extend beyond classical, jazz, or opera. Disc jockeys seeking to gain the highest ratings go to the edge of the envelope with their antics and even the commercials can be over the top. The movie industry’s rating system is increasingly meaningless with each passing year as more and more on screen behavior becomes acceptable. And on top of that, video games, once a light-hearted entertainment option for kids (remember Pac Man or Centipede or even Pong?), have turned to criminality as the main theme for their latest releases.

Yet in an increasingly expensive society, where trips to the museum or sporting event or theme park can set families back a hundred bucks or more, movies, television, music, and video games are becoming the cheapest source of entertainment for many families. And with parents most likely spending more time working than with their kids, children are increasingly being nurtured by the glowing boxes in our living rooms and bedrooms. We are easily into our second, if not our third television generation, and the effects on our society could only be described as dismal. Children become desensitized to violence before they even know what violence really is. They become entranced with physical appearance and relationships before they can even properly bathe themselves without help. They become obsessively materialistic before they can appreciate the value of money. And they have a difficult time differentiating between reality and fantasy. Today’s children grow up in a world full of promise and technological advancement, yet all we seem to be offering them is the same kind of entertainment enjoyed by ancient civilizations: gladiator-like violence, rapacious sexual play acting, and extreme caricatures acting in stereotypical, but unrealistic, manners.

Art, they say, is just a reflection of life. But what happens when the reflection is turned back upon itself? What then? Entertainment executives, when pressed about “family entertainment” often exclaim that there are plenty of options for parents and kids, and that no one is forcing people to watch, listen, or play with their products. And to some degree they are exactly right. But they also say that they only give the public what the public wants, and this is where their disingenuousness shows through clearly. In reality, the public gets what they executives think will get them the most return on their investment, either through commercial advertising, merchandising efforts, or direct sales. And the public, for the most part, reinforces this perception by continuing to consume all that they have to offer. But, again, if all that is offered is of the same ilk, what real choice does a consumer have?

Unlike most denouncements of the entertainment industry though, this is not a call for government regulation or censorship. This is a call for Common Sense. And it is a call to parents and entertainment executives alike. For though it is hard to evidence with hard facts, it seems obvious that there must be a direct correlation between the attitudes and actions of our society and the things we see or do for entertainment. It is easiest to perceive in children, and unchecked or unseen, the things we learn as kids shape who we become as adults. Children are mimickers, it is how they learn what is and what is not acceptable. They see someone act a certain way and they emulate that behavior. They have no innate concept of right or wrong until we teach them. Yet the insidiousness of today’s mass entertainment is that it reinforces socially negative behavior through its subtleties. Seemingly innocuous programs for kids often depict parents and adults as aloof providers who offer little real guidance and nary a scrap of discipline while the kids are know-it-all super heroes, capable of solving any problem in just under 30 minutes. After weeks and weeks of ingesting this kind of fantasy, children unconsciously adopt the behaviors of their television role models, creating havoc in the home and school and disrespecting their parents and teachers. And these are the least harmful attitudes they adopt.

So what should be done? After all, we don’t want entertainment to be exactly like reality since the whole point of entertainment is to forget for a while our own complicated lives. And certainly, we shouldn’t prevent adults from viewing or enjoying violent or sexy cinema if that is their choice. In truth, I enjoy a good war film, suspense mystery, or lusty love story from time to time. I listen to rock and roll music as well as love songs. But as an adult, I have both the life experience to understand what I am seeing or hearing and the established sense of behavior to know the difference between acceptable and unacceptable actions. As a parent, I have to recognize that my child does not have these same attributes, yet, and it is my job, not mass media’s, to teach them.

I am a big proponent in turning off the television. As parents, we need to engage our kids more often than our busy lives sometimes seem to allow. If there needs to be censorship of modern mass media, it is first and foremost our jobs to be the censors for our families. Parents need to remember that children will not raise themselves, at least not in a socially responsible manner, and that the decision to become a parent means that life does not carry on as before. Sacrifice of our own personal desires are a necessary element of raising children, which sometimes means missing our favorite sit-com and reading to our kids. Or playing a board game. Or taking walks around the neighborhood. Or staring up at the stars. If you don’t feel comfortable listening to sex jokes and fart noises with a four year old, turn off the TV and do something else. If you don’t want your ten-year-old thinking that girls must be thin, blond, and sexy to be beautiful, turn off the TV and talk to your kids about individual self worth. If your 13 year old seems obsessed with war and weaponry, don’t buy the newest shoot-em up video game and then leave him in his room for all hours to master the skills of street killing. Use some Common Sense.

This is the only effective means of getting mass media to change the menu of offerings. By turning off the television, by not buying the games, by going to the park instead of the movie theater, parents can send a more effective message to the entertainment industry. By not supporting what they have to offer, they will be forced to give us something else or go out of business. PBS is perhaps the last bastion of quality children’s television, yet the politicians and the corporate broadcasters want to kill it off. This should tell us something about their true motives, since PBS is also non-commercial and tax exempt.

The industry has proven to be ineffective at controlling themselves. Government has no role in legislating entertainment, except when it crosses the line into illegality. Therefore, it is up to us to call for change. It is not a push to eliminate the violence or sex from entertainment altogether. It is a call for industry movers and shakers to dedicate themselves to creating family movies and programs that are both fun and responsible. It is a call for parents to be more parental and more involved with their kid’s entertainment choices. And it is a call for families to spend more time doing things together and relying less on mass media to teach and entertain us.

There was a movie made in the 1970’s that you might be familiar with called “Network.” It’s main character is a TV network news anchor who has finally had enough of the B.S. and declares as much during his live broadcast with the line, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it anymore!” His angst became a rallying cry for a public fed up with the cynicism of their government and the superficiality of their daily lives, both of which were piped to them daily by an ever-present, over-hyped media driven culture. Though written at a time when the general public still viewed mass media as trustworthy and respectable, the movie’s message is eerily prescient of the state of our information industry today.

It is generally believed that those who hold the reins of power never want their subjects to know too much about what is going on, only enough to make them think that all is well, or soon will be well if it is not already. In an effort to combat that type of imperialistic attitude, the U.S. Constitution was written with a provision forbidding our government from abridging freedom of the press. In conjunction with the freedom of speech, these provisions were meant to encourage a viable “Fourth Estate” of government that would act as a voice of conscience, reason, and truth in an effort to keep the government from screwing everyone over and stealing their hard earned fruits of labor. Almost immediately, the powers that be figured out how to restrain that fourth estate by collaborating with the owners of newspapers, and later radio and television companies, offering access to information in return for favorable press. Those with less integrity succumbed to the pressure, and were rewarded handsomely for their spinelessness. The relationship continued with the discovery of the radio spectrum and the government giving away something they didn’t even own- the airwaves- to favored businesses. Now that the broadcasters could reach many millions of people, there was some real money to be made. And to make money you have to appeal to viewers and listeners.

The truth of the matter is that the bulk of today’s mass media is controlled by a small collection of corporate conglomerates, and the information that their media outlets offer is based on two things: the opinions of the majority owner(s), and the generation of profit. The sharing of information and news is no longer considered a respectable career of public service, but a commodity to be bought and sold and tailored to each listener’s personal likes and dislikes. Rather than be a collection of voices across the country telling each other about the latest changes in the world, our main media outlets are tightly controlled and highly competitive dispensaries of information that is filtered and whitewashed to reach the largest possible audience.

Further clouding the availability of factual, relevant news information is the somewhat incestuous relationship between the news reporting media and the entertainment media. More and more often, news programming focuses not on the issues that affect our pocket books and our freedom, but on the themes elevated to popular status by the entertainment industry. Crime, sex, and celebrities seem to top the list of hot stories day after day. Cross promotion of movies, music, and television shows fill up hours of daytime programming. Even the reporting of critical issues is portrayed in a sensationalistic fashion to appeal to a particular demographic. Sound bites. Headlines. Fancy graphics. They are all meant to hold your attention while telling you nothing of value, or at the very most, not enough for you to be informed.

No matter which side of the fence you sit on politically, odds are you view mass media, also known as Main Stream Media (MSM) with a certain amount of skepticism, if not outright disdain. Conservative thinkers exclaim that the media is overly liberal while Liberal thinkers bemoan the media as being biased and one-sided. Citizens complain that the line between fact and opinion is becoming too blurry to distinguish while reporters and editors increasingly rely on unverified reports and copied information in an effort to be first with the details. Who is right? Who is wrong? Whatever the answer, the reality is that more and more people are turning away from the more in-depth sources of news and information in favor of polarizing talk radio and opinion driven TV talk shows that masquerade as straight, unbiased news. Rather than actually be informed, our politically correct society would prefer be affirmed and the process becomes a self-fulfilling slide down the hole to absurdity.

In another ironic twist, our national quest for profit has once again turned one of our most special, trusted institutions on its head. First to go was the notion of representational self-government, which has deteriorated to the point that most elected officials don’t even know the full text of things they vote on, let alone care about their constituents beyond what they need to say to them to get re-elected, and who instead pander to business and union interests for campaign contributions and personal perks. (Who now equates the words honorable and politician?) Second to go were the courts and the rule of law, made a mockery by the ineffective and often suspect criminal system and the gambling fever mentality that has turned our civil courts into a lawsuit lottery system. (Ever heard of unequal sentencing, early release programs or exorbitant jury awards?) Now we see the demise of the honest media, lay victim to its own lust for cash while ignoring the fact that without their free public airwaves they would have no profit, no business at all. (By all reports, subscriptions to newspapers are down, TV news ratings are down, and radio news is mostly traffic reports and weather forecasts surrounded by opinionated talk show hosts.)

Main stream media no longer is the best source for complete, unbiased news, but it is still the easiest way to get information. But despite attempts to portray themselves as real information authorities, too many recent reports have been uncovered as slanted and contrived or completely fabricated altogether. Events are described in terms of spin instead of in terms of what happened or what was said. And more attention is being paid to keeping up with the latest famous indiscretions than explaining geopolitical instability or our own domestic dilemmas. With each passing day, faith in the Fourth Estate grows weaker. Instead of being the champion for openness and truth, it is seen as an old and tired creature, bent on defending the status quo against all odds that it is losing.

The internet information explosion, and out of that the phenomenon known as “blogging” has begun to change the face of media, turning back towards the original intention of the Fourth Estate. And while so much that comes out of the internet journalists screen is just bits and pieces of a story, taken together with other bits and pieces they offer the bigger picture that main stream media isn’t showing or won’t spend the time to learn. And they offer a more comprehensive analysis of what actual people think and feel. Internet journalists force things to the surface when they might otherwise have remained secret forever. Internet journalists are picking up the challenge that the mass media has abandoned. And while individually these journalists are no more likely to have the whole story than a rip-n-read radio host, they will once again assure that somebody is always watching those who hold the reins of power. Someone is watching and someone will tell.

Every week, I receive a handful of solicitations in my mailbox from organizations seeking a donation. They send me pre-printed address labels, greeting cards, calendars, and other assorted goodies in an effort to guilt me into sending them some money. And several times a month, I get phone calls from other organizations asking for a little financial help for some program or another. Like many people, I have some favorite charities that I donate to throughout the year and the others I toss into the trash or politely decline to send money. I trust that those I do send money to make use of my donation as they promise to, but I will never know most of the people who my dollars help. It seems that the more I give the more these groups ask, yet I give anyway, because to me it feels good to be able to help someone else without expecting something in return. And I also give because I can afford to spare a few bucks a year to help someone else. So despite the labels and cards and such, even despite the possibility of getting a tax deduction for my donation, for me, this kind of giving is a philanthropic act.

Philanthropy is just a fancy word for giving without expecting something in return. Americans in general are a generous people. When natural disasters strike, we pull out our checkbooks to help our neighbors or strangers half way around the world. We donate hard goods by the truckload, devote our time to help others, and give blood so others can live. We give to our favorite charities to save the forests or feed shelter pets or fight cancer or give vaccinations. Most of the time we seek nothing in return, except maybe an occasional “thank you,” because the good feelings that charity generates are often reward enough.

Businesses and governments engage in philanthropy for entirely different reasons. Since they are not people they can’t feel, and thus get no actual fulfillment from their philanthropic efforts. Most often, donations of cash or goods from businesses to schools or hospitals (among others) are done for financial reasons, either to increase “charitable” tax deductions or to unload excess stock that can be written off the tax forms as well. The more they give the less they owe. But businesses get a fringe benefit when they engage in donations by way of consumer gratitude that may translate into consumer purchases, giving the donating company an increased profit margin on top of the lower tax liability. Clearly, although their donations are helping others, their motives aren’t as pure as those of private individuals who give because they care about people.

The role of philanthropy in government is one of diplomatic bargaining, and thus it becomes a stretch to call it philanthropy at all. Every “gift” a government offers comes with strings attached, in the form of strategic concessions or financial openings or secret deals. The bureaucracies designed to oversee the dispensing of this aid are bloated with waste and graft so that by the time the actual aid has made it to the people it was meant to help, only a fraction of the original amount remains. Some estimates put the figure at 40 cents of each dollar. Further government restrictions on aid (often ideological in nature) even keep approved aid resources away from the people who need help because of ego battles between government officials. It would seem then that government giving is the least altruistic of all the types of philanthropy.

Boiled down into simple terms, you might say that people give to help others, corporations give to increase profits, and governments give for political gain. Still, they are all giving, and to the extent that their gifts reach the intended recipients, they are all helping people who need it. As the richest country in the world today, the United States government, American companies, and individual American citizens could be considered the most philanthropic society in history, each sector giving hundreds of billions of dollars to charities and aid programs each year. But even though this outpouring of generosity is the key ingredient to philanthropic works, equally important is the level of gratitude from those who are receiving the help, and this often depends on the motives of the giver.

It would seem that our spirit of giving would bring us many friends and allies in the world, but too often that doesn’t seem to be the result of our efforts. American charity is tainted by the profit motives of companies who exploit the labor forces of poor countries under the guise of economic assistance. And our governmental aid policies are designed not so much to help actual people but to use as a carrot and stick approach to international dealings with other governments. To the people who need the assistance, these political games are often the difference between life and death, and with each unfulfilled promise of help because of minor ideological differences, their attitudes become ever more jaded. American generosity becomes not a welcome gift from friends, but a gift only the very desperate or very wary will accept. But private organizations funded with private donations from average Americans still enjoy some semblance of thanks, perhaps because they go more directly to the people with their help and not through the mazes of bureaucracy.

It has always been human nature to be envious of those who have a great deal more that you do. This is the position Americans find themselves in today. Billions envy our freedoms to speak and worship. They envy our material wealth. They envy our health and our homes and our opportunities. And even though we give out the most money in real dollars, the United States ranks near the end of the “wealthier” nations in percentage of gross national product that is given in aid. So not only is much of our aid given with strings attached, and our political desires pressed with vigor, we’re seen as miserly too.

Philanthropy is defined as the effort to increase the well being of humanity and promote human welfare by charitable aid or donations. But it does nothing to increase the welfare of humanity if it can’t also increase the compatibility of cultures. Giving aid to another should tighten the bonds between people, not drive them farther apart. After all, what good does it do to help save or improve the life of another if they only grow up despising you and wanting you dead? Our governments must work harder at getting food and medical aid to the people who need it by eliminating much of the red tape and egocentric negotiations. It’s time to stop looking the other way at regimes that take our aid dollars and keep it for themselves. It’s time to stop trying to convert cultures to our own in exchange for infrastructure investments or educational assistance. It’s time for businesses to extend the same working conditions we expect here to their foreign workforces, as well as increasing their own “no strings attached” monetary contributions.

Giving shouldn’t be about political gain or strategic advantage or increased brand loyalty. It shouldn’t be about personal recognition or individual profit. Giving should come from the heart, expecting nothing more than an honestly felt thank you and hoping for a chance to expand peace, freedom, and prosperity.

It is not an understatement to say that raising children is the most important job most of us will ever have. More than just making sure our kids survive to adulthood and beyond, the task of raising children to become responsible citizens has a direct, cumulative effect on the state of our societies. If we fail to ensure that our children become educated in the ways of history, science and math, if we fail to teach them about responsibility and honesty, if we fail to instill in them a sense of community and empathy, among other things, then we have no one but ourselves to blame for the decline of our social institutions. As parents, it is our duty, to our children and to society, to make sure that they reach adulthood with a certain understanding of what society will condone, what is expected of them as adults, and how they will need to act to better find their own happiness and success. Yet as parents, we can’t entirely accomplish these tasks ourselves, especially in a society increasingly dependent on two incomes to make ends meet. It takes a combined effort from parents, social goals, business interests, and political programs to make it all succeed.

The Value of Education is one of the greatest concepts we can instill on our kids. Mankind’s ability to learn and be curious is the one gift that really sets us apart from the other animals on Earth. Our ability to pass on what we learn, to expand upon what we learn, is what has enabled us to move from the caves into our condos. But just because we are inherently curious, that is no guarantee that we will use our ability to its potential. As parents, we must show our kids that learning is fun and learning opens doors of opportunity. We must foster their natural inquisitiveness, while reminding them that learning isn’t always an easy process. Learning requires listening, studying, testing, and more listening. Parents can better help their children to embrace learning by answering their questions when they can and by insisting their children show respect for their teachers. Parents and teachers need to work together instead of as adversaries to ensure that kids learn to their best ability. Outside of structured school, parents can increase their children’s curiosity with trips to museums or sporting events or libraries or with experiences in nature. To help parents achieve these things, costs for event tickets shouldn’t be out of reach for anyone making less than six figures a year. Employers could embrace more flexible work schedules to allow for more family time and yearly vacations. Society in general could learn to demand less instantaneous satisfaction in favor of a saner pace of life.

The Need for Tolerance is another important trait to instill in our children, for without tolerance we can’t coexist with any sense of normalcy. The perpetuation of racism and prejudice creates much harm to the progress of civilization, wasting so much effort, resources, and lives, that their continued existence lacks all Common Sense. As people, we are each different from each other in some way, and for someone to decide to hate or deny equality to another because of race or religion or sexual preference is as illogical as one can be, for even if you were wronged by someone of a different race or religion or what have you, this is not evidence that all others in that generalized classification are bad too. As parents, we must not only teach this to our children with words, but with our actions as well. Children perceive the subtleties we think we reserve for adults, and though they may not understand them, they certainly adopt them and make them their own. As a society, we must stop painting portions of our country as evil or idiotic simply because they have different priorities in life. We must insist on an end to the political rhetoric that serves to divide rather than unite. And just to be clear, tolerance does not mean the acceptance of heinous criminals like murderers or rapists or condoning acts that harm others or ideas that deny others equality and freedom..

The Meaning of Respect is another invaluable tool to give to our children, one that is sadly missing from today’s world. From the loss of formal salutations and assumptions of respect for ones elders to an overriding sense of self-importance, showing respect for each other is becoming archaic, much to our detriment. But the breakdown starts in the home when parents don’t demand respect from their children, and instead attempt to be their own kids’ best friend. This attitude is not how one teaches respect, as it places children on the same plane as adults, when they are neither psychologically or intellectually ready to be there. Children need authority figures and disciplinarians, and they seek them first in their parents. When they find no firm authority in the home, they equate all adults with their parents and learn to respect only those they fear, which is not really respect at all. As they grow older, this lack of respect can only offer a lifetime of combativeness or separation, certainly not positions one finds success and happiness in. Respect has many levels. There is respect for a position like doctor or teacher or firefighter. We respect these people for what they do whether we know them personally or not. We extend a certain amount of respect to them collectively, in spite of bad actions that may arise by certain individuals. Another respect is based on our personal knowledge or admiration for someone or their actions. While the first is easier to teach, the second is just as important, for through it we can reinforce the other lessons we strive to teach by holding up the success and behavior of others who exhibited those traits. Respect doesn’t necessarily mean we have to like someone or even agree with them, but a good rule of thumb is to show respect to someone until they prove themselves unworthy through their actions or through their words. We need to move back, as a society, to addressing each other with respect, or at least insisting on it from children.

Teaching Honesty is among the harder values to instill in our children, especially when the prevalent mood of society is to spin the news towards one view or the other, starting in our halls of government and working down to the classrooms in our schools. We all want our kids to be honest with us, yet we lie to them each and every day. We promote propaganda regarding sexual behavior, the effects of drugs and alcohol, personal image, and other seemingly moralistic issues. We tell our children that there is only one truth when in fact there are often multiple facets to every truth. Does this mean that we should never tell our kids anything not provable by science or direct observation? Should we give up our fairy tales with their moral lessons simply because they are fiction? This is not what I mean when I speak of being honest with our kids, for there is also an element of magic associated with childhood, a time of naivety that is enriched through fantasy. But when we sense a child is asking a serious question, for the purpose of learning, let’s give them the unblemished truth, to the age-appropriate degree that they can understand, instead of perpetuating wives tales and repeated mantras. And governments and businesses must stop twisting the truth about their actions and start being honest with the public. The truth may sometimes hurt, but they say it also sets you free.

The Concept of Service is one that shows our children that a free society depends upon the participation of all the citizens, and that by volunteering our time to help others or to clean up our cities or to coach a little league team is time well spent. When one embraces the idea of giving back to their community, one feels more a part of that community and helps to keep that community safe and clean. As parents, we can teach the concept of service by making our kids he
lp out around the house, helping relatives and friends with bigger projects or daily needs, and not paying them in cash or rewarding them in kind for every act they perform. The concept of service implies that your efforts will be returned to you when you need help, and that sometimes it is more rewarding to lend a hand than to demand a dollar. Society depends upon people helping people, and the upshot is that with an increased sense of service, many of the more mundane or everyday tasks now performed by government agencies could be handled by you and me for less costs and with better results. We should remove many of the barriers that prevent people from helping out, including a propensity to sue each other over every minor slight or mishap.

Personal Responsibility is something all children must eventually learn if they are ever to earn the respect of others, care for themselves financially, and provide for their own families someday. Personal responsibility is the ability to pay one’s own bills, hold down a job, keep one’s word to others, provide for their family, and stay out of legal trouble. When parents make excuses for their own child’s bad behavior they are not teaching personal responsibility. When a parent does their child’s homework for them they are not teaching personal responsibility. When a parent buys kids everything they ask for, or when a parent ignores their child’s dishonesty or when a parent never demands their child pick up after themselves, they are not teaching personal responsibility. When there are no consequences to actions, there is no personal responsibility. The end result is an adult who can admit no wrong, who is never to blame, and who always knows the best way to do everything. As a society, we need to stop idolizing those figures that do not espouse the tenets of personal responsibility. We need to stop promoting behaviors that are based only on selfish motives. And we must each try to keep our word to each other and to our children.

Common Sense parenting isn’t as much about what practical skills you may teach your kids so much as it is about making sure they have the tools to learn those skills themselves and to put those skills to good use. It isn’t about following a particular path or walking the same road as everyone else as much as it is about treating each other in a similar way and expecting the same in return. Society has a stake in successful parenting, and should work together to help parents teach their kids. Business leaders should make time for families more valuable than they do now, for eventually, they will need to hire these kids, and they’ll want them to have some manners and social graces. And parents need to quit trying to be their kids’ best friend. It’s time to reinforce our social values together instead of indulging our own egos and perpetuating our own irrational prejudices at our kids (and society’s) expense.

Politicians are famous for creating titles for programs or ideas that bear little resemblance to their namesake. Chief among these is the clamor about “family values.” The phrase is used as a feel-good label, slapped on a candidate like just another bumper sticker on the family station wagon. We hear that Candidate A stands for Family Values, yet we’re never really told just what those values are. This, of course, is how it’s intended to be. Left on our own to deduce what “family values” means, we tend to assume that the candidate’s views must be the same as ours. So the candidate gets credit for being friendly to families without ever having to define what that means. It’s a lot like “New and Improved” grocery items where the only improved element is the design on the package, and “new” refers to the smaller size.

The reason that this whole “family values” thing is so important though, is that a stabile, progressive society is dependent upon the family unit to turn out stable, progressive citizens. And in order to fulfill that expectation, the family must rely on society to provide the tools it needs to be successful. It is a symbiotic relationship that demands the best results even when it offers up less support.

If “family values” is going to be a benchmark from which to measure a candidate’s suitability, by reason there should be a definition of what those family values are. For that matter, there should be a firmer definition of what constitutes a family so far as the family values discussion applies, and what the goals of a family unit are. Once we know what we are talking about, we can more accurately estimate if a candidate truly does further the goals of families or whether they are just full of hot air.

So what exactly is this family whose values we are longing to support? The simplest definition of a “family” is probably the best one to use, but it is also the first thing people will disagree about. No matter. For purposes of clarity and by reason of Common Sense, a family consists of two committed adult parents and at least one child. Without a child, or children, you are only a couple, or even a single. It is with the addition of children that the family unit is formed. The exception to this definition would be the single-parent family, but despite studies and findings that may disagree, two parent families are both more practical and better suited to the purpose of families in general. That purpose is really quite simple: it is to raise the child(ren) to adulthood, having taught them to become a responsible, productive, and hopefully happy member of the society. If society is the total combination of individuals and their actions, then the family is our training ground.

In order for families to be successful, they must first be stable, both financially and emotionally. Like the foundation of a house, the parents are the base on which a family is built. So our first family value is stability. But we all know of the statistics showing half of all marriages end in divorce, and many of those marriages produced children. For that matter, how many of the politicians spouting about family values have been divorced? Don’t get me wrong here. I understand that there are great reasons for people to get divorced. Abuse and deceit are certainly among them. And I’ll readily concede that in these kinds of situations it is better that children don’t have to live in that environment. But how many divorces are just the result of people who married before they were ready, or people who decided that their own self-actualization is of greater value than their children’s well being? We hear plenty of talk about “strengthening marriage” that all boils down to making sure the parents are of opposite sex. A real show of strength would be to help reduce the number of divorces, especially when children are involved.

Families are expensive. Kids require a lot of food and education and health care. So another family value would involve embracing a system of health, education, and retirement reforms, such as those described in previous essays on Common Sense, that would alleviate some of the stress placed on parents who are caught between the costs of daily life and the need to treat a sick child or pay for school. Lowering these costs and improving the services would allow parents more time to spend with the children and less time slaving to pay the bills. And with more one-on-one time between parents and kids, cultural values like respect, honesty, and responsibility would have a better chance at being passed down from one generation to the next, having a positive effect of society as a whole.

Because children mimic what they see and hear, as cultural excesses become more prevalent it becomes more difficult for families to instill a sense of right and wrong in their children, especially in an environment where both parent are working long hours and are turning over the child rearing to video games, television, or the neighborhood hang-out. Especially damaging to society as a whole is the amount of gratuitous violence found in our art, music, and media. While I don’t advocate artistic censorship by the government, I wholly support selective censorship by parents, and in many cases, expect it. Yes, we all know that the world can be a violent place, and we all know that at some point we need to teach our children to be careful, but how many of us actually expect to be massacred at summer camp? How often does a satanic cult kidnap the neighbor’s new baby? And do our children really need this in their lives? As adults, we know these things are created for entertainment, but children don’t know the difference, and parents are often remiss in making sure they understand, or worse, expose them to things before they can really distinguish the difference between right and wrong. Reducing the amount of desensitizing violence we expose our kids to should be among our family values, preferably through parental education, but if necessary through legislation.

Finally, we should reform our family laws to better assure that innocent children are not punished for the wrongs of their parents. We should stop empowering government agencies to disrupt family life unless verifiable abuse has occurred. We should resist any attempts at laws that would discriminate against two committed parents of the same sex from adopting or otherwise providing a stable, loving environment for a child. And in cases of divorce, we should insist upon amicability between parents and a civil dissolution coupled with continued financial and emotional support schedules.

These are the things that we should expect from any politician who says that they stand for family values. We should ask them how they’ve applied these goals to their own families, and examine their record to see if their actions back up their words. You may have noticed that none of these family values focused on religion. The reason for that is simple. At its most basic level, religion is not a social value or need, but rather an individual one. And while I would never deny that religion espouses many of the same ideals of behavior that secularists cherish, the immense permutations of religious belief and doctrine would virtually guarantee that no consensus would ever be met with regards to “family values.” So religion is out the window, at least when it comes to the political and practical definition of “family values.”

The next time you hear a politician talk to you about family values, take a moment to ask them what they mean. Odds are you won’t get a specific response. But you’ll probably get a lot of gobbledygook about gay marriage and zero-tolerance. Families are the building blocks of any society, both of its social fabric and its economic stability. Supporting families, then, is naturally in the best interest of society. It is not enough to just do the best you can within your own family. You must also make sure
that those elected officials who claim to support you, who claim to believe as you believe, who claim to be looking out for your interests, are really doing all those things, and not just wearing a friendly label, hoping you’ll never ask what it means.