I am dedicating this entry to the declaration of the World Atheist Conference below. All politicians running for any office, local or national, should sign off on this set of principles as their baseline position. If they do not, then they do not deserve to hold public office and voters should decide their fate accordingly.
Notice that this declaration is certainly not an apologetic for atheism. It recognizes the right of religions and spirituality to exist. It merely sets limits to the encroachment of religious dogma into public discourse. Here is the declaration:
We, at the World Atheist Conference: “Gods and Politics”, held in Copenhagen from 18 to 20 June 2010, hereby declare as follows:
• We recognize the unlimited right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and that freedom to practice one’s religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others.
• We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reason, not by dogma.
• We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.
• We assert that the only equitable system of government in a democratic society is based on secularism: state neutrality in matters of religion or belief, favoring none and discriminating against none.
• We assert that private conduct, which respects the rights of others should not be the subject of legal sanction or government concern.
• We affirm the right of believers and non-believers alike to participate in public life and their right to equality of treatment in the democratic process.
• We affirm the right to freedom of expression for all, subject to limitations only as prescribed in international law – laws which all governments should respect and enforce. We reject all blasphemy laws and restrictions on the right to criticize religion or nonreligious life stances.
• We assert the principle of one law for all, with no special treatment for minority communities, and no jurisdiction for religious courts for the settlement of civil matters or family disputes.
• We reject all discrimination in employment (other than for religious leaders) and the provision of social services on the grounds of race, religion or belief, gender, class, caste or sexual orientation.
• We reject any special consideration for religion in politics and public life, and oppose charitable, tax-free status and state grants for the promotion of any religion as inimical to the interests of non-believers and those of other faiths. We oppose state funding for faith schools.
• We support the right to secular education, and assert the need for education in critical thinking and the distinction between faith and reason as a guide to knowledge, and in the diversity of religious beliefs. We support the spirit of free inquiry and the teaching of science free from religious interference, and are opposed to indoctrination, religious or otherwise.
Adopted by the conference, Copenhagen, 20 June 2010.
Now I ask you, what reasonable person could argue with any of the above tenets?
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
CSPI vs Ronald McDonald
The Center for Science in the Public Interest is at it again. The “Food Police,” as food industry advocates have dubbed it, is now targeting that great American institution, McDonald’s.
The CSPI is best known for whining about consumer food favorites such as buttered theater popcorn and sugary-sweet breakfast cereals. This is the group that forced the Kellogg Company to stop marketing its sweetest and best-tasting food product choices directly to young children. Now, those kids will have to rely on Mom to decide whether to allow them to eat the foods they love best.
Did you know that one Boomin’ Onion from Outback Steak House has more than a full day’s worth of calories, about 2,500? Well, neither did I until the CSPI came right out and said it, thus spoiling the enjoyment of millions of Americans as they belly up to the table to devour one of their favorite appetizers prior to digging into that giant steak and potato meal.
This same organization is responsible for bullying KFC into frying its chicken in oil that has no trans fats. Now, although trans fats are a menace to health, it was the CSPI that, back in the mid-1990s, threw its weight around and forced restaurants to stop using saturated fats in their fried foods. So these restaurants, in order to appease the Food Police, started using trans fats in place of saturated fats. It is now known that trans fats are far worse than saturated fats for being deleterious to human health. In essence, then, the CSPI forced the food industry to start using a product that was actually worse than the product that it replaced. Ten years later, CSPI basically said, “Our bad, just kidding.” Its policy now is to promote the frying of food in oil that has no saturated fats or trans fats. But these are the exact kinds of fat that make fried foods taste the best.
It should be clear by now that the CSPI has a vendetta against great-tasting food, especially as it is marketed to young children. Soon, if the CSPI gets its way, there will be no more toys in Happy Meals, no more little doodads in packages of breakfast cereal, and dare I say, no more tiny comic books or cheap rings inside boxes of Cracker Jacks. What will be next, the demise of Bazooka Joe?
Think about it, a world with no bright and colorful cereal boxes with cartoon characters on them. And there’ll be no more Saturday-morning commercials with fun cartoon characters. No longer will kids get the pleasure of collecting cereal box tops to send in and get a cool decoder ring. Parents will be forced to determine what foods to buy for their children based on taste and nutrition rather than just letting their kids decide for themselves what to beg their parents into buying for them based on delightfully-funny cartoon pitchmen or the promise of cheap toys.
What a dull and listless world that would be.
But taking the tongue out of my cheek for a moment, obviously directing advertisements of junk food directly at young children is a bit dodgy. One might conclude that it is the government’s responsibility to make sure that doesn’t happen. After all, state governments have mandated the use of car seats and seat belts for children because, the thinking is, if the parents are not going to take steps to protect their children from harm, then society will by enacting laws.
The Federal government has banned tobacco companies from marketing to teens by forbidding the use of cool images, like cartoon camels, in product ads. So is it much of a leap to advocate barring the use of cartoon characters in the marketing of junk food to kids or preventing restaurants and cereal makers from including toys in their unhealthy food products?
On the one hand, there is the argument that too much government interference in the free market is not a good thing. There are freedom-of-speech issues to consider as well. But, on the other hand, one job of the government is to protect its citizens, by preventing one group of citizens (the food industry, say) from harming another group of citizens (underage consumers). CSPI has threatened to sue McDonald’s if it does not stop giving away toys with the purchase of some Happy Meals. But a better solution might be to simply inform parents, or even to launch their own ad campaign directed at kids to inform them directly of the dangers of consuming french fries and other fatty, starch-laden foods.
Unless we, as a society, really do want to ban all advertising and promotions directed at children (which some say we should), then a better solution would be for organizations such as CSPI to educate and advise, rather than try to force compliance by suing.
The CSPI is best known for whining about consumer food favorites such as buttered theater popcorn and sugary-sweet breakfast cereals. This is the group that forced the Kellogg Company to stop marketing its sweetest and best-tasting food product choices directly to young children. Now, those kids will have to rely on Mom to decide whether to allow them to eat the foods they love best.
Did you know that one Boomin’ Onion from Outback Steak House has more than a full day’s worth of calories, about 2,500? Well, neither did I until the CSPI came right out and said it, thus spoiling the enjoyment of millions of Americans as they belly up to the table to devour one of their favorite appetizers prior to digging into that giant steak and potato meal.
This same organization is responsible for bullying KFC into frying its chicken in oil that has no trans fats. Now, although trans fats are a menace to health, it was the CSPI that, back in the mid-1990s, threw its weight around and forced restaurants to stop using saturated fats in their fried foods. So these restaurants, in order to appease the Food Police, started using trans fats in place of saturated fats. It is now known that trans fats are far worse than saturated fats for being deleterious to human health. In essence, then, the CSPI forced the food industry to start using a product that was actually worse than the product that it replaced. Ten years later, CSPI basically said, “Our bad, just kidding.” Its policy now is to promote the frying of food in oil that has no saturated fats or trans fats. But these are the exact kinds of fat that make fried foods taste the best.
It should be clear by now that the CSPI has a vendetta against great-tasting food, especially as it is marketed to young children. Soon, if the CSPI gets its way, there will be no more toys in Happy Meals, no more little doodads in packages of breakfast cereal, and dare I say, no more tiny comic books or cheap rings inside boxes of Cracker Jacks. What will be next, the demise of Bazooka Joe?
Think about it, a world with no bright and colorful cereal boxes with cartoon characters on them. And there’ll be no more Saturday-morning commercials with fun cartoon characters. No longer will kids get the pleasure of collecting cereal box tops to send in and get a cool decoder ring. Parents will be forced to determine what foods to buy for their children based on taste and nutrition rather than just letting their kids decide for themselves what to beg their parents into buying for them based on delightfully-funny cartoon pitchmen or the promise of cheap toys.
What a dull and listless world that would be.
But taking the tongue out of my cheek for a moment, obviously directing advertisements of junk food directly at young children is a bit dodgy. One might conclude that it is the government’s responsibility to make sure that doesn’t happen. After all, state governments have mandated the use of car seats and seat belts for children because, the thinking is, if the parents are not going to take steps to protect their children from harm, then society will by enacting laws.
The Federal government has banned tobacco companies from marketing to teens by forbidding the use of cool images, like cartoon camels, in product ads. So is it much of a leap to advocate barring the use of cartoon characters in the marketing of junk food to kids or preventing restaurants and cereal makers from including toys in their unhealthy food products?
On the one hand, there is the argument that too much government interference in the free market is not a good thing. There are freedom-of-speech issues to consider as well. But, on the other hand, one job of the government is to protect its citizens, by preventing one group of citizens (the food industry, say) from harming another group of citizens (underage consumers). CSPI has threatened to sue McDonald’s if it does not stop giving away toys with the purchase of some Happy Meals. But a better solution might be to simply inform parents, or even to launch their own ad campaign directed at kids to inform them directly of the dangers of consuming french fries and other fatty, starch-laden foods.
Unless we, as a society, really do want to ban all advertising and promotions directed at children (which some say we should), then a better solution would be for organizations such as CSPI to educate and advise, rather than try to force compliance by suing.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
So am I Extremely Middle-of-the-Road?
I have had many labels placed on me during my life. I have been called a conservative. In fact, one man once described me as being "just to the right of Hitler." I, of course, disagreed with him. I’ve also quite often been called a liberal nut-job.
I don't mind being labeled. It is just interesting to me that I can carry so many conflicting labels, placed there by people trying to further their own agendas.
In actuality, it’s hard to pigeonhole me. To an ultra-conservative reactionary, I am a bleeding-heart liberal. But, to a bleeding-heart radical, I am a fascist! In reality, I can straddle the fence on many controversial issues. I can also hold strongly liberal views on one topic while being ultra-conservative on another. I take each issue separately, and decide on each using criteria that I feel applies specifically to that issue. And, when possible, I rely on reason more often than I rely on emotion.
As a public service to those who feel the need to stick a label on me, here’s a how-to guide describing my view on various issues.
Abortion -- I believe that elective abortion as a means of birth control is wrong. However, I also know that a fetus that is so young as to be unviable is little more than a foreign organ inside a pregnant woman's womb. Therefore, I believe that a woman should have the right to CHOOSE what to do about her pregnancy, as long as she makes that choice before the fetus becomes viable. Those who believe that abortion is murder should simply choose not to have an abortion, if it ever comes up. But to deny others the right to choose one way or another is a travesty of our American system that values free choice. (Ideology: left of center.)
Gun Control -- I believe that assault weapons and guns of mass murder should be outlawed for sale, manufacture, and importation. I believe that heavy restrictions should be placed on the sale of hand guns. (Ideology: left of center.)
Affirmative Action -- I believe that affirmative action, and its associated tenets, is probably one of the worst mistakes ever made by Congress. I believe that similar rulings made by federal court judges regarding forced busing, quotas in the workplace, etc., are similarly misguided. I believe a private employer should have the right to hire and fire whomever he or she wishes, for any reason. (Ideology: far right.)
Welfare -- Welfare should be "workfare" in that all able-bodied recipients should be put to work. In addition, they should be trained and given job skills, then sent through a placement program which will ultimately lead to their being employable, contributing members of society. (Ideology: right of center.)
Government -- I believe in the Federalist doctrine where that applies to everyone, such as in foreign affairs, domestic policy, and education. I believe in strong states' rights on issues that are more effective if handled locally, such as what speed limit to enforce. I don't believe that the federal government should create unfunded mandates. (Ideology: basically neutral.)
Prayer in school -- There has always been, and there currently remains, no ban on prayer in school. Every student, every teacher, and every administrator has the right to pray in school, (even out loud), as long as it does not interfere with the educational process. There is, and there should remain, a ban on organized prayer. I don't want any law or school policy dictating to kids how or when they should pray. (Ideology: left of center.)
Church and State – The framers of the Constitution built a wall of separation between religion and government. That wall should remain tall and firm. There is absolutely no place in public schools for religious indoctrination. There is no place in science class for the teaching of religious dogma such as Creation or Intelligent Design. The phrase “In God We Trust” should be removed from currency and license plates. The phrase “under God” should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. There is no room to display the Ten Commandments on government property. Religion should be taught in schools, all religions, from a historical perspective so that students can learn for themselves that religion is an antiquated notion whose time has passed. (Ideology: left of center)
Health Care – Health care should be a basic human right provided to all citizens equally by the government. For those who can afford it, they can opt in to a premium insurance plan that provides extra coverage if they wish. (Ideology: left of center)
Overall ideology -- Both liberals and conservatives believe in equality. The point of contention is what should be equal. It is said that liberals believe in the tenet of equality of condition; that is, the wealth should be spread around so that everyone has what he needs. It is also said that conservatives believe in the idea of equality of opportunity, in that everyone should have an equal opportunity to make it, or to fail. They must then live with their accomplishments, or lack thereof. I think these summaries are oversimplified. Economically, I tend to lean conservative, but with a nod toward the progressive ideals and ideas that prevent widespread poverty and lack of health care. (Ideology: slightly left of center)
In the end, I guess my conservative side balances out my liberal side, making me more or less "middle of the road," but with a slight leaning toward the left. But I'm not a centrist on most individual issues. When I do form opinions on an issue they tend to be strong, whether they are left-leaning or right-leaning.
I don't mind being labeled. It is just interesting to me that I can carry so many conflicting labels, placed there by people trying to further their own agendas.
In actuality, it’s hard to pigeonhole me. To an ultra-conservative reactionary, I am a bleeding-heart liberal. But, to a bleeding-heart radical, I am a fascist! In reality, I can straddle the fence on many controversial issues. I can also hold strongly liberal views on one topic while being ultra-conservative on another. I take each issue separately, and decide on each using criteria that I feel applies specifically to that issue. And, when possible, I rely on reason more often than I rely on emotion.
As a public service to those who feel the need to stick a label on me, here’s a how-to guide describing my view on various issues.
Abortion -- I believe that elective abortion as a means of birth control is wrong. However, I also know that a fetus that is so young as to be unviable is little more than a foreign organ inside a pregnant woman's womb. Therefore, I believe that a woman should have the right to CHOOSE what to do about her pregnancy, as long as she makes that choice before the fetus becomes viable. Those who believe that abortion is murder should simply choose not to have an abortion, if it ever comes up. But to deny others the right to choose one way or another is a travesty of our American system that values free choice. (Ideology: left of center.)
Gun Control -- I believe that assault weapons and guns of mass murder should be outlawed for sale, manufacture, and importation. I believe that heavy restrictions should be placed on the sale of hand guns. (Ideology: left of center.)
Affirmative Action -- I believe that affirmative action, and its associated tenets, is probably one of the worst mistakes ever made by Congress. I believe that similar rulings made by federal court judges regarding forced busing, quotas in the workplace, etc., are similarly misguided. I believe a private employer should have the right to hire and fire whomever he or she wishes, for any reason. (Ideology: far right.)
Welfare -- Welfare should be "workfare" in that all able-bodied recipients should be put to work. In addition, they should be trained and given job skills, then sent through a placement program which will ultimately lead to their being employable, contributing members of society. (Ideology: right of center.)
Government -- I believe in the Federalist doctrine where that applies to everyone, such as in foreign affairs, domestic policy, and education. I believe in strong states' rights on issues that are more effective if handled locally, such as what speed limit to enforce. I don't believe that the federal government should create unfunded mandates. (Ideology: basically neutral.)
Prayer in school -- There has always been, and there currently remains, no ban on prayer in school. Every student, every teacher, and every administrator has the right to pray in school, (even out loud), as long as it does not interfere with the educational process. There is, and there should remain, a ban on organized prayer. I don't want any law or school policy dictating to kids how or when they should pray. (Ideology: left of center.)
Church and State – The framers of the Constitution built a wall of separation between religion and government. That wall should remain tall and firm. There is absolutely no place in public schools for religious indoctrination. There is no place in science class for the teaching of religious dogma such as Creation or Intelligent Design. The phrase “In God We Trust” should be removed from currency and license plates. The phrase “under God” should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. There is no room to display the Ten Commandments on government property. Religion should be taught in schools, all religions, from a historical perspective so that students can learn for themselves that religion is an antiquated notion whose time has passed. (Ideology: left of center)
Health Care – Health care should be a basic human right provided to all citizens equally by the government. For those who can afford it, they can opt in to a premium insurance plan that provides extra coverage if they wish. (Ideology: left of center)
Overall ideology -- Both liberals and conservatives believe in equality. The point of contention is what should be equal. It is said that liberals believe in the tenet of equality of condition; that is, the wealth should be spread around so that everyone has what he needs. It is also said that conservatives believe in the idea of equality of opportunity, in that everyone should have an equal opportunity to make it, or to fail. They must then live with their accomplishments, or lack thereof. I think these summaries are oversimplified. Economically, I tend to lean conservative, but with a nod toward the progressive ideals and ideas that prevent widespread poverty and lack of health care. (Ideology: slightly left of center)
In the end, I guess my conservative side balances out my liberal side, making me more or less "middle of the road," but with a slight leaning toward the left. But I'm not a centrist on most individual issues. When I do form opinions on an issue they tend to be strong, whether they are left-leaning or right-leaning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)