Don Ardell's Wellness Perspectives on Sex, Religion & Politics

An Honest Congress Would Be A Miracle

Robert Ingersoll was asked for his opinion of miracles in the 1870's.  His reply included an assessment of "miracles" described in the bible, followed by a parable of sorts.  A portion of Ingersoll's response, taken from "Sixty-Five Press Interviews with Robert G. Ingersoll" (AAP, 1983), went like this:

"All the miracles recorded in the New Testament could have been simulated.  A fellow could have pretended to be dead, or blind, or dumb, or deaf.  I want to see a good miracle.  I want to see a dog with one leg, and then I want to see the other leg grow out."  Next, Ingersoll offered a humorous parable:

"Two men were disputing about the relative merits of a salve they had for sale.  One of the men, in order to demonstrate that his salve was better than any other, cut off a dog's tale and applied a little of the salve to the stump and, in the presence of the spectators, a new tail grew out.  But the other man, who also had salve for sale, took up the piece of tail that had been cast away, put a little salve at the end of that, and a new dog grew out, and the last heard of those parties they were quarelling as to who owned the second dog.  Something like that is what I call a miracle. 

If someone could come up with a salve or other remedy for an honest Congress, I, too, would give some respect to the notion of having witnessed a miracle.  The Congress today is a disreputable institution.  The approval rating is 25 percent - lower even than that of George W. Bush at the end of his sorry eight-year reign of ruin. On Friday last, former Louisiana congressman, William Jefferson, was sentenced to 13 years in prison for taking bribes.  Congressmen and women all take bribes, in my opinion, but they are legal when called campaign contributions from special interest lobby groups.  Of course, they all insist that contributions of thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars in no way influences their voting, but you have to believe in biblical-level miracles to buy that.  Other former Congresspersons currently in prison for chicanery of one sort or another include Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Bob Ney and James Traficant. 

Yes, given the nature of the campaign fund-raising norms or system of legal bribery that exists today, a House of Representatives with 435 honest and a Senate with another 100 honest members would, I belive, satisfy even "the great agnostic" and skeptic Robert Green Ingersoll that a miracle had occurred.

I have an idea that would facilitate a somewhat MORE honest Congress, and such a consummation would not require a miracle to come about. 

I suggest that the president appoint and the Congress endorse the establishment of a non-partisan committee to vet the ethical qualifications of all candidates for Congress.  The independent committee would develop an efficient method to assess the ethical quality of everyone elected to the House and the Senate of the United States, and assess any ethical charge brought against said member.  If found not to be ethical, the member would be expelled. 

That is my REAL wellness suggestion of the day.  It is the first in a series of REAL wellness suggestions that will appear at this space from now until the end of time or until I die, whichever comes first.  Your comments about this and/or future suggestions are warmly, lovingly and earnestly encouraged.  All comments will be listed at the site. 

All the best.  Enjoy your life - it's the only one you're going to get so make the most of it.   

Dr. Don Ardell Rumored To Be Named Chairman Of President Obama's Death Panel

On August 14, the 500th edition of the ARDELL WELLNESS REPORT (AWR) was distributed.  From now on, AWR's will be written and released whenever the muse strikes, not weekly as has been the case for the past ten years.  And none too soon.  I have it on good authority that I am in line for an important new federal assignment - and I am going to need every waking hour to manage this awesome new opportunity.  

If "Obama-care" passes, I believe I will be offered the chairmanship of the Administration's innovative new death panel.  While the president has not promoted this feature of his reform proposals, most Americans are aware of the death panel idea thanks to a certain highly regarded Republican ex-governor who knows of wondrous things, as if guided by a higher power - or something.

As Chairman of the Obama Death Panel, I'll probably be entitled to a huge salary, a big office and lots of perks, but these baser incentives do not compel me to accept the position. I will step up to answer the call to serve because I see it as my duty.  The mission of the Obama Death Panel under my leadership will be to exploit every cost-saving potential in euthanizing the old and disabled.  Basically, we'll be pulling the plug on grandma - and we're not going to do any favors for grandpa, either.   Our work will save a bundle on Medicare. 

Who would object to giving patients opportunities to learn about options for "care" at the end of their lives?

However, since I AM a grandpa, some provisions for exemptions of certain kinds of geezers will be enacted. Anyone who favors open discussion of politics, sex and religion will be given favorable status, provided of course opinions expressed in these arenas conform to views embraced by decent, God-fearing Americans. Don't worry - as a certified reader of this blog, I'll put in a good word for you when you're summoned to appear before my panel.

I expect the death panel will be charged with identifying additional cost savings - look for incentives for abortion, infanticide and native deportations. Yes, native born deportations - why limit deportations to aliens?  The real savings will be in removing unproductive citizens who do not support the American way, love Jesus, watch Fox News, fly the flag and respect the true patriots left in this country, like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.  

All the best.

Let's Offer Education In The Fundamentals of Reason As A Focus Of Foreign Aid

Americans believe many foolish things, and are in no position to urge people in other nations to think sensibly, develop respect for and a basic understanding of science and avoid grotesque forms of superstition. But, we should do it anyway, at least with respect to the beliefs and practices of many tribes that inhabit the continent of Africa. This is so important it should be a focus of our foreign aid offerings.

I believe our president, as he prepares to leave America for a visit to Africa, should address these issues as part of the continuing war on religious extremists who terrorize and destroy. American foreign aid should be used to promote reason as part of assisting the poor in backward nations to become better humans.

Much of reason education could advance common decencies and secular ethics. We should offer substantive alternatives to those who, caught up in centuries of extreme ignorance, engage in and tolerate atrocities occasioned by belief in witchcraft, superstition, and malevolent magic. Such cultural norms continue to block social and economic progress throughout the African continent.

American foreign aid can counter and help dispel these tragic African cultural practices with social as well as economic development assistance. We must teach rational thought, reason, modern science and sound secular experience.

There is a private group already doing this kind of thing, but our national government could do so much more. The Center for Inquiry, an international organization dedicated to education, reason, and secular ethics (based in Amherst, New York), is leading the way to promote this agenda.

The Center has launched a campaign consisting of educational seminars, protest marches, communiqués and meetings with African and other officials, letter-writing movements and aggressive widespread consciousness-raising efforts. Their work deserves support.

One of the Center’s educational workshops is set for Cape Town, South Africa from August 29-30; another is scheduled in Lilongwe, Malawi on September 4-5. Both will highlight humanism as an alternative to witchcraft.

Norm R. Allen Jr., executive director of African Americans for Humanism and the Center for Inquiry/Transnational Programs, is a key figure in these campaigns. He has been quoted as follows in Center literature:

"What African humanists and skeptics are doing is uncompromisingly challenging these harmful ideas and offering a humane and rational alternative, drawing upon humanistic ethics and an appreciation for scientific methods of investigation.

"It is clear that “superstitions—including belief in witchcraft—are based on fear, magical thinking and inadequate education, and are regularly exploited in Africa by unscrupulous individuals in positions of influence. Through the centuries, superstitious beliefs in Africa have been—and continue to be—used to oppress women, abuse children, support racism and xenophobia, justify torture, murder and genocide, and to exploit the poor, the weak and the aged. Those decrying accused ‘witches’ still orchestrate death and destruction of lives and property for the benefit of their own power. These unfounded beliefs are being used as a tool to incite hatred and cause division and conflicts in families and communities across the continent. In Angola, Malawi, Nigeria, Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, those accused of witchcraft have been murdered, tortured or banished by their communities—often by their own families. Left unchallenged, the harmful, dark and destructive effects of superstitious belief have become common and recurrent problems in Africa.”

It was not so long ago that a candidate for Vice-President of the United States was associated with the machinations of a demon-chasing preacher practicing an African form of witchcraft. Hard to believe but true.

The appearance at the Wasilla Assembly of God in 2005 of Thomas Muthee from Kiambu, Kenya was marked by prayers for (and over) Palin. Muthee called upon Jesus to propel Palin into political office (governor of Alaska). Muthee also called on Jesus to protect Palin from "the spirit of witchcraft." How ironic. Muthee gained fame with Palin’s religious congregation by claiming to have defeated a local witch in his African region, one “Mama Jane,” in a great spiritual battle, and in the process liberated the town from sin while putting out a welcome mat to the spirit of Jesus.

We should probably divert some of the educational foreign aid designed to fight witchcraft and promote rational thought, reason, modern science and sound secular experience to small towns in Alaska, like Wasilla.

For more on the Center's campaign against witchcraft, superstition and the like, contact Leo Igwe at skepticleo@yahoo.com, skepticleo@yahoo.com or humanistleo@hotmail.com or nallen@centerforinquiry.net.

The Society for Women and AIDS in Africa can also provide assistance.  Visit the Center for Inquiry website at http://www.centerforinquiry.net/.

Mr. President, Build Up That Wall!

The pervasive violations of this country's long tradition of church/state separation under President Bush were unconstitutional then and remain so today. Alas, President Obama is expanding, not eliminating, government funding for "faith-based initiatives."  This is a great disappointment, as was his invitation to the gay-bashing, fundamentalist preacher Rick Warren to pray at the secular ceremony that marked the inauguration of our 44th president.  Any praying at this civic event in the life of our non-theistic Republic is inappropriate; the prayer by this particular god-talker was outrageous.

The faith-based funding is inappropriate because taxpayer dollars are being used to sponsor sectarian religious activities and beliefs. 

Government funding of faith-based programs should eliminated.  If religious organizations want to conduct social service programs, they are free to do so with their own money.

Also regrettable is the fact that religious organizations have access to the White House to lobby for faith-based human service initiatives.

Recently, according to the Center for Inquiry (CFI), a secular organization that supports church/state separation, a meeting took place between representatives of the CFI Office of Public Policy and other church-state separation advocates and senior staff at the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

CFI's reps expressed their concerns and disappointment over the new president's failure to repeal five Bush administration executive orders and numerous agency regulations and rulings that apply to the faith-based office. Those executive orders, regulations, and rulings permit faith-based programs to engage in religious discrimination -- using your tax dollars.

Unfortunately, it seems that President Obama will not act to prevent harmful discrimination by religious organizations that benefit from your tax dollars. Also, his plan for this illegal office fails to prevent the use of public money for construction and renovation of buildings used for religious worship. It does not bar religious organizations from proselytizing in publicly-funded programs.

While President Obama has said repeatedly that he believes in the separation of church and state. Those of us who supported him so enthusiastically might want to work hard to urge him to keep his word.

To learn what you can do, write to CFI c/o srook@centerforinquiry.net or call (716) 636-4869 ext. 427.  For more information about CFI (the source of much of this information), visit http://www.centerforinquiry.net/opp.

Be well.  Protect the wall!

Urge the President To Minimize Religious Interference In The Delivery Of Medical Care

Under the disastrous era of George Bush, religious zealots were able to convince the chief executive to create a provider refusal rule. This rule requires health care institutions receiving federal funds to certify in writing that they would allow health care providers to refuse services on religious and ideological grounds. It was an invitation to sectarian mischief.

Fortunately, it took a while to get into the system, but it has been in place since January 20th.  Already, the new president has directed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to rescind the provider refusal rule. However, this requires a period of public opinion gathering about the policy - and thus the purpose of this message is to urge you to do just that. Make a comment.

Here is my comment, which I plan to mail to HHS. Consider sending one of your own. You have until April 9th to do so.

Madam Secretary:

I join with other Americans who support the separation of church and state to urge that an end to the rule entitled "Ensuring that Department of Health and Humans Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law."

As many have noted already, this Bush-era directive is driven by extremist religious ideology. It is an invitation to mischief and discord. It is vague and would almost certainly reduces access to health services and information for women seeking reproductive services. It could also lead to an interruption in the ability of anyone to gain assistance for a medical condition about which there is controversy based on religious dogma.

The conscience of a providers should not be given more weight than the health needs of patients. The danger is greatest in remote rural areas where alternative health care providers are few, but the situation would be intolerable anywhere. It is especially distressing in instances wherein a health care facility is funded in part by our own tax dollars.

Abortion is so loosely defined that the rule could tempt religious medical personnel to refuse to provide contraception, treatment for infertility or HIV/AIDS, information about end-of-life care or any medical procedure linked to a religious belief, however primitive.

I join with the Center for Inquiry and hundreds of other secular institutions in asking that you please rescind the provider refusal regulation as soon as possible.

Thank you very much. May the Constitution be our guide.

What Rush Limbaugh Said When He Called Me This Morning

I put no more stock in the predictive value of dreams than I do in the so-called prophesies of Nostradamus, crackpot ESP con artists or religious zanies like Pat Robertson. Nor do I read much into images or episodes of any kind experienced in dream states. The latter may be rough guides to inner turmoil, or maybe not. Perhaps some revelations or scenarios, particularly those that are vivid and emotional, should be explored with trained professionals in therapy, aided by powerful drugs. I hope not, because I am definitely NOT so inclined, even if "we are such stuff as dreams are made on and our little life is rounded with a sleep." (Prospero, The Tempest, Act 4, scene 1.)

Therefore, I did not think much about a visit last night from Rush Limbaugh, who wanted to apologize for making such an ass of himself lately (i.e., at least the last eight or thirty years). Why apologize to me?" I asked Rush. "I don't care - tell your listeners. Tell Michael Steele.

I find you obnoxious, pathetic, grotesque and an abomination. I don't take apologies for others - tell the American people you are sorry for being such a wretch and reform your ways. But please, don't bother me - I'm a wellness guy. I look on the bright side, stay positive, take responsibility, pursue happiness, exercise a lot, search for meaning and act at all times with compassion and love for my fellow man. Go away, you awful person.

When I finished, Rush looked at me in a melancholic way and said, “Don, you're the only one who can guide me. You understand REAL wellness. Please, don't reject me. I'm obese, unhappy, addicted to drugs; I have no real friends, except the lunatics who thrive on my unhinged rants. I want to reform my ways, change my life, make amends and become a decent person. I also want to shape a healthy lifestyle, have more fun, contribute to society in a positive way. I even want to help Barack Obama succeed, not fail. Won't you help me?

Well, let me tell you - I felt awful. Why had I responded so harshly? I was almost as mean and nasty as Rush - with Rush. Did I want to be like that? No way. So, like Michael Steele, I apologized to Rush. I said, “It's not too late. Don't worry about the past. Now that everyone expects the worst from you, you can be like Nixon in the 70's, opening up a dialogue with China! I'll help you. Start by telling everyone you no longer want to be the face or the leader of the Republican Party. You don't want to be obnoxious, pathetic, grotesque, an abomination or a wretch. From now on, you will promote REAL wellness - reason, exuberance and liberty. You're going to look on the bright side, stay positive, take responsibility, pursue happiness, exercise a lot, search for meaning and act at all times (with rare exceptions) with compassion and love for your fellow man. You will even root for and help President Obama to succeed, not fail. You will be a new Rush Limbaugh person, thoughtful, kind and mellow, constructive and positive.”

Well, I can tell you, when I woke up I felt great. I felt full of energy, good will and passion - I wanted to go to work and write articles that would set things right. I looked over at my lovely wife, sleeping soundly and felt hugely amorous, I woke her up, put my arm around her - but I won't go into all of that here. I'll save that for my pay-for-view site.

Anyway, before long, I remembered I don't put much stock or read much into dreams, so all good will toward Rush was gone before I fired up the coffeepot. Then again, dreams sometimes augur moral lessons and those who ignore dreams (e.g., as in Macbeth) do so at some peril. Who knows, maybe Rush will change his ways. If he does, remember this tale. Maybe I'm psychic, have ESP or can see the future. I don't think so but if Rush transforms in the very near future, I might reconsider.

Come Out Of The REAL Wellness Closet - Declare Yourself For Some Actions Certain To Boost Quality Of Life For All

We all have opinions, whether we care deeply about REAL wellness or not.  That's why we have two viable political parties (a pity we don't have more) and all kinds of freedoms to express our individual tastes in politics, sex, religion and everything else.  The USA is not the only country that protects speech, but we do a pretty good job of it, most of the time, the last eight years excepted. 
Some of us have a need or just enjoy foisting our opinions on (well, maybe "sharing them with) others.  Generally, I don't think this is a good idea, unless we have reasons to think other people might have shown an interest in what we think. In that case, well, that's why people like me like to blog.   
Wellness promoters like me and many people who visit SeekWellness.com share strong opinions on many of the same issues, such as the value of vigorous regular exercise, good diet practices, personal responsibility, the importance of critical thinking, the vital role of a few key qualities of life (e.g., happiness, meaning, ethics and global awareness and environmental sensitivity) and we seek to enhance the physical and mental health of all, not settle on simply avoiding illness and preventing problems.  Exuberance is the watchword for us - life should be positive, joyful and filled with love and laughter.  For starters!

Therefore, if there is something we can do to help others experience REAL wellness or just not suffer unnecessary pain or worse (i.e., premature death), we want to speak out.  There are two forms this action can take:  1) join with others to encourage policy changes or new laws; and 2) take personal action, even if it only concerns your own behavior.   I favor both but the point of this essay is to urge the latter about a specific issue -- talking on a cell phone while driving.

Never again make or take a cell phone call while driving an automobile, or any other vehicle, such as a truck, bicycle, airplane or space ship.  It is dangerous, unnecessary and threatens not just your own life quality but that of others in the area where you are driving and talking or listening.  If you must take a cell phone in a vehicle with you for emergency purposes, keep it out of reach.  If you must take or make a call, pull over first to a safe stop area. 

The dangers of using a cell phone while driving are well documented (by more than 50 scientific studies reviewed by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.  There is no debate.  The matter has been settled.  It might be "safer" to have sex while behind the wheel and negotiating your way through heavy traffic.  It's a very high risk thing to do.  Bad enough to jeopardize your health - it is unconscionable to do so to others.  How bad is this problem?  Accordingly to the National Safety Council (NSC),  2,600 deaths and 12,000 serious injuries a year are attributable to the use of cell phones.  This danger is there whether your phone is a hand-held or hands-free.

So far, only six states (and DC) have banned cell use while driving - all should do so.  No need to wait, if your state in not one of the enlightened jurisdictions.  Ban your own cell phone and urge others to do the same.  This position has also been adopted by the National Safety Council.  It might happen in time, but you can take action on your own, now.

According to David Strayer, director of the Applied Cognition Laboratory at the University of Utah and a leading researcher on cell phone safety, talking on a cell phone produces "mental images that disrupt spatial processing needed to drive safely. While drivers look side to side when they are not talking on the phone, they tend to stare straight ahead when they are on cell phones."

Be wise, prioritize.  Sure it's convenient to use a cell phone whenever the urge strikes, but a consideration for the quality of your own life and the safety of others compels anyone who cares about wellness to choose not to do this - and, when the occasion arises, invite others to do the right things, as well - skip the cell when on the road or otherwise engaged in activities that compel your full attention.

All the best.

REAL Wellness And Health System Reform - The Need To Think Big And Exploit The Power Of Controversy

In urging companies to adopt policies and programs that raise employee understanding of the importance of lifestyle choices, wellness promoters often set their sights too low.  They assume company managers care mostly about the costs of medical insurance programs and that data showing dollar savings will make the sale.  Well, maybe, but I believe this approach undervalues the appeal of REAL wellness and the returns companies could obtain from setting higher expectations.  Instead of just saving costs from less illness, how about a prime goal of increasing profits via productivity boosts from initiatives that enhance employee performance and quality of life?  The former pays off for the company, the latter benefits the workers. 

Real wellness comes loaded with attractive possibilities but also is fraught with one perceived hazard.  This feared hazard causes many a health promotion leader to quake in his/her boots.  The hazard in question, of course, is the potential of controversy.  Controversy can be a problem, but if managed properly and explained as a dynamic of normal life, the negative side of controversy can be overcome - and that would open up REAL wellness issues.

When generating interests in REAL wellness, namely, meaning and purpose, critical thinking, ethics, happiness and the environment, the following hot topic barriers come into play:

*  The cultural wars. 

*  Resistance to and ignorance of scientific naturalism and humanism.

*  Parochialism and nationalism.

*  Assumptions about the limits of employee education and openness to stretching workers to engage grand ideas related to existentialism and analytic philosophy. 

Worksite wellness programs would be ever so much more attractive to all if key ideas about healthy choices were introduced in part by highlighting aspects of the works of such non-medical authorities as B.F. Skinner, Albert Ellis, A.H. Maslow, Carl Rogers, Thomas Szasz, Betty Friedan, Carl Sagan, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and others outside the medical system. Also relevant to REAL wellness ideas are key ideas of the Founding Fathers, particularly Jefferson, Madison, Paine, Washington, and Franklin.

What are a few exciting questions to discuss that would fit as part of worksite wellness in the areas of meaning and purpose, ethics, happiness and other such matters?   Here are a few possibilities:

*  Is the nation more or less secular at present than in the past?

*  What are the implications of increased or decreased religiousity for key values, such as personal freedoms?

*  How important is separation of church and state for good governance, privacy, fair use of taxes and much else?

*  Is this nation still the preeminent scientific, technological, economic and political power of the world?  If so, do we want to see this continue and, if not, why not?

*  Should we promote democracy and human rights abroad? 

These are just a sampling of possible discussion topics.  Depending on the interests of the employees and/or the REAL wellness leaders, topics from hundreds of issue area could be addressed.  The focus would not be to convince anyone to follow a certain line of thought and consent, but to draw people out in order to encourage further interest in and reflection about matters of consequence. 

Personally, my priorities would be to have discussions about belief in the paranormal, pseudoscience and anti-science. Employees should have a chance to consciously examine whether they wish to be resistant to the advancement of science, a concern for human progress or the emancipation of humanity.  Is it healthy to believe in psychics and astrologers, monsters of the deep, UFOs and Republican tax cutting in the midst of a severe economic worldwide downturn?  I don't think so, but I would hide my conclusions while drawing everyone out on these kinds of questions.

REAL wellness must transcend the narrow focus at the worksite now devoted to lowering health costs and reducing high risk behaviors.  With elements of controversy welcomed, worksite wellness can provide a time and place for airing the pros and cons of defending democracy and open societies. 

This role would expand the wellness agenda to include protecting human rights, the autonomy of the individual, the right of privacy, human freedom, social justice and the rule of law.  Who would not welcome such an evolution for worksite wellness?  Well, some would.  What about you - what are your thoughts on the matter?

Be well.

Let's Put An End To Hate Crimes - Start By Eliminating This Category Of Crime

Under federal law, and the laws of many states, anyone accused of a crime may be charged with an additional offense and receive a longer jail sentence if a motive related to "hate" is added to the basic charge. This can happen if issues of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or some other category are suspected as a factor motivating the actual crime (e.g., murder, kidnapping or whatever).

This kind of law is bad for society for many reasons. As if being accused of a real crime is not bad enough, hate crime statues make things much worse. Many others and I believe all hate crime legislation should be revoked. I have at least seven objections to hate crime statues.

1. They could restrict free speech.
   
   
2. They criminalize thought, which is usually impossible to know beyond reasonable doubt if denied by the "offender." Thoughts cannot be determined accurately, so it is preposterous to punish a crime more or less because "hate" might have motivated it.
   
   
3. Let's say, just to make a point, I hate Visigoths. Should I be punished extra for this if I am prosecuted for snatching a purse from a stranger if she just so happens to have been of the Visigoth persuasion? Ask yourself: What kind of bonus sentence under a hate statue might YOU be at risk. Nobody's perfect - we all have some disdain for somebody or other, based on our experiences, struggle though we may to overcome such things.
   
   
4. They are arbitrary. How can a prosecutor fairly punish some kinds of hatred based on some characteristics and not others? For example, I could be punished more severely if I streaked naked during a church service but not at a gathering of the NRA. This suggests certain characteristics are more valued than others - who should make such judgments? Why allow anyone at all the power to do so? Should we not try to discourage stereotypes and promote dignity for all segments of the population? They are so unnecessary. Crimes are already punished. Let consequences be appropriate to the crime committed, not the motive attributed to the crime.
   
   
5. They risk criminalizing what some religious fundamentalists call "blasphemy," speech offensive to their unique sensibilities. There is a serious move within the United Nations to punish hate, defined simply as "defaming" religion. This would make it difficult to speak freely about matters of faith and reason. Many authors (e.g., Harris, Dawkins, even Ardell!) could be prosecuted in certain jurisdictions. Ron Lindsey asked, "If Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens bumps into a Muslim on a subway, should he have to worry about being accused of an assault motivated by hatred of Islam?" (See Ronald Lindsay, "Freedom of Thought," Free Inquiry Magazine, February / March 2009, Volume 29 Number 2.)
   
   
6. Punishing for thoughts or attributed motives gives juries/judges too much discretion, thus inviting a harvest of unintended consequences. Allegations can come from anywhere. Have we forgotten the Salem witch trials? Do you want to open yourself to being questioned about your personal preferences of one kind or another (friends, music, reading, etc.) by inquisitors looking into your motives, should you be accused of an offense? It can happen, you know. The innocent are sometimes accused through no fault of his or her own.
   
   
7. Hate crimes are a special threat to minorities. If you hold beliefs, memberships or otherwise seem a bit out of the mainstream, this very fact might be used against you to show bad intent (i.e., "hate".)

Naturally, I am opposed to prejudice and incivility toward everyone, no matter the person's race, religion, gender, sexual preference or whatever. "Be fair to everyone," I say. I am also very fond of freedom of speech.

Let's keep crimes based on actions, not purported motives or feelings. As Lindsey noted, let's try to "change people's thinking—not by punishing them for what they are thinking. Freedom of thought is meaningless unless it encompasses the freedom to have thoughts considered unacceptable by others."

Be well. Your thoughts?

Let's Put An End To Hate Crimes - Start By Eliminating This Category Of Crime

Under federal law, and the laws of many states, anyone accused of a crime may be charged with an additional offense and receive a longer jail sentence if a motive related to "hate" is added to the basic charge by the prosecution.  This can happen if issues of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or some other category was or might have been a factor in the actual crime (e.g., murder, kidnapping or whatever). 

This kind of law is bad for society for many reasons.  If being accused of a real crime is not bad enough, this makes things far worse. I and many others think hate crime legislation should be revoked entirely for any one if not all five of the following objections of hate crime statues.

1. They restrict freedom of speech.
   
2. They criminalize thought, which is usually impossible to know.
   
3. It is arbitrary.  How can a prosecutor fairly punish some kinds of hatred based on certain characteristics and not others? For example, I could be punished more severely if I streaked a church service but not a gathering of the NRA.  This suggests certain characteristics are more valued than others - who can make such judgements?  Why allow anyone to do so? Should we not try to discourage stereotypes and promote dignity for all segments of the population?
   
4. It is so unnecessary. Crimes are already punished.  Let consequences be appropriate to the crime committed, not the motive attributed to the crime.
   
5. Thoughts cannot be determined accurately, so it is preposterous to punish a crime more or less because "hate" might have motivated it.  I hate Visigoths - should I be jailed for this?  What kind of society would that be?  What would YOU risk being jailed for?
   
6. Punishing for thoughts or attributed motives gives juries/judges too much discretion, thus inviting a harvest of unintended consequences.  Allegations can come from anywhere.  Have we forgotten the Salem witch trials?  Do you want to open yourself to being questioned about your personal preferences of one kind or another (friends, music, reading, etc.) by inquisitors looking into your motives, should you be accused of an offensive of some kind?  It can happen, you know.  The innocent are sometimes accused through no fault of their own.
   
7. Hate crimes are a special threat to minorities.  If you hold beliefs, membership or othewise are a bit out of the mainstream, this very fact can be used against you to show bad intent (i.e., "hate").

There is a serious move within the United Nations to punish hate, defined simply as “defaming” religion.  This would make it difficult to speak freely about religion.  Ron Lindsey asked, "If Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens bumps into a Muslim on a subway, should he have to worry about being accused of an assault motivated by hatred of Islam?" (See Ronald Lindsay, "Freedom of Thought," Free Inquiry Magazine, February / March 2009, Volume 29 Number 2.)

Naturally, I am opposed to prejudice and a lack of kindness, civility and all forms of bias toward everyone, no matter the race, religion, gender, sexual preference and so on.  Be fair to everyone.  But I am very fond of freedom of speech.  So, let's keep crimes based on actions, not purported motives or feelings.  As Lindsey noted, let's try to "change people’s thinking—not by punishing them for what they are thinking. Freedom of thought is meaningless unless it encompasses the freedom to have thoughts considered unacceptable by others."

Be well. Your thoughts?