"Drugs are bad!"

"Drugs are evil!"

"Drugs are a scourge that must be stopped!"

"We must protect our youth at all costs from drugs!"

These mantras have been recited endlessly throughout the drug war. Even before Richard Nixon declared war on drugs, it has been the policy of the American government and many others to paint drugs as the source of so many evils. It has helped justify decades of a failed policy that has ruined countless lives, wasted billions of taxpayer dollars, and usurped the liberties granted by the constitution. By any measure the drug war has failed. It hasn't stopped drug use and it hasn't helped drug addicts. Yet every time the issue comes up the policymakers in Congress, law enforcement, and the DEA offer the same solution. They just need more money to combat the problem. But is that the only solution? Is there a better way?

As it turns out, there is. In 2001 the government of Portugal took a bold new approach to combating drugs. It decriminalized the use and possession of illicit drugs. This includes hard drugs like cocain, heroin, marijuana, and LSD. This means that people can no longer be put in jail just for using drugs or having up to a 10-day supplies. They can only be jailed for selling and distributing drugs. This effectively redirects law enforcement from seeking out users towards seeking out the suppliers, which are often the violent gangs and drug cartels. It is a complete reversal of the hardline stance the DEA has taken over the years. What they refuse to admit, however, is that this approach works.

Five years after the new laws were enacted, the number of deaths from drug overdoses dropped from 400 to 290 annually. The number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles dropped from 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006. This is all according to a study done by the Cato Institute. It effectively blows apart the argument made by anti-drug crusaders that claim deciminalization or legalization would increase the amount of drug users and drug-related health problems. Instead, Portugal has found a much more humane approach by treating users and addicts as victims of a health problem. Instead of throwing them in jail, those who break the law are brought before what is known as a "Dissuasion Commission" that consists of three people (a lawyer, a doctor, and a social service worker). These people have the option of recommending treatment, fining the user, or not giving them any sanction at all. Essentially, if a person wants to get treatment they can without fear of being thrown in jail. Or if they want to keep messing their lives up, they can do that as well. It's their body and it's their choice.

Overall, the law succeeded. It helped reduce the amount of drug-related incidents and offered help to those who were struggling with their addiction. Even Walter Kemp, a spokesperson for the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, admits that decriminalizatoin in Portugal "appears to be working." It also disproved another fear by anti-drug zealots. Portugal did not become a drug mecca. It is still a functioning country with a functioning society. It just isn't throwing people in jail for ingesting substances some people call 'evil.'

The effectiveness of this policy have been covered by many credible sources including Scientific America, the Economist, and Time Magazine.

5 Years After: Portugal's Drug Laws Show Progress

Portugal's Drug Policy: Did Decriminalization Work?

Portugal's Drug Policy: Treating not Jailing

Yet has anybody in Congress or the DEA come forth to acknowledge this? Of course not. To them admitting that Portugal's policy worked would mean admitting that their policy isn't working. Nobody in any government agency will ever say that what they're doing isn't working. If that was the case they would lose their precious funding. The only time they will admit that their efforts aren't working is when they need more funding. All to often the government is happy to accommodate them because they earn bonus points with their voters by acting as though they're taking a stand against drugs. The reality, however, is that they're causing a great deal of harm by furthering a policy that turns non-violent drug offenders into criminals and robs them of their civil liberties.

It is government arrogance at it's best. Someone tries a policy that works better than theirs and they refuse to even acknowledge it. They would rather keep doing the wrong thing because it's so much easier. It shows a complete lack of humility and responsibility not just on the part of politicians, but on those who vow to uphold the law.

The fact remains. People have been using drugs for medical and recreational reasons since the beginning of civilization. It's not going to stop anytime soon and anybody who tries to stop it is going to lose. People use drugs because they do exactly what they want them to do. They bring pleasure, euphoria, and fun. There are serious risks involved in using drugs, but it should not be up to the government to decide whether or not an individual should take that risk. People are responsible for their own bodies. If they want to mess them up, that's their decision. It should be up to their family, their community, and their neighbors to support them and not the government. Portugal offers a clear alternative that not only works, but it champions the tenants of freedom that every American values. It is up to the leaders in Washington to swallow their pride and humble themselves before the light of freedom to do what is right and not just what is politically viable.

It is popular for Americans and people in general to cherish their rights. It's only natural. Rights are an important part of every society, free or otherwise. The abundance or lack of rights lie at the very core of any community large and small. However, at times the source of these rights becomes exaggerated. A peoples' rights take on an almost divine aura. Many will claim human rights are a gift from a god or some divine force. It's a comforting notion, but ignores reality. Rights are a complicated concept because their so abstract, but without a firm understanding of what rights are and where they come from the people are ill-equipped to defend them.

First and foremost, rights don't come from god or anything supernatural. They never have. They are and always have been an abstract concept of society. Their main source is law. Without law there is no order and without order there are no rights. Now law is a far more complicated concept than rights. There are so many different legal traditions across history, cultures, and countries that to explain one and apply it to all would be utterly meaningless in any argument as to the source of rights. But rights as most people understand them do have a basis in certain aspects of law, namely those meant to protect individuals and communities and ensure order.

Now it's impossible to talk about the source of rights without the source of the law. Throughout history law has come from many places. Ancient Egypt and the vast empires of history had rulers who dictated what the law was. Kingdoms and city-states had oligarchs, councils, or community proceedings that brought forth the law. It wasn't always logical. If a ruler was mentally ill, then the laws would not be very reasonable. Men like Calligula of Ancient Rome, Ivan the Terrible or Medieval Russia, and Pol Pot of Cambodia all had clear symptoms of serious mental illness. Yet being the rulers of their country, they were the law and that law was what the people had to live under. Needless to say, the people didn't have very clear or logical rights.

The problem with law and rights as always been that people were constantly debating the laws and bending them to their whims. That's where some of these irrational traditions come from. That's where barbaric systems like the Spanish Inquisition, Stalin's secret police, or Adolph Hitlers SS come from. It is only when those educated in reason and humanities come together that the source of natural rights take shape. The logic follows that all human beings, being of the same flesh and blood as anyone else, have an intrinsic worth. It is a concept that spans all religions and cultures to some extent, even those with ridged hierarchies. Thus, the law must protect each individual worth from the whims of other individuals and the only way to do this is through law.

This presents another problem. Law is not always forged in peace. As such, rights are not always forged from peace. When dealing with oligarchs and tyranical rulers, it often takes force to obtain the legal framework for these rights. That's why there had to be an American Revolution. That's why there had to be uprisings amongst populations in Europe and other Western countries to reshape the power structure in favor of defending rights rather than debating them. It also helps when the population becomes more educated and aware of their state. It was difficult in pre-modern times because there were so few connections between communities. Now with advanced understandings in law and reason, rights can take shape.

This is where limited government comes in. Starting with concepts like the Magna Carta, the state's role in rights shifted from being a giver of rights to a defender of rights. This was the reasoning behind the republic, which has it's roots back in Ancient Greece and Rome. Here, it is a fixed body of laws that limit the power of the state to maintain it's role as a protector of rights. This was what the founding fathers followed as they understood that rights could only be protected if the government was limited by law. So when people start assuming their rights are coming from somewhere else besides law, they ignore when the law is usurped and thus their rights are usurped.

The belief that rights come from some holy, god-given source has distracted people from the real problem with rights. They need to have a basis in law and at times there needs to be force behind it. Here's the situation. Government has grown a great deal in the last 100 years, expanding it's power and intruding on the rights of the citizens, sometimes overtly and sometimes covertly and sometimes completely unintentionally. Yet these violations aren't confronted because the people don't understand the government's role. They think their rights were with them when they were born or they come from some invisible deity. So if that's the source, why bother with the law?

It is dangerous and flawed thinking. It's the kind of thinking that causes complacency in a population. It gives people an excuse to sit around while their government continues to ignore the law and strip at their rights. It is only when the people demand through force that the government respect the law and the rights they protect that the free society prevails. At the moment, however, not enough force is being applied and too many people are not willing to step up.

For more reading on the source of rights, please consult the following academic paper by Brian Tierney:

The Idea of Natural Rights

It is universally accepted that economics is a complicated subject. Even the brightest of minds admit they are not sure what makes the economy tick. People have dedicated their entire lives to studying economics and mankinds understanding of it is still very much limited. One running theme is that an economists is the only other profession besides weatherman that can be wrong 100 percent of the time and still keep their job. Just as nobody can accurately predict the weather all the time, nobody can predict the economy all the time. So why would people assume a lone film-maker could sum it up any better?

Michael Moore is no stranger to economics. For years he's spoken on the ills of capitalism. His latest film "Capitalism: A Love Story" is a breakdown of everything he feels is wrong with capitalism. He paints it as the greatest evil and the source of all social ills in society. He does this, of course, with a very rudimentary (and flawed) understanding of what capitalism is. Yet what he documents is not pure propaganda nor is it a portrait of everyone like him. Moore, like most people of his trade, sincerely believes what he says. He just doesn't understand certain parts of the issue that very few understand to begin with.

What's Micahel Moore Talking About?

The most glaring flaw is the way he highlights certain ills and attributes them to capitalism. In his movie he talks about greedy banks using public money for obscene profits and the growing hardships small businesses face when they try to compete with larger corporate entities. But what he fails to understand is that these events are not driven by capitalism. They are driven by collaborations between government and business. If he had talked to anybody with some background in capitalism, he would know that the reason these big entites like oil companies, drug companies, and banks make such extreme profits is because they get the government to help them out. They use laws, regulations, and various red tape to stamp out competition, protect profits, and socialize losses. That's why they invest so much money in lobbyists. It helps them make more money.

This isn't a failure of capitalism. It's a failure of limited government. The constitution of the United States never stipulated that the government should aid in any business. Businesses, like individuals, were all subject to the same laws. It's when the government gets corrupted by businessmen that these ills develop. Going back to the era of Robber Barons like Rockefeller and Carnegie, they used tactics to weed out competition that were without question illegal. But they got help from the government, allowing them to get special breaks instead of using their own merits to succeed. This is how near-monopolies developed in many industries. It wasn't capitalism, but a perversion of it caused by an intrusive government.

Moore also documents the struggles of the middle class in his film. He blames capitalism for their declining standard of living and makes the case that the government should do more to help them. But what he fails to understand is that government is the reason for the declining middle class in the first place. The most notable cause involves inflation of priceses and the decreased purchasing power of the dollar. That's not because of capitalism. That's because of big government, namely the Federal Reserve. Since 1913 they have been printing money without anything to back it up. That's what causes the inflation and that's what robs people of their purchasing power. It's been documented in history going all the way back to ancient Egypt. Yet Moore doesn't get this and to his credit, very few people do.

The most telling shortcoming of Moore's film is his solution to the problem. He says democracy is the antidote to all these ills. Again, he's confusing his terms. Democracy has nothing to do with government. It has everything to do with politics. The very word democracy means people rule. It is a system that has never succeeded and for good reason. When the people have the power to vote on the excise of power, that vote is subject to majority rule. So if the majority want to oppress a minority, there's nothing stopping them. If the majority want to surrender all authority to a dictator, there's nothing stopping them. That's why the Founding Fathers scolded democracy. America as a whole has never been a democracy. It is and always has been a constitutional republic.

A republic is rule by law where a fixed body of laws is enforced by a government whose power is limited. This means that issues of business and personal conduct are free for the people to enjoy. No one business should be granted any favors. All should be free to prosper and free to fail. That is the essence of a republic. Moore doesn't get that. He doesn't understand that government has been granting special favors to entities like banks, utilities, and various enterprises for years and that is what has perverted the system. It's when government steps back and let business stand on it's own two feet that true prosperity is possible. It seems counter-intuitive to some, but historically speaking it is the best system for governing man.

In terms of the big picture, not everything in Michael Moore's movie is to be scoffed at. He's not wrong on everything just as he's not right on everything. He does highlight some important shortcomings of the current system. He simply fails to understand the philosophy and history of that system. Most people do not get economics, but they do get freedom. That is why the most powerful message in any argument for these issues is freedom because when people are free, people are free to prosper.

At a rally in downtown Washington DC, President Obama addressed thousands of marching homosexuals protesting against anti-gay policies such as Don't Ask Don't Tell. The president's words were explicit.

"I will end Don't Ask Don't Tell."

It was part of his campaign promise. He would take a stand against the anti-gay sentiment that has grown heated in wake of the gay marriage debate. Yet so far he has done little on this issue. Restating his position may earn him cheers, but without any substance behind his rhetoric he won't be winning himself any supporters.

Gay activists have been voicing their frustrations and rightfully so. There has been little push from Obama Administration on the social issues since he took office. Much of his focus has been on the economy, health care, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet that isn't an excuse for the gay community. They want their equal rights now. They want new laws passed to end the discrimination and persecution they have been facing for decades. But in the midst of these protests the gay community has not been asking a very important question. Should they really be demanding all these new laws to help them gain equality?

It seems outrageous to anybody with compassion for the homosexual community, but it is a valid question. Since the dawn of the civil rights movement, there has always been a push for new laws. Like the Civil Rights Act of 1965 for African Americans, every minority wants to have something similar that they can grasp onto and say that this is what grants them their equality. What is lost in the message is whether or not it's even necessary to further complicate the law by making new ones instead of enforcing the laws that already exist.

The law that allows homosexuals equal rights is already written into the constitution in the form of the 14th amendment. The law states as follows:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This text is clear. Every person (not just heterosexuals, whites, rich people, etc.) has a right to life, liberty, and property. No person may be denied equal protection under the law. This isn't in some civil rights act. This is written into the United States Constitution. The matter isn't whether or not there is a law protecting the gay community. The matter is simply that it's not being properly enforced.

Laws like Don't Ask Don't Tell and Defense of Marriage Act are rendered unconstitutional in light of the 14th amendment. It would be so much easier for the gay community to use this sound, reasonable argument instead of pushing for a special law of their own. Getting a law for a specific group whether it be homosexuals, African Americans, or Native Americans only reinforces the notion that they are somehow different and need special treatment. That is not how a free society works. A free society operates by treating individuals and not groups, granting them equal protection under the law.

Discrimination and bigotry comes in when the executive functions of the government fail to enforce these laws. For decades, that is what has happened to the gay community. Before that, the same happened to the African American community. Police and law enforcement on many levels weren't doing their jobs and weren't held accountable. The justice system failed to act as they were constitutionally obligated to act. It is not the law that is at fault, but the people who are entrusted to enforce it.

If the gay community or any minority wishes to gain equal status, they must act not on the law but the people enforcing the law. The courts, the police, and the various institutions that enforce the law are the real culprits. By working within the law, they can have their rights without demanding special treatment. It is the special treatment that has so often caused conflict between opposing sides. On a purely symbollic level, having a law made specifically for a group helps generate solidarity for that group. But that solidarity comes at a price. It alienates others and galvanizes opponents, continuing an increasing cycle of resentment that keeps playing out in protests and in government.

For the homosexual community and every other minority, it is important to work within the law and not against it. The law is not the enemy and by making it out to be, they only hurt their cause. So for President Obama and the gay activists gathering in Washington, the focus should not be on change. It should be on long overdue justice. There does not need to be more laws stating the same thing. There only needs to be a push by reasonable people to enforce the laws that are within the spirit of America and the free society.

This week, Brent Bozell dedicated a whole column to condemning ABC for it's friendly portrayal of Seth MacFarlane, creator of the hit show "Family Guy."

Fox's "Comedic Genius"

It was by no means an indictment. Bozell spent the whole column giving his opinion on how he thought MacFarlane and Family Guy were pure smut and that having them on the airwaves is somehow an afront to god, America, and everything good in the world. Needless to say, he goes a little overboard just as other anti-MacFarlane camps have done such as the Parents Television Council, a strongly Christian Conservative group. But through all this outrage they all miss one simple component and that's humor.

Family Guy is not meant to be serious. It is a slap-stick, over-the-top, outrageous show that makes no secret of it's primary goal, which is to get laughs. And for it to be on the air for over 100 episodes and 2 cancellations, it's a safe assumption that it succeeds. As a fan of the show myself, even I get offended by some of the jokes they do. But by and large few shows make me laugh louder and more fully than Family Guy. Anybody can hate Seth MacFarlane for his profane sense of humor, but the man does have talent in being able to craft a show like this. Plus, he does multiple voices including Setwie, Peter, and Brian. You don't have to like him, but for the fans he has he's doing something right.

This is what critics never realize. Humor by definition is NOT meant to be taken seriously. It is not an agenda. It is not afront. It is what it is and that's a joke. So when a show comes along that makes a joke about God or Jesus that offends Christians, that isn't meant to insult them. It's just meant to stir laughs. It's been done in comedy for years. George Carlin was the master of it and lasted 40 years in showbuisness, offending a lot of people along the way especially religious people. And in a free society, people have a right to make these jokes. It's a part of free speech. But people DON'T have a right not to be offended. MacFarlane said it himself in the interview. Nobody is putting a gun to someone's head and forcing them to watch it. People have the power to change the channel or not listen. But that doesn't satisfy some people like Brent Bozell. It can't just be ignored, it has to be condemned. Not only is this wrong in a free society, it shows no sense of humor.

Comedian Lewis Black said it best when he describe radical islamists as people having no sense of humor. In Islamic countries, making a joke about religion can get you killed. There is no room for humor in a society like that. But this isn't the Middle East. This is the United States of America. Freedom of speech is in the constitution. People like Bozell have a right to speak out against what they don't like, but to actively seek the censorship and obliteration of something as menial as a TV show is not only insulting to American principles it's downright idiotic, much more so than anything Family Guy has ever done.

Family Guy is a lot of things, but it's essance is humor. Look no further than the following clip for all you need to know:

Recently, a movie came out entitled "Milk." It told the story of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to be elected to a public office. He was a tireless advocate for gay rights and worked effortlessly to promote his cause even though many at the time were even less open to gay rights than they are today. During the 50s, 60s, and 70s it wasn't unusual for police to randomly break into gay bars and randomly arrest people and it wasn't unusual for crimes against gays to go unpunished. Just like the legal lynching of blacks in the post Civil War south, gays were the victims of unparalleled prejudice and hatred.

Hatred against homosexuality is nothing new. Up until the late 20th century, homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder. And a lot of hate stems from religious and cultural traditions. In the time of the Puritains gay men were castrated while gay women had their noses cut off. Some were just executed. There are several passages in the bible, most notably in Leviticus, that condemn homosexuality as an abomination and one worthy of great sin. And even today in a country where secular law, not the bible, is the law of the land, people use this 2,000 year old book as an excuse to hate, persecute, and undermine and entire group of people.

In the movie "Milk" many old broadcasts of religious figures at the time were shown decrying homosexuality, calling it a threat to the American family and a threat to morality in general. But homosexuality has been around since the beginning of civilization and will continue to be for a long time. The family has never been destroyed and seems to continue despite the presence of gays and lesbians. Yet they keep lamenting and stoking fear into the masses, saying god will kill them all and it is up to them to inflict his wrath. Such arrogance, conceit, and hatred is only paralleled by that of the Nazi's, who executed homosexuals just as they did the jews.

The message of Harvey Milk is simple. If you can take away the rights of one group of people you can take away the rights of any group of people. You cease to live in a free society and are at the mercy of the tyranny of the majority. Recently, a right was taken away from homosexuals in California. Prop 8 banned them from being able to form marital unions, a right that heterosexual couples have. It wasn't imposing the union on anybody, it was just giving the gay community a basic right that other groups have. But in a decision that can only be described as a crime against human rights, that right was stripped away. And it's not just California. In Arkansas, a measure passed banning unwed couples from adopting children. But even the makers of the bill flat out admitted it was just a measure to keep gays from adopting. That's another basic right taken away from a group of people.

There is no excuse. Taking away the rights of a group of people is a violation of the very principles of the American Republic. The free society guarentees that all citizens have equal rights and protections under the law. And yet gays are being denied those rights. It is tyranny, plain and simple, motivated by bigotry and prejudice. If you can do this to gays, you can do this to anybody. Today it's gays, but one day it may be another groups. Jews and muslims might start getting marginalized. Or maybe atheists, a group I belong to, will start getting denied basic rights. Or maybe another group will emerge that the majority decides they don't like and start oppressing. And history shows that whenever a group is oppressed, it creates conflict and hurts all sides.

Some say opposing gay rights is a moral imperitive. But the greatest atrocities in the history of mankind all started off as moral imperatives. The holocaust was seen by the Nazi's as a moral imperative. Genocide in Amenia and Sudan was seen as a moral imperative by the instigators. Any atrocity can start off as good intentions, but when one steps back to look at just what is being done it should be clear. Atrocities are never moral and the atrocities committed against the gay community are without justification.

On a personal matter, after having seen the movie "Milk" I was so disgusted with the hatred displayed in that movie that I was sickened. As an atheist, it did affect me because I have been condemned for my beliefs, sometimes by my own family. I have always maintained a respect for people of faith, but for those devout Christians who simply decry homosexuality because the bible says so I have no respect. Tolerance should not tolerate such intolerance. If someone doesn't like something, that's okay. But when they start actively working to take away the rights of an entire group of people, they become tyrants and they have no place in a free society.

The American Republic was founded on the principles of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness guarenteed to all men and women. Harvey Milk spent his life trying to convey a message that all people deserve to be protected from having these rights stripped away. And he lost his life in the process. Nobody, conservative or liberal, can justify taking away someone else's rights. It is a front to the free society and everybody, regardless of religious or political affiliations, has an obligation to defend the principles of freedom.

Recently, a group of youtube enthusiasts who specialize in making videos that counter bogus claims made by creationists and religious fundementalists banded together to stop what has been a disturbing trend from the side of religious groups. In the last year groups like Answers in Genesis, Illustria Media, Eternal Media, ande Creation Science Evangilism have been harassing users who make videos that counter their bogus claims about creationism, science, and religion in general. Their main tool is to use the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, a law passed in 1998 meant to protect copyrighted material on the internet. Youtube enforces this law by banning users who wrongly post copyrighted material without permission and do not adhere to the fair use policies. And they were making false claims that video makers, many of whom were just individuals who did these videos in their spare time, were illegally using their material. But in reality they weren't. They were only using clips and parodies, which are perfectly acceptable for fair use. But to them it wasn't about saving copyrighted material. It was about silencing those who disagreed with them.

This phenomenon epitomized the dangers of religious dogma and why it is a threat to the free society. Groups like Answers in Genesis and Eternal Media are so ridged in their beliefs that they don't wish to counter or debate them, they want to silence any criticism that may threaten them. And they're willing to go so far as to use dishonest tactics to do it. Time and again, they show a blatant disregard for free speech and criticism. Many of these groups censor their comments on youtube so people cannot comment or point out mistakes. They also rarely respond to any counter claim. In contrast those who dedicate themselves to debunking these claims do not censor the comments. They freely allow people to criticize and ask questions about their claims and they do their best to respond them. And when they don't know, they're honest about it.

It is the value of free speech and free inquery that allows people to question dogma. As religious a country as this is, dogmatic claims often fall apart in the face of valid criticism that is allowed to present evidence and debate the merits of any claim. Many radical religious officials fear this and actively work to silence any criticism. They go so far as to try and get the government on their side to legislate their beliefs so they will have political protection, which helps immunize them from inquery. It is something the founding fathers, many of who were religoius themselves, understood. They knew that if one brand of religion was favored or endorsed by the state, it could threaten the merits of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. People had to be free to believe or not believe whatever they wanted. But when some radical gropus (and it is a minority) actively try to subvert free speech to promote their own agenda it crosses a fundemental line.

In a free society, people are free to believe and worship however they please. But when one group tries to subvert another, that is just plain tyranny and regardless of anyone's religious convictions they have no place in a free society.

Please see the video below for more information on this issue:

Religion has always been a base for morality. Many will object to something they consider immoral on religious terms. Some of the things religious people may object to include pornography, abortion, illicit drugs, alcohol, pre-marital sex, and homosexuality. These things are not like other morals such as war, killing, and theft. Many cultures, religious or not, consider those immoral already. But religion takes it a step further by finding something they don't like and using it as a rallying cry to get more converts, generate solidarity, and gain influence. There's nothing practical about wanting to abolish abortion, drugs, etc. It's purely symbolic. Even though banning it makes the problem worse (as it did with alcohol prohibition) they still rally behind it. And as passionate as religous people are about these morals, they have no right to impose them in a free society.

Take for instance the war on pornography and sex. Many in the Christian Right seek to ban it along with some femanists. They claim it leads men to see women as objects and will make them prone to rape and sexual violence. But this claim is not backed up by evidence. According to the Department of Justice, the rape rate since the 1970s has declined significantly (see chart here). Even though the prevalance and availability of pornography has gone up since the 1990s, it has no correlation with rape rates. Yet despite this evidence, groups like the Christian Coalition and the Family Research Council try to push their agenda in banning it. And that just isn't reasonable in a free society. You can't just ban something because you don't like it.

So why do they do it? It goes back to the idea of a symbolic gesture in the name of morality. There's nothing practical about banning porn or drugs or anything else of that nature. It won't make it go away. It'll just push it underground, clog the courts, and clog prisons (as the war on drugs has done). These are things that have always been a part of society going all the way back to ancient times. No society in the history of civilization has managed to eradicate these things no matter how strict or authortative. But despite this they keep trying for that symbolic gesture that generates solidarity and rallies people to a cause.

Recently, the issue of gay marriage has been a big rallying cry. Religous figures claim that to allow gays to get married would degrade marriage and insult their faith. But practically speaking, it wouldn't do either. On a purely bureaucratic level it would allow gay couples to establish themselves as legitmate partners in the eyes of the state and entile them to the same benefits. That in no way affects other marriages. It just adds something different. It's a change and many, religious or otherwise, do not embrace change easily. But like with other issues, in a free society just not liking it isn't enough to ban it.

At the end of the day, symbolic gestures in the name of religion are only as effective as people think they are. It requires people to ignore facts and not think about the practical aspects of what they're doing. And in the long run it could cause more harm than good, but that doesn't bother them in the slightest because they actually believe what they're doing is right in the name of their diety. This has prevailed a great deal over the years, but in a free society it has no place. People are free to talk about these issues and rant about them. People like Ann Coulter and the Westboro Baptist Church (the god hates fags crowd) have a right to say whatever they want no matter how hateful or absurd it may be. But when they start trying to legislate their beliefs, that crosses a line. It's okay to not like something, but just because you believe your god says it's wrong doesn't give you the right to impose it. That's what freedom truly is.