In the era of political correctness, oftentimes a greater importance is placed on not hurting anyone's feelings over imposing on someone's right to free speech and free association. It all seems so well-intended. Nobody likes getting their feelings hurt. It's only natural that someone would want to protect themselves from such nasty feelings. The problem is that in this day and age people don't step up and try to defend themselves. That may actually take work and some guts. Instead, they would rather get the government or whatever god they believe in to do the fighting for them. It's the metaphorical equivalent of hiding behind bigger, tougher older sibling and whining like a baby until they beat up on those that made you feel bad.

Religion and government, the big two power brokers, have both been guilty of this. When the church had all the power, anyone could just walk up to their local church authority and accuse someone they didn't like of being a heretic. The church could then find this person, torture them, and then put them to death for blasphemy while the accuser just so the accuser could sleep easier at night. After hundreds of years of irrational slaughter and god-sanctioned tyranny, the church rightful lost it's power and the state took over. Unfortunately, the state didn't learn it's lesson. In modern secular societies it is the state that is imposing on peoples' freedoms and even religion, who used to have a monopoly on such actions, is getting a taste of it's own medicine.

Kathryn Lopez: Losing Our Religion By State Order

Throughout Europe and in America to a lesser extent, states are subsidizing political correctness by using government force to impose the will of others on the church. Mandates proposed by what is erroneously called the "equality bill" would remove existing exemptions for religious organizations on employment and services. This would mean organizations like the Catholic Church would be forced to ordain women and other mainline protestant churches will be forced to accept homosexuals. There is even a pending Supreme Court case called Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, in which it will decide whether religious groups on college campuses must be open to students who do not share their beliefs.

Read that last part carefully. They're deciding whether religious groups on colleges campuses MUST be open to opposing views. They're not talking about other groups trying to persuade these groups. Again, that may require work that the other side isn't willing to do so they're getting the government to do it for them. It isn't just an affront to liberty, it's downright lazy. If a group has to get the government to force their views on others then maybe their views need some refining. Anybody who is free to speak is also free to confront others who don't agree with them and try to persuade them that their views are wrong. So long as this confrontation does not impose on someone's life, liberty, or property this is all protected. It is only when force is added to the equation that there is more harm than good.

The problem is both sides tend to use this tactic. Historically, Christian groups have sought to use government force to restrict the freedoms and liberties of homosexuals. This includes actions like anti-sodomy laws and laws prohibiting homosexuals from adopting children or holding public office. The homosexual crowd responds with similar tactics, trying to get the state to force religion to accept them. This only adds to the animosity between the two groups and the more they try to force their views on one another, the more they end up hating each other. It is a brutal cycle that just ends in more liberties being trampled upon.

Personally, I tend to have more sympathy for some sides over others. As a non-believer, standing up for Christian groups being oppressed is like standing up for a career criminal whose luster is being overshadowed by newer, less experienced criminals. Religion and government are both guilty and complacent in the crushing of human liberty, the rampant abuse of human rights, and the overall retardation of the human species.

In a free society the use of force is limited only to protecting the life, liberty, and property of individuals. All other matters, spiritual and material, are handled from the bottom up by free people persuading other free people. There are only two ways to do things in life, through persuasion or through force. When it comes to debating what role the government or the church should take in these matters, it is always best to err on the side of liberty.

The Superbowl is a unique cultural phenomenon. Few events foster such high passions. Even for those whose teams didn’t make it, the Superbowl is an event that draws people of every background together in the spirit of competition, sportsmanship, and good times. So when someone like Tim Tebow and Focus on the Family come along to threaten that sense of unity, it causes big problems.

On February 7th, the day of Superbowl XLIV, Tim Tebow will be running a 30 second ad paid for by Focus on the Family that presents a pro-life message. It tells the story of Tim Tebow’s mother, Pam Tebow, and how she contacted dysentery on a missionary trip to the Philippians while she was pregnant. She was advised to have an abortion because the medicine could potentially cause birth defects. She chose not to and later she gave birth to a healthy Tim Tebow, who went on to become one of the most spectacular college players in the history of college football. It’s an inspiring story and it is a story Tebow is using to promote a pro-life message, urging those faced with a similar choice to take the same chance his mother took.

Naturally, a lot of pro-choice groups take offence to this. The Women’s Media Center has condemned CBS for broadcasting such a message during the Superbowl. It has sparked a debate on whether such messages should be allowed during such events. Abortion is and always will be a very divisive issue and incorporating that into big cultural events like the Superbowl threatens to undermine the spirit of the event, or so they say.

The problem with this controversy has nothing to do with abortion. The outrage highlights a fundamental problem with these issues. Nearly everyone believes in free speech, but they still have certain categories of speech. There’s hate speech, political speech, advertising speech, and various other forms of speech people tend to lump together as they go along. The problem is its still speech. The first amendment makes no distinction. Speech is to be free and protected.

Now in the case of Superbowl XLIV, a commercial entity is involved with CBS. They are the ones responsible for determining which ads get aired and which ads don’t. The decision rests with them and since this is their airtime, if they decide they want the Tebow ad then that’s their right. Trying to deny them that right is to deny a fundamental freedom that is unconstitutional on every ground.

Now I personally don’t agree with Tebow’s views. I agree even less with Focus on the Family. The founder, James Dobson, promotes the most heinous of agendas, scrutinizing and condemning pretty much anybody and anything that goes against his perverted Christian views. He is miserable excuse for a Christian because he seeks government assistance in propagating his views, which very unconstitutional. Tim Tebow deserves far more respect because unlike Dobson, he seeks to persuade people of his views. That is very admirable. Tebow doesn’t flat out condemn abortion in his message. He promotes his pro-life beliefs, encouraging those to choose life and not in a forceful manner. He’s more a Christian that Dobson will ever be.

At the same time, groups like the Women’s Media Center have a right to protest their views. Their speech is every bit as protected as Tebow’s. They may not be as well mannered in some of their rhetoric, but they still have the same protections. They can do exactly as Tebow is doing and persuade CBS to not run the ad or maybe make an ad of their own to present an opposing viewpoint. The line is drawn at using force. So long as there is persuasion and not force, both sides are equally protected.

There is a lot to admire about Tim Tebow. Few athletes have ever risen to the kinds of heights he has and few athletes dedicate so much time to charity and goodwill. His views are what they are and he has a right to express them. His opponents have that right as well. Whether or not it is appropriate for the Superbowl is irrelevant. Free speech is free speech and there can be few better events to celebrate it as such.

Virginity is supposedly a big deal now a days. Abstinence and purity have become the new hot topics. Social ideologues want to send the message that if you refrain from sex until you sign the necessary legal documents (also known as marriage), you’re somehow more pure and deserve extra praise. It’s an easy sentiment to joke about. South Park did a whole episode knocking purity rings. It was funny. People who come off as uptight moral crusaders are easy to make fun of because their entire agenda is a joke. At least, it is in this day and age.

Up until the last century, remaining abstinent until marriage had some serious pragmatic value. For most of human history, it was important for woman to be virgins on their wedding night so that the man could be sure that the child belonged to him. In the days before daytime talk shows and paternity tests, this was all anybody had to go on. This was a big deal because only blood relatives could inherit property and pass down the family name. There was contraception and promiscuity, but by today’s standards it was archaic at best and completely ineffective at worse.

In addition, most women got married when they were very young. Most would have had a husband by the time they were in their early teenage years. This was necessary because women really didn’t live that long in the days before modern medicine. Many died in childbirth. Basically, by the time their bodies were ready they were hitched. There really wasn’t much time for promiscuity or casual sex. There was also the issue of most people living in rural areas up until the 20th century. There just weren’t a lot of options so practically speaking, abstinence worked. Now that didn’t mean there wasn’t human promiscuity. There has always been promiscuity in every single culture that has ever existed. Depending on how it has been handled, there have been varying degrees of effects on society for better or for worse.

Fast forward to the modern era, a time when most people live in cities and no longer rely on exorcisms and leaches to cure disease. Technology has made it possible for humans to control fertility. Birth control today is extremely effective. Protection against disease has expanded as well with modern antibiotics and latex condoms that are very effective if used properly. The old concept of maintaining virginity just doesn’t make sense anymore because the practical aspects to it are gone.

Yet that doesn’t stop crusaders like Brent Bozell from claiming that abstinence is some holy ideal and anything that criticizes it is somehow promoting rampant hedonism. He recently criticized VH1 for a report it did on abstinence pledges and purity rings.

Brent Bozell: VH1 on Virginity cynicism and censorship

He did the typical rant that every moral crusader makes. Encouraging sex before marriage is bad for people. It promotes rampant promiscuity, out-of-wedlock births, poverty, sexually transmitted diseases, devil worship, and whatever other fear tactic they think will work. The pathetic part is it NEVER works. Human beings are biologically programmed to do two things, survive and reproduce. The human reproductive instinct is a powerful instinct, on par with eating and avoiding danger. People, whether they are married or not, are going to be driven to have sex regardless of what the Brent Bozells of the world think.

Human beings, like many other higher mammals, don’t have sex just for procreation. Many other animals that share our traits have been documented as having sex for recreation. When comparing humans to other primates, our position is unique. Some higher primates are highly promiscuous while others are not. Humans are basically in the middle. We’re capable of both promiscuity and monogamy. We have the genetics and the traits for both and for that reason people practice both.

This is often lost with the moral crusaders. These joyless, puritanical loons make losing one’s virginity seem like being tainted. They always paint a grim picture of a woman who didn’t wait until she got married and suffered terrible psychological and physical ills because of it. They also paint a grim picture of men who descend into decadence, becoming deviants who prey on women and don’t contribute to society. But is any of this supported by real science? Since most of these people don’t do the research, they may not be aware that their claims have no evidence to support them. Recent research has shown that casual sex among men and women does not lead to these physical and psychological issues.

Science Daily: Sex In University May Be Better For Mature Audiences

Science Daily: Psychological Impact of Sex on Young Adults Not Found

The research shows that those who are mature about sex and understand what they’re doing, why they’re doing it, and how to be safe about it can actually benefit. Sex is a powerful means of creating social bonds. In the animal kingdom, which humans are a part of, strong social bonds help create a healthy society. The abstinence crusade is completely counterproductive in that it tries to force one ideal on everybody and denies the valuable information people need to be mature about sex. Not having the information is what makes people prone to all the ills people like Bozell rail against, ignoring the fact that their proposed solution only makes it worse. They’ll gladly talk about all the horrors one can face if they contract diseases or get pregnant and the only time they talk about safe sex practices is when they describe how often they fail, which is rare if used properly. Unfortunately for them, real research does not side with Bozell and the moral crusaders.

CDC: Condom Effectiveness

Remaining abstinent until marriage is an admirable trait for some, but it doesn’t work for everybody. For some people, monogamy works. For other people, it doesn’t. Human beings are complex creatures. There is no one set of behaviors that work for everybody. Living in a free society and having access to all the technology that makes us safer and healthier allows people to pursue what works best for them. So long as they do not impose their standard on anybody else, they are free to be as chaste or promiscuous as they want so long as they are mature about it. No man or woman is better than anyone else because they waited until they signed the necessary legal documents to have sex with someone. Men like Bozell make fools of themselves whenever they claim to be on the side of purity when they themselves are the least pure of all. After all, what could be less pure than propagating nonsense and dooming future generations to ignorance.

Imagine for a moment you have a choice. You have never in all your years been given a religion. Your parents never thrust it upon you. Your community never pressured you into it. Your friends and peer groups never led you down any particular faith either. So before you lies every major religion in the world and you have the opportunity to pick one free of pressure and scrutiny. What would you pick?Say for instance there is one religion where there's a completely invisible, completely unknowable, completely omnipotent god that has the power to judge. Whatever you do does not go unnoticed and you live your life with the knowledge that this god is watching and if you do anything that this god does not approve of, he/she/it will cast you into the depths of a horrible place of fire and brimstone where you'll be tortued for all eternity. And yet somehow this god is supposed to be loving. In addition, this religion requires you to blindly accept on faith certain stories about certain figures that may or may not have even existed historically and there are a series of sacred texts that you cannot question and must study to understand the countless rules and ethics it teaches. These ethics include restraining yourself from things you might enjoy like sex, dancing, drinking, and speaking your mind. There are many obligations and you must not follow a different path. You cannot just do what makes you happy. You have to do what makes this invisible god happy. There's no fun or humor. There's only the serious fear that you're doing something wrong and god is going to punish you. Add to that you have to go to a place of worship where you listen to a man in a robe go on and on about how mankind is wicked and flawed and how everybody needs salvation or suffer enternally. You're taught that you are born flawed because of something some man for which there is no evidence for did in some magical place thousands of years ago and god has been punishing everybody for it ever since. The very point of this life is to simply prepare for death in hopes that maybe this god won't send you to suffer and maybe you'll get to go someplace nicer. You have to believe this completely  with blind faith and act accordingly. So if someone comes along who doesn't believe as you do, you are to look down upon them as heathens and suppressors of the truth. While your endless faith may grant you eternal life, you'll still have to see countless hoards of your fellow man cast into the fire to be tormented.

Now say for instance there is another religion where god is not only present, but you can experience god just by interacting with the world around you. Being part of nature is akin to worshipping god. God is in everything and the understand the essence of god, you need only understand the world around you. In this religion you watch god and god watches you in a relationship that is deeply personal and not one that needs to go through a holy man. There is also no ridged set of stories that need to be memorized. The story of the world is the story of nature and man. It is unfolding with each passing second and no sacred scriptures could possibley document it. The ethics and morals it teaches are simple. If it dosn't hurt anybody, do as you will. It seems so permissive, yet it is so clear. Because of this it is nearly impossible to justify atrocities or misdeeds because there is no conflicting teaching or text that says something else. There is no room to get around that which is so painfully clear. Even though this code is strict, it allows you the feedom to persue what makes you happy. You can eat, drink, dance, and enjoy sex so long as you do not harm someone else or yourself in the process. You don't follow the plan of an invisible god. You follow that which makes you happy. In addition, it is life that is the focus and not death. This life is the only life you have so you must strive to make it a good one. There is no set standard for what happens after death. Nobody knows so nobody tries to paint a certain picture. In essence death is a part of nature and since god is in nature it is merely a means of returning to god. There is also no setting yourself apart from non-believers. Everybody is of the same flesh. There is no discrimination. Man and women are respected regardless of where they come from, what they look like, or what they believe. Everyone is held to the same standard the best worship anyone can do is celebrate the spirit of life, nature, and god in whatever way makes their lives more enjoyable.

With this in mind, which religion seems more appealing? Most reasonable people will go with the second option. This religion covers no one particular religion. These are the beliefs shared by Wiccans, Neopagans, Agnostics, and Pantheists. Some might call it spiritualism. Others might call it the modern New Age movement. It is a religious mindset very different from the first religion described. This religion encompasses the major monotheistic religions, namely Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. These are the big three that make up the majority of the religious landscape. These religions dominate most socities and have the support of central powers throughout the world. Historically they have been able to dominate as they have immersed their faith into society. But in the modern age as society becomes more secular, people are looking other places and the appeal of such New Age faiths has grown.

This is best demonstrated in the recent movie, Avatar. In this movie the heroic and peaceful race, the Na'Vi worship a sort of pantheism. Their god is Eywa the "All Mother" and is described as a network of energy coursing through all living things. It is very much like the Force in Star Wars. It calls for a sense of communion with the natural world, trying to be at peace with it rather than exploiting it. It is something a lot of people tend to latch onto because it sounds more humane and pure. They also respond more favorably to a message not pushed by fear and an assumption that they are naturally flawed from the moment they are born. Yet still, pundits critizie movies like Avatar for their seemingly formulaic handling of faith.

It has been a theme in Star Wars and it continues in movies like Dances With Wolves, Pocahontas, and The Last Samurai. A man from the white, monotheistic world gets a taste of the pantheism of other cultures and likes it. If it were the other way around and someone from another culture came in and embraced Jesus, Mohammud, or Moses these same people criticizing Avatar would be praising it. But there is a reason nobody makes that movie and there's a reason why it doesn't work.

The problem is that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are not very uplifting. It doesn't get people to embrace who they are. It makes them mourn that they are flawed humans born in sin who need the divine retribution of a god. There is no celebration. There is only a solemn acceptance and a hope for something better after this miserable life is over. Contrast that to someone who finds something happy and uplifting in another faith and that's a much more interesting story. And like it or not, people tend to enjoy happy stories more than they do depressing stories.

The big three monotheistic stories are among the most ridged, ordered, depressing faiths one could have. These are faiths that have no sense of humor and no fun. You have the uptight Puritain Christians and the belligerant zealots of Islam and Judaism denoucing anything and everything that gives someone pleasure in life. If it feels good, it must be the world of evil and if someone actually tries to enjoy themselves they are in need of salvation. What kind of message is that? It also doesn't help that the ceremonies for the major religions are extremely boring. Those in pantheism are much more exciting, putting people in the midst of nature and having them sing songs, dance, and enjoy each other's company. You'll see any number of people crying in church mourning their sin, but you won't see that in someone who is dancing around a fire or enjoying the gentle breezes of nature.

The images between the faiths couldn't be more different. The image of a Christian, Muslim, or Jew brings to mind some old, uptight, overly dressed person with no smile, no sense of humor, and no sense of fun. The image of a pantheist brings up so many different images of exotic worship that embraces human nature and channels it into a spiritual experience. That's much more appealing and that's why movies like Avatar succeed.

As an atheist, I don't lend credence to pantheism just because it's more appealing. It still has the same flaws of other religions in that it assumes these supernatual forces exist. But they're much more enriching to the human spirit than the other big religions. They celebrate humanity while Christianity, Judaism, and Islam mourn it. While many may find genuine uplift in these other religions, most people adopt these ways because they are indoctrinated into it. This is why the people in movies like Avatar who dare to question those ways are looked upon so highly. They do what we should all dare to do in our lives and question those who claim they know the truth about god yet offer nothing of substance or comfort to support it.

So for all those who like to criticize Avatar for embracing pantheism, I challenge you to make your faith more appealing. Can you get people to embrace a doctrine that tells them they are flawed and must be scared into conforming or face eternal suffering? You're welcome to try, but it's certain to be an uphill battle.

Brit Hume has taken a lot of heat lately. Ever since he offered advice to the disgraced Tiger Woods to forsake his faith in Buddhism and find redemption through Christianity he has been the subject of ridicule and scrutiny. Those against him condemn him for looking down on someone else's faith, coming off as stating that his religion is better than Tiger's. Those that defend him, like Bill O'Reilly and Brent Bozell, see it as a ruse by the so-called secular elites to further their mass conspiracy to undermind Christianity. Both sides are arrogantly wrong on all fronts. Hume himself stated that he was merely offering advice. It wasn't very good advice and it certainly wasn't framed very well, but it was still taken out of context and it highlights a major issue.

Bill O'Reilly: Brit Hume, Tiger Woods, and Buddha

First off, Hume did show some ignorance of Buddhism. Forgiveness and redemption are a very big part of their faith. Even modern Buddhist monasteries preach it. Buddhism, like Hinduism, believes in the notion of karma and not sin. But karma is similar to sin in that in a theological context, bad deeds weigh a person's soul down and if left unchecked it can condemn such souls. Like Christianity, Buddhism has a means of atonement through strengthening one's karma through good deeds. Avowed Buddhist, Ajahn Sumedho, sums up the Buddhist notion of forgiveness well.

"In contemplating the law of kamma, we realise that it is not a matter of seeking revenge but of practising metta and forgiveness, for the victimiser is, truly, the most unfortunate of all. There is a justice in the world. If we do wrong we may not be discovered and punished by society, but we don't get away with things. We must be reborn again and again until we do resolve our kamma. We don't know how many lifetimes we have had so far, but here we are in this incarnation, with our own particular character and kammic tendencies."

Abhayagiri Buddhist Monastery: Universal Loving Kindness

So Hume is misinformed at the very least. He may not have really known these tenants of Buddhism. In a country where Buddhism is such a minority, it's perfectly understandable. But because of such ignorance, he comes off as insensitive even if he didn't mean to and this is what has caused such a fervor.

Such an overreaction is to be expected. When an old white Christian is on TV condemning a younger black athlete for his transgressions and comes off as asserting his own religion as the only way, it's going to cause a controversy. This is the era of political correctness, whether we like it or not. When a majority scorns a minority, it becomes an issue because suddenly that majority is perceived as a source of tyranny even if that person was just giving what he thought to be useful advice. It doesn't work the other way around because a minority's word simply doesn't carry the same weight in the domain of public opinion.

It has to do with notions of power. People like O'Reilly play the victim when news outlets, comedians, and TV shows like South Park and Family guy make fun of Christianity. But it's deemed acceptable because Christians are the dominant power in America. Most of the population is Christian to a large degree. Most of the politicians cannot get elected unless they are Christians. Christians tend to have greater access to education and resources. Christians tend to make more money and have a higher standard of living. Historically, Christians have held the most power and influence. More than any other religion, Christians seek to impose their values on the whole country through groups like the Christian Right. They are much more forceful and pushing their agenda when they fund movements by pro-life groups, anti-evolution evangelists, and morality crusaders. Overall, their public perception isn't good because many see them as uptight, joyless, zealots who are against anything and everything that is even remotely fun. Making fun of them is an unavoidable backlash.

At the end of the day, most people don't feel too bad about making fun of Christianity because the Christian majority can just drown their sorrows in all the wealth, power, and privilege they enjoy. It doesn't resonate when someone does the same thing to a minority. People are naturally inclined to favor what they think is fair and when someone like Brit Hume talks down to a minority, it isn't seen as fair. This doesn't make the reaction right. It just makes it a product of a society that is all too willing to take things out of context.

When it comes to the moral high ground, everybody is fighting to take their place on top of it. No matter what their political affiliation, religious beliefs, or personal agenda people will always try to take make a morality play to assert that they are right and their opponents are wrong. People in power do it all the time. Government preaches how others should live and show a willingness to use force to impose it either through a gun or through taxation. Religion preaches how others should love by putting the threat of supernatural forces and eternal damnation into the minds of the masses. They take many names. There's the Family Research Council, Moveon.org, the Christian Coalition, the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, and Greenpeace. They stand atop their own pillars of righteousness. The Bill O'Reilly's, the Glenn Beck's, and Rosie O'Donnell's of the world act as though they have moral authority. The problem is these pillars are often flimsy or non-existent.

A brief look back on 2009 shows many examples of how those who take the moral high ground end up forgetting their own personal shortcomings. There was the Mark Sanford affair where a man who was a strict social consertaive who scorned promiscuity among others while ignoring the fact that he was guilty of the same sin. There was Elliot Spitzer, a crusading governor who fought to put men and women in jail for engaging in prostitution while engaging in the services himself. There was Rush Limbaugh, a man who for years scorned drug dealers and drug users as the scoorge of the Earth while he himself was a pill-popping addict. There was the reverend Ted Haggard, who made a career out of denouncing homosexuality while he himself was engaged in an affair with a gay prostitute.

Hypocrisy is a horrible transgression that stands out more than most. How is it that these people of power can look at themselves in the mirror and be comfortable in their own skin? They say one thing and do the opposite. They condemn those who participate in the very transgression they regularly take part in. It's a paradox in a sense that goes to the heart of human psychology. Some would say this is a sign of man's truly dark nature. Others would say it's just arrogant people acting arrogantly. The truth, as always, is much more complicated.

New research has offered a unique insight into this phenomenon. The Kellogg School recently conducted some studies into recent instances of such hypocrisy in public figures. The key to their findings centers around how people put on a public face while having private leanings. It's part of mankind being a social creature in that they present themselves to others in a way that they hope will gain them a certain level of acceptance. For people in power, this effect is amplified because they have to appear salient to the people and others around them so that they can get things done and above all else, hold onto their power. This creates a disconnect between their public persona and their private persona. The public persona says and does things one way while the private persona may do things the other way. How do they cope with this? It's a matter of attention. By focusing so much on the behavior of others they distract themselves from their own transgressions. It makes them more mentally capable of dealing with themselves. The human mind abhors inconsistency and strives for a certain balance. Being a public figure stretches that balance because they have to be who the public wants them to be.

Now that's not to say that this is an excuse. There are those who can be responsible with power. These people usually lack the same charisma, but they are consistent in their character. The issue is and always has been about power and how power corrupts. Those it corrupts most are those that believe their morality is THE morality and all others are flawed. It is those extremes that lead to the kind of hypocrisy that is so worthy of scorn. Every leader, priest, or moral crusader has to be painfully arrogant on some levels to claim that they're right and everyone else is wrong. They may believe in their heart of hearts that they're right, but in a broader context they epitomize the worst humanity has to offer.

The key is and always has been humility. To be humble, caring, and reasonable is to avoid hypocrisy at all costs even in the face of corruptive power. That is mankind's greatest asset in any endeavor and a lesson that all men and women of power would be wise to heed.

For more information on the research by the Kellogg School please see below and consult the following link to ScienceDaily:

Why Powerful People -- Many of Whom Take a Moral High Ground -- Don't Practice What They Preach

ScienceDaily (Dec. 30, 2009) - 2009 may well be remembered for its scandal-ridden headlines, from admissions of extramarital affairs by governors and senators, to corporate executives flying private jets while cutting employee benefits, and most recently, to a mysterious early morning car crash in Florida. The past year has been marked by a series of moral transgressions by powerful figures in political, business and celebrity circles. New research from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University explores why powerful people - many of whom take a moral high ground - don't practice what they preach.

Researchers sought to determine whether power inspires hypocrisy, the tendency to hold high standards for others while performing morally suspect behaviors oneself. The research finds that power makes people stricter in moral judgment of others - while being less strict of their own behavior.

The research was conducted by Joris Lammers and Diederik A. Stapel of Tilburg University in the Netherlands, and by Adam Galinsky of the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill. The article will appear in a forthcoming issue of Psychological Science.

"This research is especially relevant to the biggest scandals of 2009, as we look back on how private behavior often contradicted the public stance of particular individuals in power," said Galinsky, the Morris and Alice Kaplan Professor of Ethics and Decision in Management at the Kellogg School. "For instance, we saw some politicians use public funds for private benefits while calling for smaller government, or have extramarital affairs while advocating family values. Similarly, we witnessed CEOs of major financial institutions accepting executive bonuses while simultaneously asking for government bailout money on behalf of their companies."

"According to our research, power and influence can cause a severe disconnect between public judgment and private behavior, and as a result, the powerful are stricter in their judgment of others while being more lenient toward their own actions," he continued.

To simulate an experience of power, the researchers assigned roles of high-power and low-power positions to a group of study participants. Some were assigned the role of prime minister and others civil servant. The participants were then presented with moral dilemmas related to breaking traffic rules, declaring taxes, and returning a stolen bike.

Through a series of five experiments, the researchers examined the impact of power on moral hypocrisy. For example, in one experiment the "powerful" participants condemned the cheating of others while cheating more themselves. High-power participants also tended to condemn over-reporting of travel expenses. But, when given a chance to cheat on a dice game to win lottery tickets (played alone in the privacy of a cubicle), the powerful people reported winning a higher amount of lottery tickets than did low-power participants.

Three additional experiments further examined the degree to which powerful people accept their own moral transgressions versus those committed by others. In all cases, those assigned to high-power roles showed significant moral hypocrisy by more strictly judging others for speeding, dodging taxes and keeping a stolen bike, while finding it more acceptable to engage in these behaviors themselves.

Galinsky noted that moral hypocrisy has its greatest impact among people who are legitimately powerful. In contrast, a fifth experiment demonstrated that people who don't feel personally entitled to their power are actually harder on themselves than they are on others, which is a phenomenon the researchers dubbed "hypercrisy." The tendency to be harder on the self than on others also characterized the powerless in multiple studies.

"Ultimately, patterns of hypocrisy and hypercrisy perpetuate social inequality. The powerful impose rules and restraints on others while disregarding these restraints for themselves, whereas the powerless collaborate in reproducing social inequality because they don't feel the same entitlement," Galinsky concluded.

It's that time of year again. The winter cold is settling in, the decorations are up, and the holiday season is setting in. It's an annual tradition that impacts nearly everyone in the Western and Non-Western world. It is the time of the Christmas holiday, a holiday which is deeply steeped in modern culture. It is a festive time when people celebrate the season through family, faith, and gift-giving.

Now this time of year is special to me personally. As a non-believer who does not believe in the Christian god or the miracles of the bible any more than any other claim in mythology, many assume I'm left conflicted. This isn't necessarily the truth. Growing up I always loved Christmas, even before I was a devout Christian and before I became a non-believer. Some of my fondest memories are of Christmas. My family has always made an extra effort to make Christmas special and I've carried on with that tradition.

While I understand that Christmas is strongly tied to the story of Jesus's birth and is deeply steeped in Christian tradition, I never associated the holiday exclusively with religion. To me religion was a part of it, but it wasn't the only part. I always focused on the charity, good-will, and humanity aspects that Christmas evoked. To me these were and still are strongly associated with the teachings of Jesus Christ. He more than anyone embodied the spirit of Christmas in his teachings. Even a non-believer can respect those teachings and appreciate the holiday traditions.

Now that I am a non-believer, Christmas has taken on a slightly different context. But the meaning has never changed. I still put up a tree. I still wrap presents. I still decorate my house and spend time with my family. There just isn't a religious subtext to it anymore. I do it out of tradition and culture and I still enjoy every bit as much as I did when I was a devout Christian. Even my friends who are religious appreciate this and I wish them good will regardless of my non-belief. Even though Christmas has always been special to me, this time of year routinely evokes the usual War on Christmas in the media.

A lot of people think that because I'm a non-believer I'm on the side of the politically correct crowd when it comes to Christmas. They're dead wrong. I'm against pretty much everything the politically correct crowd stands for and that includes Christmas. I don't believe "Happy Holidays" should be mandated to be sensitive to other faiths. I don't believe nativity scenes should be banned or Christmas carols should be censored. This is a free country and these things are part of free expression. Nobody has a right NOT to be offended and if they don't like seeing this sort of thing that's their problem. They can move to a place with less freedom if that'll make them happier. It certainly wouldn't be in the spirit of the season.

Some of the more extreme atheists go so far as to twist Christmas into this secular holiday with none of the traditions that make it special. This is where I disagree. Christmas, like it or not, DOES have religious undertones. It always has even before Christianity. To take that out of it in the name of secularism is to miss the point of the free society. Christmas is not something the far left crowd should regulate. This is a tradition steeped in culture and in free societies cultures are free to express their traditions so long as they don't impose on anybody else with force. I find it embarressing for rational and reasonably minded non-believers when some atheist spokesperson tries to make a bold statement about Christmas in the media and utterly misses the point. They may claim that Christmas needs to be overhauled, but they cannot do that without infringing on the rights and traditions of others. Regardless of what anybody does or doesn't believe, that's just plain wrong.

The War on Christmas has become a joke. On one side there is fear that some crusading atheists will destroy the holiday and on the other side there is fear that some crusading Christians will use the holiday to impose their beliefs. Both are foolish and do the holiday a great disservice by politicizing it into this struggle between one group of people and another. That isn't what the spirit of the holiday is about. Even the most dogmatic crusader of either side can understand how ridiculous it is to use the holiday as a means to push an agenda.

What's important about this time of year is that humans have been celebrating it in good spirit for a long time. Even before the birth of Christ, this time of year evoked many celebrations. The Winter Solstice when Christmas occurs has long been a special time of year in many cultures. It stems from mankind's obsession with predicting and understanding the seasons, winter being one of the most important. It is when the days stop getting shorter and the nights stop getting longer that mankind feels a sort of kinship with nature and celebrations will inevitably follow. Every culture from pre-Christian pagans to Native Americans to Buddhists have some holiday associated with this time of year. It is only fitting that everyone has a chance to enjoy it without politics making an agenda out of it.

The Holidays of the Winter Solstice

So this year as every year, I look forward to celebrating the holidays as I always have. I still say Merry Christmas and not Happy Holidays. I still give gifts, spend time with loved ones, and reflect on the past year. It is a wonderful time of year and I have no desire to see it politicized. So for the sake of humanity and in the spirit of the season, I call for a treaty to end the War on Christmas so we can all celebrate peacefully.

With this in mind I wish everyone a very Merry Christmas and a wonderful holiday.

Regards,
Godless Patriot

It is an age-old debate in philosophy. Is mankind naturally good or naturally bad? Philosophers and theologians have made their respective cases throughout history. Some traditions such as ancient Chinese philosophies in Confucianism and Taoism assert that man is naturally good. They use the example of a child drowning in a well and how man is naturally inclined to help that child. Other traditions, like the Judeo-Christian philosophy, argues that mankind is naturally bad. If given the opportunity to be greedy, malicious, or spiteful most people will give in and do what is bad before doing what is right. It is not an easy debate to resolve because there are so many cases throughout history that favor both. There are cases of tremendous altruism, the most famous being the soldier who dives on a grenade to save the lives of his squad. There are also cases of tremendous atrocity, most notably the bloody reign of tyrants like Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Caligula. It's hard to assert which state is dominant because everybody is different and there are personality and environmental factors to consider. But the question remains. Is man in his basic essance inclined to altruism or selfishness?

Philosophy can debate this, but science is shedding new light on the subject. Since the study of evolution began, it has been popular to assert that it is a selfish process highlighted by the mantra of 'survival of the fittest.' Creationists and religious zealots have condemned this method for decades. However, that mantra may be wrong and a new concept known as 'survival of the kindest' is taking hold.

Charles Darwin himself once stated that sympathy is mankind's strongest instinct. In an evolutionary context, it makes sense for man to be both selfish and altruistic. To be selfish is to ensure one's own survival, which is paramount to any species. To be altruistic is to foster cooperation, communication, and group cohesion that is equally important in an constantly changing environment. Mankind is not like other species in that an individual is strong enough to evade any predator and capture any prey, but as a group mankind functions in a way that favors the survival of not just the individual but the entire species.

A good way to picture this is to go back to the hunger/gatherer days. If an individual was selfish and malicious, he would not get much help from his peers. He would have to fend for himself, finding his own food and fight to procure his own mate. If at any point he should face danger or be unable to secure food for himself, there would be no one to help him and he would not survive. If this individual worked in a team, sacrificing selfishness in favor of group harmony he is better able to get the resources he needs to survive. If he faces those same dangers, there are mechanisms to help him. This makes getting food and securing mates much easier and these traits would be favored by natural selection. So in the grand scheme of evolution, mankind has been bred to be altruistic.

Contrast this with religious subversions that assert mankind needs a deity of some kind to watch over him and threaten him with divine retribution in order for them to be good. Some even argue there must be a threat of damnation, a hell or an underworld where the spirit suffers for their transgressions, and if there wasn't then man would naturally indulge in greed, violence, and lust. Whether it's through a deity or a threat of suffering after death, one of religion's most powerful recruiting tools is creating a supernatural judge to keep people in line. But is that judge really necessary? Aren't mankind's collective instincts enough? There appears to be evidence that no deity is needed.

Below is an article highlighting a study that shows this and sheds new light on human altruism without any need for gods and spirits of any kind.

ScienceDaily: New Studies Into Human Altruism

ScienceDaily (Dec. 9, 2009) — Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, are challenging long-held beliefs that human beings are wired to be selfish. In a wide range of studies, social scientists are amassing a growing body of evidence to show we are evolving to become more compassionate and collaborative in our quest to survive and thrive.

In contrast to "every man for himself" interpretations of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, Dacher Keltner, a UC Berkeley psychologist and author of "Born to be Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life," and his fellow social scientists are building the case that humans are successful as a species precisely because of our nurturing, altruistic and compassionate traits.

They call it "survival of the kindest."

"Because of our very vulnerable offspring, the fundamental task for human survival and gene replication is to take care of others," said Keltner, co-director of UC Berkeley's Greater Good Science Center. "Human beings have survived as a species because we have evolved the capacities to care for those in need and to cooperate. As Darwin long ago surmised, sympathy is our strongest instinct."

Empathy in our genes

Keltner's team is looking into how the human capacity to care and cooperate is wired into particular regions of the brain and nervous system. One recent study found compelling evidence that many of us are genetically predisposed to be empathetic.

The study, led by UC Berkeley graduate student Laura Saslow and Sarina Rodrigues of Oregon State University, found that people with a particular variation of the oxytocin gene receptor are more adept at reading the emotional state of others, and get less stressed out under tense circumstances.

Informally known as the "cuddle hormone," oxytocin is secreted into the bloodstream and the brain, where it promotes social interaction, nurturing and romantic love, among other functions.

"The tendency to be more empathetic may be influenced by a single gene," Rodrigues said.

The more you give, the more respect you get

While studies show that bonding and making social connections can make for a healthier, more meaningful life, the larger question some UC Berkeley researchers are asking is, "How do these traits ensure our survival and raise our status among our peers?"

One answer, according to UC Berkeley social psychologist and sociologist Robb Willer is that the more generous we are, the more respect and influence we wield. In one recent study, Willer and his team gave participants each a modest amount of cash and directed them to play games of varying complexity that would benefit the "public good." The results, published in the journal American Sociological Review, showed that participants who acted more generously received more gifts, respect and cooperation from their peers and wielded more influence over them.

"The findings suggest that anyone who acts only in his or her narrow self-interest will be shunned, disrespected, even hated," Willer said. "But those who behave generously with others are held in high esteem by their peers and thus rise in status."

"Given how much is to be gained through generosity, social scientists increasingly wonder less why people are ever generous and more why they are ever selfish," he added.

Cultivating the greater good

Such results validate the findings of such "positive psychology" pioneers as Martin Seligman, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania whose research in the early 1990s shifted away from mental illness and dysfunction, delving instead into the mysteries of human resilience and optimism.

While much of the positive psychology being studied around the nation is focused on personal fulfillment and happiness, UC Berkeley researchers have narrowed their investigation into how it contributes to the greater societal good.

One outcome is the campus's Greater Good Science Center, a West Coast magnet for research on gratitude, compassion, altruism, awe and positive parenting, whose benefactors include the Metanexus Institute, Tom and Ruth Ann Hornaday and the Quality of Life Foundation.

Christine Carter, executive director of the Greater Good Science Center, is creator of the "Science for Raising Happy Kids" Web site, whose goal, among other things, is to assist in and promote the rearing of "emotionally literate" children. Carter translates rigorous research into practical parenting advice. She says many parents are turning away from materialistic or competitive activities, and rethinking what will bring their families true happiness and well-being.

"I've found that parents who start consciously cultivating gratitude and generosity in their children quickly see how much happier and more resilient their children become," said Carter, author of "Raising Happiness: 10 Simple Steps for More Joyful Kids and Happier Parents" which will be in bookstores in February 2010. "What is often surprising to parents is how much happier they themselves also become."

The sympathetic touch

As for college-goers, UC Berkeley psychologist Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton has found that cross-racial and cross-ethnic friendships can improve the social and academic experience on campuses. In one set of findings, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, he found that the cortisol levels of both white and Latino students dropped as they got to know each over a series of one-on-one get-togethers. Cortisol is a hormone triggered by stress and anxiety.

Meanwhile, in their investigation of the neurobiological roots of positive emotions, Keltner and his team are zeroing in on the aforementioned oxytocin as well as the vagus nerve, a uniquely mammalian system that connects to all the body's organs and regulates heart rate and breathing.

Both the vagus nerve and oxytocin play a role in communicating and calming. In one UC Berkeley study, for example, two people separated by a barrier took turns trying to communicate emotions to one another by touching one other through a hole in the barrier. For the most part, participants were able to successfully communicate sympathy, love and gratitude and even assuage major anxiety.

Researchers were able to see from activity in the threat response region of the brain that many of the female participants grew anxious as they waited to be touched. However, as soon as they felt a sympathetic touch, the vagus nerve was activated and oxytocin was released, calming them immediately.

"Sympathy is indeed wired into our brains and bodies; and it spreads from one person to another through touch," Keltner said.

The same goes for smaller mammals. UC Berkeley psychologist Darlene Francis and Michael Meaney, a professor of biological psychiatry and neurology at McGill University, found that rat pups whose mothers licked, groomed and generally nurtured them showed reduced levels of stress hormones, including cortisol, and had generally more robust immune systems.

Overall, these and other findings at UC Berkeley challenge the assumption that nice guys finish last, and instead support the hypothesis that humans, if adequately nurtured and supported, tend to err on the side of compassion.

"This new science of altruism and the physiological underpinnings of compassion is finally catching up with Darwin's observations nearly 130 years ago, that sympathy is our strongest instinct," Keltner said.

A lot has been said recently on the scandal that has come to be known as Climategate. Stories that hacked emails from a climate research center in England reveal researchers possibly skewing data on climate change has caused an uproar. Many on the skeptics side have claimed that this is a smoking gun that global warming is a fraud. That somehow just because this data has been compromised the whole theory has to be thrown out. On the other side, the global warming alarmists claim this is just a ploy by skeptics to discredit their cause and prevent world governments from doing anything about it. In the end, they're both wrong. They both use the same flawed reasoning, appealing to conspiracy theories that makes their side out to be the side of truth and the other out to be the bad guys. But in this case, nobody is the real bad guy. Both sides believe they're equally right and they cannot be convinced otherwise.

When it comes to emotional issues, few are as volatile as abortion. It has been debated for decades, making Roe vs. Wade remains one of the most well-known and controversial court cases in history. People have gone to extraordinary lengths (even murder and terrorism) to push their position. Even in a free society it is not easily resolved because this is an issue that deals with human life and what could be more emotional than determining the fate of a life or a potential human life?

Since abortion is so emotional, it's a given that a large part of the debate is not based in reason. It is almost impossible to separate one's personal feelings about this issue from their justification for being either pro-choice or pro-life. This has become especially apparent as abortion has been thrust into the spotlight again along with the health care debate. Many media outlets, including Townhall.com, have spent a great deal of time discussing the issue. The debate is nearly always emotional, but there are a few concrete issues that have a reasonable position.

One point the pro-life crowd makes that is perfectly valid is the use of public money to fund abortions. This is a legitimate concern regardless of the emotional position they may have against abortion. This point in many ways highlights the shortcomings of the current health care debate. When the public knows their money is going somewhere they have personal objections to, it's only natural that they take it as an affront to their conscious and their liberty. The taxes people pay and the money the government uses is meant to go only to what the constitution specifies. That is what a constitutional republic is all about. There's nothing in the constitution that says public money should go to paying for someone else's health care let alone someone else's abortion. Nobody should be expected to fund something that isn't a direct support of their basic rights and the pro-life movement is right to protest this. Unfortunately, they do not stop at the strictly reasonable aspects of the debate.

Being so emotional, the pro-life crowd has to take it a step further. They have to paint abortion not just as a health issue, but a moral issue. They equate abortion to killing a baby, something everybody can agree is wrong. The problem with this position is that it's an extreme. For one, in a strictly rational sense it's not proper to call abortion murder. This is because killing or murder requires personhood and the beginnings of personhood are debatable. The pro-life crowd insists that life begins at conception. As soon as the sperm meets the egg, it is a human being. But this definition has a problem. If a fertilized egg is a person, then why are they not counted on the census? Why aren't miscarriages treated as murder or death? Not every fertilized egg gets implanted either. How is one to treat such situations when the context has so many inconsistencies? As a parallel, nobody judges death at the death of the last cell so why would one use such a standard for life?

Pro-lifers will go onto debate that a fertilized egg is a 'potential life' and it must be saved. It sounds like a noble intention, but it's igorning that in the constituion it does not specify that 'potential life' is protected the same way life is protected. So legally, there is no justification for calling abortion murder. It also ignores that this standard utterly ignores the rights of the woman carrying this child. In this instance the pro-choice crowd is correct in pointing out that the abortion issue needs to reside with the women it affects, namely those who have to make this decision. It is not proper nor is it reasonable for the state or other interest groups to impose their choice on someone else. If someone is against abortion, they're more than free to try and persuade people to not have one. However, when they want to start using force to make that choice for the person then they no longer have the moral high ground.

The abortion debate more than any other debate needs reason and not emotional pleas. The age-old tactic of trying to aquait an issue with something many find deplorable is utilized all too often. Recently, Ken Conner tried to equate abortion with the slavery issue back in the 1800s.

"A century and a half later, it is no longer skin color that provokes controversy over the question of liberty, but other criteria such as size, age, and location (inside or outside the womb).  Because we have decided that they are not "persons," the continued existence of the unborn has become entirely contingent upon the whims of the mother.  The pro-abortion camp insists that an unborn child only counts when it is wanted.  Rights have nothing to do with the matter - it's really all about wants."

It sounds so logical to some people and tugs at the heart strings of impressionable readers, yet it has a major fallacy. Abortion is NOT slavery. These are truly two different issues. It is not reasonable to compare a fetus to a fully living adult human being who is being enslaved against their will. A fetus at an early stage has no thoughts or internal organs. It is not capable of working, breathing, or living on its own. To equate the abortion issue with the slavery issue is to pervert both. Conner makes a big mistake in stating that it all comes down to the selfish wants of the mother. It makes light of the fact that the woman is the one making the decision and it's not always out of pure selfishness they seek an abortion. In addition, it's another insult to say rights are tied to wants. They're not. Rights and liberty are and always have been a product of law and law is a human construction. When it comes to granting rights it not always best to err on the side of life as the pro-life crowd so eagerly attempts. The law works best when it errs on the side of reason and there is nothing reasonable about equating the unborn to slaves and the woman facing this issue as being selfish.

Ken Conner: Without Life, No Rights

The abortion issue has many other aspects. Many of the pro-life crowd also happen to be against any kind of sex outside of marriage, contraception even within marriage, and homosexual rights even though they're the least likely to ever have an abortion. They often claim that their bible believing Christians as well, but this is even more ironic because the Judeo-Christian god is one of the last characters that would champion the pro-life movement. This is the same being that slaughtered the first born in Exodus and wiped out the entire planet in Genesis. God of all beings would not be pro-life. It all seems to have less to do with abortion and more to do with imposing a ridged moral standard on society. The idea of abortion stands as an affront because it seems to mean to them that woman can be sexually promiscuous without having pregnancy to make them think twice and that flies in the face of their morality.

This in many ways is the biggest problem with the pro-life movement. They are so closely tied to this prudish, uptight model for society that they have no room to debate and reason the actual logistics of abortion. This hurts their cause and their credibility, which is a shame becaues abortion truly is an important issue. That is why it must be approached with reason and not clouded with emotional distress.

A lot can be said about the tragedy at Fort Hood that transpired this past week. A spree killing of such magnitude is always a horrifying ordeal, but this incident has taken on a whole new meaning because of the nature of the affair. It didn't happen in a school or some other public place. It took place in Fort Hood, a military base that housed the men and women of the armed forces. The victims were soldiers, a group of people who have long been venerated in American society. The shooter was also a soldier, but he also happened to be a Muslim and it is this affiliation that has captured everybody's attention.

Spree killings are always a spectacle, especially when there is a tragic element to it. But the shooters at Columbine and Virginia Tech never had a religious component to their violent acts. They were just disturbed, angry young men who gave into their violent impulses. The shooter in this case, Major Nidal Hasan, fit this profile in many ways. According to the Washington Post, Hasan was a loner like many spree killers tend to be. He had frew friends and odd, off-putting work habits. It is a trait shared by both Columbine and Virginia Tech, loners who show signs of withdrawl and depression. Yet this is not what everybody is latching onto. It's his faith that is getting all the press.

The Post also documented that Hasan was a devout Muslim. He was the son of a Palestinian immigrant and was very disciplined when it came to his faith. He prayed every day and gave generously to those in need. He also wore traditional Muslim attire and gave copies of the Quran to his neighbors. He was also reported to speak highly of suicide bombers, saying their acts were noble for their cause. This has led some to suspect that he was influenced by terrorist literature and used his faith to justify his terrible actions. Some have gone so far as to say he is an agent of Islamic terrorists groups. It would make sense given how he was reportedly harassed by others in the armed forces for his faith.

But all these assertions have one big fallacy. It's called correlation and causality. It is a fallacy the media and many pundits are guilty of in these cases. They look for a cause and whatever seems most logical or appealing to them is immediately labled as connected. Conspiracy theorists do this all the time. So do racist groups like the KKK and ironically enough the same terrorists Hasan was said to be a part of. But what is logical isn't always what is true.

The question remains. Did Hasan commit these violent acts because of or in spite of his religion? Saying his religion played a part in his acts presents the same problems with other spree killers. It was said that the Columbine killers were influenced by violent music and video games. It was said the Virginia Tech killer was influenced by violent literature. It's hard for anyone to believe in coincidences, but they do happen. The problem remains that there is no evidence that any of these things were linked to the person's actions. Studies done into the psychology of spree killers have found only two major similarities. They're all male and they're all depressed loners. Everything else, including their religion, was secondary and negligable.

Could there have been a religious component? Does this mean Islam is a violent religion? That's still debatable. In a strictly objective sense, Islam is about as violent as Christianity and Judism. They all have vengeful gods that justify horrific acts against non-believers. It could be argued that any violent act could be justified with religion. All someone has to say is "God told me to do it" and that's it. It doesn't matter which god it is or what religion it is, the logic is still the same and it is still flawed.

There's no question that these spree killings are horrific acts, but blaming outside forces does not offer any significant answers. People are inevitably responsible for their own actions. Whatever was influencing Hasan, he made the decision to kill those people. He is responsible for what he did, not his religion or his hobbies. There are millions of devout Muslims in this country and one person going on a rampage is not evidence of a trend. The exception does not nor will it ever prove the rule.

Fort Hood Suspect A Devout Muslim, Loner

"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