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

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.

Is it harder to believe or not to believe? The intuitive response is to assume that belief is more difficult. It seems logical on the surface. To believe in something in the absence of evidence is a great challenge. It’s easy to assume how hard someone would have to push themselves to accept it. It’s one of the reasons people of strong convictions are so admired on most societies. It seems as though they’re stronger in their ability to accept a premise that some may deem impossible.

But is that really the case? Is believing in something really as hard as people make it out to be? Most modern psychological studies are remarkably consistent. Belief is much easier than non-belief. To blindly accept something, whether it involves religion or politics or government, is far more preferable than to question or to reason.

It starts at a young age. It has been will documented that children in their infancy are highly impressionable. It is their tendency to adopt and accept the wishes of elders and authority figures. In a strictly survival context, it makes sense. If children always questioned authority figures, it would be distracting and dangerous for both the parents the child. By having the child blindly believe, it helps humans be more social and coordinated. That leads to advantageous survival functions that evolution has favored since the days of hunter gatherers.

It isn’t just children’s impressionability that makes belief easier. Even as rational adults, people are subject to peer pressure. A classic example is the Asch Conformity Experiment where three test subjects, one of which was a random volunteer, were asked to decide which line out of three was longer. Two controls voted on one that was obviously shorter, thus pressuring the volunteer to make a decision. Should they conform to what they know is wrong or act on their own? Most would assume a rational person would do what was right, but that was not the case. Nearly 75 percent of participants went with the group, doing what was clearly wrong for the sake of conformity.

The Psychology of Conformity

Religion and government hijack these two deeply held traits. For religion, belief in a supernatural deity is easy. Nobody has to know anything about anything to believe. They don’t have to have any special knowledge or special skills. They don’t have to do anything other than blindly believe and in return they get acceptance from other believers and hope that they will be rewarded when they die, even though there’s no evidence that they do. It’s a cheap, easy way to feel good about one’s self and it is often abused, fostering irrational superstition, bigotry, corruption, greed, and sometimes murder. The hijackers of 9/11 truly believed that their invisible god that they never saw or experienced was real and that this god would grant them 72 virgins in the afterlife for murdering innocent people. It’s an appealing belief and one that is much easier to accept than question when it is preached with the fiery rhetoric of dogmatic clerics.

Psychology of Religious Belief

Every religion is guilty of abusing humanity’s susceptibility to belief. Government is just as bad as religion. They play off that same childhood tendency to believe in one’s parents and authority figures even when what they’re doing is obviously wrong. It came full circle in the build-up to the Iraq war. Everybody was drunk with patriotism, blindly believing in the government’s assertion that Iraq posed a danger. Anybody that questioned this was deemed unpatriotic and cast aside, a clear show of the power of peer pressure.

In every state, democratic and authoritarian, leaders use their status against people. From the communist states of China and Russia to the ancient powers of Rome and Egypt, authority figures have used and abused the capacity to believe. Free societies are supposed to open these figures to questioning, but it is rare that people do so because it is so much easier and so much more convenient to just believe.

Disbelief, it turns out, is much harder. It creates a lot of discomfort in people because rejecting something is often looked down upon. Rejecting the government or rejecting religion just doesn’t seem as noble to people. Some dare to call it heretical. It’s also hard to reject the appeal of some beliefs. For many, it is very nice to believe that there is a just and loving god who will reward those that die after living a righteous life. But no matter how much someone believes in something, that doesn’t make it true. There’s no proof that there’s anything after death. There’s no proof that there’s a god of any kind or that supernatural forces exist. Not believing in them is hard because it means rejecting some mystery from the world.

In many ways, it is those that believe the strongest that are the most dangerous. The religious fanatics and authoritarian bureaucrats are so convinced they will not even consider questioning themselves. It takes a great deal of hubris, arrogance, and narcissism. To not question is not only irrational, it is cowardice. From the priests to the kings, they may have the power of influence. But at their very core, they are cowards of the highest degree.

The theory of evolution and science itself has been attacked by the religion since the days of the Spanish Inquisition. Throughout history religious zealots have harassed, hindered, or outright suppressed the likes of Galieo, Copernicus, and Charles Darwin. It's never on the merits of the work itself. It always has to do with certain groups just not liking that the stories in their favorite religous texts being disproved in the real world. It's not about their claims being valid. It's about vindicating thier own beliefs and rallying around something that seems so counter-intuitive to their illogical thinking.

Sadly enough, the assault on science continues to this day. The church has long since lost it's power, but the attack can come from a myriad of sources. Some even come from former teenage idols. Kirk Cameron, a former child star from the sitcom Growing Pains, has taken up the mantle of overzealous religious dogma. In a recent interview with People, he discussed plans to distribute 'edited' versions of Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" on November 19th across college campuses.

Kirk Cameron Defends attacks on Darwin

By edited, of course, that means mixed with irrational creationist dogma that has long since been disproved and has no merit in modern science. Yet he makes no apologies. He describes the edited text as a "balanced view of Creationism with information from scientists who actually believe God created the universe." But this is a complete oxymoron.

When it comes to the debate between creationism and science, there is no balance. Science uses reason, evidence, and logic. Creationism uses belief, superstition, and dogma. To people like Cameron, a firm belief in his particular supernatural deity is all it takes to disprove a theory that is accepted by over 95 percent of scientists and has mountains of evidence across varying fields like palentology, zoology, biology, chemistry, psychology, sociology, chemistry, comparative morphology, and taxonomy. Creationism isn't supported by anything other than dogmatic believers who know next to nothing about science, what it is or how it works. They don't even understand what the word 'theory' means. To people like Cameron, it means a guess. But if he just opened any legitimate dictionary, he would see that's completely wrong. Yet this doesn't bother him. He and his partner in crime, Ray Comfort, continue to state and restate the same false statements again and again, never changing their message or the merits that support it. They either aren't that concerned with the truth or simply do not care.

What Kirk is doing has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with promoting his agenda and that of his creationist buddies. By disturbing these perverse texts across college campuses, he hopes to gain followers. In his mind he's saving their souls, but in reality he's dooming them to ignorance. Creationism is one of the most perverted flaws of religion. It makes people mix belief with truth, causing them to abandon any semblance of reason or questioning in any objective manner. It's all about propagating the faith. Anything that gets the believer to think in any way that deviates from accepted dogma must somehow be bad, even if it is backed up by evidence and logic. This isn't just immoral. It's downright inhumane, attempting to rob people of their natrual capacity for reason and knowledge.

On November 21st, 2009, it will mark the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's landmark "On the Origins of Species." It is sad that after all this time, there are still people like Kirk Cameron who spew their Bronze Age worldviews and call it moral. People like them would have society march backwards into the dark ages, negating all the progress that religion and zealous preachers have fought tirelessly to hinder. To them, saving souls is worth all the countless lives that would be lost by abandoning this powerful tool for human progress.

That in essence is the ultimate tragedy. What if centuries ago there was an Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawkings who had insight into the world that could have advanced mankind out of the Dark Ages faster? Yet they were never able to contribute because zealous religious officials felt threatened by their work and had them silenced or even killed? There's no telling how many lives could have been spared, but that doesn't matter to these people. Any amount of death is worth it if it gains them favor of their invisible god. That, in every sense, is evil in it's purest form.

For a rebuttal of Kirk Cameron's many erroneous views, please check out the video below.

This past week the world lost a great man. He was a scientist, a humanitarian, and a visionary. He is one of only six people to win the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Metal of Freedom, and the Congressional Gold Metal. He touched more people in a positive way than anyone in the past 100 years. He’s helped save more lives than anyone in history. His contributions will continue to help save lives for decades after his passing. His name is Dr. Norman Borlaug and on September 12, 2009 he passed away at the age of 95. The saddest part is most people have never even heard of him.

Dr. Borlaug was an agricultural scientist with a PHD in plant pathology and genetics from the University of Minnesota. He is the father of what is known as the Green Revolution. He helped develop new farming technologies such as high-yield, disease resistant wheat crops and worked on advanced methods for implementing them on a large scale. He spent much of his live in the sciences, researching and studying plant pathology to find new and innovative ways to grow more food with fewer resources. His work came at a critical time when many doomsayers like Paul Ehrlich and his book “The Population Bomb” were warning the public of a coming population explosion that was going to cause widespread famine. Thanks to his research, that disaster never happened. Food yields went up and less people went hungry.

But Dr. Borlaug didn’t just develop new technologies. He was a man who wasn’t afraid to get his hands dirty. He traveled around the world to help developing countries implement his advanced farming techniques. He visited Mexico, Pakistan, and numerous areas of Africa helping farmers and countries increase their yields. At times he put his life at risk. During his work in Pakistan, a war broke out with India over Kashmir. Yet he never stopped his work. Because of his efforts, crop yields throughout developing countries soared and countless lives were saved.

It has been estimated that Dr. Borlaug’s work has helped save over 245 million people. Others place that figure around a billion. No one else in history can make such a claim. Dr. Borlaug’s contributions affect everybody directly every time they sit down to a nice meal. There’s a good chance that those reading this have eaten something today that came directly from crops Dr. Borlaug developed.

Norman Borlaug demonstrates the best of what science can do for humanity. He used knowledge and reason to help the world and ease suffering. It’s also notable that many of the people he helped spanned ethnic, racial, and religious barriers. He was a true humanitarian, using his gift of reason to help the world. Many may try to make the world a better place through philosophy, charity, and hard work. But Dr. Borlaug can be remembered as man who succeeded beyond every conceivable measure. He did change the world. He did make a difference. His impact is truly immeasurable and he will be sorely missed. The world owes him a great debt. He will go down in history as the man who fed the world.

We will miss you, Dr. Borlaug. Thank you for everything you’ve given us.

“We cannot build a peaceful society on empty stomachs and human misery.”

Norman Borlaug (1914-2009)