PZ Myers posted this back in December, and I thought it was worth repeating. I'm in a debate with an old friend and we keep getting stuck on pretty much all of those discussion stoppers. I keep trying because he's a friend and I don't like to shut people down.

The War on Christmas Continues Redux

Continuing my War on Christmas.

"You are twisting my point completely into one that suits you."

OK, let's dissect your point to see what it was.

"I've just about had enough of the minimization of Christmas."

Christmas is not being minimized any more than any holiday. Please note all the Christmas trees, Christmas ornaments, and Christmas candy (not to mention nativities) available at this time of year. There is no special law preventing Christians from displaying any of these things on their own property.

"Political correctness, coupled with bitter, angry atheists, have all but destroyed any remnants of the reason for celebrating this holiday, and I am at an unprofessional boiling point." "If you want to be an atheist go right ahead, though I've not known many that aren't angry and unhappy 80% of the time, but it is certainly your right." "Try to enjoy life next year and be a little less bitter and hateful."

I am an atheist. I am not bitter or hateful. I am angry. Anger is a good thing when your rights are being threatened. You yourself seem just as angry as I am. It's not preventing us from having a discussion. If you've only met unhappy/angry atheists, maybe you should meet more of them.

"Does anyone really believe our nation is better off without the true meaning of Christmas allowed in public places?"

This is a rhetorical question. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are saying that you believe it is obvious that the nation would be better off with the Jesus allowed in public places. But there are 2 different kinds of public places. If you own a shop, that business is a public place. You can decorate it as you see fit. You may choose to decorate it with a 24' tall glow-in-the-dark crucifix. Uncle Sam won't say a word. People of other religions may not frequent your store as much, especially if you only stock Christmas merchandise when they are looking for Kwanzaa candles. But it is your choice. The other kind of public place is a government institution. Thanks to our founding fathers (especially Jefferson and the Baptists), our government is not allowed to show favoritism for any religion. So, either the walls of public institutions should be covered with whatever anyone calls a religious belief all year round (remember there are other holidays that aren't in December), or they should not. Personally, I'm in favor of a clean look, but if you'd prefer a mish-mashed hodge-podge of thousands of kinds of religious kitsch, that's a valid point of view. I'll be ready with my "Don't Worry, There's No God" sign.

"It is already an over-commercialized financially crippling mess."

It doesn't have to be. You are allowed to celebrate it in any way you wish. You could forego decorations and costly gifts, instead opting to have a quiet ceremony of religious significance. And everyone else is allowed to continue celebrating as they wish.

"We have created numerous fairy tales to detract from the true meaning."

Yes, the Christians have over the years adopted many non-Jesus related traditions. Pardon the rest of us if we find Santa more palatable than indoctrinating our children into your specific religion.

"As insane as this sounds, in today's politically correct United States it is more acceptable to talk about this made up farce of a holiday [Kwanzaa] in your public schools than it is to speak of Jesus' birth."

Kwanzaa is a non-religious celebration. Discussing it does not violate church-state separation. Young people are allowed to speak of Jesus birth. Teachers in positions of authority are not allowed to abuse that power to privilege their religious beliefs.

"Anything which could offend anyone (minus Christians, of course) is shunned as intolerant. No Christmas trees, manger scenes, wise men, Jesus, or anything of the sort. It's as though there really exists a PC Grinch, who has ridden down the mountain and stolen our Christian symbols of the holiday. Unfortunately, his heart does not appear to be growing three sizes any day soon."

This is vague enough, I'm not sure what you're asserting. If you're just dramatizing your earlier claims that Christians are being persecuted, see above.

"If you do not believe in this than simply don't celebrate the holiday, but don't attempt to create other distractions and fictional celebrations to overshadow and minimize CHRISTmas."

Atheists have not created distractions. The Christian 3/4 of the population loves Santa. They love buying overpriced gifts for their children. The commercialization is all you guys. Stop buying and the stores will stop selling. As for Kwanzaa, it isn't on Christmas. It is in December. Even if it was on December 25th, as you've said, other people have the right to celebrate as they see fit. Your assertion that Kwanzaa celebrations somehow distract you from Christmas is a non-sequitur.

"To all those who claim to be offended by someone saying "Merry Christmas" to them....lighten up!! ride that sled back down the mountain and we'll let you carve the roast beast!! Merry Christmas!!!"

I don't think anyone is claiming to be offended when someone says "Merry Christmas". I think our case is that government should not prioritize "Merry Christmas" over "Blessed Yom Kippur", "Happy Solstice", etc. As to coming down the mountain and carving the roast beast, what I'm hearing is "this whole thing would be fixed if you'd just convert". Sorry if that's not what you meant. Maybe you just need to work on effective communication (if so many people are misunderstanding you).

The War on Christmas Continues

Ronald Williams shared this post on his blog. I wasn't sure if he would approve my comment, so I figured I would leave a copy here (for posterity).

"HOW CAN YOU BE SO OFFENDED BY SOMETHING YOU DON'T EVEN BELIEVE EXISTS???"

We're not offended by your nonexistent deity.

We're offended by you insisting that your religion should get special treatment. We're offended by boycotts from bigots like you aimed at stores that try to include everyone by saying "Happy Holidays". We're offended by sanctimonious jerks who threaten violence against others for a cheerful greeting. We're offended by you equating us with the Grinch because we'd rather not have our children forced to celebrate your holiday at school.

I don't get bent out of shape when the new Twilight move is released either. But Twilight fans aren't making up a phony War-On-Twilight, when I fail to mention Edward and Bella for 2 months out of the year.

Training Children

Should people have the right to raise their children however they see fit?

Scenaria 1:
Denise is a psychologist. Having heard about Wiesel's kitten experiments, she decides to try some of them on her child. She covers one of the child's eyes with an eyepatch, preventing that eye from "learning" to see. Her child grows up and is killed in a car accident (16) due to her poor depth perception.

Scenario 2:
Kathy is an anti-abortion activist. Having been inspired by Paul Hill, she decides to teach her child from an early age to emulate him. She explains that it is every good person's duty to shoot abortion doctors. Her child grows up (16), kills an abortion doctor, and is sentenced to death.

Scenario 3:
Paullette is a Jehovah's witness. She teaches her child that blood transfusions are an abomination unto the Lord. Her child grows up (16), is injured in a car accident, and dies after refusing a transfusion.

It's my view that these parents are responsible for the deaths of their children. It's one thing to say that everyone has to be responsible for their own actions. But when the person you were supposed to be able to trust most gives you false information (or impairs your ability to perceive the world around you), and you take actions based on this information, it's hard to see how you could have done things better. When you have been raised in a situation of extreme psychotic religious abuse, is there any way to break free?

So, my focus here is on prevention. The three children might not have died had they been protected from their parents. And the only plausible protection that can be given to these kids is from the government.

Now, I know what you're thinking (maybe). The government... aren't they the bad guys? Shouldn't the government stay out of families? What's to keep this from being like Big Brother in 1984?

Well, that's kind of a backward view. A human stranded on a desert island doesn't need government. But a group of any size really does. Government is our human way of keeping our lives running smoothly, of smoothing out interaction with other people. The government is us (yes, I know there are dictatorships where the government is one guy) making and enforcing the rules of the game of human interaction. When the police lock up a serial killer, that's us (the government) keeping ourselves safe. When child labor, slavery, segregation, and unpaid overtime are outlawed, that's us deciding what we won't tolerate in our society. When women and minorities were guaranteed the vote, that was us deciding that they are included in us.

Government is already involved in families. When CPS takes an abused girl away from her harmful environment, the government did it. When an unwanted child goes to foster care and is adopted by caring parents, the government did it. The government says you can't mistreat your child or force them to work in coal mines. The government also says you can't abuse your spouse, or have more than one.

I don't have any specific laws that I'm promoting here. All I'm saying is that brainwashing children is harmful to them, and that the only tool we have to prevent it is government.

Naturalism

I am a Philosophical Naturalist. Given what I have seen of the world:

There is no reason to assume the existence of anything supernatural. While there may continue to be unexplained phenomena for as long as the human race exists, every phenomena we ever have found an evidence-based explanation for has turned out to be natural. If it turns out that psychic powers exist (still waiting for that evidence), they will turn out to be a natural phenomena. In fact, the universe is defined* to be everything that exists. If there are fairies or leprechauns, they have to exist in the universe. They will turn out to be just as natural as the celestial realm of the stars.

This is a slightly different position than many scientists take. For scientists, the position is Methodological Naturalism. It's more like this:

All we can detect is the natural world. If something is supernatural, we cannot know anything about it. It is not measurable, and therefore cannot be used as an explanation for things that are.

It's a great start. It's what let great thinkers like Newton become scientists. You can be religious and still be a scientist. You just have to check your supernatural explanations at the door. Supernatural explanations can't explain real phenomena. Which is why Newton came up with a natural explanation for the falling apple, rather than saying "Angels make the apple move".

But Methodological Naturalism falls short. If only the natural world is detectable, why believe in the supernatural at all? Something that exists, but doesn't in any way affect the natural world is indistinguishable from nonexistant.

*Universe: "the aggregate of all existing matter, energy, and space" - if we find something that isn't matter, energy, or space, we'll have to update the definition to include it.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/universe

Realism

I am a Philosophical Realist. If there is one thing that I take on faith it is this:

There exists a world external to my mind. My senses perceive it, and they are my only link to this real, external world. The various things in this world do not depend on my mind for any of their attributes. If I did not exist, the world would remain. So, to any properly phrased question, there is one right answer. There may be many wrong answers.

* Is Aaron Deemer a male homo sapiens currently located on the third planet in the solar system?
* Does an atom of Cadmium have 48 protons?
* Are there any planets orbiting Sirius?

Notice, I am not saying that I (or any other human) know the answer to every question, just that an answer exists. Cadmium still had 48 protons 1 bya (billion years ago).

I guess, in a way, this is my practical definition of truth. A statement is true when it describes reality, false when it does not. Those that disagree, I don't see that we have much to argue about. You can argue Solipsism (the idea that only you are real) all you want, but it's not practical to live by it. No one ever gets out of the Matrix by disbelieving in it. When it comes to practical matters like not stepping in front of traffic, you agree with me (unless a ghost is reading this).

Political Game Time!

I've been meaning to try a new version of Monopoly. Here are the rules changes I propose. The goal is to give Monopoly some new options for the little guy, and fit a little more with reality. Of course, my ultimate goal is to make it more fun than the real game.

1. Players start with $100 (with one exception; see rule X).

2. When landing on an unowned property, a player may Go To Work. The player earns 10% of the property's value per turn while at work, but forgoes his die roll. After 3 turns, the player must either purchase the property or move on.

3. Player's may invest their money in the bank. A player may set money aside in an investment. Each turn they earn 5% of the investment's value. The invested money is still subject to tax, and may only be removed after taxes are calculated for the "year".

4. Voting
 Pick an unused piece of your choice (like the iron). It takes a turn like any other player, but has no money or interaction with the other elements of the game. It can roll again after doubles. It cannot go to jail. The game starts with a flat tax. When the iron passes Go, players pay their income tax, and may then vote on income tax.

5. Player's may vote to institute one of 4 tax systems:
 a. No Tax
 b. $100 Tax (a flat bill of $100 per player)
 c. Flat Tax (10% per player)
 d. Progressive Tax (10*log(current wealth)% per player)

6. Welfare Check.
When taxes are paid, the money is counted and 50% of it is redistributed amongst the players evenly, rounding down.

6. If the bank runs out of money, the economy collapses. Each player pays the purchase price of all their property, houses and hotels to bail out the bank.

7. Players may use money to influence the game.
 a. $100 - Ad Campaign. Player may buy an extra temporary vote. This can be done any number of times.
 b. $500 - Smear Tactics. Put the brothel marker on target property. Houses and hotels cannot be built there, until the owner pays $600 to debunk the claim (or evict the prostitutes).
 c. $1000 - Eminent Domain. Player may force another player to sell a property to them at its face value.

8. At the end of the game, the winning player writes down his total liquid assets. He passes those on to the player of his choice (himself included) the next time the game is played.

9. At the beginning of the game, players may vote on the estate tax. This tax will be applied at the beginning of the next game to the winner's wealth. Players may vote for 1 of 4 estate tax plans. This vote may not be influenced by Ad Campaigns.
 a. No Tax
 b. $500 Tax (a flat bill of $500)
 c. Flat Tax (10%)
 d. Progressive Tax (10*log(current wealth)%)
50% of this taxed wealth is evenly redistributed amongst all players.

-------------------
Immediately I can see some problems with these ideas. After the first game, the rich guy will have a consistent advantage. He will almost certainly be paying a Progressive Estate Tax of ~$4000, but will have in the neighborhood of $6-10k at the beginning of the game. With $5k invested, he will have an income of $250. He will be able to easily win elections by buying votes, setting the Income Tax to $100 (which hurts the other players a lot). He will be able to purchase every property he lands on, while the other players will need to make there way around to the high value red-blue properties and get to work. Depending on luck, they may make a few hundred, before they pass go, gaining another $200. They will then spend the next few turns purchasing crappy low-level properties. Any attempts to assemble a property group will be stymied by Eminent Domain. Once the rich guy has a property group, he will start picking off players (as in traditional Monopoly).

If the vote for Income Tax were immune to Ad Campaigns, we might have a better game. The rich guy would end up paying ~$4k per "year", and the other players would be getting a stipend of ~$500 per "year". This isn't enough to keep the game going forever, but it does give the other players some abilities to influence the game. Between all of them, they will be able to purchase enough properties to make it very difficult for the rich guy to eminent domain them all out of monopolies. He will either end up facing some enemies with property groups, or he will spend all his money on Eminent Domain.

I know this is a little off topic for this blog, but all this political research I've been doing lately has got me thinking of a lot of things from a progressive standpoint. Any thoughts? Suggestions?

Conservatives & Cutting Government Spending

This issue's been percolating for awhile. Bear with me.

I work for the government. I have for the last 5 years. I put in a 40 hour week, and I go home to my wife. I'm in IT, so I put up with a fair amount of crap, too.

A fellow IT professional, who is a conservative, thinks that we government workers are being painted poorly in public opinion. I can see what she means. Occassionally my mother brings up my overly cushy job, jibing me about my benefits. In 2010, Bakersfield passed measure D, reducing pension benefits for police and firefighters. When the Tea Party rails against government spending, one of the things they are railing about is my salary.

So, I see what my coworker means. People are out for blood. They need someone to blame in a time of economic crisis. Government workers have good jobs with good benefits. Let's take that away. The difference in my opinion is: I don't see this as a unique thing for government pensions. Let me explain.

My coworker is a conservative government IT pro. She is against wasteful school spending, corporate bailouts, and welfare checks, but doesn't see why we should take away her benefits.

My mother is a conservative corporate office manager. She is against government pensions, wasteful school spending, and welfare checks, but doesn't see why we should take away the money her company needs to stay afloat. (This is a random guess. As previous posts show, my mother will not discuss religion or politics with me)

My sister is a conservative elementary school teacher. She is against government pensions, corporate bailouts, and welfare checks, but doesn't see why we should take away funding for schools.

My mother-in-law is a conservative senior widow taking care of her disabled mother. She is against government pensions, wasteful school spending, and corporate bailouts, but she doesn't see why we should take away her stipend to care for her aged, dying mother.

See, everyone's against the government spending money on other people. When the government spends money on a project that doesn't help you directly, there is a tendency to see that as your money paying for someone else's welfare. But when it comes to your programs, it's a lot easier to see the benefits.

Oh and I forgot about the fifth person in our hypothetical. He's a billionaire CEO. He's against all 4 of these programs (even the bailout; if the company goes under, he still gets paid), because he doesn't want everyone else taking his tax dollars. He earned them fair and square by being born into a wealthy family, using his money and family connections to get into expensive schools, joining elite fraternities with other billionaires, and being offered the CEO job by a frat brother. If everyone else wants money so much, why don't they just work for it?

And the thing about conservative economic policies is that they don't just stop with the other guy. You can start by denying welfare to "lazy" widows, purging "extravagant" retirement plans, and placing restrictions on "greedy" labor unions, but eventually the slope leads to removing that "cushy" 40 hour work week, and cutting those "restrictive" child-labor laws. Eventually, your program will be on the chopping block. Unless you're the billionaire CEO, in which case... carry on, good sir.

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

    - Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

The Case for Christ

A friend and I are having an evidence-based discussion about Christianity. I've challenged him to provide evidence. I'll be updating this post for awhile to compile all the information in outline format. I'll create a followup linking to this post when we're done.

I. Claim: Jesus of Nazareth was a real person who lived.
 A. The New Testament (NT) says this is so
 A. Claim: The NT is a credible source.
  1. There are lots of copies of pieces of the NT from the 2nd, 3rd and 4th century AD.
  2. The gospels of the NT were written 35-65 years after the alleged events happened.
  3. The gospels were not contemporary, they are at best marginally corroborative, only one of them is possibly independent (Mark), and all of them are from biased writers.
 B. Evidence #2
 C. Evidence #3
II. Claim: Jesus of Nazareth was executed by the Romans.
 A. The New Testament (NT) says this is so
 A. Claim: The NT is a credible source.
 B. Evidence #5
 C. Evidence #6
III. Claim: Jesus of Nazareth was resurrected after 3 days.
 A. The New Testament (NT) says this is so
 A. Claim: The NT is a credible source.
 B. Evidence #8
 C. Evidence #9

Don't Ask; Tell If You Want

So after 17 years, despite McCain's whining, Don't Ask, Don't Tell is finally being repealed.

A woman I work with has an interesting take on issues of gay rights. She thinks that gay people should have the right to be gay and even to be in long-term monogamous relationships. She just doesn't think that it's something that she should have to explain to her children. She would be uncomfortable if a gay pride parade went through Bakersfield because then she would have to tell her children what "gay" means. She doesn't think gay people should be able to marry, but that they should have domestic partnerships. The word "marriage" is only for straight couples. It belongs to the religious (she's catholic), and if gay people change what the word means, she'll have to explain it to her children. She doesn't have any problem with gay couples, as long as they keep it to themselves.

I strongly disagree with this view. She has the right to be a bigot (just to be clear, she's a very nice woman, just bigotted on this issue). She even (in our society) has the right to shelter her children from all outsiders and train them to be bigots. She can homeschool her children, only taking them out to go to church, where they will continue to hear nothing of gayness, except maybe to denounce it as a sin. What she does not have the right to do, is have her beliefs enshrined into law and inflicted on everyone else. She doesn't have the right to create a double standard where gay people have to keep it to themselves, but nobody else does. When a gay couple kisses in public, they have not shoved-it-in-your-face anymore than a straight couple doing the same. When a gay man mentions that he has to hurry home, because he has a romantic evening planned with his husband, he has not done anything wrong. If you are offended by this behavior, you are the one that needs to change.

43 years ago, anti-miscegenation laws were making biracial marriages illegal in some states. Imagine replacing "gay" with "biracial" in the above paragraphs. How well do you think those views would go over? "I don't have any problem with biracial couples as long as they keep it to themselves." "Marriage is for racially pure couples."

When I was at my mother's the other day, someone (either my wife or I) mentioned that our minor daughter is growing to be so beautiful, she sometimes gets mistaken for 20. My sister commented on what a shame that was.

Now, I know what she meant. My family is very conservative. If a young girl is beautiful, they do not think she should be proud and show off her body. Above all, they do not think that young people should have anything to do with sexuality. They believe that here should be a concrete wall between youth and anything sexual.

I also know that my wife has dealt with serious emotional issues from being told similar things when she was a child. So I figured I should call this out and see if she could rationally explain why it is that being young and beautiful and looking adult were such horrible things for my daughter. I asked what she meant. And she said she didn't mean anything and tried to drop it. My mother tried to rescue her by saying that "there are a lot of predators out there" and that they were only concerned for her welfare.

I've been trying to puzzle out the connection between the gay rights thing and this incident with my family. I think I've finally got it. They both rest on unspoken assumptions.

"When they kiss in public, or want to serve the military openly, gay people are doing something wrong and straight people are not." You can't get there without one more piece, an unspoken assumption. The unspoken assumption: gay people are different, and what they are doing is wrong in the first place.

"When a young girl is beautiful and adult-looking, it is unfortunate." The unspoken assumption: she's going to get raped, or she will have lots of evil consensual sex as a direct result of being beautiful; if she didn't hide her beauty, it will be her fault when these things happen.

The biggest problem is that these views aren't challenged. When religious conservatives say these sorts of things amongst each other, they are reinforced. They can pass these things off as true. They don't need to state the assumption, because they all know it's true. When they say them in the public arena they need to hear the other side, and they need to be prepared to defend their views. And they need to state the unspoken assumption out loud. Because the unspoken assumption is the weak link. The unspoken assumption is the part that makes them sound like a bigot to the moderates. There's a reason it's unspoken.