The Horrors of Profiling

It was inevitable that after the failed terrorist attack on Christmas, there would be a focus on racial and religious profiling in airports.  One side paraphrases Benjamin Franklin and says that you shouldn’t sacrifice liberty for security, and another side thinks a little government intrusion is okay in the interest of keeping us safe.  Me, I support a third side: Profiling is the best of both worlds, because it helps keep us safe and doesn’t represent any loss of liberty.

I can’t speak for Benjamin Franklin, but I still fail to see how profiling is anything more than common sense.  Law enforcement routinely engages in profiling that’s both necessary and acceptable.  Obviously, if you’re looking for the suspect in a Latin gang retaliation murder, you ignore certain race, age, and socioeconomic factors – you don’t scrutinize some upper-class white middle-aged women in the interest of fairness.  No, in the interest of common sense and sanity, you line up the usual suspects of young Hispanics with tattoos and criminal records.

I currently reside in prison, and the other morning I happened to observe an incident involving a black guy walking back from the chow hall.  He was stopped for a pat search and some food was confiscated.  As I walked by, he complained that this particular officer always stops him for a search, called him a racist, and said that he was going to write a grievance about it.

The officer was amused and invited him to write all the grievances he wanted.  This is the special absurdity of complaints about profiling.  The reason why the officer was pulling him over for searches is because the guy had been caught over and over stealing food from the chow hall.  It had nothing to do with his race; it was about practicality.

Now, I understand that the rights of prisoners are by definition greatly reduced, as they should be.  I’m not saying that we should use prison regulations for all of you out there who haven’t committed a felony.  But profiling in airports is the same as this issue – it’s a matter of simple practicality.  The profile for a modern terrorist is extremely well-know.  To not take it into consideration would be like the officer ignoring a guy who has been caught stealing time and again in favor of a few random choices.

We have to get over this political correctness.  We’re not sacrificing liberty for security; we’re sacrificing common sense for feel-good emotions.

Let me paint a scenario.  I’m pale-skinned and blue-eyed, I shave my head, and I have a goatee.  If the United States were at war with a network of international Neo-Nazi terrorists, a group that has murdered thousands of civilians, I wouldn’t mind being singled out for profiling.  I wouldn’t care.  In fact, if I was standing in line in an airport and a security screener let me pass but picked out a middle-aged Jewish lady in the interested of random fairness, I would call bullshit.  I would say, “Come on, are you serious?  Look at me, you idiot.”

I would find it difficult to call a little inconvenience a disintegration of my liberty.

Reason v. Faith

It’s always interesting to me when religious authors and commentators attempt to mesh their faith in with reason.  In his book Atheist Delusions, David Bentley Hart briefly argues against the “obviously” ridiculous notion that faith and reason must remain separate.  This is something every faithful person must do – after all, it’s not as if they’re going to admit that their belief is inherently unreasonable.

I wish they would.  They only undermine their own position by trying to claim that faith can in any way be reconciled with reason.  Faith by itself is something anyone can define for themselves on the basis of their beliefs, feelings, and thoughts.  No one can argue its veracity, and no one can dismiss its sacred importance to an individual.  I am not a defender of faith (indeed I think overall its harmful to mankind) and yet I am not going to deny that it has value to many people.

Trying to shoehorn it into reason, however, strips it of that value.  If you want to hold something up to the light of scientific inquiry, you have to play by its rules.  In nearly every instance – such as the many, many supernatural claims that have tried to pass the muster of reason – the claimant turns away with nothing but public embarrassment and a deeper conviction that his belief is all that matters.

Most amusing are those who, not content to merely believe that faith is reasonable, conclude that reason actually validates their sacred belief.  Here is conservative Mark Levin: “Reason itself informs man of its own limitations and, in doing so, directs him to the discovery of a force greater than himself – a supernatural force responsible for the origins of not only human existence but all existence, and which itself has always existed and will always exist.”

If Mr. Levin were to stop and consider the admirable first part of that quote (that reason informs man of its own limitations), he might realize that he’s creating a false dichotomy.  That is, a limitation on reason does not in any way imply a supernatural counterpart.  Reason does indeed have its limitations, but if those like Mr. Levin want to demonstrate something that takes up the slack, they need positive evidence for it.  This lame argument is no different from someone who says, “Evolution has unanswered questions; therefore God is real.”

Faith and reason are manifestly irreconcilable.  Faith not only lies outside the realm of reason – it is the antithesis of reason.  Perhaps there will come a time when someone can show faith to be anything other than a feeling or personal opinion, but until then, it’s shameful to try to elevate it to the level of reason.

Don’t Mess With Texas’s Ignorance, Part Three

What is it about the Texas school board that allows them to contemplate much more boneheaded moves than any other school board?  Or maybe they just get more attention?  I’ve heard that whatever Texas school boards decide about textbooks, most of the rest of the nation follows suit.  I hope not.  I’ve already bitched about the encroachment of creation “science” and biblical courses in Texas public schools; the latest debacle I heard just the other day.

I saw Wendy Murphy on Fox News talking about the so-called “left-wing ideology” being passed along to students in modern textbooks.  This being Texas, the focus was on secularism, of course.  Anything the good people of Texas see as threat to their religious beliefs, even if it’s the truth, they have to find a way to marginalize.  Don’t like evolution because it conflicts with your Bible story?  No problem – just try to push a laughable creation myth into science classes.  Don’t like the notion that America keeps its religion and government separate?  No biggie – proclaim it a left-wing conspiracy to push secular-progressive agenda into the heartland.

Since when did secularism become “left-wing ideology” anyway?  Secularism is a fact.  It’s a facet of our political and social existence.  If it wasn’t, people would be thrown in jail for adultery, saying “goddamnit,” and working on the Sabbath. 

To be fair, I don’t want “left-wing ideology” pushed in public schools either.  I despise the notion of revising history books to fit an agenda.  If there truly are attempts to paint America’s founding fathers as more secular than they really were, if this is a distortion of the truth, then we should absolutely put an end to it.

But I heard Ms. Murphy say an interesting and chilling thing.  She was talking about the decision of what to put in textbooks, and she made the point that this was a “democratic process” and that parents should get involved in deciding what their kids are taught.

I hate to break this to parents out there, but you absolutely do not get to decide what your kids are taught.  Kids should be taught the truth, the facts as closely as we’re able to teach them.  If a parent doesn’t like a particular fact, too bad.  Parents are not the arbiters of what is true and what is false.  The truth is not decided by a “democratic process.”  Reality is not determined by a majority.

Fort Hood’s Shame

I remember right after the time of the Fort Hood murders, there was some pencil-pusher who put out a statement that summed up the problem with political correctness.  I can’t recall it exactly, but the point was something like this: “It would be an even bigger tragedy if we allowed this incident to affect our tolerance for diversity.”

Really?  Would it really be a bigger tragedy than a mass murder?  See, this is the special affliction that seizes the minds of people with this philosophy.  They’re so caught up in the “I’m-okay-you’re-okay” mindset that they can’t recognize the moral gulf between racial and religious profiling and mass murder.  Let them kill innocent people at will, they say – as long as they don’t think we’re mean and prejudiced.

Then this weekend, we find out that the Fort Hood report doesn’t even mention Hasan’s name or religion.  These sniveling cowards are furthering the same irrational nonsense that, at least in part, caused Hasan to be overlooked in the first place.  The report apparently said that the authorities were concerned with “cause and effect, not motivation.”

Right, it’s just irrelevant that this guy was a militant Islamist who had contact with radicals overseas – radicals who are part of a concerted movement at war with our country.  Motivation doesn’t matter.

This is a debacle.  Motivation does indeed matter, and these milksops know it.  That’s exactly why they didn’t mention the man’s name a dn religion, because they know that the debate over Hasan’s motivation is “controversial.”  I’d have more respect for these people if they simply came out and said, “We’re afraid of offending people so much that we allow it to rule our reason.”  At least then, they’re more understandable.

The argument of whether racial and religious profiling is even a serious blow to America’s tolerance is debatable.  The argument of whether we should even care if Muslims are angered by it is also debatable – of course, we should probably be careful, since Muslims have a tendency to riot and kill people over a cartoon or a teddy bear named after their prophet.

Just-To-Be-Safe Theism

Pascal’s Wager goes like this:  I’m going to play by God’s rules just in case it turns out He’s real, and if He’s not, I will have lost nothing.

Putting aside the fact that an omnipotent god is sure to see through such a blatantly disingenuous ploy, I disagree with the statement that one will have lost nothing.  By my count, you will have lost your reason, your freedom, and your individuality.  But let’s start at the beginning.  Why should Pascal’s Wager even be worth of any sort of recognition?  Why should it be necessary to “play it safe” at all?  Since when do we make such life-changing, life-defining decisions based on no evidence whatsoever?

I suppose when a child gets old enough to doubt the existence of the tooth fairy, they could still leave a tooth under their pillow – just in case.  After all, it doesn’t hurt anything, and if it turns out there really is a tooth fairy, you get fifty cents.

But the only reason why this might happen is that the child believes in the tooth fairy to begin with.  There’s no reason to, except for the word of their parents, friends, and so on.  There’s no evidence for something like a pixie that leaves kids money for their teeth, so we don’t bother giving it any credence whatsoever.  The legend of the tooth fairy fails on the most fundamental level to become reality because that first step – a modicum of evidence – is utterly absent.

The tooth fairy is the meaningless fantasy of children; a religion that shapes history is not.  A religion is serious business, serious enough that rational adults are willing to skip that first step of producing the most meager bit of evidence.  They go right into the stage where emotions override reason, where a belief is given credence simply because so many people feel so strongly about it.

Suppose a dunce prosecutor brings a murder charge against someone who is clearly innocent.  There’s absolutely no evidence that this guy is guilty, not even circumstantial evidence.  There’ snot even a motive.  Now, if you’re on the jury, you’re sitting there shaking your head that the prosecutor is asking you to send this guy to prison for the rest of his life when there’s simply no case against him.  It’s absurd, right?

But according to Pascal’s logic, maybe you should give the guy a year or two in the joint.  Just to be safe.

Hope in Massachusetts

Let’s state the obvious: A Republican won in Massachusetts because the people in this country are already tired of the Obama administration’s policies.  They’re tired of high unemployment after trillions of dollars spent and promises to the contrary.  They’re tired of watching Obama break his campaign promises for transparency and “change” in Washington.  They’re tired of watching terrorist enemy combatants treated like common purse-snatchers.  Most of all, they’re sick of this ridiculous health care bill, and the Brown-Coakley race was a referendum on it.

Even as a die-hard cynic on the topic of American politics, I saw a glimmer of hope last night when the election was announced.  For once, it seems like people can actually make a difference with the vote, provided they’re motivated enough (and blatantly lied to enough, in this case).

It’s only a glimmer though, the barest spark.  Let’s suppose Scott Brown goes to Washington and the Republicans manage to stop the health care bill through filibuster or another means.  Even if this happens, it’s not as if Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and the rest of the crooks in Washington are going to stop with their fondest dreams.  Another health care bill will come along.  Perhaps it will be slightly less socialistic and a little more fiscally responsible, perhaps there might be a small provision concerning tort reform, perhaps it won’t intrude into the private business of health insurance companies quite so much.  The point is, it will still be a slightly lesser evil than the current bill knocking around in the Senate.

So, hurray for the power of the vote.  Forgive me if I don’t get excited about something that’s just a tad better than awful.

Of course, the Obama administration might wise up after this wake-up call.  It’s possible they’ll realize that continuing on this route is political suicide . . . and that’s the problem.  I’d much rather they wake up and see that what they’re doing is wrong on its own merits – not because they fear losing the next election.

Religious Know-It-Alls

It’s always interesting to me when I’m arguing with a faithful person about their religious belief, and they get upset and go on the attack.  Many seem incapable of defending their belief and instead resort to ad hominem tactics and non sequiturs.  The most common thing I hear is something like (spoken with the proper amount of smugness or attitude): “You just think you know everything, don’t you?”

First I should point out that even if that were true, even if I were the most arrogant, loud-mouth bastard who condescends to others, it would not necessarily make me wrong.  And it certainly wouldn’t make a defense of the existence of God any more compelling.

But it’s not true.  I am quite willing to say “I don’t know,” and in fact I’m generally the type of person that shuts his mouth when he doesn’t know much about a given subject.  Sometimes it rankles me to be shown I’m wrong, I admit, but I never continue to hold to a lie or ignore contradicting evidence to a position – even a cherished one.  I’m confident enough to know when I shouldn’t make claims about reality.

The existence of God is one such instance.  These people who argue with me have nothing but their feelings and emotions with which to defend their belief.  I’m not a robot; emotions have their place and their importance in humanity.  But they have no please in the search for truth about reality.  How we feel about something says absolutely zero about whether it’s true or not.  I thought this was obvious, but listening to many religious people day after day, I find that I was wrong.

No, I do not think I know everything.  I do however, know when people are using obviously illogical or unreasonable arguments for the existence of God.  I’m the one pleading humility and patience when it comes to grand, sweeping claims about reality – the faithful are the ones who seem to “know everything.”

When such a person accuses me of being an arrogant know-it-all, what they’re really saying is, “Why can’t you be like the rest of us and have an irrational, unproven belief?”

It sure would be a lot easier if I did.

Harry Reid’s Racism (Against Whites)

There are plenty of reasons to dislike Harry Reid, plenty of reasons to vote him out of office (for example, he’s the main architect of this disgusting health care bill).  However, for the Republicans to demand that he step down because if this so-called racial comment he made about Barack Obama seems far-fetched.

From what I’ve heard, Reid was making the point that America elected a black as president because Barack Obama is “light-skinned” and doesn’t have a “Negro dialect.”  I’m not positive, but having seen and listened to our president several times, this statement sounds like the truth to me.  Barack Obama is indeed a light-skinned black man, and his speech has no discernible accent of any kind.

If we want to call this a “racial” comment, then I suppose it is – in the sense that the subject is race.  In that case, this post is a “racial” post, since I’m discussing race.  But “racial” does not mean “racist.”  His use of “Negro accent” seems troubling, perhaps, since I can assume he meant “ghetto accent.”  But he’s an idiot, not a racist.  No matter how loud Michael Steele and the Republicans screech, what Reid said has absolutely no relation to the Trent Lott situation, except in a broad sense, both comments had as a subject race.

If Reid insulted anyone with this comment, it was white Americans.  Yes, that’s correct.  His statement was basically to claim that Americans might elect a black president, but only if he’s light-skinned and speaks in a “white” manner.  This is similar to the point I’ve heard before about the first black woman to win the Best Actress Oscar, Halle Berry – that she was palatable enough to win only because she had mostly “white” features.

Whether these types of claims (that Americans like their prominent blacks to be ”mostly white”) have any truth to them or not, they don’t make the claimant racist against blacks.  The reverse would be closer to the truth.  Perhaps one day, we can all stop being little babies about the subject and speak candidly about race without someone being offended (or pretending to be offended).  I’m not holding my breath.  But I’m just going to do it anyway, because I don’t care.

Liberty and Chicanery, Part Two

In his book Liberty and Tyranny, Mark Levin makes some very good points about the nature of our republic and those who want to destroy or diminish it (i.e., the socialists and liberals).  He describes the distinctions between the Conservative and the Statist; the former being someone who supports individual rights, the free market, and the Constitution, and the latter being someone who supports collectivism, government control, and a progressive society.

I’m with him a hundred percent there.  As an atheist and supporter of gay marriage, I am nonetheless far more “conservative” than any modern Republican politician (when it comes to individual rights and the free market, at least).  But I think the wires get crossed in a couple places with Conservatives like Mr. Levin.

First, he has somehow drawn the conclusion that our individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution only make sense when we assume that a creator granted them to us.  He asks, “…by what justification would ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’ be ‘unalienable Rights’ if there is no Natural Law, since reason alone cannot make them inviolable?”

This is preposterous, and Levin – like every Christian conservative I’ve ever heard – provides no evidence for such a claim.  Why can’t reason alone make them inviolable?  I’m an atheist, and I think that very thing.

Allow me a simplification to explain.  At its heart, reason informs us that contradictions cannot exist.  If one cares about his or her own individual rights, freedom, and happiness (and everyone but the truly psychotic does), one cannot justify depriving others of those things; doing so would be a contradiction of reality.  In other words, a rational mind cannot use reason to justify victimization – to say nothing of the fact that victimization in fact does not advance the victimizer’s life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Mr. Levin also says, “An individual may benefit from the moral order unalienable rights around which society functions while rejecting their Divine origin.  But the civil society cannot organize itself that way.”

I find it humorous that Mr. Levin (rightly) uses the rest of the book to stress the importance of individual rights and to decry the evil of collectivist “utopias,” and yet here we have an ugly plead to collectivism.  This is often the case with social conservatives – they seem to support individual rights only as long as the individual exercises his or her rights by choosing what’s best for a “civil society” (which, in this case, means a traditional Christian society, of course).

Check your premises, Mr. Levin.  Your “civil society” is a construct that doesn’t exist.  A “society” is nothing more than a great number of individuals.  If each of them is rationally exercising his or her individual rights, then what’s best for “society” is what’s best for each individual.  (This is not an argument for “anything-goes” libertarianism; on the contrary, that type of philosophy is a denial of reason.)

At worst, Mr. Levin is saying that atheists (and perhaps secularists) are hypocrites who reap the fruits of a society that exists on a premise of Divine Law, yet deny that very Divine Law.  Even if this were true (which it certainly is not), Mr. Levin and those of like mind should be reminded that they still haven’t proven or even produced the first shred of evidence that there is such a thing as Divine Law in the first place.

Liberty and Chicanery

In his conservative manifesto Liberty and Tyranny, Mark Levin proclaims, “Reason and science can explain the existence of matter, but they cannot explain why there is matter.  They can explain the existence of the universe, but they cannot explain why there is a universe.”  And on and on; the existence of nature, life, consciousness, et. al., but not why those things exist.

I have two questions for Mr. Levin (and every other Christian out there who voices these very common ideas).

1. Why do you assume there must be purpose for any and all of those things?  In other words, what if asking a question like “why” there is human life has no answer?
2. If reason and science aren’t qualified to answer those questions (and they are important questions), what is?  Feelings, intuition, faith, opinions, urges?  Revealed knowledge?  Sacred revelation?  Why?

It seems like people who use Levin’s arguments make an awful lot of assumptions about the nature of existence.  As reasonable people, should we address whether something has a purpose or not, before asking what that purpose is?  Suppose that we live in a materialistic universe, that there is no higher purpose to our existence, that whatever value life has is what we make?  I know this is an ugly, depressing thought for some people, but does that mean it’s automatically untrue?

Mr. Levin says: “Science is a critical aspect of human existence, but it cannot address the spiritual nature of man,” and, “Man is more than a physical creature.”

What spiritual nature?  How do you know that man is more than a physical creature?  Why should we (anyone) automatically assume these things?  Because you feel that human beings are too precious and beautiful to be merely a collection of cells?  Because you just know in your heart that a soul is real?

The world doesn’t run on feelings and hopes and revelation.  Do you balance your checkbook, treat your illnesses, or find a job with these things?  Do you discern the difference between food and poison by spiritual faith?  Do you say a prayer to keep your teeth clean?

There is only one thing that is truly inherent to man, that is necessary for his existence, that defines him, and it is not faith.  It is not spiritual yearning, it is not a soul, and it is definitely not belief in something greater.  It is reason.