More horrific shootings, more debate about abortion, more
debate about climate change and energy sources.
Are we all crazy? Are only half
of us crazy? Are we stupid or are we
misled? Why is consensus around these
issues so difficult to achieve?
I believe the answer is really fairly simple. Many of us base our positions on what we know
to be true, what we know has been observed and documented and scientifically validated. Others of us base our positions on what we
perceive to be true, what we want to be true, what we believe to be true
regardless of the evidence to the contrary.
When a rational position abuts a perceptual position sparks fly on both
sides, tempers flare, anger is evoked.
And when that happens, even the rational become irrational.
I have a set of beliefs.
I have perceptions. And yet I
choose to make decisions that impact others based on rational thought, not
perceptual beliefs. I do not perceive it
to be moral for me to insist that my beliefs, my perceptions, should be
followed by all. ISIS believes
that. If one does not believe like a
member of ISIS believes then ISIS feels free to rape, imprison, and/or behead
that person. That is the epitome of
immoral human behavior in my book. I may
be frustrated by those who believe differently than I do, but I have never been
frustrated by someone’s rational perspective that is grounded in research and
logic and arrives at a position different from mine. Perhaps because I have never encountered such
a person.
Before I proceed let me offer a warning to the perceivers
out there reading this: Rational thought
may really upset you. I would hope that
if so, you recognize your response and initiate some research and thinking on
your own. I would also say if you are
rational and disagree with me that is great!
Bring it on! Share your knowledge
and logic so that I can learn from you.
I shall start with the simplest issue: climate change. Is our climate changing? Absolutely and the evidence is
overwhelming. Is our current climate
change part of a historical cycle of climate change observed over millennia on
earth? Absolutely NOT and the evidence
is overwhelming. Is our current climate
change due to human fossil fuel emissions and the deforestation of rain
forests? Absolutely and the evidence is
over-whelming. Is a continuation of
global warming in our best interest on this planet? Absolutely NOT and the evidence is
overwhelming. Regardless of what
political action one wishes to follow, it is abundantly clear that our current
global warming has been triggered by human behavior. The only arguments against such a position
come from the perceivers who do not want this to be true, and from the economic
forces that will suffer if we actually change our habits. There is no other rational position. To argue with a climate denier is just like Copernicus
trying to convince the early Christians that earth orbited the sun and not
vice-versa. One will be labeled a
heretic and tortured.
Next easiest is gun control.
Somehow the perceivers have been able to cast this issue in terms of
civil rights, particularly the Second Amendment. This is not a civil rights issue at all. We have already agreed that owning a gun is
not for everyone. If we believed that everyone
should own a gun as part of our civil liberties we would issue guns to everyone. We do not give guns to 3 year-olds or blind
people or paraplegics. No, we know not
everyone should have a gun and that ends the debate about limiting the 2nd
amendment. We already do so. Now the debate becomes more rational. Is there a correlation between the number of
weapons owned by a given population and the number of deaths and injuries
attributed to weapons, i.e., high gun ownership equals high death count; low
gun ownership equals low death count?
Absolutely and the evidence is overwhelming. Is there evidence that strict controls that
limit who can own a weapon results in fewer deaths and injuries? Absolutely and the evidence is overwhelming. Amazing to me is that the people who own guns
and enjoy hunting or skeet shooting are the very people who would most likely
be approved as gun owners. The angry and
the dysfunctional do not scream for protection from the Second Amendment, they
simply get guns and kill people. I also
find it interesting that there are very stiff requirements concerning owning
and operating a car and the automakers are not screaming that limiting who can own
a car or drive a car is a violation of their rights. No, they set about making cars as safe as
possible. Arguing that gun ownership
should not carry some limitations is not rational. I think prior to purchase and use of a
firearm one must take a course, pass a test and carry a license to own and
operate the firearm much as we require for driving an automobile. I think gun owners should be required to
carry insurance that would pay in the event that their firearm destroyed
property, injured or killed someone much as we require for driving cars. There are really no rational arguments
against such policies except for those who claim gun ownership is somehow an
unlimited civil liberty, which it is not.
Most difficult is the abortion issue. I see this as most difficult because so many
of our laws are grounded in the Judeo-Christian belief system: thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet, and
thou shalt not kill. Given that, it
seems to me to be irrational to say we should not enact our religious belief
systems as we already have. The issue
revolves around whose belief system do we enact, whose interpretation do we
follow? Just like ISIS, there are some
so committed to the notion that human life begins at conception that they are
willing to destroy property, kill, or even shut down the government based on
their perceived beliefs. My thinking
goes like this: There are many
prohibitions in the Bible, but it seems we are really good at simply ignoring
many of them if it suits us. Or, to put
it another way, if secular reason provides better answers than dogma. That is why divorce is legal and polygamy is
not. So, what is a rational,
non-religious based position regarding abortion? For me it is that a woman, alive, here,
grown, sentient should have more control of her body than a zygote. Or an embryo, or a fetus. More, I am disturbed that religious groups
insist that their view of this be enacted into law, and if not, they are
willing to shut down the government to have their way. There is no such thing as religious belief
serving as rationale. By definition,
beliefs are not rational. I have several
suggestions about how to end this conflict.
First, is to make it clear that a mother has rights that a
zygote, embryo or fetus does not have.
This is logical. A pre-birth
growth in the uterus of a woman cannot be reasonably argued to have more rights
than an adult human being. Especially
when there is a minority of believers in this country who perceive that
conception determines the initiation of human beings. Let’s say that human rights begin at birth
and move on. Elsewise we are stuck in
the ludicrous position of prosecuting women who miscarry.
Second, we must re-think the establishment clause in the
first amendment. Current interpretation
is that the government cannot recognize, support, promote any religious belief
system over another. Those who have very
strong belief systems hate this because they very much want their own belief
system to be the law of the land. It is
because of such a desire and the experiences of our founding fathers that we
have such a stringent anti-support of religion clause in our constitution. That bad news for religious fundamentalists
is that the US of A was not established to be a Christian nation. In fact, it was established to avoid at all
costs any effort to allow a belief system to lay claim to our policies and
laws. To my way of thinking, anyone who
would promote shutting down our government to ensure that their beliefs are
enacted are committing not only an anti-American act, they could easily be
declared terrorists.
Along with this recognition, we should be able to withdraw
the separation of church and state benefits if the church crosses the line to influence
the government. It is one thing for a
pastor to say to his or her congregation that he or she opposes abortion,
same-sex marriage, etc. It is entirely a
different thing if a church solicits donations, forms political action
committees, holds conferences, etc., for the sole purpose of changing
government policy to align with their belief systems. Should a pastor say to a congregation, “vote
for this guy, no that guy; support this legislation, not that legislation; donate
money to this cause or this organization, and/or the government is by our
definition corrupt because they do not think as we think,” then that church has
violated the separation of church and state as outlined in the establishment
clause. As such, they should lose their
tax exempt status. Period. It is irrational to say there must be a
separation of church and state, the government will not intervene in belief
systems, but it is OK for belief systems to lobby and interact with the
government for their own purposes. If
they do so, tax them. As in all other
conflicts I believe this to be a rational position.
One caveat: I do not uniformly
oppose action based on purely perception and beliefs. In fact, to have a family, provide for that
family, seek a comfortable retirement and perhaps accrue wealth, I should never
have become an educator. I did so
irrationally and have never regretted it.
I acted on my belief that there is nothing more noble, nothing more likely
to positively influence the future than to work in public education with folks
of like mind, good hearts, and the children of my community.
Most amazing to me in calm rational moments is the number of
people around me who believe they love this country and are really good
Americans while simultaneously arguing that their own religious belief systems
should be the law of the land, their willingness to attack the government that
is in fact the essence of our country, and their absolute opposition to
diversity in belief systems, race, gender, sexual preference, etc. Many of these people believe that the most “American”
thing they can do is insist that everyone think like they think. So sad that such a perception is the
antithesis of the true nature of a free nation with protected civil rights and
majority rule. I see myself as a deep,
loyal American patriot. My sense of what
makes this nation great is very different from such folks described above. I pray for them. I pray for me when I am with them.
I think such prayers are rational.
