A quick word about gun control

I normally don't add my two cents to the noise surrounding breaking news about tragedies, but I'm making an exception in this case.

Between today's school shooting in Connecticut, last week's mall shooting in Oregon, the cinema shooting earlier this year, and any others I've lost track of, it's evident that mass murders involving guns are becoming frighteningly common in this country.

Left-wingers have been quick to call for more gun control, and right-wingers have been quick to defend gun ownership rights (and censorship advocates are already blaming it on violent video games, but that's another story). This happens every time there's a mass shooting, and every time the discussion breaks down into two groups shouting at each other from opposite sides of the aisle and ends up going nowhere. Repeat a few years months weeks days later when another mass shooting occurs.

This needs to change. We need to stop arguing and start investigating. Let's look at what factors contributed to the tragedy, and then let's look at what we can do to prevent a tragedy like this from happening again.

When we talk about our 2nd Amendment rights, let's keep in mind that when the document was written, the deadliest weapon you could physically carry was a flintlock musket. It took a full minute to load, aim, and fire, and if that didn't take down your enemy before he closed in you'd better hope you had a sharp bayonet to stab him with.

Today we have handguns that can hold a dozen or so rounds that are automatically chambered after each shot. We have rapid-fire rifles that can fire several shots in less than a second. We have bullets that aren't just an oblong ball of lead, but rather aerodynamic projectiles that can be specially shaped to pierce steel or shred soft tissue.

I'm all for responsible citizens being able to own small arms for self-defense, hunting, and recreational target shooting. I'm for it in the same way that I'm for responsible citizens being able to own motorized vehicles to get from place to place without having to walk or depend on public transit. Guns and cars alike may be bought for a legitimate purpose but easily hurt people through negligence or malice. We don't let people operate cars without first ensuring that they know how to do so safely. Can liberals and conservatives come to an agreement on how to do the same with guns?

Just a thought.

In which I lay out my political principles for the world to see

The Heathen Republican often makes informative posts about the ideological differences between progressive and conservative atheists.  He recently posted a side by side comparison of the core principles of each viewpoint, mentioning their common points of contention.  This post will in part be a response to his, and in part be a statement of my own political views.

Though political quizzes are hardly an infallible gauge of opinion on complex issues, they tend to consistently plot me just about where my sentiments lie.  I'm near the center, on the left side of the axis, and more libertarian than I am liberal/progressive.

Sort of like this.  (politicalcompass.org)

I don't even like the two-dimensional plot much, but it's the most accurate, easy-to-digest model of a person's political views I've seen yet: personal freedom vs. restriction, economic freedom vs. restriction.  I personally think that foreign policy ought to be the third axis, but that's a discussion for another day.

Being a centrist, or: My opinionated nonpartisan ego

According to New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, people who don't pick a side in polarized politicking are the cancer that is killing America.  He points to the media outlets which try (in vain) to maintain an air of impartiality in politics reporting, and concludes that centrists are devoted to a "cult of balance" and are "unwilling to sacrifice their treasured pose of being above the fray."

I've heard this argument from liberals before.  Angry because I show capacity for reason, criticize the other side, and yet don't support their party either, it dawns on them that I must have some inflated view of myself, that taking a stance on a contentious issue is somehow beneath me.  In their minds, I walk a tightrope of neutrality, wary of any opinion that might knock me from my lofty position and into the mudslinging match below.

Bull hockey.  I'm as opinionated as any of them about the hot-button issues of the day; the difference is that I try to base my views on what I observe and not on party dogma.  It doesn't mean that I obsessively try to balance the scales in every debate or scramble frantically to point an equal number of fingers at both parties.

The specific issue on which he calls out centrists is regarding the looming debt ceiling crisis, and how we seem intent on giving equal blame to both Democrats and Republicans for bringing us to brink of default.  How dare we, as it's obviously totally the GOP's doing and we should support the heroic Democrats' effort to accommodate those right-wing tyrants' demands!

Not so fast, Paul.  You're right on one thing: the stubborn GOP congressmen, prodded by their Tea Party handlers, are the ones who threaten to topple our nation's economy in their stubbornness on the debt ceiling.  The GOP certainly hasn't been the party of spending cuts in the past decade, and that doesn't absolve the Democrats of their failure to control spending either, but pointing out that they're both to blame for getting us to this precipice doesn't mean that centrists don't recognize which one threatens to push us off of the ledge!

He also points out that we've already got a "centrist" President, in the form of Barack "moderate-Republican-in-disguise" Obama.  That's nice, except that politics isn't a straight line on which we can plot politicians and see who comes closest to the sacred midpoint.  I don't want a candidate who pretends to be the "average" of two extremes (they all do that when pandering for votes!); I want one who rips the good planks out of both major parties' platforms, leaves the rotten ones behind, and builds a new, stable platform that most of the country can stand on.  I know that that's just a fanciful dream, so we're just going to have to settle for him for now.

Finally, Paul, don't confuse the news reporters with the general electorate.  It's the big corporate journalists' job to pretend to be impartial and present both sides as equally as they can.  The frustrated swing voters, however, don't pick a side because they see through the glossy facade that both parties affix to their platforms and candidates.

If you don't like the fact that I view Democrats with the same skepticism I direct at Republicans, then perhaps you ought to look at why so many people feel that no one in Washington has their interests in mind.

</rant>

Sorry, all.  That column irritated me more than it should have.

Another annoying attempt to inject religion into government

I've learned via Friendly Atheist that the great State of Ohio is looking to revamp the "I voted today!" stickers routinely given out at the polls on Election Day.  Normally this wouldn't be news, but upon closer inspection I find something even tackier than usual about two of the proposed designs...

"With God, all things are possible."  Now, I fully understand that many religious people hold their god near and dear to their hearts, and that they feel that even a task as mundane as going to the polling station is accomplished through said god's grace.  You're entitled to that belief in a free country, but why oh why must my tax dollars go toward printing it on millions of stickers?  A sticker with a slogan that said "With godlessness, all things are possible" or "Without religion, all things are possible" or anything to that effect would be just as tacky and just as much of a minuscule erosion on the First Amendment (though I suspect many Christians would find it downright offensive as opposed to simply irritating).


Of course, "With God, All Things Are Possible" is our state's motto, and therefore can be flaunted on anything the state wants to print without any legal grounds to oppose it (the ACLU already tried that and failed).

Fortunately for those who believe that government should be secular, they're selecting the new sticker design solely by online poll.

Why I stopped tiptoeing around religion

Out of the desire to be more open-minded and worldly during my college years, I conditioned myself to give the benefit of the doubt to Muslims, members of eastern religions, and neo-pagans while liberally criticizing Christians. Such was the norm among college students.

It took me years to realize the irrationality and hypocrisy of this air of immunity my mind had placed around non-Christian religions. After all, you can disparage a religion as a whole without condoning discrimination or violence against its adherents; why should certain religions get a free pass while others are legitimate targets for condemnation? Furthermore, why should any religion at all be exempt from the same scrutiny we afford political and economic ideologies?

Muslims selectively interpret Quranic verses to suit their own attitudes, and the moderate Muslims liberally use No True Scotsman to distance themselves from extremists and terrorists. Even Hindus are just as prone to irrationality as their Abrahamic counterparts, forming lynch mobs to attack and kill Muslims and Christians in India, and starting an international clamor over an Australian swimsuit bearing the image of one of their deities. Do the particulars of theology make a difference in human behavior, or are reactions like these inherent in our nature?
I cringe at the credulity I once gave neo-pagans and their "choose your own reality" worldview, which like other religions is at best a delusional fantasy and at worst a deliberate deception of others.

We've all seen the actions of officially atheistic China in its crackdowns on Christians as well as its brutal campaign against Tibetan Buddhists, the same heavy-handed tactics one would expect from an oppressive theocracy. To me, this seems like evidence that even the absence of religious belief doesn't strip away this aspect of human nature; we will regardless cling irrationally to ideologies and turn against anyone who challenges them.

I think it makes sense to file all permutations of religion under the same category as other in the annals of human irrationality. It doesn't matter that some faiths have yielded beautiful artwork and music and contributed greatly to many modern cultures. All claims are subject to test by the cold, hard facts of reality, and we are right to dismiss any that fail that test regardless of emotional value to the claim maker.

Knowledge vs. Belief: Open Letter to Agnostics

The postcard to the right was among the Sunday Secrets on Postsecret this week.  It may be a secret for the person who sent it in, but it's a sentiment many self-labeled agnostics openly express toward atheism.


I personally think that splitting hairs over such labels is pointless; the bottom line is that people who call themselves atheists and people who call themselves agnostics are all not theists, period.  They don't believe in the personal gods or metaphysical forces of the various religions.  The agnostics intent on distinguishing themselves from atheists focus their argument on the ideas that 1) Postulating that no gods exist is a belief, and 2) It is impossible to know that there is no higher power, especially if you make its definition sufficiently vague.