Society – Zombies Uncensored

Churches Banned within a 1000 Feet of Strip Clubs

I was discussing with my brother the new law in Missouri that bans strip clubs from being located within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, parks or homes. My brother posed the question, “Why aren’t there any laws banning churches within a thousand feet of a strip club?”

I was embarrassed I hadn’t thought to ask the same question myself. In assessing any legislation, it’s a good rule to ask how would this law work if the roles were reversed. Evidently I need to remind myself to ask the question more often.

My response at the time was, “Strip clubs aren’t as popular as churches, and that’s how laws like that get passed.” I failed to consider what would happen if the majority view changed–what would happen if someday strip clubs become more popular than churches?

These types of zoning laws are the modern day version of segregation of what the majority finds morally repugnant. The laws are akin to the early colonies laws which fined, banished, and imprisoned those who did not follow the religious tenants of the colony.

The more I thought about it, the more I began to see more of these domes and bubbles of moral purity.

The FDA’s thousand feet ban on cigarette advertising near schools.
Firearms within a thousand feet of a school.
Smoking bans near the entrances to buildings.
Sex offenders banned from most of the city.
Needle exchanges within a thousand feet of schools.
Medical Marijuana dispensaries withing a thousand feet of schools.
College campus bans which have included military recruiters, medical marijuana, hate speech, and credit card offers.

The zoning bubbles are all around us and, the bans are rarely questioned for having the ability to ban a legal activity from within ones eyesight. As an individual I do not have the right to ban what I find offensive or fear from my field of vision or near to my home, so why should some groups have this right?

I can understand a parents desire to protect their children from dangerous influences, as in banning the Jonas Brothers and or Britney Spears concerts from within 10,000 feet of their children, if simply to protect children from crappy music. As individuals, we do not have the right to ban what we find offensive, because an individual’s rights ends where another rights begins.

The group for the liberty minded/libertarian/non-authoritarians to fear the most is not among smokers, gun-owners, sex offenders, drug addicts or even racists. Underlying all these laws is the same tyrannical group–the majority. They’re the ones you’ve got to watch out for.

No Need to Fear Religious Beliefs

Today is the first day of summer, marking the summer solstice for some New Agers and neo-pagans. From comments I’ve read today about the solstice, it appears to be a good day to poke fun at those beliefs systems.

In their defense (and in the defense of belief systems in general), it needs to be pointed out that everyone operates under some degree of belief. The less popular a belief, the more likely it will be ridiculed. Popular beliefs such as love and the certainty of tomorrow are rarely ridiculed–and they are less likely to be pointed out as being belief systems.

The majority of people believe in love and consider it an important part of their daily lives–atheists love their family and friends, too. There is no empirical evidence proving the existence of love; while physiological reactions to love can be measured, there are no instruments which can detect and measure “love rays.”

It would be next to impossible to function day-to-day without some trust or confidence in areas that are unknown. Tomorrow is a belief, too. I plan for tomorrow under the belief that I will be around tomorrow. Statistically speaking, I probably will be here tomorrow, but there is no absolute certainty and it is guaranteed some of us will not be here tomorrow.

I find no reason to fear or ridicule others’ beliefs. Beliefs in and of themselves poise no danger; many beliefs like love are important and beneficial. The fear of beliefs we don’t hold exists in part because once a belief becomes popular, it has the potential to become law.

The danger doesn’t reside with the belief; the problem is the ability to force beliefs on others.

I’m Not an Oil Addict

Oil fuels better lives by Jeff Jacoby –Boston.com

AS THE DEEPWATER Horizon spill continues to foul the Gulf of Mexico, pundits and policymakers everywhere are once again reaching for the A-word. The BP disaster, proclaims Washington eminence David Gergen, is “a wake-up call to end our addiction to oil.’’ Without “a real climate bill,’’ warn the editors of the Washington Post, “America might be addicted to oil a lot longer than it needs to be.’’

We must “begin to wean ourselves from our addiction to oil,’’ intones Senator John Kerry on ABC, while syndicated columnist Thomas Friedman lambastes “the powerful lobbies and vested interests that want to keep us addicted to oil.’’

Americans consume oil not because they are “addicted’’ to it, but because it enriches their lives, making possible prosperity, comfort, and mobility that would have been all but unimaginable just a few generations ago. Almost by definition, an addiction is something one is healthier without. But oil-based energy improves human health and reduces poverty — it makes life longer, safer, and better. Addictions debase life. Oil improves and expands it.

Saying America is addicted to oil is idiotic. If America is addicted to oil, then why do we need to hire people to clean up the oil spill? If oil is as addictive as a drug, then carpet crawling would be replaced by beach crawling in the Gulf of Mexico.

Accusing America of oil addiction is offensive. The underlying sentiment implies anyone driving a car has the moral fortitude of a drug addict. I’ve never checked with the gas station attendant when they would be receiving their next shipment of Columbia made gasoline–because the best stuff comes from Columbia, you know.

pumpin it — What whoring for oil might look like

There are no oil-whores or gas-heads and I doubt Americans would ever break into their neighbors home or turn to prostitution in order to fund an oil habit. There is not and there is no need for oil rehab centers because using oil does not destroy one’s life.

The purpose of this ludicrous attack is solely political. People on the right use the addiction accusation, but throw in the word “foreign.” Foreign oil is undesirable as a national defense issue and adds to the trade deficit. If the imagined addiction was only to American oil, there would be no issue.

People on the left use the addiction attack in order to promote environmentalism. The hypocrisy of the left matches that of the right; if all cars ran on something environmentally friendly such as solar power, they would not be accusing Americans of having solar addiction.

It’s fine to be concerned about the environment and national security, but stop insinuating America has weak moral fiber because they’ve made the most of a very useful natural resource.

I’m Not an Oil Addict

Oil fuels better lives by Jeff Jacoby –Boston.com

AS THE DEEPWATER Horizon spill continues to foul the Gulf of Mexico, pundits and policymakers everywhere are once again reaching for the A-word. The BP disaster, proclaims Washington eminence David Gergen, is “a wake-up call to end our addiction to oil.’’ Without “a real climate bill,’’ warn the editors of the Washington Post, “America might be addicted to oil a lot longer than it needs to be.’’

We must “begin to wean ourselves from our addiction to oil,’’ intones Senator John Kerry on ABC, while syndicated columnist Thomas Friedman lambastes “the powerful lobbies and vested interests that want to keep us addicted to oil.’’

Americans consume oil not because they are “addicted’’ to it, but because it enriches their lives, making possible prosperity, comfort, and mobility that would have been all but unimaginable just a few generations ago. Almost by definition, an addiction is something one is healthier without. But oil-based energy improves human health and reduces poverty — it makes life longer, safer, and better. Addictions debase life. Oil improves and expands it.

It’s fine to be concerned about the environment and national security, but stop insinuating America has weak moral fiber because they’ve made the most of a very useful natural resource.

Does a gay bar owner have the right to say, “We won’t serve Fred Phelps?”

Rand Paul Defends His Views on Civil Rights

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SI3c7Yj8lYg&playnext_from=TL&videos=KWPbcjnzJhQ

Transcript of Civil Rights Act (1964) SEC. 202. All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof.

This issue is a real test to find out just how much someone believes in the principle of liberty. The reason this is a sensitive issue is because fortunately, the majority of those in the US find the idea of discrimination based upon race, color, religion, or national origin disgusting.

Legally permitting this type of discrimination as they do in Japan seems inherently un-American. When I mention to others that Japan has these signs the typical response is “What the Hell? That’s just wrong!” The existence of the signs gives the impression that the country of Japan as a whole is a racist nation, and Americans would not want this country to be perceived in the same light.

It’s still an important question to ask if the Civil Rights Act went too far by not allowing a privately owned business to ever discriminate based upon race, color, religion, or national origin. The flip-side of the argument is America the type of country that forces people to provide service for others they find morally repugnant? Is America they type of country that forces people to associate with other they believe are inherently evil?

Rachel Maddow’s asked Rand Paul the question “Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don’t serve black people?” Here is a likely hypothetical situation which reverses the roles of who the public sees as having the moral high ground in these debates.

Suppose Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church decide they aren’t getting enough publicity picketing funerals. They decide to branch out and adorn themselves with “God Hates Fags” or biblical quotes against homosexuality t-shirts and head down to the local gay bar.

The Westboro Baptist Church is protected by the Civil Rights Act from being denied service based their religious beliefs. The owner of the bar would be required to serve them, all while the Westboro groups blames the owner and patrons of the bar of all the problems of our nation.

If the owner chose not to serve Fred Phelps, they would be subjected to a lawsuit and would probably lose. The law clearly upholds the right of all persons without exception to service and has no place for any consideration of the owner of the establishment rights not to be subjected to the humiliation of being forced to serve someone they consider to be Satan incarnate.

With the roles reversed, it’s clear the owner of a public establishment civil rights are not protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Back to Rachel Maddow’s question: Do you think a gay bar owner has the right to say, “We won’t serve Fred Phelps?” They currently don’t have the right, but they should.

Ethnicity: Another Reason for Private Competition in Public Schools

These two racially charged stories of government involvement in the public school system make a another good argument for getting government out of the public schools. It’s unfortunate that what brings these stories to the public’s awareness in the racial element, because the underlying problem of forced political education is obscured.

Arizona governor signs bill banning ethnic studies (rawstory.com)

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has signed a bill targeting a school district’s ethnic studies program, hours after a report by United Nations human rights experts condemned the measure.

State schools chief Tom Horne, who has pushed the bill for years, said he believes the Tucson school district’s Mexican-American studies program teaches Latino students that they are oppressed by white people.

Michigan Grade School Ends Black-Only Lunch Group (npr.org)

“Lunch Bunch is no longer,” district spokeswoman Liz Margolis said in an e-mail to AnnArbor.com. “It will be discussed among staff and some parents and be reworked. It has a valuable goal of assisting children who are not performing well on the MEAP, and this effort will continue.”

Dicken Principal Mike Madison drew criticism from parents following his decision last week to take members of the African-American Lunch Bunch on a field trip to hear a black rocket scientist at the University of Michigan speak. Only black students were invited on the trip.

In the United States there is a commonly held value of respecting other opinions; this respect is not present when it comes to educating the youth on issues dealing with race and ethnicity.

If there were respect for opposing views, there would be open competition among public schools and the force of government would not be used to teach community standards on racial issues.

The issue isn’t about how Arizona or Michigan chooses to teach students on issues of race; the problem is ignoring that parents can not choose how their children are taught. The choice for parents is to either pay for private schools or move to another school district.

It does not matter to me if you are for or against how either of these states handles race in schools. If it were left up to me, I would not have the subject taught at all–not use the force of government to see that my view was forced upon everyone.

If there were private competition of public schools, there would still be schools that teach racial issues like the ones in Arizona or Michigan, but it would also open the doors for schools focused on reading, writing, and arithmetic instead.

A free market for schools would allow parents to make the decision for themselves, there would be an open market for schools teaching parents version of political correctness–and, more importantly, a market for schools NOT teaching political correctness.

Fans of Government and their Victimless Crime Laws

This article caught my attention because it good example why not everyone is a fan of government. Several examples show common traits of bad government: discrimination, encroachment on personal freedom, behavior modification, hypocrisy, and the difficulty of getting rid of laws.

Paris trouser ban for women could be lifted (Telegraph.co.uk)

A law banning women from wearing trousers in Paris may finally be lifted more than two centuries after first being enforced.

Discriminates against women, check.

The curious rule was first introduced in late 1799 by Paris’ police chief, and stipulated than any Parisienne wishing to “dress like a man” must seek special permission from the city’s main police station.

There are those who will say it was a law for the times, and since we don’t know what things were like back then, we shouldn’t judge. It’s an encroachment on personal freedom regardless of the century. They would not have passed the law if there weren’t some women wearing trousers at the time.

But a group of ten French MPs has now submitted a draft bill to parliament to remove the law, which has survived repeated attempts to repeal it.

In 1892, it was slightly relaxed thanks to an amendment which said trousers were permitted “as long as the woman is holding the reins of a horse.”

Then in 1909, the decree was further watered down when an extra clause was added to allow women in trousers on condition they were “on a bicycle or holding it by the handlebars.”

Spell out when its appropriate to wear trousers–behavior modification, check.

In 1969, amid a global movement towards gender equality, the Paris council asked the city’s police chief to bin the decree. His response was: “It is unwise to change texts which foreseen or unforeseen variations in fashion can return to the fore.”

Difficult to get rid of a bad law once it’s on the books, check.

Given that trousers are compulsory for Parisian policewomen, they are, in theory, all breaking the law.

I’m sure no policewomen in Paris has been charged with violating this law. Here is government hypocrisy of not following laws they are supposed to enforce.

Sister Antonette — Nun's Habit still legal in France. Ban on burqa = religious and sexual discrimination.

Last by not least is the failure to learn from history. France is considering banning the burqa. While France is trying to shed one discriminatory encroachment on personal freedom, it’s trying to add an almost identical one.

Compare the trouser law in France to laws in the US. Replace the word “trouser” with any of the following: motorcycle helmet, recreational drug, gun, seatbelt, or pornography. US laws have the same underlying dynamics and flaws.

Until the US government follows its own rules and removes discriminatory laws which invade personal liberty and seek to modify behavior, there is no reason to cheer for the government.

Political Pedophiles at School

St Paul’s and St Michael’s School, Performing their “MP Diane Abbott RAP”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GMunSfsyUI&feature=player_embedded

The children attend St Paul’s with St Michael’s Church of England Primary School. They are singing praises to their Member of Parliament (MP), the UK equivalent of a member of congress.

Why would a private church school teach their students to sing praises to their government representative, Diane Abbott? This school is a Voluntary Aided School, which means they receive all their operating costs from the central government. It’s like a little league team in America singing praises to their sponsor.

It’s perfectly fine for schools to educate children about their government and representatives. Teaching children tolerance and concern for others is a good idea. I question, however, the school taking such a major role in promoting political positions, primarily a parental responsibility.

Praising children for performing songs reciting campaign points of ruling politicians is a perversion of education. We have age of consent laws because children aren’t adequately developed, physically or emotionally, to consent to sexual acts. How is it that adults, in positions of authority and trust, ignore the fact childhood reasoning processes are not adequately developed to discern the relevant merits of political systems, either?

Using children in this manner to promote specific agendas is simply political pedophilia.

Political Pedophiles at School

St Paul’s and St Michael’s School, Performing their “MP Diane Abbott RAP”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GMunSfsyUI&feature=player_embedded

The children attend St Paul’s with St Michael’s Church of England Primary School. They are singing praises to their Member of Parliament (MP), the UK equivalent of a member of congress.

Using children in this manner to promote specific agendas is simply political pedophilia.

War: Fog of Moral Justification

Sons of Confederate Veterans Chairman Defends Omission of Slavery from Confederate History Month

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UzaC_YARlw&feature=player_embedded

To explain why there is still a divide over why the US Civil War was fought, look to the war in Iraq. If a public opinion poll was taken today asking what the Iraq war is about, you’d probably get several different views and just as heated discussions.

Some of the debated reasons for the war in Iraq:

WMD’s (Weapons of Mass Destruction)
Oil
Combating Terrorism
Human Rights
Bringing democracy to the Middle East

The original emphasis of the war was to remove WMDs from Iraq, because they posed a threat to the US and the stability of the Persian Gulf region. After no WMDs were found, the emphasis (and justification) for the war shifted. Concerns over human rights, combating terrorism and promoting democracy were elevated over removing non-existant WMDs as the reason for the war.

Was the Iraq war fought for the original issue of WMDs, or was it to combat terrorism? When the war is over, will there be another reason promoted? We are living through the years of the war right now, and still there isn’t a consensus over why the war is being fought.

Something very similar happened in the Civil War. Originally, Presidents Lincoln’s goal was to preserve the union; after the war began, the emphasis shifted to ending slavery.

Except from Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.

In Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, prior to the end of the war, the issue became the morality of slavery.

Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”

When justifications for war change as a war goes on, it leads to endless debates about the “real reason” for fighting the war. A hundred and fifty years from now, the question will be asked, “Why was the Iraqi war fought?” And there won’t be a consensus on that war, either. Once the fog of war sets in, the fog of moral justification sets in too.