Thoughts on discrimination

I've been thinking about the cases recently in which, in order to comply with anti-discrimination legislation, business owners are compelled to provide services which violate their conscience. (e.g. the florist who didn't want to service a gay wedding because she felt that homosexuality is a sin.)

My first thought: arguably, homosexuality is an involuntary condition, such as race or gender, not a specific behavior. Someone is homosexual if they are attracted to members of the same sex, regardless of whether or not they ever consummate a physical union with a member of the same sex. In the same way, a person can be attracted to members of another race without marrying a person of another race. I think the homosexual marriage/interracial marriage analogy is appropriate, because both have/had a great deal of social stigma attached to them, and both involve the natural culmination of an inherent and natural disposition/personhood, as opposed to any conscious and active perversion. To be clear- I see no justification, morally, scripturally, or in any other way, for prohibiting interracial marriage, though there are those who do. The very idea of prohibiting, or looking askance at, interracial marriage is ludicrous and offensive to me in the extreme, because it presupposes fundamental differences between races that I hold to be entirely false. In the case of homosexual marriage, many more people still believe that it is sin, though many people do not. (I support the right of any two unmarried, consenting adults to obtain a civil marriage at their whim, by the way.) So- to be consistent, I think we must apply the same rules to gender, race, and sexual orientation when it comes to discrimination. If it is wrong to discriminate against a person of another race, then it is wrong to discriminate against a person of another sexual orientation. (I am assuming that any pedophelic behavior is not an orientation, but a predatory, criminal perversion of the most obscene and horrific sort)

That said..... to what degree are the dictates of our conscience subject to civil law? Ought we to be enforcing an enlightened perspective where it does not exist? And another important question- does a business owner, complete with personal conscience, differ as an entity from the owned business? To that, I would say no, unless the business was in some way publically owned and traded, publicly funded, contracted to the government, etc.

Here is where I'd draw the lines of anti-discrimination legislation, if they were mine to draw:

1. No discrimination against customers is allowable based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc in the following places:

• Any government entity of any level or function, or business which contracts with the government at any level or function.

• Any business which is publicly owned, traded, maintained, or funded

• Any business which performs lifesaving services or services the lack of which may leave a customer dead, injured, maimed, deformed, or unable to care for themselves or their dependents. (Examples include hospitals, emergency clinics, homeless shelters, food pantries, grocery stores, utility companies, home health agencies, elder care facilities, etc For things like clothing and auto/mechanics/parts houses and restaurants, I would say that if it's the only one in town, it provides an essential service and may not discriminate. If it is one of several in close proximity, it may discriminate as the owner wishes for all presumably-about-a-day of its commercial life.)

The business situations above are situations in which the private business is not synonymous with its owner.... indeed, I rather like that as a litmus test. :)

So, most businesses would be under anti-discrimination law. Those that would not would be privately owned entities dispensing non-essential goods and services like flowers, candy, event rental facilities, shoes, accessories, etc. Honestly, I think the number of people discriminating against other races, genders, or sexual orientations would hopefully be small at this point, and their businesses easily boycotted.

I think we should recognize that a sole proprietorship business type, particularly, assuming no outside control or civil involvement, should be synonymous with the owner/operator. A business is not an autonomous machine- it is the sum of the people who operate it- just as the government is a group of elected or appointed people, not a faceless entity. (At least it should be!) I am not different as the owner/operator of my Piano Studio- I am the same Mary in both cases. I behave the same, and the law should treat me the same. I would apply this to corporate taxation as well, by the way- there is no such thing as a business tax. There is only a tax on the owners, operators, employees, and customers of that business.

If I were the sort of racist $%$^&%  who wanted to refuse to service people of color in my hypothetical florist shop, I could do that. If I wanted to refuse to sell auto parts to a woman, assuming I wasn't the only one in town, I could do that. I could also deal with the lack of business from the husbands of women and the friends of people of color and deal with my inevitable financial losses. On the other hand, if I were an OB I could not refuse to treat the surrogate carrying the child of a homosexual couple and I could not refuse to sell groceries to that nice interracial couple. I think we can, and should, find a balance between respecting the freedom of business owners to operate their businesses as they see fit and respecting the safety and dignity of those whose life path or person garners the disapproval of some. There are some people who would call me a heretic theologically, or a Jezebel, (thanks, feminism and egalitarianism!) or a homewrecker because I bring in an independent income. As revolting as those sentiments are, the policing of thought required to forcibly eliminate them is more revolting still. 

Thoughts on the shutdown

My feelings on the partial US government shutdown boil down to two thoughts, really:

1. Math. Use it. If you don't have money, don't spend money.

2. Congress- know your job, and do it. The same thing goes for our President. Your job is to make a reasonable, mathematically viable budget and stick to it. If you disagree with your legislative colleagues, your job is to negotiate where you can. Refusal to converse or negotiate is generally immature.


Budget bills originate in our House of Representatives by law. The House decides the budget and submits it to the Senate. The Senate can approve or not, and they may send it back to the House/ suggest changes, but they don't write the budget. Neither does the President. The President can veto a budget bill as long as it doesn't have sufficient votes. It is the job of Congress to negotiate a workable budget, and refusing to cut spending from pet projects when there is a deficit in other places, and wanting instead to simply borrow more money, seems to me a truly irresponsible way to do this. Ahem... <senate.> The President and John Boehner cooperated on a deficit reduction plan in 2011, but now the President and the democrat-controlled Senate are unwilling to abide by it, and have instead been holding 800,000 + federal workers' salaries and large chunks of the government bureaucracy hostage until the House capitulates and the budget goes according to Democratic demands. This is a personal  subject for me, since my husband, the primary breadwinner for our family, will not be getting paid until the shutdown ends. (It is particularly frustrating because other similar jobs he could take in the private sector would be considered a conflict of interest and could result in his being permanently fired from his government job, or in certain other legal consequences. It is as if the government is telling us that he cannot work, cannot be paid, but also cannot go to work in a similar capacity elsewhere. His only option at this point is day/temp labor, as what long term employer outside his field is going to hire him, being both grossly overqualified and unlikely to work for them more than a few days or weeks at most? Hopefully, it will not come to that.) However, we support the House's efforts at fiscal responsibility and hope that they do not capitulate to bullying and intransigence.

Where "Modesty" Leads, and the response of one very brave woman.

http://news.yahoo.com/sudan-woman-risks-flogging-over-uncovered-hair-143126249.html

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/09/08/sudan-woman-risks-flogging-over-uncovered-hair/

Amira Osman Hamed is fighting a law in Sudan which says that she must wear hijab and cover her hair. SHe refuses to do so, even though her refusal could mean a severe beating. My hat is off to this woman, who is risking much in standing up for right and justice.



Says the article:

"Sudanese woman says she is prepared to be flogged to defend the right to leave her hair uncovered in defiance of a "Taliban"-like law."

Amira Osman Hamed faces a possible whipping if convicted at a trial which could come on September 19.

Under Sudanese law her hair -- and that of all women -- is supposed to be covered with a "hijab". But Hamed, 35, refuses to wear one.

Her case has drawn support from civil rights activists and is the latest to highlight Sudan's series of laws governing morality which took effect after the 1989 Islamist-backed coup by President Omar al-Bashir.

"They want us to be like Taliban women," Hamed said in an interview with AFP, referring to the fundamentalist militant movement in Afghanistan.

She is charged under Article 152 which prohibits "indecent" clothing.

Activists say the vaguely worded law leaves women subject to police harassment and disproportionately targets the poor in an effort to maintain "public order".

"This public order law changed Sudanese women from victims to criminals," says Hamed, a divorced computer engineer who runs her own company.

"This law is targeting the dignity of Sudanese people."

Giving Corporations Too Much Credit

Husband and I were watching a youtube video the other day which was critiquing various advertising/commercials as being sexist or racist, and our thought was- "wait. Yes, that ad was sexist/racist/classless. But- why do ads like that work?" I think ads like that work because they are a reflection of a society that  still has sexism, racism, classless, demeaning crudities, etc embedded very deeply. I truly think that corporations' advertising strategies have one goal, and one only- money. They want to sell something. Yes, they can be very unscrupulous and irresponsible in the way they go about selling, and it would benefit society if they tried to counteract social ills instead of reflecting them. However, ad campaigns are reflective of what successfully sells a product, and what appeals to certain demographics within society, so I see one really sure way to combat them- change society. That, and boycott the campaigns, companies, and/or products being marketed inappropriately. We as consumers are not helpless pawns in some corporate game; they do what they do because they believe we want it/it appeals to us. If we can demonstrate that that is not the case, we can effectively eliminate objectionable advertising, whether it's sexist girls' lego ads, beer commercials that objectify and stereotype, or ads that set up straw men to denigrate races, religions, socioeconomic classes, or geographical regions. We should be critically analyzing and both our own actions and prejudices, and those in the media we expose ourselves to.



When it come to children and advertising, it is very important that we as parents realize that we, not the corporations that shower our children with a barrage of media, are the most important element in shaping their worldviews. My children don't really watch tv, so we haven't had to deal with this much yet, but when they do watch we watch with them, discussing what we see and what assumptions and representations are being made in the media in question. It's also important to realize how much our choices in the toys we purchase for our children affect the toys that will be produced and marketed to them. If parents did not purchase or steer their children toward toys, movies, etc that represented inappropriate assumptions about gender or race, for example, I sincerely doubt whether those products would last long. Yes, I find many commercials very offensive. But rather than censor the messages advertisers are allowed to send, I'd rather advise society to 1. Critically evaluate the media to which we are exposed, 2. Critically evaluate our worldview, assumptions, and how our consumer choices reflect those things, and 3. Limit our children's and our own interactions with the constant barrage of advertising most Americans deal with. I think this is one instance in which "ignore them and they'll go away" is actually appropriate- I think that's exactly the way to deal with annoying, sexist or racist advertising.

A Libertarian Conversation On Same Sex Marriage, Part 6: Determining Legality and Expediency

Since I've established that I don't think making Same Sex Marriage illegal is a logical or appropriate consequence of its being held as immoral or unbiblical by many Christians, I'd like to demonstrate how I would go about determining if it's something that we should legalize.

For me, this is about two things- a definition of marriage, and legal equality.
This probably isn't news to anyone, but people in our society define marriage in a number of different ways. Some define it as a sacred covenant between a man and a woman, or between a man and several different women. Some define it as a means for two people who are in love to get tax benefits. Some define it as a partnership and a means to co-parenting.  I fundamentally view marriage as a partnership toward a common goal and a means to stability, physical, emotional, and spiritual support and companionship, fiscal security, safe sex, and co-parenting. Yes,  for me, marriage is also a holy covenant. It is not, however, one that is unbreakable for any reason, (though I would absolutely acknowledge the role of commitment and fidelity in a decent marriage) and I do not think that a marriage must be a religious covenant to meet most of the goals above. To meet my definition of marriage, gender is irrelevant except for the whole co-parenting bit. To naturally conceive a child requires two genders. However, raising a child does not, and fertility does not define a marriage anyway. While having two parents together to parent children puts those children at an advantage, having children in the first place is by no means required for a good marriage. If marriage is not currently defined as I believe it should be, then yes, I would support its redefinition.



Personally, I would like to see civil marriage replaced by civil unions between any two people and separated from religious marriage. I see no reason why two siblings who have determined to spend their golden years together in lieu of attempting to marry/remarry should not have the same legal benefits as a married couple, for example.



Our legal foundation is based on the principle of liberty as long as it does not infringe on someone else's, so I think we'd need to have hard evidence to restrict the personal rights/privileges of LGBT individuals. I would think, too, that being able to marry another consenting adult who one loves is fairly basic to the pursuit of happiness. On the policy side, Same Sex Marriage benefits society by making it easier for LGBT spouses to care for one another when they age, make medical decisions, be co-custodians of their children, et c.

Here are the questions I would like to see asked and answered:

Does it provide benefits, or harms, to society in general and to specific people outside the marriage?
Does it promote healthy, stable relationships and communities, or does it intrinsically damage communities?

Unless the answers to the above questions can be proven to be "yes, it harms" and "yes, it intrinsically damages" I see no reason to restrict the abilities of homosexual couples to establish stable families. My beliefs in equality mean that I advocate for fair play, justice, and liberty, and this both for those who share my beliefs/orientation and those that do not. I believe that we should be operating from the assumption that we all have the same marriage rights until we can show that harm results from certain scenarios- I would say that polygamy generally qualifies here, as would incest, underage marriage, patriarchy, matriarchy, forced marriage, et c. In the case of Same Sex Marriage, I am not aware of any way in which allowing it would harm anyone outside the marriage.

If I were a legislator, I would look at all relevant data, perhaps commission another study or two, and try to determine what, if any, quantifiable and causal negative results spring from allowing homosexual people to get married. If I did not find any that justified continuing the prohibition, I'd support allowing it.

A Libertarian Conversation on Same Sex Marriage, Part 5: Religion in Politics and Legislating Morality

There are three preliminary conclusions which influence everything else I believe on this subject, (the role of religious law and belief in civil government) and  without agreement on which I couldn't really debate it. They are:




 1. Involuntary acts mean nothing in terms of morality.


While actions may be good for us and good for society and generally a good idea, no action pleases God unless it is done with the right motive and is voluntary. If you treat people kindly because someone's going to hurt you if you don't, it's still treating people kindly,  which is an inherently positive thing, but it is very different than treating people kindly because you love God and you view that as part of your faith in action. In both cases you have done something good, but doing it because you choose to is different from doing it because you're forced to. God wants love and unbounded choice to do good, not just lip service and exterior forms of godliness.




2. We cannot, and we should not, try to coerce conversion or religious belief.

To do so would be morally wrong. We are to witness with service, example, and sharing/teaching, but we are not to bully or shame. Ever.




3. It is not the government's job to legislate morality or to shepherd the faith of its people

.
It is the government's job to protect the freedoms and general of its people, to enforce the rule of law, and to facilitate infrastructure in as local as way as is feasible.


That said, I absolutely think Christians have a responsibility to be involved in our government at all levels, in the arts, and/or in whatever ways we have been gifted and enabled to charge our world for the better. Part of our mandate as Christians is to release the captives, comfort the mourning, and bring justice to the oppressed. We can do this through politics, and as it is my belief that a free society is most conducive to this, working for a just and free community can be a big part of fulfilling that mandate. We may also have opportunities to share our faith with those who ask and who we would not have met otherwise, and to witness by our example of service to our communities. Working in politics to make our home free, prosperous, and friendly to the free exercise of our religion is a great and noble work. However, this does not mean that our laws should conform to any specific set of religious dictums. As I mentioned in a previous post, there are many problems inherent in an ecclesiocracy/theocracy, such as lack of agreement within faiths, a substitution of rule books for divine relationship, etc. As a Christian, I believe I have a responsibility to foster a political environment that is friendly to my faith and does not prohibit it, but also does not mandate it or interfere with it unless it harms others or endangers their basic freedoms. I view separation of the state from any one church as an inherently good thing. Of course, the state will be influenced by the faiths and churches of the people who comprise it; after all, what is government but the people to we elect to do the jobs we cannot or do not wish to do? But- to call ourselves a "Christian Nation" can be a bit problematic. What does that mean, exactly? With which flavor of Christianity would we be identifying? Southern Baptist, Anglican, Methodist, Mennonite? If by Christian Nation we mean a place where Christians and other can freely practice their religions with a few caveats, or a place where the basic values taught by Christ in the beatitudes are a fundamental part of the legal foundation, then I think we can proudly own the term. But if that means that being an American is synonymous with being a member of the Christian faith then I think I'd rather call it (and I can't at this time, not completely) a nation of Religious Freedom, and a nation whose people take responsibility for it. 


 All that said- what should be our foundation for law? Our constitution is based on a value for liberty and human life, and on justice and general ontological equality. I cannot think of a better starting point. Those things are also part of the Christian faith, but are not necessarily unique to it; many atheists would hold them as a positive foundation for a legal system as well. To hold up such a standard does not interfere with religious freedom, as our constitution is not part of any religion. It contains theistic statements, but I think it is generally understood that theism is not required for citizenship or to uphold the values set out in our founding documents. There are some things required of certain religions which violate our basic legal framework, and that is where religious freedom should end- take honor killings, forced marriages, or state punishment of consensual adult sexual behaviors such as adultery, premarital sex, or homosexuality, for example. We could always privilege the Christian faith, but that would be almost impossible due to the diversity within it. I firmly believe that the basic values of our constitution are thus a better framework for our government, and will more likely create a state of religious freedom, than any strictly religious law (Levitical, or Sharia, et c) or religiously mandated form of government.


The fact that our faith requires a position or behavior from us is not sufficient to legislate it for those who do not share that faith. Most of the dictates of the Christian faith are within the "value for liberty and human life, and on justice and general ontological equality" category, and thus are law not because they are in the bible, but because they reflect our basic legal ideas. Everything from insurance fraud to murder to the abortion debate can be traced back to those basic things. There are, of course, some things that many Christians believe to be morally wrong that do not fall within the confines of proper governmental jurisdiction. Adultery and Homosexuality come to mind- we do not throw people in jail for either one, nor should we. The state is not our parent, and we are not its child; consensual behavior between adults does not negatively affect the general population in a way that merits government interference, and all moral and religious implications are the purview of the parties involved, their church, and their God. There may be consequences- in the name of justice, a spouse may seek a divorce when adultery comes to light, and because marriage involves a contract which in such a case was broken, the offended party may be entitled to a distribution of assets that reflects this. This is very different from jailing the offending parties for their moral sin, however.



There is no reason for the state to discriminate based upon a religious rule that is not necessary under the ideals of the constitution. For example- many Christians believe homosexuality is morally wrong. Still, the state recognizes heterosexual spouses and parents regardless of qualification, and does not (and should not) require that homosexual couples should have to prove their fitness to acquire children any more than should heterosexual couples.

(Also, as a matter of consistency- it makes no sense, biblically, to limit homosexual marriage any more than we limit adulterous marriage. Let's be consistent- if LGBT folk can't really be married, then neither can people in polyamorous relationships or people who cheat on each other. Not the government's business, you say? Mmmm..... exactly.)


If we wish to make a law prohibiting marriage between gay couples, it is then inconsistent to use religious or biblical grounds to do so. If we desire such a law, we should first determine whether same sex marriage violates the principles of liberty, respect for life, justice, and equality. If same sex marriage is not counterintuitive to those things, then we ought to ask whether or not it does quantifiable harm to people outside the relationship and infringes on the rights of others. If it does not, then, irrespective and regardless of its morality, I question the legal justification for such a law.


Because involuntary morality does not count towards true holiness, we are doing our society and the people in it no favors when we legislate religious observance. Making laws which render our home freer and safer is wonderful, but legislating religious morality or observance of biblical law which falls outside of our constitutional purview simply puts our people in a place of observing law from fear of punishment, rather than because they are attempting to love God more fully. (I am in no way saying that I believe Christians are bound by the Levitical law, by the way. I'm just using it here as an example of an extra-constitutional morality code that we could, but should not, adopt.) I can see no end to such a course but useless bondage.


Some may argue that allowing same sex marriage necessitates a fundamental redefinition of marriage. To that, I'd say- 1, that depends upon your definition of marriage, and 2, the definition of marriage is not specified and hallowed in our constitution as are other issues.   Marriage, while it has historically been heterosexual, has not historically been a Christ-honoring, mutual, monogamous relationship, even within the church. There are exceptions, of course, but unless we're going back to the garden of Eden before misogyny reared its ugly head, then we're dealing with a mixed bag that includes a healthy dose of polygamy and a heaping cup of gender inequality. I really see no problem with clarifying its legal definition to include committed monogamous relationships between any two humans.


Then, of course, there is the issue of civil vs. religious marriage- I would support a state-recognized civil union between any two people, and the idea of leaving the religious end of marriage the purview of individuals and churches. That's a rabbit trail for another time, though.

Theocracy/Ecclesiocracy

I've heard some people say, people dear to my heart and who I respect to a degree that makes me sad to hear them say it, that what we need in the US is a good old-fashioned Theocracy. I've seen this idea run the gamut from those who want to implement the Judaic law found in the Torah to those who want American law to reflect "conservative, traditional biblical family values." To the first I'll not even give the credence of a rebuttal; the very idea that implementing a law, designed for an ancient nomadic people, to which we are not morally bound as Christians, and which Christ himself declared moot is beyond ridiculous. I'd like to address, instead, the more mainstream and slightly-less-offensive idea that American law should reflect and legislate those"conservative, traditional biblical family values."




First of all- who, exactly, gets to define what those values are? Not even conservative evangelical Christians have a uniform moral ethic, a uniform theology, or even a uniform or consistent biblical hermeneutic. If any one facet of Christianity were to make the rules, other, equally "conservative" facets would be bound to a framework with which they would not agree. Take, for example, the abortion issue: I personally know conservative, evangelical Christians who believe that no abortion is ever right, not even to save the mother when the alternative is the death of both mother and child. (I find this position personally abhorrent and dehumanizing, by the way) Others are passionately in favor of allowing for it only to save a mother's life from being sacrificed unnecessarily; still others think that in the case of rape or incest a woman should have the right to abort. In a theocracy, the "right" view is generally inseparable from the "legal" view, and once a "right" position is codified by those in power, the dissenters are expected to acquiesce. Thus, one of the problems with theocracy from the beginning would be its limiting of religious freedom, even among the "conservative, traditional American Christian" subset.




Secondly- what is the benefit to legislating extra-biblical morality? Make no mistake; the "conservative traditional values" mores often encompass far more than is required of New Testament believers. Some examples include rigid gender roles, male leadership, "purity" that goes beyond abstaining from sex with those to whom you're not married into the realms of "emotional purity" and that ilk, arbitrary standards of appropriateness in language, demonizing divorce, maintaining a "Sunday" list of do's and don'ts in an attempt to return to a concept of sabath keeping, and many more. From from being beneficial, I seem to recall Jesus having some rather harsh things to say to those Jews who imposed restrictions on others far in excess of that which the Torah mandated. What if you're gay? Divorced? What if you're a woman with leadership, apologetic, or pastoral skills? In this sort of society, if you don't meet the traditional nuclear familial ideal and fit well into your gender role you are on the fringes at best.



Most troubling, though, is the fundamentally flawed theology/philosophy which allows for Theocracy/Ecclesiocracy as a valid and morally superior option. In more libertarian forms of government, the focus is on either protecting the rights and freedoms of all citizens and by default punishing those who harm their neighbors, protecting the good of the society at large, etc. In an Ecclesiocracy or Theocracy, however, church law and civil law are inextricably linked and religious prohibitions are made law whether or not they make sense in the secular world, are generally beneficial, or meet the same standards of good and harm that laws in a non-religious, libertarian legal framework would need to meet. Proponents of a theocracy generally believe that there is good to be attained by legislating religious morality beyond the protection of basic freedoms and those who cannot protect themselves. In other words, this view hinges on religious observance, which is executed because the law says it must be so, being of personal and social benefit. This view I disagree with wholeheartedly. Social benefit comes from laws which protect the innocent, basic rights, etc to be sure; I see no social benefit to be derived from dictating observances that do not harm others but rather encroach on my personal and religious freedom. Here's the worst part- this view implies that doing right things, or following right laws, makes you right with God. That is false. All the right things, done because the law says we have to, mean nothing to Jesus. Depending upon the item in question, doing it may make us a "better person", and may make our society more pleasant; but I am convinced that obeying God means nothing if it is not voluntary.  We are commanded to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly. We are never told to look to the government to tell us what that means.





Also, I think that the very protection of innocence and freedom is better served by a more unbiased, libertarian form of government than by a theocratic one, because it operates with less prejudice and far more objectively. Another flaw in theocratic government is that, if religious leaders are also civil leaders, then to question civil leaders is to question religious leaders and sometimes questioning religious leaders is equated with questioning God. Absolute power corrupts, and any leader who is above questioning and accountability can be tempted to abuse their power.
Really, any system that conflates questioning civil things with questioning Christianity and God's will is a very dangerous thing.

An Ethos of Tolerance

I've seen several cases in the news recently about providers of services (photographer, florist, et c) declining to provide their service for a same sex marriage, claiming freedom of conscience, while enduring either civil or criminal suits for violation of anti-discrimination policies. This is a travesty, y'all! A private business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, unless they are in so doing actively causing harm to that person. For example, the sole proprietor of a medical practice who, seeing a person needing cpr, refuses to give life saving care on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc should absolutely be liable for that neglect, but here it is not so much about government interference in business as about wrongful death. Honestly, I believe that the less government interference we have in the legislation of discrimination in private business the better. (There are, of course, some areas where oversight of business is needed; Truth in advertising laws, basic health and safety codes, etc. ) To go even further: I do not believe that we should have any universal anti-discrimination laws or affirmative action. While this may seem counter-intuitive, I actually believe that the absence of most anti-discrimination legislation is, for this country, now, the most tolerant and logically consistent position.


Historically, we have had periods in our history where discrimination based on unchangeables was not only commonly accepted, but legislated. The racial segregation laws come to mind as an example of one of our nation's most prominent black marks. I think that, due to the previous climate of racist legal frameworks, there was a time when anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action worked well for us, if not ideologically perfect. However, we no longer live in a world where segregation is common and overt bigotry and cruelty are the norm, whether for homosexuals, minorities, or women. Yes, even as a feminist, I think it should be perfectly legal, if abhorrent, for a business owner to refuse me service because I am female. I reserve the right to protest, boycott, and expose that business owner for the bigoted, um... foul knavish varlet.... that they are, but I support their right to be thus foul and knavish. Here's the thing- if we start dictating where personal conscience ends and "approved" conscience begins, where does this lead? I truly believe that a  libertarian ethos is inherently less discriminatory than one in which people are told what to think, what to believe, and what their conscience can dictate.

As a Christian and a feminist, I believe that discrimination based on actual or perceived race, gender, or sexual orientation is morally wrong. However, I don't think lasting, peaceful social change can be forced by legal mandate. I really think that desegregation, integrating people of all sorts into society where they will meet and interact with those different from themselves, and refusing the urge to attempt to force orthodoxy will change a society faster than laws which mandate it, and we have the added benefit of maintaining our freedom in the process. Laws should not segregate or discriminate, of course. The government and it's offices and agencies (what would remain in a gloriously efficient libertarian system ) should be impartial, and any publicly funded or publicly traded entity should be held to a strict policy of non-discrimination. (Yes, this should apply to same sex couples too. I'd say civil-sphere anti-discrimination clauses for: race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion, provided the understanding that religious practices which violate other laws are not thus protected) Civic or public functions of any kind must be impartial, as must emergency services and anyone who provides life-or-death care as a part of their business. Individuals, and private business owners, should be free to make knavish varlets of themselves as  long as it does not harm others. I would contend that having to find an alternate florist or photographer or salon or whatever is not such a harm, and I really think that, as of now, businesses that practice discrimination will either cater to a slowly dying relic of a clientele, or go out of business altogether when young people like me refuse to patronize them. At this point, I think that the free market would do a better job of evening the path of opportunity than restrictive legislation.



A lot of this, for me, boils down to my thoughts on the nature and purpose of private businesses. A private business exists for the personal benefit of the owner, primarily, and to provide employment, goods and services as its secondary purpose. I think a privately owned business is inherently private, not public, and is not an entity apart from the owner (for the purposes of anti-discrimination legislation.)  So, the freedom of thought, speech, and actions accorded to individuals by our laws should also be accorded to private businesses and their owners.

I also think we sometimes take the concept of tolerance too far. Consider a dictionary's definition of tolerance: "The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior with which one does not necessarily agree."    There is a vast difference between tolerating the existence of something and liking or agreeing with it. If someone dislikes my feminist, egalitarian theology and philosophy and decides they want no relationship with me because of it, I would not necessarily call them intolerant. Live, let live, and good riddance. If they want to refuse to serve me at their business, fine. They should be free to follow the dictates of their conscience as long as they allow me the same freedom. This extends to labels, as well- if I were ordained, I would not force someone who didn't believe in female clergy to call me "Reverend" any more than if I were gay I'd force someone to call my wife, well, my wife. However, if someone beats me up in an alley because they think that I'm "subverting the patriarchy" by being a female minister or "going against natural law" by being a lesbian, well, we have a problem. A legal and criminal problem.

In summation:

1. Equal opportunity for everyone in the public sphere.
2. Personal freedom for private citizens and their private businesses; free market economics.
3. Refusing to condone, accept, or celebrate things you feel are wrong is fine. Forcing those beliefs on others is not.
4. Results may vary. Equal outcomes not guaranteed.

Complementary Currency

Published on Aug 3, 2012

\opening statement for Rob Gray ofhttp://www.opencurrency.com/ testifying at Congressman Paul's subcommittee met on August 2nd, 2012 to examine sound money and parallel currencies.

I am fascinated by the concept of the widespread use of alternative currency. It is more theoretical than useful in my life right this very instant, but I am drawn to its possibilities. What is complementary currency? Here is a snippet from Investopedia.com:

An Introduction To Complementary Currencies

November 22 2011| Filed Under » Currency, Euro Zone, Financial Theory, Microeconomics

In communities around the world, people have come up with alternatives to the usual way of paying for goods and services. Instead of yen, pounds or dollars, they are using privately developed substitutes called complementary currencies.  Tutorial: Introduction To The Federal Reserve

What Are Complementary Currencies?A complementary currency is a medium of exchange that functions alongside a national currency, to fulfill a need that the national currency seemingly does not. According to the "International Journal of Community Currency Research," community and complementary currency systems have four main purposes:

• To promote local economic development
• To build social capital
• To nurture more sustainable lifestyles
• To meet needs that mainstream money does not

Complementary currencies are not legal tender, only government-issued money has this status in many countries, including the United States, England and the eurozone countries. Legal tender is the only currency that must be accepted to satisfy a debt, in countries with legal tender laws. However, the parties to a transaction can mutually agree to do business with another payment form. 

Complementary currencies are thus legal, as long as they meet certain requirements. Businesses that earn them are generally required to count them as income for tax purposes. Also, complementary currencies are not allowed to look like the national currency. Bernard von NotHaus was convicted of counterfeiting in 2011, for his liberty dollars, which the U.S. government said looked too similar to government-issued money.

............................................................................................................................................

Overview of Widely Used Complementary CurrenciesThere are dozens, if not hundreds, of complementary currencies in use around the world. The United States, Germany and Australia appear to have the greatest number of complementary currencies. Here is an overview of a few of these systems and how they work. 
  
BerkSharesBerkShares are a local currency used in the Berkshire region of Massachusetts, backed by U.S. dollars. Consumers only need to exchange 95 cents of national currency to receive one BerkShare, therefore consumers effectively receive a 5% discount on local purchases made in BerkShares. 

Lewes PoundThe Lewes Pound is local currency used in Lewes, East Sussex, United Kingdom, backed by the pound sterling. Individuals receive 95% of the value of the British pounds they exchange for Lewes pounds; the other 5% goes to community grants.

Toronto DollarsToronto dollars are a local currency used in Toronto, Canada, primarily in the St. Lawrence Market and Gerard Square areas; they are backed by the Canadian dollar. Individuals receive one Toronto dollar for every Canadian dollar they exchange, but businesses only receive 90 cents for every Toronto dollar they redeem. The other 10% goes to community grants. 

Salt Spring DollarsSalt Spring dollars are used on Salt Spring Island, British Columbia, and are backed by the Canadian dollar. They are a rare example of a local currency with near universal acceptance, meaning that most businesses on the island accept it. These include hotels and inns, art galleries, grocery stores, restaurants, bakeries, retail stores and service businesses.

Ithaca HOURSUsed in Ithaca, N.Y., and founded in 1991, Ithaca HOURS are the "oldest and largest local currency system in the U.S.," according to the organization that runs the system. This complementary currency system is not as straightforward as many others, in that one Ithaca HOUR equals one hour of basic labor or $10.00. Hours are issued as paper currency. Individuals and businesses have to join the Ithaca HOURS system, to be able to use the currency. Members can receive zero-interest business loans on a one-year repayment schedule. (For more on time and money, read Understanding The Time Value Of Money.)

Dane County Time BankThe Dane County Time Bank operates a currency represented by TimeBank Hours, but it's a different type of hour than the Ithaca Hour. TimeBank hours represent hours of service and they are not taxable because they have no monetary equivalent.

When I think of complementary currency, I think of either a barter system or, as in the video above, the use of actual metal instead of the Federal Reserve notes which are now the standard for cash transactions of any significant amount. I think that the widespread use of actual coinage or metal-by-the-ounce has the theoretical potential to free us from the Fed as an economic system without having to rely on step-by-step legislation. I think it also has the potential to change the way we shop and where we shop. Hypothetically, introducing currency options as another variable besides value/quality/longevity/ethical production, etc when we are evaluating a potential purchase might significantly change the equations that make large chains the current kings of efficacious shopping. Discounts if you pay in silver, anyone? :)


However.... while the theoretical possibility is fascinating, the pragmatic reality seems improbable. First of all, there are a great deal of logistical concerns to consider. Coinage of larger denominations would need to be more readily available, and the transportation, storage, and security of silver, for example, would need to be addressed. Then, of course, as Mr. Gray said: "Merchants accept complementary currencies on the assumption that someone else will be willing to do the same thing, later." Therein lies the rub. That's quite an assumption. In a way it's like voting 3rd Party- if enough people did it, it would be a boon to society, but if very few people do it it's a waste, except as a means of social protest.
Next, we'd have to assume that most people procure goods and services with money they actually have, as opposed to credit, aid programs, et c. In fact, while I don't know the exact statistics, I'd guess that there is a very significant number who would be left out of such a system by virtue of dependence on credit, assistance programs, or (assuming the alternative currency wasn't universal) simply the economic pressure to find the best possible value and the impetus to make that their primary, if not sole, consideration. Until we reform our beloved welfare state, implement more free-market economic strategies, and encourage and implement a civil and private ethic of financial responsibility, I don't really see alternate currency as a universal practicality at this time. It certainly bears watching, though....

CSCOPE, Homeschooling, and Appropriate Regulation

I came across a very troubling article the other day, about a curriculum called CSCOPE that is being taught in many public schools in Texas, my home state. The article alleges some shocking content/lessons, everything from an open-ended discussion of hijab, which suggests that the hijab is “freeing because it prevents others from making them into sexual objects,”or that “women need to be obscured so as not to arouse male desire” (what? don't get me started- as if a burqa prevented objectification! What the heck are they thinking?) to calling 9-11 hijackers freedom fighters instead of terrorists, to calling Christianity a cult while simultaneously glorifying Islam and neglecting to mention  the many human rights violations common in Islamic countries or in Sharia law, to calling the Boston Tea Party an act of terrorism. The curriculum also allegedly glorifies communism/socialism without also discussing their negative aspects or any negative results of their implementation in societies so far, and allegedly paints Paul Revere as being involved in illegal drug trafficking (?!?!?) and Christopher Columbus as an eco-warrior. (now that one's just funny.) The most troubling allegation, however, is that the curriculum is not available for public (even parental) perusal and that teachers have to sign non-disclosure agreements about its content. (??!?!?!?!) I'm not familiar enough with the source of this article to give it credence on its own, so I did some digging. I cannot confirm the content, because the curriculum is in fact under wraps- not even parents can get copies of it, and the course descriptions are ridiculously vague on the curriculum's website. What the what? Since when is it ok to teach things in school to children that you refuse to allow their parents to peruse? Since when is it ok to restrict public access to publicly funded, public school curricula? This is wrong on so many levels. Such hubris, and such disregard for the transparency that is crucial to a free state! I think I might have a chat with my congressperson about that.

This brings me to another question-  What part should the state play in regulating education? Who should have the final say in what children learn?

I do not believe in a total lack of regulation, though I do believe regulation should be on a state and local level, as opposed to federal. I was homeschooled myself, and Husband and I are homeschooling our own children. I am very much in favor of homeschooling, as, in my experience, it gives students the ability to go at their own pace and tailor the elective aspects of their studies to their own interests. It's also flexible, allows for family time and can be a good alternative to school situations that involve bullying or harassment or negative peer pressure. It also gives parents the freedom to direct their children's education according to their religious and moral beliefs. In my own experience, though there were a few gaps, homeschooling served me well. Neither my siblings nor I have had much trouble with college, and my parents did a great job of combining their own teaching with co-ops and extracurriculars to give us the best education they could. My own children do well with homeschooling; my older boys both learned to read at 4 and love to learn, especially if it involves 1.Space/Astronomy/Cool Spaceships, 2. Marine Biology/Really Cool Fish And/Or Whales, 3. Trains, especially steam engines, and 4. Dinosaurs. :) It concerns me, though, that not all homeschooling experiences are so positive. I have seen examples of families who claimed to homeschool, but whose children entered high school illiterate (or worse, graduated without being able to read- thankfully, I believe that extreme is uncommon, but I've seen it myself and it breaks my heart. ) or could not get a job above minimum wage upon graduation because they lacked basic reading, writing, or math skills. I see a spectrum of homeschooling, with the "horror stories" or illiterate, isolated children at one end and the high-performing, well-educated, socially adept children at the other. I am, therefore, passionately in favor of some state/local regulation of all education, including homeschooling. While I think education is the primary responsibility of parents, I also think that if a parent has it in their power to give their child a basic education and chooses instead to withhold it, they are in effect crippling their child's future and abusing their child. 

If the state exists to protect freedom and liberty and the punish the infringement of the same, (I believe it does) then the we as the voting, office-holding people of the state have a responsibility to protect the rights of the defenseless, including children- to say nothing of our moral or christian duties towards those who cannot protect themselves. Our responsibility does not only extend to protection from parents who lie and refuse their children an education, however- it also extends to protection from inaccurate, idea-indoctrinating curriculum taught in our schools. Should schools teach that all muslims are terrorists or that God intended men to be the heads of their homes? No, of course not. Schools should teach facts, not ideas, and basic skills, not systems of belief. Schools and school boards also should not have the authority to teach curriculum that is not avaiable for public or parental review, any more than they should control what ideas parents teach their children or any more than parents should withhold a basic education. 

In my opinion, appropriate regulation for public schools must include transparency and the opportunity for public review. As long as the basic facts of science and history (including the history of our justice system and a basic working knowledge of it) and good reading, writing, logic, and math skills are taught, states and communities should be able to vote curricula in or out. Students and parents should never be vilified for having a difference of opinion with the state curriculum, ans students and parents should be able to opt out of any social studies/projects that they find personally offensive or religiously problematic, so long as it would not compromise the student's ability to pass the same basic skills testing that would be required for a homeschooled student.

In my opinion, appropriate regulation for homeschooling would be very basic, and keep in mind the parents' rights to teach their children according to their own idealogical framework. I would be in favor of periodic mandatory testing in math and language skills for younger grades, with basic science and history facts/dates added in for high school. Not knowing when Texas became a state might someday be a disadvantage to a child, but it certainly won't cripple them. Nor will not memorizing the periodic table or not knowing what the laws of thermodynamics are, though we'd hope those things would always be taught. Not knowing basic algebra or not being able to read well  or not being able to put a cogent sentence on paper could very well cripple a child's educational or vocational future. 

Thus, in my opinion, the role of the state in education should be to work towards every child receiving basic instruction in math and language skills and a knowledge of basic science and history facts including how our justice system works and how our country came to be, and to implement public school curriculum that is approved by the state, the community, and the parents. The state works for the parents and students, not the reverse. It is better, in my view, to have students who have the basics and know how to learn the specifics of a particular discipline for themselves than to have students who drink in everything they are taught, and parrot the worldview in which they have been saturated.