Freethinkers of Colorado Springs Freethought Views articles from the Independent and our web site from 2018
Abortion and Human Freedom
by Groff Schroeder
Abortion may be the most divisive issue in modern politics, but abortion is anything but new. Numerous societies, including the Romans and Greeks, practiced not only abortion, but infanticide. Spontaneous abortions, colloquially called "miscarriage" and "stillbirth," have all but certainly occurred since the dawn of the human species. So why is abortion controversial?
A 2018 Pew Research Center suggests about 58% of Americans believe abortion should be "legal in all or most cases," and about 37% of Americans believe that abortion should be "illegal in all or most cases." The same research suggests about 25% of Americans believe abortion should be "legal in all cases," and about 15% of Americans believe that abortion should be "illegal in all cases" - apparently even if the pregnancy has defects "incompatible with life," even if both mother and pregnancy will die, even if the father is a close family member or rapist, and even, all of the above. If abortion were "illegal in all cases" even spontaneous abortions would be criminal acts potentially punishable by arrest and imprisonment.
Abortion supporters objectively understand that the harsh realities of every day obstetrics often forces extremely difficult choices and complex triage stemming from genetic or physical defects in the pregnancy, direct threats to the mother's (and thus pregnancy's) life or health, and challenging familial, societal, and medical situations. Embryological science shows that breathing movements don't begin until the end of the first trimester, and that the development of the fetal heart is only completed during birth with the closure of the ductus arteriosus, ductus venosus, and the foramen ovale. Finally, basic ethics suggests that women should not be treated like livestock with others controlling their reproductive processes - and that society should not give rapists the power to have children by any woman they choose.
In contrast, those opposed to abortion subjectively believe that "life begins at conception," and that anything that interferes with the development of a pregnancy - even birth control - constitutes a "murder" universally prohibited by God. Most opponents cite the Christian Bible as the reason for their opposition to abortion, which directly addresses the termination of numerous pregnancies. In Hosea 9:14 and 13:16, miscarriages, infanticide, and "women with child" being "ripped up" are punishments for rebelling against God. In Exodus 21:22-23, it appears a person who caused the loss of a pregnancy receives a fine and faces "eye for an eye, tooth for tooth" justice. Although it does not specifically address induced abortion, the Bible does appear to define when life begins in Genesis 2:7, stating that a "breath" creates a "living soul."
Supporters of abortion appear to rely upon political, legislative, and judicial processes to defend everyone's freedom to privately make their own ethical, sexual, religious, and reproductive decisions without government involvement, and with little or no interference from anyone. In contrast, opponents of abortion appear to be unethically manipulating America's political, legislative, and judicial processes in pursuit of an unconstitutional and oxymoronic "religious freedom" to force everyone follow their sexual, religious, and reproductive mandates under penalty of law - with little or no justification for their beliefs.
If you or your loved one were pregnant, which version of freedom would you prefer?
Published March 6, 2019 in the Colorado Springs Independent with the quotation below.
“I hate abortions, but just could not make that choice for someone else.”
Barbara Bush
ABORTION OR NOT?
by Jan Brazill
What Would You Do?
I have seen many young women with their baby carriages lining the streets protesting abortion clinics. These are women who, most likely, have traditional marriages that welcome families. I had to wonder if any of them had made difficult choices during their pregnancies.
Having been an abortion clinic escort, I am very aware of the many reasons for abortions. I remember one woman who had been told that this pregnancy could cost her life. She and her husband had to endure taunts of “Murderer” as we led them through the screaming, picketing crowd. He told us that her death from continuing the pregnancy would mean that there would be no one to care for their existing three children. What would you do?
Some women endure abusive relationships or see that a child is abused by a partner. Bearing another child is unthinkable, so a secret abortion is attained. What would you do?
A woman may have a medical condition that forbids pregnancy. Since no contraceptive works perfectly, should she give up her life to bear an accidental pregnancy who - if somehow surviving its mother's death - would then be motherless?
There are many reasons for choosing abortion. When pregnancies are the result of an act of rape or incest, many could not bear to give birth to a child that would be a constant reminder of the incident. Worse, if it were incest, that child might be subject to the same abuse!
And what if your pregnancy were diagnosed to have an 'unacceptable quality of life' if born, such as a severe physical handicap or serious genetic problem? While some may opt to continue such a pregnancy, no one should be forced to take on such a burden, or inflict such suffering on a child. This attitude should not be taken as disrespectful to the disabled, but one has to consider whether adequate care could be afforded to such a child for as long as it would live.
There are also social reasons for abortion, including poverty, a mother unable to cope with a child (or another child), or a mother being too young to adequately nurture a child. And there is plain failure of birth control. Abortion is often the solution when birth control is unavailable or unaffordable.
President Trump’s recent reinstatement of the “Global Gag Rule” has almost certainly increased the number of abortions in the world. One of his first actions was to sign an executive order banning international Non-Governmental-Organizations who receive US funding from providing abortion services or even offering information about abortions. The Gag Rule was first initiated by the Reagan administration, but that applied to only the provision of abortions. Trump’s action goes further, causing many international family-planning organizations to reject needed funding for contraceptives, because even though they do not provide abortions, they want to be able to advise unfortunate women who need abortion with information to save their lives. And women in our own country may also soon be in that same situation! Pres. Trump is seeking to ban federal funds from Title X of the Public Health Service Act from going to any US organization that provides abortions or refers patients to abortion providers.
So think about it: All these people have to make serious choices. What would you do? What will you do?
Published in the June 6, 2018 edition of the Freethinkers of Colorado Springs Freethought Views advertorial column in the Colorado Springs Independent with the quotation below.
"Gods always come in handy; they justify almost anything.”
Margaret Atwood
Another challenge
by Groff Schroeder
"My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country," so spoke President John Fitzgerald Kennedy on January 20, 1961. Kennedy's inspirational inaugural address provided a hopeful counterpoint to the prescient warning in the farewell address of the outgoing President, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
In 1961, ever increasing numbers of "delivery vehicles" bearing nuclear "warheads" many thousands of times more powerful than those dropped on Japan characterized the dangerous, expensive, and corrupting "cold war" "arms race" between Allied democracy and Soviet totalitarianism. On May 25, 1961 President Kennedy suggested a "political and technical alternative to the current arms race," a "space race" with the goal of "landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth."
In 1964, Los Angeles, former police officer Gene Roddenberry registered a television program combining two popular television genres, the western and science fiction. "Star Trek" was first broadcast on September 8, 1966, weeks after the second unmanned suborbital test launch of the Apollo Command/Service Module, and days before the manned Gemini 11 mission. While 1960's astronauts relied upon analog electronics, communicated with a global "deep space" radio network, and addressed their guidance computer in octal, crew members of the "United Space Ship Enterprise" employed pocket "communicators," used "tricorders" to sense their environment, addressed their ship's super-computer with voice commands, and teleported as energy patterns.
The space race and Star Trek inspired countless individuals to study science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, and "Trekkies" soon populated academia and technical workplaces. As a result, today everyday people communicate globally with "smart phones" that not only sense their environments, but also allow voice addressable access to an almost unimaginably powerful library and computer network - all in a single hand held device - and modern "entangled" particle physics might someday yield the fabled Star Trek "transporter." But the deadly real space race and the fictional Star Trek were about more than cool technologies, both also shared the goals of creating social justice, repairing corrupted political systems, and ending the enduring madness of war. But Star Trek went even further, imagining an economy that transcended money, freeing 23rd century humans from "filthy lucre" - and thus the bonds of corruption, debt, greed, hunger, inequality, and poverty.
Over 50 years, the brilliant minds, imaginations, and workers of Star Trek planted the seeds of many of today's most important advanced technologies, and the brilliant minds, imaginations, and workers of the "space race" birthed countless scientific technologies - leaving six Apollo Lunar Landing Sites on the moon using analog engineering so outdated today it is extremely difficult to recreate. Imagine the "impossible" goals we can achieve in the next 50 years applying modern science, engineering, and the same kind of bravery, cooperation, determination, imagination, and hard work that John Fitzgerald Kennedy and Gene Roddenberry embodied and inspired in the 1960s.
Albeit sometimes distressing, the disruptive nature of the "disastrous rise" of "unwarranted influence" and "misplaced power" might offer an opportunity. Why wait for the 23rd century? How do we get there from here?
Another challenge appeared in the Freethinkers of Colorado Springs Freethought Views column in the December 5, 2018 edition of the Colorado Springs Independent with the quotation below.
"Fortune sides with those who dare."
Virgil
Most Americans probably think that our medical and religious decisions – especially with regard to sex and reproduction – are deeply private, and that the only people who can legally make these decisions for us are ourselves, our families, and our physicians. Others think US law should force everyone to obey the mandates of [insert religion name here] beliefs – especially with regard to sex and reproduction – no matter what anyone else's [insert religion name here] beliefs (if any) may be. Unfortunately, corporations, employers, governmental agencies, organizations, religious institutions, and individuals already appear to leverage various forms of societal power to force the directives of their church onto their patients.
Want to fill a prescription for birth control pills for your daughter's debilitating menstrual cramps? Any pharmacist in the US can claim a "moral or religious objection" to birth control to discriminate against your daughter by refusing to fill her prescription, overruling both your and her physician's medical decisions. Need emergency abortion because your pregnancy is dead and you face imminent death from hemorrhage or sepsis? The United States has the worst maternal death rate in the developed world, yet hospitals who forbid birth control and abortion (about one in six) cite church "ethical and religious directives" to deny a range of reproductive medical care to pregnant women and families – often in the absence of lesser accreditation, informed consent, or payment forgiveness.
President Trump recently announced a new "Conscience and Religious Freedom Division" within the Housing and Human Services Office of Civil Rights to "guarantee justice to victims of religious discrimination." Sadly, the new "civil rights" division will not protect patients from being forced to comply with the religious dictates of their medical providers or require obvious identification of hospitals that deny reproductive medical care. Instead, even though numerous "reasonable accommodations" already exist, the division will protect medical providers in paid positions of professional responsibility who claim THEY are "discriminated against" when experiencing negative consequences because they refused to do their job, denied their patients medical care, and forced their personal religious beliefs upon their patients. Specifically, the administration claims that "free exercise of religion" creates nebulous "conscience rights" that allow medical providers (and donor-class corporate-politico-religious corporations) to cite "moral or religious objections" to deny their patients' any medication, procedure, product, or service they oppose (ostensibly including blood transfusion etc.).
Any person or entity denying services to (discriminating against) anyone for religious reasons appears to violate not only numerous founding ideals of the United States Constitution (freedom of religion, due process, privacy, equality under the law, etc.), but also numerous legal, medical, professional, and religious ethics, morals, and precedents. It is patently absurd to claim that "free exercise of religion" exists when powerful medical providers and entities can force ill or injured, paying patients to surrender their personal religious practices to comply with the religious directives of the undamaged, paid provider's church. The creation by the United States of a "civil rights" division to protect apparent egregious violations of the Constitution, the law, and medical professionalism is disturbing commentary on the freedom-corroding power of "campaign donations" and profit-driven medicine, the sorry state of American freedom and separation of church and state, and the apparent collapse of reciprocity, integrity, logic, and morality in the politically active religious institutions supporting such an asymmetric and oxymoronic interpretation of "free exercise of religion."
Published in the February 6-13 2018 edition of the Colorado Springs Independent with the quotation below.
"There is but one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one's life - reciprocity."
Confucius
By Ken Burrows
Our Founders created the U.S. Constitution to be a secular document, consistent with their intent to keep religion and government separate. Its references to religion are limited to a ban on requiring a religious test for public office (Article VI) and a directive that government neither establish religion nor prohibit its practice (First Amendment). By contrast, most state constitutions depart from the Founders’ example by weaving religion into their wording.
At the extreme, and in direct violation of the federal Constitution, eight state constitutions to this day contain language requiring that one must believe in God to hold public office. The South Carolina constitution’s language is typical, stating: “No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.” And while such required God-belief has been properly tossed out by courts as unconstitutional when it’s been challenged, this has not led the involved states to excise the offending language from their constitutions.
The states’ ignoring of separationist principles is also seen in a more subtle but more widespread form as almost all state constitutions invoke God in their preambles. Colorado’s preamble, for example, opens with “We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe . . .” In preambles “we” is taken to imply all the state’s citizens as a group. But recent surveys by the Pew Research Center reveal that approximately 25% of Americans are religiously unaffiliated, identifying as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular.” Close to 40% of these “nones” say specifically they don’t believe in God. So invoking God in these preambles expresses a falsehood for a substantial percentage of “we” who do not acknowledge a “Supreme Ruler” or any other religious agent. A God-praising preamble does not speak for them, even though it is their constitution too.
Serious ramifications can ensue as a result of states’ disregard for separating religion and government. In the early 1960s Roy Torcaso was denied a notary public appointment because, as an atheist, he refused to state belief in God as required by the Maryland constitution. Two tiers of courts rejected his claim that his constitutional rights were being violated, but a unanimous Supreme Court ultimately sided with Torcaso, with Justice Hugo Black writing that “neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.” More recently, in the 1990s, atheist Herb Silverman of South Carolina had to go through a similar court suit to get his notary license approved. And yet the state still retains in its constitution a belief-in-God requirement to hold public office.
There are, additionally, pivotal matters of perception at stake. Having a religious premise in a prominent document like a constitution assumes religiosity is the norm for all and implies the state’s nonreligious citizens are an excludable group. This assumed religiosity feeds prejudicing myths such as seeing the nonreligious as less ethical than their religious neighbors, less honorable as citizens, less deserving of public office. It exacerbates divisiveness and accepts—even promotes—unequal treatment based on what a person religiously believes or disbelieves.
These are exactly the ills our Founders took decisive steps to avoid by explicitly separating religion from government. Unfortunately most state constitutions ignored that history when written and to this day still contradict that all-important principle.
Detecting Reality
by Groff Schroeder
What is real, and how can we know? Do unidentified flying objects (UFOs) prove aliens exist? Do "EMF spikes" or garbled audio clips prove ghosts exist? Does the survival of a loved one after helicopter airlift, emergency surgery, and extended intensive care prove the power of prayer? Virtually no one wants to spread false information, so it is important to determine whether we are deceiving others – or ourselves.
The roots of the word deception mean “to take from.” Since the dawn of time, biological predators have employed deception to trick, herd, and then consume their targets. Financial predators frequently broadcast “too good to be true” deceptions that sometimes cause "face palm" under careful examination. The need to understand nature and identify deceit caused humans to seek out ways to reliably identify reality.
Thanks to science and "critical thinking," we can often be sure about what is real (correct) – and what is not. Starting at least 3600 years ago, vigorous academic, experimental, mathematical, and philosophical efforts relentlessly improved and evolved our understanding of science (a.k.a. repeatable, verifiable, and predictive interpretations of reality). Although sometimes dismissed as "just another religion," science literally tests proposed Laws (a2 + b2 = c2) over millennia and Theories (such as the Theory of Evolution) over a century or more before accepting that they accurately, objectively, precisely, quantitatively, and reliably predict future system behaviors. Every single day, you can (and do) successfully bet your life countless times on upon the correctness of the scientific equations that model the future behavior of electrons, materials, medical treatments, structures, technologies, vehicles, wings, etc.
But what if equations are too complicated? Critical thinking offers countless tools to help us identify factual reality. With logic and deduction, we can recognize that our inability to tell whether a flying object is a 727 or a 747 means the object is a "UFO" - that may or may not be an intergalactic spacecraft piloted by mysterious extraterrestrial beings. Similarly, "Occam's Razor" suggests the simplest explanation (say for EMF "signatures" and distorted voices on "reality TV" shows) probably stems from the simplest solutions (type of equipment and need for advertisers – rather than chatty electromagnetic spooks).
In any event, it is often useful to be skeptical of what we are told and wary of possible deception. Maybe destroying the financial foundations of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will, "provide great health care at a fraction of the cost" (not explode market stability and skyrocket costs). Maybe laws forcing all American's to surrender their privacy, individual freedoms, and personal religious beliefs by obeying rigid politico-religious mandates governing marriage, sex, and reproduction will, "restore religious freedom" (not grant politicians rancher-like power over the livestock-like sex and spiritual lives of voters). Maybe charging ~$1.5 trillion (~$2.2 including interest) on the national credit card and giving 75% of the borrowed money to the world's wealthiest corporations, families, and individuals finally will, "trickle down" somehow to America's struggling poor and middle class. Right?
Critical thinking methods help us assess information, and science makes technology possible by accurately, precisely, and reliably predicting the future. It is easy to believe what we want to believe, especially when those around us strongly adhere to those same beliefs. However, even scientists who correctly detect reality must sometimes overcome internal and external barriers to accepting it.
Published in the January 3-10 edition of the Colorado Springs Independent with the quotation below.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Carl Sagan
An age-old debate pits evolution against creation-by-God. But what if God himself was created by others? And what if God evolves?
Religious history scholar Reza Aslan engages such questions in his book God: A Human History. Here he documents that people’s compulsion to “humanize the divine” dates back many millennia and has resulted in continually shifting concepts of “God.” In this sense humans have indeed created God as an entity on an evolutionary journey.
Aslan says this journey can be traced back 12,000 or more years. One of the earliest religious impulses, animism, attributed a spiritual essence to both human and inanimate objects. These objects were later seen to have—or perhaps be—personal spirits, and eventually advanced into being revered as individualized gods, always plural in number. Ancients worshipped these gods and gave them human physical features when depicted in art forms. They also attributed human emotions to their gods, ranging from loving and
protective to angry, capricious and merciless. Aslan notes the most enduring of all religious concepts is that of the “god-man”—an imagined human with extraordinary abilities, omnipresent and omniscient.
For thousands of years, multiple gods were the norm. Monotheism was considered suspect, partly because no single god was thought adequate to account for and oversee the full range of life events, the natural world, vagaries of fate, and unexplainable mysteries. A few ventures into monotheism in early centuries B.C.E. were quickly rebuffed; pantheons of gods retained favor.
Aslan sees monotheism begin to come into acceptance as a means by which Israelites rationalized their defeat by the Babylonians in 586 B.C.E. They saw this catastrophe as a stronger god defeating their “best” god at the time, Yahweh. They began to think defeat could be part of Yahweh’s plan, that one god could be responsible for both good and evil. They basically reimagined him to better fit real-world events, and modified the overall concept of “God.” Monotheistic language then began to appear frequently in sacred texts. Aslan notes that adapting the divine to fit temporal circumstances is a repeating practice in religious history, a way that humans keep their gods worthy of worship.
Aslan finds the early Christian church promoting belief in one all-powerful God, partly to parallel governance under one authoritarian pope. When Constantine prevailed in a civil war in 312 C.E., he mirrored this tactic, adopting a monotheistic religious system for his empire to better consolidate rule and minimize conflicts. He helped embed the “one true God” belief at the Council of Nicea in 325, whose legacy continues to the present.
Anthropologically, today’s one-and-only personalized God is a recent creation, occupying a relatively small segment on the timeline of evolving religious thought. Aslan asserts it is merely one faith choice that no one can prove or disprove. He chooses pantheism for himself, believing “the universe is God.” Not a human-like overseer/protector/rewarder/punisher but rather a “pure existence” that humans share in. He disembarks the evolutionary train that has long followed the track of humanizing the divine and that (for now) insists on a single god-man supreme being, mainly because it’s the only God most people can, or want to, relate to. Aslan challenges that narrowly expedient conceptualizing and urges his readers to remember: “It is we who have fashioned God in our image, not the other way around."
Published in the March 14-21 issue of theColorado Springs Independent with the quotation below.
"Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science - in all of biology."
Bill Nye
July 4, 2018
by Groff Schroeder
On July 2, 1776, America's Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence, which Americans have celebrated on July 4th ever since. Thirteen years and one Revolutionary War later, the ratification of the United States Constitution established America's Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches, which defend the Rule of Law through "Checks and Balances" and the threat of removal from office upon Impeachment and conviction for "Bribery" and "high Crimes and Misdemeanors." The 1791 "Bill of Rights" amended the Constitution to define the rights and freedoms of the People, establishing religious freedom, a free press, the right to assemble, Due Process of Law, Equality Under the Law, privacy, and numerous other human and civil rights. Countless human beings have died to "defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic."
The Founders designed American government to protect the life, liberty, and happiness of living, breathing human beings - not to deprive people of freedom, facilitate corruption, and protect business entities from prosecution. Yet the 2010 "Citizens United" Supreme Court Decision redefines monumental, systematic bribery as "free speech," allowing corporations, organizations, and even foreign governments to make unlimited secret campaign "donations" - which are neither, free, nor speech. The 2014 "Hobby Lobby" Decision redefines workplace reproductive coercion as "religious freedom," allowing business entities to force employees to choose between keeping their jobs, or surrendering their privacy and personal religious practices (if any) to comply with the religious and sexual mandates of their employers. Before 2017, no President of the United States could have created - and no Congress or Supreme Court would have authorized - a self-described "Muslim Ban" that establishes global religious discrimination. No previous president in history could implement a "zero tolerance" immigration policy that summarily confiscates the children of people merely accused of a crime, and places the all but orphaned children into corporate operated, for profit "camps" without Due Process of Law.
Seventeen years after Vice President Cheney announced the Bush Administration's embrace of "the dark side," unethical and immoral politics, the "stacking" of the Supreme Court, legalized bribery, and enemy cyberwarfare have placed a deeply dishonest president with authoritarian tendencies in complete control over all three branches of United States Government. Weaponized international propaganda appears to have convinced many American citizens to join numerous (compromised and/or "paid off") elected Representatives of the American People in abandoning their responsibility to prevent the abuse of power by the president and his allies - who increasingly "chip away," ignore, reject, and violate not only Rule of Law, but also countless founding American ideals of honest government, freedom, equality, due process, and civil and human rights.
Will the People of the United States surrender legendary principles of freedom and democracy for a new "gilded age" of pseudo-conscious servitude under governmental, law enforcement, and corporate governance of their sex partners, reproductive practices, and pregnancies - while simultaneously enduring corporate-controlled internet access, exploding corruption, increasingly dictatorial government, and unrelenting illegal robocalls? Fortunately, the Founders provided interlocking mechanisms through which the People can oppose tyranny - including access to firearms. Unfortunately, dishonesty, propaganda, and other tactics of the "dark side" are designed to make the destroyers of freedom and democracy appear as their defenders.
How can the American People differentiate between the enemies of freedom and those working "defend the Constitution and laws of the United States?" Read the Constitution.
Published July 4, 2018 in the Freethinkers of Colorado Springs Freethought Views "advertorial" column in the Colorado Springs Independent with the quotation below.
"All war is based on deception."
Sun Tzu
------------------------------------ The original version appears below and the edited version of April 30, 2019 appears above. --------------------
July 4, 2018
by Groff Schroeder
On July 2, 1776, America's Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence, which Americans have celebrated on July 4th ever since. Thirteen years and one Revolutionary War later, the ratification of the United States Constitution established America's Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches, which defend the Rule of Law through "Checks and Balances" and the threat of removal from office upon Impeachment and conviction for "Bribery" and "high Crimes and Misdemeanors." The 1791 "Bill of Rights" amended the Constitution to define the rights and freedoms of the People, establishing religious freedom, a free press, the right to assemble, Due Process of Law, Equality Under the Law, privacy, and numerous other human and civil rights. Countless human beings have died to "defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic."
The Founders designed American government to protect the life, liberty, and happiness of living, breathing human beings - not to deprive people of freedom, facilitate corruption, and protect business entities from prosecution. Yet the 2010 "Citizens United" Supreme Court Decision redefines monumental, systematic bribery as "free speech," allowing corporations, organizations, and even foreign governments to make unlimited secret campaign "donations" - which are neither, free, nor speech. The 2014 "Hobby Lobby" Decision redefines workplace reproductive coercion as "religious freedom," allowing business entities to force employees to choose between keeping their jobs, or surrendering their privacy and personal religious practices (if any) to comply with the religious and sexual mandates of their employers. Before 2017, no President of the United States could have created - and no Congress or Supreme Court would have authorized - a self-described "Muslim Ban" that establishes global religious discrimination. No previous president in history could implement a "zero tolerance" immigration policy that summarily confiscates the children of people merely accused of a crime, and places the all but orphaned children into corporate operated, for profit "camps" without Due Process of Law.
Seventeen years after Vice President Cheney announced the Bush Administration's embrace of "the dark side," unethical and immoral politics, the "stacking" of the Supreme Court, legalized bribery, and enemy cyberwarfare have placed a deeply dishonest president with authoritarian tendencies in complete control over all three branches of United States Government. Weaponized international propaganda appears to have convinced many American citizens to join numerous (compromised and/or "paid off") elected Representatives of the American People in abandoning their responsibility to prevent the
abuse of power by the president and his allies - who increasingly "chip away," ignore, reject, and violate not only Rule of Law, but also countless founding American ideals of honest government, freedom, equality, due process, and civil and human rights.
Will the People of the United States surrender legendary principles of freedom and democracy for a new "gilded age" of pseudo-conscious servitude under governmental, law enforcement, and corporate governance of their sex partners, reproductive practices, and pregnancies - while simultaneously enduring corporate-controlled internet access, exploding corruption, increasingly dictatorial government, and unrelenting illegal robocalls? Fortunately, the Founders provided interlocking mechanisms through which the People can oppose tyranny - including access to firearms. Unfortunately, dishonesty, propaganda, and other tactics of the "dark side" are designed to make the destroyers of freedom and democracy appear as their defenders.
How can the American People differentiate between the enemies of freedom and those working "defend the Constitution and laws of the United States?" Read the Constitution.
Published July 4, 2018 in the Freethinkers of Colorado Springs Freethought Views "advertorial" column with the quotation below.
"All war is based on deception."
Sun Tzu
On morality and reality
By Ken Burrows
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which regularly tracks the incidence of hate crimes and terroristic activity, recently reported how the manipulating of religion has become increasingly popular as a way to create “moral” foundations for criminal radicalism. The SPLC stated that violent extremists “are inspired by religious concepts and scriptural interpretations to lash out and kill in the name of religion.” It cited examples of white supremacists, militia extremists, anti-Semites, anti-abortionists and others who justify violent criminal actions by claiming to be “holy warriors” carrying out divine mandates of one form or another. (The SPLC specifically notes this radicalism is not to be confused with people who are simply extremely religious but do not follow their fervor to criminal ends.)
The report called this brand of domestic terrorism an “exploitation” of religion. As one example, it pointed to a militia that conspired to blow up funeral processions of fallen police officers as part of its professed “faith.” The SPLC said survivalist cults amass arms to oppose a one-world government seen as embodying “the Anti-Christ” depicted in the Bible. The report also cited Ku Klux Klansmen who associate their “Blood Drop Cross” symbol with the crucified Christ, and violent anti-abortionists, driven by religious zealotry, who claim that killing abortionists is “doing God’s work.”
Manipulating religious concepts to justify dark aims is, of course, not new. But what makes it so easy to do? One explanation is that religious concepts and their associated moral precepts are not grounded in reality but rather in varying, often inconsistent, versions of various faiths, which themselves may compete as claimants to “truth.” These moral precepts cannot be tested as being “right” or “wrong.” Their historic origins are subject to ongoing debate, so their very authenticity is unsettled. This makes religion-based morality ripe for manipulation as different people interpret—or deliberately misinterpret—it for moral guidance, or to claim it as cover for nefarious deeds.
Religionists often fault rationalistic life philosophies, such as humanism, for “lacking morality.” But in fact humanism embraces a strong set of ethics, with principles that defy manipulative exploitation because they are anchored in the real world rather than faith or myths. As former president of the American Humanist Association (AHA) Lloyd Morain explained, “We [humanists] ground our ethical decisions and ideals in human need and concern as opposed to the concerns of supposed deities.”
The AHA formally calls for affirming the dignity of every human being and upholding the “equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties.” It endorses work that serves the greater good of humanity and that contributes to the welfare of the community and strives for “a world … where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence.” Such reality-based ethics is uniformly positive, clear and consistent. In contrast to scripturally based dogmas, it offers no opening for holy warriors to warp it into God-directed mandates to attack others. (Humanism also opposes wielding religion as justification to discriminate against fellow citizens, a form of attack that’s spreading in the U.S.)
It’s true that religion-based morality leads many individuals to serve humankind benevolently. But its reliance on ancient scriptural messaging increases susceptibility to purposeful distortion by the deviously inclined. Humanistic ethics grounded in 21st century reason and reality poses no such risk because it precludes using a claim of “doing God’s work” as a justification for malice.
Published in the May 2, 2018 edition of the Freethinkers of Colorado Springs Freethought Views advertorial column in the Colorado Springs Independent with the quotation below.
"Gods always come in handy; they justify almost anything.”
Margaret Atwood
by Groff Schroeder
The techniques of propaganda have been successfully applied in politics and war since 1917. Just 20 years after the disastrous First World War, propaganda led the educated and egalitarian people of Germany into a disastrous Second World War. Even after the propaganda attack on the 2016 election, many Americans appear unfamiliar with the techniques of propaganda.
AD HOMINEM: Personal attack.
AD NAUSEAM: Regurgitate until accepted.
AGENDA SETTING: "Suck all the oxygen" out of news and debate.
APPEAL TO AUTHORITY: [Leader name] likes it, you do too.
APPEAL TO FEAR: Be afraid, be very afraid.
APPEAL TO PRIDE: You are better than they are.
BANDWAGON: Everybody's doing it. Hop on-board!
BIG LIE: "If you tell a big lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed."
BLACK AND WHITE: "You are with us or against us."
BLIND I: Ignoring ally actions opponents are attacked for.
BROKEN RECORD: Eternal repetition, same thing, same way.
CHERRY PICKING: Hype tiny supporting evidence, conceal massive opposing evidence
CLASSICAL CONDITIONING: Politician plays popular song, gains support (see Pavlov's dog).
CRISIS MANIPULATION: Spectacular event buries damaging facts.
CULT OF PERSONALITY: Leader becomes religious figure.
DECEPTION: Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie (foundation of most propaganda).
DICTAT: Leader said it, so it is true (even if obviously false).
DISINFORMATION: Incorrect information.
DISTRACTION: Quick, change the subject!
DIVIDE AND CONQUER: Pit opponents against themselves.
DOUBLE ENTENDRE: Miners refuse to work after death.
ECHO CHAMBER: Interweaved stovepiped media amplifies its own disinformation.
EUPHEMISM: Friendly terms blunt ugly facts. "They tortured opponents quietly."
EUPHORIA: Things are excellent! (Even when they're terrible.)
EXAGGERATION: "There has never been anything greater than this, ever."
FALLACY OF COMPOSITION: One person does it, so all people do it.
FALSE COMPARISON: Piloting is like driving 1000 cars.
FEAR, UNCERTAINTY, AND DOUBT: Support leader or else.
FLAG WAVING: Patriotic symbols valued over national foundations.
FOOT IN THE DOOR: Give tiny gift, expect eternal loyalty.
GASLIGHTING: Deception encouraging targets to doubt their own perceptions.
GISH GALLOP: Speedily discharging convoluted concepts.
GLITTERING GENERALITIES: Enthralling statements with no actual meaning (aka B.S.).
GUILT BY ASSOCIATION: Shop keeper who talked to opponent condemned as opponent.
HALF TRUTH: The politician ran down their opponent.
HYPERBOLE: The comedian killed the audience.
CREATIVE VAGUENESS: Broad statements lets audiences hear what they want.
LABELING: Dividing people against themselves (left/right, liberal/conservative).
LOADED LANGUAGE: "The site" of conventional attack labeled "ground zero."
LOVE BOMBING: Destroy family, provide new family.;
MANIPULATING THE NEWS: Complaining about unfavorable reports induces favorable reports.
MISINFORMATION: Disinformation spread unintentionally (see pseudo-environment).
MILIEU CONTROL: Social environment creates control (see love bombing, pseudo-environment).
MINIMIZATION: "Enemy agents are harmless."
MUDDY THE WATER: Confusing distractions.
NAME CALLING: Opponent is a [dirty name].
NON-SEQUITUR: "Some lies are so false they are true."
OBFUSCATION: Devising the uncomplicated as knotty.
OPERANT CONDITIONING: Carrot and stick.
OPINION AS FACT: "The moon is cheese so the landings were faked."
OVERSIMPLIFICATION: There is no alternative to war.
PLAIN FOLKS: Join us common people.
PROJECTION: Accusing opponent of crime(s) you are committing.
PSEUDO-ENVIRONMENT: Propaganda manufactured interpersonal situation of meshing falsehoods.
QUOTES OUT OF CONTEXT: "My opponent says I lied" becomes "I lied."
RATIONALIZATION: "We killed the dissidents to save their families."
RED HERRING: Distraction with "shiny/smelly object."
SCAPEGOATING: Fixing blame, not problems.
SLOGANS: "Bumper sticker" arguments, "Stop plate tectonics."
SMEAR: Falsely attacking opponents' character.
SPECULATION: Predicting the future.
STEREOTYPING: They are [stereotyped], therefore they all [stereotype].
STOVEPIPING: Restricting information sources to avoid learning facts (see pseudo-environment).
STRAW MAN: Create false premise, then attack it.
TESTIMONIAL: Celebrity support.
THIRD PARTY: Partisan plays independent.
THOUGHT TERMINATING CLICHE: "Don't be silly."
TONE ATTACK: Ignore facts, attack delivery.
VICE WORDS: Unkind incorrect words, "demonic" opponents.
VIRTUE WORDS: Kind incorrect words, "angelic" allies.
WHATABOUTISM: Distract with charge of hypocrisy.
Published October 3, 2018 in the Colorado Springs Independent with the quote below.
"Lies bewitch us, if we want to be bewitched."
Marty Rubin
----------------------------------- Original version below, edited version of September 11, 2019 above -----------------------------------
by Groff Schroeder
The techniques of propaganda have been successfully applied in politics and war since 1917. Just 20 years after the disastrous First World War, propaganda led the educated and egalitarian people of Germany into a disastrous Second World War. Even after the propaganda attack on the 2016 election, many Americans appear unfamiliar with the techniques of propaganda.
AD HOMINEM: Personal attack.;
AD NAUSEAM: Regurgitate until accepted.;
AGENDA SETTING: "Suck all the oxygen" out of news and debate.;
APPEAL TO AUTHORITY: [Leader name] likes it, you do too.;
APPEAL TO FEAR: Be afraid, be very afraid.;
APPEAL TO PRIDE: You are better than they are.;
BANDWAGON: Everybody's doing it. Hop on-board!.;
BIG LIE: "If you tell a big lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.";
BLACK AND WHITE: "You are with us or against us.;"
BLIND I: Ignoring ally actions opponents are attacked for.;
BROKEN RECORD: Eternal repetition, same thing, same way.;
CHERRY PICKING: Hype tiny supporting evidence, conceal massive opposing evidence;
CLASSICAL CONDITIONING: Politician plays popular song, gains support (see Pavlov's dog).;
CRISIS MANIPULATION: Spectacular event buries damaging facts.;
CULT OF PERSONALITY: Leader becomes religious figure.;
DECEPTION: Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie (foundation of most propaganda).;
DICTAT: Leader said it, so it is true (even if obviously false).;
DISINFORMATION: Incorrect information.;
DISTRACTION: Quick, change the subject!;
DIVIDE AND CONQUER: Pit opponents against themselves.;
DOUBLE ENTENDRE: Miners refuse to work after death.;
ECHO CHAMBER: Interweaved stovepiped media amplifies its own disinformation.;
EUPHEMISM: Friendly terms blunt ugly facts. "They tortured opponents quietly.";
EUPHORIA: Things are excellent! (Even when they're terrible.);
EXAGGERATION: "There has never been anything greater than this, ever.";
FALLACY OF COMPOSITION: One person does it, so all people do it.;
FALSE COMPARISON: Piloting is like driving 1000 cars.;
FEAR, UNCERTAINTY, AND DOUBT: Support leader or else.;
FLAG WAVING: Patriotic symbols valued over national foundations.;
FOOT IN THE DOOR: Give tiny gift, expect eternal loyalty.;
GASLIGHTING: Deception encouraging targets to doubt their own perceptions.;
GISH GALLOP: Speedily discharging convoluted concepts.:
GLITTERING GENERALITIES: Enthralling statements with no actual meaning (aka B.S.).;
GUILT BY ASSOCIATION: Shop keeper who talked to opponent condemned as opponent.;
HALF TRUTH: The politician ran down their opponent.;
HYPERBOLE: The comedian killed the audience.;
CREATIVE VAGUENESS: Broad statements lets audiences hear what they want.;
LABELING: Dividing people against themselves (left/right, liberal/conservative).;
LOADED LANGUAGE: "The site" of conventional attack labeled "ground zero.";
LOVE BOMBING: Destroy family, provide new family.;
MANIPULATING THE NEWS: Complaining about unfavorable reports induces favorable reports.;
MISINFORMATION: Disinformation spread unintentionally (see pseudo-environment).;
MILIEU CONTROL: Social environment creates control (see love bombing, pseudo-environment).;
MINIMIZATION: "Enemy agents are harmless.";
MUDDY THE WATER: Confusing distractions.;
NAME CALLING: Opponent is a [dirty name].;
NON-SEQUITUR: "Some lies are so false they are true.";
OBFUSCATION: Devising the uncomplicated as knotty.;
OPERANT CONDITIONING: Carrot and stick.;
OPINION AS FACT: "The moon is cheese so the landings were faked.";
OVERSIMPLIFICATION: There is no alternative to war.;
PLAIN FOLKS: Join us common people.;
PROJECTION: Accusing opponent of crime(s) you are committing.;
PSEUDO-ENVIRONMENT: Propaganda manufactured interpersonal situation of meshing falsehoods.;
QUOTES OUT OF CONTEXT: "My opponent says I lied" becomes "I lied.";
RATIONALIZATION: "We killed the dissidents to save their families.";
RED HERRING: Distraction with "shiny/smelly object.";
SCAPEGOATING: Fixing blame, not problems.;
SLOGANS: "Bumper sticker" arguments, "Stop plate tectonics.";
SMEAR: Falsely attacking opponents' character.;
SPECULATION: Predicting the future.;
STEREOTYPING: They are [stereotyped], therefore they all [stereotype].;
STOVEPIPING: Restricting information sources to avoid learning facts (see pseudo-environment).;
STRAW MAN: Create false premise, then attack it.;
TESTIMONIAL: Celebrity support.;
THIRD PARTY: Partisan plays independent.;
THOUGHT TERMINATING CLICHE: "Don't be silly.";
TONE ATTACK: Ignore facts, attack delivery.;
VICE WORDS: Unkind incorrect words, "demonic" opponents.;
VIRTUE WORDS: Kind incorrect words, "angelic" allies.;
WHATABOUTISM: Distract with charge of hypocrisy.
Published October 3, 2018 in the Colorado Springs Independent with the quote below.
"Lies bewitch us, if we want to be bewitched."
Marty Rubin
by Groff Schroeder
Since the dawn of written history, societies have created and enforced laws to encourage stability, advance justice, and protect themselves from crime, war, and internal and external attack. About 4000 years ago, the Sumerians authored the Codes of Ur Nammu and Hammurabi and established impartial courts. The Greek state ensured laws were public and were applied equally to all some 1200 years later by overturning "Draconian" laws favoring the wealthy. Rome's "Twelve Tables" set court procedures and established summonses - but prohibited plebeian/patrician marriage and allowed creditors to "divide the [debtor's] body among them." The 1215 Magna Carta reined in monarchies, and created the idea of due process of law. In 1791, continuing evolution of law led to the United States Constitution and its “Bill of Rights,” which forbid bribery and established a free democratic republic exercising four founding legal principles: no one is above the law (supremacy of law), all accused experience independent processes designed to acquit (due process of law), and government treats everyone equally (equality under law) rather than serving wealth and power (rule of law).
Although written law and the legal principles it evolves transcend human life expectancy to found free societies, history shows that bribery, dishonest leaders, and war are the enemies of both law and freedom. War brutally sacrifices law, lives, and national treasuries on the altar of power, profiteering, and violence. Bribery is subtle, economical, and precise, and thus much more profitable. But politicians who exploit their positions of responsibility to exchange government power for personal profit not only turn their government against their People, they also expose their nation to attack.
Therefore, it is a serious federal crime for US corporations, organizations, and individuals to bribe foreign businesses, governments, or politicians via "campaign donations," contributions, products, travel, services, etc. Meanwhile, inside America, "deregulation" (legalizing the illegal) means providing "campaign donations," contributions, products, travel, services, etc. to candidates and elected Representatives of the People of the United States is not a crime, but "free speech" - even through "campaign donations" are neither free nor speech, and even though secrecy can conceal "quid pro quo." This discontinuity in US Law appears to be the life's work of Paul Manafort, whose lobbying firm Time Magazine in 1986 called "the ultimate supermarket of influence peddling" and "institutionalized conflict of interest." Mr. Manafort's recent indictment suggests that since about 1977, he greatly enriched himself by creating modern American "pay to play" politics - a self fulfilling system of corruption which recently legalized unlimited, unregulated, and secret bribery in US elections. As a result, a successful campaign for elected office in the US is impossible without accepting "donations" that are criminal in virtually every other context, creating not only the appearance of and opportunity for bribery, but also serious national security threats.
History suggests the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and it appears freedom's most dangerous enemies have already leveraged legalized bribery to attack American government from within. Thankfully, those attacking our nation, our Constitution, and elections worldwide are becoming swamped in legal quagmires created by supremacy of law and equality under the law. Due process of law, America's respected legal system, and honest everyday government employees (a.k.a. the "deep state") offer hope that the rule of law will prevail, and that bribery will soon be "re-regulated," not as a right, but a crime.
The Future of Roe
By "Rosalind Arden"
When Brett Kavanaugh sits down to testify before the judiciary committee he will of course declare his belief in Roe v Wade as settled law. What he won’t declare is that he is probably more than willing to chip away at Roe by upholding any law that places obstacles in the way of women trying to assert their rights under Roe. Most of these restrictions come from states where laws designed to deny access to abortions are advanced under the guise of “protecting women.” These laws can come before the Supreme Court and can be enforced by a conservative majority. For this and many other reasons we do not want this man on the Supreme Court. Pro-choice advocates are right to be worried about the future of a fundamental women’s right.
It begs the question of why is this a legal issue at all? We do not argue over the legality of heart surgery or kidney transplants. We argue because opinions about women’s reproductive rights are allowed to overrule facts and that these opinions are largely self serving. Men want to control women. Evangelicals want everyone to believe as they do. There are those who want to control access to birth control and any information about reproduction. Women simply want to control their own bodies. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but the only opinion that counts is that of the pregnant woman. She must to be able to make her choice and get the required support, be it prenatal care or an abortion.
One thing that almost everyone on the spectrum of opinions can agree on is the desire to make abortion rare – not by making it illegal as that will just make many desperate pregnant women into criminals – but by making it unnecessary. Meeting that goal requires comprehensive science based sex education and full access to contraceptives. The education would have to go beyond current abstinence training which has only damaged young people in terms of pregnancy through ignorance and the spread of STDs. Correct sex education teaches young men and women what reproduction is all about – and what it means to assert self esteem when no is the right answer.
If Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed it is highly likely that he will follow the other conservative justices, take the path of the staunch pro-lifer, and work to deny the reproductive rights that women have been fighting for for generations. Without overturning Roe, he could make matters worse than they are now. Already women who don’t have the means to travel long distances can’t get the care they need. The "pro-life" approach denies school children the information they need to make what could be the most important decisions of their lives. Married women of child bearing age are denied the ability to control when they have children. Women must be able to make their reproductive decisions for themselves.
In the end the only approach that makes any sense is freedom of choice backed up by knowledge. In the words of a great bumper sticker, “If you’re against abortion don’t have one." Let each woman decide for herself based on her own beliefs. Roe is now and the future. Don’t let it die by degrees.
"Rosalind Arden" is a contributor to Freethought Views who chooses to remain anonymous.
The Future of Roe by "Rosalind Arden" (anonymous) appeared in the September 5-12 edition of Freethough Views in the Colorado Springs Independent.