Articles published in the Freethinkers of Colorado Springs "Freethought Views" advertorial column in the Colorado Springs Independent in 2017.
Believing in doubt
By Ken Burrows
The title of this essay may, at first glance, sound oxymoronic. It is not. Because doubt, properly acted upon, is often a needed step to reach truth. Valerie Tarico, Ph.D., a former evangelical Christian, is one of many who have traveled this path. In her book Trusting Doubt, she describes not only the personal enlightenment that doubt helped lead her to but also the psychological dynamics at work in human beings when they choose to either embrace doubt or refuse it entry into their decision-making about what they believe.
Tarico abandoned an upbringing in “bibliolatry”—the unquestioning belief in the literal inerrancy of Scripture—due to the numerous internal contradictions she found there, the stark violations of proven knowledge, and particularly the inconsistencies of the main God character, who is at one time merciful and just and at other times cruel and capricious. She encountered too many textual pitfalls, too much fallibility in the human writers, too much that did not ring true. She found too much to doubt.
Which led her to explore the question: Why do people believe what they do? She cites research psychologists who have found that humans will take almost any evidence and distort it to support their point of view, especially when they care more about that point of view than about what is really true. Though we say we strive for truth, Tarico notes, our approach as humans is to look for information that confirms what we already believe. “The reason the scientific method is so powerful,” she says, “is that it pits itself against this universal human tendency.” It keeps alive what she calls “one of our greatest gifts: the ever present consciousness that we may be wrong.”
“Belief is powerful,” she says. “It not only changes how we behave, it changes what we perceive: what information gets through our mental filters, how we interpret it.” She cites childhood religion as forming a particularly powerful filter, not just because it’s instilled so early in life but also because there are so many heavenly promises and hellish threats in the Bible that it creates a strong bias to favor religious belief. But she knows from her own experience and that of others like her that “There are people who want badly to believe [in Scripture] but simply find it impossible.” She sees this kind of honest self-awareness as uniquely courageous because it must confront the strong and widespread biases—personal as well as societal—that pressure one to embrace religion.
“We generally agree that belief should strive to reflect truth,” she adds. She notes that even Huston Smith, known as a firm proponent of religion, says wisdom must involve the virtues of humility and veracity. Tarico insists these kinds of values wane when dogma replaces honest inquiry. She contends that righteous certainty, unchecked by self-examination, is dangerous because it eventually “nurtures belief and loyalty at the expense of empathy, mercy, truth, and life itself.”
Tarico describes newfound senses of integrity and liberation many people experience when doubt leads them away from unquestioning religious belief. Realizing that the positive essence of doubt lies in its commitment to an ongoing honest and humble self-appraisal, one “born again agnostic” in her book summed up his position thus: “I would rather live with unanswered questions than unquestioned answers.”
Published in the Freethinkers of Colorado Springs Freethought Views column in the July 5-11 issue of the Colorado Springs Independent with the quotation below.
“The important thing is not to stop questioning.”
--- Albert Einstein
Doing the "right" thing?
by Groff Schroeder
Chances are, pretty much anybody and everybody sets out to do the correct thing when they decide to take any action – and virtually everyone seeks to take actions that provide positive outcomes for themselves and or others. Unfortunately, there appear to be many people on earth willing to use deception to manipulate the decisions and actions of others. Therefore, the success or failure of any decision or action to achieve the desired positive outcome depends upon access to complete and correct information.
Incorrect information almost universally leads to incorrect points of view, incorrect decisions, and actions that fail to produce desired outcomes. Consider individuals who seek to purchase a reliable automobile. A person who believes a premium vehicle brand naturally must also have premium reliability could easily pay a premium price for a prestigious, but ultimately unreliable new vehicle. Similarly, if a person knows that a certain vehicle brand has a reputation for reliability, they may decide to purchase vehicles of that brand only, and be willing to pay a significant price premium for the reliability the brand offers. However, if they are unaware that specific year-model examples of the brand have a known history of being unreliable, they too may pay a premium price for an unreliable vehicle.
To further complicate decision making, other people often have relatively benign but important conflicts of interests in our decisions, and thus the information they communicate. Consider individuals selling vehicle brands or year-model examples known to be unreliable. Even though reliability is only one of many factors that cause people to choose specific vehicles, seller(s) could clearly be reluctant to intentionally or unintentionally provide potential buyers with reliability (or any other) information that could reduce a potential buyer's interest in the vehicle.
In addition, there are people who are willing to engage in unethical actions to benefit themselves or others and who are very willing to communicate intentionally incomplete, misleading, incorrect, or blatantly false information in service to their goals. In most cases, the more money, power, etc. at stake, the more probable it is that unethical actions will occur – and the more dishonorable the potential unethical actions undertaken in pursuit of the nefarious goal may become.
Finally, at least some people appear ready, willing, and able to unethically spread incomplete, incorrect, or intentionally false information – and to intentionally participate in a wide variety of other unethical behaviors – as a means of cynically manipulating others into achieving their unethical goals. There are even numerous infamous examples in history of the use of industrialized deception (propaganda) in pursuit of seriously immoral governmental, corporate, military, political, and personal goals.
Therefore, when preparing decisions it appears useful to gather your information carefully, and to act not only after ensuring your information is complete and correct, but also only after ensuring that you have not been intentionally deceived, misled, or manipulated. Every decision you make depends upon the information you have, and every action you take changes the universe forever. Decisions based on incomplete or incorrect information can only identify the correct course of action by accident. Actions based upon decisions stemming from intentionally false information, intentional deception, or the successful manipulation of you or your point of view can be catastrophic.
"Doing the 'right' thing?" appeared in the June 7-13, 2017 edition of the Colorado Springs Independent with the quotation below.
"All warfare is based on deception." Sun Tzu, The Art of War, ~500 BCE
Fact versus truth
by Groff Schroeder
While decrying “a proliferation of fake news,” a local editorial recently appeared confused about the difference between “truth” and “fact,” advising readers to “seek out the truth and those that tell it.”
Truth is subjective. Facts are objective. The tenets of religious belief systems are “truths” that followers agree upon – whether or not they conform to physical reality or other belief systems. A truth of animism is that all objects contain spirits. The editorial mentioned truth sixteen times. In contrast, a fact is a verified representation of reality supported by physical evidence. It is a fact that the earth orbits around the sun. The editorial mentioned fact one time – to suggest that fact can have “a left or right skew to it, like + or – electrical charges on electrons.”
Facts are true because they stand up to logical, forensic, and scientific validation, but not all truths are fact. It is true that some people believe that electrons hold positive and negative charges. It is a fact that electrons hold only a single negative (-1) charge. It is also a fact that people “seek[ing] out the truth and those that tell it” could easily “stovepipe” information by selecting a small number of journalists and sources, resulting in the intentional or unintentional reinforcement of incorrect “truth.”
How can conscientious citizens and careful consumers of information differentiate between subjective opinions and objective facts and identify reliably factual sources of information? Read about political deception in books like Public Opinion by Walter Lippmann (1920) and Propaganda by Edward Bernays (1928). Be skeptical, especially of sensational claims, familiar journalists, and comfortable sources. Learn to recognize the techniques of propaganda including false comparisons, logical fallacies, “the broken record,” and “the big lie” etc. Get as much information from as many channels as possible. Seek out journalists, sources, and reports presenting every point of view possible, and carefully assess the materials they publish.
Everyone, (especially journalists), should routinely verify the information they receive against other reports and original, objective sources (recorded speeches, public documents, published research, etc.). Opposing claims cannot both be correct, and facts are neither fair nor “balanced.” (Would 2+2=4 vs. 2+2=22 make 2+2=13?) Completely and correctly reporting damaging facts is not “bias” - omitting or disputing negative facts is. Question sources that publish sensational subjective speculations rather than objective facts. Experience and skepticism can identify sources of information that report complete and correct facts – as well as sources that use incomplete, incorrect, or deceptive information to reinforce an agenda of shared ”truths.”
It increasingly appears that our nation’s enemies have used unethical news sources to skillfully manipulate many Americans into believing a set of interlocking falsehoods (what Lippman calls a “pseudo environment”) - greatly benefiting openly unethical politicians who faithlessly violate our Constitution, the rule of law, and our civil and human rights. This barefaced corruption and propaganda only intensifies the need for ethical journalists, television channels, and newspapers willing to provide thorough, factual information about public servants who reap great personal profit through violations of the public trust. We can work to defend our freedoms, our Constitution, and our access to information by identifying and supporting ethical information sources that reliably and honestly report complete and correct facts – while exposing unethical sources of “truth," their methods, and those who benefit from them.
Do not trust, verify.
NOTE: The essay above is the final version of "Fact versus truth," which includes significant revisions to the last paragraph but did not appear in the Colorado Springs Independent. The version of the essay published in the April 5, 2017 issue of the Colorado Springs Independent appears below.
Fact versus truth
by Groff Schroeder
While decrying “a proliferation of fake news,” a local editorial recently appeared confused about the difference between “truth” and “fact,” advising readers to “seek out the truth and those that tell it.”
Truth is subjective. Facts are objective. The tenets of religious belief systems are “truths” that followers agree upon – whether or not they conform to physical reality or other belief systems. A truth of animism is that all objects contain spirits. The editorial mentioned truth sixteen times. In contrast, a fact is a verified representation of reality supported by physical evidence. It is a fact that the earth orbits around the sun. The editorial mentioned fact one time – to suggest that fact can have “a left or right skew to it, like + or – electrical charges on electrons.”
Facts are true because they stand up to logical, forensic, and scientific validation, but not all truths are fact. It is true that some people believe that electrons hold positive and negative charges. It is a fact that electrons hold only a single negative (-1) charge. It is also a fact that people “seek[ing] out the truth and those that tell it” could “stovepipe” information by selecting a small number of journalists and sources, resulting in the intentional or unintentional reinforcement of incorrect “truth.”
How can conscientious citizens and careful consumers of information differentiate between subjective opinions and objective facts and identify reliably factual sources of information? Read books about political deception, such as Public Opinion by Walter Lippmann (1920) and Propaganda by Edward Bernays (1928). Be skeptical, especially of sensational claims, familiar journalists, and comfortable sources. Learn to recognize the techniques of propaganda including false comparisons, logical fallacies, “the broken record,” and “the big lie” etc. Get as much information from as many channels as possible. Seek out journalists, sources, and reports that dispute your point of view, and carefully assess the materials they publish.
Everyone, (especially journalists), should routinely verify the information they receive against other reports and original, objective sources (recorded speeches, public documents, published research, etc.). Opposing claims cannot both be correct, and facts are neither fair nor “balanced.” (Would 2+2=4 vs. 2+2=22 make 2+2=13?) Completely and correctly reporting damaging facts is not “bias” - omitting or disputing negative facts is. Question sources that publish sensational subjective speculations rather than objective facts. Experience and skepticism can identify sources of information that reliably report facts – and sources that use incomplete, incorrect, or deceptive information to reinforce an agenda of agreed upon ”truths.”
In the absence of true professional journalism in the “post-truth” United States, it appears many Americans have been skillfully manipulated into believing a set of interlocking falsehoods, what Lippman calls a “pseudo environment.” Powerful political leaders dispute the very meaning of words and photographs, threatening our nation, our Constitution, and our civil and human rights. However, in an environment of increasingly conspicuous corruption, journalists, television channels, newspapers, and other information sources are essential to protect the public interest from public servants who reap personal profit from their positions of public trust. Identifying, supporting, and citing sources that reliably perform the boring, difficult, and sometimes dangerous work of researching and reporting complete and correct facts – and rejecting sources that promote self serving “truths” while ignoring or concealing politically inconvenient facts – can protect both our access to factual information, and our freedoms.
Do not trust, verify.
"Fact versus truth" appeared in the April 5, 2017 issue of the Colorado Springs Independent with the quotation below.
"There can be no liberty for a community which lacks the ability to detect lies." Walter Lippmann
Representative Doug Lamborn seems intent on turning the United States into a theocracy. He recently did a Bible reading on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives and then, in an Op-Ed in the November 15th Gazette, “Freedom of Speech Means Freedom to Preach,” he announced that he is introducing a bill to Congress, H.R. 6086, the “Protect Religious Expression Against Censorship and Harassment,” or “PREACH” Act. Rep. Lamborn wrote that the bill would “repeal the harmful provisions in the Johnson Amendment that impede the free speech rights of religious organizations.”
The Johnson Amendment was a change in the U.S. tax code, made in 1954, giving 501(c)3 tax exempt status to churches and other nonprofit organizations. The amendment was sponsored by then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson, hence its name. In exchange for accepting this tax exemption, the churches and organizations agreed to remain non-partisan. Certain activities, such as voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) were allowed as long as they were not done on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for elective office.
501(c)3 organizations can potentially lose their tax-exempt status by promoting the election or defeat of political candidates. But does this ever actually happen? Rep. Lamborn’s essay gives one the impression that the I.R.S. regularly harasses churches over this issue, but are you aware of one instance of the I.R.S. revoking a church’s tax exempt status for violating the terms of this agreement? Quite the opposite — the I.R.S. have been giving preferential treatment to churches, customarily “looking the other way” and ignoring infractions.
Rep. Lamborn argues that this agreement is an infringement of religious organizations’ freedom of speech. However, those organizations happily accepted these terms in exchange for the tax exemption — churches don’t have to pay a penny in taxes on all the money they raise or on the trillions of dollars of property they own, and all they have to do is remain politically neutral. Pretty sweet deal.
There’s actually a very good reason for this deal: the separation of church and state. Our Founding Fathers felt that both the church and the nation would benefit from operating without interference from each other. In the words of our fourth president, James Madison, “The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State.” So the Johnson Amendment works well for both parties: churches and religious organizations can operate without government interference and they get a pass on paying taxes, while the government can conduct its business without religious interference.
Over the past sixty-plus years, the I.R.S have held up their end of the bargain — churches and religious organizations haven’t had to pay taxes. But apparently some of them are no longer happy with this arrangement. It allows them considerable input into the political process, but they want even more, and they’d like to get it without relinquishing their tax exempt status. Rep. Lamborn is trying to help them accomplish this with the “PREACH” Act. His rationale seems to be that churches should retain their tax exempt status in spite of increased involvement in politics because they “have provided vital charitable services.”
But aren’t businesses and individuals charitable as well? Countless people donate to charities every month, yet are still required to pay taxes. Some individuals, who donate many millions of dollars to worthy causes, still must pay taxes. Many businesses are similarly generous, but they, too, still pay taxes. So why should churches be given a special privilege and be exempt from taxation for their charitable endeavors? (And, by the way, their tax exempt status, and the tax exemption afforded to their donors, means all of us must pay higher taxes to make up for what they’re not paying. So, in a way, we all support churches indirectly by picking up the slack.)
Rep. Lamborn’s efforts to promote this “PREACH” legislation are without justification. Maintaining a town, a state, a country, a civilization is a team effort — everyone should chip in. Paying taxes is a necessity; it is one’s duty. And if a person or an organization wants a place in the political arena, taxes are the admission price they pay to enter that arena. Churches already have a great deal of input into the political process; they can do pretty much everything except endorse or oppose candidates, but they crave even more influence. If that’s what they want, then they should pay the admission fee — the rest of us have to.
Note:
The Gazette twice failed to facilitate to the Freethinkers of Colorado Springs request to provide an "alternative viewpoint" to Representative Lamborn's advancement of HR 6086 and the Gazette's apparent decision to support its legalization of currently illegal election campaign activities.
Published January 3, 2016 in the Colorado Springs Independent with the quotation below.
"Opposing views will be included always."
Colorado Springs Gazette journalism standards, Vince Bzdek, December 25, 2016
Freethinkers of Colorado Springs December 8, 2016 email to Gazette opinion.com.
Hello,
The Freethinkers of Colorado Springs would be grateful if you would please consider the following essay for publication in the Gazette. It is a reply to recent (November 15th) Op-Ed by Rep. Doug Lamborn. In the interest of fairness, we believe an alternative viewpoint should be presented to your readers.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Regards,
Freethinkers of Colorado Springs
Justified?
by Groff Schroeder
Trump Administration policies including the president's self described "Muslim Ban," Attorney General Sessions' apparent abandonment of protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination, and the president's ban of transgenders from the US military, etc., appear to violate the "golden rule," and America's Constitutional rights to equality, privacy, due process, freedom of association, and freedom of religion. Furthermore, the armed neo-Nazi protests in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 11 and 12, 2017 – as well as President Donald J. Trump's repeated divisive statements about them – are deeply saddening, dismaying, disturbing, and troubling.
Government discrimination against minority groups and armed "alt-right" protest events like Charlottesville create (at least) the appearance of widespread political intimidation of minorities. This is especially true when those participating in government sponsored discrimination or armed protest appear to even remotely advocate the ideals, revere the leaders, co-opt the symbols, or recite the slogans of nations that have previously enslaved human beings, murdered millions, and waged costly wars on the United States of America. The appearance of anti-American/pro-Nazi political intimidation was greatly intensified at the "Unite the Right" event when apparent neo-Nazis displayed (brandished?) firearms outside a synagogue on the Sabbath, a former Ku Klux Klan "imperial wizard" used a racial epithet while shooting at counter-protesters, and a protest leader stated in a widely distributed film that the murder of an unarmed non-violent female counter-protester from Charlottesville by an armed (with at least a vehicle) out of town violent male "Unite the Right" protester was, "justified."
Political intimidation and violence advances anarchy, authoritarianism, dictatorship, oligarchy, and totalitarianism because it is destructive to Constitutional ideals, free speech, shared respect, and democratic principles. Violence involving armed anti-constitutional speech and violence accompanied by Nazi flags and slogans may boost profits for media mega-opolies, but they are anti-American and direct threats to living holocaust survivors and their families and anyone else aware of how weaponized propaganda, "meddling" in electoral processes, and slowly increasing government discrimination and armed political violence spawned genocidal fascist totalitarianism in 20th century Europe.
What if the Charlottesville protests had not become violent? The American People might have been appalled not by yet another senseless political murder, but by the anti-American/pro-totalitarianism messages the apparently heavily armed "alt-right" protesters allegedly came to Charlottesville to deliver. What if the "breaking news" about Charlottesville had not covered murder and repeated divisive statements, but rather a small number of armed anti-American/pro-Nazi protesters advocating the destruction of Constitutional freedoms safely dwarfed by thousands of pro-Constitution Americans singing "We Shall Overcome?"
President Trump, members of Congress, and all Americans should vigorously support and defend human equality, freedom of speech, and the United States Constitution – while embracing non-violence and sincere efforts to overcome the issues that divide the American People, and heal the many types of wounds these divisions cause. We must rely upon non-violence, shared sacrifice, and mutual respect to outgrow America's current social reality – in which clearly unconstitutional government sponsored discrimination, and political intimidation, violence, and murder increasingly present direct threats to individual Americans, groups of Americans, minorities, the United States Constitution, and the American democratic republic itself.
We are all Americans, we are all equal human beings, and we are all in this together. We must defend the United States Constitution, equality under law, due process of law, and the rule of law – and reject the immoral foundations of political intimidation and violence.
Justified?, by Groff Schroeder appeared in the Freethinkers of Colorado Springs' Freethought Views column in the September 6-13, 2017 edition of the Colorado Springs Independent with the quotation below.
“Intimidation, harassment and violence have no place in a democracy.”
Mo Ibrahim
My creed:
By Robert G. Ingersoll
To love justice, to long for the right,
to love mercy,
to pity the suffering, to assist the weak,
to forget wrongs and remember benefits,
to love the truth, to be sincere,
to utter honest words, to love liberty,
to wage relentless war
against slavery in all its forms,
to love family and friend,
to make a happy home,
to love the beautiful in art, in nature,
to cultivate the mind,
to be familiar with the mighty thoughts
that genius has expressed,
the noble deeds of all the world;
to cultivate courage and cheerfulness,
to make others happy,
to fill life with the splendor of generous acts,
the warmth of loving words;
to discard error, to destroy prejudice,
to receive new truths with gladness,
to cultivate hope,
to see the calm beyond the storm,
the dawn beyond the night,
to do the best that can be done
and then be resigned.
This is the religion of reason,
the creed of science.
This satisfies the brain and the heart.
Published December 6, 2017 in the Colorado Springs Independent with the quotation and blurb below.
"Give to every human being every right that you claim for yourself."
Robert G. Ingersoll
Robert G. Ingersoll (1833-1899) was a world famous abolitionist, lawyer, writer, and orator who earned the nickname "The Great Agnostic" during the "golden age of freethought" (1875-1914).
Not burying my conscience
By Ken Burrows
Preplanning one’s post-death rituals is never fun. Religious intrusions can make it even less so, as this true account will show.
I grew up in a Catholic household with parents of sincere faith and practical foresight who early on bought cemetery plots for our family of four. In a Catholic cemetery, naturally. When I decided to arrange my interment details in advance with this cemetery, I was asked to sign some documents, one of them with a clause stipulating that memorial markers on graves are mandatory and they must display a Christian symbol.
Long ago I concluded I could not in good conscience still practice religion without personally living a lie. So I contacted the cemetery’s agent, Dustin (a pseudonym, to protect his privacy), requesting an exception to this symbol requirement, since it would constitute a false expression of who I am. I cited the Catholic church’s stated emphasis on the sacredness of a free conscience, saying, “It would be inconsistent, and disingenuous, to require this Christian symbol on a marker for someone who, conscientiously, does not adhere to the Christian faith.”
Dustin said the requirement was non-negotiable. He would reluctantly grant my parallel request for a secular committal service, but the marker must have Christian iconography.
I replied: “I appreciate your agreeing to a secular committal service, which is in keeping with my convictions. Note, however, that such a service is brief and impermanent, whereas a grave-identifying marker has physicality and is, theoretically, everlasting. So you’re allowing me to follow my conscience on a fleeting ritual but demanding I compromise that same conscience on an enduring symbol. Will this cemetery literally exclude me from the family plot unless I falsely profess, via memorial marker symbol, belief I do not hold? What compelling purpose is served by such a policy?”
Dustin’s answer: “From Catholic Cemeteries’ perspective, the purpose of the memorial marker is to serve both the deceased and the living. None of us deserve God’s mercy, so all of us are hypocritical when we associate ourselves with a Christian symbol. However, a Christian symbol is a reminder of God’s love and forgiveness, and we pray that even a simple cross or praying hands might deepen the faith of those who come to visit.”
As a private religious enterprise that sets its own rules, the cemetery might arguably have been within its rights to deny my interment there simply on the grounds that I am irreligious. I would have considered that callous, but principled in its rigid way. Instead Dustin was pushing me to engrave a religious pretense on my marker as a way to somehow promote religious fervor in those who happened by. He would abet a lie if I were willing to go along. This seemed at odds with Catholic teaching that deems it sinful to bear false witness, but he didn’t appear troubled by that.
I was initially brought into the church in an unaware state, via infant baptism. I left it later in life for fully aware, well studied, sincerely held reasons. At my life’s end this cemetery wanted my grave marker to convey, deceitfully, that I had apparently returned to the church.
As I saw it, they were willing to bury my cremains provided they could also bury my conscience. That is something I refuse to let them do.
Ken Burrows' essay, Not burying my conscience, appeared in the November 1, 2017 edition of the Colorado Springs Independent with the quotation below.
"In matters of conscience, the majority has no place."
Mahatma Gandhi
Profit conflicts
by Groff Schroeder
Virtually every developed nation on earth successfully provides high quality health care to their citizens routinely, economically, and equally with government operated not-for-profit systems. In America, political conflicts of interest, rigid ideology, and campaign "donations" have evolved a "market based" public not-for-profit (Medicare/Medicaid/Tricare) private for-profit (corporate insurance based) health care "partnership"characterized by inferior medical outcomes, relentless market upheaval, unequal access, conflicts of interest, bizarre legislative maneuvers, unprecedented public expense – and almost unimaginable private profit.
No nation on earth spends more and gets less from its health care system than America. Japan spends about $4,000 per year per capita on health care and has an average life expectancy of about 83.5 years. Chileans spend about $1,700 per year with an average life expectancy of about 81.5 years. Meanwhile, Americans spend about $9,000 yearly (almost five times more than Chileans), and have an average life expectancy of about 79 years. If a ~1.5 year average life expectancy difference seems trivial, try telling that to the countless Americans who would not be dead if they lived in Chile – and would have an extra ~$10,950 to boot.
Medical care is a basic human need and medical professionals performing the hard work of actually delivering medical care must comply with numerous medical ethics, including "do no harm." In contrast, corporate entities appear motivated by only one ethic – delivering profit to shareholders. This profit motive createsdirect conflicts of interest, because it appears the best way to profit from providing health care is to not provide health care.
Studies show the absence of health insurance results in increased poverty, disability, and death, especially in hypertension, heart disease, and diabetes. While it is illegal (at least for now) for insurers to reject people actively needing medical care, insurance bureaucrats still routinely overrule physicians' medical decisions, and insurer payouts end when insured hospitalized patients die – all of which appear to constitute significant medical and financial conflicts of interest.
Another medical ethic is informed consent. Americans are rarely informed of, or consent to, the immense profits health care insurers reap while relaying patient funds to providers. In 2016, the revenues of one health care mega-corporate insurer alone grew ~17% to ~$184 billion dollars (or about 17% of US 2015 budget). Yearly earnings increased ~20% from 2015 to ~$13 billion (US 2015 food and agriculture spending was ~$13.1 billion). America's for-profit health system allows corporations that do not provide medical care to profit from injuries and illnesses, and appears to promote, if not constitute, a monumental market in human suffering.
In addition to creating countless conflicts of interest, America's for-profit health insurance system fails to provide universal medical care and prioritizes political ideology and corporate profits over the basic human needs of American citizens. No matter whether your values stem from ethics (philosophy) or morals (religion) – it often appears that America's for-profit health care system is not only exclusive, expensive, inefficient, ineffective, and unequal – but also unethical and immoral.
Passing a simple Act to extend universal Medicare coverage equally to all Americans could improve medical outcomes, provide equal access, eliminate conflicts of interest, stabilize insurance markets, decrease costs, create new jobs, and finally put America's long for-profit politico-medical nightmare to an end. Nonetheless, if repeated recent attempts in Congress to use secrecy and brinkmanship to slash Medicaid spending are any indication, it may be easier to move to Chile.
Published August 2, 2017 in the Freethinkers of Colorado Springs Freethought Views column in the Colorado Springs Independent with the quotation below.
The only long-term solution to America's health care crisis is a single-payer national health care program.
Bernis Sanders
Our newly elected president has just rushed to reinstate the “Mexico City policy,” otherwise known as the “global gag rule.” This prevents non-governmental organizations working abroad from receiving federal funding for family planning if they perform abortions or even talk to their clients about abortion. (The rule applies even though clinics are prohibited from using U.S. funds for abortions anyway.)
Many of these groups don’t do abortions, but when a pregnancy “goes wrong,” (as in an ectopic pregnancy when the fetus grows outside the womb), they would no longer be able to advise women how to obtain a safe abortion. Abortions are also needed for personal reasons, such as rape. As a result, many groups are refusing the funding under the new restrictions.
President Trump’s action has created a $600 million funding gap in family-planning programs worldwide -- programs that help women by providing birth control, offering sex-education, and assuring that women are assisted at birth so that childbirth may be safer. So rather than see all this progress be wasted, one country is taking action!
The Dutch government is setting up an international fund, and up to 20 countries and several foundations have already pledged their support. Lilianne Ploumen, Dutch minister of foreign trade and development cooperation, promised that the Netherlands would do everything in its power to help women "remain in control of their own bodies." “These are successful and effective programmes: direct support, distributing condoms, making sure women are accompanied at the birth, and making sure abortion is safe if they have no other choice," Ploumen said.
The gag rule started with President Reagan, and every Republican president since then has enforced it. After President George W. Bush reimposed it in 2001, a consortium of NGO’s, led by Population Action International, organized a study to assess the policy’s effects. Between 2002 and 2006, the research teams made site visits to the Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Nepal, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. They found that in Kenya, for example, the gag rule led to the termination of critical activities run by the Family Planning Association of Kenya and Marie Stopes International (MSI) Kenya—the leading providers of health care to people living in poor and rural communities in the country. Enforcement of the policy drastically curtailed community-based outreach activities and the flow and availability of contraceptive supplies. Government clinics, exempt from the gag rule, were never able to pick up the slack nor regain the trust of women turned away by the NGOs.
So now that President Trump has relinquished world leadership to the Dutch on this issue, perhaps we should take a better look at this Mexico City policy. It is actually a religious issue around the very concept of “life.” It makes two assumptions: first, that the baby’s life is more important than the mother’s, and second, that women are not capable of making their own decisions about events in their own family unit.
President Carter understood this. He severed ties with his church for using Bible verses to deprive women of equal rights across the world, saying it “costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.”
If only more people would learn this important lesson!
Published in the Freethinkers of Colorado Springs "Freethougth Views" column in the Colorado Springs Independent on March 1, 2017 with the quotation below.
"Patriarchy is women structuring lifelong decisions around men they haven't met."
Maggie Young
Strange success
by Groff Schroeder
On Friday, January 27 President Trump signed an executive order that repeatedly cites the September 11, 2001 attacks and claims to protect the United States from terrorist attack by prohibiting travel and immigration to the United States for 130 million individuals and refugees from seven predominantly Muslim countries - not one of which is associated with terrorist attacks in the United States. Countries that have been involved in terrorist attacks, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates, were excluded from the ban. The Trump Organization (which President Trump remains directly associated with despite a strong need to present at least the appearance of integrity in the public trust) maintains business interests in the excluded nations, but not the banned nations. Sad.
While the White House has repeatedly claimed that the executive order is “not a Muslim ban,” candidate Trump repeatedly promised a “Muslim ban” and the executive order provides exemptions only for minority religions in predominantly Muslim countries, thereby denying travel and immigration to the United States only to Muslims. In addition to being apparently unconstitutional, widely opposed by America's allies, cheered by America's enemies, and reminiscent of notorious religious profiling policies of arguably the darkest times in human history, the implementation of President Trump's executive order appears to have been poorly coordinated with other government agencies. However, the Trump Administration insists that the travel ban's roll out has been a complete success.
How could intense multiple negative international reactions constitute a success? One of the few possibilities is that President Trump's executive orders are a “trial balloon” in calculated attempts to further skirt the law. President Trump's ownership of the Trump D.C. hotel as an elected representative directly violates his federal lease, and his continuing direct ties to the Trump Organization at least appears to violate the emoluments clause of the United States Constitution. When a New York federal court judge ordered a stay on deportations of legal residents on Saturday, January 28, the Trump Administration appeared to openly defy the federal court order until at least late Sunday afternoon. Reports citing White House compliance with the rule of law apparently started appearing on Monday.
More disturbingly, another Friday executive order reorganizes the National Security Council, removing the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (both confirmed by Congress) from legally required attendance of the “principles committee,” and replacing them with Trump Administration staffers, Chief Strategist Steve Bannon and Chief of Staff Reince Priebus (neither confirmed by Congress). Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated, "...under the law, there are only two statutory advisers to the National Security Council, the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff." Apparently, President Trump's executive order reorganizing the National Security Council also directly violates federal law.
There are very few reasons why the Trump Administration might interpret prejudging millions of innocent people, chaotic implementation, international condemnation, rejoicing enemies, and added probable violations of the rule of law as “a massive success story.” The infamous history of governments that reject the rule of law, participate in personal profiteering, and single out millions of adherents of a single religion for prejudicial discrimination without evidence suggests that at least two of President Trump's January 27 executive orders should be promptly and thoroughly rejected by the United States Congress and the American People.
Published in the Freethinkers of Colorado Springs' Freethought Views column in the Colorado Springs Independent on February 1, 2017 with the quotation below.
"If we destroy human rights and the rule of law in response to terrorism, they will have won."
Joichi Ito
Type true?
by Groff Schroeder
There appear to be two types of politicians: type 1 politicians who serve "The" people (with a capital T), and type 2 politicians who serve the American People (with a capital P). Since at least the 1952 "Checkers" speech, American politics appears to have been crafted to profit type 1 politicians, thwart type 2 politicians, and make it extremely difficult for the American People to tell them apart.
Type 1 politicians unapologetically serve the super wealthy (billionaires, "golden parachute" C.E.O.s, heirs, foreign "oligarchs," "lobbyists," magnates, moguls, multinational mega-corporations, televangelists etc.) - and anyone else willing to make "campaign donations" (apparently including international criminals and enemy governments). Although often prominently religious, type 1 politicians commonly practice dishonesty, misrepresentation, and propaganda, and may appear devoid of empathy, ethics, morals, or scruples. Despite their oaths to "protect and defend" the United States, its laws, and Constitution, type 1 politicians often at least appear to routinely evade and disrupt the rule of law, violate the Constitution, and exploit their elected offices to advance economic, environmental, political, tax, and "deregulation" (legalization of illegal behavior) schemes that directly benefit their "donors" and themselves. Type 1 politicians often appear to actively oppose numerous foundations of the Bill of Rights, including equality under law, personal/medical privacy, separation of church and state, freedom of religion (except for themselves/their donors), and free speech (except when "free" "speech" is a "donation").
Recently, type 1s' service to "The" people includes hindering criminal investigations, gerrymandering governmental majorities, unconstitutionally blocking a Supreme Court nomination with strong bipartisan support, repeated legislation to take health insurance from millions of Americans, and destroying tiny but effective programs assisting the poor and middle class to fund – yet another – massive tax cut for the wealthy. Many type 1s hold unconstitutional "dual-citizenship," and about 50% of US Congress members have literally signed a contract supporting a plan to cut tax revenues so much the US government becomes small enough to "drown in a bathtub" (a.k.a. destroy). Despite an extended history of apparently deceitful, destructive, divisive, immoral, self-serving, unethical, unjust, and unconstitutional actions, type 1 politicians enjoy enduring corporate, organizational, political, and voter support.
In contrast, type 2 politicians directly serve the People of the United States, the United States, and the United States Constitution – even though they must accept insecure, untraceable, and sometimes inexplicable electoral processes and outcomes to participate. Type 2 politicians navigate a system in which the deck has been strategically stacked against them, while diplomatically seeking compromise with type 1 politicians actively deploying "dirty tricks" against them. Type 2 politicians uphold their Constitutional Oath, "protect and defend" the laws and Constitution of the United States, and use their elected office to pursue justice, transparency, and elections untainted by "donations." Type 2s direct the power of US government against threats to the People such as alleged criminals, unethical corporations, polluters, organized crime, and enemy governments. Type 2 politicians are often targeted/smeared by politically motivated false accusations and investigations, and their actions, policies, and statements are routinely and systematically misrepresented.
Type 2 politicians appear to deeply respect (if not love) the United States Constitution, defend the environment, serve the People, and work to uphold the rule of law. Despite tirelessly defending the Constitution and working for the People to achieve bipartisanship, compromise, equality, freedom, justice, and transparency, type 2 politicians somehow keep losing elections – even when they receive the most votes.
Type true? by Groff Schroeder appeared in the Freethinkers of Colorado Springs' Freethought Views column in the October 4-11, 2017 edition of the Colorado Springs Independent with the quotation below.
"To know the good from the bad, study a man or woman's history of actions, not their record of intentions."
Suzy Kassem