Religious Freedom is For Everyone

Thomas Jefferson liked to think, and for him free thought was more than just an inalienable human right. It was an essential part for humanity to make progress. How infidels of the past were viewed he was all too aware was how his compatriots (and fellow slave owners) would be viewed in the future. Religious freedom is an essential liberty, and in the Virginia Statute he created made this clear:

II. Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

It was not just a revolutionary thought then, written by the man who would become the intellectual provocateur with Thomas Paine for Independence. It still speaks to us that when we think of that wall of separation between church and state, and how a secular society functions.

No one should suffer on account of their religious opinions or beliefs, all shall be free to profess, and maintain their opinion in matters of religion.

The historical underpinning of religious freedom was to safeguard the plurality of religious thought – and the protection of infidels. As Jefferson argued to his nephew the inquiry into the nature or existence of God was one any such being if He existed would welcome, and without impediment such thought should be allowed by humanity.

We live in an age now where Alain de Botton can call the existence or non existence of God boring – like Jefferson he wants to separate the gold from the religious superstitious faith experience. Yet, as Richard Dawkins acknowledges whether you genuinely think there is or is not a God fundamentally changes the nature of your existence on earth – belief for him is wrongly making sense of the world for what appear to be valid reasons, a delusion. Peter Hitchens believes noting that there is no scientific evidence for God, and no divine mandate for humans to enforce on others but for him it makes sense to believe, so chooses to. Lawrence Krauss argues that you can have a universe from nothing.

The debate goes on, and the scientific advances in thought and empirical evidence gathering would have enraptured Jefferson as I imagine the debate today would have. However religion is still with us. Those values of religious freedom are still valid now.

So when we go on twitter we can express our religious opinion, and be challenged in that opinion. We can refuse to justify ourselves to anyone for our personal beliefs and we can can freely chose to argue for them.

We may never force anyone via the state or other coercion to suffer for their belief by those that do not chose to hold them, whether they be a minority of one or the majority. This secularism has remained from childhood student of Jehovah’s Witness to Atheist blogger.

Jefferson’s memorial is not just a monument for atheists, like the group I led above after the Atheist Alliance International Conference in 2007, starting at the memorial site onto the White House in support of religious freedom and the OUT campaign as atheists.

It is for all of humanity – and we have still to live in a world where those of faith, infidels and apostates have the religious freedoms that Jefferson wanted to be remembered for espousing.

Secularism is for the religious and the non religious – the cause of religious freedom should unite lovers of liberty and free thought alike.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

Homophobia has no natural rights

Sometimes it is best to stay silent rather than appear a fool or ill informed. Sean Thomas has sadly not felt this way as he joins the chorus of “I’ve a bit of the homophobia” revelations.

But if gayness is natural, why do I feel that brief, reflexive twinge of disgust when I see gay men kissing? Some would argue that I have been conditioned by society into accepting the norm of straightness, and my repulsion is therefore mere bigotry.

But what if it isn’t? What if homophobia is also “natural”?

Using your own inclinations is not usually the best way to develop a hypothesis – generally speaking you are more inclined to look for evidence which backs you up rather than proves you wrong.

An actual scientific study which exposed men to gay porn while measuring penis extension to penis flaccidity found those who were homophobic had a sexual reaction to gay male porn compared to other heterosexual men who had no reaction. Some hard evidence.

Sean and I could carry out our own research together. The thing is attitudes are more complicated than supposing a natural instinct. He is also ignoring the possibility that because he is not gay he just does not find it turns him on. We could do the test Sean – see whether you are up for it or not.

Which leads to the other proposition to take issue with that all human attitudes and behaviour are concerned with the passing on of our genes:

Evolutionary psychologists have debated this point, and it is at least arguable that homophobia is unconscious – and inherited. And it’s not hard to see why such a reflex might have evolved: before the era of the test tube baby and artificial insemination, parents who happily tolerated gayness in their kids would be smiling on the extinction of their genes. Not good.

The link Sean provides actually goes more into cultural attitudes to gay people, in particular to jobs involving children because of gay sex being considered perverted (the old tabloid reaction of being homosexual is like being a paedophile). The study suggests that cultural memes and environmental factors are a major thing in responses to gay people rather than as a survival of the species.

Richard Dawkins in the video below talks about three likely theories regarding passing on homosexual tendencies. Myself I find the third theory more convincing – that cultural and environmental factors make coming out as gay or being actively gay more or less likely. In short not one gay gene it hangs on – it is not quite biological determinism but it is not a choice either. Just because you may in one state of the world be gay does not mean in another state of the world you would never have children.

As such my argument would be encouraging gay rights allows people to be who they are – but cultural attitudes as mentioned in the preceding link suggest this may not always be taken advantage of even if we achieve legal rights. Dawkins in his first theory of the gay uncle suggests an ancestral attitude which seems lacking in the contemporary study.

Homophobia is one reason for that and one that needs stamping out. The attitude effects life chances, family relationships and cultural let alone religious views reduce the pursuit of happiness that gay people are entitled to.

Sean at the end of erroneous thinking finally comes to a conclusion which is absurd as it is offensive.

All of which presents us with a liberal paradox. If we’re going to extend equal right to homosexuals, because homosexuality is perfectly natural, we also need to extend equal rights to homophobes, for exactly the same reason. How we celebrate this rich diversity is a difficult issue, though. Perhaps both sides could have marches on their special days, through different parts of the same town?

There is no natural right to be a bigot. All the time we make moral decisions to constrain the passing on of genes despite the idea that encouraging procreation benefits a population. If we acted in accordance with breeding at all times to be encouraged, with natural selection the only check, we may ban contraceptives, ban abortion and allow rape.

We do not and never will while there is breath in me. We make moral decisions based on other factors than appeals to natural law or population growth. Contraceptives exist because there is more to sex than conceiving. Sanctions against rape because it is a horrific act on women. Abortion because the woman concerned should have the final say – no one else.

Homophobia has no place because it represses gay people who have a right to pursue happiness. There is no natural right to allow it anymore than racism in the public sphere.

Tom Doran in drawing my attention to the article made the suggestion to read Sean’s post replacing the word homosexual with black and homophobic with racist.

Reread Sean’s article in this way. Ask yourself why he was able to get this printed.

Then like me be outraged.

Related blog: Mehdi Hasan and my lukewarm response to his homophobia revelation

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

Grieving Grandma is an idiot says Dawkins

Before an accidentally shot dead two year old has even had a funeral service, Richard Dawkins has no problem saying the Grandmother is an idiot:

I get that Richard Dawkins is angry, that a gun manufactured for children happens legally, a five year old can be given a weapon to fire legally. That another tragic death with a firearm will not help bring in further gun control.

Yet it is also an opportunity for Dawkins to do a bit of faith bashing. New tweet this second while blogging:

Again, as with the winged horse, time allows a more polite way of putting the case that would have been preferable if pursued earlier.

There is a serious case to be made for gun control, and for not excusing thoughtless beliefs that avoid real introspection and questioning of why an event happened.

I just hope people would draw a line at hurling personal insults at a grieving Grandmother. To put that in perspective, would Dawkins go up to the Grandma who is attending her granddaughters funeral service today and say that? Or expect us militant atheists to have his Grandma tweets on banners and placards marking the funeral procession to make the point?

I hope you would agree that would be in bad taste. Doing it publicly on twitter is not the mark of a charming man.

The Ghost of Peter Kay

You may recall that Dawkins was hooked by a sound bite once:

“I believe in a God of some kind, in some sort of higher being. Personally I find it very comforting.”

Unknown to Richard, that sound bite came from Peter Kay’s “The Sound of Laughter” which was in competition with “The God Delusion” for a literary award. Dawkins therefore gave his standard view on God as comfort:

“How can you take seriously someone who likes to believe something because he finds it ‘comforting’?”

“If evidence were found for a supreme being I would change my mind instantly -with pride and with great surprise. Would I find it comforting? What matters is what is true, and we discover truth by evidence, not what we would ‘like’.”

Richard realised that he was being manipulated for publicity for the award ceremony and books, and that Kay has a very different position than the quote suggested. He apologised.

Wonder if publicly calling a grieving Grandmother an idiot for taking solace in her beliefs, before her granddaughter is even buried, qualifies for an apology?

The real lesson, as with Sandy Hook, is to look at who you give guns too and how we can regulate effectively so the right to bear arms applies while still reducing gun related deaths. Then somehow get Congress to pass.

Let us do this in public discourse without agendas on God, the first amendment or the second, or letting the NRA veto any meaningful discussion needed in the formulation and implementation of public safety. To be fair Dawkins is calling for that on twitter.

Just leave personally insulting a grieving Grandma out of the equation while you do Richard.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

The Critical Thinker Gives No One a Free Ride

There comes a point when we realise that being charming is not about agreeing with everyone or trying too. The last thing is to be someone that has absorbed the last viewpoint exposed to them in company, like a sponge sucking up any affluent soaked in for long enough, or a parrot regurgitating what your chosen master of thought has espoused without conjugating on it critically first. Be passionate about what you think as well as discerning. A Spartan of the mind looking for someone that can be the better opponent. Contrarian know thyself as well as the enemy.

New atheism is not a political machine where criticising each other is letting our leadership down. Whilst the secular letter suggested we keep our internal disagreements private if it was in danger of becoming uncivil with each other, debate is something to be celebrated and encouraged because nothing else sharpens the sinews of the mind so.

Exposing the Jehovah’s Witnesses with my own experience, for ruining childhoods and risking children’s lives for Bronze Age superstition over blood is important. Free thought was not only discouraged in the Society but had sanctions against it in place: shunning being a particularly unpleasant experience.

Islam needs critical examination, just suit up for the mud slinging of colonialist and islamophobic that follow. The legacy on slavery, how non believers are viewed and apostates threatened with death. Children beaten into memorising the Koran. Bangladesh atheist bloggers arrested. All issues dealt with on this blog. When it comes to twitter follow @CEMB_forum for how to truly take on the Islamists out there.

The idea that atheism leads to bloodshed – not communism – needs challenging because it gives birth to the lie atheism is a religion in all but name willing to murder those opposed as a blood sacrifice to it’s battle cry there is no God. Hence my argument on twitter with Peter Hitchens.

Secularism and pluralism

The one thing I keep coming back to is secularism being more important than atheism. Human rights, and liberty are part of the concept that the state does not enforce religion on citizens. Further, that people are left to their conscience by freedom of religion, thought and speech. Pluralism in action attacks the core of religious extremism, allowing us to be autonomous individuals contributing to civil society.

Yet the word secular has become synonymous with atheist. Atheism is a counter view that theism does not prove the existence of god. I don’t believe there is no god – rather I believe no satisfactory evidence has been brought forward to say theism knows there is a god. Religion knows not who this god is and what they want you to do on earth, nor what happens after death. To say you do know is conceit beyond arrogance.

For me secularism is the public issue compared with my atheism as a personal conviction. Many wear atheism on their sleeve in all public discourse for religion is at the heart of everything that needs countering as it becomes involved in all human decision making.

Yet in public policy debates the religious look out of touch, ill informed and human rights deniers when they play the faith card. I’m suggesting we don’t play their game in kind as atheists. When we stick to facts, research, science, welfare of citizens and human rights we are true to our humanism and more likely to win the public policy debate. Even Bill O’Reilly gets that is the lesson theists have to learn on gay marriage. Bible thumping is as ridiculous as faith bashing when talking about gun control. We have better trump cards when faith heads act as divine appointed spokespeople for their sky fairy – than saying back atheism is only rational logical conclusion.

We have to challenge the idea that religion is benign, that somehow if only properly implemented on us all would make the world a better place. That separate debate from a particular public policy matters because the religious impose their views on the rest of us without our consent. The four horsemen – Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and the late Hitchens were right to see this was important and to take it on. I honour the charge they made. The anti-theist attitude of Hitch was crucial not just because of the learned educated erudite oratory. It was not petty ad hominem, but took what was served to him by a sincere self-righteous speaker; Hitch quickly chewed and spat back at them the poisonous insidious garbage it really was for all to see.

Not rocking the boat by shouting steady as she goes!

I would like to see the OutCampaign website fully functioning and RDFRS funding research as was the original goal of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. I would like Dawkins to go for the belief without personal attacks on the voice of a rabbi sounding like Hitler, a woman wanting to wear a cross having a stupid face, and a Grandma speaking in grief being an idiot.

With Richard Dawkins the three recent critiques I have felt warranted – the Mein Kampf/Koran tweet showed an ignorance of historical context comparing the two works, the winged horse belief ruling out hiring someone as a serious journalist, and most recent calling a grieving Grandma an idiot.

This allows people to paint Dawkins as aloof, insensitive, rude – an angry learned professor lacking the patience to deconstruct an argument because believers are idiots. These are not the impressions I had meeting him multiple times when helping out at conferences, talks, and talking to him at restaurants and receptions, or hearing his public speeches. As I mentioned in comments when asked what he was like:

Very affable more a listener than a talker in conversation. For example when involved in filming an event in Oxford (with Sir Paul Nurse) invited myself and friends to a VIP reception afterwards.

Also, some people misunderstand when I criticise or dare to correct Dawkins (in fairness this is very rare). He welcomes that challenge, and knows how to defend himself if he disagrees. At a conference I was volunteering at, he suggested Americans should not get worked up about money having “In God We Trust” printed on it.

When delegates explained how that was used to reinforce the idea of America founded as a Christian Nation he accepted that, and changed his mind that it was worth pursuing after all.

I admire the writer, that intellect, how Dawkins shows intelligent design to be a fraud, and his advocacy of public understanding of science. I despair of the tweets and sound bites Dawkins has used, which even by his own admission have been ill worded and needed an apology. He is better company, and a better man, than this suggests to a wider audience.

Having grown up in a cult which controlled your every thought and deed, the freethinking community is a much better group to be in. I owe it to all to talk about my experiences, and share them in the hope people realise the impact faith can have on people.

Yet those faculties will also be brought to bear on my own side too, which hopefully may sharpen and refine our arguments, and make us more effective in promoting reason and science.

The debate is too important to stay on the sidelines, let alone be silent on. This contrarian will keep up the discourse. Being critical is not the same as being negative. As freethinkers sailing the sea of faith, we will plot our course. It is not subversive to suggest checking our bearings, and ensure we focus on the right targets.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

Oh for the wings of a horse … Dawkins and Hasan

Right now twitter has a shit storm brewing over Dawkins not so much ridiculing the idea of a winged horse for the prophet to ascend on, but that Mehdir Hasan lacked credibility to be hired as a serious journalist for believing it to be true.

Usually I try to keep a belief separate from the believer – unless that belief is for example a call to increase suffering or to oppress others in the name of faith. So if you want to believe a man ascended towards heaven on a flying horse, fine, on your own count me out. As part of civil discourse I will not make fun of you for doing that, but I will ridicule the idea.

Richard is sadly digging in, while everyone jumps this way or that. Owen Jones made the comment that Dawkins did not speak for him as an atheist in response to the tweet.

Thing is, did anyone think Richard Dawkins was our spokesman? A champion over creationism yes. The star may be waning perhaps in light of recent tweets on other issues.

Thing is this was a classic ad hominem that we tried to be wary of on richard.dawkins.net/forum as moderators alert that this was leading to flaming that we may have to remind people to be civil before it went too far.

Oh irony …

UPDATE 5:25pm: if you had said it like that earlier Richard … (Goes into corner and weeps)

UPDATE 22 April in an article on paradoxes of belief and people Richard Dawkins has apologised for his ill choice of words:

None of those three meanings was well conveyed by my ill-judged words, and I withdraw them with apologies. I’m grateful to the many tweeters who came to my defence and saw no problem with my original formulation. Nevertheless, I cannot deny that my words were carelessly chosen.

UPDATE 14/6/2013 video context of Dawkins and Hasan talking about the winged horse …

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

Dawkins and Mein Kampf: Translation

Richard Dawkins is still using Mein Kampf to swipe at his critics on twitter.

The read it in German remark is aimed at those that say the Koran should be read in the original language only. That debate plays out here.

However, how useful would it have been to have read Mein Kampf to understand nazism before World War 2? Reading the preface written in 1933 in my 1938 edition of “My Struggle” still gives me goosebumps:

So naturally you can form an opinion on nazism without reading Mein Kampf, but if others had widely read it to have an informed opinion in the 1930s would the popularity of appeasement been the same in the UK?

It is worth noting what Winston Churchill had to say about Mein Kampf:

“the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message.”

Source

That is the history of thought linking Islam and Nazism which is the context for what is happening regarding the tweet.

Hence my earlier blog saying Dawkins really should have seen this coming if he knew something about Mein Kampf.

I immediately brought up Rabbi Boteach “you shriek like Hitler” (see blogs on) to suggest again that Dawkins lacked empathy how people would perceive his comments.

Which Dawkins himself has alluded to on Twitter over Rabbi Boteach:

Language is one thing, but none of us
can escape history or cultural context. We can plead ignorance but there comes a point when putting your hand up is the thing to do.

No, not like that …

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

Richard Dawkins, the Koran and Mein Kampf

Yes you read that title right, based on the tweet Richard Dawkins sent out:

You can have several views of this – and indeed any combination of the following: islamophobic use of simile, Godwin’s Law in action, free publicity this will generate, no empathy for how people will react to what he says.

Dawkins has straight away tried to deal with the first in a subsequent tweet:

Godwin’s Law is that in an online argument given enough time a person will invoke Hitler/nazis on their opponent or on their idea. Also a rather cheap mud slinging shot in a debate.

Having read a pre-war edition of Mein Kampf and having an Uncle arrested at a war time press conference for holding his copy up when they quoted the book saying “which page please?” some reasons you may want to read to understand Hitler and the nazis. My Uncle was part of an anti-propaganda group determined truth should not be the first casualty of war. Read the original source material – how can I suggest that to creationists when Dawkins suggests not necessary for religion? Expect that one to be thrown back in evolution/intelligent design discussion.

Free publicity suggests Dawkins as the media savvy person that felt Krauss should have walked out of a gender allocated seating arrangement debate to generate maximum publicity. Being controversial will cause column inches to be written, with publicity for Dawkins’ issues, himself and works.

The last point of no empathy is for me the one that strikes home. Long time readers will know of Rabbi Boteach of whom Dawkins said “you shriek like Hitler”. It took much correspondence and comments before Richard readily acknowledged not a good move; let alone a hurtful comparison to make.

The simile tweet suggests Dawkins has not learnt from that experience. I have met Muslims that would readily have my back at a gay rights march (sic), stand up for secularism and let humanism override literal interpretation of the Koran. To my mind we need to embolden and support such thinkers in the Muslim community as well as safeguard apostates and human rights for those wanting to leave. This is a global issue.

I read an excellent blog defending Dawkins from the charge of Islamophobia. A lack of empathy regarding comparison is more the case given track record with Boteach.

In conclusion the historian would suggest reading original source material is a very good idea. The publicist that saying Koran and Mein Kampf in same sentence will generate a media frenzy. The Humanist that this is not helping us get on with the human rights issues we need to face down within Islam.

The secular activist in me is above all saying – good grief here we go again.

UPDATE Blog: Translation (why reading Mein Kampf may have made a difference)

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

The Blind Watchmaker – Dawkins Video

An oldie from 1987 television. “The Blind Watchmaker” was the first book I ever read to understand evolution having left the study of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

Labelling of children … Do not forget lacking mental capacity

In the secular community we are familiar with the idea that children of faith parents is a more respectful expression of a child’s right to come to terms with faith for themselves then to be identified as a catholic or muslim child. You would not call Paul Krugman’s children Keynesian children anymore than you would call them atheist children. The faith or none of a parent should not automatically make decisions for a child is the crucial point behind such a thought.

Yet perhaps one aspect which is overlooked is those who lack mental capacity – by which we mean a person who cannot communicate any such world view nor comprehend one. To what extent should carers or family members encourage someone to be a part of something that they cannot express a preference about?

The reason for mentioning this is that an assessment of mental capacity does cover spiritual and religious considerations. As such, the family background plays an important part in framing, while the best interest of the person must take precedence in any decision making made in UK law.

The example, based on my experience as a family carer, had my brother enjoying church graveyards under this section. There is no mystical cosmological reason for this. He loves nature, walking, peace and quiet. As such he might well enjoy a walk in a church yard.

This was more about having something to say for that section – which was not filled in by family. Cultural identity is important – it would be odd not to include someone in Christmas celebrations because they could not take a view whether Jesus was the messiah or not.

Be interested to hear what others think about this issue. The cultural/religious distinction is important here for those that cannot think for themselves. My own view is to seriously take a lack of compulsion in religion at face value, while recognising the cultural value of celebrations which go beyond the historic religious origin (pagan or otherwise).

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

Can the progressive future claim the past?

President Obama used the imagery of Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence to state that equality was a founding principle of the Republic, and that now is the time to fulfil that promise with regard equal pay for women and gay rights. (Blog on that here)

“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Needless to say, the right may have a problem with this – having claimed the founding fathers for the small state, and liberty for all to have wealth without being taxed by the state to increase it’s power relative to the rest of civil society.

Enter Buchanan:

How could that be, when the author of the declaration Obama cites, Thomas Jefferson, believed homosexuality should be treated as rape, and George Washington ordered homosexuals drummed out of his army?

What Obama was attempting at the Capitol, with his repeated lifts from Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, was to portray his own and his party’s egalitarianism as a continuation of the great cause that triumphed at Yorktown and Appomattox.

He is hijacking the American Revolution, claiming an ancestral lineage for his ideology that is utterly fraudulent and bogus.

Source WND

Buchanna is at least more honest then some about Jefferson’s position. Many do quote Jefferson’s ideals about equality, and people being free to their conscience. Yet he also in the Virginia legislature tried to introduce castration for rape and sodomy. Some have spun this that the alternative was the death penalty, which made him liberal by the standards of the time. At any rate, his bill was defeated.

Yet claiming Jefferson as a homophobe or as pro gay rights is to put our own terms on a people who believed that no one could consent to a homosexual act. Such is the problem also when we look to great figures in the past as an example. Look deeper, you will find something that will shock you.

Richard Dawkins covers that well when talking for ten minutes about the moral zeitgeist – that is that overtime what we consider moral changes, sometimes rapidly – and to be cautious when using our times looking back on history.

Buchanan is right that civil rights are in many ways a modern idea in American history (just listen to the quote Dawkins reads out from Lincoln above). It does however miss an important point, that our values could be considered barbaric in the future and we may need to discuss them with enthusiasm, and that each generation may have to come to terms not only with that but how they should be governed, perhaps tearing down what has gone before, even the constitution.

Those ideas come from … Thomas Jefferson:

“We shall have our follies without doubt. Some one or more of them will always be afloat. But ours will be the follies of enthusiasm, not of bigotry, not of Jesuitism. Bigotry is the disease of ignorance, of morbid minds; enthusiasm of the free and buoyant. Education and free discussion are the antidotes of both. We are destined to be a barrier against the return of ignorance and barbarism.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1816. ME 15:58

Source

Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396

Source

If we are going to be honest, let us be fully so. In the debate bring your enthusiasm. Time to claim the future from people long since dead.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78