What Atheism Is And Is Not

My friends and family know I'm an atheist.  I've been out for a long time.  I haven't spoken about it for awhile, but recent events in my personal life have prompted me to reiterate what the word "atheism" means, and what it does not.

Atheists have exactly one thing in common: they all reject the claims of theists regarding deities.  That's it.  They may have arrived at that point from many paths; some rejected the religion of their families because they read the sacred texts and found them inconsistent with reality.  Some came to it through philosophy, either rejecting the claims of theists for lack of evidence or positing that the gods theists claim to exist cannot because the attributes assigned to them are inconsistent with the way the world works.  Some just came to it on gut feeling alone.  Whatever the reason, aside from this one commonality, atheists are diverse as any other group of people. 

Some people can't give up on the idea that atheism is much more than a rejection of the claims of theists.  They define atheists in all sorts of ways from the outside looking in, going by what their preachers say, what their friends say, what holy books say, or what their few confrontations with the more vocal atheists taught them--often in cyberspace.  I want to touch on a few of the characteristics people have assigned to me and atheists in general.

 The one statement I used to hear the most is that I worship money.  I don't worship anything, but I definitely don't worship money.  I think the origination of this idea comes from the observation of Ayn Rand followers, but those who believe in her philosophy of "enlightened" self-interest are not in the majority of atheists I have met.  I put "enlightened" in quotes because I don't think her philosophy demonstrates an enlightened worldview, but my disagreements with Ayn Rand aren't the subject of this discussion.  I will go into that in a later article, perhaps.  Suffice it to say, money is not a god replacement, at least for me, and not for several other atheists I know.  Contrary to popular belief, not everyone has the goal to become wealthy.  Some of us just want to live well, and want others to do so, as well--but again, I am not speaking for all atheists.  Nobody does.

The next most common thing I've heard is that I am my own god--that I worship myself.  Hardly!  While I have been known from time to time to have a huge ego, I know that I'm little more than a microbe on spec of dust circling a bright point with other specs of dust and gas on the edge of a grouping of a couple hundred billion points of light, many with their own orbiting specs of dust.  My place and role in the universe is minuscule, and I stand in awe of the vastness, beauty, and harshness of the universe.  Once again, I don't speak for all atheists, but I haven't met a single one who says that we are gods ourselves.  

Next comes something that I have heard recently: that atheists have an agenda.  Really?  A unifying agenda for all atheists?  Sign me up, because if there's something that can rally all of us, it must be really good.  In a couple decades of interacting with individual atheists and various atheist groups, I have not found one agenda to rule them all (apologies for the cheap Lord of the Rings reference).  Even separation of state and church doesn't unify us all; I have heard some atheists muse that if the government supported religion, what happened in Europe would happen here: the urgency for conversion would disappear, and churches would suffer from empty pew syndrome to a greater degree every year, until religion becomes something old traditionalists do.  Some remnants--probably Christmas--would remain, simply because people like the traditions, but it would be what it really has become here: a commercial holiday with its original meaning lost. In any case, there is no agenda I can think of that every atheist rallies behind.  Taxing churches?  Sure, a lot of atheists are for it, but every atheist?  No.   I've heard several opine that if we taxed churches, it would give them even more leverage in politics.  Converting people?  I don't know about you, but I haven't had a couple atheists knocking on my door lately.  I know several who have written books to this end, but those are individual atheists, each with their own personal agenda--not a single one speaks for us all.  Besides, people can pick up books or leave them; nobody is forcing anyone to read.  Indeed, reading seems to be discouraged by some people these days. 

A fourth idea that non-atheists project onto us involves the worship of science or that evolution is our religion.  I didn't become an atheist because I learned about evolution--I was an atheist for several years before I had a real understanding of how evolution works and why it is inevitable.  I became an atheist because after rejecting Catholicism, I looked around for something else to believe.  I found Christianity lacking; the Bible was inconsistent with reality and was not a practical guide for life in the modern day.  I looked into Buddhism, Jainism, paganism (which takes on many forms and means different things to different people--it's a terribly inadequate label), and all sorts of other religions, and found them all lacking because they had one thing in common: they all required faith in something without demanding evidence.  I just don't see faith as an inherent value.  To accept something without requiring some sort of evidence to me made no sense.  Besides, it was the behavior of people I respected (or didn't, depending on how they behaved).  Telling me that you believe something doesn't show me what sort of person you are.  In any case, my rejection of faith did not make me turn to a worship of science; I think science is great, and that it gives us the best method of understanding of the universe than any others available, but I don't worship it.  I'm not sure what that worship would entail, anyway.  

I could touch on many other things people have said about atheists--that we're hedonists, Satanists (?), liars (hey, the Bible says so!), children or young adults going through a rebellious phase (mine has lasted around 20 years--no end in sight), and people who became angry with some god or another for whatever reason.  I could probably write a book on the subject if I wanted, but I will address last the one that perplexes me the most: that atheists are people without morals.  My values derive from empathy--from my ability to put myself in the situations of others.  As such, altruism is one of my deepest values.  I have wanted to help people all of my life.  I have this constant urge to want to fix things so everyone can live in peace--but I don't know how it's possible, given that not everyone wants the same thing.  My personal feelings aside, I think if we didn't have religion at all, our values would come from our ability to put each other in one another's shoes.  Or maybe they'd come from the necessity of cooperation to continue our survival. Whatever the reasons, I find it hard to imagine needing faith that eternal rewards or punishments await me in the afterlife to be good to other people.  I realize that not all religious thought includes such rewards and punishments, but those that don't offer me no alternative sources for values.  

 

Why privatization of public services is bad for the economy

     Living in civilization makes necessary the existence of certain services.  To live comfortably and with relatively low levels of disease, we must have garbage removal, sewage systems, and clean water supplies.  To enforce the laws we create to keep society civil and safe, we need law enforcement.  To protect our homes from fires started from careless people, arsonists, or even nature, we need fire protection services.  Expand the list or shorten it, but we agree to pay for certain services in order to maintain a civil society.  Some people believe that the free market should provide these services; they think that private entities can do the job better than government-run bureaucracies at a lower cost to the taxpayer.  However, the movement to take these services out of government hands and put them into the hands of the market has had several negative impacts.

    First, whenever a private company takes over a public service, the workers have been laid off, then either rehired at a lower wage with no benefits, or replaced with workers who would take a lower wage.  In both cases, the difference in money these workers would have received no longer gets spent within the community.  Some of these workers may not be able to maintain a home anymore, or might have to move to find work with equivalent pay.  This money no longer goes to the local restaurant, bar, convenience store, or grocery story they frequented.  They can't afford the day care or babysitters they could before.  Because their benefits are gone, we have to pick up their health care costs if they have a medical emergency, because it is not likely that they can pay case for these services.

    Secondly, the difference in pay the former government workers would have received now gets routed to private entities.  In many cases, these entities are corporations with executives and shareholders.  These executives and shareholders very likely do not live in the communities where their companies operate.  In some cases, these corporations even have foreign owners.  For example, the City of Southfield, Michigan, privatized the transportation of children to the local schools.  This company, Durham School Services, is a subsidiary of National Express Corporation, which is a publicly-traded company.  This company is in turned owned by National Express Group, which is a UK company.  As such, the City of Southfield saved a little bit off the bottom line by having Durham School Services run the school buses, but they funneled money that would have gone to government-paid workers into the hands of executives and shareholders who certainly don't live in Southfield, and some of whom are not even in the United States.  Other examples of publicly-traded companies that run public services include the Corrections Corporation of America (American corporation) and the GEO Group (multinational corporation), who run prisons; Waste Management, Casella Waste Systems Inc, Republic Services, and Safety-Kleen Inc, who run garbage collection; National Wildfire Suppression Association, which has publicly-traded corporate sponsors and is involved in privatization of firefighting; and Charter School Management Corporation and National Heritage Academies, who run charter schools, which seek to replace public schools.

    Finally, privatization of public services creates one of two situations: the city contracts with one company, creating a private monopoly, or the city allows competition.  The latter situation appears rarely with privatization.  In some cases, this competition appears to be good; it allows the cost of services to go as low as possible.  However, this competition is often a race to the bottom with workers' wages, and the quality of services can be a concern.  Additionally, competition in the area of garbage removal can be detrimental to a community.  Anyone who has private garbage removal knows how many trucks come down the street on trash day.  Imagine if your neighbors choose a myriad of garbage removal services.  The trucks from each company would come down the street endlessly.  These large trucks tend to be tough on the pavement on neighborhood streets, and the presence of all that traffic makes it unsafe for children, pets, and pedestrians.  One community in Arizona found this out to their dismay, and they ended up contracting with a single service again.

    Privatization has the potential to be good.  If the private company is local, the money involved stays in the community.  If the company pays workers a living wage and provides benefits, local entrepreneurs and citizens win.  However, these ideals are never the case, or so close to never that they are unheard of.  In most cases, as demonstrated, the money gets funneled out of the community and into the hands of the few.  It is taken out of the hands of many people who will use it to buy everyday goods and services, with some minor luxuries if they have disposable income, and into the hands of a few, who will not spend as much on the everyday goods and services--because they aren't going to buy extra toiletries and food for the heck of it--and who won't be doing it in every community where the privatized public services operate.  These services are natural monopolies, as competition sometimes makes it more difficult or even unsafe to deliver the services people need, or can lower the quality of services by cutting corners.  Natural monopolies should be run by the government, not the free market, because the free market does not have the best interest of citizens at its heart.  Private companies have the interests of owners, executives, board members, and investors in mind, not the good of your local community.

The war on drugs must end

     According to Mexico's public safety secretary, Genaro Garcia Luna, Mexican drug cartels make $64 billion per year from illegal marijuana sales in the United States.  Illegal growers in the southwestern United States often report to Mexican drug cartels.  Mexico is not the only source for illegal drugs in this country, but it is a prime example of how our prohibition on marijuana is making criminals wealthy.  Making criminals wealthy gives them power--power to buy police, federal officials, elected representatives, and elections.

    Our prohibition of marijuana and other drugs represents the repetition of a stupid mistake made in our own history--prohibition of alcohol.  This prohibition, ordered through an amendment to our Constitution, caused a subsequent repeal due to the recognition of the thriving criminal empires it created.  Illegal distribution and sales of alcohol proved extremely lucrative, and some criminal organizations who participated in these activities diversified into illegal gambling, prostitution, loan sharking, and all manner of illegal activity that would allow them to thrive long after the repeal of alcohol prohibition.  The same is true of illegal drug sales; the demand is there, and anyone who can supply has the potential to have it made, financially speaking.

    In addition to the fostering and support of a criminal element, keeping marijuana and other drugs illegal fills prisons with users, small-time dealers and middlemen, and other people who are underlings to or customers of those with the real money and power.  The American taxpayer contributes approximately $10 billion annually to house these prisoners--and two-thirds are in for use, which would not be true if drugs were legal.

    Another major cost of drug prohibition is federal enforcement.  The annual DEA budget is $2.4 billion, but the cost of enforcement of drug laws at the federal level actually totals over $15 billion every year, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy.  This figure doesn't include local law enforcement activity, but suffice it to say that the total for federal, state, and local enforcement of drug laws far exceeds $15 billion per year. Combine this figure with the figure from the cost of incarceration, and we spend well over $25 billion per year on enforcement of policy that creates and fosters criminal empires.  Money out of taxpayers' pockets goes to support laws that allow just the Mexican cartels alone to make over $64 billion annually--never mind other criminal organizations worldwide who make money off of this policy, as well.

      The drug war must end if for nothing else, the fiscal irresponsibility of paying to enforce policy that not only helps criminals get very wealthy, but also causes the government to borrow more money from China to cover the cost of enforcing it.  Aside from the financial and criminal issues--actually, the criminal issues are related--there is a human cost to the drug war.  Users and petty criminals (small distributors and runners) may not be violent, but where there is big money to protect, those who desire to keep their criminal empires thriving will defend that money violently.  Law enforcement officers must face this violence directly, and the criminal enterprises use violence to keep those who work for them in line, to settle scores, and to keep other organizations from encroaching on their business.  Prisons are full of violent factions, and there's no telling how many people in for drug-related offenses network with and become involved with other criminals doing other crimes.  After all, when someone has a prison record, that person finds it difficult to find honest work, and the pay for crime seems worth the risk for a person who finds it difficult to find a living wage in the labor force.

    What would be the consequences of legalization of drugs?  Sure, we would stop having to pay for enforcement, and the criminal empires would have to find their funding elsewhere or die, but what are the negative impacts?  People worry about drug abuse, but do we throw alcoholics in jail?  Unless they are arrested for disorderly conduct or drunk driving, we do not; we treat their problem as a "disease", and there are all sorts of programs for recovering alcoholics.  As such, abuses of other drugs--because alcohol is, after all, just another mind-altering substance--should be treated as a public health issue, not a criminal issue.

    Another negative impact some people say legalization might have is easy access to drugs for minors.  However, if drugs are sold the same way alcohol is now, there would be no more access to them than their is to alcohol--and people have actually died from alcohol poisoning.  There are no known marijuana overdose deaths.  People who buy alcohol for minors are unscrupulous people; they would get kids drugs now if they had access, and those drugs aren't regulated.  They could be laced with poisons or could be mixed with other drugs.  Drugs purchased in a state store or marijuana dispensary are pure--not laced with cocaine, not dipped in formaldehyde, not poisoned.  I'm not advocating drugs for minors, but what I am saying is that if kids do happen to get their hands on these drugs, at least they would be safer than those they could (and do!!) procure illegally.  We also have to remember that kids get worse drugs out of the medicine cabinets of their own relatives, and we don't make those drugs illegal.

     Perhaps there are negative impacts I have not covered.  I'd like to hear any that people think exist.  I do know that there is another positive impact, aside from starving criminals of money from illegal drug sales and the ceasing of borrowing money from foreign sources to pay for enforcement.  We can tax drugs if they are regulated.  Taxing drugs creates revenue; prohibition only creates costs.  If we recover these costs in fines and seizure of the funds and possessions of the people we arrest, I'd love to see those figures, as well.  To me, it makes sense to support legalization of drugs, because the negative impacts of prohibition are far worse than any negative impacts I can think of legalization causing.  If you agree, please write your representatives. Reading this blog or posting on Facebook does nothing to affect policy change.  Tell your representatives; run for office; create a petition to support legalization at the state level.  Just do something.

Why the Pledge of Allegiance in Schools Bugs Me

There are several reasons I've kept my opinion on the Pledge of Allegiance to myself, for the most part, until now.  The most important of them--and the only one that really has kept me from saying anything--is that I don't want to drag my daughter into the debate.  I use the term "debate" loosely, because most people who think the Pledge should be said in schools get extremely emotional when anyone opposes that opinion, and  mostly incapable of rational debate.  I definitely don't want my daughter, who has autism, who doesn't understand the Pledge or why people are saying it, to become the victim of the derision of these irrational individuals.  However, a couple of posts on Facebook from friends have prompted me to write this article.  One gave me a rational response to my objection; the other has not yet responded.  It's been bothering me that my child has the Pledge memorized because they were saying it over the P.A. system at school every morning (I just happened to hear it about 3 days before school was out for the summer), and I just can't stay silent anymore.

I supported Michael Newdow in his fight to get the Pledge out of schools on the basis of a First Amendment violation of the Establishment Clause, but it's so different when it's my child, and even more because my child has special needs, including a language delay, which prevents her from having everyday conversations.  She can express her needs, recite what she's memorized (she has replayed the dialogue of family gatherings in their entirety during pretend play--her memory is amazing), and she answers questions to a limited degree.  She has a tremendous vocabulary, and she has been doing well academically.  However, there is a comprehension issue that prevents her from understanding things like the Pledge of Allegiance.  It does her no good to learn it, because she has no idea what it means...and when she comes home to her atheist father and recites that we are "one nation under God", it upsets me.  I can't speak for Michael Newdow, but I'm guessing that he felt something similar in relation to his own child.  When this country is called "one nation under God", that excludes me--a law-abiding, tax-paying, working, natural-born citizen of the United States. More on this later, because at this point, I would like to break down the Pledge in its entirely.

Let's start with "I pledge allegiance..."  At what age did any of us understand what "allegiance" means?  I'm not sure when I knew it.  It was probably earlier than most, since I made a habit of reading the dictionary when I was a kid.  I was a strange child.  In any case, if someone took a quiz of elementary school children, I would bet that the percentage of them who know what the word "allegiance" means would be low.  I know no teachers in my elementary school explained any of the words in the Pledge.

Next comes "...to the flag of the United States of America..."  Wait, we're pledging allegiance to a colorful piece of cloth?  If I understand my history correctly, what this part of the Pledge actually means is that we pledge allegiance to the war standard of the United States--because that's what a flag used to be.  That is why the military has such reverence for it; it was the rallying point for troops and the symbol of your side.  It's an outdated reference that hasn't the meaning it had when war didn't involve shooting from a great distance or communications by radio.  Outmoded reference aside, my interpretation of this part of the Pledge means allegiance to the military.

After the flag reference comes "..and to the Republic for which it stands..."  Do I need to pledge allegiance to a country where I'm already a natural-born citizen?  As a child?  What good does it do for a child to affirm such allegiance?  Do we expect children to defect from the United States to seek political asylum?  And what on earth does "Republic" mean?  I know, but do children?  Like "allegiance", "republic" was never explained to me when I was very young.  I'm pretty sure I learned it in high school at some point--or I might have known before high school.  I just remember one teacher talking about forms of government, and that our form of government is a republic--where we elect representatives to a lawmaking body.  It is not a democracy, as many people imagine, because in a democracy, we would vote directly on everything.

Here's "...one nation under God..." again.   Are we one nation under one god?  I would argue that with a growing population of nonbelievers, which is at around 17% now, that we are not.  We are one nation under the Constitution, and we have been since the adoption of that document.  We are a nation of laws and not a theocracy.  The Bible is not our law book, and contrary to the beliefs of some, our laws are not based on the Bible.  I would argue that not all believers believe in the same god, or at least believe in such vastly different ways that they may as well call their god by different names, according to each religion.  What does it mean to be one nation under "God"--which I'm assuming, given that it was put into the Pledge in the 1950s, during the McCarthy era, when religiosity was a litmus test for patriotism, and being a nonbeliever meant you must be communist, that it's the Christian god--when we are not a theocracy?

Next comes the word, "indivisible".  One would hope that no state will secede again, but we are a divided country right now.  At no point in my life have I seen the country more divided on party lines--although as a student of history, I know that the Civil War is not the only time this country has been politically divided.  In any case, secession probably isn't going to happen with any state anytime soon, even though some people talk about it.  That's what this word refers to--no more talk of separation into separate countries by states.

Finally, we have "...with liberty and justice for all."  Liberty and justice for everyone sounds great, but arguments can be made that not everyone has liberty or gets proper justice in this country.  Minorities tend to be incarcerated at a greater rate than the white majority, and before someone says that it's because they commit more crime, I'm also talking about comparing people who do the same crimes and get different punishments.  There was a study NPR talked about a few years ago that talked about crimes committed by white people and crimes committed by black people.  The study demonstrated that white people received sentences that were less harsh, and sometimes got off altogether.  Is this justice?  The banks received a bailout--with people on Wall Street receiving bonus checks--after creating the biggest economic disaster since 1929 through the practice of selling toxic mortgages as prime investments and insuring them, knowing that these mortgages would fail (and yes, the did know, because they hire actuaries to calculate the statistics accurately), which homeowners saw the values of their homes crash, businesses couldn't get credit to invest in growth, and millions of people lost their jobs.  Is this justice?  I would argue also that the economic downturn hurt our liberty, because we certainly could not do as much as we wanted anymore.

Having given a breakdown of the Pledge, I would like now to explain why I stopped reciting it in high school in my junior year.  Over the P.A. system, our principal at Antwerp High School in Ohio explained that the Supreme Court ruled in 1943 that it was a violation of freedom of speech to force students to say the Pledge of Allegiance in schools.  The case--not given by the principal; I found out later--was West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.  After I heard that information, I refused to say the Pledge in schools.  Though I knew the Court had made some bad decisions, this one was about the First Amendment--that freedom of speech could not be abridged.  I had never been given a choice regarding whether to say the Pledge or not in school, and those in authority at schools I attended before Antwerp were acting in violation of the Court's decision.  By that time, I had read the Constitution, and knew the Court had the final say in what was Constitutional and what was not--and the only ways to overturn these decisions was to amend the Constitution or have the Court itself overturn a previous decision.  To defy a Court's decision is to defy the Constitution, and how could one pledge allegiance to a country when one did not believe in the document that was its very foundation?  I found it incredibly un-American and unpatriotic to defy the Court in this fashion.

Having children recite the Pledge of Allegiance in schools serves no educational purpose, and giving children no choice in the matter is unconstitutional.  As such, reciting it over the loudspeaker and encouraging my child to join in, a child who has no understanding of the Pledge and no idea that she has a choice whether to say it or not, is unconstitutional.  The religious reference in the Pledge also should make it unconstitutional, as it is a violation of my free exercise of religion and that of my child's, which includes our choice whether or not to opt out altogether.  My child has no idea what atheism, Christianity, Islam, or Judaism are (let alone all of the other religions out there), and I have no practical way of explaining any of them to her.  Having her recite words that include her in "one nation under God" interferes with my right as a parent to raise my child free from religion.  It's indoctrination, not a patriotic act.  It is only a patriotic act to say a pledge of allegiance (and I would leave out "under God") if you understand its meaning and say it according to that awareness.

Imprison homosexuals with an electrified fence?

I will never understand the thinking of people like Pastor Charles Worley of North Carolina, who thinks all homosexuals should be imprisoned inside an electrified fence.  Although I don't lend credence to the claims of the Bible, I certainly have read it several times, and I remember the Jesus character within hanging out with those people considered sinner.  I think it's ridiculous to consider behavior that comes naturally a "sin", but setting that aside: even if Christians think homosexuality is a choice, and a sinful one at that, what example of Jesus are they following by suggesting such a thing? 

Setting the Bible aside (as I did finally at age 21, with doubts entering my mind much earlier), we live in a nation of laws.  We have a Constitution that is supposed to provide equal protection under the law for all American citizens.  What right does anyone have to take those rights away from any class of citizens?  Thinking like Pastor Worley's is un-American.

I know people think comparing people to Hitler is extreme, but this sort of thinking is EXACTLY like Hitler's!  Locking up people who you think are undesirable in order to get rid of them (as if no homosexuals will ever be born to heterosexual couples again) is exactly the sort of thing that results in the genocide that occurred under Hitler's regime.

It's amazing to me how much vitriol people like Worley have toward people who they think are "sinners".  I'm sure he'd be on board with throwing atheists inside an electrified fence as well. 

I bought a car from Enterprise

I work out of my home, so I haven't had much need for a vehicle--until recently.  Moving involved so many errands, it made my standard practice of renting a car when I needed one impractical and expensive.   I drove so infrequently, it wasn't worth the insurance to buy a new car.  Also, there has been call recently for me to have a car on short notice, and that's not always easy.  I plan on moving again in the near future, as well, and not having a car at will makes it difficult.

Nearly every vehicle I have rented in the past several years has been from Enterprise.  Every experience I've had with them has involved excellent customer service.  They got to know me by name relatively quickly, and they have always treated me like a VIP when I rented from them.  Plus, they pick me up, which for me was incredibly important until recently, given that I had no transportation to their locations.  When I decided I needed a vehicle of my own again, I mentioned it to them, and they referred me to Enterprise Car Sales.

At first, I had some apprehension regarding buying a vehicle from a place that rents cars.  The thought crossed my mind that people don't take care of the cars when they rent them, but the evidence gathered from actually driving the cars Enterprise offers told me that my misgivings were unfounded.  I never had problems with an Enterprise car.  They were always in good shape.  I've never had a dirty car, one with engine noise, a slipping transmission, or any other issue.  The sales representative who called me, Robby Batayeh, called to follow up on the lead the people at the rental location give him, so I decided to call him back and go look at a vehicle.

Robby was friendly, courteous, and low-pressure.  He and I talked about what I wanted in a vehicle, and he came up with a list of them that fit what I asked for--rather than what he wanted to sell me, which has been my past experience with several car dealerships. Robby ended up delivering my car to me.  At the time, I had a van I rented from Enterprise.  I had forgotten some of the stuff I was moving in the back of the van.  Robby not only took the items out of the van, but he carried them downstairs for me, knowing I had a back problem.  He did not have to do that for me, but the fact that he did makes him stand out in my mind as a person committed not only to outstanding customer service, but to a genuine empathy and friendly rapport with his customers. 

If you are in the market for a car, I highly recommend Enterprise Car Sales.  Let them know Greg Reich sent you.  If you are in the metro Detroit area, look up the location on Grand River Avenue and ask for Robby.  The rest of the people there were friendly, as well.

On a final note, I will miss renting cars as frequently as I did from the Enterprise office on 8 Mile near Lahser Road, because the people there were also wonderful, and really went out of their way for me on several occasions.  If you need to rent a car, I recommend them as well.  I wish I could remember all of their names, because they all deserve praise, but Dan and Blair took care of me several times. 

Tired of politicians fighting against gay marriage

Politicians waste taxpayer time and money on so many things, but one of the more despicable things involves the legislation of discrimination.  It seems like every year, on both the federal and state levels, Republicans sponsor legislation that bans gay marriage.  Americans need jobs and adequate health care, but these politicians decide that keeping homosexuals from marrying each other takes priority over legislation that would actually benefit the people.  They instead waste time on these bills that help no one, but do hurt millions of American citizens. 

The latest iteration of this discriminatory legislation is the Defense of Marriage Act.  "Defense"?  The purpose of this act is not to preserve marriage between one man and one woman; it is to keep homosexuals from marrying each other, pure and simple.  How does defining marriage as the legal bond between one man and one woman defend marriage?  Does it prevent divorce?  Does it increase the number of marriages between heterosexual couples?  An act that prevented people with a lack of financial means, high debt, or low credit scores from getting married would do more to "defend" marriage than this act.  Actually, let me rephrase that: legislation that took financial means into consideration would actually do something to preserve marriage, where an act to define marriage as a legal union between one man and woman does absolutely nothing to defend marriage. 

Now, I am not advocating for a financial means test for marriage; all I'm saying is that if the goal is to defend marriage, preventing homosexuals from marrying each other doesn't do a damned thing to preserve the institution; it doesn't strengthen marriage or improve any couple's relationship in any way; it does nothing to address issues that cause marriages to fail.  In other words, calling such a piece of legislation a "defense" of marriage is disingenuous at best, a bald-faced lie, at worst.

Americans need jobs right now.  We need adequate and affordable health care.  We have a crumbling infrastructure that needs more attention.  We have out-of-control debt to other countries.  We're still at war.  While I do think it's possible to address several issues at once, I don't know what makes those advocating this Defense of Marriage Act think that it has any positive impact on this country whatsoever.  And, since Republicans in Congress normally only support bills that benefit the wealthy, I can only figure that they want to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman so companies will not have to even consider providing benefits to same-sex couples. 

There is, of course, one other reason certain politicians support a ban of gay marriage, and that reason comes from their religion.  They believe homosexuality is not naturally-occurring--anyone who knows anything about the animal kingdom or studies of human sexuality knows better--but rather, they believe it's sinful behavior, and homosexuals are giving in to temptation.  They believe it because an ancient book of myths tells them so.  Of course, they cherry-pick what parts of this book of myths to believe; I can't remember the public stoning of a drunk in the public square lately, or the execution of adulterers, or any of the other punishments Leviticus lays out for things we would not even consider to be crimes today.

Whether it's the religious lobbyists or the corporate lobbyists influencing the actions of these politicians, it needs to stop.  My representatives are against this act, but if yours are not, please let them know that they are wasting valuable time while discriminating against American citizens--that you would rather see them work on legislation that benefits all of us instead of acting to hurt tens of millions of our people.