Reality Check

I witnessed a familiar scene the other day, walking through one of those nice little park strips you find between buildings in downtown San Jose: a man in dress pants, a crisp white shirt and a tie standing over a man lying in the grass, gesturing for him to move along. You don't really need me to describe the other man, but I will anyway--he was an older African American man, dressed in worn and dirty clothes, using a backpack as a pillow. He wasn't drunk, he wasn't on drugs, and he certainly wasn't doing anything offensive--he was just taking a nap on the lawn.

As I walked by, I suddenly turned around, incensed. "What are you doing?" I asked the man in the tie. "Seriously, have you taken the time to think about what you're doing right this second, and what it means?"

The man smiled unpleasantly. "Yes, I have thought about it," he said. "This is private property."

"So?" I asked. "Do you realize the implications of what you're doing? You are removing someone who is not harming you in any way...why? So you don't have to look at him. So you don't have to be reminded that there are people in our society who are suffering needlessly? So you don't have to be reminded that the lifestyle you enjoy is not accessible to everyone?"

"It's private property," he said again, his smile growing more smug.

I'll admit I was pretty volatile by now, tapping a finger to my forehead angrily and saying, "Yeah, but have you really THOUGHT about it? I mean, think about it. What does private property even mean? Who gave anyone the right to sell it in the first place? We were all born onto this planet in the same way. Who said it gets to be yours? GOD?"

I'm sure this sounded like a pointless observation to this dude, who was not engaging with anything I was saying, let alone critically questioning the very idea of private property--and I was making it easy enough for him to write me off as some random crazy lady (stupid temper). It certainly wasn't the reality check I wanted it to be.

So now I want to take the opportunity, from a calmer place, to stop and think about the way we treat our homeless. We don't even see them as people anymore, which I would argue is partly to keep ourselves sane as we walk by our fellow man suffering right in front of us and do nothing about it day after day after day. It's hard to know what to do. It's too systemic of a problem for us to just invite home every person we see on the streets. There are too many ins and outs, and anyway, many of us are struggling just to feed our own families.

So instead of helping them we kick them off lawns as though they're human pieces of garbage to be removed, rather than our brothers and sisters resting in our common spaces because...*ahem* private property man...they don't have living rooms. So not only are we telling them "I don't care about your dire situation," we are going on to deny them even the most basic relief because we don't like looking at them.

It's amazing how we normalize quite terrible behaviors. How many businesses have signs that say "restrooms for customer use only"? People without homes are also people without bathrooms. But we are afraid they won't respect our spaces, so we won't let them use ours. As someone who has worked in several restaurants, I can tell you that the ability to pay does not predict good restroom behavior. But hey, let's go on denying a whole caste of society respite, just on the off chance. It's not our problem.

The funny thing is, the people who actually decide to step up and help tend to seem threatening to those around them. We have this weird tendency to morality police others--to get angry at people for being *too* nice because they make us look bad by comparison. Here are several examples:

Store Clerk Yells at Man for Giving a Homeless Man Donuts and Change
Florida Town Punishes a Couple for Feeding the Homeless
Temecula Advises Residents Not to Help Homeless

I think we're the worst to one another when we feel helpless and guilty, and homeless people are a natural target for these negative emotions. We're guilty that they're there in the first place, but we feel helpless to solve the problem personally...so instead we make the problem even worse by treating them like refuse and denying them basic human kindnesses.

We need to shed the "not my problem" model and think about triage. Which is worse--the possibility of having a restroom defiled, or denying someone a basic amenity that they have no access to otherwise? Having to be visually reminded that poverty exists, or making our most vulnerable population feel as unwelcome as possible in every arena? Facing up to the fact that we could plausibly do more, and don't, or utterly dehumanizing our brothers and sisters in need?

Demand Justice Reform

Our country's laws are no longer serving the people of the United States. Though they should be protecting us, they are instead imprisoning great numbers of our poor and absolving and releasing those who harm and oppress us. It is up to us to demand their swift reform.

First, we must demand the decriminalization of all non-violent acts. Violent acts include any use of deception, influence, or physical force which causes harm to the person or property of another, or forces them to engage in behavior which they did not consent to. The sorts of laws that prevent these things are designed to protect the American people and our beautiful continent from being abused and exploited. We have seen, not once, but many times, the worst perpetrators not only walk free, but continue to hold positions of power. This is clearly not a priority of our justice system.

By contrast, the majority of American citizens imprisoned today have caused little or no demonstrable harm to others or their property. The banning of victimless behaviors poses a real danger to the freedom and autonomy of US citizens, and we hold that it is the business of families and communities to negotiate and regulate these kinds of acts. Federal courts should be concerned with maintaining our freedoms, not reducing them.

Second, we must demand a complete overhaul of the way crime is treated in the courts. There is plenty of data to show that most crime stems from some combination of nature (social and psychological disorders) and/or environment (abuse, poverty, desperation), and the courts should be addressing this, rather than behaving as though anti-social behaviors can be curbed by throwing enough people into jail or executing enough of our citizens.

We must demand the dismantling of our current "eye for an eye" model of justice, to be replaced with a model that prioritizes the elimination of anti-social behaviors by preemptively meeting the needs of citizens (focusing on the preventative side of crime) and providing them with proper care (healing rather than beating people for their dysfunctional actions). 

We should call for the reformed court system to prioritize three goals: Determining what is true, not objectively (as we can never be entirely objective), but to each individual involved; doing all that is possible to repair all wrongs, not through punitive measures, but through healing ones; and collaborating to prevent future wrongs while maintaining, to the greatest degree possible, the freedom and dignity of all involved.

Pain comes from pain. It is not healed through more pain. When we eliminate someone's future for a mistake in their past, we refuse to acknowledge our own mistakes, our own ability to learn and better ourselves. It is vital to maintaining our own humanity, and ultimately serves our own interests, to see that we interrupt the cycle of harm-for-harm.

The Grammar of Good and Evil

Why do humans screw each other over?  We know the answer has something to do with evil, which we tend to treat like a physical object we can eliminate through violence, a fat finned beast we might someday kill off for once and for all, and we’ve been boating around since the dawn o' time muttering about how we're going to do just that. Much like Ahab and his whale, we get so focused on our personal need to eradicate evil, we quickly lose sight of all else and fall in thrall of a suicidal mission. Why? Because Good vs. Evil is simple. There are only two elements, and it's clear which one should win. We can proceed confidently and fearlessly, a hard thing to do in these complex and multifaceted times. I understand that yearning. I miss it too, sometimes.

C’mon, Ishmael. Just tell him. “I don’t think you’re crazy, but-"

Fortunately, we have some things to aid us in talking down the crazed Captain Ahab in our heads. The torch of science has finally begun to illuminate some unmistakable patterns in the tapestry of history. The path to freedom has been hiding in plain sight, and it all comes down to grammar.

Who’s the nazi now?

Little known fact: good and evil are adverbs. They’re not adjectives. We’ve been trying to use them as adjectives all this time, and it’s been hella confusing for our super monkey brains. In case you haven’t visited (awesome grammar/humor site) The Oatmeal in a while: 

adjectives apply to things, and adverbs apply to actions.

People can do good or evil, but they can’t be good or evil, because good and evil are not actual traits. When you say someone is a "good person" what you mean is (deep breath) "the amalgamation of all of the actions I personally know them to have taken, combined with my personal take on those actions, what inspired them, and the impact they had on others according to my special vantage point, leads me to assume that all, or most, of this person's actions will also align with my moral universe, priorities, and sense of my own welfare."

Good. Evil. Simple terms, right? Very uncomplicated. Very black and white. Still, this seems like a dangerous thing to oversimplify.  Especially considering that people aren't static-they change continuously. We're all making moment-to-moment course adjustments our entire lives, trying to exist better, whatever that means. By the time you've said that x is a "good person" you have no idea whether that's even true in the terms of the complicated set of equations you're putting it through.

Here’s a riddle: A Republican kills an abortionist and then immediately saves a gay atheist child from drowning.  Is he a good person or a bad person?

Are you there, God? It’s us, humanity.

Have you locked in your answer?

The correct response is neither. The man is neither good, nor bad. One of his actions was good, and one of them was bad. People are possibilities, not magnets. We don’t maintain constant positive or negative states.

Ninety percent of our stories are desperate attempts to communicate this message to ourselves, but we’re so busy making wagers about Judgment Day to put it together. It’s 2014 and we’re still punishing each other for existing incorrectly while letting criminals who actually hurt people, (often lots and lots of people), entirely off the hook.

Unconvinced? Here are some reasons you should think about changing your mind.

1. It’s the Cause of Nearly All Human Conflict

As we go through the world, unconsciously assessing everything around us so we know how to deal with it,  “good” and “evil” are useful labels to help us decide whether to give people the stinkeye or a high five--right?

We’ve always had a hard time telling our ideological enemies apart from our mortal enemies—we tend to extend less love in general to the people, groups, and ideas which seem the furthest and most opposite to our own way of life, whether or not they’ve ever actually done anything bad to us. And they are less generous with us. We're cautious of each other's intentions. We fear annihilation. Human societies do not have the best treats vs. tricks record in regards to engaging with new, strange people they meet.

Those gay unicorns are going to turn us all into Lisa Frank fans!

So we look at people who are different than us as potential enemies. And they notice all of the crusties we’re shooting them and start thinking of us as enemies. We treat them poorly, because that’s how you treat enemies. They react by treating us poorly. Soon our enemies are doing really very evil things to us, and never mind that we’re doing really evil things to them as well, because we have our proof. Boom. They’re evil. We were right all along. They do evil things because they’re evil people. Not like us. The only reason we do evil things is to prevent evil.

 The sequel to "Mein Kampf": "Deine Schuld"

Yes, there are a handful of folks out there who get their boners drinking human blood and torturing baby seals. As science continues to reveal to us, this largely comes down to genes and mental illness—not some secret evil inside which we can never understand, only kill. And in any case, the rest of us most definitely outnumber the psychopathic megalomaniacs—it only looks like they’re a significant threat because they’re running things, while the rest of us chase our own tails playing the good/evil game. You know, because unlike them, we care about each other’s opinions. 

Which brings us to…

2. It’s a Waste of Time

It is directly due to wasting so much time on the giant, ongoing collective effort to establish whether we, and one another, are definitively good or evil that so many of our most basic problems persist.

Why? Because, like the child king of the Iron Throne, even when society’s edicts are insane and sadistic, the judgments hold. Just look at race. The fact that it’s a whimsically imaginary category has not kept it from having crazy serious consequences in the real world.

You are free to go, Mr. Zimmerman.

So, instead of curing cancer with marijuana, we’re running around hiding it from one another. Instead of deposing the self-annihilating humans who wrote Citizens United (best unironic use of DoubleSpeak in history?) we congratulate them on being so much better than us at getting and holding onto money. Instead of eliminating human trafficking, we unfriend each other for talking too much about human suffering, because who do you think you are? Mother Theresa?

“What, you think you’re better than me? You’re not a good person. You have too much sex to be a good person.“

Just think of all the time we spend worrying about whether we’re good according to other people, and whether other people are quite evil enough for us to treat them poorly and still consider ourselves good. All of the pointless wondering about whether certain of our innate desires and fears make us innately evil, or whether our innately good desires and fears balance them out.

Just think if all of that mental energy were directed towards actual good deeds, instead of the constant struggle for dominance in an imaginary hierarchy.

Besides…

3. We Mostly Get It Wrong Anyway

It takes little more than a commercial with a bunch of cute kids and puppies to lead the unsuspecting masses to buy products made in sweatshops for the sexy, all-American corporations who outsourced our jobs because that down-to-earth politician let them.

It’s almost as though we think that puppies and kids, like happiness, can’t be bought.

“Please don’t buy us!”

We put the “good” stamp on priests, because they think about God all the time and never have sex, ever. That extra trust is part of what gave them the room and opportunity to abuse a bunch of little boys. Who better to take care of innocent, trusting children than the sexually repressed men who claim to know what God wants? But it’s not just priests—one of the things you hear over and over again from the communities and families of people and children who have been raped and murdered, is “I never would have guessed. They seemed like such a nice person.” Just because you've labeled someone "good" in your mind, doesn't mean they are magically incapable of doing anything bad.

But evil? Hoo boy, the evil stamp. Historically, we’ve used it for one reason, and one reason only—as an excuse to stop treating humans like humans. Step one: find a reason to call somebody Evil. Step two: dissociate ourselves from their well-being and humanity. Step three: satisfy the depths of our sadistic curiosity.

“You torture for the good times! We should all admit that.”

There is no excuse for dehumanizing other people. Regardless of what is done to us, we are still accountable for our own behavior, including all repercussions.

Stop using "good" and "evil" as adjectives. It's iffy even to use them as adverbs. After all, "what is good to the spider is evil to the fly" or whatever.

This message is nothing new. It’s in the Old Testament (by their fruits shall ye know them, i.e. don't focus on proclaimed identity, focus on actions), it IS the New Testament (leave the judging to me—you guys just work on loving each other, mmkay?), and the point of Moby Dick, a book severely ahead of its time. The pursuit of a physical embodiment of evil is both pointless and self-destructive. It doesn’t exist. Moby Dick is just a whale. Let’s all do our best to love each other, take accountability for our own actions, and leave the labeling to our gods.

Guide to Propaganda

(The Evil Villain’s) Guide to Propaganda

Not long ago, I watched a movie about polar bears with my dad.

The movie made me sad.

The polar bears are dying, the movie told me. 

In the movie, a mother polar bear

swam

and swam.

Her baby died.

All of the icebergs are melting, the movie told me. 

Here is why it is happening. 

Here are the consequences. 

Please support our cause so the polar bears don’t die anymore.

I thought the movie was good. 

I thought it was convincing. 

I said, “Of course, my dear father, you care about this world we share. 

Of course you care about polar bears. 

Surely you too support this cause:

Surely the sound arguments were also convincing to you.”

He did not see things the same way, quite.

“What PROPAGANDA,” my dad said.

This was confusing to me. 

I thought about his statement.

I think what he meant was, 

“This movie is trying to use my emotions to convince me of its message, but I disagree with its message, so I feel manipulated.”

This is not propaganda.

Yes, propaganda uses emotional responses to influence people.

But so does sound argument! 

Just ask Aristotle. 

You know, the FATHER OF MODERN ARGUMENT.

That dude.

According to him (and most everybody since) there are three elements to good argument:

The speaker’s 

ETHOS,

or whatever makes us listen to them

their expertise

charisma

way with words

authority

reliability

The argument’s 

LOGOS, 

the evidence, 

logic,

 and reason

 that build the speaker’s argument,

and finally, the listener’s 

PATHOS, 

the emotional response

that makes the listener care 

that inspires action

When you combine all three, you get a pretty killer argument.

How do you know an argument was effective? 

1. People listen

2. They come to believe as you do

3. And act on this belief.

So, what is propaganda?

It’s a shortcut.

LOGOS

Let’s say I’m an evil villain 

and I’m trying to control the masses for my evil ends. 

                                                        (not much of a stretch, if you know me.)

I'm trying to decide how best to go about it.

Logos would not be my method of choice.

First of all, it takes a 

looooooooooooooong

time

to persuade someone with LOGOS.

You offer facts that support you, which they might challenge

They’ll probably offer facts that disagree with you

  Which you have to rebut 

your argument has to build upon itself so that it makes sense 

each conclusion must be well supported with evidence 

each point you make should follow logically from the last, no fallacies.

a good LOGOS-BASED argument 

takes a lot of work to build

even when you’re telling the truth and you’re right.

Second, the whole point of a LOGOS-BASED argument is that if it is wrong…

it will fail.

Logos is DESIGNED to REVEAL the TRUTH.

Our entire justice system rests on the infallibility of logos 

(we can PROVE someone innocent or guilty)

All scientific theorems are subject to logos at all times 

(we proceed with the ideas that have PROVEN to work)

We owe 

the majority of our modern understanding of the world around us

our technological advances, our progressive societal morals (like the idea that all men are created equal), and more 

to prizing and prioritizing evidence and reason. 

Logos has served us well.

When it comes to LOGOS, pretty much Right = Right. 

Logos is not the friend of evil. 

It is not the friend of villains and liars and other people in a hurry.

ETHOS

ETHOS is a bit different.

Ethos is supposed to give people credit for knowing a lot, 

for being good at what they do, 

for being worth listening to. 

But we all know people are fallible, buyable, selfish. 

We know they can be blackmailed and bargained with. 

We know they cheat, scheme and lie. 

There are a lot of ways that I, 

as an evil villain, 

can bend ethos to my ends.

FOR EXAMPLE:

I can convince or force someone with a lot of ethos to speak for a cause they don’t actually believe in. 

Monsanto pays scientists to “prove” specific things about their products. The tobacco industry used to buy doctors until we made them stop.

I can create a disreputable source and 

camouflage it as the kind of source that

supports its arguments with logos.

Fox News pulls this off pretty successfully. 

I could even build up a cult of personality where anything I say, my followers will accept as true, regardless of how obvious the lies. 

The current winner at this particular game is the Great Leader of North Korea, who runs a whole country full of people starving, slaving, and suffering who nonetheless worship him rabidly and single-mindedly.

With ETHOS, Right could = Right, but all too often, Might = Right. I would definitely use ethos if I were an evil villain...

PATHOS

…but mostly, I would use PATHOS. 

PATHOS is the easiest to manipulate of all.

Listen to the following phrases:

“I’m so mad I can’t think straight!”

“It was a crime of passion.”

“He’s riling them up into an angry mob”

“Come on, there’s nothing to cry about.”

“Flattery will get you everywhere with me.”

“Love is blinding you.”

It’s no secret that our emotions and our logical abilities do not necessarily go hand in hand. In fact, it’s well understood that when our emotions are 

running high, 

our ability to reason is 

running 

low.

We’re more likely to act out of an impulsive, illogical place than a logical place. 

How often do we fail to do something that we logically know will benefit us? 

Like: exercise,  eat right,   save money,   bite our tongues

How many times do we do something that we know will hurt us because we’re in some kind of emotional state? 

Like: cheat on a lover,  punch a wall,   

eat an entire tub of ice cream after a breakup,   say something cruel

We can barely control ourselves when it comes to emotions! 

So you can only imagine that a supervillain 

with a good understanding of emotions

and no concern for your welfare or autonomy

could easily learn to control you this way!

With PATHOS, I can say almost anything I want, it doesn’t even have to be true. Because once I’ve got you REACTING you stop THINKING.

I can get you angry using a SCAPEGOAT. I can point to things you don’t like and then tell you who to blame for it. (It’s the immigrants’ fault. It’s because of the gays. It’s all of those people on welfare. No, not you: the black ones.) 

It doesn’t matter whether there is any evidence at all supporting my claim. 

People like to have a clear and easy target for their anger. 

The easiest target to choose is someone they already have negative feelings towards, because they’re less likely to question it.

Just ask Hitler.

I can get you scared using emotionally loaded catchphrases and vague, unsubstantiated threats: (Communist. Socialist. Godless. Anti-american. Unpatriotic. The liberal agenda. It’ll bring about the destruction of our country. It’s a threat to the family.)

It doesn’t matter whether there is any evidence to support my threats.

It doesn’t matter whether the accusations make any sense at all.

She’s a witch because she floats! She’ll curse you! Burn her!

You’re a traitor if you don’t tell us what your neighbors are doing!

Weapons of mass destruction!

If I tell you your FAMILY is THREATENED and your BELIEFS are UNDER ATTACK and GOD and COUNTRY and LIBERTY ERMAGERD DO SOMETHING!!!, 

9 times out of 10

I can get you to stop using your head 

as anything but a blunt weapon.

Truth or lies, sense or nonsense, good or evil, if I can get you angry or scared enough, you’ll do what I want.

With pathos, SPITE = RIGHT. FIGHT/FLIGHT = RIGHT.  

PATHOS VS. PROPAGANDA

Propaganda, by definition, uses pathos more than ethos, and uses logos barely or not at all.  Pathos is the quickest way to get people to do what you want. Ethos can be quick too, sometimes, but logos is slowwwww.

But even if you think you’ve identified propaganda, it’s just a tool. It is not inherently evil.

When something tugs on your heart-strings

It may be propaganda

It’s certainly pathos

But it’s not necessarily wrong

It depends on what they’re doing with the pathos.

1. Are they trying to rile you up past the point of reason?

2. Are the emotions they’re arousing directly connected to the issue at hand?

3. Are your emotions being used to underline the facts presented, or to get you to gloss over/ignore the facts?

4. What actions is the speaker trying to inspire by making you feel this way?

5. Will those actions benefit you? Others? Your country? 

6. Who else will those actions benefit?

7. How thoroughly have they checked their facts?

8. Is someone paying them to say this?

The polar bear movie checks out. 

It's primarily logos, 

backed by significant ethos, and when 

pathos is used (feeling bad about the polar bears) 

it is directly connected to the issue at hand 

and apparently necessary 

to inspire any kind of concern for the situation.

Public Morality

This is a different format and slant than previous posts to this blog, but in the same spirit of the rest of the posts, I hope that this essay communicates my view respectfully to both those who already agree with me and those who are predisposed disagree with me. I also hope the latter group will communicate back through the comments section. What did I overgeneralize or misinterpret? What resonated? Is there common ground that I missed?

The Humanist Counterbalance to Freedom

The “Land of the Free, Home of the Brave” prides itself on liberty above almost all else—after all, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are each citizen’s native rights, as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

That phrase is perfect, because happiness is such a subjective thing that the pursuit of it really ought to be left to each individual. There is no one vision of paradise that would be appealing to every single person on the planet. And yet, there continue to be quite a few people out there who think they know what’s best for everybody else. Many of them sincerely want others to be happy. And often, they are right! Often the advice they give would make a number of people happier, when their own choices are making them unhappy.

But it's likely these same people don’t always follow the good advice of others, even when they know it will benefit them. Why? Because sometimes we just feel like exercising our agency instead. Because we can. And that feels good, even if some of the consequences don’t. Typically when we’re ready to change (or when the consequences start hurting enough), we change. Agency allows us to do this at our own rate and on our own terms. The great gift of freedom: becoming whoever we want to be, whenever we feel like it.

But obviously we’re not operating in a vacuum. We share space with each other, we coexist, we depend on each other for survival. For this reason, most of us agree that certain things merit reducing or removing a certain amount of freedom. Ideally not our own freedom--but we subject ourselves to that possibility in order to enjoy the benefits of living in a community and a society. For example, if one of us kills another of us, this certainly justifies the removal of autonomy from that person, at least until we can be safely assured they will not go right back out and do it again. Most of us want to feel secure; basic safety is one thing that we value over freedom, to different degrees.

What else justifies the removal of freedom? According to Noam Chomsky’s recent interview explaining his brand of anarchism, not much. “The burden of proof for anyone in a position of power and authority lies on them.  Their authority is not self-justifying.  They have to give a reason for it, a justification.  And if they can’t justify that authority and power and control, which is the usual case, then the authority ought to be dismantled and replaced by something more free and just.” In other words—why would you let anyone else be in charge of you unless they can prove that it’s better for you and everyone else if we keep it that way?

Well, the problem is, many of us believe very strongly that we have the absolute answer to peace and happiness. If only we could convince/coerce/force others to live according to our plan of happiness and peace, everything would be just perfect. Hitler tried it. He knew exactly what happiness looked like for his people, and he attempted to enact that view in the world. The crusades were a mass attempt to force everyone to be happy and peaceful in a very specific way. A great many laws exist in Iran to make sure that people only demonstrate their peace and happiness the way that one group thinks it ought to be expressed. When we see extreme examples like this, we can all agree: freedom is better than enforced conformity, no matter how pretty the ideal that conformity is striving for.

Hence, humanistic laws: laws that balance the desires of the majority against the rights of the minority. Laws based on who will benefit or suffer the most, rather than who has the most power or who is speaking the loudest. Laws which privilege the liberty and even the personal dignity of the individual over the desires of the majority. Our laws aren’t purely democratic: we’ve set ourselves up so that even if most of us want to gang up on someone and take away their rights, the constitution doesn’t allow it. One of the biggest struggles of the last century has been expanding the definition of “us”: it used to mean “us rich white men not of Italian, Irish, or Eastern European descent” and now it is a more genuine “us,” though it still excludes (and seeks to exclude) certain groups, including non-citizens, people of different sexual preferences, and people who have broken certain laws (including certain victimless crimes, and excluding certain crimes which have extraordinary numbers of victims).

Tolerating vs. Coexisting

A few years ago, I spent a day in Salt Lake City with a good friend of mine. I hadn’t seen him since high school, but just like I remembered, he had a way of making me feel loved and valued. It was a great day. We acted like high schoolers, hanging out in the park and talking, getting milkshakes, walking around (okay, maybe that's just Mormon high schoolers).

I told him all about how much happier, more secure, and more open-hearted I had been since leaving the LDS church. He listened with respect and apparent understanding, and I showed the same respect and loving acceptance towards his decision to remain a faithful member. I started getting warm fuzzies. We're communicating with each other across our differences, I thought happily. We're coexisting. This is great. He really listened when I told him I am happier now than I was before. He's actually respecting my autonomy and my lifestyle.

At the end of the night, those fuzzies disappeared in an instant as I heard him say the phrase, "I don't want you to take this the wrong way, Rachel, but…" and he handed me a Book of Mormon. "I was hoping you might read this for me? And pray about it?"

A wave of frustration washed over me. I tried to calmly explain why this was so offensive, and he listened with a patient smile. I told him I understood that the impulse to keep pushing his ideas on me was a loving one, but despite this, it is disrespectful and implies a highly conditional love to continue to insist I change. I had clearly stated that I was not in the market for a new belief system, and furthermore, he knew for a fact that I had already tested out his ideology and decided it wasn't for me.

This friend was certainly “tolerating” my presence as an agnostic. He didn’t treat me as sub-human. He didn’t hurt me or snub me. And that’s pretty much what tolerance amounts to: putting up with something you’d rather not have to put up with. He had little interest in changing his mind about me—seeing me as a whole and happy person, rather than someone missing the point of life. 

Coexisting involves more mutual respect and humility than tolerance does. Coexisting means allowing others to prosper in whatever way they see fit, and in return, being allowed to prosper in whatever way you see fit. Instead of trying to change each other into someone who fits our personal image of what is Right, we should refocus our efforts on making space for others to flourish into whatever manifestation of humanity they should choose. Let our own lives reflect our ideals of the world; let us know the best ideals by their fruits, instead of their volume, popularity, or aggressiveness.

The Ex

Imagine you were with a man for many years. Imagine at some point you decided to divorce him, citing irreconcilable differences. Suppose you parted on good terms, he fully supported you setting off on your own, and all was well. Imagine that despite this, many of his friends are very invested in getting the two of you back together. They don't believe you that he was okay with the split; they don't believe you that you're happier since the split. Some of them even think you're an evil person for divorcing your Ex. "Did he tell you that?" you ask them, and they say "He's too nice to say that. But you should be ashamed of yourself!" Or they say, "Yes, he did tell me that!" but all they can show you to prove it is something another friend claims he said--a friend who says a lot of messed up things that don't sound like your Ex at all.

You don't mind hanging out with your Ex's friends still--some of them are pretty cool about the divorce--but you start to avoid the ones who get up in arms about it, or try to convince you to reunite every single time they see you, or who clearly don't consider you part of the group now that you're not with your Ex anymore. But some of them don't stop there.

"Your Ex didn't like it when you drank. You shouldn't drink," they say. "You shouldn't date women," they say. "What would your Ex say!" They don't seem to understand that what your Ex thinks doesn't really matter to you anymore--and they don't believe you that any time you check in with your Ex, all is well. Telling them to mind their business doesn't affect them at all. "I'm his good good friend!" they say. "It's my duty to tell you these things." ("I promise I didn't tell them to act this way," he always says apologetically when the two of you talk).

I’m sure I’m not the only ex-Christian to feel this way. Believe it or not, I’m in touch with my own concept of the divine, and I’m not extremely interested in outside interpretations of what he or she or it wants for me. I’ll listen politely to your opinion, share mine, and then hopefully we can both be done with it. If you said something poignant, I’ll think about it more. Hopefully the same applies vice versa. But being pushy about it isn’t going to change my mind. And it’s certainly not going to influence me to get back together with my Ex.

It's long been a struggle of mine to state my problem with organized religion--not because it's hard to pinpoint, but because it's important to me that I state it in a way which makes it clear my problem is not with the beliefs, the people who hold them, or their personal practice of those beliefs. I understand that some people want to put more faith in God than in science; I don't agree but I see how someone's life could take them in that direction. I myself once sincerely believed there was no nobler cause than being a follower of God, no better way to fight for humanity.

Respecting Other’s Viewpoints 101

When I was seventeen I participated in the Congress-Bundestag Youth Exchange year to Germany. As part of my training to visit another culture, I was taught that respecting other people's culture and opinions means that even though my traditions make much more sense to me and often seem innately superior, I’m here to learn about others. Be open to trying new things, they told me. Practice your listening skills--you're not just here to tell people about your awesome culture; you're here to learn amazing things from theirs. Open your mind. They've been doing things this way for a while--something must be working for them. Sometimes your way actually is better, and sometimes theirs is. You'll never get anywhere with another person if you assume you're right about everything.

Several amazing conversations and experiences later, I was heading back to the United States with a new take on the world, reflecting deeply on my long-held faith. After two years of deliberation, I left the church of my youth. Over the years, this decision has drastically changed my views on the ethics of regulating public morality. I strongly believe that even my sixteen year old self, faith unshaken, would agree that there are certain pitfalls that should be avoided.

Trading Autonomy

There are many religious people, especially those in the so-called religious right, who actively advocate the removal of autonomy in the name of public morality, though the same people will often oppose it in any other sphere. For example: they don’t believe that corporations should be regulated or restricted, they don’t believe in stricter gun laws, and they don’t think that giant sodas should be eliminated; but they do believe in restricting a woman’s choices when she’s pregnant, restricting people’s choices in marital partners, and restricting people’s choices in entertainment and recreation.

There are non-believers who think the religious support restrictive morality laws out of fear that they will be punished if they don't. Allowing others to commit sins, after all, might be seen as tantamount to telling God that even if you personally don't want to commit sins, you're pretty much okay with other people sinning. Doesn't that mean you're supporting the sin?

Well, no. It means that you're supporting their right to decide to sin or not, to subject themselves to God's judgment or not. You're allowing them the autonomy God gave them in the first place, when they were born on this planet.

As a former Mormon, I don't think fear is the primary motivation. I think most religious people genuinely believe they're doing others a favor by removing the option to commit certain grievous sins. It's like putting up a caution fence to protect people from dangers to their spirituality, and to spare them the painful punishments that follow violations of spiritual law. It's an extension of evangelism, of trying to help others be happy by sharing the truth with them. But a fence, even a fence designed to protect (like a baby gate, like a fenced backyard for a dog) is a restriction of autonomy. Fear or protectiveness, you're still treating your fellow adults like babies or dogs, creatures incapable of making good decisions on their own.

Take a look at the message you send by restricting autonomy based on personally perceived spiritual dangers but not universally recognized physical dangers:

Public shootings all over America don't merit even the slightest loss of autonomy on the part of gun owners. Evidence (and common sense) suggest that making guns harder to get hold of makes it harder for mentally unstable people to kill lots of innocent people at once. But innocent lives at risk do not merit restriction of autonomy.

What merits a loss of autonomy is two adults who love each other a lot and want to make a lifelong commitment to one another. Why? Because children might see them expressing that autonomy and express their own autonomy. The possibility of further autonomy being exercised to think and act differently than you do is enough grounds to restrict autonomy.

If someone refuses to give his workers adequate healthcare and they die left and right, he's just exercising his autonomy (and business acumen.) Making people pay a fair minimum wage, or put safety features in their factories to make sure workers won't get burned alive if there's ever a fire, making them pay compensation if they didn't take proper precautions to prevent injury to their workers--these kinds of things are unjustifiable restrictions of autonomy.

But if a woman believes the clump of cells in her belly has yet to pluck a soul from the great cosmic plasma, if this woman does something to make sure the cells don't someday become a real, live, person, who might someday be burned to death in a factory, this merits a loss of autonomy. We need to stop her from hurting her own child because we know better and we want to prevent her from suffering. We need to save that baby that she doesn't believe is a baby yet because we believe it and our belief is stronger and more worthy than her autonomy.

There is a very clear difference between protecting actual human beings from immediate harm, and protecting potential souls (or actual beings) from potential harm (or spiritual harm). Yes, as non-believers we fully understand that religious people don't think the souls or the harm are potential or imaginary. That’s fine. I applaud your conviction. But once again: a conviction is something that isn’t generally agreed upon, or it would be a fact, not a belief.

When believers create legal consequences to their own spiritual laws, it's like they're saying, "You know what? We'll just skip the whole 'You make the choice, God punishes you for the choice after you die' part of God's plan. If we let you take the risk, others might think it's okay to take the risk, and then you'll all go to hell!"

To which bewildered non-believers reply: "Well…isn't that why you're always trying to tell other people about your religion? So they can come to realize what a wonderful thing it is, and how right you are, and want to choose your lifestyle for themselves? Isn't the other way of trying to keep the country moral kind of like kidnapping someone and hoping they'll get Stockholm Syndrome?”

It should be clear to the Christian right by now that it's not working…people still just want to be free.

What Freedom of Religion Looks Like

Freedom of religion, carried to its logical conclusion, is Iraq. It's Iran. Such countries represent freedom of religion unfettered by humanism, by the protection of minority groups. If your religion happens to be prevalent, you can live all of your beliefs, all the time. Even if one of your beliefs is that it's okay to rape women. Even if one of your beliefs is that it's okay to force other people to follow your god's laws. If your god says that women should cover up their entire bodies lest they make a man unable to stop himself from raping you, which he'd probably feel sort of bad about that later, which would suck (for him)…women, you'd better cover up. Disagree? Too bad. Your autonomy is not as important as the majority's complete religious freedom.

Be careful when you're trying to defend religious freedom that you mean "the freedom to believe whatever you like," rather than "the freedom to show God how much we believe in him by making his laws our country's laws." Make sure you don't mean "the freedom to remove the autonomy of others so that they won't commit sins against my God."

The fear of religious people that marriage equality would restrict their autonomy is not unfounded. Right now their autonomy not only allows them to believe that homosexuals are dirty and inferior, it allows them by law to treat these individuals as though they are lesser in the sight of God. But just as civil rights removed people's autonomy to treat African Americans as though they were animals with no souls,  (but not their autonomy to believe it despite all evidence to the contrary), marriage equality may, in fact, remove some of their autonomy to act out their belief in the public arena, to harm or restrict other people according to that belief. Yes, it will take away the "right" of religious people to determine which segments of the population deserve less autonomy and dignity than they do.

But this doesn’t mean the downfall of society is on the way. Didn’t happen when we allowed interracial marriage, won’t happen when we allow homosexual marriage. If you look at nearly any religious text, if you look at nearly any moment in history, or any country ruled by a religious tyrant, you’ll find that God (and/or the end of the world, as brought about by disobeying Him) can be claimed to endorse all kinds of practices that involve harming or restricting the autonomy of others. People justify all kinds of crimes against humanity using God's will and God's law. This is part of the reason we use the constitution, not the Bible, to make decisions about which laws are just.

I'm not saying all organized religion is bad. Although the idea of God's will is a powerful force and many members of organized religion would enthusiastically advocate theocratic government (according to their personal God, of course--not just any god), many other adherents do choose to prioritize treating others better over using the laws to punish people they don't agree with.  The core message of most of these texts is Love and Service. Many members of organized religions do a really good job of remembering that.

But there are those who believe that the best type of discipleship is the kind which declares itself constantly at all times without discretion, respect, or diplomacy, the kind which seeks to understand others only to show them how they are wrong; which listens only to see how to persuade. This type of disciple of God represents a real and present danger to the harmony of communities, because such people are far more interested in a homogenous community than a peaceful or just one. They would rather the community reflect their own personal values than that it embrace everyone's personal values all at once. Such ideology can easily lead to coercion or force, as it is already dangerously close to the edge of that slippery slope, “the ends justify the means.”

In Conclusion

Preventing the cruel or unfair treatment of others, and striving always to protect their autonomy and good health and ensure they have the same range of opportunities and options we would want--these should be our guiding principles in deciding which removals of autonomy are necessary and justified. It is not the job of a country's civil laws to codify a particular idea of morality. It is the job of a country's laws to protect the ability of each individual to practice his/her own idea of morality--weighing that autonomy always against clear and immediate costs to autonomy and safety of others.

To all readers, but my Christian friends especially, I ask you to please remember the true reason for this country's religious freedom, and to stop pushing for more freedom to restrict the moral autonomy of others. Maybe atheists, agnostics, gays, and pro-choicers are wrong, but that's between us and God, your God, if you like—He gave us our autonomy for the same reason he gave you yours. Stop trying to shepherd and parent us. Stop trying to make everybody else live by your personal ideals of right and wrong. We're more likely to see the merits of your morality if you stop acting like the only way to get people to agree is through force.