The primary cause of the Civil War was slavery. This is clear from the pronouncements of all the leaders of that time. Lincoln made it emphatically clear in his Second Inaugural Address when he said: “One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war.” The arguments made today by right-wing apologists for the Southern cause are spurious at best.
What is not fully understood is the reason why slavery was so important a ground for conflict between the North and the South. It was not simply racial bigotry that caused the South to so fervently support the institution of slavery. It was money and greed. Slaves were considered property, and a very large percentage of the wealth of southern planters was tied-up in slaves. To the southerners, abolition of slavery meant abolition of much of their fortune. In addition, refusal of the government to allow the expansion of slavery to the western part of the country meant a stark restriction on where and to whom slave holders could sell their slaves. Lincoln said: “To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.”
The powerful hatred between North and South was generated by the fear in the South that the North planned to take away a very large part of southern treasure. For this, the southerners were willing to fight to the death.
It is immaterial that many of the common southern soldiers did not own slaves. Like everyone today who wishes to become more affluent, they looked upon slavery as a way to gain riches, and considered the institution of slavery to be a proper capitalist endeavor.
Even the southern slave holders knew that slavery was wrong. They clung to it because of its importance to their economy. They could not simply free their slaves without giving-up much of their wealth. Those few who did free their slaves showed a lot of courage and humanity.
Slavery was, after all, a gigantic horror. In my mind it is second only to the Nazi Holocaust in evil. Regardless of whether slave traders and slave owners thought that Black people were inferior, they knew that they were human beings and not just animals. Many felt deep pangs of conscience at the exploitation of their fellow men, and some people, like the Englishman Wilberforce and the American William Lloyd Garrison, could not tolerate such evil.
The legacy of slavery today is a divided America. It is not just divided between whites and blacks. It is divided between rich and poor, northerners and southerners, liberals and conservatives. It is no coincidence that the most conservative parts of America are in the South where slavery was prevalent, or that the most liberal areas are in the North where abolitionism prevailed. The legacy of racial intolerance which once belonged to southern Democrats called “Dixiecrats,” now belongs to southern racists called Republicans or Tea Partiers. They continue to recite all of the old slogans and canards of states’ rights, smaller government, and freedom from governmental interference, but what they really want is the right to continue their discrimination against and mistreatment of African Americans. They deeply resent the fact that some of their tax dollars are spent to aid poor Black people, and that the government is the main enforcer of the civil rights of Blacks.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Easter
It is Christian doctrine that Jesus died as a sacrifice for man. The idea is that “Original Sin” was committed by Adam and Eve, and that the stain of that sin was upon every human being born thereafter. Thus, even though subsequent humans did not commit the original sin, they were guilty of it as well as other sins. Christ came to save man from original sin and all other sin, and to provide a means for man to achieve everlasting life in heaven. In order to save man, Christ had to perform a sacrifice. Jesus was God, so he performed a sacrifice to himself. The sacrifice was a human sacrifice of the most bestial and agonizing kind, a painfully slow death by suffocation on a cross.
One has to wonder why this omnipotent, all-loving, almighty God couldn’t have simply forgiven all men of sin without this orgy of torment? Why did he have to be the scapegoat for all human beings and go through this horrendous nightmare of torture in order to provide salvation? The answer is that the writers of the Bible lived in a benighted and barbaric time when this was thought to be the right way for the gods to behave.
I confess, I simply do not understand how rational people living today can accept such nonsense as a fundamental part of their religion.
The resurrection of Jesus from the dead has been called the basis for all Christianity. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:13-14: “But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.” The celebration of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is the most important date on the Catholics’ liturgical calendar. It is also the concoction of Paul and other writers who came long after Jesus died.
Scholars use various methods of textual criticism, including language and style, to determine if text is authentic or was added to the original gospel at a later time. There are many things on which they agree. Scholars agree that Jesus did not predict his own resurrection from the dead or his second coming. The quotations in the Bible in which he makes such a prediction (e.g. Mark 8:31) are considered to be later additions.
Moreover, the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection are so contradictory and improbable that the whole story has to be dismissed as fiction. Matthew says that the day following Jesus crucifixion Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to the tomb (Matt 28:2), but Mark says that the two Marys and Salome went (Mark 16:1). Luke writes that Mary Magdalene went with Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and other women (Luke 24:10). Matthew says that the stone was removed by an angel at the time the women arrived at Jesus’ tomb (Matt. 28:2), but Mark and Luke say it had already been removed (Mark 16:2-4, Luke 24:1-2). Matthew says that when the women arrived, the angel was outside the tomb (Matt 28:2), but Mark says the angel was inside the tomb (Mark 16:5) and Luke says there were two men inside the tomb (Luke 24:4).
In Matthew the two women rush from the tomb to tell the disciples (Matt 28:8-9), but Mark says that they said nothing to anyone (Mark 16:8). Luke says that they reported the story to the disciples (Luke 24:9-11). John tells a very different story from the others (John 20:1-18). Later post-resurrection stories are also in conflict (compare Matt 28:16-20 with Luke 24:13-53, and John 20:19).
The first Gospel written was the Gospel of Mark. Scholars can tell that the whole story of the resurrection of Jesus in Mark was added to the Gospel by somebody else long after the original version was written. Originally, the Gospel of Mark ended at Chapter 16:8. That is the part where the women find the empty tomb and are told by a “young man” that Jesus has risen. The part of the Gospel after that, in which Jesus appears to various people, was added by later writers who wanted to supply authenticity to the myth of Jesus’ resurrection. As Professor Bart D. Ehrman of the University of North Carolina says: “These verses [Mark 16:9-20] are absent from our two oldest and best manuscripts of Mark’s Gospel, along with other important witnesses; the transition between this passage and the one preceding it is hard to understand….and there are a large number of words and phrases in the passage that are not found elsewhere in Mark.”141
If you consider the fact that the Gospels of Mathew and Luke were based on the gospel of Mark, then it becomes clear that the Gospels’ story of Jesus’ resurrection is pure myth that was made-up long after the Gospels were written. The earliest Christian scriptures were the Epistles of Paul, yet Paul does not give any details about Jesus’ resurrection other than referring to it (See Rom. 6:5, 1 Cor. 15:13).
The early Christians observed Jesus’ resurrection from the dead as a Passover celebration. Thus, in Asia Minor and other places, it was not celebrated on a Sunday. It was celebrated on whatever day the Passover occurred. Around 154 AD the Christians in Rome began celebrating it on Sunday because Sunday was the Christians’ day of worship. When Rome became the seat of the Pope, the Church made Sunday the official day for the celebration of the resurrection. The day was later named “Easter” after Eostre, the Saxon goddess whose feast was celebrated at the Spring equinox.142
The idea of resurrection by a god did not begin with Jesus. Lots of gods arose from the dead in ancient times. Among them are Mithra, Attis, Dionysus, Osiris, Tammuz, Ishtar, Adonis, Persephone, Semele, Heracles (or Herakles), and Melqart. Some claim Buddah was resurrected from the dead.
When my daughter was 5 years old I asked her if she believed in Jesus. She said yes. I asked if she believed that Jesus was God. She said yes. I asked her if she believed that Jesus was crucified. She said yes. I then asked her if she believed that Jesus rose again from the dead. She said: "No way!"
One has to wonder why this omnipotent, all-loving, almighty God couldn’t have simply forgiven all men of sin without this orgy of torment? Why did he have to be the scapegoat for all human beings and go through this horrendous nightmare of torture in order to provide salvation? The answer is that the writers of the Bible lived in a benighted and barbaric time when this was thought to be the right way for the gods to behave.
I confess, I simply do not understand how rational people living today can accept such nonsense as a fundamental part of their religion.
The resurrection of Jesus from the dead has been called the basis for all Christianity. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:13-14: “But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.” The celebration of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is the most important date on the Catholics’ liturgical calendar. It is also the concoction of Paul and other writers who came long after Jesus died.
Scholars use various methods of textual criticism, including language and style, to determine if text is authentic or was added to the original gospel at a later time. There are many things on which they agree. Scholars agree that Jesus did not predict his own resurrection from the dead or his second coming. The quotations in the Bible in which he makes such a prediction (e.g. Mark 8:31) are considered to be later additions.
Moreover, the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection are so contradictory and improbable that the whole story has to be dismissed as fiction. Matthew says that the day following Jesus crucifixion Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to the tomb (Matt 28:2), but Mark says that the two Marys and Salome went (Mark 16:1). Luke writes that Mary Magdalene went with Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and other women (Luke 24:10). Matthew says that the stone was removed by an angel at the time the women arrived at Jesus’ tomb (Matt. 28:2), but Mark and Luke say it had already been removed (Mark 16:2-4, Luke 24:1-2). Matthew says that when the women arrived, the angel was outside the tomb (Matt 28:2), but Mark says the angel was inside the tomb (Mark 16:5) and Luke says there were two men inside the tomb (Luke 24:4).
In Matthew the two women rush from the tomb to tell the disciples (Matt 28:8-9), but Mark says that they said nothing to anyone (Mark 16:8). Luke says that they reported the story to the disciples (Luke 24:9-11). John tells a very different story from the others (John 20:1-18). Later post-resurrection stories are also in conflict (compare Matt 28:16-20 with Luke 24:13-53, and John 20:19).
The first Gospel written was the Gospel of Mark. Scholars can tell that the whole story of the resurrection of Jesus in Mark was added to the Gospel by somebody else long after the original version was written. Originally, the Gospel of Mark ended at Chapter 16:8. That is the part where the women find the empty tomb and are told by a “young man” that Jesus has risen. The part of the Gospel after that, in which Jesus appears to various people, was added by later writers who wanted to supply authenticity to the myth of Jesus’ resurrection. As Professor Bart D. Ehrman of the University of North Carolina says: “These verses [Mark 16:9-20] are absent from our two oldest and best manuscripts of Mark’s Gospel, along with other important witnesses; the transition between this passage and the one preceding it is hard to understand….and there are a large number of words and phrases in the passage that are not found elsewhere in Mark.”141
If you consider the fact that the Gospels of Mathew and Luke were based on the gospel of Mark, then it becomes clear that the Gospels’ story of Jesus’ resurrection is pure myth that was made-up long after the Gospels were written. The earliest Christian scriptures were the Epistles of Paul, yet Paul does not give any details about Jesus’ resurrection other than referring to it (See Rom. 6:5, 1 Cor. 15:13).
The early Christians observed Jesus’ resurrection from the dead as a Passover celebration. Thus, in Asia Minor and other places, it was not celebrated on a Sunday. It was celebrated on whatever day the Passover occurred. Around 154 AD the Christians in Rome began celebrating it on Sunday because Sunday was the Christians’ day of worship. When Rome became the seat of the Pope, the Church made Sunday the official day for the celebration of the resurrection. The day was later named “Easter” after Eostre, the Saxon goddess whose feast was celebrated at the Spring equinox.142
The idea of resurrection by a god did not begin with Jesus. Lots of gods arose from the dead in ancient times. Among them are Mithra, Attis, Dionysus, Osiris, Tammuz, Ishtar, Adonis, Persephone, Semele, Heracles (or Herakles), and Melqart. Some claim Buddah was resurrected from the dead.
When my daughter was 5 years old I asked her if she believed in Jesus. She said yes. I asked if she believed that Jesus was God. She said yes. I asked her if she believed that Jesus was crucified. She said yes. I then asked her if she believed that Jesus rose again from the dead. She said: "No way!"
Saturday, April 16, 2011
THE HOLOCAUST
With Passover approaching on April 19, I choose to remember the millions of Jews who died in the Holocaust. As a gentile, the Holocaust has always presented a serious problem for me. How could a modern, culturally rich, Christian nation carry-out such a monstrous act of evil? With all of the crimes of man, including the genocides committed in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, and other places, and the atrocities committed in every war, I still see the Holocaust as a horror unmatched in the history of human evil. It should never be compared to other acts of evil.
Emil L. Fackenheim, in his book, "To Mend the World," said: “To link Auschwitz with Hiroshima is not to deepen or widen one’s concern with humanity and its future. It is to evade the import of Auschwitz and Hiroshima alike.” The same can be said of all of the other cataclysms suffered by humanity. Each is a separate occurrence of evil.
The history of the Jews, beginning with the conquest of Israel and banishment of Jews by the Romans, is one long sorrowful testament to man’s inhumanity. The Nazis did not invent the genocide of the Jews. They merely took it to new depths of horrendous magnitude. Over the centuries before the Holocaust, the Jews experienced repeated pogroms and persecutions by Europeans and Arabs. Around the time when Columbus was sailing to America, the rulers of Spain were expelling all of the Jews from their realm. Many reasons are given for this massive persecution, but no explanation can begin to justify such evil.
One frequently hears people compare things to the Holocaust. The right-wing anti-abortionists like to say that abortion is the same as the Holocaust. Such unthinking speech is morally abhorrent. How can any person compare the elimination of a not-yet-conscious, not-yet-thinking, not-yet-feeling embryo to the deliberate murder of grown, thinking, feeling human beings? At Auschwitz and other camps the Nazis used to save time and trouble by throwing live babies and small children into the ovens without gassing them first. If you cannot identify the distinction between that and abortion, you are morally numb.
The excuse given by the Christian Nazis and Fascists for persecution of the Jews was usually that they were: “Christ Killers.” It is a revoltingly stupid claim. Jesus of Nazareth was killed by the Romans, yet nobody has ever wanted to exterminate the Italians. Even if it had been the Jews who killed Jesus (himself a Jew), why blame it on Jewish descendents living thousands of years later?
According to the Bible, Jesus had brothers and sisters. We must assume that many of the descendents of these brothers and sisters were Jews, and that millions of Twentieth Century Jews in Europe had the blood of Jesus’ family in them. The Christians who marched Jews into the gas chambers of Auschwitz and other camps were actually murdering the descendents of Joseph, Mary, and the family of Jesus.
As a gentile, I am able to find something valuable in the teaching of Emile Fackenheim. He said “To grasp the Holocaust whole-of-horror is not to comprehend or transcend it, but rather, to say no to it, or resist it.” Fackenheim said that 613 commandments were given on Mt. Sinai. He offered a 614th commandment. In effect, he said that if we forget, or minimize, or diminish the importance of the Holocaust, if gentiles engage in anti-Semitism, if Jews give-up their beliefs and culture because of the Holocaust, they will be letting Hitler gain a form of victory. He said that we must not let Hitler win.
I may not share the beliefs of religious Jews, but by dedicating my life to tolerance and brotherhood, I can join in the crusade to defeat Hitler and his progeny.
Emil L. Fackenheim, in his book, "To Mend the World," said: “To link Auschwitz with Hiroshima is not to deepen or widen one’s concern with humanity and its future. It is to evade the import of Auschwitz and Hiroshima alike.” The same can be said of all of the other cataclysms suffered by humanity. Each is a separate occurrence of evil.
The history of the Jews, beginning with the conquest of Israel and banishment of Jews by the Romans, is one long sorrowful testament to man’s inhumanity. The Nazis did not invent the genocide of the Jews. They merely took it to new depths of horrendous magnitude. Over the centuries before the Holocaust, the Jews experienced repeated pogroms and persecutions by Europeans and Arabs. Around the time when Columbus was sailing to America, the rulers of Spain were expelling all of the Jews from their realm. Many reasons are given for this massive persecution, but no explanation can begin to justify such evil.
One frequently hears people compare things to the Holocaust. The right-wing anti-abortionists like to say that abortion is the same as the Holocaust. Such unthinking speech is morally abhorrent. How can any person compare the elimination of a not-yet-conscious, not-yet-thinking, not-yet-feeling embryo to the deliberate murder of grown, thinking, feeling human beings? At Auschwitz and other camps the Nazis used to save time and trouble by throwing live babies and small children into the ovens without gassing them first. If you cannot identify the distinction between that and abortion, you are morally numb.
The excuse given by the Christian Nazis and Fascists for persecution of the Jews was usually that they were: “Christ Killers.” It is a revoltingly stupid claim. Jesus of Nazareth was killed by the Romans, yet nobody has ever wanted to exterminate the Italians. Even if it had been the Jews who killed Jesus (himself a Jew), why blame it on Jewish descendents living thousands of years later?
According to the Bible, Jesus had brothers and sisters. We must assume that many of the descendents of these brothers and sisters were Jews, and that millions of Twentieth Century Jews in Europe had the blood of Jesus’ family in them. The Christians who marched Jews into the gas chambers of Auschwitz and other camps were actually murdering the descendents of Joseph, Mary, and the family of Jesus.
As a gentile, I am able to find something valuable in the teaching of Emile Fackenheim. He said “To grasp the Holocaust whole-of-horror is not to comprehend or transcend it, but rather, to say no to it, or resist it.” Fackenheim said that 613 commandments were given on Mt. Sinai. He offered a 614th commandment. In effect, he said that if we forget, or minimize, or diminish the importance of the Holocaust, if gentiles engage in anti-Semitism, if Jews give-up their beliefs and culture because of the Holocaust, they will be letting Hitler gain a form of victory. He said that we must not let Hitler win.
I may not share the beliefs of religious Jews, but by dedicating my life to tolerance and brotherhood, I can join in the crusade to defeat Hitler and his progeny.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
The Tea Party Wanted a Shutdown
If there had been a governmental shutdown, you could blame it on the right-wing Tea Partiers in Congress. While they may not constitute a majority of the Republicans in the House of Representatives, they carry more weight than their numbers would justify. Leaders like John Boehner are fearful of confrontation with these ideologues who would have no compunction about attacking fellow Republicans. Many of the Tea Party fanatics came to Washington by defeating more moderate Republicans.
Michele Bachmann is a good example of the kind of person produced by the far right. In a speech before anti-abortion demonstrators she made it clear that she has no problem with a governmental shutdown. Like all Tea Party people, she has a hatred for the government and a desire to diminish its power. A total shutdown would not bother her at all.
Bachmann and other Tea Party representatives voted against the continuing resolution that kept the government running when the parties reached a settlement of the budget dispute on April 8. Bachmann voted against an earlier continuing resolution to avoid a government shutdown. She said that she did it because it didn’t defund Planned Parenthood and “Obamacare.” She called abortion the “watershed issue of our time” and said she’s prepared to fight “eyeball-to-eyeball” to defund Planned Parenthood in the next continuing resolution. The budget compromise reached on April 8 left the issue of funding Planned Parenthood for another day.
Those who want to defund Planned Parenthood are not doing so because of the budget or the deficit. For them it is a purely ideological issue. They object to Planned Parenthood because offices of Planned Parenthood provide abortions. Under federal law, Planned Parenthood is not allowed to use any federal money to fund abortions, but the Tea Party people hate the organization even though it does a great deal of good by providing other health services to women. The simple fact is that, as Senator Chuck Schumer said, the fanatical right-wingers of the Republican Party would relish a governmental shutdown in order to flex their muscles and demonstrate their ability to force their ultra-conservative agenda on the nation. They ignore the fact that a majority of Americans support the right to choose abortion.
The Tea Partiers are acting like children. If they can’t get their way they will not play at all. They do not seem to understand that in order to get things done in Washington it is often necessary to compromise. In the middle of a financial slowdown with millions of people out of work, they were willing to add to the rolls of the unemployed by laying-off approximately 800,000 government workers. Their unthinking negligence could have had an enormously adverse affect on the economy of America. Not only would many government departments be shut down, but thousands of private companies which depend on government business would be severely damaged.
Defense Secretary Gates said that if there was a government shutdown, troops would receive half a paycheck for the first two weeks. After that, troops wouldn’t be paid until a deal was reached in Washington to fund the government. Considering the fact that most military people do not get very high pay, a shutdown would cause hundreds of thousands of them great hardship. In a shutdown, many thousands of civilian employees of the military would be laid off.
The last time the government was shut down, disability benefits and pension claims were held-up for more than 400,000 veterans. New applicants for Social Security benefits were turned away. Clinical research trials at the National Institutes of Health were halted and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stopped disease surveillance. Nine million people were turned away from national museums, monuments, forests, and parks. The government suspended cleanup at 600 toxic waste sites.
In a shutdown, all of the government departments that provide federal monitoring and inspection would be closed. This would include mine safety inspections, food and drug inspections, and financial regulation and oversight of financial markets. Many other governmental activities would be suspended including visa and passport services, energy information services, and cleanup at 600 toxic waste sites. The Small Business Administration would not process loans for small companies.
If Tea Party fanatics had been able to buffalo the leadership into their extreme positions, the shutdown might have lasted a long time. This could have thrown the economy back into deep recession with millions more Americans out of work. The Democratic and Republican leadership showed statesmanship. The Tea Party extremists demonstrated juvenile irresponsibility.
Michele Bachmann is a good example of the kind of person produced by the far right. In a speech before anti-abortion demonstrators she made it clear that she has no problem with a governmental shutdown. Like all Tea Party people, she has a hatred for the government and a desire to diminish its power. A total shutdown would not bother her at all.
Bachmann and other Tea Party representatives voted against the continuing resolution that kept the government running when the parties reached a settlement of the budget dispute on April 8. Bachmann voted against an earlier continuing resolution to avoid a government shutdown. She said that she did it because it didn’t defund Planned Parenthood and “Obamacare.” She called abortion the “watershed issue of our time” and said she’s prepared to fight “eyeball-to-eyeball” to defund Planned Parenthood in the next continuing resolution. The budget compromise reached on April 8 left the issue of funding Planned Parenthood for another day.
Those who want to defund Planned Parenthood are not doing so because of the budget or the deficit. For them it is a purely ideological issue. They object to Planned Parenthood because offices of Planned Parenthood provide abortions. Under federal law, Planned Parenthood is not allowed to use any federal money to fund abortions, but the Tea Party people hate the organization even though it does a great deal of good by providing other health services to women. The simple fact is that, as Senator Chuck Schumer said, the fanatical right-wingers of the Republican Party would relish a governmental shutdown in order to flex their muscles and demonstrate their ability to force their ultra-conservative agenda on the nation. They ignore the fact that a majority of Americans support the right to choose abortion.
The Tea Partiers are acting like children. If they can’t get their way they will not play at all. They do not seem to understand that in order to get things done in Washington it is often necessary to compromise. In the middle of a financial slowdown with millions of people out of work, they were willing to add to the rolls of the unemployed by laying-off approximately 800,000 government workers. Their unthinking negligence could have had an enormously adverse affect on the economy of America. Not only would many government departments be shut down, but thousands of private companies which depend on government business would be severely damaged.
Defense Secretary Gates said that if there was a government shutdown, troops would receive half a paycheck for the first two weeks. After that, troops wouldn’t be paid until a deal was reached in Washington to fund the government. Considering the fact that most military people do not get very high pay, a shutdown would cause hundreds of thousands of them great hardship. In a shutdown, many thousands of civilian employees of the military would be laid off.
The last time the government was shut down, disability benefits and pension claims were held-up for more than 400,000 veterans. New applicants for Social Security benefits were turned away. Clinical research trials at the National Institutes of Health were halted and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stopped disease surveillance. Nine million people were turned away from national museums, monuments, forests, and parks. The government suspended cleanup at 600 toxic waste sites.
In a shutdown, all of the government departments that provide federal monitoring and inspection would be closed. This would include mine safety inspections, food and drug inspections, and financial regulation and oversight of financial markets. Many other governmental activities would be suspended including visa and passport services, energy information services, and cleanup at 600 toxic waste sites. The Small Business Administration would not process loans for small companies.
If Tea Party fanatics had been able to buffalo the leadership into their extreme positions, the shutdown might have lasted a long time. This could have thrown the economy back into deep recession with millions more Americans out of work. The Democratic and Republican leadership showed statesmanship. The Tea Party extremists demonstrated juvenile irresponsibility.
Friday, March 11, 2011
The Case Against God
My book, "The Case Against God: A Lawyer Examines the Evidence," has now been published by Amazon on Kindle. This means that anybody owning a Kindle or a device with Kindle applications such as iPad, iPhone, PC phone, Mac phone, Blackberry, Android phone, and Windows 7 phone can buy my book for $5.00. The book is a discussion about whether God exists from the point of view of a nonbeliever. In it I have explored The Old Testament, The New Testament, and the teachings of and about Jesus. I have researched all of the leading biblical and theological experts and I present the facts found by them. I also discuss the arguments of philosophers for the existence of God, the dispute between science and religion, the so-called “Intelligent Design” theory, the problem of evil, and the question of why so many people believe in God. Even if you don’t agree with my views about God, I hope that if you have a Kindle-type device, you will get the book and read it. Whether or not you agree, it is very informative and will greatly increase your knowledge of the Bible and religion.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
What if they Repealed the Health Care Law?
I confess that I do not fully understand the reason why Republicans are so fiercely opposed to the health care reform law, more properly known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA). It cannot be denied that it enacted many reforms favorable to the American people. It might be said that the opposition has been fueled by the health insurance industry, or that well-heeled Republicans object to the higher taxes the law imposes on wealthy taxpayers. But that would not explain the widespread fervor of grass root Republicans against the law. There must be something more. Now the House of Representatives has voted along party lines to repeal the law. That vote could not succeed because of Democratic control of the Senate, but who knows? Perhaps at some later date Republicans will gain the strength to carry out their plan to totally repeal all of the provisions of the law. What will happen then?
1. Repealing PPACA would add to $230 billion to the deficit. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate, the health care reform law reduces the deficit by $230 billion over the next decade. This is because the law not only provides for government financial support of many reforms but also provides for higher taxes on wealthy taxpayers in order to pay for the reforms. The taxes exceed the amount needed to finance the law by $230 billion.
2. If health care reform is repealed, 32 million fewer people will have insurance than if the bill is left to stand. This is according to the CBO estimate. These millions of people would constitute a burden on the health care system. Many of them would die of their illnesses and many others would go back to using the ER as their first line of medical treatment.
3. Repealing reform would mean higher health insurance premiums. The amount people actually pay for premiums would be much higher under repeal because right now most people will be able to get a subsidy from the government to help pay for the cost of health insurance.
4. If the law is repealed, senior citizens will not get relief from the “doughnut hole.” Senior citizens who are beneficiaries of the Medicare Part D drug program should be aware that the health care reform act has already begun to close the “donut hole.” That is the period during which seniors have to pay the full cost of their prescriptions after they amass $2,700 in drug costs. After $2,700, Medicare does not resume paying for drug expenses until seniors reach $4,350 in out-of-pocket payments, a figure most seniors never reach in one year. The health care reform bill has already cut the donut hole by $500 and has instituted a 50 percent discount in brand-name drugs. It will eventually abolish the donut hole. For many seniors who simply cannot afford to buy their essential medications during the donut hole, that will be life saving. If the law is repealed, the doughnut hole will remain.
5. If the law is repealed, uninsured people or people who have been denied insurance because of preexisting conditions will lose the temporary program enacted to help them buy health insurance. The health care reform bill creates an Insurance Exchange that begins in 2013 and will enable purchasers to search for the best and lowest-cost insurance. Until the Exchange is put in place, however, the bill creates a temporary insurance program to help uninsured people or people who have been denied policies because of preexisting conditions.
6. If the health care law is repealed, the insurance companies will be able to go back to denying health insurance because of preexisting conditions, placing lifetime caps or annual caps on health insurance coverage, or rescinding a patient’s policy when the patient files a claim for benefits.
7. The PPACA allows displaced workers to keep their COBRA coverage until the Exchange is in place and they can access affordable coverage. Repeal would take away that right.
8. The law creates a long-term-care insurance program, financed by voluntary payroll deductions, to provide benefits to adults who become functionally disable. Repeal would remove that program.
9. The law requires that health plans allow young people up to age 26 to remain on their parents’ insurance policies if their parents so choose. Repeal would mean no such coverage for young people.
10. The law eliminates co-payments for preventative services and exempts preventative services from deductibles under the Medicare program. Repeal would mean return of such co-payments and deductibles.
11. The law prohibits Medicare Advantage (the private Medicare insurance program subsidized by the federal government) from charging enrollees higher cost-sharing for services in their private plan than is charged in traditional Medicare. Repeal would take away this protection.
There are a number of other beneficial provisions of the law that are now in effect. Others will take effect in 2013 and 2014. If the Republicans are able at some point to repeal the health care law, it will mean the loss by millions of Americans of reforms that make it easier and less expensive to obtain health care. It will also mean that greedy health insurance companies will be able to go back to gouging the public.
1. Repealing PPACA would add to $230 billion to the deficit. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate, the health care reform law reduces the deficit by $230 billion over the next decade. This is because the law not only provides for government financial support of many reforms but also provides for higher taxes on wealthy taxpayers in order to pay for the reforms. The taxes exceed the amount needed to finance the law by $230 billion.
2. If health care reform is repealed, 32 million fewer people will have insurance than if the bill is left to stand. This is according to the CBO estimate. These millions of people would constitute a burden on the health care system. Many of them would die of their illnesses and many others would go back to using the ER as their first line of medical treatment.
3. Repealing reform would mean higher health insurance premiums. The amount people actually pay for premiums would be much higher under repeal because right now most people will be able to get a subsidy from the government to help pay for the cost of health insurance.
4. If the law is repealed, senior citizens will not get relief from the “doughnut hole.” Senior citizens who are beneficiaries of the Medicare Part D drug program should be aware that the health care reform act has already begun to close the “donut hole.” That is the period during which seniors have to pay the full cost of their prescriptions after they amass $2,700 in drug costs. After $2,700, Medicare does not resume paying for drug expenses until seniors reach $4,350 in out-of-pocket payments, a figure most seniors never reach in one year. The health care reform bill has already cut the donut hole by $500 and has instituted a 50 percent discount in brand-name drugs. It will eventually abolish the donut hole. For many seniors who simply cannot afford to buy their essential medications during the donut hole, that will be life saving. If the law is repealed, the doughnut hole will remain.
5. If the law is repealed, uninsured people or people who have been denied insurance because of preexisting conditions will lose the temporary program enacted to help them buy health insurance. The health care reform bill creates an Insurance Exchange that begins in 2013 and will enable purchasers to search for the best and lowest-cost insurance. Until the Exchange is put in place, however, the bill creates a temporary insurance program to help uninsured people or people who have been denied policies because of preexisting conditions.
6. If the health care law is repealed, the insurance companies will be able to go back to denying health insurance because of preexisting conditions, placing lifetime caps or annual caps on health insurance coverage, or rescinding a patient’s policy when the patient files a claim for benefits.
7. The PPACA allows displaced workers to keep their COBRA coverage until the Exchange is in place and they can access affordable coverage. Repeal would take away that right.
8. The law creates a long-term-care insurance program, financed by voluntary payroll deductions, to provide benefits to adults who become functionally disable. Repeal would remove that program.
9. The law requires that health plans allow young people up to age 26 to remain on their parents’ insurance policies if their parents so choose. Repeal would mean no such coverage for young people.
10. The law eliminates co-payments for preventative services and exempts preventative services from deductibles under the Medicare program. Repeal would mean return of such co-payments and deductibles.
11. The law prohibits Medicare Advantage (the private Medicare insurance program subsidized by the federal government) from charging enrollees higher cost-sharing for services in their private plan than is charged in traditional Medicare. Repeal would take away this protection.
There are a number of other beneficial provisions of the law that are now in effect. Others will take effect in 2013 and 2014. If the Republicans are able at some point to repeal the health care law, it will mean the loss by millions of Americans of reforms that make it easier and less expensive to obtain health care. It will also mean that greedy health insurance companies will be able to go back to gouging the public.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Why We Believe--Fear of Death
Religion may not have arisen solely because of the fear of death, but if you ask people today, they will tell you that there has to be some continuing life after death. Religion provides assurance that there is such life.
Death is part of nature. Every living thing dies. All humans die. No matter how long science is able to extend the length of a human life, we will all die. It is inherent in all living things. Why do we fear death? Why is death the most terrible part of life? Why have we surrounded death with such enormous horror and grief? You would think that such a natural, universal event would be stoically accepted by us as inevitable. But it isn’t.
We fear death because fear is part of our survival as a species. Any species that does not develop some type of fear of death is likely to become extinct. Our young species has managed to survive for hundreds of thousands of years in part because of our fear of death. Like other genetically successful species, we have developed evolutionary methods of avoiding death, at least until we have reproduced and spread our genes. Whether we will be as successful a species as the long-lived turtles, sharks, and alligators, remains to be seen.
I believe that one of the many strategies the human race uses to deal with its fear of death is the creation of imaginary beings called “gods.” By creating gods, humans seek to avoid the despair that might accompany a full understanding of their fate. The invention of gods is a tranquilizer that helps man deal with the fact that when we die, we die to eternal oblivion.
Most people realize that the human body does not survive death. What they hope for is the survival of human consciousness and memory. The idea is that our spirit or “soul” survives in an afterlife. It would make little difference if the spirit or soul survived but did not remember living on earth. Most people wish for the survival of our memory. In heaven we would know who we are and remember our lives and family on earth. For most people this includes seeing and getting back together with our loved ones (although Jesus said that in the resurrection there was no marriage, Matt. 22:23-30). For most, the afterlife is an idealized version of life on earth. There is no pain, no misery, no stress, no sin, no evil, only unlimited joy. For Catholics it is the “beatific vision.” For Moslems it is “Paradise,” an eternal feast in a green garden with beautiful virgins serving the faithful. For most people, people in heaven are aware of what is happening on earth, and many believe that the dead can intervene in earthly events.
There is something contradictory about the idea that our consciousness survives our deaths. Death is, ipso facto, the death of consciousness. Consciousness is a function of the brain, and if the brain is dead it does not function. We want to believe that somehow, through the hand of God, our consciousness, our brain, goes on working after death even though for earthly purposes it is finished. We want to believe that the mind is not really part of the body, but rather, a spiritual function. Science knows that the mind is the brain and the nervous system, a purely physical phenomenon, and like the rest of the body, it dies.
Death is part of nature. Every living thing dies. All humans die. No matter how long science is able to extend the length of a human life, we will all die. It is inherent in all living things. Why do we fear death? Why is death the most terrible part of life? Why have we surrounded death with such enormous horror and grief? You would think that such a natural, universal event would be stoically accepted by us as inevitable. But it isn’t.
We fear death because fear is part of our survival as a species. Any species that does not develop some type of fear of death is likely to become extinct. Our young species has managed to survive for hundreds of thousands of years in part because of our fear of death. Like other genetically successful species, we have developed evolutionary methods of avoiding death, at least until we have reproduced and spread our genes. Whether we will be as successful a species as the long-lived turtles, sharks, and alligators, remains to be seen.
I believe that one of the many strategies the human race uses to deal with its fear of death is the creation of imaginary beings called “gods.” By creating gods, humans seek to avoid the despair that might accompany a full understanding of their fate. The invention of gods is a tranquilizer that helps man deal with the fact that when we die, we die to eternal oblivion.
Most people realize that the human body does not survive death. What they hope for is the survival of human consciousness and memory. The idea is that our spirit or “soul” survives in an afterlife. It would make little difference if the spirit or soul survived but did not remember living on earth. Most people wish for the survival of our memory. In heaven we would know who we are and remember our lives and family on earth. For most people this includes seeing and getting back together with our loved ones (although Jesus said that in the resurrection there was no marriage, Matt. 22:23-30). For most, the afterlife is an idealized version of life on earth. There is no pain, no misery, no stress, no sin, no evil, only unlimited joy. For Catholics it is the “beatific vision.” For Moslems it is “Paradise,” an eternal feast in a green garden with beautiful virgins serving the faithful. For most people, people in heaven are aware of what is happening on earth, and many believe that the dead can intervene in earthly events.
There is something contradictory about the idea that our consciousness survives our deaths. Death is, ipso facto, the death of consciousness. Consciousness is a function of the brain, and if the brain is dead it does not function. We want to believe that somehow, through the hand of God, our consciousness, our brain, goes on working after death even though for earthly purposes it is finished. We want to believe that the mind is not really part of the body, but rather, a spiritual function. Science knows that the mind is the brain and the nervous system, a purely physical phenomenon, and like the rest of the body, it dies.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
