E17

Page E17

Fair The Town Voice First

Which Is Religion and Which Science?

By Arlon Staywell RICHMOND — When asked their views on the political and religious ideas so central to this website quite many, virtually all, respond that they wouldn't have an abortion themselves but can't interfere with others' having an abortion. Similarly they will say they are not homosexuals themselves but can't forbid the same "marriage" rights to homosexuals that heterosexuals have.
Those attitudes no doubt arise from their understanding, however shallow, of the ideal of "freedom" so central to the nature of the government of the United States and many other governments, especially lately.
"Not interfering" with people, even defending their "rights" to be different, is considered patriotic by an overwhelming number of Americans. The "separation of church and state" is often cited in those discussions. Some will say their "religion" forbids them to be homosexual or have abortions but they can't extend their "religion" to the government of others' lives. Such is their understanding of the freedom of religion and speech in the United States.
As wonderful an idea as it certainly is on paper, that fight for "freedom" can lose its focus. Sensible people throughout history, early western history certainly, tried to avoid maintaining standing armies because of those armies' inclination to lose their focus over time.
To illustrate just how lost the focus has become lately consider the present condition of the institution of marriage. Not interfering in others' lives is simple and easy enough without sex, after that others' lives inevitably enter the equation. Perhaps they didn't understand how to fly planes or drive cars, but quite ancient people understood that freedom does not include sex. The "laws" of marriage, like any good laws, maximized freedom generally. They help to ensure that couples assume full responsibility for each other and any children they produce.
That was long ago. These days exceedingly high divorce and remarriage rates and a casual attitude toward sex and parenting has so trivialized marriage that one between homosexuals would in fact be the "same" thing. In a divorce there is typically some financial settlement that provides for "child support," but it is just an expedient, not really possible to put a dollar value on such a thing. Money certainly does facilitate an economy with a variety of specialties. It certainly does facilitate an automobile mechanic getting a reasonable amount and choice of groceries. But it is not constant in value over the years, and not the best measure of all things at any time. But high divorce rates have accustomed people to placing a monetary value on their own children.
The ancient wisdom that freedom does not include sex is lost on most people in the United States today. So yes, many Americans believe they should fight for homosexuals' rights to "marry." They even consider it their "patriotic" duty.
But there is even more misunderstanding and misapplication of freedom. Recent health care reforms coerce payments from otherwise free citizens for medical treatments that have not been proven efficacious. The argument has often been when insurance companies deny treatments that it is wrong because they are not doctors and only doctors would know what treatments work. The truth of the matter is that insurance companies do know better what treatments work than doctors do. Doctors only have their own patients' confidential records, insurance companies have much larger databases. When it comes to the best access to the largest database the answer is plainly the insurance companies. Insurance companies avoid new treatments because their sensible customers don't want to pay higher premiums for them. If a person wants a new treatment it is only fair to get that outside the insurance system, or inside a system designed specifically for, and applying only to, people who want to so gamble on new treatments.
For the most part then, the United States has it totally backwards. They can't "interfere" with people flitting in and out of "marriages" like tea rooms, yet they can force people to pay to cure diseases for which there is no known cure.
If I had a dollar for every person who said he is "not a homosexual, but can't interfere" or "pro-life but can't interfere" or ignorant of medicine but "should interfere," I could retire comfortably without debts.
One of the "best" or rather "least stupid" of the arguments for various degrees of nationalization of medical care is that we are "compelled" to pay for the military and the police. Then shouldn't we also be compelled to pay for medical care, even if we don't want it as the case might also be with those other services? That can be compared, curiously, to the argument that homosexual marriages are the same as any other. They might be today, but they aren't supposed to be.
And if health care professionals lack the brains or the guts to tell you homosexuality is a mental disorder, what else do they have all wrong?
Those of you who belive in military prowess rather than God, and that is the overwhelming majority of Americans today, do so because you think first how to coerce. The military is better at coercing than God, or so it seems to your superficial understanding of things. Try to remember your earlier lessons about minimizing coercion.

The very purpose of government, the police and the military is to prevent others from taking your money or property. Certain redistributionist philosophies are the proper domain of private charitable organizations and various organizations to advance various causes. For example a "math club" might seek to advance mathematicians. Private organizations do not have the power to coerce any funding or support. Many rules work better with a few exceptions, but when the exceptions get out of hand the rule loses its meaning. The strength of the "Tea Party" is the fundamental need to return to these basic principles.
Arlon Ryan Staywell

The Town Voice Home | Religion Index E1 | E16 | E17 | E18