State of Protest » rules

Does God Exist? Hitchens vs. Craig

Laura — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:09:17 +0000

I attended a debate this weekend between Christopher Hitchens and William Lane Craig on the topic, “Does God Exist?” The venue was a Christian Apologetics University and, of course, the audience was overwhelmingly Christian. We were packed like sardines into a hot and stuffy gymnasium with huge words painted on the wall, “Above All, Give Glory to God.” I was happy (and tried not to worry) to see that many of the few atheists in attendance wore t-shirts identifying themselves as such. Because of the topic, I was initially hesitant to attend. All a nonbeliever can really do in a debate such as this is break down the arguments of the theist, since arguments that God does not exist are in short supply, just as arguments that leprechauns do not exist are in short supply. The burden of proof lies on the claimant, and as Sagan said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

I suppose I anticipated too much in expecting that it would be a given that the theist in a debate such as this would accept the burden of proof. However, Craig laid out his own particular rules for the debate in his opening statement, indicating that he expected and required Hitchens to, not only refute Craig’s arguments to Craig’s satisfaction, but to make arguments to “prove that Atheism is true.” Despite the fact that Hitchens pointed out that to “prove that Atheism is true” is a misstatement altogether, Craig used the phrase nearly every time he spoke and seemed to believe that the simple fact that there exist arguments for a Creator makes the theistic position the stronger of the two. At one point, Craig said to Hitchens, “You seem to think that Atheism is merely a-theism, ‘without theism,’” as opposed to being a specific worldview. Yes, Mr. Craig. That’s exactly what it is.

I was hoping to hear something new at the debate, an argument I had not heard before, but this was not the case. I guess I should not have been surprised, but as someone who has studied the major theistic arguments and their refutations, such as the Cosmological and Teleological arguments, it is a curious thing to me that people still find them credible. It is even more curious to me that people not only repeat these arguments as if they are rock solid evidence for a Creator, but they then make the enormous leap from Creator to a deity which is personal, omniscient, benevolent and, of course,______ (fill in the blank with your personal religious preference).

The opponents’ debating styles were very different, and I cannot say that in this setting Hitchens had the more effective style. Craig was very focused and direct. He picked out the major arguments he wanted to make and drove them into the audience, frequently repeating the same points for emphasis. Hitchens came to his points in a more roundabout way and one almost felt that he was merely giving a monologue at certain points. To one who knows the arguments and knows Hitchens’ writing and other work, it was very enjoyable to listen to and made perfect sense. However, for the students who are studying Apologetics and expecting to hear arguments in a very particular format, and for those who may have been hearing these arguments for the first time, I can imagine that Hitchens did not come off as clear and specific as Craig did. Hitchens also yielded his closing arguments, as I have seen him do before. I can think of a hundred reasons why he might do so, but to hear the little gasps from the Christians in the audience, you would think he would have just lain down on the floor in defeat.

My suspicions were confirmed after the debate in conversations I overheard in the foyer and in the coffee shop down the street. Many Christians commented that the clear “winner” was Craig. Yet a debate is hardly a boxing match. Who “wins” and “loses” in these situations is entirely subjective. I have my doubts that anyone ever walks into a debate such as this with one opinion and leaves with another. Perhaps Hitchens expects too much from his audience, assuming they are coming in with a certain level of knowledge, or perhaps his intent is not to get through to the Christians at all. Perhaps he is speaking to those who are on the fence or who are atheists already. Perhaps these are the only people any of us on this side of the debate are ever really speaking to, and vice versa for the Christians. Regardless, I admire the willingness and tireless patience of Hitchens and others who are giving nonbelievers a voice and speaking out for the cause of rationality. Whether these debates change minds or not, I have to appreciate those on both sides who actually take the time to think about these issues. It is important that we have these conversations, and I hope we never cease to.

-Laura

My 2009 Predictions

Procrustes — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:28:47 +0000

Evan Bernstein, from the Rogues Gallery (the Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe blog) had a fun idea to test his powers of prediction for what’s to come in 2009, and he invited others to chime in. So, to spread the word, I’m posting my prediction comment here, as well. Be sure to head on over to TRG to submit your own predictions, so you can brag about them coming true later.

Here are mine:

1. The world will not end. (fn: if it does, there will be no one around to say I was wrong)

2. Sarah Palin will first pardon, and then eat, a turkey.

3. Pastor Rick Warren will say the word “God” at the inauguration at least three times, but no more than five.

4. Obama will say the word “God” twice.

5. Car companies will continue to manufacture gas-guzzling p.o.s. cars, despite the need for alternate types of vehicles.

6. Rachel Maddow will interview at least one new Cabinet member, and quite possibly the Pres or VP.

7. Keith Olbermann will not dye his hair. (And why should he?)

8. California courts will hold that all marriages that were held during the “gays are okay” window will maintain validity, despite the Prop 8 law against gay marriage. Complainants will lose their battle to take it to the U.S. Supreme Court because that Court will claim a lack of jurisdiction over a state matter (marriage). Gay marriage advocates will push to overturn Prop 8, and that movement will fail.

9. President Obama will sign a bill authorizing the FCC to censor the Internet. For everyone.

10. Credit card companies will increase the interest rates of all their customers (”victims”) just before Congress rules that credit card companies will be prohibited from doing so — and that ruling won’t be retroactive.

11. Multiple successful “civilian” stratosphere trips will increase in popularity, decrease in price, and make NASA look even more incompetent, which will prompt the government to nix even more space development and funding, which is generally what makes NASA look so bad in the first place.

12. Sports will continue to be about 3000% more popular than science, and will receive about that much more funding.

13. An amazing archeological find will prove once and for all that baby Jesus played with dinosaurs.

14. “Caligula” will be made into a Broadway show and musical, and it’s about time.

15. One prominent and famous Scientologist will denounce Scientology, claim he/she was brainwashed and mistaken, and then will claim to have found Jesus.

16. One state (besides Alaska) will seriously contemplate secession.

17. One house of Congress will pass (again) a Flag Desecration act. The other house will not pass it, but the margin will be the closest it’s ever been.

18. The U.S. will have a presence in Afghanistan and Iraq throughout the year, approximately equivalent to the presence it has now (but possibly shifting from one country to the other).

19. Marijuana will still be illegal for non-prescription consumption, and will still be illegal in most places for prescription consumption.

20. You’ll still be able to buy alcohol and firearms, though.

-Procrustes

Life is Like a Poker Tournament

Noumenon — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 21:18:55 +0000

You arrive into the world pink, naked and squalling. You are immediately in possession of a ‘hand’. The hand was dealt to you at birth or even earlier – at sperm and egg fusion. You had no choice in the deal, no control over the cards. You are black, white, yellow, red, or some other racial mixture. You have the genetic propensity to be smart or not, tall or short, fat or thin, strong or weak, sickly, or hale. Some of these factors can be overcome with effort; some of them are beyond your influence or perception (if severely retarded, you may not realize how handicapped you are). You are not a set of jokers or wild cards, but a set hand; the suits and denominations determined by the genetic material and womb conditions as contributed by your parents.

Beyond the intrinsic value of the ‘hand’ you are dealt, there is the ‘lay of the table’. You are born into an environment not of your choosing, around people with various ‘hands’. The cards around the table are randomly dealt to those people as well, just like the ones you are holding. You may be holding a pair of aces, but there are straights, flushes and full houses sitting in the seats around you. Conversely, you may be holding two pair and have the highest hand around. Your environment sets the bar of achievement and that is beyond your influence as well.

As you age, you can improve your position by ‘playing’ your hand. You can accumulate chips, which are the equivalent of wealth, power and influence. Or you can sit at the table and try to exist off the generosity of others. There is no re-deal, although, with considerable effort, you can improve your cards to some degree. This can allow you to more easily increase your chip count.

There is a set of rules at the poker tables that needs to be followed. Some of the rules have minor punishments. One punishment might be the loss of some of your chips. Other rules have much more serious consequences if broken. The breaking of the serious rules can result in meeting the one player that sits at every table and in every room. This player holds the highest hand of them all, and he never loses. Ever.

The player at all of the tables who never loses is called mortality. He is indiscriminate and ruthless. He is beating hands and cleaning people out at many tables, all at the same time. Sometimes entire rooms fall at once, in a single instant, the chips scattering around the room or disappearing with the losing hands.

So you sit and play and try to accumulate the most chips. And you try to win the most hands. You work at improving your position. Maybe you try and move to a higher-ranking table. You also try to develop your hand as much as you can to increase your chances. All the while, in the back of your mind, you realize that mortality is sitting at the table with you. And one day while you are trying to bluff another player by going ‘all-in’, mortality will call your bluff and win – every time.

-Noumenon

God and Reason

Urs — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 03:10:29 +0000

Someone who professed to be Christian once said to me, “If I didn’t believe what I believe, I would be living a whole different kind of life.” I wish I had asked him to elaborate, although in the context in the conversation, I got the impression that he meant he’d be living a much less moral existence. The implication here is that religion or god or gods are the source of morality and basic value systems.

I would have to disagree.

While I am sure there are many of the religious stripe who would be less moral individuals if they did not believe, that says nothing about the source of ethical behavior. These particular individuals are driven to “proper” behavior by a promise of eternal reward, or, if they fail, punishment. Their reasoning is, why else be ethical, if it will mean nothing in the end? They say that if god commands it, it must be good, and the ends justify the means. But, is that what morality truly means?

I am sure there is a view that many believers take of agnostics and atheists – that they must be immoral individuals since they are uninterested in taking orders from a higher power. This shows poor logic, but that is not surprising, considering the uneasy relationship logic and religion have had over the years. God and morality are not a package deal. God belief doesn’t make a person moral, and neither does lack of belief make a person immoral. The point is, one does not need to believe in, or even be aware of, a god to be moral, good, or just.

Religion doesn’t give human nature much credit. Many things known to be instinctual behaviors are considered “sinful” by most religious standards. But human nature is not dumb. Certainly, things like the instinct to eat and breed have kept the species alive. But those are not the only kinds of survival mechanisms that humans have evolved. A majority of us have a strong sense of wanting to help others; at the very least our immediate family members. While initially, altruistic behavior probably evolved from selfish means in order to establish and maintain communities, this doesn’t mean that it cannot be intrinsic to one’s being. My having a conscience does not necessitate belief in a god or a religion and its stipulations. I will always wish for the happiness of my friends and family, and I still make it a point to do the right thing. Do I do this because someone or some establishment tells me to? No. I do it because I want to, because that is the kind of person I want to be, whether I am rewarded for it or not, whether it meets the approval of a clergy or not, and whether it is what god wants or not. The reward is that hopefully, I will contribute to the happiness of others. Often, though, even when the right thing is done, there is no reward at all, and sometimes, there is even punishment. While this can be frustrating, it doesn’t change the fact that I think the right thing should be done, and that morality is not about the reward at the end, but about doing what is best, no matter the consequences to oneself. I will clarify that what is best is rarely found in a set of rules that were written down millennia ago. I think “what is best” will usually present itself in the form of “what causes the least amount of suffering for all involved?”

I will make the assumption that even if there is a god, then we can know nothing about it, under the standard definition of “god”. The gods that all the various religions describe are not terribly impressive, and if I were to be convinced of their existence, then I would be harder pressed to be convinced to worship them. Descriptions of god have made “him” out to be alternately jealous and forgiving, wrathful and loving, having a “plan”, but still requiring our prayers for intervention. If anything, god sounds like he was made in man’s image, instead of vice-versa. This shows not only a lack of imagination, but also a lack of god-like features one might expect from a being dubbed as the “almighty”.

Keeping that in mind, I will use a popular argument against the traditional notion of god. With all the suffering in the world, that an all-knowing god is surely aware of, he either can’t do anything about it (which contradicts him being all-powerful), or he won’t (which contradicts his supposed “loving” nature). How could a god who loves us so, allow for the horrible things that happen? Of particular curiosity to me are the Jews. They believe they have a covenant with god; that he has promised to protect them, that they are the “chosen people”. Why then, have they been consistently sought out for complete extermination for thousands of years? Why did their god allow the Egyptian Pharoah to enslave them, and then hardened Pharoah’s heart when Moses asked for their freedom? Where was their god during the rise of Nazi Germany? Was he looking out for them then? It almost seems like a cruel joke. Whoever this god is, he doesn’t seem terribly dependable, nor merciful, or even fatherly. He actually seems quite negligent, and if I were Jewish, I would have trouble reconciling some of these facts.

Of course, the usual response from the religious on these matters is that we are not to question god, and that he works in mysterious ways. I would think any god worth his salt wouldn’t need this sort of reasoning to excuse his inexplicably sloppy guardianship. I think what’s really happening here is that we’re searching for a why, and when there isn’t one, we invoke god’s “plan” as the basis for the atrocious acts that happen in the world every day. Honestly, though, I would rather believe that nearly everything is completely random, and that’s why bad things happen to good people, and good things happen to bad people. I would rather think that than to tell myself that there is some grand purpose that requires the pain and suffering of innocent people (children in particular). If, as a human, I allowed for the suffering of others, and justified it by saying that it was suiting some greater purpose of mine, I would be called a tyrant. I would be called selfish, and callous, and uncaring. Yet, when “god” is brought into it, then it becomes okay. Why?

Another oddity of religion is that it makes us think we can be immortal. The one thing that is sure to happen to us – death – is the one we deny over and over again, through religion. Sigmund Freud has said that a belief in the afterlife is wish fulfillment, the wish that we and our loved ones do not have to die. While I generally disagree with just about every other conclusion about humans Freud has made, I have to give him credit on this one. When I contemplate my own death, it makes me terribly uncomfortable. Contemplating the death of my husband and children is even more frightening. I cannot imagine how devastating it is to lose someone you love as much as I love them. I can understand the comfort it would bring to believe that I would see them again someday. However, I have no reason to believe this, aside from the fact that it would make me feel good, and that is not reason enough. Religion denies this reality, and I think it’s too bad.

I’ll explain why.

Thinking that we go on forever, that all the people we love are always going to be here – that’s the kind of attitude that allows us to take people for granted. When I go back to contemplating my eventual demise, it makes me realize that chances are good that this is the only life I get, the only chance I will have to spend time with the people I care about. It makes me value my time here more, because if this really is it, then I had better make the best of it. The only thing that may go on is memories of me in the minds of others, and that is incentive enough to live my life the best that I can. Punishment and reward has nothing to do with it, and neither does any god. Reason alone provides enough motivation to be ethical, and to love my family as much as I can, while I can.

The inevitable query, “But what if you’re wrong?” usually comes up at this point. What if, what if, what if…I suppose I could be wrong. If there’s a god, and it created everything, then it created me. It gave me this mind, these analytical skills, and these ideas. It gave me reason, but not faith. Keep in mind that I do not choose to be faithless; I just simply am. In the same way that I don’t choose to hate mushrooms or country music – I just do, and like having no faith, it is not something that I can help. Why would god make me, and countless others, this way, only to punish us eternally in the end for it? Another cosmic joke? Are these my choices? I must say, I haven’t been given much to work with. Sure, I could go to church and try to spread the gospel and hope that it grows on me. In the meantime, though, I would merely be operating out of a fear of hell. And I would still be faithless. Truthfully, I don’t think I would be much different than many other church-goers in that respect.

The usual reply here from theists is that I must sincerely ask god to come into my heart. You think I never tried that? You think that I just decided atheism sounded good and went into it with absolutely no investigation whatsoever? You would be wrong to assume as such. Like many atheists, I struggled with my beliefs for several years. Instead of quieting my concerns, my search only yielded more questions. With no faith to build on, and no real answers, I realized that I could not say I believed in any god while remaining intellectually honest. A more truthful statement would be that I would love it if there was a god that allowed for an afterlife where I could be with my family again. But do I really believe in it? No.

Does this make me immoral? Does this make me evil? Depends on who you ask. When it comes to believers, there are some that believe that even those who haven’t been saved but who still do good works, are good people. And there are some that believe that good works have nothing to do with it – that it’s all about your salvation. That is, you may be a serial killer, but if you repent, you will get further with god than an atheist who devotes his life to helping others. Once again, a belief like that seems downright harmful when it comes down to what we do know: That we’re here now. The concept of a repentant criminal receiving better treatment than a charitable atheist is pretty ridiculous, considering that the atheist is doing something right now to make things tangibly better – in this life that is guaranteed real – while there are believers who allow suffering because they don’t see the point in intervening.

So going back to the original statement, that believing in something makes one moral… those are the people I wonder about: the ones who are moral simply because god says so. What kind of people are they really, on the inside? To need a reward and/or approval to act properly – I think that’s juvenile. Only children operate like that. Adults are defined as such by knowing better. I guess for those adults that feel that god is keeping them in line, I should be thankful for religion, because who knows what kind of people they would be otherwise.

Why is there a Legal Provision Allowing a Lighter Sentence Based on Religious Beliefs?

Procrustes — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:14:39 +0000

As reported by ABC news, an Oregon couple, by offering up prayer instead of what would have been an easy treatment by medical professionals, allowed their infant daughter to die. Or, put another way, murdered their infant daughter.

Carl and Raylene Worthington, the killers (should we really call them parents?) happen to belong to the same church, the Followers of Christ Church, as Jeffrey and Marci Beagley, who were indicted on charges of criminally negligent homicide in October, 2008, after they attempted only prayer healing for their 16-year-old son, Neil Beagley, instead of medically treating him for what was an easily treatable illness. Apparently, this church as been the catalyst for at least twenty other child deaths as a result of applying faith healing techniques, when every one of them could have been easily cured with proper medical treatment.

Although my first reaction to these heinous acts is to shrug and hope the result is the direct or indirect thinning of the herd, my more contemplative criticism is not based on what the parents or church have done, but what our laws and the courts have allowed and currently allow. Specifically, the fact that a decade ago, during the events that led investigators to believe that twenty children affiliated with the Followers of Christ Church had died because of that affiliation, the existing Oregon law allowed for claims that religious beliefs prevented defendants from seeking medical help — the “spiritual healing defense.” In 1999, the Oregon state legislature, upon hearing about the twenty children, changed the law to bar such claims.

The original language of the defense:

Manslaughter in the second degree is a Class B felony.
{ – (3) It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating
subsection (1)(c)(B) of this section that the child or dependent
person was under care or treatment solely by spiritual means
pursuant to the religious beliefs or practices of the child or
person or the parent or guardian of the child or person.¹

But a lot of good that does when the law currently allows the same spiritual healing defense to be used to reduce sentencing: (emphasis mine)

137.712. (1)(a) Notwithstanding ORS 137.700 and 137.707, when a person is convicted of { + manslaughter in the second degree as defined in ORS 163.125, + } … the court may impose a sentence according to the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission that is less than the minimum sentence that otherwise may be required by ORS 137.700 or 137.707 if the court, on the record at sentencing, makes the findings set forth in subsection (2) of this section and finds that a substantial and compelling reason under the
rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission justifies the lesser sentence. …
(2) A conviction is subject to subsection (1) of this section only if the sentencing court finds on the record by a preponderance of the evidence:
{ + (a) If the conviction is for manslaughter in the second degree:
(A) That the defendant is the mother or father of the victim;
(B) That the death of the victim was the result of an injury or illness that was not caused by the defendant;
(C) That the defendant treated the injury or illness solely by spiritual treatment in accordance with the religious beliefs or practices of the defendant and based on a good faith belief that spiritual treatment would bring about the victim’s recovery from the injury or illness….

In short, what it means is that if the court believes the parents believed that the spiritual healing would have worked, then the court can reduce the sentence of parents who murder their children based on their religious beliefs. Well, if you could call it “spiritual treatment,” which can really include just about anything, apparently.

This is clearly a law respecting an establishment of religion, a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Of course, the counter argument is that the First Amendment also prohibits the government from interfering with people’s ability to practice their religion. What the counter argument and those who would use it (obviously those who got that law enacted in the first place) fail to acknowledge is that we have employed our government to protect an even greater self-created right — the right not to be killed by fellow citizens. That greater right trumps any defense of religious preference when it comes to murder. (Yes, technically, it’s “manslaughter,” but I don’t view it that way).

What we all need to do, with swiftness and fervor, is contact our state representatives to find out whether our own states have similar laws unconstitutionally favoring religion and letting murderers off with potentially lighter sentences, and, if so, we need to tell them to work toward eliminating such laws. If there aren’t any such laws (doubtful), ask your legislator to ensure that none ever get passed, because such a breach of the separation of church and state is an affront to everyone (even the religious), especially when those laws favor the most vile of people. As Daylight Atheism skillfully argues, No Religious Exemptions from Child Abuse Laws.

Do you think the Followers of Christ Church should be tax exempt? If you live in Oregon, contact your state representatives and demand that the church lose its tax exempt status. The purpose of allowing religious organizations a tax exempt status is the flawed idea that the church is somehow benefiting society. The Followers of Christ Church does the reverse. It doesn’t deserve a tax break. Everyone in every state, in every country, should be demanding that churches be taxed.

Don’t let these murderers or anyone else use religion as justification for their actions.

—

Input from readers:

Blackstar9000, on Reddit, says:

The article leaves out the two clauses that follow:

(D) That no other person previously under the defendant’s care has died or sustained significant physical injury as a result of or despite the use of spiritual treatment, regardless of whether the spiritual treatment was used alone or in conjunction with medical care; and (E) That the defendant does not have a previous conviction for a crime listed in subsection (4) of this section or for criminal mistreatment in the second degree. + }

Those clauses shed some light on why there’s a provision, I’d say. It’s basically a learning curve that says, if you’ve been taught to believe that faith healing works, and there’s nothing in your past that should have demonstrated to you that it doesn’t, a lesser sentence may be warranted simply because you weren’t fully aware of the damage you could be causing. It isn’t a get out of jail free card, but if a person’s been cloistered all their life and might not reasonably have enough experience to know the consequences of their action, they might need at least some legal protections.

My response:
Why couldn’t there be a general provision indicating that if the defendant lacked the knowledge or mental capacity to understand that a particular method of treatment would not likely be successful, then the sentence could be reduced based on that fact? Why not that instead of the direct reference to religious belief? If the principle is, as you suggest, whether a person reasonably possesses the knowledge or know-how to treat someone with proper care, then why explicitly restrict that to the “spiritual”? Are there never any instances where non-spiritual upbringing can mislead someone?

Any takers?

Blackstar9000 replies:

Those are all valid question, and it’s way beyond my competence to give anything more than a reasonable guess. I will say this, though: Generally, laws of this sort arise as a response to particular instances rather than as a consideration of future possibilities. It’s a fair bet that this piece of legislation was written after a specific, precedent-setting case, and that the circumstances of the case itself did much to dictate the form that the legislation ultimately took. In other words, it specifies the religious belief because the religious belief is what the court has had to deal with in the past. Caution probably also played a part; not all judges and legislators are willing to introduce sweeping provisions without first having seen how a given set of circumstances will play out in an actual case.

Having said all of that — and, of course, this is all lay interpretation — while the law cited is setting forth an exception, the sense I get from it is that it’s spelling it out in order to provide restrictions on that exception. In other words, legislators could have laid out a blanket exception for religion: “If you’ve got a note from your priest, we’ll let it slide.” Instead, what they’re saying is that, in certain circumstances, a person’s religious background does mitigate some of the severity that would otherwise be warranted, but the court has to retain some control over how it’s determined that those circumstances have been met. What those provisions are looking for, it seems to me, is some relatively reliable guarantee that the parents weren’t being intentionally malicious or even simply callous in their neglect. The provisions likely aren’t a perfect instrument for gauging that, but in dealing with matters of judgment like that of deciding whether or not someone was a caring parent, the legal system has to traffic in evidence that is more or less tangible.

Where that’s true, ie. where caring and concerned parents have lost a child through their own neglect, then any punishment the court can mete out is likely to pale next to the suffering the parents already feel.

http://www.leg.state.or.us/99reg/measures/hb2400.dir/hb2494.en.html

Sex on the Beach: A Clash Between Cultures

Laura — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 21:57:28 +0000

If you keep up on the latest travel destinations, chances are you’ve heard the name “Dubai” popping up a lot more often. The most populous city of the United Arab Emirates, Dubai has lately been on the front line of cultural growth, with new hotels popping up all the time where tourists can enjoy free-flowing alcohol before heading off to the beach in skimpy bikinis. Sometimes called the Las Vegas of the Middle East, Dubai has been selling itself as the latest and greatest party hot spot, a liberal oasis among such conservative countries as Saudi Arabia, where alcohol is forbidden and even foreign women are required to wear enveloping black robes when in public.

What you’ve probably not heard, however, is that beneath the coat of shiny, liberal paint lies a legal culture based on strict Muslim laws. Two Britons, Michelle Palmer, a Dubai resident, and Vince Acors, a visiting tourist, have recently been made painfully aware of this fact. The two met at an all-you-can-drink champagne brunch and later made their way to the beach, where an unidentified resident reported them to the police for indecent behavior. After spending a night in jail, they were released but forbidden from leaving the country until a court could determine their fate. Though they both maintain they did not have intercourse, in Dubai, even holding hands, hugging, and kissing in public are against the law.¹

Under charges of having sex before marriage, public indecency, and drunkenness, a Dubai judge today sentenced them each to three months in jail, a $350 fine, and deportation from Dubai after serving their sentences. Ms. Palmer has already been fired from the job she has held for several years in Dubai’s publishing industry.² The judge faced pressure from all sides in deciding this case, which could have potentially carried sentences of up to two years imprisonment. On the one hand is the indigenous population, which has long raised objections to what they consider to be the city’s culture tipping in favor of foreigners. Although Emiratis make up only 15 to 20 percent of the population of Dubai, which is primarily comprised of Asian migrant workers, Western expatriates, and tourists, they feel that their religious values ought to be enforced on everyone, and the laws currently stand in their favor. On the other hand is the government, which doesn’t want to deter tourists from travelling to the area. The possibility of being arrested for holding hands with someone doesn’t exactly look nice on a travel brochure.

The government, however, have themselves recently been bending to the pressure placed on them by the indigenous population. A few days after Palmer and Acors were arrested, the police force stepped up its efforts, detaining dozens of people, the vast majority of whom were tourists, for topless sunbathing and other acts deemed “indecent.” The government has also tightened its immigration rules, visa policies, and work permits.³ What this essentially boils down to is this: Dubai cannot have its cake and eat it, too. If they want to be on the cutting edge of liberal tourist destinations, they are going to have to reform their laws. The extremely unfortunate Ms. Palmer and Mr. Acors have brought Dubai’s strict Islamic laws to light, and the glittery paint on the city has been tarnished. In a way, perhaps this is a step in the right direction, as the public eye is now focused, not just on the fancy hotels and sunny beaches, but on the potentially serious consequences of participating in what would be normal, everyday behavior in many cultures. Dubai’s tourism economy will likely suffer as a result, and perhaps I’m being optimistic, but maybe they will be forced to examine their laws and how other cultures are affected by them. I, for one, will not be travelling to Dubai anytime soon.

-Laura

Virginia Ban on Political Clothing at Polling Places is OK

Procrustes — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:43:02 +0000

While the battle over voter registration rages,¹ a battle is won (or lost) in Virginia.

The Virginia State Board of Elections has decided to uphold Virginia’s ban on “political clothing” at polling places.²

Under the Board’s Policy 2008-007,

… the Code of Virginia, § 24.2-604 states, in part:

During the times the polls are open and ballots are being counted, it shall be
unlawful for any person (i) to loiter or congregate within 40 feet of any entrance
of any polling place; (ii) within such distance to give, tender, or exhibit any ballot,
ticket, or other campaign material to any person or to solicit or in any manner
attempt to influence any person in casting his vote…

WHEREAS, the Code of Virginia does not define “exhibit;” and
WHEREAS, “In the absence of a statutory definition, the plain and ordinary meaning of
the term is controlling.” … and
WHEREAS, Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “exhibit” as: “a: to present to view:
as a: to show or display outwardly especially by visible signs or actions; b: to have as a
readily discernible quality or feature; c: to show publicly especially for purposes of
competition or demonstration;” and
WHEREAS, the Code of Virginia does not define “other campaign material;” and
WHEREAS, Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “material” as: “the elements,
constituents, or substances of which something is composed or can be made;” and
WHEREAS, campaign materials are materials distributed by or for campaigns and the
Code of Virginia, § 24.2-945.1, was amended in 2007 to adopt the express advocacy
standard for campaign contributions and advertisements; and
WHEREAS, courts applying the express advocacy standard have held subject to
regulation communications that cannot reasonably be interpreted other than as expressly
advocating the election or defeat of clearly identified candidate…..
WHEREAS, the Code of Virginia recognizes sample ballots may be a form of prohibited
campaign material if exhibited within the prohibited area; § 24.2-622 states, in part:
Voters may take sample ballots into the voting booth or enclosure, but
shall not give, tender or exhibit such ballot to any person, other than an
assistant designated under § 24.2-629, while inside the polling place or
within the prohibited areas designated by § 24.2-604.
Now therefore be it
RESOLVED, by the State Board of Elections under its authority to issue rules and regulations to
promote the proper administration of election laws and obtain uniformity in the administration of
elections pursuant to § 24.2-103, that
The phrase, “it shall be unlawful for any person… to…exhibit… other campaign material”
within the Code of Virginia, § 24.2-604 shall be interpreted as:
No person shall be allowed to show, display, or exhibit any material, object, item,
advertisement, or piece of apparel, which has the purpose of expressly advocating the
election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate.
Any person who does so will be asked by the officers to cease from showing, displaying or
exhibiting the material, object, item, advertisement, or piece of apparel, or to remove or
cover it until they leave the prohibited area and polling place.
Nothing in this policy shall prohibit any person from bringing but not exhibiting any
campaign material within 40 feet of any entrance of any polling place.

(emphasis added)

The ACLU of Virginia has asked the State Board of Elections to allow political messages on apparel at polling places, lest a ban violate the First Amendment right of freedom of speech.³

“We believe that the Virginia law can and should be interpreted to allow individuals to wear political apparel when they vote,” said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis, “and that is what we have asked the State Board of Elections to do.”

The ACLU’s request letter (which, by the way, didn’t do any good, since it was on October 14 that the State Board of Elections established the ban) addressed the ambiguity of the decision, suggesting that it would cause confusion for the already overworked volunteer poll workers trying to draw distinctions between support for a particular candidate and generalized political advocacy. What if, the letter queries, a voter wears a pro- or anti-George Bush button? Why should that be banned from the polls if George Bush isn’t even a candidate?

I haven’t found much support in the webisphere for the ban, so I’m going to take a stab at it. And I think my opinion might be more valid than someone who lives in California or some other state, by the mere fact that I both live and vote in Virginia (please don’t hunt me down and kill me).

My polling place is an elementary school, but in Virginia, polling places can range from churches to gymnasiums, and are quite often schools. Here is what I experience when I walk up to the school entrance on election day:

There are usually two tables just outside the entrance, with about three or four people hanging around each one, usually with some button, hat, or mere proximity to the table to identify the person as a Republican or Democrat. Sometimes they even wear blue or red shirts. Occasionally a green or independent party supporter will be lingering around, as well. The tables are stocked with red or blue sheets of paper with a hit list of names and issues voters should vote for to vote along party lines. I remember my first visit to that polling place, and thinking how offended I almost was at the prospect of someone “telling” me how to vote. I’ve since changed my mind. The sheets are very handy, and they give me an opportunity to review my votes while I wait in line.

But I don’t pick up just one sheet. I pick up one sheet for each party. Is that because I’m undecided? Because I pick a few from one, a few from the other? Do I have some secret plan to enter two exactly opposite set of votes? No. None of the above. I take both sheets because I am of the mind that I have a constitutional right to vote for a candidate or issue without my neighbors knowing how I voted. The people who frequent my polling place are the people who live next door to me, down the street from me, whose kids play with my kid. They’re people who teach my kid, teach other kids, walk their dogs on the sidewalk in front of my house, and who populate the neighborhood watch. When I go up to my polling place, the chances that some of those people there know me or have seen me are fairly good. I don’t want to (as McCain would say) telegraph my punches. That play on words would have worked better if I lived in Florida, of course, but the issue of intimidation (yes, even I get intimidated) still stands.

I think it’s a great idea to have a ban of political apparel within 40 feet of any entrance to a polling station. I don’t think that would affect the cheat sheets, but I do think it would keep up the appearance of neutrality of the polling place itself. Volunteers can’t wear political apparel (that’s a no-brainer), but a good number of people do loiter around, trying to nudge (or hound) others into voting for or against a particular candidate. Don’t we get enough of that on the news, in the newspaper, in television ads, at work, everywhere?

Despite my appreciation for the ACLU, there’s no free speech issue here. This is all about protecting the right of people to vote without being intimidated. It’s about the voting places not being public forums, but, instead, being temporary government facilities designed to allow residents to vote. Just imagine if we were living in the first days of public school integration, and some fervent advocate for free speech supported the notion that pro-segregationists could stand right at the doors of the schools while wearing anti-black slogan t-shirts, prominently displaying nooses, tar babies, and burning crosses. That’s despicable behavior and intimidation at its worst. Obviously, standing at the doors of a polling station wearing McCain masks, shirts, and baseball caps isn’t at the same level of intimidation as a KKK member being allowed to stand at the doors of a newly de-segregated school wearing a full Klan gown and hood, but it’s still not right, and it’s not a matter of free speech — it’s a matter of respect.

The only issue I foresee is where someone who doesn’t know about the ban, or who is merely wearing a button or lapel pin (not a full Barack Obama mask and suit getup), heads to a polling station and is turned away by the volunteers. Of course, that person can merely remove the offending item, but sometimes people wear political shirts to the polls, and often they won’t have brought along a change of clothes. What I would do is allow them entrance to vote, if there doesn’t seem to be a big problem. The heart of the matter isn’t the occasional pro-whatever button or shirt, it’s the groups of pro-whatever supporters hanging out with pro-whatever attire, acting as what could be seen as a loitering bully. Perhaps the ban should have been worded differently, so as not to create ambiguity and confusion, but I think the general idea is still sound.

—

A bit more clarification for the unconvinced:

Although free speech is still an underlying foundation of every public activity, if a specific purpose exists that certain free speech potentially disturbs, and that purpose is important for the perpetuation of free speech (or other important rights), then by limiting free speech narrowly to avoid having it disturb the purpose is a valid measure.

So, in this case, the purpose of facilitating unhindered voting for everyone is more important, in that very limited scope of the voting area, than free speech.

Acorn, Michigan voter purge, etc.
Virginia is not the only state with this issue. Pennsylvania, and possibly other states have either instituted or considered a similar ban.
http://www.acluva.org/newsreleases2008/Oct10sbe.html

More U.S. Anti-Contraception Coercion in Africa, Plus a Look Back on Bush’s Anti-Choice Legacy

Procrustes — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:01:13 +0000

The Bush administration, in its last few months of power, hasn’t stopped its bulldozing of the concept of family planning. This past Thursday, the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development admitted to telling six African governments to stop giving the Marie Stopes International family planning organization U.S.-donated contraceptives that the organization would have distributed to the African populations.¹ This is a move that further endangers poor African women and girls. First, this is indicative of the Bush administration — not really a surprise. However, what is a surprise is that this issue is not something that has been brought up in the current campaign for the presidency. Perhaps a question relating to family planning and funding will be asked at the next debate. (I doubt it, though).

This is just one of many of the Bush agenda’s anti-privacy, anti-choice attacks. Upon the brink of Bush’s departure, we should remember his maniacal legacy.

Bush was the first and only president to sign legislation outlawing an abortion procedure.²
Bush was the first also to criminalize a medical procedure.
Although six federal courts ruled the Federal Abortion Ban to be unconstitutional, the Supreme Court (in 2007, with two Bush appointees) ruled in favor of the ban.³

Bush signed the first federal law granting separate legal status to an embryo or fetus.⁴

Bush signed the Federal Refusal Clause, giving any health-care corporation permission to ignore any pro-choice law that ensures women have access to abortion services or referrals.⁵

Bush executed the Global gag rule,⁶ and then later expanded it.⁷

Bush has nominated three outspoken opponents of pro-choice to the Supreme Court (Miers, Roberts, and Alito).⁸

Bush made at least 73 nominations to the federal appeals courts, none of whom endorsed Roe v. Wade, though 19 were clearly anti-choice.⁹

Three executive branch nominations were anti-choice (John Ashcroft,¹⁰ Tommy Thompson,¹¹ Michael Leavitt).¹²

Bush named at least 16 anti-choice activists to serve in various administration posts that oversee reproductive health (Sen. Tom Coburn, W. David Hager, Eric Keroack).¹³

Bush’s FDA took more than three years to approve emergency contraception for over-the-counter sales, although the agency’s own expert advisory panels voted 23-4 to recommend the move.¹⁴
The primary reason for the stall? A “minority report” written by none other than W. David Hager.¹⁵ Hager claimed that his report was “not written… from an “evangelical Christian perspective,” but from a scientific one.” And then went on to say, “”I argued from a scientific perspective, and God took that information, and he used it through this minority report to influence the decision. Once again, what Satan meant for evil, God turned into good.” ¹⁶

Eight Bush annual budgets have been anti-choice, cutting family planning program funds, promoting abstinence-only curricula, and extending discriminatory abortion restrictions.¹⁷

Bush has spoken at eight annual “March for Life”¹⁸ events, and has issued seven annual proclamations designating the Sunday closest to the Roe anniversary as “National Sanctity of Human Life Day.”¹⁹

The Bush administration ended 30 years of federal funding for a public health conference hosted by the nonpartisan Global Health Council, specifically because organizations with pro-choice positions were among the conference’s participants.²⁰

Bush’s UN delegations have sought anti-choice changes to international agreements, promoting censorship and medical misinformation, and attempting to propose that “life begins at conception.”²¹

Recommended Reading:

The Globalization of an Agenda: The Right Targets the U.N. with its Anti-Choice Politics, Pam Chamberlain, PublicEye.org. http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v20n1/chamberlain_globalization.html

Bush’s Other War (and related links), International Women’s Health Coalition. http://www.iwhc.org/resources/bushsotherwar/othernominations.cfm

Wikipedia: Fetal Rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_rights

Other Resources:

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/issues/bush-administration/
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/issues/bush-administration/bushs-war-on-choice.html (Note that the general rundown of Bush’s legacy was taken mostly from this widely-distributed list, but the list was not footnoted and none of the assertions had citations or support. I personally researched and cited each assertion.)
http://msmagazine.com/news/news_results.asp?Body=appointment

Would a Christian Bail You Out?

JNTB — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:24:45 +0000

The failure of the US House of Representatives to pass the financial services rescue plan (nee “bailout”) has caused me to consider further how Christians define themselves. Who are Christians and what are their basic principles? How do these principles apply to the rescue plan?

From Luke 6 (NIV), we can find these two verses dealing with the wise and foolish builders:

⁴⁸He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. ⁴⁹But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete.

A verse that deals with the building of a home is rather appropriate for today’s economic circumstances. Shouldn’t there be rewards for those who build houses well, and shouldn’t there be troubles for those who don’t? Do those verses entice the listener to pay heed to the words for building well, or do the verses warn of the consequences of building poorly?

Also, in Luke 6 we find prior verses that deal with loving one’s enemies:

³²If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even ’sinners’ love those who love them. ³³And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even ’sinners’ do that. ³⁴And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even ’sinners’ lend to ’sinners,’ expecting to be repaid in full. ³⁵But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. ³⁶Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

Are those who committed sins the ones who built houses poorly? Are those who committed sins the ones who must suffer the consequences? Is there only one consequence of a poorly built home, or are there many?

The Christians of American politics are most often represented by Republicans who cling to the identity of a Christian nation, along with a few Blue Dog Democrats who are simply conservatives wearing a different badge. Together, they represent conservative Americans who are “Christian” with “family values” and together they decided to punish the sinners and their fellow man at the same time. These conservative Christians wish to cling to their money rather tightly. They prefer a free market system that rewards winners and punishes losers. They prefer to remain distant when others are having or will soon be in troubles.

It can be a challenge to understand the financial crisis facing the United States (and much of the rest of the world), but it really is a rather simple thing: people who built [financial] houses poorly (through greed) tried to make a buck more than they deserved. Maybe the citizens who spoke most loudly to their representatives, these citizens who frequently self-identify as Christians, wish to impose penance upon the wrongdoers, those who were too greedy for their own good. Maybe these Christians are greedy themselves. Do Christians have rules regarding the profiting from their fellow man? The Jews certainly gave us plenty of financial rules to follow in the Old Testament, but Jesus reportedly wiped away some or all of those rules depending on your viewpoint or self interest. The economic rules of the ancient Jews are in direct contradiction with the economic rules of modern capitalism. Can greed on any level make followers forget the tenets of their religion?

Luke 6 also warns us of holding the proper perspective on our problems, specifically our shared problems that may not be so obvious:

⁴¹Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? ⁴²How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

When it comes to punishment, pain and penance, Christians are quite good at providing all three. The predominantly Christian citizenry has spoken: those big corporations and banks on Wall Street must be punished for their wrong doings and they should not profit from taxpayer dollars. To follow the wisdom of Luke, Christians cannot see the plank stuck in their own eye because they can only point to the speck of sawdust in their brother’s eye.

The plague of the financial system is the lack of confidence in the value of assets that support the value of credit. Even if we don’t like it and even if we don’t use it, the free flow of credit does run the economy and without that flow the economy slows down like a dreidel losing the momentum to spin. When Christians do not help their fellow man, they do not help themselves. The judgment they make upon others returns as judgments made upon them.

When a home burns down, there are Christians who go help the victims. When there is an auto accident, there are Christians who go help the victims. When there is a need for a organ transplant, the are Christians who go help the victims. There are Christians who will contribute a great deal of money to all of these victims to help relieve them, however slightly and imperfectly, from their despair. However, when the only visible consequence to a victim is the lack of funds in a bank account, the Christians are nowhere to be found.

Could this be a simple misunderstanding? Certainly. Could this be the voices of a few controlling the actions of the many? Certainly. Have these Christians been presented the complete picture of this problem so that they can make an informed decision? Maybe not. One would think that if these Christians had a fuller understanding of the predicament faced by all, their choice of support would be different.

What Would Jesus Do? Would he bail you out? Would he bail himself out? Remember, Jesus was a martyr.

Editor’s note:
In a Time online magazine article on October 3, David Van Biema asks, “Foreclosures: Did God Want You to Get That Mortgage?”

Has the so-called Prosperity Gospel turned its followers into some of the most willing participants — and hence, victims — of the current financial crisis? That’s what a scholar of the fast-growing brand of pentecostal Christianity believes. While researching a book on black televangelism, says Jonathan Walton, a religion professor at the University of California Riverside, he realized that Prosperity’s central promise — that God would “make a way” for poor people to enjoy the better things in life — had developed an additional, toxic expression during sub-prime boom. Walton says that this encouraged congregants who got dicey mortgages to believe “God caused the bank to ignore my credit score and blessed me with my first house.” The results, he says, “were disastrous, because they pretty much turned parishioners into prey for greedy brokers.”

Read the article at Time

The article concludes that “magical thinking can prevail.” In other words, if you pray, and you do it right, God will favor you and let you have a better deal on your mortgage, so you don’t end up like the 90-year-old lady who shot herself in a failed suicide attempt in her foreclosed home. She must have not been doing the beg to the deity thing right.

Also, still no magic for amputees.

Update
Is Fannie Mae a Christian organization? In a revised CNN.com article located at the same link as shown above, Fannie Mae has forgiven Addie Polk’s mortgage. The ole gal is still in the hospital and suffering with her self-inflicted injuries, but Fannie Mae came to the rescue stating “Given the circumstances, we think it’s appropriate.” Is attempted suicide the way to a bailout for your mortgage? For thousands of others who are behind on their mortgages, is Fannie Mae tempting them to attempt suicide? Do Christians award attempted suicide with an erased mortgage?

Perhaps this seems like an organization who has committed some form of questionable business practices repenting for their sins, but Fannie Mae only had indirect responsibility for Addie’s predicament. The story states that in 2004 (when Addie was about 86 years old), Countrywide Home Loans gave Addie a 30-year mortgage on her home for $45,620. I don’t know about you, but I think that Countrywide was a little too optimistic that Addie would survive to her 116th birthday to pay off that mortgage. How does a woman her age have an income to justify payment of the mortgage? If she needed money at Age 86, did they really think she would miraculously gain sufficient income to serve herself and pay her mortgage? Also, according to the real estate website Zillow, Addie’s home has a current market value of $58,000, which happens to be about the same market value as back in 2004 when she got the mortgage. So, where was the collateral for a woman who, statistically, only had about 4 more years to live (attempted suicide notwithstanding)? Did Countrywide take advantage of an 86-year-old woman who should have been counseled against such a mortgage? Had they never heard of a reverse mortgage? Where were the ethical standards in this transaction? I would like to see a counselors statement showing that Addie was of sound mind and body and had a complete understanding of her circumstances and options when she executed the mortgage documents. This situation makes me sick and those involved should be prosecuted for what they have done.

This is a case where Wall Street bailed out Main Street in a game of cover-your-ass. Is attempted suicide the path the only path redemption and is debt erasure an act of atonement?

Photography Laws, Photographer Rights

Procrustes — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:13:41 +0000

Yesterday, I asked a hypothetical question about how you would react to a police officer demanding that you delete your photos or hand over your camera after you’ve taken pictures of public buildings while standing in a public place.¹ I also linked to a number of articles that provide ample evidence that photographers are being targeted by overzealous police and security personnel “for reasons of national security” and otherwise.

Today, I’m going to offer up some links to resources that you might find beneficial if you ever decide to take a photograph outside your own residence. Considering that so many cell phones have their own cameras, and that cameras are becoming more and more portable, it’s likely that anyone reading this has a camera, and can probably benefit from a bit of knowledge about what freedoms and restrictions exist in the realm of photography.²

The Photographer’s Right: A Downloadable Flyer Explaining Your Rights When Stopped or Confronted for Photography

Photography Bay — Photography Laws

Photo Attorney (look for the “Photography Not Allowed” posts for more examples of harassment)

Legal Andrew: Photo Law – Your Right to Take Pictures in Public

PhotoPermit.org

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

PhotoSecrets: The Law For Photographers — A free, online guide to the rules of taking and selling photos.
PhotoSecrets Links page

Covington & Burling memo to the National Press Photographers Association regarding Rights of Journalists on Public Streets, August 15, 2005

In summary, we find that there is no federal law that justifies the broad
prohibitions that are being imposed on photography in public areas. There is no new federal law,
including the Patriot Act, that restricts photography of public buildings and installations on the
basis of concerns over terrorism. Restrictions of photojournalism that proceed on this basis may
constitute violations of journalists’ First Amendment right to gather news.

The basic rule of thumb is that if the general public has access to a public forum
and may operate cameras within it, the press may do so as well.

Photo Junkie: Photographers Rights

Photos & The Law: The Legality of Urban Exploration Photography

Andrew Kantor: Legal Rights of Photographers
Kantor’s USATODAY photography rights article

Student Media of North Carolina State University: Photographers’ Manual

U.K. Photographers Rights

Canadian Photography Laws

Feel free to include suggestions of your own in the comments.

Why, you ask, is a blog devoted to rational activism posting articles regarding a photographer’s right to take pictures in public? Quite simply, State of Protest is dedicated to the elimination of all aspects of irrational, fear-based oppression, whether it be from religious organizations, political factions, neighborhood lynch party groups, or school boards. The photography issue has escalated since 9/11, and we’re all harmed by the misconception that restricting photography somehow ensures national security. While we, as a nation, criticize countries like China for restricting blogger, journalist, and photographer ability to capture and disseminate media critical of the government, we simultaneously create a false requirement of the same restrictions on the basis of national security. All the while, the government continues to increase its ability (and legal right) to invade our privacy with wiretapping, cctv, and other methods of information acquisition.

“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations; but, on a candid examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power, by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, have produced factions and commotions, which, in republics, have, more frequently than any other cause, produced despotism. If we go over the whole history of ancient and modern republics, we shall find their destruction to have generally resulted from those causes.”

– James Madison. Speech at the Virginia Convention to ratify the Federal Constitution, 1788.
Note that I am not affiliated with any of the individuals or organizations behind these links. I’ve derived the links from my own searches. I’m not being paid to provide any of these links. I am not providing any legal advice, and I am not suggesting that any of the links provide legal, proper, or correct advice. I am not your attorney. If you need legal advice, consult an licensed attorney in the appropriate jurisdiction.