The Veiled Threat: Italy’s Proposed Burqa Ban Won’t Fix Cultural Integration, But It Will Erode Liberty

In times of social tension, politicians often claim they are finding solutions in the name of safety, values, or protecting culture. It is amazing how liberty finds itself on the chopping block when the government pursues such goals. That dynamics is now playing out in Italy. Last week, the Fratelli d'Italia, which is the ruling party in Italy under Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, proposed a "cultural separatist" bill in response to growing concerns over Muslim immigrants. Part of this bill includes a public ban on the burqa and niqab. Anyone caught wearing these garments would be fined anywhere from €300-€1,300. 

While there are various local jurisdictions throughout Europe with such bans, Italy would become the ninth country in Europe with a nationwide burqa ban. Proponents of these bans claim that they promote safety, liberate women from a form of religious oppression, and encourage integration. To be clear, I think Europe generally has had a major issue when it comes to integrating its Muslim immigrants. 

I first expressed my concerns in 2015. A lack of integration of Muslim immigrants was also a takeaway from my 2023 trip to Sweden. As I brought up earlier this year while criticizing the "it is Islamophobic to criticize Islam" argument, the influx of Muslim immigrants in Europe is importing oppressive and authoritarian practices and tendencies to the Western world. It is notable enough that I even question some of my views on immigration, at least contextually as they pertain to what is going on in Europe. That topic deserves its own discussion because I would need to think of how immigration in the U.S. is different from Europe. What I will say is that in spite of my considerable worries about Muslim immigrants not integrating into mainstream European society, a burqa ban is not the solution.  

I already have objections based on how this ban erodes freedom. A TikTok ban in the U.S. was based on "protecting values" or "security." A burqa ban uses similar justifications while giving the state a deeply concerning power over one's body and what one can wear. Unless you can prove a direct harm from a fashion choice, a burqa ban is a considerable violation of bodily autonomy. If a government can tell people what they can wear in the name of security or cultural cohesion, what else can the government dictate? 

At the heart of a liberal and free society is the principle that individuals have the right to live in accordance with their sincerely held religious beliefs, even if those beliefs are not shared by the majority or are uncomfortable. Without that freedom, I would not be able to freely practice Judaism. Article 9 of European Convention on Human Rights is supposed to protect this right, even in spite of the European Court of Human Rights upholding such bans. 

Like lockdowns, burqa bans show how governments respond to fear by restricting freedom rather than trusting individuals. All a burqa ban does is set the precedent that individual expression and religious identity can be quashed by majoritarian discomfort. By viewing clothing as a threat, Italy risks the problem of eroding the democratic pluralism it claims to defend. 

I find such a ban to be problematic more than on terms of freedom of expression, bodily autonomy, or freedom of religion. I have criticized bans over the years, showing that government uses bans as a blunt instrument that are prone to backfiring. This was the case with the gas stove ban when it restricted choice while not solving anything of substance. Burqa bans also do not solve anything of substance, particularly when it comes to whether they increase integration. 

One study from Cambridge University (Paul, 2024) covering French and Belgian bans indicates that "A law or regulation that prohibits or governs the wearing of Islamic veils in the public sphere, pressures pious Muslim women (that is, those who habitually wear veils in public) to stay home and to avoid public places." This study also found that a majority of women interviewed reduced their outdoor activities and made them feel like they were living in a jail. Even if some women are pressured into veiling, the solution is not to punish them by further isolating them from public life with a burqa ban. That doubles down on their marginalization.

Another study from Stanford University (Fouka and Abdelgadir, 2020) covered the 2004 France headscarf ban in public schools. The ban does only cover schools, but it does show the backfiring effect, which resulted in discrimination both from non-Muslim peers and Muslim community members who thought the girls were selling out. Muslim girls were shown to have lower rates of completing secondary education and were more likely to repeat courses. 

Then there is a study from the Open Society Foundations interviewing 35 Muslim women showing that a full veil ban resulted in increased mental health issues, isolation, disruption in family life, and avoidance of health services. While much of the evidence of these bans are qualitative in nature and limited in sample size, we are still able to get valuable insight into how these bans directly and negatively affect those most impacted by these bans. The problem with burqa bans is that they result in more alienation than they do assimilation. 

A burqa could represent illiberalism because it sends the message that women should not be seen or that it is a form of systemic subjugation. However, a ban is also an illiberal policy. You cannot fix coercion with another act of coercion. Bans are a broad, coercive, and typically counterproductive policy that disrespects the liberty of individuals to live their own lives. There is no strong evidence that a burqa ban would improve the integration of Muslim immigrants. 

Much like Trump making English an official language, age verification laws, or banning flag burning, a burqa ban is another form of right-wing virtue signaling. It is a costume change masquerading as a cultural fix because it is more concerned with optics than actual outcomes. The main question here is how do we maintain an open, liberal society that welcomes immigrants without becoming illiberal ourselves? 

A few suggestions come to mind. Provide women confidential support services for those who are in religious or cultural pressure situations. Increase legal and police protection for Muslim women who want to integrate and would otherwise face abuse or intimidation. Improve access to education and employment choice, both of which are shown to improve autonomous choice and independence of women. Prosecute the explicitly coercive acts, such as forced marriage and honor violence. Support community outreach and mentorship to break the segregation without banning cultural expression, much like the Migrant Women Mentoring Programme focuses on doing. Provide better training for instructors so they can help migrants learn basic civic, cultural and language skills. 

If your argument is that women are being coerced into wearing the burqa, empowering women with the skills to make their own choices is far more effective than banning clothing. Cultural integration needs to come from a place of education, dialogue, and leadership. Part of that includes criticizing Islamist ideology and influences, as well as rejecting Sharia-based legal frameworks to influence secular law. If attempting cultural integration comes from force, like we have seen in France, all it is going to do is isolate Muslims and increase resentment from Muslims about mainstream society. Criminalizing someone's fashion choices is not going to fix these multifaceted cultural issues, but they will erode freedom in an illiberal fashion in the meantime. 

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis: Graphic Designers Shouldn't Be Compelled to Produce Same-Sex Wedding Websites

Should a public accommodation law be allowed to compel a business owner to produce messages that violate their personal beliefs, thereby violating their First Amendment rights? That is a legal question that was presented to the United States Supreme Court in the case 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. Lorie Smith runs a graphic designing company in Colorado called 303 Creative. She objects to same-sex marriage on religious grounds and would rather not host sites for same-sex weddings. The issue is that Colorado's anti-discrimination law prohibits discrimination against LGBT customers. What the Supreme Court is going to determine is whether Smith's First Amendment rights are being violated by Colorado's anti-discrimination law. 

In spite of such cases as Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and Fulton v. Philadelphia, the Supreme Court has avoided the question of whether public accommodation laws can compel business owners to provide services for marriage ceremonies that go against their religious or moral beliefs. Hopefully, the case of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis will settle the question. 

Yes, it is true that I have supported same-sex marriage for a number of years. It is also true that I hope that the Court rules in favor of Lorie Smith because Colorado made a misstep. My condensed argument today will be similar to the argument I made during the Masterpiece Cakeshop case in 2017. 

First, this case is not about eliminating anti-discrimination laws. In 2020, the Supreme Court already decided in Bostock v. Clayton County that the anti-discrimination protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply to LGBT individuals. A ruling in Smith's favor would have no bearing on same-sex marriage, same-sex adoption, or anti-discrimination laws in the workplace. Legally, this is about whether commercial entities should be compelled in speech that the owner finds morally objectionable.  

Second, the argument for compelling services for someone or something objectionable cuts both ways. Would it be acceptable to compel an Orthodox Jewish caterer to cater non-kosher food for a neo-Nazi event? What about forcing an African-American woodcutter to create a cross for a KKK rally? Can a Left-leaning freelance speechwriter be obligated to write a campaign speech for a Republican candidate? And what about obliging an atheist web designer to design a website for religious ceremonies that they find problematic?  

I do not agree with Lorie Smith's views on same-sex marriage, but I defend her right to express her own ideas and to refuse to express an idea she disagrees with. This case is about rights related to "freedom of association, property, privacy, and religious exercise." If we are to live in a free society, all commercial entities should be allowed to choose who their clients are or how their services should be rendered. 

Third, we live in a time where same-sex marriage is accepted by most Americans. As of June 2022, Gallup found that 71 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage. That is significantly higher than the 27 percent of support back in 1996. I am sure that among that 71 percent is at least one web designer that would have been happy to take the business away from Lorie Smith and make a profit off of the same-sex wedding page. Also, if the issue of same-sex marriage is that important to a gay couple, why would that gay couple want to hire someone who is opposed to their right to get married?  

While this does not get into the purview of the case itself, my fourth issue is that anti-discrimination laws are an example of hazardous policy masquerading as good intentions. Trying to chase such an unobtainable goal comes with the an issue of government taking remedial action. To quote University of Chicago law professor Todd Henderson:

There is no natural limit to the scope of anti-discrimination laws because the concept of anti-discrimination is almost infinitely malleable. To concede the general power of government to redress private discrimination through legislation would be to concede virtually unlimited power to the government. 

With terms to race relations, it was government who enacted such policy as the Jim Crow laws, Plessy v. Ferguson, and redlining. It was the government who defined marriage between a man and a woman instead of allowing for consenting adults to enter into whatever contracts and relationships that they wished. When I explained in 2013 why anti-discrimination laws will not help out the LGBT community, I pointed out that politics does not lead the social change, but rather follows it. 

We cannot legislate our way towards acceptance. Anyone who thinks the government can use anti-discrimination laws to create some utopian world without racism or bigotry is misguided. Nothing can deliver utopia because human beings are imperfect by their very nature. We still do not have 100 percent of people who approve of interracial marriage. Gallup puts that figure at 94 percent. It is a significant improvement from the 4 percent approval rate in 1961, but it still not 100 percent. Approval of same-sex marriage is not at 100 percent, but at least same-sex marriage is legal and most LGBT individuals do not feel the need to hide in the closet.  

While the Supreme Court determines the First Amendment implications as they pertain to freedom of speech, I think there is something even more essential at stake: freedom of association. Freedom of association allows for humans to interact with whom we want and is integral for pursuing our dreams and goals. A free, democratic society cannot eliminate discrimination because freedom of association implies a right to discriminate against others. 

It is a private business owner's right to choose with whom they should do business, much like it should be our individual choice who our friends are. If you really do not like the fact that a Christian web designer believes that same-sex marriage is a sin, find a web designer who supports same-sex marriage or does not care what two consenting adults do. Anyone who wants to trade in liberty for the appearance of a non-bigoted world is really only going in for a quick, illusory fix that will not produce a free, cooperative society. 

Much like I pointed out over seven years ago when discussing anti-discrimination laws, "your freedom of religion ends where another's freedom of religion begins." Lorie Smith has the freedom of conscience and freedom of religion to believe that same-sex marriage is a sin. She also has the right to refuse business that violates her moral conscience and her First Amendment rights. However, those beliefs do not provide the basis or the right to deny same-sex couples such rights as the right to get married or the right to adopt children. Part of living in a democratic, pluralistic society means that everyone is not going to think, speak, or act the way you do. Whether it is the Religious Right or the woke Left, it is unacceptable to use the government to force everyone everywhere to act the way that they want. By ruling in favor of Lorie Smith, the Supreme Court would preserve freedoms that we should all hold dear.

Masterpiece Cakeshop Supreme Court Case: Protecting Both Gay Rights and Religious Freedom

In one form or another, cakes have been a sweet dessert that have been used to celebrate birthdays, anniversaries, and weddings. You can tell when times are contentious and polarized when cake becomes a theme fought over in a Supreme Court case. This brings us to the oral arguments that the Supreme Court are to hear today for the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The premise behind the case is that a same-sex couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, went to Masterpiece Cakeshop in 2012 to buy a custom wedding cake. The owner, Jack Phillips, refused to create wedding cake for same-sex couples due to his religious beliefs. Although another baker offered to bake Craig and Mullins a wedding cake, the couple decided to file an anti-discrimination complaint under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. The complaint escalated to the point where the Supreme Court is answering the question of whether the baker had his freedom of speech or religion violated per the First Amendment. There is more information and analysis from the SCOTUS Blog, but what I would like to explore is which side has more merit and what implications this has going forward.

The concern of those in support of the defendant is that allowing for this sort of discrimination will open the floodgates to remove anti-discrimination laws and allow for a "constitutional right to discriminate." Let's look at the discrimination more specific to the case and then let's go more broadly. A wedding cake is not a key component of a wedding. Even if you argue that a cake were that vital to a wedding, Craig and Mullins could have found a different baker. With nearly two out of three Americans support same-sex marriage (see below), it is conceivable that they could have found another baker. As a matter of fact, another baker offered to provide the couple a wedding cake at no charge.

This brings up another question: should Phillips be coerced to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, even though his religious view is that marriage is between a man and a woman? If the answer is "yes" and anti-discrimination laws end up being interpreted in such a fashion, then the government would also be able to compel a Jewish baker to bake a non-kosher cake with a swastika for a neo-Nazi wedding or a neo-Nazi event. An African-American woodcutter could be compelled to create a wooden cross for a KKK rally, or a staunch Democrat caterer cater for a Trump rally. It would mean that Facebook could not ban white supremacists from posting racist dribble. Whether or not the Supreme Court rules that baking a cake is an artistic expression protected under the First Amendment (see arguments for and against), what worries me is whether the government has the right to compel an individual to produce something that violates their conscience.

I made this point three years ago when discussing price discrimination: producers have a right to produce their good or service for whomever they like. If a proprietor refuses to serve a certain clientele, then that is their poor business decision to make. In 2017 America, there are plenty of bakers that will take the business of same-sex weddings because profit motive. If a Christian baker refuses to serve a same-sex couple, that is their right. The reverse is also true. Take a look at what happened earlier this year. A gay coffeehouse owner in Seattle kicked out Christian anti-abortion activists from his place of business. Regardless of how you feel about abortion or Christianity, it was the gay proprietor's choice to not serve the Christian activists.

The ultimate question is how we find the balance. This is a tricky Court case because the Supreme Court needs to balance two major components of a free society. On the one hand, we need to have freedom of religion, conscience, and association. After all, it was the pursuit of that freedom that was the basis of founding the United States. At the same time, civic equality is a necessity for a free, democratic society. Yes, it is true that more and more people are supporting LGBT rights. Situations like the one that precipitated this Supreme Court case will thusly become less prevalent. Conversely, individuals within the LGBT community have gone through more than plenty of discrimination. Although there has been general progress towards civic equality, there are legitimate concerns that we, as a society, take steps backwards. That is the quandary: I don't want a society where the government coerces people to act against their own conscience, and I don't want a society with discrimination against an entire group of people.

I pondered this very question of how to strike this balance between religious freedom and civil liberties five years ago. The summarized version is that "your religious rights end where another's rights begin." What this means in this case is that Phillips does not have to bake cakes for same-sex weddings. Although I strongly disagree with Phillips' views on same-sex marriage, it is his right to hold those views. At the same time, Phillips does not have the right to force the government to stop same-sex marriages of two consenting adults simply because those are his religious beliefs. This is where we draw the line in a civilized, pluralistic society. Phillips has the right to bake cakes for whichever clientele or whichever occasions he so chooses. If he wants to lose out on making money, that's his own decision. Craig and Mullins, as two homosexual adults, have a right to enter a consensual contract of marriage. This is how we respect both the civil liberties of LGBT people and religious freedom: protecting individual rights. I also believe getting to know people who are different from you goes a long way in understanding where others are coming from, even if you don't agree with them.

How should the Supreme Court strike this balance? The gay rights movement already won the intellectual argument and is winning the moral high ground. This country does not need anti-gay backlash from this case, which is another reason why coerced nondiscrimination [from the Supreme Court] is not the best course of action in the long-run. I think that both sides have valid arguments, but that the Court should rule in favor of Phillips. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Phillips, it should narrow the scope of the ruling and the exemption (e.g., wedding-related businesses, commercial institutions in competitive marketplaces) as much as possible so that it doesn't infringe on the rights of LGBT individuals. That way, we can protect everybody's rights instead of throwing people and their right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness under the bus.

Religious Freedom Acts: What Do They Actually Mean for Religious Freedom and Freedom in General?

The state of Indiana has been taking a lot of heat lately. The states of Connecticut and New York, as well as a whole slew of companies and celebrities, have decided to boycott the state of Indiana. What did Indiana do that was so heinous? Indiana's government passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Wait a minute! How can religious freedom be a bad thing? Amongst other things, this country was based on the pursuit of religious freedom. This, of course, assumes that the bill Indiana passed actually has to do with religious freedom. Before we go into the "which side is correct" argument, let's take a look at the history of "religious freedom acts" first.

We can go back to the Constitution and the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Since Congress is constitutionally the law-making branch, this de jure applies to the federal government. The creation of the Fourteenth Amendment applied the concept to the state and local levels. In a more modern context, the federal government created the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. The Act passed with very little opposition, and was signed by President Clinton on November 16, 1993. The purpose of passing the Act was to apply strict scrutiny to the First Amendment's Free Exercise clause, a precedent that was already set by Sherbert v. Verner and Wisconsin v. Yoder. The Supreme Court later ruled in 1997 (City of Boerne v. Flores) that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that if it were to apply on the state level, each state would need to apply their own version of a "religious freedom act."

Fast-forward to March 26, 2015 when Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed the Indiana version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It shouldn't seem like that big of a deal. Indiana is now one of twenty states to pass such an act. Even Connecticut, one of the states boycotting Indiana, has such an act (although they're not 100 percent the same type of legislation). However, those who are opposed to Indiana's new law are doing so because they're postulating that the law differs from other religious freedom acts to the point where it's a detrimental piece of anti-gay legislation.

Let's back up for a second and define religious freedom. To sum up what I wrote on religious freedom a couple years ago, "your freedom of religion ends where another person's freedom of religion begins." For instance, I have the right to keep kosher (Jewish dietary laws), but if I tried to force those views on everyone else, I would violate another's freedom to religion. In the case of the fundamentalist, Christian baker who believes homosexuality is a sin, he has a right to not sell a cake to a lesbian couple. However, that does not mean that his religious beliefs can be the basis to violate the lesbian's couple to get married. It would be the same if a homosexual baker refused to sell a cake to a fundamentalist Christian couple about to get married because that baker hated religious fundamentalists. It is about the freedom of association and property rights. No one should force you to sell something you don't want to. Conversely, no one should force you to buy something from anti-gay religious fundamentalists, which is why boycotting is a perfectly acceptable response.

If you don't like a certain baker, I'm sure you can find another baker. Most people realize that the money of anybody, whether gay, straight, white, black, female, Christian, Jewish (you get the idea) is as green as yours or mine. Funny how that works out! And what's better is that society is becoming more accepting of gay people and same-sex weddings because it means that anti-gay discrimination is bad for business.

Getting back on track, this is why it shouldn't surprise any of us that I have an issue with anti-discrimination laws, mostly because of the superfluousness attributed to the fact that most businesses already have such provisions in their policies. Speaking of anti-discrimination laws, Indiana is one of the states that doesn't have anti-discrimination laws, which means that even if Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act were repealed this very second, business owners could still deny goods and services based on sexual orientation. All the RFRA does is provide a defense in certain discrimination cases. Considering that the RFRA only applies in judicial proceedings in which the government is not a party, the hoopla about the RFRA's "anti-gay discrimination" is overstated. The same hyperbole goes for Christians who think they're systematically being victims of religious tolerance. This is all the more so since no one has ever won a religious exemption under RFRA standards. Using the law to coerce unwilling participants to baking a cake [or providing any other services] for a same-sex wedding is not going to endear anybody, especially Republicans who are slowly, but surely, trending towards being more accepting of same-sex marriage over time.

To quote Reason Magazine's Nick Gillespie, "It's wrong for liberals to use the government to force everyone everywhere to act the way that they want. And it's tendentious for conservatives to insist that Indiana's RFRA law, passed to forestall religiously minded businesses from having to contravene their beliefs, wasn't really about discrimination." Election season is coming up, so it's no surprise that politically charged rhetoric surrounding hot-button topics is taking place. I do have to wonder whether such rhetoric will inadvertently erode freedom either because of some crusade towards political correctness or a more "puritanical" society in which religious conservatives could force their problematic view of "marriage should be between one man and one woman" onto society.

Setting politics aside for a second, moments like these truly test the bounds of freedom in what we call a free society. Religious people should be allowed to observe their religion as long as it doesn't violate anyone else's freedoms. They also have the right to refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex couple, even though that seems un-Christian, considering that Jesus engaged with prostitutes and tax collectors, two examples of particularly sinful people at the time. Much like religious Christians have certain rights, gay people should have a right to enter same-sex marriage contracts and be afforded life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, just like every other American has. Religious freedom and civil liberties are not mutually exclusive concepts. The debate should be about how we can be tolerant and respectful towards others while preserving everyone's freedoms. Anything else is at best a distraction from more important issues, and at worst, is a disservice to the American people.

Something Is Rotten With the State of Denmark's Ritual Slaughter Ban

This past Monday, Dan Jørgensen, who is the Danish Minister for Food, Agriculture, and Fisheries, introduced a de facto ban on the ritual slaughter of meat. His reason for the ban is because any slaughtering of meat that does not include stunning, which is tantamount to animal cruelty. This ban affects the Jewish method of animal slaughter (שחיטה; shechita), as well as the Islamic practice of halal (حلال), because neither entails stunning. What I would like to do here is threefold: 1) explain the idea behind shechita, 2) provide a brief primer of animal rights and welfare within the context of public policy and political philosophy, and 3) assess the validity of the Danish ban.

Animal Slaughter in Jewish Law
The practice of שחיטה is derived from the Torah (Numbers 11:22; Deuteronomy 12:21, 14:21). Although a Jew is not obligated to eat meat, one can nevertheless eat meat if it is slaughtered under to provisions under Jewish law. While it is permitted to eat meat in Judaism, Judaism makes it a point to show compassion in its treatment of animals, and this compassion is also illustrated in the practice of שחיטה. For one, the slaughter is performed by a trained professional known as a shochet (שוחט). Two, the knife, known as a סכין, cannot have the slightest nick or scratch on the blade so the שוחט can make as clean of a cut as possible. The cut itself is an uninterrupted cut with precision along the animal's throat to stun, exsanguinate, and kill within a single, relatively painless coup. The issue with stunning animals for slaughter here is that it injures the animal during the slaughtering process, which renders the meat not kosher under Jewish law. Judaism maintains that healthy balance between the idea we should not be needlessly cruel to animals and that animals are not on equal footing with humans. The animus towards שחיטה has more to do with the misperception that "religion is archaic and barbaric" than it does with the merits of the actual practice itself.

Animal Rights and Welfare in Political Philosophy and Public Policy
The moral status of animals is up for debate, much like many other polemic issues. The status of animals in a philosophical context varies from animals being morally equivalent to humans, to being the mere property of humans, and everything in between. It should not be that difficult to dismiss the idea that animals are equal to humans. What is implicit in having rights is having responsibility. Animals are instinctive creatures, and as such, lack free will, mens rea, or even a sense of right and wrong to truly be accountable for their actions. Those are characteristics specific to the human condition. Animals are incapable of entering a social contract, which is why when a dog bites a human being or one animal eats another, animals are not prosecuted in a court of law. If animals were equal under the law, roadkill or hunting would be deemed manslaughter, swatting a fly would be murder in the first degree, putting down one's pet would be euthanasia, exterminating termites or a beehive would be genocide, and owning pets would be a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.

If we weren't going to go down the route of complete lunacy by treating animals equal to humans, even legalizing some form of animal welfare can be tricky. On the one hand, the idea of treating animals more kindly, contra Michael Vick, has become more of a value in society because animals are also sentient beings. On the other hand, and something I will elucidate upon momentarily, how do we draw the line of "unnecessary animal suffering?" Regardless, the practice of שחיטה does not add a sense of undue suffering to the animal because if that were the case being made, the a fortiori conclusion would be that meat consumption would have to be made illegal, which is only something you see the radical animal rights activists advocating. 

What is Jørgensen trying to pull?
When passing the ban, Minister Jørgensen had stated that "animal rights come before religion," which I personally don't find inspiring because he's making the statement that animal rights supersede human rights. Jørgensen was also the president of an animal rights group, so it makes me ask about the extent to which this is legitimately about animal rights and welfare.

Compared to the entirety of an animal's life, the slaughtering is a small percentage of that animal's life. Is the Danish government going to the abandon factory farms that put its livestock in such squalor conditions as close confinement, restriction or prevention of normal exercise, lack of daylight or fresh air, or the related health issues? Since 25,000 piglets die per day through the Danish factory farming system (don't forget the pigs who have their tails docked), which is one of the most intense pig farming systems in the world, maybe Jørgensen shouldn't be sending the message that the slaughter at the end of the animal's life is more important that how it is treated throughout its entire life.

If the Danish government is this worried about animal welfare, why have animal slaughter be legal in the first place? Those who think sending an electrical current through an animal doesn't cause pain should try it either on their pet or a fellow human being. If animals are to be granted that much consideration, then animal slaughter of all meat should be considered, as well as the practices of hunting, zoophilia, or being the world leader in producing mink pelts. The amount of animals abused, harmed, or killed in other practices in Denmark [or anywhere else, for that matter] far exceeds the number of animals killed during שחיטה or حلال. At a minimum, Denmark should mandate vegetarianism if animal welfare were that sacrosanct.

Practically speaking, this ban will not really affect the lives of Jews or Muslims in Denmark. Some of the imams in Denmark already ruled that حلال with stunning is an acceptable leniency, and Danish Jews have been importing their kosher meat for the past decade. There is not a single kosher slaughterhouse in Denmark, so it makes me wonder why Jørgensen would make the symbolic gesture at all.

A part of me wonders whether or not this is an assault on religious practice. The Danish Constitution (Section 67) is not the most reassuring form of religious freedom, especially in comparison to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Given the overall secular attitudes of Denmark, it would not be surprising if this were a way to stick it to religion, particularly minority religions that the typical Dane would trouble understanding. This ban could also be a populist, anti-immigration response to the uptick in immigration that has taken place since 1995, and the Jewish community could have incidentally been in the crossfire. Alternatively, this could very well be simple politics. Up until earlier this month, Socialistisk Folkeparti (the Socialist People's Party) was part of the coalition government. Although the next Danish general election isn't until September 2015, it's never too early to pander to the green politics of the Socialist People's Party in the hopes that they maintain the coalition in time for the upcoming election, especially after the Copenhagen Zoo euthanized a perfectly healthy giraffe and fed it to the lions. Unless Jørgensen publicly states an alternative reason or leaves a paper trail behind explicitly explaining why he unilaterally proposed this ban, we won't know what is going on inside his head. Whatever the ultimate reasoning may be, one thing is for certain: this ban has nothing to do with animal welfare.

Should Creationism Be Taught In Schools? What About Intelligent Design?

Back on Tuesday, Bill Nye the Science Guy duked it out with creationist Ken Ham over the debate of "Evolution vs. Creationism." I provided the footage of the debate down below.

Since my academic background is primarily in public policy, I'm going to stay away from the scientific jargon as much as possible. What I would like to do is discern the issue from a public policy standpoint and determine whether theories such as creationism and Intelligent Design (ID) should be taught in schools.

Before answering the question, I should first specify the sort of schooling towards which this questioning is targeted. This is not geared towards homeschooling because in spite of accreditation requirements, parents who homeschool their children have more latitude in what they teach their children (As a side note, I am interested by the fact that even with the disproportionate amount of home-schooled children being Evangelical Christians, there is a growth of secular, home-schooled children). Similar arguments can be made for private schools, and to a lesser extent, charter schools. This primarily leaves us with the question of whether these theories should be taught in public schools.

This leads us to the next question of "what is scientific theory?" When used in the world of natural sciences, the word "theory" does not mean "a set of ideas that are presented to explain something, but may or may not be true." When we say "scientific theory," we mean to say "a well-substantiated explanation of natural phenomenon that can be confirmed through observation and experimentation via the scientific method." I remember when I was in college, I took a course of the physics of light, and there was a lot of debate as to whether light was a wave, particle, or a combination of both. Even with the debate, there were still a set of high standards that was applied to the scientific inquiry.

Now that we have a better grasp of "scientific theory," let's move over to the differences between Creationism and Intelligent Design. Just for the record, these are not synonyms. According to Webster's dictionary, Creationism is "the belief that G-d created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible, and therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect." Creationism is a sectarian ideology based on biblical literalism, a literalism that I find to be irksome. Creationism is not taught with secular intent. Creationism should be left for Sunday schools, not for public schools. Doing otherwise would be a violation of the First Amendment.

Intelligent design, on the other hand, simply states that an intelligent, powerful being created the universe in a directed process. Note that the theory of intelligent design does not postulate who the designer is. It could be G-d, الله, or one of the deities from polytheistic religions. Heck, it can even be the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and it would still be a form of intelligent design! The notion that the universe was created by design, rather than random mutations, is not an argument that inherently religious in nature. What's more is that there actually is a cogent case to be made for "design in nature," whether it comes in the form of the fine-tuned universe argument, cosmological argument, or the specified complexity argument. To secularly argue that there is intelligent design has a lot more validity than arguing that the world was literally created in six days and that the world is literally about six millennia old.

Before I go into the policy analysis, just a few words on how I personally feel on the matter. Unlike most of America, I do not find a dichotomy between science and religion. Science explains the "how," and religion explains the "why." Let's say that natural selection and random mutations are undeniably the mode through which we came into being, which based on discerning what I can from the scientific evidence, it's the most probable scientific explanation. I don't care because it does not violate my understanding of Torah in the slightest, and it does not shake my belief in monotheism because evolutionary theory and Judaism are not mutually exclusive. There's no contradiction in me being a theistic evolutionist.

In an ideal education system, I would like for school to be an institution in which students can openly discuss and debate varying points of view in a respectful, civil manner. This is why I am certainly not going to advocate for removing evolution from the classroom, but I'm also not going to say that evolutionary theory is as "open and shut" as one would like to think because it's not. With regards to this particular topic, the debate is framed in terms of "science versus religion," which is problematic. Creationists like to view their opponents as g-dless, condescending heathens, and evolutionists like to view their opponents as Bible-thumping troglodytes. Until people frame the debate in terms of "Was nature created by design or randomly," we're going to be stuck in this uncouth stalemate that perpetuates the idea that there is nothing in between atheistic evolutionist and creationist that would actually create a spectrum of viewpoints on the issue.

One of the simpler solutions, which evidently has a libertarian twist, is to get the government less and less involved in the education sector. A competitive market in education might not have answered the question of "Was nature created by design or randomly," but it would have mitigated the political tension by now. At the very least, we can think about policies (e.g., tax credits, school vouchers) that could allow for lower-income families to have better access to the education marketplace. Although there is some potential for allowing additional privatization of education, it would be relatively more prudent to figure out what to do with the public school's current K-12 curriculum.

Even if I am a proponent for more privatized education, we should still aim for a higher standard of intellectual discourse in our public schools as long as the public school system still exists. What could be done is seeking out some schools willing to pilot a science curriculum that can teach biology, as well as present cases both for evolutionary theory and intelligent design in a relatively fair, unbiased manner with supporting evidence for each side. If it's a success, then other public schools should take a cue from its success and implement it themselves. With that, we can theoretically preserve the First Amendment without having to quash intellectual debate (more on that below). It would be great to see ID taught in a secular fashion, as well as a reasonably objective one. However, I think this would be asking for too much with a country that is so divided on the issue. Not only that, an issue I find with the theory of intelligent design is that it does not meet the standard of falsifiability, which could arguably put ID out of the realm of the scientific method because even if there were unquestionably a designer, who is the designer responsible for the universe's creation? The interplay between evolution and how it relates to religious beliefs can be debated in a social studies or politics classroom. This alternative would allow for the discussion to be had, but to "leave science in the  science classroom," which would a compromise from my view, but something tells me this would not be an acceptable policy alternative for creationists.

I am thinking that in an American context, tweaking the curriculum without altering it greatly would work best because my main concern is that ID would be used as a gateway to advance the agenda of creationism (see Epperson v. Arkansas). With that in mind, if only evolutionary theory is to be taught in the science classroom, it should at least be taught with a presentation of its strengths and weaknesses, as opposed to being unquestionable dogma, so that students can understand evolutionary theory from all angles and allow for enough intellectual wiggle room in the event that evolutionary theory is incorrect. Although part of an education is teaching facts, the other part of an education is to enable students to think analytically and be able to problem-solve, which this latter policy alternative would permit. This curriculum stipulation would allow for students to think openly and critically while not having religion shoved down their throats or freedom of inquiry stifled. Given the political climate, this would be the best policy alternative to the status quo.

Phil Robertson's Anti-Gay Remarks: Yes, He Got What He Deserved

I had to take a break from commenting on the Federal Reserve and monetary policy to weigh in on this issue. Last week, Gentlemen Quarterly published an interview with Phil Robertson, who is a TV personality on the A&E TV show Duck Dynasty. Robertson made incendiary comments, including how African-Americans were happy "pre-entitlement" and how a "lack of Jesus" brought about such things as Nazi Germany and the attack on Pearl Harbor. As offensive as those were, the comments for which Robertson received the most flack was his comments on homosexuality and gay people. These comments have resulted in A&E suspending Robertson from the show, although that suspension might be short-lived.

Conservatives would have you believe that Robertson is being punished for exercising his free speech and talking about Christian values. Ian Bayne insultingly analogized Robertson as the "Rosa Parks of our generation." If Robertson simply opined that "homosexual behavior is unambiguously prohibited in the Bible" (an opinion with which I vehemently disagree) and left it at that, he would have been fine. However, his comments about homosexuality went well beyond his interpretation of the Bible. Exhibit A. When asked the question "What in your mind is sinful," Robertson's response was the following:

Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers, they won't inherit the kingdom of G-d. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right.

The first thing that comes to Robertson's mind about what constitutes as sin is not avarice or injustice. It's the sexual acts committed by consenting, homosexual adults. And how in the world does homosexual behavior lead to bestiality?! The man's ignorance about homosexuality shows that he does not have the faintest idea of how sexuality functions. Furthermore, his statement of "they won't inherit the kingdom of G-d" also contradicts his later statement of "We never, ever judge someone on who's going to heaven, hell." But wait a second. You just said that you shouldn't judge people, but you managed to judge a whole group of people in a previous statement in the same interview. Whatever happened to "do not judge lest ye be judged (Matthew 7:1)?"

Exhibit B of just how disparaging Robertson's remarks were:

It seems like, to me, a vagina, as a man, would be more desirable than a man's anus. That's just me. I'm just thinking: There's more there! She's got more to offer. I mean, come on, dude, you know what I'm saying? But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical.

Here's another example of "whatever happened to not judging people?" And how is such vulgar language about vaginas and anuses "Christian-like?" I thought the Christian Bible said such things as "let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth (Ephesians 4:29)," "if anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man's religion is worthless (James 1:26)," and "every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment (Matthew 12:36)." Would this sort of language be acceptable in church? I doubt it. Also, regardless of whether you agree with Robertson's remarks, his remarks were hurtful towards other people, especially when it comes to ignorantly reducing homosexuality to a single sex act. Jesus taught that after "love G-d," the most important commandment is "love your neighbor as you love yourself (Mark 12:28-31)." Robertson should have had this in mind before he began the interview. No one is perfect, but if you're going to become an advocate for Christian values, you can't be chiding someone for sinning while sinning in the same breath. Such behavior is hypocritical, but should I be so surprised that conservative Christians in this country are defending his behavior rather than condemning it?

Robertson clearly made ignorant and insulting remarks. The fact that Robertson is more obsessed with the "sin of homosexuality" is reflective of how out of whack the prioritization of "Christian values" are in this country. However, was it so bad that Robertson should have been suspended in the first place?

Sarah Palin jumped in and said that Robertson's free speech was being violated. What conservatives conveniently forget is that the First and Fourteenth amendments apply to the government's infringement of free speech. As already illustrated, Robertson's comments went well beyond the opinion of "the Bible says homosexuality is a sin." Since Robertson is being suspended for specific comments that had nothing to do with religious belief, he can't even claim that A&E is violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

More to the point, A&E, which is a private entity, made the decision to suspend Robertson after his interview violated the morals clause in his contract, a contract which he voluntarily signed. Robertson was not expressing his private views with his closest buddies at the bar. He was doing an interview promoting his show. The comments he made reflected poorly on A&E, and A&E thus had the right, nay, the obligation to enforce the contract.

Briefly, a word about being persecuted for his religious beliefs. Robertson is only being suspended. Anyone who is thoughtless or brainless enough to even think that "this is a sign that Christians are persecuted in this country" or there is a "war on Christianity" needs to pick up a book on the history of the Jewish people. Christians aren't being barred from celebrating Christmas or Easter. The government is not shutting down churches or forcing Christians to live in ghettos or to work in certain professions. There are no pogroms or inquisitions against Christians in this country. This is not a sign of Christian persecution. There is no inalienable right to be on A&E. This is a sign that people are becoming more accepting of homosexuals. Get over it, Religious Right!

Also, I love how conservatives clamor about how dissenting opinions are being punished in this country. However, do you think this is the first time someone has gotten punished for saying something offensive or idiotic? Alec Baldwin was just fired for homophobic slurs. What about Paula Dean, Helen Thomas, Michael Richards, Ozzie Guillen, the Dixie Chicks, and Don Imus? We now live in a society that is more accepting of the LGBT community. Saying such comments is comparable to any other racial slur. Actions have consequences. Speech is a form of action, and Robertson was most definitely exercising his freedom of speech when making his remarks. When you say something offensive, you pay for the consequences. Isn't personal responsibility a key feature of conservatism, or does that not apply to homophobic statements?

When the Chick-fil-a incident happened last year, the standard conservative response to naysayers was "this is the free market at work, deal with it." The shoe is now on the other foot. A private company is now making a decision that conservatives do not like. If conservatives are unhappy with the decision, they can either boycott A&E or petition to have Duck Dynasty aired on another channel that tolerates homophobic sentiments. Otherwise, conservatives are only showing that anti-gay bigotry is more important of a value of conservatism than free markets or personal responsibility. Much to the Religious Right's dismay, Robertson's suspension was well within the realm of free markets. Employers need to be given some freedom to run their business they way they see fit if there is to be a society built on freedom (see my take on anti-discrimination laws).

In spite of the progress that has been made with LGBT equality, Robertson's remarks are a reflection of how this country still has a long way to go in terms of shaping people's views of LGBT individuals. I hope that A&E doesn't cave into pressure and sends a message about how anti-gay statements do not belong in civil society.

When Does the Violation of One's Religious Beliefs Actually Matter?

Yesterday, I listened to this two-person panel sponsored by the local Federalist Society. The speakers were Professors Richard Duncan and Ann Althouse, and they spoke on "The Constitutionalization of the Sexual Revolution and What It Means for Religious Liberty, Federalism, and Self Government." It was a lively discussion on the line we draw between religious freedom and civil liberties, specifically those in the sexual realm. I had a bit of frustration with Professor Duncan because he kept going back to the example of how Catholic adoption agencies in Massachusetts cannot turn away gay couples looking to adopt because if they do, the agencies would be violating anti-discrimination laws, which made him sound very one-sided.

At the end of the panel, I started asking myself a lot of questions. Should religion have as much influence in the political sphere that it does? Should the government have influence over one's religious beliefs? Should the religious beliefs of a vocal minority, plurality, or even a bare majority have any bearing on policy? In short, what constitutes as a legitimate violation of religious freedom and what constitutes as an encroachment on freedom that is merely disguised as religious freedom? When should I care that your religious beliefs have been violated, and when should I tell someone to "just deal with it?"

Constitutionally speaking, there's this little thing called the First Amendment. There are two relevant aspects of it: an Establishment clause, which states that the government cannot establish religion, and the Free Exercise Clause, which gives individuals a pretty wide range to practice one's religion in peace.

As a libertarian, my take on religion is that as long as you are not harming anyone (i.e., the nonaggression axiom), you can practice your religion as freely as you like. This rule applies to all, which means that an individual cannot impose their religious beliefs on other individuals and cry "that was a violation of my religious beliefs" when that individual doesn't get their way. I'll use myself as a hypothetical example. I have the right to keep kosher in accordance with Jewish dietary laws because that's part of my freedom of religion. I do not, however, have the "right" to either force others to keep kosher or even force all restaurants to adhere to Jewish dietary law. At the very least, you'd have a lot of people become angry because eating bacon cheeseburgers or shrimp would become illegal. Policy should not be enacted simply because it violates an individual's sense of religious right or wrong. Otherwise, it would become an argumentum ad absurdum very quickly.

So how do all these factors get applied to modern-day politics and policy?

1: Gay marriage. As I have argued before (see here, here, and here), same-sex marriage is not only a civil right dealing with equality, but it is a matter of contract rights. If you're on the Religious Right and you think that same-sex marriage is "an affront to G-d," then my advice to you is don't get married to someone of the same sex. You have the right to believe same-sex marriage is wrong (and I also have the right to disagree with that assertion), but you don't have the right to impose your religion on other people. A ban on same-sex marriage based on religion is as tenuous as my argument of making everyone in America adhere to Jewish dietary laws: it has no place in a free society.

2: Gay adoption. If we go back to Professor Duncan's main grievance, he brings up there being an issue with anti-discrimination laws, and I agree. Do I personally like the anti-gay discrimination of the Catholic adoption agencies? Absolutely not! In spite of that, I do have to respect the Catholic Church to run their private institutions in whichever way they would like. Fortunately, the Catholic Church's views do not stop a gay couple from exercising their right to adopt, especially considering that there are other adoption agencies out there that are more than willing to allow same-sex couples adopt. And as a side note: if we are to respect the Catholic Church as a private institution, then they shouldn't be receiving government funding. Otherwise, deal with the strings that are attached!

3: Anti-discrimination laws. Being a libertarian Jew, I have very mixed feelings about anti-discrimination laws. On the one hand, I know discriminating against employees based on something like religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation is wrong. Employers should select employees based on their skills. On the other hand, the notion of property rights allows proprietors to run their businesses however they want, regardless of how idiotic or immoral their discrimination is. This sort of idiocy does end up being punished. There is a reason why more and more businesses are being pro-LGBT: it's good business. Once the momentum for a civil rights movement begins, the trajectory is in favor of progress and equality. Businesses realize that as time goes on, more people will be pro-gay rights, which means that over time, being anti-gay is poor business strategy.

4: Obamacare and Birth Control. Another unintended consequence of Obamacare is agitating the Catholics with a birth control mandate that even extends to non-profit organizations. The Catholic Church doesn't want to be forced to provide something that they find morally objectionable. I believe women should have access to birth control. Conversely, birth control is not a right; it is an economic good. Birth control should be freely accessible in the marketplace, not at the bequest of a government mandate. Do the rights of the Catholic Church matter here? Yes and no. I agree with the Catholic Church, but for different reasons. They complain that their religious views are being violated, but that's not the issue per se. The real issue is that their economic rights are being violated. They should not be forced to pay for something they don't want, all the more so if they find it morally problematic.

Conclusion: The search for religious freedom is what led the Puritans and other persecuted religious minorities from the Old World to America. Religious freedom is considered sacrosanct in this country. Respecting the individual's freedom of religion means not infringing or imposing upon another individual's freedoms. Atheists can be offended or annoyed by religion, but that doesn't give the atheist the right to destroy or close down houses of worship. People were offended by Dan Cathy's anti-gay remarks, myself included, but that doesn't mean we go about banning Chick-fil-a restaurants. Boycotting is the best response to Dan Cathy and his ilk. If an evangelical Christian parent is offended that the public school teaches evolution or doesn't allow prayer in the classroom, that parent can either send their child to private school or have their child home-schooled.

To summarize my sentiment, if the government is forbidding a certain religious belief or practice when it is not infringing on other people and their rights, then the religious individual has the right to cry foul. Otherwise, we speak up and put an end to the chicanery because your freedom of conscience ends where another individual's freedoms begin. Without being aware of the difference between actual religious rights and faux claims masquerading as rights, we can lose our religious rights to either extreme, which is why we should always pay attention to our rights with due diligence and alacrity.

Rebellion for Freedom of Religion and the Chanukah Story

The balance between obeisance and defiance in Judaism is captivating.  The story of Chanukah gives another example to better find that balance.

As the story goes, Antiochus IV Epiphanes expanded into the land of Judea, which resulted in a divide between the Jews.  On the one hand, you had the assimilated Hellenistic Jews, and on the other, you have what would become the zealously religious Maccabeans.  Cultural oppression ensued.  Jewish practices such as Torah study and circumcision were outlawed.  Antiochus even went as far as sacrificing a pig on the altar in the Temple!  Given the political climate, Judaism was at stake.  Rather than be obedient to the authorities, the Maccabees decided to revolt against the Greek establishment.  After much fighting, the Greeks were overthrown and sovereignty was returned to the Israelites. 

I find it ironic that a celebration of the victory of the Religious Right is the most favorite holiday of secular Jews that mostly lean to the Left, but I'll leave that one alone....at least for now.  The point I want to bring up is that the individual was meant to practice their religion, and practice it freely.  The ability to pursue under one's own conscience while not harming others is essential to freedom and finding meaning in life.    

Under normal circumstances, Jewish law dictates דינא דמלכותא דינא, or that "the law of the land is the law." However, Judaism takes exception to that when Jewish practice is at stake, much like with the Maccabees.  Just to elucidate a bit further, something being legal does not make it morally right.  Events such as the Holocaust and the Civil Rights movement remind us that there is certainly a distinction between the two.  

I'm not all too worried about this happening in America.  Historically speaking, freedom of religion in America has been pretty solid.  Thank you, First Amendment of the Constitution!  From a Jewish perspective, we have never enjoyed such freedom in the Diaspora.  The ultimate failure of San Francisco's recent attempt to ban circumcision exemplifies how much we don't have to worry about an attack on religious freedom (e.g., practicing Judaism) in America, especially to a point where we would need to rebel against our government.  

That is certainly a blessing I take into consideration this Chanukah: to live in a country in which I can freely observe my Judaism.  Even though we are not in any danger of losing such freedom anytime soon, Jews should nevertheless be ever vigilant to make sure that what the Maccabees endured is not a reality in our time, but merely a distant memory.  

חג שמח!         

Is America the Greatest Nation on Earth?

I find that asking whether America is the greatest nation on Earth during the Fourth of July season is a most appropriate topic question.  When is a better time to ask it than when our awareness of our nation's ideals is most heightened with the patriotic fervor of the holiday spirit?  If you haven't noticed, I have been using Pew Center polls a lot lately, and I do so for two reasons.  One is that the Pew Center has no discernible bias, something that I cannot say for just about every other media outlet in the nation.  My second reason is that it the intrigue of the frequency in which many of the opinions of those who are polled do not jive with reality.  I would consider this drôle if it were not for the fact that these people actually have clout in public policy.

That set aside, I was taking a look at a recent poll done that asked the question at hand: Is America the greatest nation on Earth?  Even in spite of post-9-11 patriotism, I was surprised to see the results of the poll.  A majority (53%) believe that America is one of the greatest nations, but is by no means superior.  I find the question to be problematic for a couple of reasons.  The first is that politics gets in the way.  The Far Right is obsessed with an unwavering sense of "American exceptionalism," whereas the Far Left is hung up on blaming America for everything.  The second, and by far more important reason, is that the question is so loaded that it's not even funny.

"I love my country" is an emotion.  Every country has their patriots, and each country's patriots will say their respective nation is the greatest on Earth.  That's the very essence of pride.  However, pride is not an objective measurement of greatness.  That being the case, how can we measure America's greatness?  The answer is not simple simply because we would need to measure multiple factors that play a role in answering that question.  Let's take a look:

• Military/Defense: America is the most technologically advanced military in the world.  America's military prowess is well-known.  Also, in absolute dollars, the US spends $607B (2008 figures), more than any other nation, although that is a smaller portion of our GDP than one would think.  "Don't mess with the U.S." still rings true as America has the most powerful military on the planet.  In terms of spending and being involved in pointless endeavors such as Afghanistan, debate on military efficacy should be an ongoing process as it would be great to see the American military spend as little as possible while being efficient in terms of accomplishing its goals.
• Economic Freedom: Co-sponsored by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal, the Economic Freedom Index measures economic freedom throughout the world.  Even though economic freedom has dropped during the Obama administration, America is still measured to have well-above average economic freedom.
• Economy: In spite of the recession, America has the largest GDP, and largest GDP per capita based on Purchasing Power Parity (PPP).  We have a convoluted, progressive tax system that stymies economic growth. We are also dealing with a massive debt on which we are having a hard time paying back.  Entitlement spending and heading towards the status of a welfare state does not help with any of this.  A reversal of this trend would help ensure that America's economic growth doesn't end up like that of the European Union.           
• Education: For being a developed nation that is allegedly the "greatest nation on Earth," I find the education system in this country to be mediocre at best, and at worst, a sad state of affairs if we are to lead the world in a forward direction this century.  According to the Programme of International Student Assessment (PISA), which evaluates academic progress of fifteen-year old students worldwide, the scores of American students did not exceed those of many of the other developed nations.  Even though the expenditures for K-12 schools have more than tripled (inflation-adjusted), SAT test scores have received moderate increases.  Although this can be a much longer commentary,  bloated school budgets, teacher unionism that doesn't incentivize teachers to improve their teaching methods, the Department of Education, and dumbing down the curriculum (both in K-12 and many undergraduate colleges) all further erode the education system in this country.        
• Religious Freedom: It was the theme for my blog entry for last year's Fourth of July.  I am so grateful that as a Jew, I have such ability to practice Judaism.  Religious freedom is one of those impetuses that brought the colonialists to America.  I am glad to see that America has done a superb job at maintaining religious freedom that has been unprecedented in the Diaspora.
• Health Care: The answer depends on whether you want to focus on equity (i.e., universal access) like the Left or overall quality like the Right does.  At best, one could argue that countries have socialized health care have immediate access to certain prescriptions and other basic forms of health care.  As for more complicated medical procedures, that's another story.  Do you want to be waiting in line for months for a live-saving procedure like they do in Canada,  or do you want to pay a bit more for quality that could mean the difference between life and death?  Last time I checked, a long waiting line is not access to health care.  Also, America has the greatest medical research facilities in the world, which means access to more complicated procedures.  This means increased prices in health care costs, which is why America has the highest health care costs in the world (#1 in absolute dollars and #2 in terms of percentage of GDP.....East Timor is #1).  Proponents of socialized health care gripe because increased costs don't lead to increased life expectancy.  That would be more due to the obesity brought on by the American lifestyle than it is a statement of the quality of American health care.  Even though Medicare and Medicaid dominate a good percentage of the medical industry, whatever has been untouched is still of great quality. Our health care system is by no means perfect, and there are viable solutions that don't involve aggrandizement of Big Government. However, I can guarantee that if Obamacare actually becomes law in 2014, we will be having a completely different discussion about the overall quality of American health care, one that will not be by any means flattering.
• Immigration: The United States has the largest net migration on the face of this planet.  What does that indicate?  There is a much larger flux of people wanting to get into the United States rather than leaving it.  It would indicate that there is something wonderful about America that would cause such a flux.  Even though America is great at attracting immigrants to this nation, there are improvements that can be made in our immigration policy to make it more comprehensive than "guard the borders" to account for the complexities of America's immigration situation.  Canada's immigration policy would be a good model for improvement.    
• Civil Liberties: Even though this country has a ways to in terms of offering civil rights to homosexuals, not to mention the Patriot Act or Real ID Act, the United States is overall sound when it comes to civil rights.  As Freedom House illustrates, America has a constitutionally protected free press, a good freedom of assembly, a high level of autonomy, women's rights, and even more notably, high levels of access to economic and social advancement.  In short, we have some of the best civil rights offered on this planet.        

Postscript: Did this help figure out whether America is the greatest nation on Earth?  It depends.  Do you prefer to emphasize America's strengths or weaknesses?  Which indicator(s) do you find to be more important?  It should go without saying that America is not without problems.  We're a nation composed of human being who are, by definition, imperfect.  As such, we're bound to have problems.  Regardless of how you view the overall direction of America, let's do two things today.  Take pride in that which America excels.  But let's also realize what America needs to focus on so that as a nation, we can work towards making this country better than it already is.

Is There a Libertarian Argument Against Gay Marriage?

"Libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially liberal."  That misnomer highly annoys me, mainly because it's an inaccurate oversimplification.  However, I figured that at least for gay rights, libertarians would be supportive of gay marriage, even if some of them had a personal aversion towards two people of the same sex being together.  After I had recently read this blog entry on the Libertarian Republican, which is based on an article from self-identifying libertarian Pastor Peter Briggs, it looks like I was wrong.  Apparently, there are libertarians who argue that libertarianism is against the idea of gay marriage.  However, this begs an important question: can Briggs' arguments withstand scrutiny?  Let's find out!

• "Marriage is not a privacy issue. Civil marriage is a public institution."
• Marriage is not inherently a public institution.  Throughout a majority of Western history, marriage was a private matter.  The truly libertarian thing to do here would be to take the government out of the marriage business altogether.  As I have stated before, marriage in its most base form is a contract between consenting individuals stating that they want to have a social, emotional, and economic relationship together.  Since we have to deal with the reality that government is going to be in marriage business for a while, we might as well offer the same rights to homosexuals as we do heterosexuals.  Not doing so would be a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, not to mention the libertarian axiom of contract rights. 
• "In attempting to legalize same-sex marriage, they are now inviting the government into their bedrooms."
• If that's the case, then libertarians should advocate getting rid of all civil marriage.  That way, government can stay out of everybody's bedrooms since civil marriage is inherently intrusive.  However, you're not hearing such advocacy from anti-gay marriage libertarians.         
• "Homosexual marriage is not an issue of individual rights."
• Last time I checked, contract rights and "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" were essential to individual rights.  Moral pluralism is also very much a part of libertarianism.  So how is this not an issue of individual rights?    
• "Every American has a right to marry, but also faces restrictions upon whom they may marry. No one is permitted to marry a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, or, in most states, a person of the same sex. These are not restrictions upon the right to marry; they are part of the definition of marriage."
• It should be self-evident that we have to face restrictions brought on by the law.  Without it, we'd be in anarchy, and as a libertarian, I don't advocate that.  However, it doesn't apply here.  No one is permitted to marry a child is because a child is not at an age of consent, and thus unable to enter a legally binding contract.  I'm not going to get into the whole incest bit, but I would like to comment that although many Western nations prohibit incest, I was intrigued to find that incest is not prohibited across the board in the Western world.  As for marrying a married person, it should be evident that it would be a violation of a previously signed contract, unless all parties in the contract agreed to the change (e.g., a signed divorce decree vindicating the parties of responsibilities laid out in the previous marriage contract).  And I'm just curious, whose definition of marriage?  The Christian definition?  The one from the Bible?  That can easily be construed as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  As for the definition of marriage, this point is something I have stated before, but I feel it merits re-iterating: In the history of marriage in Western civilization, a man has been able to marry a twelve-year old girl, he was unable to marry outside his religion, socio-economic class, or race, or even better, there was a time in which marriages used to be arranged.  The definition of marriage in Western culture has been anything but consistent.     
• "Freedom of conscience and religious liberty would be threatened. In the wake of same-sex marriage, we have already seen religious nonprofits being told to compromise their principles or go out of business."
• Because of the nature of non-profits, there are two primary entities that would threaten such organizations: donors or the government.  If you have repulsed enough donors with anti-homosexuality sentiment, that would be the non-profit's fault because they don't know how to conduct business and do fundraising well enough to stay afloat.  Such is the way of non-profits. Now, if the non-profit's primary source of funding is the government, we shouldn't be angry with the government for yanking funding.  Since we are dealing with a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, we should be asking why a religious non-profit is receiving government funds in the first place.  If you want to make a private donation to a certain non-profit because it does great work, that is your choice.  However, we shouldn't be using taxpayer dollars to fund these organizations to compel taxpayers to donate to religious non-profit organization with which we don't agree.     
• "Same-sex marriage would compel every employer, including the government, to give same-sex couples benefits identical to those of heterosexual couples."
• Let's forget that most Fortune 500 companies already offer couples benefits to same-sex couples without same-sex marriage being legal in all fifty states.  Private employers should have the right to hire and discriminate as they please.  They should, however, keep in mind that Americans are increasingly supportive of gay rights and gay marriage, something that is illustrated by these recent Pew Center and Gallup polls.  Age is a social trend in favor of gay rights because the younger are much more favorable than older citizens.  Knowing someone who is gay is another social trend in favor of gay rights.  With increased societal acceptance, more gay people will come out, which means a higher probability of acceptance.  My point is that as time goes on, people with anti-homosexual views will be increasingly viewed as bigoted, which is a similar trend we saw during and after the Civil Rights movement.  In short, anti-homosexual views are bad for business.  As for the government's role, they ideally shouldn't be providing such benefits because it's more money from taxpayer's pockets.  However, while government is handing out these benefits, we might as well provide equality under the law.   
• "The rights of children would be undermined. Children have a natural right to be raised by the mother and father whose union produced them."
• The day in which there is no need for orphanages or foster homes, we can take this argument seriously.  Until that time, this argument has no merit.  If it did, we should also make adoption illegal since the child would not be with their natural parents.  There are many children without loving, caring homes.  Homosexual parents should help provide such homes.  Not only has there been no conclusive study proving that homosexual parents are more unqualified than heterosexual parents, but organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Psychiatric Association (APA), amongst other medical organizations, confirm that homosexual parents are just as capable as raising children as heterosexual couples.  

The only legitimate libertarian concern presented in the article is that government is involved in the business of marriage in the first place.  If government is to have any role, it would to be to make sure that the contract rights of marriages, whether straight or gay, are enforced by all parties involved.  Short of that, there is no legitimate libertarian objection to two people of the same sex entering in a marriage contract. 

Furthermore, many libertarians support gay marriage, including Jeff Miron, Bob Barr, Ron Paul, David Boaz, the United States Libertarian Party, the list goes on and on. 

There is plenty of room for political discourse in this country.  I personally can't stand marijuana. But as a libertarian, I have to concede that as long as people aren't harming others while smoking it, then they should be permitted to use it because it wouldn't violate the libertarian axiom of non-aggression.  The same argument can be said for gay marriage.  You can like gay marriage.  You can dislike gay marriage.  And if you don't like gay marriage, don't get married to someone of the same sex!  But if you're a libertarian that's going to argue against gay marriage, keep that opposition on the personal level.  Otherwise, you are against the contract rights, individual liberty, and pursuit of happiness that you profess to believe in.  Wouldn't that make just you a conservative in the garb of a libertarian?