Do religious people really have better morals?

Last week I wrote a piece discussing Christianity and morality based on some comments God's Not Dead actor Kevin Sorbo made about Bill Maher. Not surprisingly Mr. Sorbo did not agree with my thoughts on the topic and took to twitter to tell me why.



Clearly calling God a "psychotic mass murder" could offend people and I have no doubt that Kevin Sorbo was indeed offended by this characterization. Having said that what Bill Maher was referring to was the Biblical story of Noah in which God floods the earth killing nearly every man, woman and child. Rather than discussing how this should not be considered murder Mr. Sorbo decided to call Bill Maher a "very angry, lonely man".

It seems that this was not an instance where Kevin Sorbo felt he could turn the other cheek. Bill Maher's passionate non-belief has no bearing on Kevin Sorbo's passion for this faith. They are both free to have their opinion without their being one side that is good and one side that is evil.

Having said that, the statement that I found more interesting was when Kevin Sorbo said that “morals are declining, the country is going under.” I found statistics that show crime rates, abortions, teen pregnancy and divorce rates have all fallen over the past few decades. So my question for Mr. Sorbo was what metric is he using when he comes to this conclusion?

Perhaps given this belief Kevin Sorbo feels that slight drop in church attendance over the past decade is proof of declining morals. Perhaps the increase in those who describe themselves as Atheist and Agnostic suggests that moral values are being lost. Or perhaps the possible bible defying sin of marriage equality suggests the US has lost its moral compass.

Unfortunately instead of offering some examples Mr. Sorbo chose to take a shot at Detroit.



It seems that Kevin Sorbo feels Detroit could have avoided a financial disaster had there just been greater religiosity in the city. This sort of fixing society through religion is common among believers. Many feel that if more people were religious, or Christian the world would be a better place. Obviously this makes sense for these people. If you are going to invest this much time and effort into something that you can't prove exists there should be a payoff for this devotion. There are also those who believe that being religious makes them a better person so if it works for them it should work for others as well.

Of course it would still be nice to have some hard data to support such a conclusion. A quick look at the number of religious people in a city and the crime rate in that city shows no real correlation as some very religious cities were near the top of the list for assault, rape and property crime. State teen pregnancy rates actually seem to increase for states with higher religious participation. The same is true of divorce rates.

Supporters of this meme could point to a study that found that communities with higher rates of religion had less violent crime. The study concludes that this occurs because these communities are "creating a moral climate that fosters respect among neighbors and by helping to form individual consciences of young adults."

Of course you don't have to worship God to foster respect and form an individual conscience, since non-believers are also capable of creating this sort of environment. Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and George Soros have managed to donate billions of dollars over the years to non-religious charities that attempt to make the world a better place to live without using religion as the catalyst. The same is true of some US Presidents.

The problem is that "morality" is a very subjective measure. What is moral at one point in time or for one culture would be considered immoral elsewhere. If Kevin Sorbo believes being a Christian makes him a better person I imagine even Bill Maher would be happy for him. But belittling Bill Maher or Detroiters for having a different world view, certainly doesn't suggest Kevin Sorbo occupies the moral high ground he believes his faith creates. Luke 6:37

Great teachers have a great impact

Since the start of the Great Recession public employees have been the target of much disdain and many cuts. One of the sectors hardest hit from these cuts is public education where some 300,000 education jobs have been lost since 2008. These job losses have hurt economic activity far more than some of the other pet projects that politicians claim are jobs worth fighting for. But perhaps worse than the current economic activity is the affect these cuts will have on the future of this country.

A Harvard study shows that one good teacher has the ability to increase a child's lifetime earnings. With less money and stability in education fewer students will be compelled to pursue education as a profession. If the goal is to improve education then this study would suggest making schools the target of massive budget cuts is probably the wrong way to go about it.

The reality is that thanks to the realization from many politicians that attracting top talent to the education field requires a certain commitment from the government and local communities, school districts across the nation are filled with exceptional teachers that inspire students to achieve greatness. Don't believe me? Ask anyone who their favorite teacher was and you are likely to get a quick and passionate response.

Unfortunately for many teachers, students often don't recognize and appreciate how important a particular teacher was in their lives until they are much older. So while we are more than happy to talk with anyone who asks about the things that made a teacher our favorite, those teachers are often unaware of how influential they were.

But if you really want to see the value of a good teacher you need look no further than two Southeastern Michigan communities that lost extraordinary educators over the past few weeks. Linden, Michigan teacher Andy Kargel and Saline, Michigan educator Jim Letcher both passed away in March of this year. The outpouring from the students and parents in their school districts shows just how special both of these men were.

Friends of the Kargel family set up a website that people allows anyone to donate to the college fund for Andy's two young children. The goal of $50,000 was passed in under a week. While this shows how important Andy Kargel was to so many people, the comments attached to many of these donations are a true testament to the teacher that Andy was.

"Both of our kids were lucky enough to have Andy for years. Our youngest talked about him every day when I picked her up from school. He was a very special person, and none of us will ever forget him!"

"Thank you Mr. Kargel, for being the best teacher ever."

"3 of my 5 sons have had the pleasure of Mr. Kargel inspiring them through his teachings."

"Mr. Kargel left a lasting impression on our family, he was such an amazing teacher and person!"

The students and colleagues of Jim Letcher also took time to share stories about the profound impact Jim had on students and how he made each school he worked for a better place.

"He was by far the best teacher Gabby ever had. She grew so much this year because of him."

"Wonderful teacher! Rest in peace Mr. Letcher, you will be missed!"

"He was the charismatic soul of the building"

These words show that while both of these men were outstanding teachers they were even better people. Of course if you asked either of them if they were a great teacher they would humbly point to host of colleagues, educators and mentors that inspired them on a daily basis as those deserving of such a distinction. Because their goal was never to compete with other teachers for greater monetary rewards but instead to be part of the team that provided their students with the best possible education.

We never know when it will be our last chance to tell our favorite teachers how they made us a better person. How they inspired us. How they gave us the confidence to reach for our dreams. If you had a teacher that made a difference in your life like Andy and Jim did for thousands of Michigan students, today is as good a day as any to let them know you appreciate all their hard work and special attention. Just don't be surprised when they feel undeserving of these accolades because most great teachers do the job for the love of it.

Kevin Sorbo has no faith in Bill Maher

Last week Bill Maher made some statements on his HBO show Real Time that had the "War on Christianity" crowd up in arms. While most of these people will find any statement regarding religion from Bill Maher to be offensive, when he stated that God was a “psychotic mass murderer” for creating humans and subsequently flooding the world - killing nearly every man, woman, and child on the planet, in an attempt to start over - to many, this crossed a line.

Never wanting to let a possible controversy go to waste, the good folks in the conservative media found a way to turn this criticism into a full blown attack. While the opinions of celebrities are typically frowned upon by conservatives, noted Christian actor Kevin Sorbo happened to be out to promote his new film called "God's Not Dead". When asked about the comments made by Bill Maher, Sorbo described him as a "very angry and lonely man”.

This follows a religious meme that has been building for years where Christians in the US are being persecuted for their beliefs. Given that nearly 80% of the US population identifies themselves as Christian it seems this oppression is probably more myth than fact but the problem is, for most of these people, this is the first time they've experienced any systemic form of discrimination. Many of them have never experienced the inequality of the justice system. They are not stopped on the street and asked to prove they are US citizens. They've never been denied service for being who they are.

The biggest affront they often face is walking into a store in December and being greeted with "Happy Holidays". For them racism is fiction but religious intolerance is rampant plague ruining the country.

Of course if you actually watched the piece by Bill Maher you would see that his beef is not with religion per se but with the denial of science and adherence to the impossible for religious purposes. Asking someone to recognize that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally and used as a science book is a far cry from the "hate" that some have ascribed to it.

Having said that, if a Christian uses the Bible in an attempt to convert non-believes it's often referred to as spreading the word of God and thought of as holy mission. Bill Maher is simply using the Bible in an attempt to convert believers. Being passionate about this endeavor and putting his faith in science instead of religion doesn't make him angry or hateful.

While Bill Maher is being demonized for his attempts to change viewers minds no one seems at all concerned that after Kevin Sorbo's condemnation of Bill he continued to proselytize for Christianity.

Unfortunately rather than discuss the virtues of Christianity Sorbo took the low road of fear mongering to convince viewers of the need for more Christianity in the US, stating "Morals are declining, the country is going under". Like the denial of science this conclusion, that the US has lost its moral compass, almost never includes any empirical evidence.

What data is Kevin Sorbo looking at to make such a bold declaration? What time period was the peak of morality? When slavery ended? When interracial marriage was deemed legal? After releasing Japanese Americans from Internment Camps?

Are crime rates a proxy for morals? If so the rates of violent crime, simple assault, aggravated assault, rape, property crime and robbery have all dropped steadily for the past two decades.

Does the abortion rate correlate to morality? If so the number of abortions recently hit a 30 year low.

Is teen pregnancy and indicator of the country’s moral standing? If so teen pregnancy is down 42% since 1990.

How about the number of marriages that end in divorce each year? Does more divorce mean lower morals? If so in 2009 we hit a 40 year low in the divorce rate.

Perhaps Kevin Sorbo is referring to is the Biblical sin of gluttony when talking about declining morals. If that is the case the share of income going to the top 1% is at or near record highs.

The reality is that religious convictions and how people choose to observe them is a deeply personal matter that even most atheist respect the sanctity of. The validity of Bible based hyperbole used to counter science and data however is fair game for debate.

If you don't like what Bill Maher has to say about the Bible, the answer is simple - shut him up by using science to prove him wrong. Otherwise accept that his "intolerance" of your views is only matched by your intolerance of his.

Abortion: Murder or medical procedure?

Even among those who are not political junkies, discussing a women's right to have an abortion elicits a strong response. I recently penned an article discussing the Republican hypocrisy regarding keeping government out of people's private lives. In the article I talked about the threats from the Tennessee's Republican led legislature towards Volkswagen employees considering unionizing, the Republican push to use the power of government to ban same sex couples from the benefits of marriage, as well as the insistence by many Republicans to include creationism in public school science classes even though there is no science in this belief.

There was certainly more than enough red meat for conservatives to chew on but the line that received the biggest response by far was the line where I suggested that women, not Republican legislatures, should be allowed to decide what collection of cells to remove from their body. My colleague, blogging pioneer and fellow patriot Jason Vines said this "was perhaps the vilest thing that has ever appeared on this site".

Luckily unlike Jason's thoughts on the topic a women's right to an abortion is not subjective - it is constitutionally guaranteed.

Hyperbole aside, the dividing line when it comes to abortion is your view of the zygote, embryo, and fetus. We all start as a collection of cells which divide repeatedly to form skin, limbs, organs and a brain.

The question then becomes when does this collection of cells obtain rights? The pro-life camp tends to believe life begins at conception so ever abortion is murder. The pro-choice camp tends to think personhood isn't achieved till much later so an abortion is a medical procedure to remove unwanted cells. Neither side is willing to back down from their stance, but the highest court in the land has thus far sided with those in the pro-choice camp.

There are of course many people who fall somewhere in between. Some are against abortion but OK in the case or rape or incest. Some feel an abortion is justified if the life of the mother is in danger. Others believe an abortion is justified if the fetus has defects that would affect the quality of life.

Then there are also those that feel that the legality of an abortion corresponds to a certain time frame - once there's a heartbeat, once there are brain waves, or no later than 20 weeks. If you take all of these variations into account only 20% of the population believes an abortion is murder starting at conception. It should also be noted that if 20 weeks is an acceptable cut off only 1% of all abortions occur after 20 weeks.

Regardless, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, no one wants more abortions to occur each year. Unfortunately the methods each side supports for how we achieve that goal are dramatically different. Pro-life organizations have worked diligently to make getting an abortion more and more difficult hoping to eventually make all abortions illegal. Given the results of government crack downs in other areas such as prohibition and the war on drugs it seems unlikely that making abortion illegal will actually reduce the number of abortions per year. Instead it will just make abortions more dangerous and turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals.

Pro-Choice groups on the other hand would prefer to use the power of education to reduce the number of abortions with information. Instead of attempting and failing to rewire the brains of teenagers with abstinence only education pro-choice groups would prefer to explain what happens during sex, how to prevent pregnancy, and give people all the information necessary to help them make better choices.

Unfortunately to many, the effectiveness of the methods isn’t important. If having sex results in a pregnancy, then you must see that pregnancy through. Purposely removing those cells is murder even though the law says otherwise.

Of course if all human life was as sacrosanct to conservatives as a zygote, an embryo, and a fetus you might expect them to act differently in other situations.

For instance Republicans are twice as likely as a Democrat to support the death penalty.

Over 30,000 Americans die every year from guns yet Republicans overwhelming oppose restricting or reducing gun rights.

Republicans support drone strikes at significantly greater levels than Democrats even though these drone kill hundreds of civilians each year.

Republican legislators oppose many of the efforts of the EPA aimed at reducing air pollution even though some 200,000 Americans die every year from poor air quality.

Heart disease kills some 600,000 Americans per year yet attempts to curb the availability of foods that lead to heart disease are often rebuffed as government overreach.

Just like abortion statistics these numbers don't prove one side right or the other side wrong. What they do show is that one person's "murder" is another person’s "choice". So the opinion of my colleague or the one he assumes I must have, given that we have never had the opportunity to discuss this topic, are completely irrelevant. In the end these decisions rest with solely with nine judges in Washington DC. But don't let that reality get in the way of a good take down piece.

"Choice": Another Republican lie

Republican lead legislatures across the nation are making controversial changes to many laws under the guise of "choice". Charter schools give families a "choice" of where to send their children. Right to work gives workers a "choice" to join a union. Repealing the Affordable Care Act (affectionately known as Obamacare) gives individuals a "choice" of health care.

The truth is "choice" is a red herring in these political discussions.

In 2013 only 11.3% of workers belonged to a union. This means that around 90% of jobs don't require employees to be a union member. Additionally there are some 4 million jobs that are currently unfilled. Are there really no choices available for anti-union workers? Are they somehow being forced to accept union jobs because no other jobs exist?

Additionally, the formation of a union is a constitutional protected right that requires a majority vote. In the public sector this is often referred to as the democratic process or part of what makes America the greatest country on earth. Right to work allows individuals to opt out of this democratic process.

If allowing individuals to vacate their union membership is the Republican's idea of "choice" and true choice actually matters to Republicans then they should also allow any number of individuals to organize a union instead of requiring a majority vote. If right to work represented a genuine choice the Volkswagen plant in Tennessee would have a union of 626 employees right now. But when Republicans say they want "choice" they only mean a choice to ignore things they oppose.

The same is true of charter schools. When Republicans discuss having a choice among schools they are talking about turning children into a commodity that their donors can profit from. Because the majority of charter schools are in locations that serve families that nearly every other Republican policy harms. "Choice" is just a catch phrase Republicans use to make this money grab politically palatable.

If choice were really a concern then the board of trustees would be elected by and answer to the parents of the students instead of the charter school owner. After all shouldn't parents get a choice in how the school is run? Some schools require a certain level of parent involvement. Parent involvement is clearly a good thing for students but think of the outrage from Republicans if their local public school required parents to pledge 5 hours a week of their time to the school. Republicans built and entire political party on fighting the ACA's individual mandate - just imagine the response to being forced to spend time with their kids.

To advertise their product one charter school said "A charter school is an independently run public school granted greater flexibility in its operations". This loosely translates to "no one tells us what to do". This "flexibility" exists because charter schools don't have to meet many of the same standards or teacher the same ridged curriculum that states have imposed on public schools.

If choice is the impetus for changing education in the US why wouldn't Republicans just follow their own talking point and get government out of the education process. Instead of coming up with a whole new system, just allow schools to choose for themselves the best method of teaching children. If parents didn't like the direction the school was taking they could always choose different school board members.

Of course these changes all revolve around the belief that somehow the free market offers choice where government doesn't. In their mind choosing to give their business to a company is choice, but participating in democracy is not.

So if you don't like big oil the Republican answer is simple - don't use oil. On the surface this is a completely reasonable idea. But if you think about it at all you realize just how little choice you really have. Sure you can buy a hybrid car, walk to work, or take a bike but the hybrid car still has plastic and rubber components that are made from oil. The same is true of the bike and shoes.

Beyond that, imagine trying to eliminate all oil products from your house. Carpets, appliances, technology, and food packing all contain oil. Even the every day products you buy from the store required oil to produce and ship to market.

Could you choose to not have any of your money go to big oil? It's possible, but it would also take such a ridiculous level of commitment that even the most ardent conservative would have to admit this hardly qualifies as a choice.

This free market choice also assumes all of the information you need to make these decisions is readily available. Thanks to Republicans, corporations can donate nearly unlimited amounts money to causes you may or may not support and this can all be done in a completely anonymous way. Maybe they spend money to support gun rights, abortion rights, or the ACA. Under the current rules consumers won't even know if the companies they frequent have an agenda that they agree with. The companies have a choice but the public does not.

The reality is that when Republicans say they support "choice" they really only mean choices that benefit big business. If it happens to help someone else that's fine, but a choice that hurts a company is something Republicans will ironically use every government power at their disposal to stop.

How a black president made racism acceptable

Earlier this year the Civil Rights divisions of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Education (DOE) put out a letter to help public schools navigate the complicated issue of racial inequality in public school discipline.

Of course the Obama administration can't do anything without conservatives claiming the sky is falling so it should come as no surprise that the government's attempt to help schools abide by the 1964 Civil Rights Act would turn into cries of "quotas" and "manifestos".

While the actual letter is far from a manifestos the bias from the right is clear. Detroit News Editorial writer Ingrid Jacques stated "What the letter overlooks is the possibility that the numbers are higher for these (black) students because they actually misbehave more."

If you recall this was a popular meme not too long ago with gun violence when "black on black crime" became a common talking point for Fox News and other conservative echo chambers. Rather than addressing how racism affects the country and having a serious conversation about how to address it many conservatives have adopted the Ann Coulter line of thinking that racism doesn't exist anymore. In this world being ignorant clearly trumps accepting one's own flaws and attempting to become a better person.

It should be noted that Civil Rights include more than the rights of African Americans. They are there to prevent the government and private organizations from discriminating against anyone, be it for the color of their skin, their religious beliefs, their sex, or their sexual orientation.

In this instance the DOJ and DOE present data that suggests there is a systemic problem with discrimination in the education system. Conservatives look at these stats and believe they prove that black students are inherently more disruptive and need to be censured more often. In the past these sorts of beliefs would quickly be identified as racist however hypersensitivity from the right over putting a label on their bigotry prevents people from calling a spade a spade anymore.

But imagine if instead of black students it was discovered that devoutly religious students were twice as likely to be disciplined as their non religious counterparts. Would those in the religious community not seek a change in how punishment was doled out? Would they be comfortable with an atheist writer suggesting that religious students are inherently more disruptive? Would they not cry that these students Civil Rights were being ignored?

While it may be a great comfort for some white folks to believe that African Americans are just more violent and unruly than their white peers, the data tells a different story.

Even though black and white kids use marijuana at similar rates, black youth were four times as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession.

While the media would have you believe black on black crime is a problem it occurs at an almost identical rate as white on white crime. The same is also true of violent crime rates where socioeconomic status not skin color determined the likelihood of being a victim.

In New York 83% of the people who were stopped and frisked were black or Hispanic yet they only represent around half of the population.

The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth shows the US is a deeply racist country with African Americans being perceived as the most lawless.

The reality is that for many whites this bias is a self fulfilling prophecy. They only accept the information that matches their prejudice and never consider how their views and actions exacerbate the problem. Perhaps nothing proves that more than this belief that a black president asking public schools to consider the Civil Rights of all students is somehow a socialist affront to whites yet when the white president says "Strong civil rights enforcement will be a cornerstone of my administration" it is an applause line.

Unfortunately having a black president didn't end racism. Instead racists pretend things have changed and use political debate as cover to rationalize their bigoted talking points.