Yes there is a Constitutional Separation of Church and State

Perhaps nothing is more important to American politics than a well-reasoned debate. Unfortunately, far too many people are ill-informed to make such discussions possible.

An excellent example of this comes from the responses to an article I wrote examining the concerns of conservative Christians over Tennessee schools’ teaching the five pillars of Islam. While there were a number of topics that readers could have discussed, by far the most outrage centered on my statements regarding the separation of church and state. Comments included "Clearly, someone hasn't read the Constitution, because there is no such thing as "separation of church and state" in the US Constitution.", "Where exactly in the U.S. Constitution does it address "separation of church and state"?", and "Simply put, nowhere in the First Amendment does the phrase "separation of church and state" exist."

It seems that to some people, if the words don't explicitly appear in the constitution then the idea they refer to isn't constitutionally guaranteed. Viewing it in these simplistic terms is meant to dismiss the entire argument; as if every decision based on the separation of church and state is somehow invalid because the term separation of church and state doesn't appear in the constitution.

Of course the problems with this assertion are many. First and most basic is the fact that the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of federal constitutional law. This means that while the term "separation of Church and State" may never appear in the constitution itself, the Court ruling in the case of Everson v. Board of Education stated "the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'"

A quarter century later, the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman further defined this separation when it established the Lemon Test to determine if a law violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Every ruling since has confirmed that, in the view of the highest court in the land the Constitution created a separation of church and state.

Having said that, the separation of church and state is hardly the first unwritten concept that is protected by the constitution. In the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court established a women's constitutional right to have an abortion despite the word abortion never appearing in the constitution. In the 2015 case of Obergefell v. Hodges the Supreme Court established that laws against same sex marriage were unconstitutional despite the word marriage never appearing in the constitution. In the 1963 case of Gideon v. Wainwright the Supreme Court established that the constitution guarantees the right to an attorney despite the words public defender never appearing in the constitution. In the 2010 case of McDonald v. Chicago the Supreme Court established that the second amendment right to bear arms included the right to bear arms for self-defense despite the words self-defense never appearing in the constitution.

It should also be noted that of the 112 Supreme Court Justices, none of them has been an atheist. In fact 92% of them were Christian. What rationale would these justices have for making laws that would create a legal prejudice towards their system of beliefs, especially if the separation of Church and State is a misinterpretation?

The reality is that the constitution was never meant to be a stagnant document that was rigidly adherent to the words on the page. As Thomas Jefferson said "The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please." Over the past 200 years the Supreme Court has shaped the constitution to contain a clear separation of church and state that protects every religion equally. If only those who argue against this separation could see how they benefit from it instead of inappropriately interpreting it as an attack on Christianity.

Fox News explains the dangers of Christianity in public schools

Liberals have spent a lot of time over the past few decades trying to explain to Conservative Christians the importance of the separation of church and state. Unfortunately, either from obstinance or ignorance, many Christians believe that not only should this constitutionally mandated separation not exist but that it is an attack on Christianity.

Luckily Fox News contributor, Todd Starnes, who has become the de facto standard bearer of Christian oppression with countless articles documenting the purported atrocities, recently published a piece that unwittingly acts as the quintessential argument for keeping Christianity out of public schools.

At issue is an assignment given to seventh grade students at Spring Hill Middle School in Maury County, Tennessee that involved writing out the five pillars of Islam. Despite the fact that this was part of a "World History and Geography: The Middle Ages to the Exploration of the Americas" covering the "Islamic World, 400 A.D/C.E. – 1500s" with the purpose of having "Students analyze the geographic, political, economic, social, and religious structures of the civilizations", some parents believe this is a blatant attempt to indoctrinate their children and convert them to Islam.

The biggest complaint from parents seems to be that the first pillar of Islam, known as “Shahada”, which states "There is no god but God (and) Muhammad is the messenger of God." runs counter to their Christian beliefs. Having said that, this is a history course and the five pillars is as much a part of the history of Islam as the Ten Commandments is a part of the history of Christianity. Forcing students to write or remember religious doctrine that is in opposition to their beliefs is either acceptable or it isn't. The fact that we are a majority Christian country is immaterial to the students’ First Amendment rights.

Of course the situation is hardly unique to Islam. Students across the country learn a lot of history that doesn't line up with their religious beliefs. When children learn about Greek Mythology are the being indoctrinated? When kids are taught about the history of slavery it's not meant as an endorsement. The events leading up to WWII are clearly something every child should understand, but learning about Nazi's is never confused for approval of their actions.

The reality is that studying about other cultures and religions gives children a greater appreciation for what makes people different. Portraying such an education as brainwashing is embarrassingly phobic and closed minded.

Being forced to conform to someone else's religious norms has been an issue in public schools for a long time. While Christians have been more than happy to conflate the separation of church and state with oppression when Christian symbols are removed, this is one of the few times these same Christians have had to endure something even remotely close to what many non-Christians have experienced for decades.

For example, one parent complained that Christianity wasn't being given equal time stating “[The teacher] said they would not be covering it because Christianity is not in the school standards.” The truth is, the Tennessee Department of Education course outline lists 9 different bullet points that discuss some aspect of Islam and 8 that include Christianity. Not only is Christianity in the state standards but it is covered at length in a number of different areas of the curriculum.

Beyond that it should be mentioned that the Tennessee state standards for 6th grade has zero references to Islam but devotes a section to describing "the origins and central features of Christianity" which include "the belief in Jesus as the Messiah and God’s Son, the concept of resurrection, the concept of salvation, belief in the Old and New Testaments," and "the lives, teachings and contributions of Jesus and Paul". Not only is Christianity given more than its fair share of time in Tennessee's public education system, but students are required to acknowledge that Jesus is the son of God.

While trusting the word of a couple irate parents to argue that Christianity is under attack is obviously an embarrassing mistake by Starnes, it is hardly the worst part of his article. No, that distinction lies with his assertion that the cases of a public schools removing a photo of Jesus Christ and disallowing Christian hymns to be played by the school band are equivalent to learning about the history of Islam.

It's possible that Starnes isn't unaware that forcing students to learn about different cultures and religions is legal while forcing students to endure religious symbols or traditions that fall outside of the curriculum isn't. But it's far more likely that he wants to conflate the two so he can again claim persecution. Because if Starnes was being honest he would admit that many of the concerns from these Christian parents regarding the inclusion of Islamic tenants in public education are inconsequential compared to what many non-Christians have been fighting for years.

The fact that Starnes and many of his devotees are completely oblivious to the hypocrisy of demanding the inclusion of non-educational Christian images and rituals while simultaneously being outraged at the slightest presence of Islam tells you all you need to know about how honest they are about protecting religious freedom.

Conservatives don't understand Black Lives Matter

The conservative media seems to have a distorted understanding of what the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement stands for. Despite having a clearly defined list of goals, talking heads like Bill O'Reilly are attempting to blame BLM for the recent police officer deaths.

While the vile "fry em like bacon" chants from one BLM group do nothing to help the situation, the reality is that there is no evidence linking BLM to these shootings. Beyond that, the data shows that police officer deaths are down this year while ambush killings, like the one in Texas, existed long before BLM - having accounted for 8 deaths in 2014, 4 deaths in 2013 and 19 deaths in 2011.

Oddly the conservative media were not nearly as eager to saddle the entire Tea Party movement with the shooting deaths of two Las Vegas police officers that saw the assailants drape the bodies with the Gadsden "Don't tread on me" flag used by some Tea Party groups.

It should also be noted that the conservative media defended those who took up arms against federal and local law enforcement in the Cliven Bundy standoff just two years ago. If support for these individuals was based on the belief that the second amendment is meant to "deter a tyrannical government" then these same conservatives should be out in droves backing BLM, since African Americans experience systemic inequality in the U.S. justice system that sees them punished more often, for longer terms, and with harsher sentences.

Of course O'Reilly is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to misrepresenting the BLM movement. Others, like the president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, Ron Hosko,, believe that BLM "too often drift into the rhetoric of ignorance and hate" while somehow managing to use the same article to blame the broader spike in violent crimes across the country on "the anti-cop themes from such protesters (BLM), liberal politicians and the mainstream media". Apparently drifting into the rhetoric of ignorance isn't exclusive to the BLM movement.

Hosko also suggests that police reform is "much needed", yet instead of discussing any of the solutions offered by BLM or proposing his own ideas, he resorts to the uniformed meme of black-on-black crime in an attempt to discredit the BLM movement. Data show that socioeconomic status, not race, is the greatest predictor of murder rates. But even if black-on-black crime were anything more than a conservative media myth, the suggestion that a group created in response to the shooting deaths of unarmed African Americans by police officers is somehow fraudulent because some white law enforcement official doesn't understand the organization’s stated goals is astoundingly ignorant.

This would be like castigating the "Pro-Life" movement for only advocating for the "lives" of the unborn when their name implies they care about all life. The BLM and "Pro-Life" movements are both single issue entities. Insisting that your interpretation of their name defines their mission is idiotic. There are legitimate reasons to oppose the goals of BLM, but unfortunately the conservative media has concentrated nearly all of their efforts on vilifying BLM rather than participating in solving the real and persistent problems they are discussing.

There are also those like Chicago Tribune columnist, John Kass, who believes "our hashtag mentality oversimplifies most everything" then manages to oversimplify the BLM movement by stating "all lives matter. All of them. And that means police lives matter too".

The problem is, this suggests that those who support BLM somehow think black lives matter more than the lives of everyone else. This isn't the case. They've looked at data that show blacks are disproportionately killed by law enforcement and are asking the police departments or politicians to do something to change this fact.

Of course part of the issue with something like "Police Lives Matter" is the reality that being a cop is a job that one can chose to do. If a police officer feels the job is too dangerous they are free to quit. That option doesn't exist for African Americans. They are subject to a different set of rules simply because of who they are.

But perhaps the bigger problem with the "Police Lives Matter" is how differently the murder of a cop is handled than other murders. Photos of the crime scenes for the recent police homicides in Texas and Chicago show a considerable response from law enforcement that include federal involvement in a massive manhunt. While murders of police officers are typically some of the most difficult to solve, given their random nature, this sort of commitment to finding the killer also makes them some of the most likely murders to be solved.

From the outside this sort of over-sized response makes it look like perhaps to those tasked with protecting and serving, "Police Lives Matter" a little bit more than all other lives. Imagine if law enforcement dedicated the same time and resources to capturing every murderer. Imagine if the shooting of an unarmed black man ended with a trial instead of the typical quid pro quo failure to indict. Imagine if skin color played no part in how you were treated by cops.

Black Lives Matter is far from a perfect organization, but contrary to what the conservative media would have you believe, the only special treatment BLM is asking for is to not be treated special.

This is the dumbest argument supporting Chick-fil-A’s stance against marriage equality

Sometimes conservative talking heads promote a story without taking any time to see if the moral of the story fits their narrative. An excellent example of this comes from Allen West website editor-in-chief, Michele Hickford, who recently penned an article titled 'Liberals start screaming: Chick-fil-A restaurant owner does the unimaginable to his employees'.

Apparently Hickford believes that all liberals think Chick-fil-A is "AWFUL" and wants to know how liberals can explain the actions of one franchise owner who, instead of laying off his employees during a 5 month renovation, kept paying them.

The first explanation for this action is money. If the owner, Jeff Glover, had laid off his entire staff he would have seen a significant jump in his unemployment rate. It should also be noted that if his 50 workers had found other employment before the renovations were complete, Glover would have had to train a new staff, which is costly and has a negative impact on service. The resulting loss of customers would be felt by the location for months. In fact, some experts suggest laying off staff costs more in the long run. Perhaps Glover did the math and determined it would be cost effective to pay his employees not to work.

But when did conservatives start celebrating organizations that pay people to sit around? They certainly don't think welfare is something to cheer about despite the value it adds. Even when the entity paying people not to work was another private company, like the auto workers jobs bank, the conservative reaction was anything but reverence.

Of course it should be noted that what drew the ire of "liberals" regarding Chick-fil-A was not that they are a Christia- based organization or that they closed their doors on Sundays, but rather their position towards same sex marriage, which not only runs counter to the majority of Americans, but also doesn't match with the views of 61% of young Republicans.

Back when the discussion was about minimum wages at fast food restaurants, conservatives were the first to point out that the franchisee was an independent business; yet for some reason, this logic has been tossed out the window to imply that Jeff Glover and his staff and the corporate heads of Chick-fil-A are somehow one in the same. Did anyone ever ask Glover his position on same sex marriage? Given that his facility is located in Austin, which is not only the most liberal city in Texas but one of the most liberal cities in the U.S., it's certainly possible that Glover doesn't agree with his corporate bosses.

Having said that, if Glover does represent the best of what Chick-fil-A has to offer, conservatives may be disappointed to know that while a typical Chick-fil-A employee earns $7.96 per hour, Glover pays new employees $11 per hour with full time staff earning approximately $3,600 per month. According to the conservative media, these sort of wages were supposed to ruin the fast food industry as the price of a sandwich would quintuple overnight. Yet somehow Glover manages to run a successful operation using the Chick-fil-A price structure and pay his employees something in the neighborhood of a living wage without having to live in a cardboard box himself.

Perhaps the question Hickford really should be asking is, how can conservatives explain why they believe a guy who gives people money not to work, isn't outspoken against the LGBT community, and pays well above industry standards represents an organization they apparently love that does none of these things?

Republican education policy is idiotic

Titan of industry, Henry Ford, once said “The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing.” For an example of a group that has proven to ironically learn nothing from their past mistakes one need look no further than the race for the Republican Presidential nomination.

For instance, many of the candidates believe that fixing the public education system starts with eliminating teachers’ unions. The problem is that not only does eliminating unions not lead to better outcomes, data show that the states with the most union teachers actually preform better than those with the lowest rates of union educators. Despite this reality, some still complain that unions have too much power; yet if you follow the money you will see that corporations, not unions, are the ones with burgeoning influence having outspent unions 15 to 1 in the last election cycle.

This sort of spending gap is why, despite not improving educational outcomes, corporate charter schools continue to expand. It's why, in spite of worse results, the number of "virtual schools" is increasing. And it's why, even though studies have found that "there seem to be few apparent benefits of school of choice", nearly every Republican Presidential candidate supports it. The reality is that you'd be hard pressed to find a battle over the past decade between rich corporations and teacher unions where the unions won.

Of course attacking teachers’ unions is hardly the only tool in the Republican education reformers bags of "mistakes". They also strongly believe in tying teacher’s wages to the test scores of their students. The idea being that money will motivate all of the good-for-nothing lazy teachers to put in a little effort. For a group of people who claim to support capitalism, this is an embarrassingly antiquated position.

Years of studies have shown that, not only is money not a good motivator, but that the sort of tactics Republicans support can actually have "devastating motivational effects" on most teachers. The reality is that merit pay for teachers has been tried and failed numerous times and the research done by psychologists, economists, and sociologisst has found over and over again that in professions like teaching this idea is a colossal waste of resources.

In fact the science on what not to do when attempting to motivate employees like teachers reads like a check list of Republican education reform ideas. Despite the fallacy of schools full of ineffective teachers, reformers have made firing bad teachers a core policy for improving education. Data show that this fear of losing their job leads to "less energy and drive to complete daily tasks".

Even though reports suggest that there is already a teacher shortage and that nearly 50% of educators leave the profession in the first five years, Republicans continue to look for ways to pay teachers less, which has been proven to "hinder motivation and performance".

In spite of studies that show "unleashing (an employees) imagination, ingenuity and creativity resulted in their contributions to the organization being multiplied many times over", Republican legislatures across the country continue to give educators less and less freedom in the classroom.

Regardless of studies that show the value of organizational and communal collaboration to student achievement, Republicans continue to push a rudimentary corporate-based competition model.

But even if the Republican carrot and stick reform ideas did motivate teachers, the gains would be minimal at best since all of these plans address the symptoms while ignoring the root cause of the purported "broken" education system. The one thing Republican education reform proposals never include is a way to boost teachers’ skills. Professional athletes have reached the pinnacle of their profession, yet every day they meet with a coach that evaluates their performance and works with them to get better.

Imagine the results a school could get if it employed "coaches" that could help teachers implement new curriculum, coordinate with staff to develop and distribute highly effective lesson plans, review teacher performance and provide feedback for improvement, and interact with other coaches to identify and integrate the latest ideas.

If the objective is to increase student achievement then asking teachers to independently add this sort of research and personal development to a work week that already consumes 53 hours of their time is an awful idea. Expecting results without providing any resources or training is only a good plan if your goal is to make your staff look incompetent.

Unfortunately it seems that the people who are the most outspoken about how to improve education are also the least educated on the best methods of eliciting improvement. The good news is that, come next year when most of these Republican Presidential candidates are unemployed, there will still be plenty of jobs available in education. While this will likely mean a big drop in pay and an increase in days on the job, the way reformers tell it any idiot can be a teacher, which is great since the ideas these candidates have presented to "fix" education can only be described as idiotic.

Planned Parenthood might not exist if not for archaic conservative policies

Looking for any opportunity to make abortions illegal, conservative politicians and media outlets are seizing on a recent series of videos of Planned Parenthood staff discussing the sale of fetal tissue and organs. While the conversations certainly come across as callous and disturbing, at this point there is no proof of any illegal activity. The reality is that the business of donated organs and tissue is a gruesome endeavor, and those tasked with harvesting these items are doing difficult yet important work that saves lives.

If the investigations prove that Planned Parenthood illegally sold fetal organs or tissue, then the organization should be fined and those in charge should be punished. Removing all federal funding for an organization whose main business provides the less fortunate valuable assistance is perhaps more callous than anything Planned Parenthood has done and certainly not in line with penalties doled out to other organizations that receive federal tax dollars. For example Duke Energy which receives over $898 million in subsidies (nearly twice the federal funds allocated for Planned Parenthood) is not only the second largest polluter in the U.S. but they also illegally dumped tens of millions of gallons of polluted waste water into a tributary that provides some North Carolina residents’ drinking water. All told, they pled guilty to nine violations yet no action was taken on Capitol Hill to limit their corporate welfare.

Medicare fraud steals tens of billions of tax payer dollars per year, yet one of the largest cases of fraud ever perpetrated didn't lead to a removal of federal funds for the company. In fact, conservatives cared so little about these unlawful acts that they elected the company’s CEO, Rick Scott, as governor of Florida.

This hypocrisy suggests the concern over potentially illegal activities at Planned Parenthood is just another attempt by anti-abortion advocates to chip away at a woman's constitutional rights.

Of course if the goal is simply to reduce the number of abortions in the U.S., congress should consider removing funds for another program that has been proven to increase both teen pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases - abstinence-only education. U.S. taxpayers have spent over $1.7 billion since 1982 on this program that actually promotes the very behaviors it is meant to prevent. Despite this failure, the majority of Republican presidential candidates would expand the program while congress recently expanded abstinence-only education spending by 50%.

Imagine if we used this conservative logic on something like gun rights. Does anyone think it would be a good idea to issue all 13 year olds a loaded gun with an unlimited supply of ammunition then refuse to show them how to properly use it? Would it really make any sense to tell these same kids that they can't use this gun they've been given until they get married to someone who has also never been educated in how to use a gun? Would the U.S. be a better place if these kids were taught that they are only allowed to use their gun for self-defense because using the gun for pleasure is immoral? It's pretty easy to see why abstinence-only education is so awful once you consider just how important being educated is when it comes to something like owning a firearm.

Or consider the argument that gun advocates make when anyone suggests restrictions to gun ownership. They'll point to the failure of government restrictions on alcohol and drugs. They'll also claim that no matter how many rules you put in place preventing people from owning a gun, those who want to get a gun will find a way to get a gun. History shows us that this is also the case with outlawing abortion as many who claim to be "pro-life" are trying to do.

Rather than preventing abortions, making it illegal just moves the practice underground. Fetuses will still be aborted, except now the rate of death increases significantly for the women involved. Additionally all of the organs and tissue that were being legally used to save lives will now be disposed of or sold on the black market. Such opportunities to make money off of aborted fetuses might actually lead to more abortions. The reality is that just like prohibition and the war on drugs, criminalizing abortion will have a negative impact on all Americans.

In the end the biggest problem is that conservatives don't understand the goal of Planned Parenthood and its supporters. No one wants more abortions. The goal is to give people the tools they need to "promote family planning and healthy, responsible reproductive and sexual behavior". For as much attention as is given to abortions, the reality is preventing unplanned pregnancies accounts for more than ten times as many of the services provided at Planned Parenthood as preforming abortions.

The decision to engage in sexual activity or have an abortion is not a decision women take lightly. The least we can do as a country is make sure that women get all the information possible to make this an educated decision. Unfortunately, the policies that conservatives support subjugate women's rights and make the dissemination of this information exponentially more difficult. If only conservatives realized how their actions ironically increase the need for institutions like Planned Parenthood.

Being Christian doesn't give you the right to discriminate

Conservatives have spent a lot of time recently asserting their right to illegally discriminate, which they like to call "religious freedom". The problem is that these conservatives seem to have different standards depending on whose rights are being discussed.

A perfect example of this issue comes from an article titled "How the far left's legal goals put everyone's freedoms at risk" recently penned by the director of the Freedom of Conscience Initiative for Alliance Defending Freedom, Jeremy Tedesco. The basis for this opinion piece is a lawsuit where Tedesco's client, Masterpiece Cakeshop, was determined to have discriminated against a same sex couple for refusing to bake them a cake for their wedding.

Tedesco believes that his clients should be able to discriminate based on their biblical belief that homosexuality is a sin despite the fact that such actions are against the law. The reality is that Masterpiece Cakeshop has the right to refuse service. They just don't have the right to do so based on who the person is. To counter this, Tedesco argues that his client is an artist and that "Like many cake artists and individuals in other artistic professions, Jack objects to artistically designing and creating cakes that celebrate things that violate his beliefs".

Unfortunately, like many other defenders of biblical bigotry, Tedesco doesn't seem to fully grasp the difference between the company’s first amendment rights and discrimination. Artist or not, the cake is the product or service that his client provides. Jack and the staff at Masterpiece Cakeshop are free to refuse to make any cake they see fit. No customer can force them to make a cake they don't offer. For example, if Masterpiece Cakeshop only makes vanilla cakes, they cannot be sued for refusing to bake a chocolate cake. Having said that, if a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple entered Masterpiece Cakeshop and requested the same cake it would be discrimination to bake that cake for the heterosexual couple but refuse to make that same cake for the homosexual couple.

This is also true of wording for the cake. Masterpiece Cakeshop has the first amendment right to refuse to write anything supporting gay marriage, just as they have the right to refuse to write bible verses or the confederate flag. The reality is that denying service based on the service is not the same thing as denying service based on the person.

Of course beyond that, Tedesco makes no mention of the hypocrisy his client is displaying. Being gluttonous is also a sin according to the bible. Would Tedesco be willing to defend Masterpiece Cakeshop if their sincerely held religious belief was that they won't serve fat people? Beyond that it should be noted that the bible never says gay marriage is a sin. If Masterpiece Cakeshop was following their religious tenets, they would inquire about the sexuality of all patrons before providing service. Not doing so compromises their religious beliefs and exposes how fraudulent their religious convictions really are.

Not surprisingly, like most biblical discrimination advocates, Tedesco thinks he has a situation that exposes the hypocrisy of those demanding equal treatment for all. Tedesco writes "Suppose a fine art painter advertises to the public that he or she will make oil paintings on commission, and then a patron contacts the artist and requests that the artist paint a commissioned picture that celebrates gay marriages, and the artist refuses, saying, 'I won't do that. I don't believe that." - is that discrimination? The answer again is no.

The artist can deny service based on the content of the service. In this case the "celebrating gay marriage" is the content and is therefore protected by the first amendment. What the painter can't refuse to do is paint a picture for a homosexual couple simply because they are homosexual. That is discrimination and that is what his client, Masterpiece Cakeshop, did and why they lost their case.

Perhaps the best way for people like Tedesco to understand the implications of the position is to ask them if they would support a bakery that refused to provide a cake for a Christian wedding that didn't include any wording, despite making that same cake for an atheist couple. If Tedesco got his way, this sort of discrimination would be perfectly legal.

In the end, the fight here is not about religious freedom. The courts have already determined what is an isn't covered, and arguments like the one presented by Jeremy Tedesco show an ignorance to the facts in order to feign oppression. The real fight is over who is protected by discrimination laws. So while Tedesco can lament adding "sexual orientation" to the protected classes of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, his concern over "protecting only those with "acceptable" views and permitting the government to present dissidents with a terrible choice: coerced agreement or forced silence" should fall on deaf ears since nearly every law on the books does this exact same thing.

The false hope of more guns

Never wanting to let a tragedy go to waste, the conservative media were quick to pounce on the recent murder of four marines in Tennessee. Breitbart News put up one article titled "‘PRACTICING MUSLIM’ WHO KILLED 4 MARINES WORKED AT SUPERIOR ESSEX IN FRANKLIN, TENNESSEE" while Fox News quoted Charles Krauthammer as saying this attack is "in all probability an example of radical Islam at work".

At this point the motives are unknown so it is possible that the killer is an Islamic terrorist. It's also possible that his yearbook quote “My name causes national security alerts. What does yours do?” showed he was tired of being treated like a terrorist despite being an American citizen. Of course it's also possible that neither his faith nor U.S. Islamophobia played any part, but peddling fear is really the goal of today's entertainment- based news.

Ironically, many of the media outlets that are quick to play up the possible connection between a Muslim killer’s faith and their actions are the same that downplay race in murders perpetrated by white assailants such as the case of Dylann Roof who killed nine people at an historically black church in South Carolina last month.

Regardless of the motives one thing is clear, the killer used a gun to perpetrate the murders, which means gun rights advocates needed to move swiftly to not only defend the right to bear arms to but insist that the only way to stop events like this in the future is to have more guns. The usual raconteurs like John R. Lott and Todd Starnes posted articles titled "Chattanooga shootings: Why should we make it easy for killers to attack our military?" and "Chattanooga shooting proves it's time to arm our Armed Forces".

The problem is that even if these marines had guns on their person the shots were fired from outside their facility without any warning. It's likely that by the time they took cover and got a good vantage point to return fire the shooter would have been gone. Such a policy might have been more effective in other military base shootings such as Fort Hood or the Washington Naval Yard, but there are plenty of other locations across the U.S. that are just as "gun free" as a military base that don't experience these types of mass killings. Airport terminals for example do not allow any weapons, yet they are not havens for mass shootings.

The reason seems to be that airports have stricter security for entering the facility than most military bases. Perhaps rather than having every federal employee armed to the teeth to prevent what is a rare occurrence, we should just provide better security that would deter or prevent shooters from reaching unarmed staff; because, while it is likely that having more armed personnel would limit the number of people who die during a mass shooting, it is also likely that the increased presence of firearms would lead to a rise in shootings.

Data show that carrying a gun increases aggressive behaviors which means having armed employees could turn heated or violent workplace incidents into homicides. Given that this sort of escalation has occurred on military bases in war zones before, it seems the military is not immune to workplace shootings.

The problem is that simply having a firearm isn't a silver bullet for preventing shootings. Data show that from 1994 to 2003, of the 616 police officers killed by criminals while on duty 52 of them were shot with their own weapon while in the military "insider attacks" accounted for 96 deaths in Afghanistan between 2011 and 2012. Obviously the presence of guns did not deter the attackers in these situations.

This narrative that more guns equals less crime is a common one in the conservative media, but the data used to make this assertion has been roundly disputed. While its certainly possible that crime goes down as more people carry firearms, the Statistics also indicate a trend towards more firearm deaths with an increased number of concealed carry permits.



If the solution for preventing gun deaths results in more gun deaths is it really a solution?

The reality is that outside of eliminating all guns, the best way to reduce gun violence is to give the authorities the tools necessary to restrict who can purchase firearms, to track the sale of guns, and to seize weapons that were obtained illegally. Unfortunately, gun advocates’ devotion to putting a firearm in the hand of every good guy also makes getting a gun easier for bad guys. Changing that fact doesn't require the repeal of the second amendment.

Conservatives hate America too

Looking to fill time during a slow news week the good folks at 'Fox and Friends' devoted multiple segments of their July 9th show to Ariana Grande's "I hate America" comments. The conversation fit nicely into the Fox News narrative that conservatives devotion to America is greater than that of liberals and especially that of Hollywood liberals.

To prove their moral superiority Fox News offered up data from a Gallup poll which Steve Doocy said suggests Grande "might not be alone about hating America" because "just 43% of 18 to 29 year olds say they are extremely proud to be an American". The problem is not being "extremely proud" to be American is not the same as "hating America". The only people who could really be associated with "hating America" are the 1% of Americans who responded they were "not proud at all". It should also be pointed out that there is no data in poll to show that kids today are any more or less patriotic than their predecessors.

Curiously there was no mention of the Fox News poll from 2011 that found that Democrats were the most likely to say they were proud to be American while Tea Party voters were the least likely. Using the Fox and Friends logic their own poll seems to indicate that Tea Party members might hate America.

Having said that the real problem for conservatives in these "proud to be American" polls is their cognitive dissonance. While a Gallup poll from 2013 shows conservatives are the most likely to say they are proud to be American it also lists them as the most likely, by a wide margin, to believe the signers of the Declaration of Independence would be disappointed in how the U.S. turned out. They somehow hate how the country has turned out simultaneously loving it more than anyone else.

The irony is that this seems to be the same argument Grande is making. She hates certain things about America but is still proud to be American.

Of course Grande's comments are simply a pretext for Fox News to blame Obama for how awful the country is. The guest for this segment, Miss Kansas 2013 Theresa Vail, said she "can speculate" that the problem with Grande and other millennials is the fact that "for the past 6 or 7 years...we've had a president who doesn't believe in American exceptionalism; he doesn't speak up for American values...so can you blame millennials for their modicum of patriotism".

The hypocrisy of this a statement is outstanding since there is no better source for criticism of the U.S. than conservative media. Certainly having people like Rush Limbaugh say they hope Obama fails or rooting against the success of policies like the stimulus package, the Affordable Care Act, or renewable energy don't seem very patriotic but if you want to see why people have a negative view of America just check out the conservative media conversations on immigration, gay marriage, free speech, religious freedom, or gun rights. These people honestly believe they are slowly losing their rights and America is going to hell. Perhaps this pervasive attitude not the presidents words is the reason for the current perceived lack of patriotism.

Perhaps more troubling was the segment of the Fox and Friends broadcast where Laura Ingraham put in her two cents on Grande's comments. Despite being 30 years her senior Ingraham displayed all the class of a 15 year old girl when she calls Grande, who came from middle class background and worked her way up from cruise ship karaoke lounge act to Broadway to television, a "spoiled, entitled pop princess". Making matters worse, Ingraham calls Grande "estupida" in spite of the fact that her heritage is Italian not Hispanic.

Ingraham's comments are a microcosm of the problems with the love of country argument. In spite of being completely uninformed on the topic Ingraham acts like a bully by publicly shaming a 22 year old girl. She smugly pretends that her positions represent that of a true patriot and uses racially charged language to imply outsiders should appreciate America like she does. She ironically offers up a perfect example of why some people might hate certain parts of America.

Clearly Grande made an error in judgment but one wonders if the holier than thou pitchfork mob remember what it was like to be young. Did they never do or say anything that they later regretted? Did they never act out when with a group of friends? Did they never tell their parents or anyone they loved "I hate you" but didn't actually mean they hated the person but rather the situation?

One also wonders if there would be such vitriol from the right if a celebrity baker was forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding or an celebrity gun owner was refused the right to carry his gun to his kids school then came on Fox News and said for those reasons they hated America. Odds are they would happily accept the excuse offered up by these "patriotic" celebrities and rationalize the comments in context.

Regardless of the disingenuous nature of these attacks the reality is to a large extent patriotism is a subjective idea which means who the conservative media deems patriotic is completely irrelevant. In the end if what defines a true patriot is determined by the folks in the conservative media you can bet that a majority of Americans would wear the label of unpatriotic as a badge of honor.

Fox News doesn't understand religious freedom

Given the amount of time Fox News spends peddling Christian persecution, you might expect them to have a better understanding of the subject. With the Supreme Court ruling on same sex marriage the conservative fear monger machine has been cranked up to DEFCON 5. Trending in the opinion section on Fox News are ill-informed articles titled 'Tolerance vs. Pride? Spat on by parade-goers, Catholic priest has this message', 'City Threatens to arrest ministers who refuse to preform same-sex weddings', 'You've been warned, America, gay marriage is just the beginning', and 'Ten Commandments: Madness Strikes in Oklahoma'.

Topping the list however is 'Fox News anchor: I didn't know it was criminal to be a Christian' which is an excerpt from Gretchen Carlson's new book where she discusses the manufactured "War on Christmas". The incident that sparked her outrage was a group that requested the state erect a Festivus pole - a fictitious religious symbol from the Seinfeld sitcom - in the same public area as a Nativity scene. Carlson says "I thought it was an outrage that my kids would have to grow up in a culture that forced them to grope their way past a Festivus pole to see a Nativity scene—on Christmas!”

Outside of the fact that this anecdote in no way shows that Christianity has been even remotely criminalized, it should be noted that no one is forcing the Carlson family to drive by government property to view a Nativity scene. If they would like to see Jesus in the manger, there are no shortage of Churches and private establishments that offer such displays free of anything Christians might find offensive. Having said that, if forcing people to "grope their way past" made-up holiday exhibits is a problem, then Carlson needs to recognize that there are certainly American citizens that believe the Nativity scene represents a book of fairy tales. Like Carlson, these people are genuinely outraged that such religious representations are allowed on publicly owned property. The reality is, the courts have long decided that either all made-up symbols are welcome in the public square or none are.

The problem seems to be that some Christians can't understand how anyone would be offended by Christianity. Perhaps the best illustration of this point is when Bill O'Reilly referred to an Atheist group that put up billboards attempting to convince people that there is no god as a "bullying group". If converting people to your way of thinking is bullying, then it should be pointed out that there are far more Christian groups across the globe attempting to convince others to take Jesus Christ as their lord and savior than there are atheist groups hounding people to accept the possibility that God doesn't exist.

Unfortunately people like O'Reilly can't put themselves in the shoes of non-Christians to see how their proselytization could be considered bullying. In their mind these people are preaching goodwill toward men - how could anyone be offended? While the Christians of today certainly aren't as forceful as their Crusades-era predecessors, there is little doubt that some believers push the boundaries. Would Christians feel they were being bullied if Atheists showed up at their door to talk about the fallacy of God? Would they find an atheist on a loud speaker outside of their local sports arena offensive? If schools forced children to recite verses that said God wasn't real, wouldn't Christians demand this sort of speech be removed from the public sphere?

But when you insist that your local court building be adorned with the Ten Commandments because it represents Judeo-Christian values while disallowing other religious-based text, you become the bully. When you want only religions you accept as "real" to be represented in the public square, you exhibit the very intolerance you claim others are showing towards your faith. When you say, as Gretchen Carlson did, that "I'm all for free speech and free rights, just not on December 25th" you lose the right to be taken seriously.

The reality is that despite the outrage the courts have clearly defined religious freedom in a way that protects all Americans. So when Cal Thomas of Fox News says "gay activists are likely to go after the tax-exempt status of Christian colleges that prohibit cohabitation of unmarried students, or openly homosexual ones, as well as churches that refuse to marry them" he is exposing his ignorance. The Supreme Court has ruled that churches are free to refuse to perform a wedding for any reason they see fit. Any lawsuits attempting to remove this protection will only further enshrine it.

The tax exempt status of Christian Colleges however is likely to be challenged. The basis for the challenge will come from Bob Jones University vs. the United States in which the Supreme Court decided that religious universities could not retain their exemption and discriminate against interracial couples regardless of their First Amendment rights. The court also made clear that this decision did not apply to churches or other purely religious institutions.

Despite what Thomas would prefer, the court is not bound by Christian doctrine. The court is bound by the constitution and nowhere in the constitution is there an unmitigated right to tax exempt status for every endeavor associated with the church. Of course, it seems likely that Thomas appreciates that these same laws protect Christians from being discriminated against by secular schools, wedding chapels and cake bakers.

What these Christian activists don't seem to understand is that when people oppose Christian pervasion they aren't declaring war on Christianity - they are simply fighting for equal treatment. Christian religious freedom is bordered on all sides by the religious freedom of everyone else. By crossing those borders you infringe the rights of others. This means one person’s religious freedom is another person’s discrimination. If only we lived in a world where faith was used to lift up all Americans instead of being used to ostracize thy neighbor.

Conservative legislation provides support for gun control

After the murder of 9 black Americans in Charleston, South Carolina by Dylann Roof, conservatives have had their hands full deflecting. For example, Fox and Friends had a guest who whitewashed the racial aspect of the shooting and instead painted this as part of an ever widening "War on Christianity".

While the possible Christian component of this attack is highly suspect, the fact that the man who committed the murders used a gun is not. So it comes as no surprise that gun advocates are out in full force defending their second amendment rights. Some will say "now is not the time to talk about more gun control measures", though there seems to be no such limit for gun advocates to throw out questionable statistics to show why gun control doesn't work. Others are mad that anyone would politicize this tragedy, when what everyone should be talking about is how liberals are to blame for this and other mass murders.

Regardless of the angle, what conservatives really want everyone to know is that guns are in no way, shape or form responsible for this attack...outside of being the weapon Roof used to shoot 9 people to death.

When it comes to guns, advocates have their own set of facts. I discovered this last week when I wrote an article discussing Vince Vaughn's comments on guns and the support he received from Fox News.

Vaughn stated that "All these gun shootings that have gone down in America since 1950, only one, or maybe two have happened in non-gun-free zones." Of the 24 deadliest mass murders over the last 50 years only 6 of them happened at schools or "gun free zones" as described by 'Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990'. The rest happened at homes, restaurants, places of employment, the street, a mall, and two at Military bases.

The response from gun advocates over this data suggests the problem is an uncertain definition of what constitutes a gun free zone. For example, some gun advocates seem to believe that despite the presence of armed guards, the fact that military personnel are not allowed to carry their weapon on the base makes this a gun free zone. Suggesting otherwise is insulting and moronic. Yet it should be noted that after the shootings at Sandy Hook, the solution to defend America's schools offered by NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre was "armed security". This is the same solution LaPierre offered five years prior, after the Virginia Tech shooting.

Why would an organization that thinks the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, champion an idea that still rendered schools "gun free zones"? The fact that gun enthusiasts can't even agree on what makes a location gun free tells you all you need to know about how tenuous the mass shootings at gun free zones "fact" is.

Another idea that seemed to have gun advocates up in arms is New York's stop and frisk policy that Greg Gutfeld of Fox News defended when he said "it is a fairly obvious point -- stop and frisk gets guns -- that prevents gun crime." Gun control supporters clearly agree with this idea - less guns, less crime. The problem is, many people suggested the value of stop and frisk is solely that it removes guns from those who shouldn't have them (aka bad guys).

Despite making this claim in support of less gun control, it is really the best argument for more gun control. If gun advocates believe that removing guns from those who shouldn't have them is a good idea, then just imagine what we could do if we expanded stop and frisk to all citizens. Even more guns would be removed and even less crime would occur. Obviously there would be some question of constitutionality, but gun control laws are in many ways very similar to laws that Republican legislatures have been pushing for the last few years, despite potentially being unconstitutional.

For instance, the NRA and many gun advocates argue that background checks and registering guns won't work because criminals will still get their guns. Yet it is many of these same conservatives that support voter ID laws despite the fact that criminals will still find ways to commit voter fraud.

This reality outrages conservatives because they believe voter fraud runs rampant across the country and voter ID will stop it. They argue that since there is no good method for tracking voter fraud, we don't realize how big of an issue it really is. Using this logic it could be said that we don't know how many guns could be kept out of the hands of criminals with tracking tools like universal background checks and gun registration. Like Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker said about his state’s voter ID laws "It doesn't matter if there's one, 100, or 1,000," voter fraud is too important not to at least do something. Similarly, using every option at our disposal to prevent even one criminal from getting a gun should be a goal of everyone.

Of course the biggest fallacy that gun advocate like to claim as fact is that the government is plotting to take away their guns. Polls show that 73% of American's believe the second amendment guarantees the right of citizens to own guns. Given that congress rejected a bill on universal background checks that was favored by 90% of Americans, it seems very unlikely that a full repeal of the second amendment is anything more than fear mongering.

What many Americans are looking for are laws that would make it harder for criminals to get their hands on guns. Like laws conservative support on abortion, voter ID, stop and frisk, and religious freedom, additional gun laws might be annoying for law abiding Americans; but if the ends justify the means for laws that inconvenience women, the poor, African and Hispanic Americans, and the LGBT community, it seems unpatriotic for gun owners to refuse to do their part in making America a safer place to live.

Political Correctness and the Wussification of Conservatives

Political correctness is having a good week. It has been discussed by Jerry Seinfeld, Bill Maher and ad nauseam, per usual, on Fox News. Ironically, being anti-PC has become the new PC.

Conservative pundit Cal Thomas for example, is outraged that due to some students who don't identify as either male or female, graduates from his alma mater will now all wear the same color gown for graduation services instead of one for girls and another for boys. Yes, in Thomas' mind, having a public institution force all students to wear the same uniform for graduation is an example of out of control political correctness, but forcing them to wear different gowns is the American thing to do. The truth is that both are forms of political correctness.

Thomas also believes that when Facebook updated its settings to include 58 different gender options, this somehow represents abusive political correctness; yet he fully supports a company’s option to refuse service to people based on that company’s religious freedom. Again, either how corporations deal with a person’s sexuality is an example of political correctness or it isn't. Cal Thomas' feelings on which is right and which is wrong are completely irrelevant.

The reality is that while the media construes this as a liberal problem, both sides spend a lot of time trying to change the public narrative. For instance, every year the conservative media makes the "War on Christmas" part of their coverage, insisting that companies should greet everyone at the door with "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays".

These are also the same people who wanted to change the name of French Fries to Freedom Fries. The same people that get irritated about having to push 1 for English. The same people who are offended by jokes regarding Sarah Palin's kids. The same people who have come up with their own politically correct code words like Black on Black Crime, Urban, Socialist, Thug, Makers, Takers, Death Tax, Pro-life, and Welfare Queens. And the same people who flip out when you call them racist. Their goal of changing minds through public shaming is no different than that of the PC police they claim are ruining the country.

Of course Cal Thomas is hardly the only television personality who has been talking about political correctness lately. Jerry Seinfeld suggested that college students have become too PC which Bill Maher whole heartedly agreed with on his show. Given that these two men are now 61 and 59 years old respectively, their belief that there is something wrong with the younger generation is hardly surprising. Old men complaining about "kids these days" and "back in my day" are as American as apple pie and baseball. Their words represent opinions, not facts.

The problem for people like Thomas, Seinfeld, and Maher is that things have changed over the years. Schools today have put an increased emphasis on eliminating bullying, so students are far more cognizant of how their words impact other people. Perhaps that means public figures will have to adjust their diction, but there are no doubt millions of kids who benefit from this policy.

Kids today also have unprecedented options to publically voice their displeasure. Instead of dealing with one heckler at a show, comedians are now heckled daily on Twitter and other social media sites.

Of course even those complaining are part of the PC machine. Maher, for example, when talking about Paula Deen said "there's no excuse" for her use of the N-word, yet there was a time when no one would bat an eye over the comments she made.

More recently the terminology used to describe those in the LGBT community has changed. Does this mean that if Seinfeld and Maher refuse to use the F-word to describe gay men they have succumbed to the PC police, or does a term only become PC when the user doesn't understand why anyone would be offended by its use?

The question for most people is intent. When Rush Limbaugh calls Sandra Fluke a slut it is insulting because, despite what he might say, his history suggests the term was not used in jest; yet comedians across the U.S. use this word on a daily basis in their routines. Similarly, when Bill Maher makes jokes about Muslims, some people will find them offensive because Maher has made statements about the Islamic faith that suggest he is not coming from a place of love. This is no different than the double standard of insulting a sibling. When you insult your sibling it is funny, but if a stranger or someone who doesn't like your sibling makes the same joke you find it offensive.

But perhaps the most peculiar talking point to come out of these discussions comes from Daily Caller editor Scott Greer who suggests college students should "expose themselves to viewpoints that genuinely offend them" since "Colleges are supposed to be places where the marketplace of ideas can flourish and young minds can come in contact with a host of different ideas and a myriad viewpoints." Forgetting for a second that consumers of conservative media, like the Daily Caller, tend to be some of the least informed and least interested in exploring alternative viewpoints, Greer seems to have very little understanding of what these students are doing.

It's not that students haven't been privy to racist, sexist, or culturally insensitive jokes before, and it seems unlikely that simply hearing these same insults day after day is really what anyone would consider a good education. The fact is their reactions are a direct response to these "different ideas". Ironically, Greer appears just as uninterested in listening to the students’ viewpoint as he believes they are.

The question Greer should really ask is why he holds students and comedians to a different standard. If it is good for students to be exposed to viewpoints they find offensive, then why is it a travesty for comedians to be exposed to students’ opposing viewpoints? Why is it OK for Jerry Seinfeld to go on national TV and explain what's wrong with college kids but not OK for college kids to explain what's wrong with what a comedian says? Why is it censorship when college students ask comedians to avoid terms people find offensive but not censorship when comedians suggest the students should keep their opinions to themselves? It's all just free speech.

In the end the hand wringing over political correctness is just the politically correct way for some people to defend their unwillingness to change. After all. since when did asking the people who worship at the altar of personal responsibility to be accountable for their own words become offensive, or does the whining over being chastised by a bunch of liberal kids prove the wussification of conservatives?

Conservatives are delusional on facts about guns

In a recent interview with GQ, actor Vince Vaughn discussed his thoughts on a number of different topics; but the remarks that have received the most media attention are the ones he made regarding gun rights in the United States.

Among other things Vaughn stated: "I support people having a gun in public full stop, not just in your home. We don't have the right to bear arms because of burglars; we have the right to bear arms to resist the supreme power of a corrupt and abusive government. It's not about duck hunting; it's about the ability of the individual. It's the same reason we have freedom of speech." and "All these gun shootings that have gone down in America since 1950, only one or maybe two have happened in non-gun-free zones."

To no one's surprise Fox News was quick to step in and offer their support for Vaughn's view. For example, Greg Gutfeld of 'the Five' started his June 2nd segment on Vaughn with "The media reaction to Vince Vaughn's recent second amendment defense is as unsurprising as it is fact free." It should be noted that Gutfeld is the same person who once said "isn't the problem here that there are too many celebrities spouting off their political opinions". Apparently the only celebrities Gutfeld feels should spout off are the ones who agree with his opinion.

Of course the bigger problem here is that Gutfeld is convinced that his version of reality represents facts. Is it true that since 1950 only one or two mass shootings have occurred in non-gun-free zones? The shootings at Fort Hood and the Washington Naval Base are two recent mass shootings which clearly don't fit the "gun-free" profile. A number of others include people who killed their family or co-workers, suggesting that the location of the murders had far more to do with people than the presence of guns. The reality is that even Gutfeld is only able to find less than a handful of mass murders where the perpetrator took the gun-free status into account.

Not to be outdone, Gutfeld's colleague Eric Bolling adds his own misinformation to the mix when he stated: "You want facts, here are the facts. Since 1993 gun ownership has gone up by 50%. In that same period of time the murder rate has gone down by 50%". The only problem with this "fact" is that it suggests this correlation represents causation. If Bolling thinks that things are getting better, he might also want to point out that in 1977 over 50% of households owned a gun while in 2014 that number had fallen to 31%. Perhaps the causation here is that there are less murders now because less people have access to guns.

The group also makes disputed claims regarding concealed carry statistics, defensive gun use, and gun ownership versus crime rates. For a conversation that is supposed to be about facts, the panel on 'the Five' seems oblivious to how in doubt their supposed facts really are.

But making matters worse is when this group, arguing against gun control, held up the stop and frisk policy in New York as a success because as Gutfeld said "it is a fairly obvious point - stop and frisk gets guns - that prevents gun crime". Amazingly Gutfeld isn't even aware how he completely contradicted himself. While arguing that more guns equals less crime he admits that he supports a "fairly obvious" policy of taking people's guns because in his words "that prevents gun crime". This is exactly the argument that gun rights advocates have been making for years. The only difference is, Gutfeld believes that race should play a part in determining who is allowed to have a gun.

Polls show American's are clearly interested in putting more restrictions on who can own a gun and allowing the government better tools to track those guns, but despite the data that show countries with strict gun laws experience less homicide, gun rights advocates are a strong and outspoken group that tend to shout down any changes as a restriction of freedom.

The good news is there is a compromise available. The word "arms" in the constitution has not been specifically defined, which means it is open to interpretation. Instead of trying to outlaw guns, gun control advocates should simply outlaw the manufacture and sale of bullets. The second amendment would remain intact while gun deaths would fall dramatically. If legislators are uncomfortable with this option, the same thing could be accomplished by increasing the taxes on guns and bullets making them unaffordable for many of the mentally unstable individuals that commit these mass murders. Either way everyone wins.

Michigan Republican's lies hurt the working poor

Towards the end of his first year in office Michigan Governor Rick Snyder suggested the changes he and the Republican led legislature had made were necessary for the good of the state but that these changes also represented "shared sacrifice". Bear in mind what that meant was a nearly $2 billion tax cut for corporations and a tax increase of $2 billion for around 50% of Michigan residents with the bulk of the sacrifice coming from the working poor and senior citizens.

Among the lies politicians tell their constituents the "shared sacrifice" rhetoric is one of the most insulting. What they are really saying is that they are going to raise taxes on those who can least afford it in order to give tax cuts to the wealthiest taxpayers. These sort of political oxymorons are also present in Michigan Republican's top legislative priorities - "religious freedom" which allows for state sanctioned discrimination and "insurance reform" which ends the nation’s best catastrophic coverage. After all, these are both ideas that benefit big Republican donors at the expense of the poor and disenfranchised.

Based on this history it comes as no surprise that after completely dropping the ball on properly funding Michigan's infrastructure, the answer to finding the extra money again means a tax hike for the poorest residents. Given how much Republicans claim to hate tax increases, continually upping the ante for the working poor seems to run counter to the party platform but if you just call this increased tax burden "broadening the base" it suddenly becomes politically palatable. Because the Republican narrative suggests that the rich - "the makers" - already pay too much. Therefore any new funds should come from the poor - "the takers".

So rather than ask wealthy Michigan residents to give back some of the income tax cut they received under Rick Snyder, Republicans are looking at cutting the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for a second time in four years. The problem is the basis for this tax increase - fair taxes - is another big lie.

While giving Michigan's working poor a tax credit does mean a slightly graduated tax rate, income is hardly the only tax that Michigan residents pay. The reality is that when you take in to account the total tax burden, the top 20% of Michiganders pay less in taxes than anyone else. In fact, in Michigan the people that earn over $392,000 in taxable income only pay 5.1% of their income in taxes while the tax rate for those making between $17,000 and $34,000 per year is nearly twice as much, at 9.4%.

In terms of the state budget if the legislature could simply get the top 1% to pay the same percentage of their income in taxes as the working poor Michigan would receive an influx of near $650 million per year in extra revenue. Additionally if the next 19% of Michigan tax payers increased their contributions to the 9.4% of income those in the lower income brackets pay it would generate another $2.3 billion in revenue for the state. Just to be clear this means if Michigan's tax code was truly fair and treated all citizens the same the state would bring in around $3 billion more per year.

Michigan could have the nicest roads and bridges in the nation if GOP legislators would just admit that the tax code currently favors the wealthy in a big way instead of continuing to perpetuate the lie that the rich are taxed too much.

Of course the stupidity of this legislation goes beyond this politically motivated falsehood. Data show that the EITC is one of the governments best tools for pulling people up out of poverty with a return of $1.67 for every dollar spent. This math is why Gerald Ford enacted the EITC in the first place and why Ronald Reagan said this credit as part of a tax overhaul was “the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress”.

In a country that places such a high value on capitalism having politicians who reject a 67% return on revenue is astounding.

Republicans in the Michigan legislature have offered up a litany of really dumb legislation over the past few years but there is perhaps nothing more disheartening then seeing a group of wealthy legislators decide that raising taxes on the people who are already saddled with highest tax burden in the state in order to keep taxes low on the people who already experience the lowest tax burden, all while costing the state a high return on its investment, is an example of "shared sacrifice".

The good news is only 27% of voters have a positive view of the job the legislature is doing and that was before the embarrassment that was proposal 1. If this legislature insists on raising taxes again on the working poor they should be prepared to experience some of that "shared sacrifice" they like so much come November 2016.

Religion Doesn't Create Terrorists - Society Does.

The recent motor cycle gang violence in Texas has many wondering why the media isn't talking about things like white on white crime, why prominent white leaders aren't out denouncing this violence or why the talking heads aren't dissecting the problems with white culture like they seem apt to do with violence perpetrated by non-whites.

After all, the executive director of the Midwest Outlaw Motorcycle Gang Investigators Association called these biker gangs domestic terrorists, and data show that many of the things that lead people to join extremist groups like ISIS are very similar to what leads people to join violent gangs.

Given this, it seems the media should cover terrorist organizations a little more like they have covered the biker gangs. For example, perhaps nothing exemplifies America's condemnation of Islam more than the Pew poll that shows that around 22% of countries have Blasphemy laws on the books. Of course, it should be pointed out that Canada and certain U.S. states still have blasphemy laws on the books as well, so it seems unlikely that the laws themselves have much of a correlation with violence. It should also be noted that in some of these countries blasphemy laws were introduced by Europeans not the Quran. This suggests that blaming the Muslim holy book for the actions of extremists would be like blaming Harley-Davidson for the actions of these biker gangs.

Another take away from the Pew poll is that Islam is an inherently violent religion, since in some countries a majority of Muslims support death for apostates. Obviously this exposes a problem with these believers; however, it appears that despite what polls may say, most of these supposedly radical countries ignore these laws. In fact, the vast majority of the countries haven't actually killed anyone for apostasy or blasphemy.

Bill Maher once stated that, while the U.S. has crazy Christian fundamentalists, what makes us better is that we don't let them rule our country. If courts in the majority of Islamic countries don't actually sentence anyone to death then does simply having a poll that suggests people support the law actually prove that the bulk of Muslims are really more in need of help than America's religious extremists?

Has anyone ever done a poll of Christians to ask if homosexuals should be killed for being gay? In the U.S. some 30 members of the LGBT community are killed each year. Given that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin punishable by death, there are numerous preachers who support this belief, and 76% of Christians believe the Bible is the written or inspired word of god - Would it be safe to say that the Bible is the mother lode of bad ideas? Would it be OK to castigate the entire religion for the actions of a select few? Are Americans and Christians really that much different than Muslims in the Middle East?

Polls show 57% of Republicans support making Christianity the official religion of the U.S. while 60% of Tennessee residents are in favor of making the Bible the state’s official book. Similarly majorities of Muslims are in favor of making Sharia law the official law of their country; however, contrary to what some would have you believe, many of these Muslims feel Sharia law should only cover Muslims.

Polls show that U.S. citizens described as "Steadfast Conservatives" (69%) and "Faith and Family left" (91%) both strongly support the idea that believing in God is essential to being a moral person. Similarly Muslims in various regions believe the same thing, with support ranging from 61% for Southern-Eastern Europe to 94% in Southeast Asia.

95% of Americans believe the U.S. was founded on the right for citizens to have religious freedom. Similarly, vast majorities of Muslims believe Religious Freedom is a good thing, with South Asia being the highest at 97%.

In the U.S. 38% of Whites believe Blacks are the most racist while only 10% of Whites believe Whites are the most racist. Similarly in Egypt 50% of Muslims believe Christians are hostile towards Muslims while only 35% of Muslims believe Muslims are hostile towards Christians.

For those who attend Church weekly, 69% believe humans were created by God in our present form while only 1% of this group thinks Humans evolved with no help from God. Similarly 67% of Muslims in the Palestinian territory believe God created humans as we look today.

86% of Americans believe television has caused a decline in values. Similarly 88% of Pakistan Muslims believe western entertainment has hurt morality.

Pretending that the Pew poll results of one question regarding apostasy somehow proves that the Quran is a book of evil is ignorant at best. There is little doubt that extremists that claim to represent Islam are currently the most violent among religious groups, but polling and other data suggests that Muslims across the globe and religious Americans are cut from the same conservative cloth.

The reality is, the reason that the media isn't spending much time investigating white on white crime, the absence of white leaders denouncing these murders or the problems with white culture in response to these biker gang attacks is because the media doesn't believe this is a systemic problem. Which begs the question; why are these same people not willing to accept that this could also be true of Muslim extremists?

Clearly, convincing religious followers that their holy book is not meant to be taken literally but rather used as a guide for how to be a better person would be helpful. But if the goal is to stop this sort of organized violence that plagues the world, then finding other ways to provide disaffected youth the money, protection, inclusion and social bonding they are missing that lead them to become outlaws in the first place should be our top priority. Unfortunately, for many, having an enemy that can be portrayed as inherently evil is far better for business than accepting that society’s failures create the perfect environment for violent groups to flourish.

Free Speech is a stupid reason to draw the Prophet Muhammad

Last week Bill Maher continued his one man crusade to convince liberals that belittling and disrespecting Muslims and their faith is somehow a progressive position. This week he was joined in his proselytization by 'The Blaze' analyst Will Cain.

The conversation focused on two separate Islamic based news stories that the media covered recently. The first was opposition to an award being given by the PEN organization to the satirical French Magazine Charlie Hebdo for their "courage" in depicting the Prophet Muhammad. The second was a contest held in Texas where participants had to draw Prophet Muhammad.

For his part Maher stated: "This is America. Do we not have the right to draw whatever we want?" which Cain followed up with: "You don't just have a right to free speech - when someone's position is 'if you offend me, I will kill you' it becomes virtuous for you to offend that person."

It should be noted that these comments both really miss the point of the opposition. No one is saying you can't draw a picture of the Prophet Muhammad - we agree that is your first amendment right. What they are saying is, just because you can do something does that mean you should? It also begs the question; is intentionally offending someone because they have different beliefs than you really a sign of courage?

In schools this sort of premeditated provocation is called bullying and has caused numerous young adults to take their own lives. Who is to blame for their death? The kids doing the bullying or the kid who would rather die than be tortured another day. Cain apparently blames the bullied kid. Of course, some of those who are bullied end up killing the bullies instead. According to Cain, this means the media would be virtuous in relentlessly antagonizing this child since his bully was just practicing free speech.

If killing individuals based on religious beliefs deserves a full frontal assault on that religion why has Cain never written or commented on the hundreds of LGBT are killed every year in majority Christian countries. Shouldn't the media - Cain included - condemn all Christians for the acts of these few who can't control their temper? Isn't that the courageous and righteous thing to do?

One imagines Cain and those who agree with his position would be less inclined to support a contest for drawing Jesus as a homosexual or a museum exhibition of aborted fetuses held by a pro-choice organization. Yet you can bet a couple rednecks with guns would eventually show up to voice their displeasure.

It would also be considered free speech to use the N-word anywhere you want, yet the use of the word in certain locations is likely to cost you your life. Given this reality, shouldn't Will Cain drop the N-bomb every chance he gets? Wouldn't it be virtuous of him to hold an N-word black face parade until those who would kill him change their mind?

When you continually and overtly belittle people for being who they are, eventually some of the people in these groups will respond violently. Is the answer to their violence really to be more offensive? Is unrelenting abuse really the best way to get someone to do a thorough self examination, or does it just make you look like a jerk and further solidify the belief that those outside the group are the real problem?

No one is defending ISIS or other extremist Muslims groups, but realize that it's not just the extremist that you tick off with your blanket Islamic insults. By insisting on drawing the Prophet Muhammad to offend the murders, you are also offending those who would otherwise be your allies. The vast majority of U.S. citizens agree with the goal of ending religious extremism. We just disagree with how you get there, and it has absolutely nothing to do with your first amendment rights to be a total d-bag.

Michigan legislature puts corporations ahead of voters at every turn.

After Tuesday's resounding defeat of Proposal 1 which was meant to raise funding for Michigan roads while allowing cowardly elected officials to pretend they didn't support a tax increase, the question for the legislature and Governor Rick Snyder is; what now?

Polls show that 87% of Michigan residents want Lansing to "Immediately begin working on an alternative road funding plan" which suggests that the vast majority of Michiganders understand that the states infrastructure spending has been woefully inadequate under the Republican lead legislature.

Part of the problem here is that Republican legislators are so clueless or inept that their take away from this defeat is that voters don't want to pay more taxes. While this may be true of a small percentage of people, polls show that the over 75% of voters were against proposal 1 for reasons other than a general opposition to an increased tax rate. Polls also show that 62% of Michigan residents would be willing to pay and extra $10 per month to fix Michigan's transportation system.

Not surprisingly one of the few things in Michigan with a lower favorability rating than Michigan's roads is the Michigan legislature. Yes, voters are more inclined to support Michigan's pothole covered roads than they are to support the elected body tasked with deciding what to do with our tax dollars. Perhaps it's this lack of faith in the legislature that has people unwilling to send any more money to Lansing.

After all, if you look at this legislature's priorities it becomes very clear that the people who would have ended up footing the bulk of the bill for roads under proposal 1 are many of the 50% of Michigan residents that have already seen their taxes increased by this legislature. Between 2009 and 2013 the total tax revenue Michigan collected from corporations fell from $2,554,138,000 to $687,560,000 while the revenue contributed by individuals increased from $6,071,514,000 to $8,211,359,000. This means Michigan residents have seen a 35% increase in their taxes while corporations have seen their contributions fall by 73%.

Most voters already realize that they have done their fair share by paying over $2 billion more in taxes than just a few years ago. If there isn't enough money left to pay for improving and maintaining Michigan's roads it seems the nearly $2 billion cut in taxes for corporations is the most likely culprit.

Of course the idea for cutting taxes is to bring more jobs to Michigan however it should be noted the two years prior to implementing the corporate tax cut Michigan ranked number 3 in job growth while that ranking has subsequently fallen to 21st. Instead it is likely that the political obsession with cutting taxes has cost Michigan jobs since polls show that having access to good roads was the number one concern for executives when deciding where to locate their business.

Additionally University of Michigan economist Don Grimes says that only 10,000 to 15,000 jobs per year cannot be explained by growth in the auto industry or national economic improvement. Assuming 100% of those jobs can be attributed to the corporate tax cut, which seems unlikely, are 10,000 to 15,000 new jobs really worth $2 billion in lost tax revenue?

Making matters worse is the fact that not only are individuals paying more taxes but they have also seen the value of the wages drop when compared to other states. A report by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis shows that Michigan's ranking among the states of "real per capita income" fell 38th to 39th last year. If the tax burden is going to be shifted away from corporations onto the working class shouldn't the goal be to attract the high paying jobs of the future instead of fighting for the low paying jobs of the past?

But perhaps the biggest question for this legislature is what reason is there to believe that voters support the Republican position of smaller government through tax cuts? Ask any Michigan resident if they would like to pay lower taxes and they are likely to say yes. Ask that same resident if they would like to pay less for their car, their insurance, their groceries, their gas, or their utilities. Again the answer would likely be yes. Just because people want to see their dollar go farther doesn't mean that want inferior services which is exactly what the Republican obsession with cutting taxes has done. How about we just tap some of the $5 billion the governor has earmarked for "jobs" (see corporate giveaway) and use that to fix our crumbling infrastructure?

The battle to properly fund Michigan's roads is far from over but unless voters get involved the legislature is likely to continue to increase your taxes, gut education funding, and force your local government to cut police, fire and other essential services instead of asking corporations to do their fair share. Because the only thing this legislature hates more than taxing corporation is losing their job. It's about time we make their worst fears come true.

Christian persecution is a problem, just not in the U.S.

It is widely believed that conservative Christians are a key demographic for Republicans. Evidence also suggests that fear mongering is an important political tool used by most politicians and pundits. It comes as no surprise then that the conservative media has spent much of the past decade attempting to paint Christianity as under attack. The problem is the reality doesn't match the narrative.

For example, after a Kentucky court ruled in favor of a t-shirt maker that refused to print shirts for a gay and lesbian organization Fox News' resident Christian outrage peddler, Todd Starnes, sat down with Lou Dobbs and claimed this was a win for religious freedom. While this is clearly the story the conservative media would like to push the decision was actually about freedom of speech, not religious freedom.

In fact the judge’s ruling stated: [“T]he right of freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment against state action includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all."

Companies are free to choose which products they will and will not sell; this applies to all companies regardless of their religious views. In this case the owners felt that the wording on the shirt was offensive and refused to sell the product. They were not refusing to serve a specific customer as is the case in the other situations that have made news recently.

This is no different than Wal-Mart’s recent decision not to sell UFC fighter Ronda Rousey's autobiography in their stores because they felt it was too violent. Ronda Rousey has no constitutional right to have her book sold at Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart customers have no constitutional right to purchase this book at Wal-Mart.

Conversely, when religious freedom advocates fain indignation over Christian business owners being sued for denial of service what they are really promoting is the option to discriminate based on religious beliefs. Regardless of your religious beliefs it is unconstitutional to deny people service based on who they are.

The problem with people like Todd Starnes is they are either ignorant to this distinction, which is embarrassing for a supposed expert in the field or they are purposefully misleading their consumers, which is both embarrassing and shameful.

Of course the fight over corporate religious freedom is only one car in this politically motivated freight train of misguided Christian fury. Others like Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee believe "We are moving rapidly toward the criminalization of Christianity,” As proof Huckabee says "there are numerous cases, whether it’s the chaplains in the military being told to put their bibles away, no longer pray in Jesus’ name, not to counsel people who are in a homosexual lifestyle, not to counsel them to try to seek assistance for that,".

One assumes some of the other "numerous cases" Huckabee is referencing include when corporations exercise their religious freedom and say "Happy Holidays" to customers instead of "Merry Christmas" or when public schools refuse to allow religious services on school grounds.

Having said that, this idea that there is some sort of "War on Christianity" in the U.S. is small minded and insultingly insensitive to Christians across the globe that experience true religious persecution. As the Open Doors organization points out every month 322 Christians are killed for their faith, 214 Christian churches and properties are destroyed and 772 forms of violence are committed against Christians around the world. Imagine the conservative media coverage if these sort of things happened in America.

The reality is there are few if any places in the world where it is better to be Christian than the U.S so pretending that being forced to abide by the constitution is somehow a "war" comes off a lot like the spoiled rich kid who's parents won't upgrade the radio on the new BMW I8 they are buying for his birthday. It just makes you look uninformed, selfish and silly.