13 May 2015

Pam Geller and Charlie Hebdo rock

Stephen Kershnar
Islam: False and Destructive
Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer
May 10, 2015

Recent events have made it luminously clear that Islam is a savage religion.

On May 3rd, two Muslim gunmen were shot and killed while trying to attack a Prophet Muhammed cartoon contest in Garland, Texas. The cartoon competition was sponsored by Pam Geller, president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, and was held in honor of French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo.

Earlier this year, Muslim gunmen forced their way in the headquarters of a magazine, Charlie Hebdo, and killed 12 people, including five cartoonists, for Muhammed cartoons. The gunmen shouted “Allahu akbar” (“God is great”) and “the Prophet is avenged.” In 2004, another Muslim expressed his displeasure at Theo Van Gogh’s movie, which criticized Muslim treatment of women, by shooting Van Gogh and then trying to cut off his head. In 1988, the Supreme Leader of Iran issued a credible death threat against novelist Salman Rushdie because he didn’t like Rushdie’s book.

The May 3rd attack is small potatoes compared to other Muslim attacks in the U.S. included the 2013 Boston Marathon bombers (3 dead 264 wounded), 2009 Fort Hood Shooting (13 dead, more than 30 wounded, “Allahu akbar” yelled), 9-11 (2996 dead), 1993 World Trade Center Bombing (6 dead and more than a 1,000 injured), and numerous other failed attempts. Of course, this is par for the course as the iconic slaughter of Israeli Olympic athletes was later replaced with bloody attacks on a Bali nightclub, Moscow Theater, London Subway, Madrid Train, U.S Embassies in Kenya and Libya, and so on.  

A religion is best viewed as the practices that comprise it. The independence of religious practices from the religion’s text and history can be seen in the way in which we would judge Hasidim and Mormons. Hasidic Jews’ lifestyles have a loose connection to the Old Testament and to how ancient Jews lived. The same is true for Mormons who have doctrines, practices, and a prophet that would be barely recognizable to Jesus-era Christians. If we were judging Hasidic Judaism or Mormonism, we would judge them by what they say and do, not by what their sacred texts say or their self-serving propaganda.

Judged by their practices, the Muslim religion is a juggernaut destroying freedom and lives as it rolls on. Most Muslim countries have little respect for freedom of speech, religion, association, or other features of the general right to be left alone. Unsurprisingly, the Muslim world is unfriendly to capitalism.

On the Heritage Foundation’s 2015 Index of Economic Freedom, only three minor Muslim countries are listed as economically free or mostly free (Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, and Qatar). Far too many Muslim people suffer from bloody civil wars in some Muslim countries and harsh government crackdowns in others.     

A significant percentage of Muslim countries have no democracy or democracy only within the confines of religious control. Consider, for example, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. The Muslim majority countries that are democratic (for example, Turkey) have done so only because they keep a boot on the neck of the Muslim religion.

The Muslim treatment is women is a breathtaking disgrace with, depending on the country, hindrances to education, mandatory covering of the body, forced marriage, rules restricting driving and being alone with unrelated men, and genital mutilation.  

Not only is the Muslim religion destructive, it’s false. Not only do Muslims have to defend theism, the case for which is at best weak, they also have to defend the notion that Abraham, Moses, and Jesus were prophets, also dubious. They have to further provide evidence that Muhammed (with his long history of war and bloodletting) was a prophet and that the Koran is the word of God. Given a plausible reading of the Koran, they likely have to go still further and show that God actually wants apostates destroyed, Jews and Christians subjugated and made to pay a special tax, women’s travel, dress, and education sharply restricted, and gays prevented from having sex. The chance of all of these doctrines (theism, prophets, Koran, and harsh policies) being true is infinitesimally small. Geller’s and Charlie Hebdo’s courageous satire shines a light on this false-and-destructive way of life. 

Nor will these things change soon. Writing in The Huffington Post, Alon Ben-Meir points out that in the Arab world, the majority of intellectuals operate within the tight confines of the Muslim religion (for example, clerics and imams) and thus a robust internal challenge to religious ideas and oppression will likely not be coming anytime soon. This a far cry from the Western intellectual tradition, which is and was studded with thinkers who together demolished the case for authoritarian governments and coerced religion and did so centuries ago. 

Publicly acknowledging that Islam is a savage religion will inform policy decisions. First, this will lead us to be skeptical about allowing large numbers of Muslim immigrants into the U.S. as we don’t want to import the same problems that plague France. This is a shame given that many Muslims are incredibly smart, disciplined, and good people, but, unfortunately for them, their destructive brethren are too costly and we’re not good at filtering them out.      

Second, there should be serious political penalties for pouring American blood and treasure into the Middle East. Bush and Obama and anyone who supported their foreign adventurism (for example, Hillary Clinton and John McCain) should be kicked to the curb. Consider how much better off we’d be if we avoided the Bushs’ Iraq and Afghanistan wars and avoided Obama’s  wars on Libya and ISIS, his incessant drone strikes across the Muslim world, and his meddling in Egypt and Syria.  

Third, there should be a ferocious defense of the right of free speech. The attacks on Pam Geller for her cartoon contests about Muhammed are disgusting because the Muslim religion is false and destructive and satire makes this brilliantly clear.


Pam Geller and Charlie Hebdo, you make us proud.

29 April 2015

Do Passover and Easter Make Sense?

Stephen Kershnar
How to View Religious Holidays
Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer
April 26, 2015

The religious holidays earlier this month, Passover and Easter, raise interesting issues: Do the holidays’ central stories make sense and, if they do not, then how should we view them?

Consider Passover. Passover is an Exodus-inspired holiday in which Jewish people celebrate God’s having liberated them from slavery in Ancient Egypt. In the Passover story, God freed Jews from slavery by inflicting ten plagues on ancient Egyptians before their leader, the pharaoh, agreed to let the Israelites go. The tenth plague involved the angel of death (or, perhaps, God himself) killing the Egyptians’ first-born sons. The Israelites avoided having their sons killed by putting the blood of a slaughtered lamb on their doors so that the angel of death knew to pass over their houses. During the plagues, the pharaoh would have relented and freed the Israelites, so God hardened the pharaoh’s heart so that he wouldn’t relent. God did this to show his immense power. Even after the plagues, the pharaoh’s army pursued the Israelites. God parted the Red Sea and after the Israelites passed through he then closed it, drowning the Egyptian Army.

The story makes no sense, at least if God is all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful. First, consider God’s hardening of pharaoh’s heart. Why would he do that? It led to immense suffering. Surely, he might have communicated his greatness in ways that didn’t involve bringing widespread suffering and death to the Egyptian people. Given that God allowed himself to manipulate pharaoh’s mind, he could have just as easily given the pharaoh a love of freedom or the Israelites and thus created a beautiful path by which Israelites escaped bondage.

Second, why would God kill the Egyptian’s first-born sons? They were innocents and it is a standard principle of morality that it is wrong to kill innocent people. This is especially true when the innocents are women and children. It is odd to see Jews joyously celebrating the death of Egyptian children, albeit as a means to their freedom.

Third, God if insisted on killing (see the tenth plague), he could have killed the Egyptian soldiers rather than first-born sons. The soldiers were going to die anyway and the angel of death was already in the Egyptians’ homes. There was nothing to be gained by adding to the carnage. 

Fourth, God could have made the Egyptian soldiers and their horses lame rather than drowning them. This would have ended their pursuit without horrible drownings.  

Easter also makes little sense. It celebrates Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead. According the Bible, the Romans crucified him and he lay dead and buried for two days. On the third day, God raised him from the dead. Many Christians celebrate Easter by receiving the Eucharist. Some denominations (for example, Catholicism) hold that the Eucharist is literally the body and blood of Christ. Other Christian denominations hold that it is merely symbolic.

Atonement, closely related to the resurrection, lies at the heart of Christianity. Atonement theory asserts that the suffering and death of Jesus explains why God forgives or pardons people for their sins. The Bible repeatedly asserts this. Yet atonement is a bizarre notion. A standard principle of morality is that it is wrong to punish one person for what another did. Yet Christian doctrine holds that people are forgiven by their sins because Jesus was punished. This is like punishing a mother of a rapist for what her son did and, after doing so, deciding that the rapist need not be punished.

The Eucharist makes even less sense as all of something - Jesus’ body - cannot be in two different locations (for example, Dunkirk and Hartford). 

Little noticed about the holidays is that Judaism and Christianity contradict one another. The former holds that the messiah has not yet come and that God is a unified individual. It also forbids people to be worshiped as it considered idolatry. Thus, Jews hold that Jesus is a false messiah and, hence, Christianity is false.            

If the Passover or Easter story is literally true, then it is clear that our understanding of God and morality is seriously flawed. That is, if it is okay for God to harden a leader’s heart in order to more completely crush his people, kill innocent boys, and allow one person to be tortured so that billions of other people don’t get the punishment they deserve, then our understanding of morality or God is so inadequate as to be worthless. If, instead, the stories make no sense, this is likely because the Passover and Easter stories have symbolic value, but are not literally true. 

If the Passover and Easter stories are merely symbolically valuable, then you might wonder why we should take them seriously. A lot of symbolic events have emotional meaning to us and are part of our identities, but it doesn’t follow that they should guide our daily actions or that people who master them (for example, rabbis and priests) have any expertise in moral issues such as marriage, divorce, in vitro fertilization, abortion, premarital sex, and so on. Like historians who are experts on Roman mythology, their symbolic and historical insight is valuable, but therein ends their expertise.

Also, one might wonder what else is symbolic. For example, one might wonder whether the Ten Commandments and Jesus’ instructions are merely shared symbols of an imagined past.  


Still, the holidays are wonderful times, filled with family, warmth, and a lot of good food. One might wonder what’s to be gained by calling into question the symbolic stories at the center of these joyous holidays even if they make no sense. Perhaps we have to trade off truth and rationality for emotionally meaningful symbolism. Perhaps. 

15 April 2015

Out-of-Control Police Violence and Government Overreach

Stephen Kershnar
Walter Scott, Traffic Tickets, and Government Overreach
Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer
April 12, 2015

The recent spate of videotaped incidents highlights intertwined problems: out-of-control police violence and constant government overreach.

By now everyone has seen the recent video of the shooting of Walter Scott in  South Carolina. Scott was stopped for a broken taillight. After he fled from Officer Michael Slager, the cop shot him eight times from behind and then appears to drop a Taser near Scott’s body. Slager gave the line that almost always protects cops: a struggle ensued, the suspect reached for my weapon and I feared for my life. After the video emerged, Slager was charged with murder. Without the cell-phone video, he’d be free as the wind.

In 2013, an individual who was being investigated in a case of mistaken identity complained that Slager tased him for no good reason and when his hands up in the air. The North Charleston police cleared Slager, although the alleged victim and several witnesses claimed they were not even interviewed about the incident.

The videotaped shooting comes shortly after the videotaped chokehold of Eric Garner in Staten Island that led to his death. Two journalists, Reuben Fischer-Baum and Al Johri, estimate that the police shoot and kill around 1,000 people each year, that is, three a day.

Most, recently, a video captures a horse thief in Southern California who was stunned with a Taser by a sheriff’s deputy and fell to the ground with his arms outstretched. Writing for NBC, Joseph Kandel and Tony Shin claim that a group of 11 sheriff’s deputies then kicked him 17 times, kneed him to the groin, punched him 37 times, and struck him with batons 4 times. 13 blows appeared to be to the head. Following the attack, the man did not appear to move from his position on the ground for more than 45 minutes and did not appear to receive medical attention while deputies stood around him.

The issue that arises is whether the above cases and ones like them are the exception or whether there is a real problem with police violence. Often the police’s defenders claim there’s no problem here. They note that there are bad cops, but no more so than bad teachers, nurses, and bus drivers. Other defenders argue that the high-profile cases are isolated instances and not a systemic failure.

Others, such as Slate’s Jamelle Bouie, rebut the isolated-instances claim. He argues that role of cameras in reducing police violence suggests that they can and do use far less violence when monitored and, hence, far too much police violence is unnecessary and wrong.

A study by Police Chief William Farrar found that in Rialto, California when police used body cameras, complaints against them dropped 88%. Furthermore, Farrar noted that this reduction in complaints was due to a reduction in force because (1) police shifts with cameras had half as many use-of-force incidents as those with cameras and (2) officers without cameras were more likely to use force without having been physically threatened.

Arizona State University criminologist Michael White notes that a study of police officers in Mesa, Arizona found that police officers had 60% fewer complaints after they wore body cameras and 65% fewer complaints than those officers who did not wear cameras. A reduction in complaints was also found in Great Britain when officers wore cameras.

It is possible that this decline in complaints and use of force is largely due to citizens behaving differently in response to the cameras, but this doesn’t fit well with the evidence. The Rialto study found that the police were more disciplined about only using force in response to a threat to them when they were on camera than when they are not. Also, a citizen already faces a serious chance of injury and conviction when fighting with the police and it is unlikely that the camera adds much of a further deterrent.  

Police involvement in citizens’ lives is also at a disturbing level. Sociologists Charles R. Epp and fellow researchers studied traffic stops and found that nationwide 12% of all drivers are stopped by the police each year. Based on data about the Kansas City metropolitan area, they found that more than a third of young black men are stopped two or more times a year for investigatory stops. An investigatory stop is one based on a minor matter (for example, driving too slowly, malfunctioning lights, or failure to signal) and is often used as a pretext for investigations of the driver and the vehicle. Epp and company found that 44% of young black men who drive an older luxury car were subject to investigatory stops. Regardless of the race issue, far too many people are being pulled over and the courts and legislature deserve a lot of the blame here.    

Nor is it just traffic stops. Tickets are now used to bleed revenue out of cowed citizens. A 2006 Federal Reserve Bank study found states sharply increasing the number of traffic tickets given out to compensate for loss of revenue elsewhere. Some states have had had to limit the percentage of a town’s revenue that can get from tickets to 30% for state roads and 35% to state highways as some towns started to use police and courts as moneymaking schemes. These percentages are outrageous.

The results of using tickets as taxation are ugly. Timothy Williams writing in The New York Times notes that in 2013, an astounding 17% of Californians had their licenses suspended for failure to pay fines or appear in court. This is unsurprising given a 2012 state analysis that found that a $500 traffic ticket, even when paid on time, cost $1,953. It also found a $100 ticket for failure to have proof of insurance actually cost $490 and this increases to $815 if the motorist didn’t pay on time.


Police violence, police stopping far too many motorists for minor traffic matters, and towns using traffic tickets as their newest and most favorite form of taxation are a bad combination. The three are related in that the demand for more government revenue leads to more traffic stops, which leads to more friction, and so on. The system needs reform.