Social Issues

SVP Evolution and the Erosion of Freedom

2005-10-15T18:17:00.000-06:00

A trend that gives me great concern is the increasing occurrence of Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) laws. Simply stated, this law says that a person convicted of a sexual offense is competent to stand trial in a criminal court. This person often is not allowed to plead Not Guilty by reason of insanity (NGI), or incompetent in most cases, and is found to be in control of his or her actions and impulses. After serving the criminal time in a prison, the person is again hauled into court. Now, magically, the person is suddenly found incompetent and not in control of their impulses and now, they require involuntary and indefinite treatment. This is an incredible ruse. Would it not be more honest and noble to keep this on a criminal level?

The argument that the offender lacks impulse control is not provable, but mere speculation. Besides, even if the offender lacks impulse control, is there justification to “treat” a person for a behavior that has not yet been repeated, under the flimsy umbrella of “protecting the public”? Society seems to hate this particular target population and rather than increase the punition from a criminal perspective, this hatred is masked by the fantasy of a purported “mental illness”. The person is locked up involuntarily and indefinitely, perhaps even for the rest of his/her life, under the guise of “treatment”, frequently being diagnosed with one of many of the garbage can DSM diagnoses, i.e. Paraphilia, NOS.

The dangerousness of this law is that it may evolve to include at first, other "Dangerous Persons" and then to other less intense populations. Once started, we have no idea the direction this could lead, and the number of people taken out of the public eye for "treatment".

Another factor that is extremely troubling is the method behind the madness. I recently discovered that at the Sandridge facility in Wisconsin, the people there under an alleged civil commitment are kept behind an electrified fence topped with razor concertina wire. In addition, the officers there have orders to use deadly force to stop escapes, or to stop the incitement of potential escapes. What this means is that a person housed in that facility could talk another "inmate" into escaping, and then be in his room writing a letter to his mother or wife, and a guard could legally come into his room and shoot and kill him for incitement. At Arcadia, in Florida, a person under civil commitment there faces an automatic 25 year sentence in a prison for escaping. All this in "treatment" facilities that are allegedly NOT punitive or criminal in nature, but rather civil. No where else in this country that I am aware of, use that kind of threat in civil commitments. An escapee may be picked up and taken back to a treatment facility, but no crime has been committed and certainly no threat of imprisonment or death hangs over the escapee's head.

Keep in mind that this is not criminal incarceration, forensic hospitals, or any other criminally oriented facilities. They are civil commitment facilities, and I find it unconscionable that in a country that tends to tout constitutioal rights, we would allow the courts, especially state Supreme Courts and the U.S. Supreme Court to allow this kind of double jeopardy to occur while playing word games so as not to call it such. Regardless of how we feel about this particular population, to allow this exception to a very wise and necessary protection is potentially opening an uncontrollable floodgate to oppression, social control and eventual disaster.

Another disturbing incident recently involved a 19 year old man who legally married a 14 year old girl in Kansas (oddly enough one of the founding states for the implementation of SVP laws), where the legal age of marriage is 14 with parental consent, which they had. The couple then moved to Michigan where the 19 year old was arrested for sexual assault on a miner; his wife.

Keep in mind that while you may feel unconnected and distanced by the above horrors, there could conceivably come a time when it is your friend or relative who ends up on the wrong end of an SVP law, there basic rights destroyed, and you left wondering how we ever became, as a society, so sexually hysterical.

While I personally do not understand or agree with the attraction an adult would have for a minor, I nonetheless feel that in a free society, we can not implement preventative detention out of fear of what someone may or may not do in the future.

I wrote the following poem. It is originally from Pastor Martin Niemöller, with modifications I made to pertain to this present day social injustice:

SVP Evolution and the Erosion of Freedom - A Poem

First, they came for the child molesters and sex offenders;
I did not speak out
because I was not a child molester or sex offender.

When they came for the murderers and robbers,
I did not speak out
because I was not a murderer or robber.

When they came for the "mentally ill",
I did not speak out
because I was not "mentally ill".

When they came for the social misfits,
I did not speak out
because I was not a social misfit.

When they came for the religious, racial and sexual minorities,
I did not speak out
because I was not a religious, racial or sexual minority;

And when they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

"Intelligent Design:" What the Proponents May Not Anticipate

2005-10-15T14:18:00.000-06:00

Lately there has been a lot of discussion both for and against the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, the intent of which is to counterbalance the teaching of evolution. The comparability between the two is questionable since evolution usually teaches how we came to be, and intelligent design usually teaches why we came to be. That incongruence aside however, there are considerations the proponents of intelligent design need to think about before including it into a mandatory philosophy or humanities course.

For one, the book, or set of books, will need to be incredibly large in order to incorporate all of the different beliefs concerning intelligent design. This is necessary to avoid undue influence and bias toward any one religious belief, thereby preventing the teaching from being in violation of the Constitution’s separation of church and state. Furthermore, the course needs to remain focused and not stray into areas such as man’s purpose on earth, reincarnation, sin, or other religious beliefs directly tied to intelligent design. An additional challenge of the teaching of this course will be avoiding having teachers inject their personal religious beliefs when discussing intelligent design. Outside experts could teach intelligent design in the specific areas in which they are proficient, thereby reducing some of the educational requirements of the teachers as well as minimizing the above-mentioned chance for bias. Overall, it is like teaching about feathers without teaching about birds; a difficult task at best.

Another potential problem is the unexpected consequence of such a course. Currently, there is concern about the issue of children coming home from school and talking about evolution, thereby upsetting the religious teachings of parents and churches. This upset would most likely intensify when a child comes home and starts telling the family they learned about the following sources of intelligent design: Asatru, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Satanism, Christianity, Muslim, ancient Greek and Roman beliefs, Hinduism, Wicca, Druidism, Universism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Taoism, Native American Spiritualism, Pantheism, Animism and the many forms of Tribalism. This is just a small sampling of the many different beliefs around intelligent design. Parents currently advocating the teaching of intelligent design might also be stunned when their child informs them that the intelligent designer is not an individual but rather a group, that the intelligent designer is not even human, or that it may involve either a spiritual or a physical being or beings, or creature or creatures.

The conflict between intelligent design and evolution pales by comparison to the ensuing conflicts that may arise from teaching intelligent design as a course in public schools. This could definitely compound an already confusing issue for the young, since there are so many different beliefs about intelligent design, and some of those beliefs are in direct contradiction to other beliefs, as well as perhaps the child's own religious upbringing.

However, there may be great wisdom in teaching the young about all the different intelligent design beliefs. It will allow them to choose for themselves which to believe, to evaluate their own environment and to question existing beliefs. If they make informed decisions, with regard to intelligent design and evolution, on their own, they may ultimately become mentally stronger, and more tolerant and accepting of human differences. It may even pave the way to a future where all diversity is welcomed, respected and encouraged.

My Thoughts Regarding State Constitutional Amendments Prohibiting Same Sex Marriages

2005-10-15T14:16:00.000-06:00

State constitutional amendments that are being proposed, to deny the right of same sex marriages, is yet another hard example of the dangers of intertwining theological philosophy with government. I make this statement based on the rhetoric that all of the objections to same sex marriage are based on excerpts taken from the Old Testament, specifically, the book of Leviticus. While on the surface, this may seem justified, as there is reference to Man laying with Man as with a woman, as being an abomination (Leviticus 18:22). There are many other “laws from God” written in this book that are conveniently swept under the rug, or otherwise ignored: A Woman must be isolated for seven days after giving birth to a boy, because she is unclean (Leviticus 12:2), and two weeks after giving birth to a girl (Leviticus 12:5). This same law applies to isolating a woman during her menstrual cycle (Leviticus 15:19). The list of laws from God goes on, too many in fact, to mention here. These laws from God are obviously ignored, even though in the book of Leviticus, God clearly commands several times, that ALL of these laws be followed (Leviticus 18:30, 19:37, 26:46, 27:34). Interestingly enough, many parts of the Old Testament are often in sharp contrast to the New Testament, in which the writings are more of a tolerant, peaceful nature, having a “live and let live” aura to it. This contrast is logical, considering the Old Testament is “pre-Christian”. Indeed, there are many harsh, brutal and even graphically gruesome writings in the Old Testament that would make any R rated gore movie pale by comparison; writings I find potentially very “harmful” to children. That is another literary task for me however, and not part of this focus.

I did however; speak briefly to a devout Mormon woman who responded to my inquiries regarding the “hit and miss” appearance going on with respect to the laws stated in Leviticus. She had two replies, conveniently sidestepping the actual question.

1. “You people (meaning gay and lesbian people), are a group out on the fringe (whatever that means), and most people in this country are frightened of you.” When I asked her why, she responded to tell me that it was the “ick” factor envisioned by her kind with respect to homosexual couplings.

2. “These laws and changes to state constitutions are not man’s law, but God’s law.” I found this to be an avoidance smoke screen and suspicion was confirmed when I referenced the other laws of God in Leviticus that were not being followed. She had no answer for me, which actually answered a lot for me.

For now, I will put aside the Bible thumping aspect and look at this issue from a civil rights perspective. Throughout history, whenever a group has been targeted for removal from rights others take for granted, this has eventually compounded into more groups, more reduction of civil liberties, eventually leading to overall disaster. One recent example is the many years of Apartheid in South Africa. The most notorious example of this was the era of the Third Reich. What started out as an attempt to wreak economic ruin of a single group – the Jewish population, by the secretive Thule Society, turned into a multifaceted genocide, leading to the murder of millions of innocent victims. I have to ask the question: "Is this really the direction the American People want our country to travel"? I ask this because I do believe that this initial “trickle” of rights denial, will eventually swell to become a flood, and as abhorrent as these examples are, even in dictatorial societies such as those mentioned, it is even more unthinkable in a free society such as ours. At what point do we say, enough rights have been taken away from Americans; and yes, gay and lesbian people in this country are Americans. There is a very wise quote from George Santayana that states: “Those who cannot learn from History, are doomed to repeat it”. I consider this an axiom. If we begin by feeling justified and even pious regarding the denial of rights to a target group, it always opens the door to more denial of rights, to more groups. In a nation that prides itself on freedom, liberty and justice for all, can we really justify this as conditional, and even exclusionary? I think not. Freedom, liberty and justice have to apply to all Americans, or they are merely empty, transparent words. Would those who propose constitutional amendments or laws prohibiting the legal union of two men or two women, also be willing to propose a change to our own Pledge of Allegiance ending to read; "With liberty and justice for some, but not all"? When we allow agencies, whether governmental or theological, to begin the stripping away of our basic civil liberties, we also perch ourselves upon a very unstable cliff and as this scenario has been repeated over and over again in history, always ends with catastrophic results for all. This is not speculation, nor is it paranoia. This has been proven in the past and will be proven again, whenever we allow basic human rights, which all humans should share, to be selectively handed out, depending on who, what or even how we are.

Gay and lesbian Americans are not vying for special rights no one else has, we are trying to obtain equal rights; the same rights that are enjoyed by everyone else. Remember, gay and lesbian Americans are police officers, who protect us all when we are in danger from real threats. They are lawyers and judges who ensure our rights are not violated. They are doctors and nurses, who treat and cure our diseases, illnesses and heal our injuries. They are the pilots and flight crews who transport us safely and comfortably to our destinations around the world. They are the firefighters who rescue us from burning buildings and homes. They are the brokers and bankers who help us make our monetary wealth. They are the architects and artisans who design and build our homes and offices. They are the teachers, professors, psychologists and therapists, who educate us and help us when we are in pain or anguish. They are even our military, protecting our country at the risk of their lives. Gay and Lesbian Americans cross every social and economic strata in this country.

Now, I firmly believe that in order to state a problem, I should have in mind at least one solution to that problem. Here it is, and I cannot take any credit for this idea, but rather repeat it as it was related to me by my loving companion, Tom, who stated that many other commentators have written about this idea.

Civil Union

The Government should get out of the marriage business altogether. The only legally recognized contract between two people on a personal and committed level should be civil union. This Civil Union would apply to all people based on the following criterion; civil unions should be allowable between any two legally competent, consenting adults, limited only by the State's authority to prohibit incest. This would apply to men and women, men and men, and women and women. The government would grant civil union licenses to all those who met the above-mentioned criterion.

Marriage

The term "marriage" would be reserved for religious ceremonies and be symbolic in nature, having no legal recognition whatsoever. The religions of this country could then be as restrictive as they want regarding whom, and under what conditions they grant marriage ceremonies.

This seems like the simplest, most just and logical way to deal with this issue.