Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
New Year, New Unpopular Opinions
It’s been awhile since we’ve heard what wrong opinions we each have, so I figured we should get down to it… you know, to start the New Year off with a bang. I’ll go first:
The United States of America Is Not, Strictly Speaking, a Christian Nation
At least, its government wasn’t founded as such, and that’s even more true today than it was then. Our federal government has no official religion, is prohibited from forming one, requiring that you participate in one, or — notably — asking you to reject one.
That begs the question then: if the US is not a Christian nation, what is it? It is a nation founded by an overwhelmingly Christian-majority people, who remain majority Christian, and that permits some ceremonial Deism within its operations. The difference between being a “Christian Nation” and the reality of the United States is a fine, but relevant one. There is a difference between a nation and its government, a fact many Christians rightly point out repeatedly when leftists are in power.
The words “Under God” Should be Excised from the Pledge of Allegiance.
These words were only shoehorned-in under Eisenhower due to the Red Scare, and it’s high time they were stricken from from the Pledge.
I know what I am pledging allegiance to when I say those words: the Constitution of United States of America, its people and its principles. Why is that insufficient? If you say, “one of our principles is gratitude towards and recognition of the almighty,” I would point you the argument in favor of the first unpopular opinion I offered in this post.
It would be a mark of Christian humility, confidence in the strength of their witness, and their commitment to the principle of subsidiarity to accept — indeed, to champion — the removal of those words. If the Christian story is so compelling, and the truth of their claims so obvious, there should be no need to have their beliefs impressed upon people within the Flag Code.
Do I think anybody is being harmed as many atheists allege? I do not; at least, not the people you might think. I’m a big boy and not worried about semantic infiltration, but I also think that disentangling faith from the fell influence of the government would benefit religion (and the religious) in this nation greatly.
Perhaps, we could insert an overt oath of loyalty to the Constitution in place of “Under God” in an effort to clarify and make the Pledge more euphonious.
It would also have the pleasant side effect of skewering the Left on the horns of a dilemma.
The Tax Code Should Recognize No Difference Between Businesses and “Non-Profits.”
I am making no comment here regarding what state tax policies should be (especially with regard to property taxes). This should be done, of course, in combination with drastic reductions in the corporate tax rate and reasonable allowances (a standard deduction, if you will) for small organizations to maintain working capital and to make improvements to their facilities. There are a lot of reasons for this.
The term “non-profit” should indicate that the federal tax liability of such organizations ought to be zero to begin with, being as the government only taxes such organizations on the basis of profit (revenues minus expenses). As a result of this insane policy, much mischief is done in the name of “not-profiting.” (Sure, some people who work for non-profits seem to be doing an awful lot of profiting, but their salaries are subject to individual income and payroll taxes.)
Enough, I say.
Worthy charities will survive this minor inconvenience without substantial trauma because of their frugal and honest operation while behemoth skimming operations (like the United Way or the Church of Scientology) will likely dry up … or at least have to pay up.
It’s Entirely Possible Your Congressional Representative Is an Unbeliever.
Let’s face it: congressional representation isn’t exactly reflective of the demography of the population at large. The congressional delegation is overwhelmingly more male, whiter, and older than the average citizen. There are other ways in which this cohort is exceptional.
The average congressman is has also attained a much higher level of educational achievement than the average American, and not just in fluffy degrees. There are 213 holders of juris doctorates (lawyers; surprise!), 25 medical doctors, and a staggering 64% of Representatives overall hold graduate degrees (74% for senators.) I think it’s safe to say that the job of “congressman” tends to select for reasonably high levels of intelligence and achievement among the pool of possible candidates.
Another statistical anomaly is the fact that there is only a single Representative (Kyrsten Sinema, D-AZ) out of 535 members of Congress who admits to being religiously unaffiliated.
If Congress were reflective of the population at large, one would expect there to be about 37 agnostics/atheists among the 535 members of Congress (About seven % of Americans are either agnostic or atheists.)
Is it curious that out of all of 535 Congress Members, only one openly admits to being religiously unaffiliated? Well, it would be curious if you were to discount the fact that 53 percent of Americans say they wouldn’t elect an atheist president. One could reasonably deduce from this statistic that the population’s distrust of Atheists/unbelievers as a representative would be roughly equivalent to be their dislike of the idea of an atheist president.
So, why is it possible — perhaps, likely — that your representative is an atheist?
Unless there is some sort of very perverse self-selection going on, you’d just expect as a function of statistics for there to be some there. Militating against this theory is the average age of congress, as older Americans tend to be more religious.
What points are in favor of the theory? This study correlating measures of intelligence (using college entrance exams, GPAs, etc.) with acceptance of atheism. Congress is peopled by members who are — on average — considerably older and more intelligent than the average American. Given the tension between these facts it would come as no shock to think that there is a sizable cohort of closeted atheists/unbelievers/deists in the ranks of our representatives. It’s even possible that that proportion is higher than their relative representation in the population.
Let’s hear some other unpopular opinions for the New Year!
Published in Culture, Domestic Policy, Politics, Religion & Philosophy
Most children are circumcised as infants. Unlike an adult getting butt implants, they cannot consent or object.
Never mind the Pledge. We should replace the Star Spangled Banner with the Theme From Star Wars as our national anthem. I’m sure it wouldn’t be to hard to write appropriate lyrics. Maybe
“U Sssss A,
Hooray the U Sssss A,
We love the U Sssss A,
And we always will!
Here’s my unpopular opinion: comments like this are why I expect my cause of death will be hanging or gunshot wound. If you get your wish, I will be rising in rebellion whether anyone else goes with me or not.
Isn’t there something about involuntary servitude in the Constitution…
It’s customary, that’s all. John Quincy Adams chose to be sworn in on a book of laws rather than a Bible. The phrase “So help me God” is added at the end of the oath, but its not part of it. Legend has it that George Washington added it.
It’s inconceivable to me that a modern President would dare to not be sworn in on a Bible or not add “So help me God” at the end of their oath. We’ve reached the point that such boldness would be considered a national outrage.
To me, that cheapens the act. When its public like that and required, it raises questions of whether its an act of genuine piety or just done for show. I’d welcome a candidate who gave the Ron Swanson answer when asked to talk about their religion.
Re the inclusion of the “Creator” reference in the Declaration: Thomas Jefferson’s personal opinions are not very important. He was writing for a group, and expressed the opinion of the group.
M, re the oaths clause in particular and its religious basis, see this paper and this paper from Heritage.
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Circumcision is not only done, or in our day even primarily done, for religious reasons. There are many health reasons for circumcision, including:
Children don’t feel a thing and do not suffer from this practice. There are very, very, very, very rare instances of mutilation, but there are fluke disastrous outcomes from almost every medical procedure.
My father was not circumcised as a child and dealt with infections and problems of trying to keep the foreskin cleaned throughout his growing up. He got circumcised as an adult, and despite the discomfort the recovery caused him, he claimed it was one of the best health decisions he ever made.
Railing against circumcision is only slightly less ignorant than railing against immunization.
Put me down with agreeing with Maj on this but preferring Frank’s solution.
Concerning circumcision, from IU med school, medicine grand rounds, the most effective way to reduce Aids in Africa would be to increase male circumcision. Where hygiene is not understood or practiced, water is not clean, circumcision is a positive practice. Also the transmission of disease from men to women is diminished when men are circumcised. Of course in the Western world circumcision is more of a cultural tradition. Of the things which harm or limit the futures of children, such as poor schooling, single parenting, circumcision is small potatoes. My father wasn’t, I am, my son is.
At the risk of providing too much information I’ll concur with BThompson re: health reasons for circumcision; I was circumcised as an infant at the hospital after I was born because, as I understand, at the time it was a standard health code practice in Harris County. My parents never bothered to discuss it with me once I was old enough to understand the concept of circumcision, nor did I ask.
Since they raised me Episcopalian I don’t believe there was a religious component to the decision (I confess I have never felt the need to make a comparison with other raised-Episcopalian cisgendered individuals identifying as males.)
I’ve certainly never felt “mutilated” and barring an unfortunate time travel incident that places me in the midst of a Biblically-recorded rebellion I can’t see any possible negative impact.
Odd question:
If we require someone to swear an oath with “So help me God” when they either haven’t any intention of fulfilling their oath or haven’t any belief in God (or in some cases both), are we not encouraging their taking the Lord’s name in vain?
Here’s an unpopular opinion around these parts:
Simply devolving decisions to the state or local level, rather than the federal level, does not make one a champion of limited government.
That’s why I really hate those who say rich people like Bill Gates [or Steve Jobs for you MS haters] need to “give back” to the community. He’s given plenty already. Gotten fabulously wealthy as a result, but that’ a feature, not a bug.
Atheists have no one to blame but themselves here, especially in the last few years when the line between atheist and anti-theist has become virtually invisible. When someone tells me he is an atheist my immediate assumption is that he thinks I, my entire family, and most of my friends are incapable of rational thought and should be excluded from public discourse. That’s not an easy hole to crawl out of.
There are two things that everyone must say in order to be elected to high office. They don’t have to believe them, but they must say them.
1. I believe in God.
2. I support the Second Amendment.
Who gets Claire?
I know several atheists who fought virulently against the “Atheism +” plague that swept through online boards a while back. Gave me hope for the sanity of mankind.
Star Wars: The Force Awakens wasn’t very good.
This.
The atheists have let themselves be defined by those who roll their eyes and make derogatory comments about an invisible imaginary friend when someone expresses their faith.
Majestyk,
Getting back to your post, you said your ideas are unpopular, but in many parts of the world and society, it is currently very unpopular to be Christian, so you’re in good company. You asked if our founders were referencing the God of Judaism or Christianity – they are the same God – the Bible includes the Old Testament.
Our founders wisely knew that freedom comes from the Creator – and they included Freedom of Religion and Speech, not Freedom from religion, which is what many atheists say they want. It’s a shot in the foot. Our founders made it clear that the Biblical references on our monuments, money, etc. do not imply a particular religion. That protects atheists.
The key word is freedom, which they believed, again, is bestowed upon all by the Creator (of it). We have, as non-perfect creatures, at times failed to uphold these creeds within our own society, with prejudice and segregation. But removing what our founders believed, stated, and made clear is to silence the very idea that gives you the right to non-belief. Even God allows for atheists – it’s called free will.
I think we should raise all none entitlement spending be 10-20%. Government sucks because we keep cutting government to avoid cuts to entitlements.
Government is corrupt slow and inefficient. Trying to make it cheap, just makes it crappy.
Every single agency is worse off for entitlements. Republicans primary job is to make government suck to avoid doing the hard work.
I also think we need to double the pay of legislators, justices, and the president.
No, but state a local governments are closer to their constituencies and easier to influence. It also gives people the ability to escape bad law without fleeing the country.
Passing an ordinance in every municipality in the USA is much harder than passing it once at the federal level. In that way, it facilitates the limitation of government, if not a limited government.
I half agree with this. I enjoyed it and was entertained, but had to actively suppress a ton of head scratching about all the ridiculous and incomprehensible plot holes and completely idiotic devices and explanations used to explain various parts of the story. Carrie Fisher was atrocious acting wise and the scenes between her and Harrison Ford were absolutely painful to watch.
On the other hand the action and battle scenes are first-rate. The performances and characterizations of the new characters were fantastic, and the overall tone and sense of fun of the film were perfect.
Does it deserve to be the most successful movie of all time? No way. It doesn’t even deserve to be the most successful film this year. It’s worth the price of admission, though, but probably only that.
Couldn’t agree more. Atheists who regard human life as having inherent worth are unknowingly borrowing Judeo-Christian assumptions of morality.
Intellect can get you from point B to point Z on a rational moral framework. It can’t get you to point A.
Not all men are involuntary slaves to their wives.
I suspect that given the prospects of a marriage-by-lottery she quickly marries one of the available Ricochet men. Win-Win.
Well put. A post on the member feed on this topic would be welcome.
This is nonsense. Utter nonsense. There are plenty of reasons to approve of circumcision without lying to ourselves like this.
My unpopular opinions? I have quite a few.
I have probably watched more circumcisions than most, and some of those circumcisions involved the child on my lap, so I have quite a lot of direct knowledge.
The baby tends to cry when they are exposed – and the cry usually does not change when the cut is made. At least 20% of the circumcisions do not involve crying at all – the kid is chilling. I have even seen babies sleeping through the entire thing.
I am sure it can hurt. But nerve endings are not very developed at that age, and even with those who seem to be in pain, once they are packaged up again (like 20 seconds later), the crying stops. In over 200 of these, I think I have only once seen a child sustain a cry well after the circumcision.
I gave my 2 year old a cold shower this morning (we are toilet training). The screams were epic. Heck, when some parents say “no” to their kids, you’d think they were being burned at the stake.
So in the annals of child trauma, circumcision does not rate very highly.