GM Looking To Limit Worker and Consumer Rights

General Motors is apparently starting a thirteen-state tour in an attempt to try to convince governors to work to reduce manufacturers' liabilities in the realms of health care and put limits on punitive jury awards in lawsuits. Why am I not surprised?

Companies have been looking for ways to offload healthcare costs for a long time, as if they don't have a responsibility to look after the workers who make them their money. And they're looking to offload their responsibility to build safe products by limiting the money a plaintiff can receieve in a lawsuit.

It's interesting... the Bush Administration says they want to privatize more of the government, but the private companies are looking to foist more of their issues off on the government. If employees can't look to their employers for medical care, who's going to get the brunt of that? The government. And who's going to be responsible for limiting punitive decisions in liability cases to keep private companies from paying out when they screw up? The government. Is no one else seeing this?

Kansas Attorney General Looking To Violate Civil Rights, Doctor/Patient Privilege

It's amazing what people are trying to get away with these days, but few places are as frightening as the state of Kansas. Mandating the teaching of fairy tales (AKA Creationism) in state public schools (even temporarily) was apparently only the beginning.

The Attorney General of the state of Kansas, Phill Kline, is apparently trying to require two abortion clinics to open their records to him so he can "investigate and prosecute child rape and other crimes in order to protect Kansas children." He's fishing into the files of 90 women who have had abortions, according to the article.

First, the Kansas AG is a staunch opponent of abortion, and I wouldn't trust him with the information he uncovers.

Second, Doctor/Patient Privilege has to take some effect here.

Third, his agenda violates the separation of Church and State: he's trying to push to have stickers put into science books in Kansas schools that state evolution is just a theory, and pushing the so-called "Intelligent Design" theory. The difference between evolution and intelligent design is that there is scientific evidence for evolution. There is NONE for intelligent design. But his agenda is to push for religion and state to merge.

Folks like this need to be kept out of government - one of the basic tenets of this government is the separation of Church and state. It's necessary in any nation where there is freedom of religion. If one religion is adopted by the government, then we don't have freedom of religion any longer. And that's anti-American.

Turning the Tide?

Amazing... I'm seeing evidence that the evangelicals are coming around to see the environment as worth protecting.

Apparently there are evangelical groups forming that are calling for better pollution controls and more environmentally-friendly policies by the Bush Administration. Interestingly, the normally off-the-scale-to-the-right leader of "Focus on the Family," James Dobson is one of the signatories to a document signed by the National Association of Evangelicals, which calls for environmental responsibility among all Christians and more civic responsibility by the government in creating a sustainable environment. Other signatories include Ted Haggard, head of the N.A.E., and Chuck Colson, head of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Of course, the article discusses the usual mistrust by the evangelicals of traditional environmentalism, and prefers to refer to it as "creation care," in reference to the Bible, naturally. But despite this shortcoming, a positive step is being seen as mainstream evangelicals are pulling away from the dispensationalists (the folks who see the earth as available to be used up, basically, in preparation for the rapture).

An interesting point in the article is made by John C. Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron. He takes some time to discuss the evangelicals' suspicion of traditional environmentalists:

"While evangelicals are open to being good stewards of God's creation, they believe people should only worship God, not creation," Green said. "This may sound like splitting hairs. But evangelicals don't see it that way. Their stereotype of environmentalists would be Druids who worship trees."

Another reason that evangelicals are suspicious of environmental groups is cultural and has its origins in how conservative Christians view themselves in American society, according to the Rev. Jim Ball, executive director of the Evangelical Environmental Network.

"Evangelicals feel besieged by the culture at large," Ball said. "They don't know many environmentalists, but they have the idea they are pretty weird -- with strange liberal, pantheist views."

I find it interesting that these evangelicals, Green seems to be saying, do not understand how anyone can be secularly interested in saving the environment, but rather that they must have some faith-based reason for wanting to protect the earth.

That explains much - to an evangelical, he seems to be saying, one takes religion into consideration for everything. On the other hand, a person like me looks at saving the environment because I'm concerned about the future of life on earth and the health of the world's population. God really doesn't ever enter into it for me. I once dated a girl who didn't understand how I didn't stop to pray when something was going poorly for me or I needed to decide on a course of action. It simply wasn't in her mindset to accept that I didn't see prayer as necessary. And the same seems to be in play here.

It'll bear following this issue more closely, I think - I'm too suspicious in general to take too much at face value. But it certainly seems to be a step in the right direction for the environment!

Bill Moyers On The Religious Right's Crusade Against the Earth

One of today's most respected journalists is, rather was, Bill Moyers. Bill has written and spoken about a lot of important topics over his career, but perhaps none is more important than the comments he made upon receiving the Global Environment Citizen Award from Harvard Medical School.

Moyers called our attention to the rising religious right, who with the appointment of George W. Bush to the Presidency of the United States (as he did not win his first election) has attained power that can no longer be ignored. The most dangerous wing of the religious right is that which believes in "The Rapture."

For those of you who aren't familiar with "rapture theology," I'll summarize (though if you haven't you should read the Moyers article at the link provided). After a certain grouping of world events takes place, which includes wars, environmental catastrophe, and certain political events, the "faithful" of Christianity will be literally raised up to heaven, where they'll be able to sit next to God and watch as he destroys the rest of us in accordance with the book of Revelations in the Bible.

So... why is this dangerous, you ask? Isn't everyone entitled to their religious beliefs? This is America, after all. We have freedom of religion here - it's one of the very first rights that our forefathers put into the Constitution's Bill of Rights, and rightly so.

But we also have a standing philosophy that goes along with the Bill of Rights: that we may enjoy our rights as promised by the Bill of Rights as long as those rights don't interfere with the rights of others. And a primary instance of this philosophy is the practice of the separation of Church and State.

Many don't believe in the separation of Church and State, but it's a fact that one of the very first treaties negotiated by our government with a foreign power declares that the United States was NOT founded on the Christian religion. See Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, as signed by President John Adams. It states:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

You can't argue with that language. And Adams was one of the founders of the nation, a signer of the Declaration of Independence.

Now, fast-forward to the 21st century. We now have a President who has openly told the world he's a born-again Christian. And his policies are right in line with what seems to be the end-time as discussed in books like Tim LaHaye's Left Behind series. Most importantly, he's removing regulations and laws designed to protect the environment and make sure that Americans have a healthy world in which to live. And he's encouraging the same overseas. He talks a good game, talking about renewable energy (though he thinks NUCLEAR energy is clean and environmentally friendly), but his actions speak otherwise.

And his actions are supported by too many in this country - a 2002 Time/CNN poll says that 59% of Americans believe that the Book of Revelations contains prophecies that are going to come true. OVER HALF.

Okay, I've talked about the facts (or at least the facts that exist based on research that has been done). Now, let me tell you my opinion on this subject, and the opinion that is going to drive this blog:

People who believe that they can live as they have without seriously changing their consumption habits from top to bottom, based on what's written in the Bible, are selfish. They are using far-out interpretations of a book that was never meant to be taken literally as justification for their lack of willingness to change in the face of the environmental catastrophe toward which we are rampaging.

It also allows people to justify their bigotry, particularly in reference to homosexuality.

But, if the Bible was to be taken literally, why is it that you can't find one major religion in this country that still calls for burning animals as offerings to God? To be able to sell our daughters into slavery, or possession of slaves in general? Killing people who work on the sabbath? This interpretation isn't literal; obviously, it's selective. And therein lies the selfishness. These people pull from the Bible only what they WANT to believe, not what they're being told to believe.

What do I believe? I'll be very honest. I have a hard time with Christian theology in general. I find it difficult to believe that a supreme being would create a universe only to destroy it later on. And I find it difficult to believe that a supreme creator would make us with free will, only to punish us eternally for not using it the way he wants. That makes no sense.

I like to think that God wants us to take care of the world He's given us. That we were given a gift of life, and that life extends not only to ourselves but to everyone and everything around us. This also extends to treating others as we'd like to be treated and living as part of the world, not in spite of it. Is this a perfect philosophy? Of course not, there isn't one. I'm still developing my personal system of beliefs, as is everyone. But I can't believe that God wants us to bring about global catastrophe just so we can end the world a little bit faster.

In any event, I'll be working to put forth my criticism and exposure of the "rapturists" throughout the months and possibly years ahead, and hopefully I'll help some of you seeing what exactly is going on. Because I truly believe that "rapture theology" is a threat to our world that has never been more prevalent than today.