To contact us Click HERE
Get your FREE programs!
Birmingham Mon A, Race 02 #3: CRY EUROPE
Birmingham Mon A, Race 06 #1: CTW JESSICA
Birmingham Mon A, Race 08 #8: WW HEADLINER
Birmingham Mon A, Race 09 #8: CTW JENNY LEE
Daytona Beach Mon A, Race 08 #6: Jb's Highpower
Mobile Mon A, Race 07 #4: Okie Velda
Palm Beach Mon A, Race 01 #4: Waubun Debo
Palm Beach Mon A, Race 03 #2: Ss Delphine
Sanford Orlando Mon A, Race 03 #5: Kruby
Derby Lane Mon E, Race 05 #8: Kelsos Assassin
Derby Lane Mon E, Race 08 #8: Nefarious
Derby Lane Mon E, Race 10 #7: Kiowa Mad Hatter
Derby Lane Mon E, Race 11 #1: Notinmyhouse
Derby Lane Mon E, Race 13 #5: Kb's Decatur
Tucson Mon E, Race 12 #3: Jg Motivation.
5 Kasım 2012 Pazartesi
4 Kasım 2012 Pazar
Is the gas tax the next Tea Party target?
To contact us Click HERE
That's the question asked by this article from yesterday. There's something for everyone to hate hate in some of the comments from Grover Norquist and other anti-tax people.
Gas taxes shouldn't be used for transit or bicycle/pedestrian projects. (Despite the fact that these projects actually take pressure off many roads, and are a far cheaper way of moving people than single occupancy vehicles.)
Federal regulations require union labor, which of course is a waste of money. We can have unskilled labor with no negotiating power build our roads, bridges, and tunnels.
The states can do things much more efficiently, and can decide if they want to raise their own taxes to pay for transportation. Where to start on that one? I'm sure the Wisconsin governor and legislators will be glad to raise taxes and fees.... And of course, the interstate system is a federal highway system. There is a reason it is fairly predictable; you pretty much know what it's going to look and feel like regardless of what state you are in. That's because it has federal standards.
Note also that there is actually a teaser headline/link in the middle of the article that says the GM CEO wants to RAISE the gas tax $1.00 per gallon. I didn't click on that link, but it's sort of an interesting juxtaposition. That position is reiterated at the end of the article, where it notes that the US Chamber of Commerce also supports a hike in the gas tax.
This is all coming to a head, because the multi-year federal transportation bill - which is somewhere between $200 - $500 billion (yes, that's a B), is on what is known as a continuing resolution. It was supposed to be written, debated, argued over, and somehow passed in a year and a half ago. (You can go here to see the clock on how long overdue it is.) Since we can't just stop building, maintaining, and operating our roads, bridges, tunnels, transit systems, non-motorized trails, and every other surface transportation system, Congress keeps extending the current bill, with all it's current policies and programs by six months at a time to keep the money flowing and the system working. The most recent continuing resolution will run out at the end of September.
Cue the scary music.
Gas taxes shouldn't be used for transit or bicycle/pedestrian projects. (Despite the fact that these projects actually take pressure off many roads, and are a far cheaper way of moving people than single occupancy vehicles.)
Federal regulations require union labor, which of course is a waste of money. We can have unskilled labor with no negotiating power build our roads, bridges, and tunnels.
The states can do things much more efficiently, and can decide if they want to raise their own taxes to pay for transportation. Where to start on that one? I'm sure the Wisconsin governor and legislators will be glad to raise taxes and fees.... And of course, the interstate system is a federal highway system. There is a reason it is fairly predictable; you pretty much know what it's going to look and feel like regardless of what state you are in. That's because it has federal standards.
Note also that there is actually a teaser headline/link in the middle of the article that says the GM CEO wants to RAISE the gas tax $1.00 per gallon. I didn't click on that link, but it's sort of an interesting juxtaposition. That position is reiterated at the end of the article, where it notes that the US Chamber of Commerce also supports a hike in the gas tax.
This is all coming to a head, because the multi-year federal transportation bill - which is somewhere between $200 - $500 billion (yes, that's a B), is on what is known as a continuing resolution. It was supposed to be written, debated, argued over, and somehow passed in a year and a half ago. (You can go here to see the clock on how long overdue it is.) Since we can't just stop building, maintaining, and operating our roads, bridges, tunnels, transit systems, non-motorized trails, and every other surface transportation system, Congress keeps extending the current bill, with all it's current policies and programs by six months at a time to keep the money flowing and the system working. The most recent continuing resolution will run out at the end of September.
Cue the scary music.
Stop the bike vs car wars - we're all at fault
To contact us Click HERE
No matter what mode of transportation you name: cars, bikes, feet, bus, trains, airplanes, or rollerblade, someone is going to gripe about people that use that form of transportation. With a background in bicycle advocacy, I have heard more than my share of gripes about the way bicyclists and motorists operate.
Instead of arguing who's right or wrong, or what road users break the law more often, I try to diffuse the tension and give people a little perspective with a couple of thoughts.
First, my personal opinion is that all road users should obey all traffic laws all the time. That includes signalling turns, not speeding, yielding to pedestrians, not going through an "orange" light, full stop at stop signs, etc. But we all know that everyone breaks at least some laws every time they take to the road. Yes, even you. Let's try to concentrate on stopping people from doing things that are going to endanger other people.
And before all my biking friends jump down my throat, and if anyone else is interested in a perspective on why bicyclists blow stop signs, here's a little article from Toronto to give the other side.
My second approach, to try to get people off the "who's worse" train, is that it's not the vehicle that causes bad behavior. It's the person using the vehicle. And most bicyclists are also drivers. They are probably scofflaws when they drive as well. You may see them, or only pay attention when they are on their bikes, but they probably get behind the wheel and break the law there too. If someone is in a hurry or is reckless when riding their bike, then they are likely in a hurry and reckless in a car as well.
And finally, people ask me what they can do to improve the driving (or biking) of others. As an elected official, people constantly asked me how to get people to stop speeding, or how to get people to yield to pedestrians. Well, it's not easy, and we all have a part. We have to speak up, and it may be speaking up to those we love.
How often do each of us ride in a car with someone else, and notice that person speeding, blowing a red, not coming to a full stop before making a turn, or not yielding to a pedestrians? And how many of us say something to our spouse, friend, co-worker, neighbor, parent or sibling? If we see our neighbor blow the stop sign at the end of the block every day, and don't say anything about it, how can we expect anyone else to get through to that person?
So yes, the police can run around ticketing people for every little thing, but that is going to cost you, the taxpayer a ton of money. Contrary to what some people think, it costs the city money to enforce those laws. The time required to stop someone, do a license check, write the ticket, file the paperwork, and then possibly go to court when the person contests the ticket, is far more in staff time and resources than the money coming in from that ticket. That's not to say that we shouldn't enforce traffic laws, but we are never going to get perfect compliance by using law enforcement only.
Why do people yield to pedestrians in California and many other parts of the US? Because that's just the way things are done, and you learn that from the time you start to walk. It's cultural, like being stoic about cold weather in Wisconsin. (Or a more negative cultural tradition, drunk driving.)
We all have to start being responsible for our own behavior and also speaking up when we get the chance. Don't sit silent if you see someone speeding, and you are sitting in the car next to him. Say something. And let's all watch our own behavior as well. none of us is perfect, regardless of whether we walk, bike, drive, roll, or run.
We can make the streets safer for everyone, but we all have to be part of that change.
No matter what mode of transportation you name: cars, bikes, feet, bus, trains, airplanes, or rollerblade, someone is going to gripe about people that use that form of transportation. With a background in bicycle advocacy, I have heard more than my share of gripes about the way bicyclists and motorists operate.Instead of arguing who's right or wrong, or what road users break the law more often, I try to diffuse the tension and give people a little perspective with a couple of thoughts.
First, my personal opinion is that all road users should obey all traffic laws all the time. That includes signalling turns, not speeding, yielding to pedestrians, not going through an "orange" light, full stop at stop signs, etc. But we all know that everyone breaks at least some laws every time they take to the road. Yes, even you. Let's try to concentrate on stopping people from doing things that are going to endanger other people.
And before all my biking friends jump down my throat, and if anyone else is interested in a perspective on why bicyclists blow stop signs, here's a little article from Toronto to give the other side.
My second approach, to try to get people off the "who's worse" train, is that it's not the vehicle that causes bad behavior. It's the person using the vehicle. And most bicyclists are also drivers. They are probably scofflaws when they drive as well. You may see them, or only pay attention when they are on their bikes, but they probably get behind the wheel and break the law there too. If someone is in a hurry or is reckless when riding their bike, then they are likely in a hurry and reckless in a car as well.
And finally, people ask me what they can do to improve the driving (or biking) of others. As an elected official, people constantly asked me how to get people to stop speeding, or how to get people to yield to pedestrians. Well, it's not easy, and we all have a part. We have to speak up, and it may be speaking up to those we love.
How often do each of us ride in a car with someone else, and notice that person speeding, blowing a red, not coming to a full stop before making a turn, or not yielding to a pedestrians? And how many of us say something to our spouse, friend, co-worker, neighbor, parent or sibling? If we see our neighbor blow the stop sign at the end of the block every day, and don't say anything about it, how can we expect anyone else to get through to that person?
So yes, the police can run around ticketing people for every little thing, but that is going to cost you, the taxpayer a ton of money. Contrary to what some people think, it costs the city money to enforce those laws. The time required to stop someone, do a license check, write the ticket, file the paperwork, and then possibly go to court when the person contests the ticket, is far more in staff time and resources than the money coming in from that ticket. That's not to say that we shouldn't enforce traffic laws, but we are never going to get perfect compliance by using law enforcement only.
Why do people yield to pedestrians in California and many other parts of the US? Because that's just the way things are done, and you learn that from the time you start to walk. It's cultural, like being stoic about cold weather in Wisconsin. (Or a more negative cultural tradition, drunk driving.)
We all have to start being responsible for our own behavior and also speaking up when we get the chance. Don't sit silent if you see someone speeding, and you are sitting in the car next to him. Say something. And let's all watch our own behavior as well. none of us is perfect, regardless of whether we walk, bike, drive, roll, or run.
We can make the streets safer for everyone, but we all have to be part of that change.
Don't make people pay for parking they don't need
To contact us Click HERE
Below is an email I wrote a year ago regarding a development in our neighborhood. I happened to find a printed copy while cleaning out some files, and decided to post it. While this was written about one particular project, it summarizes a problem that is common to many residential developments: Parking is included in the cost of more expensive apartments, and if a resident doesn't need the parking, they have no way of recovering the cost of the parking they are paying for.
Despite what some people think, not everyone owns a car. Especially in urban areas, parking can be quite costly, and no one should be forced to pay for it if they don't want it.
So below is the letter I wrote to city commissions when our neighborhood association wanted to force the developer guarantee a parking spot as part of the rent for all residents. They wanted to avoid more people parking on the streets in the neighborhood, but I thought their concerns were misplaced.
Despite what some people think, not everyone owns a car. Especially in urban areas, parking can be quite costly, and no one should be forced to pay for it if they don't want it.
So below is the letter I wrote to city commissions when our neighborhood association wanted to force the developer guarantee a parking spot as part of the rent for all residents. They wanted to avoid more people parking on the streets in the neighborhood, but I thought their concerns were misplaced.
I know I may be in the minority among the people you hear from, but I will reiterate what I said at the meeting Monday night. Requiring all tenants to pay for a parking spot, whether they own a car or not, is both unfair, and bad for the neighborhood. If [the project] includes a parking spot with every apartment, you are forcing people to pay for something they don't need, don't want, and won't use. And it's not a community asset, like a green roof, patio, or work out room, that tenants may or may not use. A parking spot adds significantly to the cost of an apartment, so makes the apartment less affordable.
It also makes the apartment only attractive to those who own cars. Is that what [the neighborhood] wants? Is that good for the neighborhood? Do we want to only have drivers and car owners moving into an already crowded area? I don't think so.
To make sure I had my facts straight, I checked with [a representative of the developer.] They do not want to allow tenants to reassign the spot - the one they are required to pay for - to a friend, work colleague, or other party. Tenants would not be able to resell or rent the spot to someone else. [The building owners] considers that too much of a security risk.
So the expensive parking spot included with the apartment will not only be unused by the tenant, but will not be able to be used to get one more car off the neighborhood streets during the day. Again, is this in the interest of the neighborhood?
So, my request to you is: Do not ask that a parking spot be included with each apartment. It is bad public policy and bad for the neighborhood. If you are determined to require a parking spot be paid for by each tenant, then ask that [the building owners] allow the spots to be reassigned to outside parties. This will be more fair to tenants that do not own cars, and it will also get cars off our neighborhood streets.
As to commercial and visitor parking - i.e. short term parking - as a neighbor that lives one block from the site, I can tell you that there IS parking available on our neighborhood streets, although one might have to walk a block or two. Despite what some think, we live in an urban area, and one cannot expect to park directly in front of one's destination. The streets are a public area, and anyone can use them, including for parking. We have two hour limits during the day, and that's appropriate. I have no problem with commercial customers parking on my block, nor do I think that a lack of commercial or visitor parking will doom the project.
When we visit the Monroe, Atwood, or Williamson St areas, whether to visit friends, shop, or enjoy dinner or a drink, we often have to park on the street, and possibly several blocks away. (OK, Monroe has a parking garage at Trader Joes, but the east side areas do not.) That does not keep us from visiting these areas, nor does it seem to impede the success of businesses. Just as with our neighborhood, these areas were built for and continue to be accessible by foot, bike, and transit. People who live and visit these area expect that parking may be less convenient, but they also enjoy a wonderful neighborhood experience, highlighted by easy, pleasant walking.
Please don't let a few loud voices push you to make suggestions to the city committees that are in opposition to the interests of the neighborhood and the best practices of urban design. Several people have contacted me since the meeting to tell me they agree with me, so I am not alone. We all know that those opposed are often the loudest and most strident, but maybe not the majority.
What do you mean you don't have guest bike parking?
To contact us Click HERE
Today I am at the Wisconsin Bike Summit, being held at Inn on the Park in Madison. Since the weather and outlook was a typically late-winter mix of precipitation - a bit of wet snow, and maybe rain and/or snow later - I thought it would be best to try to find sheltered bike parking, if possible. My bike has weathered many years of abuse, but I'd rather not have a wet ride when I get ready to leave.
The Inn on the Park has valet car parking, so as I rolled up, I thought I'd ask if they had indoor or covered bike parking as well. After all, the Concourse, just a couple blocks away, has bike racks in their garage, and they have provided a separate bike room for storage for some conferences.
Alas, they looked at me as if I had two heads when I asked about sheltered bike parking. So I parked at the side of the building and covered my seat with the plastic bag I keep stashed under my seat.
Now, being a local, I was pretty sure that there was no covered bike parking at Inn on the Park. I also know where to find covered bike parking within a couple of blocks, but I was late for my meeting, so was hoping that some accommodations were made for the Bike Summit and the anticipated large number of people arriving by bike today.
I also wanted to make a point as a customer, and this is really the lesson from this blog post. People who drive are quick to tell businesses if they find it difficult or inconvenient to park. Ask almost any business, and they will be glad to tell you how important [car] parking is to their customers. No conference hotel would dismiss the [car] parking concerns of their customers. Yet I was being sent out into wet weather to fend for myself with my vehicle.
Bicyclists need to be more vocal about their needs as well. Accommodating bicycle parking needs is relatively simple and inexpensive. Yet we as bicyclists meekly accept locking up to a sign post, overcrowded rack, or in the rain. We as customers need to ask for safe and convenient bicycle parking.
I'm not suggesting being mean or indignant, just asking, "Excuse me, could you tell me where I can park my bike?" And if you get a blank stare, or if the bicycle parking is not serving your needs, drop a note to the management suggesting how they can better provide for bicyclists. After all, you are a customer too.
The Inn on the Park has valet car parking, so as I rolled up, I thought I'd ask if they had indoor or covered bike parking as well. After all, the Concourse, just a couple blocks away, has bike racks in their garage, and they have provided a separate bike room for storage for some conferences.
Alas, they looked at me as if I had two heads when I asked about sheltered bike parking. So I parked at the side of the building and covered my seat with the plastic bag I keep stashed under my seat.
Now, being a local, I was pretty sure that there was no covered bike parking at Inn on the Park. I also know where to find covered bike parking within a couple of blocks, but I was late for my meeting, so was hoping that some accommodations were made for the Bike Summit and the anticipated large number of people arriving by bike today.
I also wanted to make a point as a customer, and this is really the lesson from this blog post. People who drive are quick to tell businesses if they find it difficult or inconvenient to park. Ask almost any business, and they will be glad to tell you how important [car] parking is to their customers. No conference hotel would dismiss the [car] parking concerns of their customers. Yet I was being sent out into wet weather to fend for myself with my vehicle.
Bicyclists need to be more vocal about their needs as well. Accommodating bicycle parking needs is relatively simple and inexpensive. Yet we as bicyclists meekly accept locking up to a sign post, overcrowded rack, or in the rain. We as customers need to ask for safe and convenient bicycle parking.
I'm not suggesting being mean or indignant, just asking, "Excuse me, could you tell me where I can park my bike?" And if you get a blank stare, or if the bicycle parking is not serving your needs, drop a note to the management suggesting how they can better provide for bicyclists. After all, you are a customer too.
Keeping older people mobile shouldn't just involve wider roads and bigger signs
To contact us Click HERE
This is a theme in transportation policy: If people are driving off the road or otherwise having crashes, the obvious solution is to make the road more "forgiving," that is make it easier to drive faster and without paying attention. The solution isn't to make people drive slower or be more alert; it's an engineering problem, not a human problem.
Talk about enabling bad behavior. How would the tough-love people feel about fixing the problem of irresponsibility in other areas of our lives by making sure there aren't harsh consequences? I'd love to hear this in a debate among conservatives.
Here's another example, a report on "Keeping Baby Boomers Mobile: Preserving Mobility and Safety for Older Americans."
As a baby boomer myself, I hate to think that national researchers think I won't be mobile soon. But I admit that not only am I on the young end of baby boom, but we all get older, and it's probably a good idea to think about all those people that will need to stay connected to the world. We have built a country where driving is almost required to participate, so this report emphasizes bigger, brighter signs, wider roads with fewer curves, and less things to run into on the side of the road - like bus shelters, benches, trees, or buildings.
No mention at all that maybe people shouldn't drive, if they can't use the roads in a safe and responsible manner. How about building communities where driving is but one option to move around? How about making sure that people that can't drive can walk, take transit, or get a ride another way for their daily activities, entertainment, and social interactions?
But I'm going to let the words that came via email this morning, from David Burwell at the Carnegie Endowment, speak to that issue:
Talk about enabling bad behavior. How would the tough-love people feel about fixing the problem of irresponsibility in other areas of our lives by making sure there aren't harsh consequences? I'd love to hear this in a debate among conservatives.
Here's another example, a report on "Keeping Baby Boomers Mobile: Preserving Mobility and Safety for Older Americans."
As a baby boomer myself, I hate to think that national researchers think I won't be mobile soon. But I admit that not only am I on the young end of baby boom, but we all get older, and it's probably a good idea to think about all those people that will need to stay connected to the world. We have built a country where driving is almost required to participate, so this report emphasizes bigger, brighter signs, wider roads with fewer curves, and less things to run into on the side of the road - like bus shelters, benches, trees, or buildings.
No mention at all that maybe people shouldn't drive, if they can't use the roads in a safe and responsible manner. How about building communities where driving is but one option to move around? How about making sure that people that can't drive can walk, take transit, or get a ride another way for their daily activities, entertainment, and social interactions?
But I'm going to let the words that came via email this morning, from David Burwell at the Carnegie Endowment, speak to that issue:
Report of the Week: The Transportation Research Information Program (TRIP) the research affiliate of the Highway Users Alliance, has blessed America with a new report documenting innovative strategies for keeping our senior drivers safe on the roads. Noting that while seniors represent only 8% of the driving public but 18% of driver fatalities, the TRIP report, Keeping Baby Boomers Mobile: Preserving Mobility and Safety for Older Americans, suggests such innovations as requiring "clearer, brighter and simpler signs with large letters." Great idea--and how about the pedestrians, bicyclists and other road users--maybe we (actually, they, since your reporter is a baby boomer) all should be required to carry bright signs in large letters saying "please don't hit me!" Wider left turn lanes are another helpful idea, along with longer turning and exit lanes--providing more pavement for those pesky walkers and bicyclists to cross. One can page through the entire report for programs to provide baby boomers with options to driving--ride-sharing, mixed use developments that reduce the need to travel, more transit options--nope, not there. But this is a Highway Users Alliance publication after all. If seniors don't want to use the highways they are on their own. http://www.tripnet.org/docs/Older_Drivers_TRIP_Report_Feb_2012.pdf.
13 Ekim 2012 Cumartesi
Are churches responsible for bad consequences if their believers take their guidance seriously?
To contact us Click HERE
It happens all the time. Religious groups (call them churches, cults or whatever rocks your boat), busily marketing their superior wares, sometimes resort to suggestions along the lines that if their followers pray hard enough their ailments will be healed, without any need for medical interventions. There are plenty of examples of this, both with regard to religious groups in the West as well as with regard to cults like Falun Gong in the East or charismatic churches in Africa. To give you just two recent examples. I was recently in China, visiting both the Chinese as well as the Shanghai Academy of the Social Sciences, as well as community groups agitating against Falun Gong in the country.
Falun Gong in ChinaFalun Gong is a nasty, racist, homophobic and misogynist cult that has successfully misled some of its adherents to not seek medical care and instead focus on its exercise regime as a means to fight illness. I met a man in Shanghai who told the story of how his family fell apart, his wife (like him and his daughter Falun Gong adherents) did not seek care for her cancer and died eventually. The woman believed that following the Falun Gong guru's teachings would translate into her being cured (without having to seek expensive medical care). The Chinese authorities have outlawed Falun Gong because they consider the organisation a destructive cult. Us Westerners get of course all flustered about this, because we believe that religious freedom is of greater importance than preventing the harm caused by these groups.
Synagoge Church of all Nations in BritainIn East London the evangelical Synagoge Church of all Nations reportedly promises its followers miracle healing. As a result of this several people with HIV infection chose to stop taking HIV medication. At least three reportedly have died as a result of this choice. The BBC reports that a growing number of evangelical churches in the UK is making wild healing promises (no big surprise, they're outcompeting each other on this front in order to attract followers). Unlike Falun Gong in China, the Synagoge Church of all Nations as well as others like it may continues its practices unhindered in Britain and other Western countries, and more people will predictably die.
I think it is reasonable to ask why religious freedom is somehow valued higher than other convictions (of an ideological kind) in the West. If a complementary medicine company made such false healing claims for its products, it obviously could not hide behind the religious freedom mantra, hence state authorities in the West would prosecute the company for making demonstrably false claims resulting into harm. I do wonder why there is this special dispensation in the context of religious belief, at least when this belief is uncontroversially harmful (as is the case in the context of miracle healings).
Should groups who make such claims not be forced to provide evidence in support of their claims, and lacking that evidence should they not be prevented from making such claims? Why is the religious freedom mantra seen to be a more significant societal value than harm prevention? Most of the liberal reasons for permitting such religious groups to spread their deadly teachings are unsound. Just think of John Stuart Mill's famous justifications for permitting such ideologies to be spread without hindrance: 1) we better be careful with censorship as they might be right after all - in this context surely an implausible proposition; 2) society can learn from debating their erroneous ways by getting a better understanding of why they're wrong, hence we are better off letting them continue to spread their views - what exactly are we learning in the case under consideration other than that poorly educated, vulnerable people tend to fall for such deadly quacks, no surprise in that; 3) people grow as persons if permitted to follow their eccentricities - in our case there's little growth as people die as a result of bad choices they make based on religious propaganda. Much of Mill's case seems based on all sides involved in freedom of expression cases having a serious (of sometimes faulty) case, ie that at least they believe what they say. This is a somewhat doubtful proposition in the case of money grabbing cults, they're in it for revenue generation and gains in political influence. If they were genuinely concerned about their members well-being they'd stop peddling lies about the benefits associated with following the cult rules, given that all the available empirical evidence points against their case..
I am not suggesting here that the Chinese answer to the problem of destructive cults is perfect compared to what we have in the West, but at least there is some recognition that harmful propaganda must be confronted and cannot be led go unanswered by the state under the guise of protecting religious freedom. Surely people's well-being must come first. Well, truth be told, I am ambivalent about this matter. Any comments are very much welcome.
It happens all the time. Religious groups (call them churches, cults or whatever rocks your boat), busily marketing their superior wares, sometimes resort to suggestions along the lines that if their followers pray hard enough their ailments will be healed, without any need for medical interventions. There are plenty of examples of this, both with regard to religious groups in the West as well as with regard to cults like Falun Gong in the East or charismatic churches in Africa. To give you just two recent examples. I was recently in China, visiting both the Chinese as well as the Shanghai Academy of the Social Sciences, as well as community groups agitating against Falun Gong in the country.
Falun Gong in ChinaFalun Gong is a nasty, racist, homophobic and misogynist cult that has successfully misled some of its adherents to not seek medical care and instead focus on its exercise regime as a means to fight illness. I met a man in Shanghai who told the story of how his family fell apart, his wife (like him and his daughter Falun Gong adherents) did not seek care for her cancer and died eventually. The woman believed that following the Falun Gong guru's teachings would translate into her being cured (without having to seek expensive medical care). The Chinese authorities have outlawed Falun Gong because they consider the organisation a destructive cult. Us Westerners get of course all flustered about this, because we believe that religious freedom is of greater importance than preventing the harm caused by these groups.
Synagoge Church of all Nations in BritainIn East London the evangelical Synagoge Church of all Nations reportedly promises its followers miracle healing. As a result of this several people with HIV infection chose to stop taking HIV medication. At least three reportedly have died as a result of this choice. The BBC reports that a growing number of evangelical churches in the UK is making wild healing promises (no big surprise, they're outcompeting each other on this front in order to attract followers). Unlike Falun Gong in China, the Synagoge Church of all Nations as well as others like it may continues its practices unhindered in Britain and other Western countries, and more people will predictably die.
I think it is reasonable to ask why religious freedom is somehow valued higher than other convictions (of an ideological kind) in the West. If a complementary medicine company made such false healing claims for its products, it obviously could not hide behind the religious freedom mantra, hence state authorities in the West would prosecute the company for making demonstrably false claims resulting into harm. I do wonder why there is this special dispensation in the context of religious belief, at least when this belief is uncontroversially harmful (as is the case in the context of miracle healings).
Should groups who make such claims not be forced to provide evidence in support of their claims, and lacking that evidence should they not be prevented from making such claims? Why is the religious freedom mantra seen to be a more significant societal value than harm prevention? Most of the liberal reasons for permitting such religious groups to spread their deadly teachings are unsound. Just think of John Stuart Mill's famous justifications for permitting such ideologies to be spread without hindrance: 1) we better be careful with censorship as they might be right after all - in this context surely an implausible proposition; 2) society can learn from debating their erroneous ways by getting a better understanding of why they're wrong, hence we are better off letting them continue to spread their views - what exactly are we learning in the case under consideration other than that poorly educated, vulnerable people tend to fall for such deadly quacks, no surprise in that; 3) people grow as persons if permitted to follow their eccentricities - in our case there's little growth as people die as a result of bad choices they make based on religious propaganda. Much of Mill's case seems based on all sides involved in freedom of expression cases having a serious (of sometimes faulty) case, ie that at least they believe what they say. This is a somewhat doubtful proposition in the case of money grabbing cults, they're in it for revenue generation and gains in political influence. If they were genuinely concerned about their members well-being they'd stop peddling lies about the benefits associated with following the cult rules, given that all the available empirical evidence points against their case..
I am not suggesting here that the Chinese answer to the problem of destructive cults is perfect compared to what we have in the West, but at least there is some recognition that harmful propaganda must be confronted and cannot be led go unanswered by the state under the guise of protecting religious freedom. Surely people's well-being must come first. Well, truth be told, I am ambivalent about this matter. Any comments are very much welcome.
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)