The Myth of Christian Persecution

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." - from the Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the Senate and signed by John Adams in 1797

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law." - Thomas Jefferson

The U.S. is not a Christian nation.  It is a nation with a boatload of Christians.  A 2011 poll found that 78% of all Americans self-identify as some denomination of Christian, which is 95% of all Americans who profess some form of religious faith.  That is an overwhelming majority, indicating that Christianity in America isn't going anywhere anytime soon.  And that's fine.  And yet there is a subset of vocal and influential conservative Christians who will feel threatened as long as those numbers are anywhere below 99.9%.  They spread fear and hate and advocate that the US should be governed by their narrow view of Christianity in such ways that would have the Founding Fathers spinning in their graves.  Because their views no longer dominate America as they once did, they imagine that Christians face persecution in the guise of godless liberal politicians.  They believe the day is soon approaching when they will not be able to practice their religion as they choose, because some people think it might be OK for two dudes or ladies to get married.  They think the government is waging a war on Christmas.  They use wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage to get people for vote for conservatives whose actual top priorities are tax cuts for millionaires and slashing programs that help poor people.  I believe that the 2012 elections thankfully proved that their influence is waning, but they're certainly not going to go down without a fight, and an email sent out this week by the American Family Association is all too revealing of that.  I'll get to that in a bit.

First, though, let's get the basics straight.  The religious Right likes to inject a good dose of evangelicalism into the Founding Fathers, who supposedly loaded down the Constitution with a generous helping of "Judeo-Christian" values (this is a relatively new term, to which "Judeo" was added to make its users sound less anti-Semitic - although it still implies that other religions don't have such values as, um, love and compassion).   There were certainly practicing Christians among the Founders, but most of the big names - Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Hamilton, Paine, even Washington - could hardly be called that.  They were students of the European Enlightenment, a reaction against the previous domination of the Church and dogma in every aspect of life, which had led to brutal religious wars and the persecution of great thinkers such as Galileo.  Most Enlightenment philosophers believed in God but also believed in the power of human reason to figure things out.  They valued free thought and logic above strict adherence to religious dogma, especially that which relied on faith in supernatural concepts.  Consequently, many Founders were Deists - they believed in a Creator-god that set the world in motion but did not interfere with the daily affairs of humans.  They may have admired Jesus' moral teachings but they generally denied his divinity.  Thomas Jefferson published his own version of the Bible that removed any supernatural allusions.

So when the Declaration of Independence states that all men are "endowed by their Creator to certain unalienable rights," it is this uber-non-denominational Creator-god to which the writers, mainly Jefferson, are referring.  It's rather benign.  Moreover, the Declaration has zero actual power over how the country is governed.  So let's look at the Constitution.  There is no reference to God, the Creator, Jesus, or Christianity anywhere in the document.  It is about as religious as a legal contract (not surprising, given that's what it is).  The only references to religion are exclusionary.  In Article VI we find that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."  Then, of course, we have the First Amendment.  The very first freedom in the Bill of Rights states that

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Strict readers of the Constitution should rejoice, for this couldn't be any clearer.  First, there can be no state religion, or any laws that suggest such.  Thus any laws that express preference for one religion over another are unconstitutional.  This is the foundation for separation of church and state and was a radical departure from the practice of European countries, many of which have an official state church to this day (Queen Elizabeth is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, meaning that the British monarch must be a Protestant).  Second, the free exercise of any religion must not be prohibited.  The only restrictions come when interfering with the rights of others (thus human sacrifice is not a protected right).  The message from the Founders is simple.  They were students of history, and Europe's religious wars were as recent to them as the Civil War is to us (a bit more so).  They wanted to prevent such conflicts from happening here, and forbidding government preference for one religion over another was a key component of their strategy.  They were also free thinkers, and abhorred the idea of preventing people from practicing whatever religion they wanted (again, common in Europe), even if they didn't share those beliefs.  They wanted us to celebrate our diversity, not legislate against it.

Religion and politics didn't mix for much of American history for the simple reason that Christianity's dominance rendered such issues moot.  Religious beliefs stayed mostly out of the official government; "In God We Trust" was added to money during the Civil War and "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1957 during the fight against "godless" Communism (ironically right before the word "indivisible," even though "under God" systematically divides the country into believers and non-believers).  The most glaring exception, of course, is the use of the Bible by some southern Christians to support slavery and later segregation (abolitionists often cited scripture as well).  Other than that, religious conflict in the US has followed the predictable pattern of the dominant majority resisting inroads by newcomers.  First there was hostility by Protestants against Catholic immigrants.  Then many Catholics joined the Protestants in the fight against other faiths and those who insist on the separation of church and state in public affairs.

And that brings us back to the AFA email.  The American Family Association is a prominent conservative Christian organization that has enough influence for Republican presidential candidates to openly court its support.  It's one of the outfits that blamed the Sandy Hook massacre on the lack of prayer in schools.  It spews enough anti-gay and anti-Muslim rhetoric for some to label it a hate group (they support the idea of kidnapping children of same-sex couples).  So that gives you an idea of the tolerant and not-at-all boogeyman God they ascribe to (/snark).  And to start the new year off right, they sent out an email to their members with dire warnings about what religion (read: Christianity) will look like in the America of 2060.  Much like Katie Kieffer's absurd resolutions, it does a nice job of making my point and providing me with an efficient means to counter their actual words.  So let's take a look at the email step-by-step (excerpts in italics.)

What will religion look like in the year 2060? 

Does anyone doubt what they really mean is "What will Christianity look like in the year 2060?"

Conservative Christians will be treated as second class citizens, much like African Americans were prior to civil rights legislation in the 1960s.

Are you kidding me?  Way to lead off with the crazy hyperbole.  At least they limit it to "conservative" Christians.  I want a self-proclaimed conservative Christian to tell me the next time they are prohibited from going to church.  The next time they cannot vote due to their religion.  The next time they can't get a job because of their religion.  The next time they're pulled over for being Christian in an atheist neighborhood.  The next time they are prohibited from expressing their beliefs (and no, criticism of said beliefs does not equate with prohibition).  The next time they have to drink from a separate water fountain or ride in the back of the bus.  Until such time, grow up.  You are not being persecuted.  You have no idea what persecution is about.  To make such comparisons demeans the centuries-long suffering of an entire race of people.

Family as we know it will be drastically changed with the state taking charge of the children beginning at birth.

And what does this mean, exactly?  Communal child-rearing centers with limited or no parental involvement?  Yeah, right.  Believe it or not, non-Christians have families too.  And they think family is pretty important.  I almost wonder if this statement is dog-whistle language for "mandated abortions" and I'm just not in on the code.

Marriage will include two, three, four or any number of participants. Marriage will not be important, with individuals moving in and out of a “family” group at will.

Ah yes, the slippery slope fallacy that gay marriage will lead to a complete breakdown of "traditional" marriage.  An institution that for most of human history was a kind of business transaction with the woman being sold off as another mouth to feed.  Sorry, not buying it.

Churchbuildings will be little used, with many sold to secular buyers and the money received going to the government.

Uh huh.  Over 200 million Christians will be driven from their places of worship by a tiny, radical group in government.  Sure.  

Churches will not be allowed to discuss any political issues, even if it affects the church directly.

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." - Also from the First Amendment.  Limitations on freedom of speech are, again, centered on interfering with the rights of others.  The separation of church and state is not so absolute that the government will send the Speech Police into churches to monitor what it said there.  To think otherwise borders on delusional paranoia.  No wait, it is delusional paranoia.

Tax credit given to churches and non-profit organizations will cease.

Highly unlikely, given that such a law would have to be passed by a Congress where the vast majority of members are religious and represent religious constituencies.  Neither Christianity nor religion in America will be destroyed in the next 50 years. 


Christian broadcasting will be declared illegal based on the separation of church and state. The airwaves belong to the government, therefore they cannot be used for any religious purpose.

See above about freedom of speech.  Also, the First Amendment says that 1) the government cannot prevent the free exercise of religion and 2) it can't play favorites among religions or establish an official religion.  It does not say that it must prevent religion from existing.

We will have, or have had, a Muslim president. 

One word: So?

This, for me, is the most offensive part of the email.  The presumption that for the US to be lead by a member of any other faith - Islam in particular - would be devastating to this country is ludicrous.  Apparently we haven't progressed at all from when people were afraid to vote for JFK the Papist.  How bigoted.  That is not the America I know.  We're better than that.  Moreover, according to their own email, why should the religion of the President even matter, when the separation of church and state prevents him/her from doing anything remotely religious?  Not to mention that some people think we already have a Muslim President...

Cities with a name from the Bible such as St. Petersburg, Bethlehem, etc. will be forced to change their name due to separation of church and state. 

Paranoid, much?  Do they even know St. Petersburg, Florida, is named after the city in Russia?  Do I need to mention the 78% statistic again?  But do you think any non-Christian who lives in St. Pete is that offended by the name of their city?  Get over it, it's not going to happen.  I'm almost surprised they stopped short of saying "Hispanic children named Jesus will have to change their name."

Groups connected to any religious affiliation will be forced out of health care. Health centers get tax money from the state, making it a violation of church and state.

Of course they had to close with a dig at Obamacare and, likely, mandated contraception coverage (more dog whistling).  I don't know all the legalities behind this one, but I'm glad they apparently do.  Again, it's a reading of church vs. state that's more extreme than 99% of separationists would ever go.

Get involved! Sign THE STATEMENT.

No thanks.


Sincerely,
Donald E. Wildmon

Not sure if I doubt your sincerity, Mr. Wildmon, just your thought processes.

This is how an organization that claims to represent true Christians in America chooses to behave.  Divisive fear, paranoia, and hyperbole.  I'd like to take this chance to remind my dear readers of one of Katie Kieffer's resolutions for liberals:

Resolve to stop watching Rachel Maddow. Her negative attitude is ruining your day and you do not even realize it. At a minimum, admit that her show is rooted in hyperbole and not real news.

Funny.  I have a resolution for Christian conservatives:  Resolve to stop paying attention to the AFA.  Their negative attitude is ruining your day and you do not even realize it. At a minimum, admit that their statements are rooted in hyperbole and not real news.

Sadly, the AFA email is not even the most strident example of fear-mongering from the Christian Right.  In 2008 Focus on the Family, an organization similar to the AFA, sent out a letter with dire predictions of what could happen if Barack Obama became President.  Needless to say, none of them (with the exception of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell) came true.  Here is a good article about it, with a link to the full text.  Ponder the "accuracy" of these predictions and decide if these groups have a place in proper political discourse.

My point is this:  Religious diversity is great.  People of all faiths have something to contribute to America.  But Christian conservatives have to realize they are not alone in this country, and that other people have a right to beliefs that do not match their own.  The inability to foist your beliefs and agenda on all Americans does not equate with being persecuted.  Our government respects all religions and will continue to do so.  Meanwhile, much as I want responsible gun owners to examine the NRA and its role in America today, I want good Christians to take a look at groups like the AFA and consider whether they are really supportive of the "more perfect Union" our founders envisioned.  And above all, be excellent to each other.

Diversions: The Best Video Games I Played in 2012

Today, a little break from politics to spread some holiday gaming cheer.  Every gaming site in the world has to post their Top 10 games from that year around this time.  Well, my time and budget don't allow me to buy and play all the latest new releases.  However, digital distribution and the miracle of Steam sales have made it possible to play the best games from a year or two ago for peanuts.  So that's where my gaming dollars and hours go.  Without further ado, then, here are the top 10 games I played in 2012, in ranked order.

10.  To the Moon (PC)
An indie darling that tells a story that is both heartwarming and disturbing in ways, about marriage, memories, living with someone that has a disability, and the long-lasting effects of the choices we make.  All this in a 5-hour game that looks like a Super Nintendo RPG and has barely any gameplay other than some simple puzzles and a tiny bit of exploration/figuring out what to do next.  But the story is beautiful, and the soundtrack is breathtaking.

9.  Valkyrie Profile 2: Silmeria (PS2)
Japanese developer Tri-Ace is known for their incredibly hard RPGs, and Valkyrie Profile 2 is no exception.  However, the tactical nature of the battles in VP2 make it much more thoughtful than the balls-out mess that typifies the Star Ocean games; this made it much more appealing to me.  Combine that with gorgeous PS2-era graphics, an interesting story centered around Norse mythology, and unique 2D dungeon exploration, and you have one of the better PS2 RPGs.

8.  Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney (DS)
I was a latecomer to this series, as I don't like many adventure games (this might change as adventure games become more about story and less about obtuse puzzle-solving).  Decided to give this one a try, however, and was pleasantly surprised.  Credit the strong localization that brings this very Japanese game to life for a Western audience.  The characters and story are fun, and nothing beats the satisfaction you get when you poke holes in a witness' testimony, complete with Phoenix's trademark finger-pointing. 

7.  Shin Megami Tensei: Digital Devil Saga (PS2)
They just don't make many good Japanese RPGs anymore.  Thankfully the SMT series is still around to basically bear this burden all by itself.  Of course, this one came out in 2005, but it's the spiritual predecessor to Personas 3 and 4, the best JRPGs of the past five years.  Like other SMT games, it's all about a weird story involving demons in a modern setting (yay no Japanese-European fantasyland!)  and challenging battles.  Oh, the battles.  They'll make you want to scream or rip your hair out.  But the strength is that you want to try it again, because you just know you've got the winning strategy figured out for next time.

6.  Torchlight 2 (PC)
This came out in 2012, holy crap!  I was never a huge Diablo fan.  But the original Torchlight caught my attention due to its steampunk-inspired setting (try dual-wielding pistols in Diablo) and conveniences such as sending your pet back to town to sell your excess crap.  The sequel expands on the original in every way, with all-new character classes, a much larger world to explore, and cool post-main game ways to play.  At the end of the main game I was a big, burly engineer who fought with giant wrenches and hand-carried cannons who could summon machine-gun and giant-sledgehammer robots to do his bidding.  Now that's cool.  The $20 price tag also gives it incredible value and is the main reason I got it on Day One.

5.  The Witcher (PC)
Too many PC RPGs make the player character a "blank slate" upon which you project your own beliefs, attitudes, decisions, etc.  The Witcher's biggest strength is that it makes the player a real character, Geralt of Rivia, who has a distinct personality and way of going about things.  And yet you do get to make lots of meaningful decisions, many of which tend to be much more in the gray aera than the black vs. white options you get in other games.  It gives what could be a fairly bland fantasy setting a shot of dark realism.  It's held back by somewhat clunky combat and an overly long, sloggish second chapter, but I'm looking forward to exploring Geralt's continued adventures in The Witcher 2.

4.  Dragon Age 2 (PC)
DA2 was rushed, and it shows.  The biggest complaint (a justifiable one) was that identical areas are reused in different missions, just with different doors open or shut.  That's annoying.  But look past that flaw and you find an RPG that eschews the standard save-the-world story, instead focusing on one champion's life story in the city of Kirkwall.  It's a story that you have a lot of choice over through your decisions and reactions.  The party-based combat is complex and satisfying.  And I actually prefer the smaller quest areas to DA1's dungeons that could drag on for hours.  I want to return to this game and play as a different character, and I'm pretty sure I'd have a very different experience.  That's a sign of a strong game.

3.  Bioshock 2 (PC)
Contrary to many critics, I enjoyed the return to Rapture about as much as the first trip.  It was great to play as a Big Daddy and drill some fools, while shocking them with plasmids at the same time.  It's exciting, atmospheric, and thoughtful.  For more on what makes Bioshock so great, see my Gaming and Politics article on it.

2.  King's Bounty: The Legend (PC)
This was the surprise of the year.  I had long tried to get into games like Heroes of Might and Magic - the Western equivalent of Final Fantasy Tactics - but just couldn't.  King's Bounty took out the mundane city-building stuff from Heroes and boiled the gameplay down to exploration, questing, and great turn-based combat.  Dozens of unique units to recruit, tons of maps to explore, skill trees to grow your character - there's a lot to this game and no filler.  And the best part - I have the sequel Armored Princess and the expansion Crossworlds waiting in my Steam library.

1.  Fallout: New Vegas (PC)
This is a bit of a cheat as I started playing it in 2011.  Computer problems put it on hiatus for a few months, but I came back to it and dropped around 35 more hours into it, so I need to give it its due.  I've never managed to really get sucked into Bethesda's Elder Scrolls games, I think due to the fantasy setting that I'm getting bored of and the lackluster combat (I do intend to give Skyrim a try at some point.)  Fallout, however, has a much improved setting (the dark-humor filled post-apocalypse) and more interesting combat thanks to guns and the VATS system.  And even though Fallout 3's DC setting was personally more appealing to me, in the end I wound up liking New Vegas better.  The staff at Obsidian let their heritage from the original Fallout games show with the snappy writing that always kept me going.  It was a slow buildup to journey to the Strip, and when I finally got there, the ensuing events paid off remarkably.  It's an outstanding game, and I really hope there's more on the horizon.

Gaming and Politics: Don't Blame the Games

I waffled on writing about this.  It's been so done to death that I didn't know if I had anything substantial to add.  Then I saw this from Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV and NRA friend):

“Look at Grand Theft Auto, put out by Rockstar Games in New York City and see what it promotes,” Manchin said, adding later: “Shouldn’t that be looked into and maybe be banned?”

Give me a break.

I'm an adult gamer.  And in 2012, I am average.   The average gamer is now in his 30s (and I will keep saying "his" because it remains a largely male hobby, though that is changing - during some trips to GameStop I've seen only women working).  A gamer in his 40s has spent his entire life around games.  Games are mainstream.  They are ubiquitous.  You have them on your smartphone.  Saying Adam Lanza was known to play video games is about the equivalent of saying he was known to drive a car.  It's a billion-dollar industry that supports thousands of good-paying jobs right here in the USA.  And yet certain older politicians - mostly conservatives but it extends to some Democrats as well - persist in their belief that only kids play games, who are subsequently driven to violent tendencies.  Therefore they should be heavily regulated or even banned.  Wrong.

The Right loves the free market.  It's the basis of capitalism.  People are free to make economic decisions based on their interests.  Businesses succeed and fail purely based on their ability to offer appealing products and services to customers.  Supply and demand determine the inherent worth of something.  Sounds great, right?  Well, conservatives forget about all that when it comes to Hollywood and video games.  Suddenly consumers are mindless zombies forced to digest whatever filth those California libruls spew forth to pollute society and destroy traditional America.  Well, guess what - there would be no Grand Theft Auto IV if the previous GTAs didn't sell well.  Disney, Universal, Electronic Arts, and Activision are ultimately driven like any other company - by demand for their products.  If you don't like them, don't buy them.  Don't allow them in your house.  You are the parents and you have the responsibility for your children's exposure to games.  Don't conservatives want more parental and less governmental involvement in children's lives?  Just don't interfere with the rights of adults to consume whatever media they so choose.  Moreover, gamers are parents themselves now.  They know how to regular their kids' content and play time.  Trust them.

The last serious campaign against violence in games was in the mid-1990s in response to games like Mortal Kombat.  As a result we got the Electronic Software Ratings Board, a voluntary system that the industry readily agreed to implement in order to avoid more direct government regulation.  Given that games were pretty much unregulated at the time, most people generally accepted something that was akin to the movie ratings system, as it would preserve the right for game developers to make the games they want.  And the ESRB has worked well.  Most stores actively refuse to sell Mature-rated games to kids.  The system may need to change a bit in response to more sales moving online - but a credit card is still needed for those and given time the industry will probably self-regulate again to preserve its independence.

Meanwhile there have been no credible studies showing that video games lead to violence.  Many other countries have violent video games - the very same ones enjoyed by US gamers.  They also have practically no mass shootings, and the overall violence level is lower.  If video games caused violence, South Korea would be the deadliest country on earth.  That country is obsessed with games.  People there do die from playing games...but literally - they die from playing for days on end.  Now, gaming addiction is a problem there, and the Korean government is working to combat it.  But gun violence is a non-issue.  Hardcore Korean Starcraft champs don't go on shooting rampages (and before you bring it up - the Virginia Tech killer was mentally disturbed from a young age).

The gaming community is diverse, intelligent, enthusiastic, and kind.  To the game critics, every game is GTA, Call of Duty, or Doom.  Far from it.  There are myriad genres of games.  And you know what genre a lot of gamers are sick of?  Shooters!  Some of the best-selling and highest-rated games of the past few years have barely contained any violence at all (See Braid, Flower, Journey, Fez, and To the Moon).  Some involve brain-bending puzzles that I would certainly like to see Manchin try to solve.  Amongst gamers the stereotype of a Call of Duty player is a "dude-bro" fratboy type who only plays CoD in order to preserve his non-gamer-nerd image.  Easy to poke fun at, but not particularly dangerous.  I listen to hours of intelligent and thoughtful discussion about games and gaming culture on podcasts every week.  Gamers support charities like Child's Play.

Games can be as technically impressive as a Hollywood blockbuster.  They can be as moving as a great novel or TV show.  But their interactivity takes them to a level that for many people - myself included - is far greater than passive entertainment.  We acknowledge the craft that goes into designing good games and want to support those artists in their careers.  We are gamers.  We know the difference between fantasy and reality.  We are here to stay, and we have the right to enjoy gaming as we choose.  I'm tired of having to justify my hobby more than somebody whose hobby is  collecting a small arsenal of actual weapons.

Games have been protected as free speech by the Supreme Court.  This means there's likely nothing the critics can do other than bloviate and try to scapegoat games in order to avoid talking about the real problems (detailed in my previous posts).  Games are still a young medium and it's likely that eventually their harshest critics will literally die off (there's definitely a bit of old-fogeyness about them).  Until then, I would advise anyone who wants to attack video games to do two things.  First, they should watch the documentary Indie Game: The Movie, available on Netflix Instant now.  It's the story of two independent game designers and the length they go through to accomplish their lifelong dream - publishing a successful game.  Both games (Fez and Super Meat Boy) went on to be critical and commercial hits.  If you want to make it harder for these artists and entrepreneurs to accomplish their life's work, you're just mean.

Second, any politician or media figure who wants to criticize a game should first have to answer some basic questions about it.  For example, for Grand Theft Auto I would ask:  When is the next GTA game coming out?  What is it called?  What is the general plot of any GTA game?  Name one actual setting of a GTA game (hint - it's not New York).  Name five things you can do in a GTA game other than killing people.  (I say this and I don't even really like GTA.)  If you're going to criticize video games, you should be expected to do as least as much research as would be required for a high school essay.  If you don't, are you more concerned about the issue or about drawing attention to yourself and away from what really matters?

I Would Never Teach Again If Teachers Were Armed

I am a licensed teacher in two states, Kansas and New Mexico.  I'm not currently teaching, but I wouldn't be opposed to reentering the field if a good opportunity arose.  But I taught for a year at a fairly tough school in Albuquerque's South Valley, so I have a fairly good idea of what I'm talking about.  More so, I dare say, than the majority of conservative politicians and media figures.

Prior to December 14 they rarely had a kind word for teachers.  They're overglorified babysitters.  They're lazy - they don't even work in summer!  They're union thugs.  They care about their pension, not kids.  They're paid way too much.  They teach our kids godless liberal propaganda like safe sex and evolution.  If you doubt me, just do a simple search for comments uttered during the 2011 Wisconsin protests or 2012 Chicago teachers' strike.  That all changed when teachers gave their lives in defense of their students in Newtown, Connecticut.

Before I get into that, I want to paint a clearer picture of what teaching is all about, from one who's been in the trenches.  Besides teaching a full courseload, they are expected to: grade hundreds of assignments and tests, contact parents as necessary, attend staff meetings and training days, monitor the cafeteria and school grounds, identify students with special needs and participate in development of their Individualized Education Plans, write lesson plans, gather materials and prepare documents for evaluation, and attend parent-teacher conferences and other school-sponsored events.  They must prepare students for rigorous standardized tests and are often held accountable for their performance.  Depending on their duties and age of their students, in addition to teacher, they may serve as nanny, nurse, psychologist, coach, mentor, or confidant.  They can be held criminally negligent if harm comes to students or criminally liable if they fail to report suspected abuse.  They are trained to respond to all manner of different crises.  They may have classrooms with more than 30 students, many of whom may not speak English that well or at all be used to a controlled, organized environment.  They may have more meaningful contact with the students than the students have with their parents.  And some have to pay for school supplies out of their own pocket.

So how much do these union thugs on Easy Street get paid?  In New Mexico a newly licensed public school teacher with a BA and on a contract starts at $30,000 per year.  A starting teacher with a Master's degree - requiring at least 2 more years of additional coursework and tuition - can command a salary of ... $30,002.  I'm not joking.  It's only after several years of experience (minimum) and two rigorous rounds of evaluation that a teacher can hope to make as much as $50,000.  If you divided their salary by the number of hours they spend doing job-related duties and further subtract their own money they spend on their classrooms, many teachers would make minimum wage or less.  And that's only if they're contracted - sometimes the best a teacher can hope for is a permanent substitute position, which generally carries no benefits whatsoever.  Teachers don't do it for the money.  Just ask Bill O'Reilly.  But that's how we compensate these babysitters who also happen to be responsible for educating our country's most valuable resource.  And now, apparently, we'll expect them to be expert marksmen as well.

In the wake of Newtown the calls for teachers and other school personnel to be armed has been truly disturbing, but it seemed mostly limited to Facebook posts and radical gun groups.  Not anymore.  A Tennessee state senator plans to introduce legislation that would arm certain school officials such as security guards and "secret" teachers.  At least one would be required in every school.  The proposal has the governor's interest.  The governors of Virginia and Texas (Rick "oops" Perry) also want to consider it.  Let me state this clearly: This. Is. Insane.

If guns had been allowed - required - at the school I taught at last year, it is rather likely somebody would have died.  Maybe me.  Many of our students had been kicked out of other Albuquerque schools; some had served time; some had probation officers.  They could be disturbingly creative and enterprising in their malfeasance.  Sometimes I felt like their only purpose in life, if they had to be at school, was to come up with new and creative ways to deceive me.  They also had remarkably short tempers.  One of my students responded to accidentally being kicked by punching a hole in a door.  Fights were a common occurrence; one broke out in my room over a cell phone charger.  Students were expelled for bringing switchblades and brass knuckles to campus.  Perhaps worst of all, the administration was often MIA.  On some days with fights there were zero administrators present to deal with the offending students.  Purposely introducing guns into this environment would not make me feel safer.  It would scare me shitless.

I would never serve in a school that required guns on campus, even if I didn't have to have one (and I don't see well enough to pass muster anyway - at least, I hope I don't).  I don't care how secure the guns are or how well-trained the personnel are.  Bringing guns within feet of students - or staff - who may snap at a moment's notice is BAD NEWS.  Limited funding and the principle of inclusion means that students with rather severe mental health issues might be placed in a regular classroom right alongside other students.  Some of these students could easily overpower a teacher; I taught several last year.  Is an armed teacher supposed to draw and fire at the first sign of trouble?  Rules of engagement are for law enforcement and battlefields.  Not schools.  The possibility of things that could go wrong is incalculable.  Look, every school shooting is a tragedy and one too many.  But the number of kids who die in school shootings each year is far less than the number that die at the hands of their own family members by one method or another.  Are we going to send armed guards into children's homes?  If the answer is no, then arming school staff is a "solution" far out of proportion to the problem that just opens the door for all sorts of new problems.

Forcing guns into schools would have a disastrous effect on an educational system that already lags behind most advanced countries.  I know I am far from the only teacher who would refuse to serve in an environment filled with guns and unstable personalities.   Teachers are willing to put up with low pay, long hours, hostile students and parents, and ineffective administration to do their job, because they love teaching.  Don't ask them to put their own safety at unnecessary risk.  We need good teachers, and our students desperately need them - perhaps now more than ever.

A note to responsible gun owners: I want to protect your rights, but you have to do your part.  You need to stand up to those who can only think of the solution to these problems as being MOAR GUNZ!  Trust me, the bigger the platform these people have, the harder it will be for you to make arguments for responsible gun ownership.  They add nothing to the conversation.  Silence them.

You Can Keep Your Guns if You Support Universal Health Care

Another week, another massacre, another call for a conversation about gun violence that will likely go unanswered in any substantial way.  Perhaps the horror of the events in Connecticut will make this one different.  Perhaps not.  But I felt the need to weigh in as a progressive who grew up around guns, though not often using them myself.

My dad is a hunter.  I don't want to take away his ability to partake in his favorite hobby; if somebody told me I couldn't play board or video games anymore, I'd be mad as hell.  I know that the vast majority of gun owners use them responsibly and safely.  I also know that with around 300 million guns in the country (by some estimates) the odds of reducing them in a significant way are minimal.  But you are in any way horrified by the fact that in 2012 America a deranged 20-year-old can use legally obtained weapons to gun down 26 people, most of them under 10, in a matter of minutes, then you are negligent if you don't want to participate in a discussion about gun violence in this country.  Notice I said gun violence, not control.  Hear me out.

First though, I have to object to two memes I've seen posted widely on Facebook since the shooting:

1. If you think the 2nd Amendment is necessary to protect you from the tyranny of the government, you are a bit delusional.  If you think your handgun or semiautomatic rifle or whatever is going to protect you from stealth bombers, cruise missiles, and nukes, well, good luck with that.  And if the military defects and joins whatever revolution you see coming, then what good is your comparative pea-shooter gonna do?  The exact language of the 2nd Amendment is this: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  Reading this closely (as conservatives supposedly like to do), you could argue that the amendment became obsolete the moment the US established a permanent, professional standing army.  But I'm not here to make that argument.  Guns are here to stay.  Just don't plan on using them to overthrow the government whose military is stronger than the next 25 militaries combined.

2. I've seen a lot of messages about how if there were MORE guns in schools, i.e. if teachers or other school personnel were armed, such tragedies could be avoided.  Give me a break.  You have no way of knowing what would've happened.  The shooter might've known to just take out the teacher first.  More kids might've gotten hit in the crossfire.  Who knows?  No one.  Moreover, do you really want to turn our schools into militarized zones with guns in ready reach of schoolchildren, even if they are supposedly secure (and what good do they do in a crisis moment if they are)?  It's bad enough that our teachers now have to be trained in crisis response as a routine part of their job.  They shouldn't have to also be trained in the proper use of firearms.  You'd have a lot fewer good teachers if that were the case.  If there were guns on campus, I never would've accepted a teaching position at a school with a student population that included many who had served time and who could be disturbingly enterprising.  One student in my room reacted to accidentally being kicked by punching a hole in a door.  No gun in a lockbox or whatever is truly secure in that situation.  If a teacher has to replace their grading pen with a handgun, society has failed.

I've already addressed the third meme - the horrendous belief that this tragedy wouldn't have happened if (Christian) prayer and (Christian) religious instruction were allowed in public schools - in an earlier post.  In short, if you have a picture like this on your Facebook wall:


You have no place at the table of a serious discussion about gun violence.  If, however, you've passed that test, let's continue.

 I'm well aware the problem's not just about the guns.  Countries like Canada and Switzerland have roughly as many guns per person as we do.  They are an important part of their history and culture.  And gun violence is relatively nonexistent there.  What has become a routine event here would be a national tragedy there - headlines for months.  What sets us apart?  Two factors that I can think of to highlight.  First, certain of our politicians and media play strongly on peddling a culture of fear - of the government and of the "other."  I blame the NRA for ginning up unreasonable and unfounded fears about Obama coming for your guns (they have a newsletter dedicated to such).  Their influence showed when sales of guns and ammo spiked after both of Obama's elections.  Well, Obama's done pretty much nothing so far to limit gun rights.  He's caught a lot of flak from the left for that very reason.  The NRA knee-jerk reactions and widespread influence restrict any meaningful discussion in the name of "cold dead hands."

Fear of the other has escalated dramatically since 9/11.  Fearmongering causes people to feel the need to arm themselves against the terrorists.  Well, unhinged young white males have killed a lot more people on American soil in the past ten years than foreign terrorists.  I can only imagine the reaction had the Connecticut shooter's name happened to be something like Abdul Aziz.  Somebody unsuccessfully tries to blow up a plane using a shoe bomb and now everyone has to take off their shoes in an airport.  Somebody unsuccessfully tries to blow up a plane using liquid explosives and now everybody has to pack their liquids carefully in specifically sized containers.  Somebody mass murders people in a movie theater, or a mall, or an elementary school...and nothing changes.  We fear illusory threats from the government or foreign terrorism to the point where we are blind to address the real problems.

If moving beyond simple gun control, the most prevalent idea for improving the situation involves providing more comprehensive and effective mental health programs.  I agree, but I am afraid that this is rapidly becoming a knee-jerk response from gun control opponents who want to say something other than "I want my guns" in the wake of a mass shooting.  So I want them to carefully consider what they might be advocating, which brings me to the second difference between us and, say, Canada - universal health care.  People here with children that have mental health needs have to fight for jobs that provide the benefits which will cover the services their children require.  It's not always possible.  The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act only covers so much.  Teachers and counselors might have dozens of special needs students on their plate.  It's no wonder that so many tragic cases slip through the cracks.

So I'll make gun owners a deal.  Keep your guns.  They don't bother me.  But give me universal health care.  And I'm not talking the halfway solution that Obamacare is.  I'm talking cradle-to-grave single-payer coverage like pretty much every other advanced country on the planet has.  If you want your gun rights, I want a guarantee that every person with mental health needs will be treated to the maximum extent possible.  And to address the vast majority of gun violence that occurs outside of media-captivating mass shootings, I want more and better programs designed to combat urban poverty.  I'm not saying just throw money at cities; it has to be done smartly.  But if you agree to give the urban poor better health care and better education and employment opportunities, I won't really care if you have a bazooka in your collection.  How's that sound?

Friendly Reminder: What the Right's Leaders Really Think About Teachers and Public Schools

I don't especially want to get into the details of the horrible tragedy in Connecticut yesterday, at least not now.  But on a day when stories of heroic teachers saving the lives of children are emerging everywhere, I think it's important to reflect on the insane criticism they have received just in the past couple of years.  Plus a couple of bonus idiotic comments about prayer and religion in public schools.

Former teacher Bill O'Reilly during the Feb. 2011 Wisconsin labor protests:

"The teachers in Wisconsin should be compensated to the best of the state’s ability. But, the gravy train is off the tracks. The taxpayer is tapped out. So, if you want to teach kids, you’ll have to take less to do it.

That may not be fair, but that’s the lesson Wisconsin is teaching: No more public money is on the way.

I left teaching because I understood the limitations of the job. I knew that my income would be restricted and that my life would be fairly predictable. I wanted more.

But, I respect immensely those who devote their lives to teaching. I want them to have as much as the market will bear. Sadly, that point has now been reached."

Translation:  I left teaching because I realized the money sucked.  But every other teacher should just suck it up and deal with it.  Just don't ask me or the other rich to contribute more.

Rush Limbaugh in March 2011:

"Can we get rid of the myth once and for all that school teachers, anymore, are these average, ordinary (as Obama wants to say), next-door neighbors who are just doing everything they can to further the educational experience of your children?

That's not who they are. They are left-wing activists, active members of unions who are oriented first by a political agenda, second by their own well-being, and your kids come last."

Please, please tell this to the families of the teachers who died yesterday protecting their students.  I'm sure it'll go over really well.

Mike Huckabee on the day of the shooting:

"We ask why there is violence in our schools, but we have systematically removed God from our schools.  Should we be so surprised that schools would become a place of carnage?  We've made it a place where we don't want to talk about eternity, life, what responsibility means, accountability -- that we're not just going to have be accountable to the police if they catch us, but one day we stand before, you know, a holy God in judgment.  If we don't believe that, then we don't fear that. Maybe we ought to let [God] in on the front end and we wouldn't have to call him to show up when it's all said and done at the back end."

Bryan Fischer, head of the American Family Association, on the day of the shooting:

"In 1962 we kicked prayer out of the schools. In 1963 we kicked God's word out of ours schools. In 1980 we kicked the Ten Commandments out of our schools. We've kicked God out of our public school system. And I think God would say to us, 'Hey, I'll be glad to protect your children, but you've got to invite me back into your world first. I'm not going to go where I'm not wanted. I am a gentlemen."

If the God of Huckabee and Fischer is so sensitive that he won't save the lives of 20 innocent children because there was no prayer said to him in that school, I don't want any part of Him.  Separation of church and state is a fact.  Deal with it.  Christian dogma has no place in a public school  Does that mean schools cannot teach good morals and ethics?  No.  Christianity is not the sole source of morality.  You can be a good person without being a Christian - shock! - and religious instruction is not required to instill common human values in children.  Matters of faith should be taught by parents and religious institutions.  Not public schools.  Period.

I didn't pick quotes from obscure figures here.  These are the leaders of movement conservatism and have millions of adherents.  Huckabee might make another run at the Presidency.  And this is how they feel about the people responsible for educating children and protecting them when the worst happens.  I only hope that the next time someone complains about overpaid teachers making $30,000/year and receiving disaster response raining as a routine part of their job, you'll remember the heroes of Connecticut. 

Auto Insurance and Strong Unions: Both Good for Society

This is a short follow-up to my post about unions and right-to-work laws yesterday.  I came upon a great metaphor and wanted to expand on it as a way to explain the necessity of unions and paying for them.

Owning a car is technically a choice people can make.  Yes, I understand that in many parts of the country driving is unavoidable for day-to-day work and activities.  However, you could still compare the choice of owning a car vs. not owning a car to having a union job or non-union job.  Sure, you could take the non-union job, but the union job might have better pay and benefits, which are necessary to support a family.  In the end having a car and the better job, while technically choices, are de facto requirements.

There are, of course, associated costs of owning a car.  One of these is insurance, which drivers in every state are required to have and, of course, pay for themselves.  Now, does the government require you to get the full package, complete coverage for everything?  No.  It varies by state, but generally you're only required to get liability coverage.  Why?  Because it protects you and is good for society because it lowers the overall risk of driving a car (after all, managing risk is the basic purpose of insurance).  Even non-drivers benefit; if they are injured or their property damaged in an accident, they know the offender's insurance will cover at least the legally required amounts.

Likewise, people with union jobs must pay the minimum fees associated with union representation.  They don't have to become complete members and pay the full price of such.  But in return for fees they get the collective benefit of a union that will fight for their interests.  And in the end, even workers with non-union jobs benefit.  I don't have a union job.  But I have paid holidays, insurance benefits, pension possibilities, and other perks that unions struggled to bring to millions of Americans for decades.  Even employees in states as alien to unions as Texas take such benefits for granted...until they're taken away.  No union ever argued to raise health insurance premiums so one more CEO could get a golden parachute.  I'm fortunate to have a good job with benefits.  Put me on the side of solidarity with workers who deserve the same.