November 2012
The meaning of this proposition, and the now trendy movement that has been reduced to the buzzword, "Trafficking" became clear when I spoke to the program manager of California Against Sexual Exploitation, the group that is sponsoring Prop. 35.
Our discussion was about this section of the legislative summary in the Voter's Guide that was mailed to the tens of millions of California voters under "Expanded Definition of Human Trafficking." that read:
"Specifically, the measure defines more crimes related to the creation and distribution of obscene materials depicting minors as a form of human trafficking. For example duplicating or selling these obscene materials could be considered human trafficking even if the offender had no contact with the minor depicted."
This is not the human trafficking that this law purports to combat, but rather increased punishment for those who partake in what had been called "Paraphilia," sexual behavior that is atypical or extreme. This is a culturally defined activity, that may or may not be harmful to others. In earlier years police morals squads made a living either arresting or shaking down those who deviated, such as homosexuals or purveyors of obscene publications. Such loosely defined pornography now includes accepted classic works of literature that would seem tame compared to the current best selling novel "50 shades of Grey"
The movement towards enlightened acceptance of such activities as part of healthy human sexuality has broadened social tolerance, requiring that before such activities can be criminalized they actually harm others rather than simply give pleasure to consenting adults. It is now both "uncool" and illegal to consider arresting a couple who enjoy a sado- masochistic fling, or commercial activities that provides sexual gratification.
Criminalizing the copying of a sexually explicit picture of an unknown sixteen year old girl, an interpretation that is now refuted by the sponsoring organization, still is representative of the excesses of this proposition. Other aspects of adolescent emerging sexuality that may extend beyond the legal age of majority, even if engaged in consensually with one a few years younger, could realistically lead to the "adult" being stigmatized for life as a registered sexual offender.
While this law is not supposed to be a redefinition of statutory rape or pornography it so expands the loaded word "trafficking" to include all of these activities and more. This would quietly foster a regression to an earlier more repressive era- not for traffickers but for everyone.
It is difficult to counter the emotionally loaded slogan of "ending human trafficking" since it requires understanding the real causes of this scourge, desperate conditions around the world for billions of people, and the elaborate networks of this commerce culminating in a back room in LA or a dangerous workshop in China. There are those professionals, such as John Vanek who managed the San Jose Police Department human trafficking task force, who have done extensive evaluation of the defects of Prop 35, but were not selected to present their well articulated case in the Voter's Guide. In todays attack ad climate, neither of the two major political parties will take the risk of being accused of being soft on traffickers, so they have endorsed this law, even while many of their key officials are aware of its adverse consequences.
As voters on a referendum, we are citizen legislators with an obligation to seriously evaluate the laws that will shape our society. This law's effect on combating human slavery of any kind is acknowledged by the Attorney General to be minimal, This referendum, more than others, injects the fear of dire legal consequences for behaviors that had been proscribed in the repressed era of the 1950s. I know, since I lived through it; and believe me, we don't want to go back there.
Secularism explored
When personal conviction becomes a mass movement--
Atheists groups that constitute the Secular Coalition of America have unanimously voted support for equality of marriage, which is what I referred to in today's conference call. I oppose this position for a very specific reason which is that it does not advance the process of independence of thought that is an essential quality of being an atheist, one who also is a freethinker. While this word is archaic, it is more needed now than ever.
I acknowledge my atheism to anyone who is interested, and then I often qualify it, explaining what this means to me; and if the conversation continues, how this Jewish boy lost his religion and feels about others who do believe in God. Part of my Eastern European Jewish heritage is a deep fear and antipathy for mass movements, as they often brought disaster to my forebears. Thus I have a visceral response to come to the defense of hatred of any out-group, whether it be homosexuals or, ironically, those who are trying to preserve traditional marriage- now impugned now as "deniers of social justice."
In the past I have have fought against encroachment of Christian symbols in areas of state control, but for me, atheism means more than what it opposes. It is more than simply rejection of a higher omnipotent being in favor of objective reality, but rather opposition to any dominant political-social force that controls a people. The authority that is opposed by atheism may, in fact, be religious, but by this larger definition it need not be. For me, and I would suspect many who identify themselves as atheists, the primary rejection is not only to a definitive revealed word of God , but to autocracy and the unquestioned acceptance of the dogma associated with it.
This is why intellectuals as diverse as Ayn Rand, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud were all atheists, yet had very little else in common other than rejection of the accepted wisdom and values of their era. My atheism is not rejection alone, but substituting another way of knowing, another kind of truth that is based on the ongoing exploration of all that is around me and within. When I see this being abridged in the name of atheism I see a betrayal of a vital lone voice in the wilderness of mass movements, and have to make my case against it.
At this moment in time in this country atheists are attempting to become a movement, one that will change the public perception and reverse the widespread contempt towards those of us who hold this view. In doing so, under the Secular Coalition for America it is adopting certain techniques, such as strategic alliances with other allied groups. I also see intimations of other processes on one issue, such as simplification, control of message, unification of central goals, all of which are specifically antithetical to the underlying nature of the atheism of another word, "freethinker."
The motivating force of this atheist, is rejection of dogma, that set of values, rules incentives and threats that prevent independent thought. Yet, these are also characteristics of all mass movements by their very nature. The paradox is that defeat a Zeitgeist, the spirit of the times, requires marshaling adherents in ways that inherently use the very same devices of the enemy. Atheism was a central tenet of International Communism, a movement responsible for more slaughter, oppression and suffering during the last century than all other political groups combined. From the Marxian call, "workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains" we had mass starvation in 1930s Russia, to the ruthless tyranny in Europe and revolutionary China that is still continuing in North Korea.
To bring us back to this era, this country, this very day; American atheists have joined with a movement, which like all such forces find justification in injustice. Rather than the cry of "Liberte' Egalite' et Fraternite'" it is now "Marriage Equality" that is the unifying call that turns individuals into a mass force of nature with a life of its own. The French revolution, beginning with a focus on injustice resulted in the reign of terror, counter revolution, return of imperialism, and decades of suffering. Mass movements inherently mark the end of freethinking, except for that which supports a new power that is often more unjust.
If this is the new atheism, I reject it. If atheist are to become another political force by allying itself to liberalism in America, as is happening- in spite of or because of- a new leader who had been a political operative on the conservative side, it will be a loss greater than the public antipathy we currently endure.
Atheists groups that constitute the Secular Coalition of America have unanimously voted support for equality of marriage, which is what I referred to in today's conference call. I oppose this position for a very specific reason which is that it does not advance the process of independence of thought that is an essential quality of being an atheist, one who also is a freethinker. While this word is archaic, it is more needed now than ever.
I acknowledge my atheism to anyone who is interested, and then I often qualify it, explaining what this means to me; and if the conversation continues, how this Jewish boy lost his religion and feels about others who do believe in God. Part of my Eastern European Jewish heritage is a deep fear and antipathy for mass movements, as they often brought disaster to my forebears. Thus I have a visceral response to come to the defense of hatred of any out-group, whether it be homosexuals or, ironically, those who are trying to preserve traditional marriage- now impugned now as "deniers of social justice."
In the past I have have fought against encroachment of Christian symbols in areas of state control, but for me, atheism means more than what it opposes. It is more than simply rejection of a higher omnipotent being in favor of objective reality, but rather opposition to any dominant political-social force that controls a people. The authority that is opposed by atheism may, in fact, be religious, but by this larger definition it need not be. For me, and I would suspect many who identify themselves as atheists, the primary rejection is not only to a definitive revealed word of God , but to autocracy and the unquestioned acceptance of the dogma associated with it.
This is why intellectuals as diverse as Ayn Rand, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud were all atheists, yet had very little else in common other than rejection of the accepted wisdom and values of their era. My atheism is not rejection alone, but substituting another way of knowing, another kind of truth that is based on the ongoing exploration of all that is around me and within. When I see this being abridged in the name of atheism I see a betrayal of a vital lone voice in the wilderness of mass movements, and have to make my case against it.
At this moment in time in this country atheists are attempting to become a movement, one that will change the public perception and reverse the widespread contempt towards those of us who hold this view. In doing so, under the Secular Coalition for America it is adopting certain techniques, such as strategic alliances with other allied groups. I also see intimations of other processes on one issue, such as simplification, control of message, unification of central goals, all of which are specifically antithetical to the underlying nature of the atheism of another word, "freethinker."
The motivating force of this atheist, is rejection of dogma, that set of values, rules incentives and threats that prevent independent thought. Yet, these are also characteristics of all mass movements by their very nature. The paradox is that defeat a Zeitgeist, the spirit of the times, requires marshaling adherents in ways that inherently use the very same devices of the enemy. Atheism was a central tenet of International Communism, a movement responsible for more slaughter, oppression and suffering during the last century than all other political groups combined. From the Marxian call, "workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains" we had mass starvation in 1930s Russia, to the ruthless tyranny in Europe and revolutionary China that is still continuing in North Korea.
To bring us back to this era, this country, this very day; American atheists have joined with a movement, which like all such forces find justification in injustice. Rather than the cry of "Liberte' Egalite' et Fraternite'" it is now "Marriage Equality" that is the unifying call that turns individuals into a mass force of nature with a life of its own. The French revolution, beginning with a focus on injustice resulted in the reign of terror, counter revolution, return of imperialism, and decades of suffering. Mass movements inherently mark the end of freethinking, except for that which supports a new power that is often more unjust.
If this is the new atheism, I reject it. If atheist are to become another political force by allying itself to liberalism in America, as is happening- in spite of or because of- a new leader who had been a political operative on the conservative side, it will be a loss greater than the public antipathy we currently endure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)