A Modern Def'n of Equality - Access is a Better Determinant than Biology

An excerpt from "ff21st" Chapter 12 pps. 277-278

---------------------------

Up until the attempt on my life, I more or less proposed the thinking that humanity was equal by the standards of the United Nations.  I did, however, hold some deep reservations that everyone was actually equal in terms of contribution to society, and of value to others on an individual level.

To me the sole determinant of equality should simply not be the fact that you biologically exist.  Not to create a lousy analogy, but there is still a common phrase in use, which people who have contributed little use in terms of validation, in comparison with those who have contributed significantly more.  That phrase is:  “their shit stinks the same as mine.”  My typical response to this assertion is to say “if your sole criterion for valuing another human’s relevance is the smell of their excrement, then you are right.”

The one area where I do fully believe there should be equality is in terms of “equality of access” and this principle I hold dear.  Every individual should have access to the ability to earn a living.  Every individual should have access to basic healthcare and medicine.  Every individual should have access to clean water, food and shelter.  Every individual should have access to free movement around the globe.

I do not look at these as innate rights, rather ones that we as evolved citizens of the US should strive for, not only for our fellow Americans, but for people around the globe.  I don’t consider there to be any other equality claim other than the access points.  Every individual with their basic needs taken care of, now has the ability to live where they want, earn a living, choose how to live their life.  They must find their own way which to me is the true life experience.  Of course, even now as we approach 2050 there are still many parts of the world that have to improve in all of these areas.

The Dilemma of Islam

The issue that we are facing with the Islamic religion is a major one.  Whether or not religious freedom can lead to a complete overhaul of the tenets that our nation was founded upon.

By allowing Muslims to enter our society we essentially run the risk that at some point in the future this group becomes powerful enough to usurp the fundamental nature of America.

For example in Britain, a recent poll was conducted within the Muslim community and 40% of the respondents indicated that they would like to see Sharia Law imposed.  Right now, that number does not constitute a large number of voters but it clearly articulates the point for the future and one that we in America have to consider.  Is it right to allow a group of people who are fundamentally opposed to the American way of life into the country?

The First Amendment of the Constitution offers religious freedom as a fundamental right of humanity.  However, if those claiming religious freedoms are not interpreting that doctrine in a manner consistent with freedom but rather pro ports a moral code and political direction that undermines the basic philosophy of individual freedom then should it be opposed?  I would say 100% absolutely.


The Constitution further suggests that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion..." though it does not go as far as separating church and state as many people believe  It is obvious that religious fundamentals are not universally shared but the basis of individual freedom is an ability to make independent decisions.  Any group or organization that disagrees with this view point should be resisted in their access to American institutions or their ability to construct their own.  Individuals would be able to worship as they choose but any attempt to organize to undermine principals of freedom and independence should be opposed.


It is not necessary to ban Muslims from moving to the USA but efforts should definitely be made to curtail them from gaining any type of influence.  For example, several steps can be taken at this point to curtail an emergent political movement that supports Sharia Law or strives to change the nature of America.


The first would be the banning of any Muslim from holding political office at any level.  Two, limiting of mobility within the nations borders upon entry.  Thirdly, the holding back of US citizenship until individuals have demonstrated an ability to appreciate the principals of the western world and finally the out right ban of Muslim schools.


Though these thoughts sound counter-intuitive to the basic fundamentals that the USA holds paramount, keep in mind that America has only ever had to deal with fundamental opposition to freedoms on this scale once before and that lead to a Civil War.  The goal is not to limit individual freedoms rather ensure that the thinking and principals that have allowed the world to thrive continue unabated by a religious/political movement at the institutional level.

Churches: Time To Pay Up

Institutional religion and non-profit organizations receive billions of dollars each year tax free. This money or portions thereof have to be taxed.

Though the practice of taxation is out of hand in the USA right now, new sources of revenue have to be found to improve the situation. If a nominal federal tax rate of 5% of all revenue collected was taxed this would be a good place to begin reducing the monumental budget deficit that is now in place. States would have the opportunity to choose whether an incremental tax would be levied up to no more than an additional 5%.

One hallmark of American society is the freedom of religion and this is of course guaranteed within the Constitution. Freedom in this instance, seems to have come to mean complete freedom to operate from a formal obligation to the overall American way of life. Churches benefit from the taxation and infrastructure that the federal system provides so it is only fair that they should contribute financially.

Many would argue that religious institutions should be tax-exempt due to their civic contribution and non-profit status. The idea that non-profit organizations are tax exempt is ridiculous. I would suggest that any non-profit organization that has assets and/or paid employees should be taxed. Employees already pay income tax and volunteers would of course not pay due their lack of income.  Therefore, individual members of these institutions and organizations would not be affected at all.

Also, in order to encourage greater spending against community charitable efforts, any funds that are utilized directly as part of a community charitable effort would be 100% exempt from taxation thus lowering the institutions overall obligation. However, funds that are directed for operational expenses, payroll, marketing, fund-raising, assets and investments will be taxed.

The taxation does not have to be universal for every organization or religion. The expectation is that if a religious group or a non-profit organization holds property as part of their assets or has paid employees then taxation would be mandatory, though at the much reduced rate from private sector organizations.  Any organization that operates on a community level and has assets less than $50,000 and revenue less than $50,000 per year would not be taxed thus encouraging locally-minded and individual efforts.