Is tolerance banned in Boston?

Argonne Cross, Arlington National Cemetery

Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston made headlines recently by vowing to withhold permits from an organization wishing to locate in the city. “Catholic Charities does not belong in Boston,” Menino proclaimed, disagreeing vehemently with their values. “I urge you to back out of your plans to locate in Boston.” Catholic Charities opposes abortion on religious grounds, a viewpoint that the liberal Menino abhors.

Well, almost. As Dan Rather would say, this story is fake but accurate. Actually, Menino promised to block Chick-fil-A, a fast food operation, from the city because he disagrees with founder Dan Cathy’s religiously-based views on same-sex marriage. The story and the reality both hinge on religious beliefs that conflict with the Mayor’s views. But that is precisely the domain of the First Amendment, whose text is brief and unambiguous.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is very clear that Menino, as a public official, cannot impose his viewpoint on another. However, as a private citizen, he is free to boycott Chick-fil-A and encourage others to do so as well. As are we all.

Does this mean that government is powerless in the face of bigotry? Indeed not. We have laws prohibiting discrimination in employment and accommodation of customers. These laws can and must be vigorously enforced.

On another religious freedom front, there is a group called “Freedom from Religion Foundation” who, with their willing ally the ACLU, remove prayers from school walls, crosses from war memorials, and crèches from public squares. This organization of atheists militantly imposes their views, often to the distress of  citizens of such disparate places as Cranston and Woonsocket RI, and Steubenville OH. The FFRF interprets the First Amendment as strictly banning religious practices and artifacts from the public space. This is a tortured interpretation.

One must step back and ask, what is a religion? Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism all provide a model for how to live, how to behave well in a moral fashion, and require that adherents accept certain tenets of faith. In other words, part of the belief system must be accepted without proof because it is unprovable.

Atheists, likewise, believe in the goodness or badness of certain behaviors. Else, why would they intercede to prevent certain acts which they consider bad? And they share a belief that God does not exist. But that is an unprovable tenet of their belief system and must be accepted on faith. 

It appears clear that an alien visiting from the Cygnus constellation would be confused. Are not the atheists practicing their own religion? Are their attempts to impose their religious beliefs on the public space not, therefore, unconstitutional?

Perhaps the answer is to interpret the First Amendment in its simplest terms. The government shall not impose a religion, such as the historic Church of England. The government shall not prohibit the practice of religion, such as the Nazis did to the Jews, or the Taliban to Christians. Perhaps the answer is to be inclusive rather than exclusive. If you object to a cross on a war memorial, then add symbols of other religions, do not ban them all.

Tolerance, it seems, is a kinder and more peaceable approach than Menino and FFRF's belligerent intolerance.

Economic principles are older than history

Economics is incredibly complicated, we are told.  Economists would have us believe so because, otherwise, why would we need them?  Politicians likewise prefer befuddled voters as they are easy to manipulate.  Our economic system is indeed complex because of its enormous scale.  But it is based on some very simple principles, and we can use them to understand fundamental relationships.
 

In case you hadn’t noticed, the global economy is in a funk.  Investors aren’t investing, bankers aren’t lending, consumers aren’t consuming, manufacturers aren’t hiring... what to do?

There is a debate raging on the choice between growth or austerity (reducing debt) to improve things.  By “growth”, its proponents mean public sector spending (hiring more cops, clerks, and teachers), funded by higher taxes or increased borrowing. Those on the other side say that austerity works just fine, thank you very much, it just takes a little longer.  And further, they argue, “growth” could and should be nurtured in the private sector – it need not be a codeword for public spending.

Public sector, private sector, spending, growth, debt, taxes… it’s enough to make your head spin.  What should we do?  How do we decide?

Let’s take a look at how economics began. Imagine a prehistoric tribe made up of ten individuals.  We will focus on the adults and ignore the children for now.  The adults  are divvied up as follows:

• 3 hunters
• 4 gatherers
• 1 shaman (active)
• 1 shaman (retired)
• 1 hunter (disabled)

The three hunters, as you might guess, track, pursue, and take game animals, large and small.  The four gatherers cultivate simple grains and vegetables and collect wild fruits and berries. The hunters and gatherers make up the private sector, as they produce the means to keep the tribe alive.  Their output feeds the entire tribe.

The shaman uses magic to forecast the future, cast spells on the tribe’s enemies, and teaches basic skills to the tribe’s children.  He makes up the public sector.

The disabled hunter, unfortunately, is no longer able to contribute because of a badly wrenched back from trying to haul a large elk.  The retired shaman, too old to prognosticate, and the disabled hunter are social beneficiaries.    

All of the grains, berries, rabbits and venison produced by the hunters and gatherers must be shared with the public sector (current shaman) and the social beneficiaries (retired shaman and disabled hunter).  Every rabbit, sheave of grain, and basket of berries must be shared ten ways, even though only seven are responsible for production. For every 10 rabbits a hunter snares, he must give up 3 to support the public and social beneficiary sectors. This is a tax.

Imagine that a prolonged drought results in poor yields for both hunters and gatherers… the economy is a mess.  People are hungry, starving, and something must be done.  So what is the logical conclusion… shall we hire another shaman from the tribe in the next valley?

That’s what some argue… that by expanding our public sector, economic output will be increased.  But we still have only 3 hunters and 4 gatherers, who must now share their output 11 ways instead of 10.  They are rightfully baffled by this decision, because there are now more mouths to feed but no increase in production to do so.

Does this mean that the public sector is bad and that we shouldn’t support those in need?  Absolutely not!  In our real economy, public servants are crucial to our society’s functioning, keeping us safe from crime, putting out fires, and teaching the next generation of productive citizens.  And it is only decent to sustain those who are truly in need.  But remember that we can only do what we can afford to do.  That is the mistake made by the Greeks – chronic overpromising, living beyond their means.

When the government expands the public sector or expands social benefits, these costs must be paid.  There are only two choices… by raising taxes now or raising taxes later.  In the latter case, we can borrow a surplus from the tribe in the next valley, but it must eventually be repaid (plus interest), which requires a future tax.

This is not meant to convince you to think in any given way, only to think.  When presented with economic alternatives, think.  Then choose.  But do so based on an informed consideration.