Why do the religious think they deserve special treatment?

There's been a lot of demands recently by the religious (most recently the Catholics) for special treatment.  For some reason they do not feel the need to obey the laws of our society and think that because they have religious beliefs that they should not have to obey the law. This is utterly ridiculous. Religious belief does not and should not excuse unlawful behavior.

These ridiculous claims for special treatment have arisen today in both the UK and the US. In the UK Catholics complain that rules requiring providing of adoption services for gay couples should not apply to them. In the US Catholics complain that rules requiring provision of birth control under employer insurance plans should not apply to them. This absurd plea for special treatment should not be respected but should instead be ridiculed for the absurdity it is.

We generally do not allow special treatment based on beliefs.  A person who does not believe in taxes still has to pay their taxes (religious institutions in the US noticeably do not pay taxes but this is not due to a lack in belief in taxes but due to a belief in separation of church and state). A person who believes in free access to art is still liable for copyright violations when they illegally download movies.

Even religious belief does not grant special privileges.  Those whose religion requires the use of drugs for religious ceremonies do not get to use drugs. Those whose religion allows polygamy do not get to engage in polygamy. Those whose religion requires the stoning to death of disobedient children are still liable for murder. These things are self-evident, the mere fact that one's beliefs run counter to a law does not grant a special right to break that law because the law applies equally to all.

Laws requiring provision of birth control or provision of adoption services may seem different than laws prohibiting behavior such as polygamy. Rather than prohibiting behavior these laws require a person to behave in a certain way. But if you think about it we generally do not allow personal beliefs to be used to avoid such laws. Racists restaurant owners are not allowed to discriminate against customers and thus avoid anti-discrimination laws merely because they hold racist beliefs. We find it acceptable that society can force these owners to serve people of all races no matter if it contradicts their personal beliefs.

Imagine if we give in to the Catholics and say that a person does not have to obey the law if it runs counter to their beliefs.  First, if we allow the religious to escape the law because of the belief we must allow all to escape the law due to belief. It is unconstitutional to make a law that favors the religious. Thus, an exemption based on religious belief would be unconstitutional. The only constitutional way to allow an exception would be to allow everyone who disbelieves in a law to be exempt. When it comes to laws that require behavior this would castrate the law, no one would follow it but the people who already perform the behavior, and again racists restaurant owners would be allowed to discriminate.

This is the absurd result that the Catholics are arguing for.  Even more absurd is the claim that these laws are religious discrimination. I addressed this issue here. These laws clearly do not discriminate against the religious because they apply equally to all citizens. Discrimination requires singling out a group for special treatment. Thus, the irony is, the Catholics are actually asking for religious discrimination against all other belief systems when they demand to be exempt from the law.

How Buffett Rule critics try to dodge the 30% tax rate by referencing the marginal rate

One of Obama's proposed tax policies for 2013 is the implementation of the Buffet Rule.  This rule is fairly simple, it sets a minimum tax rate for those who make more than $1 Million at 30%.  The reason we need this rule is to plug up loopholes in the tax code that tax dividends and capital gains at 15%. These loopholes allow people who have massive amounts of assets to essentially pay a 15% tax rate on all of their income because these people can structure their income as capital gains and dividends rather than ordinary income.

The current tax system vastly favors investors over average workers by taxing pure investors at lower rates.  The Buffett rule tries to plug this loophole for those making more than a $1 million by requiring them to pay at least 30% of their income in taxes.

The tax foundation has an article in its Tax policy Blog with the inflammatory title: "Buffet Rule would Cause Marginal Tax Rate of 90%."  Before you become mislead by that title remember that the buffet rule actually sets a tax rate of 30%.  The use of the number 90% in the title is totally misleading because the actual tax rate is 30%.  So where do they get this misleading 90% tax rate?  Well for simplicity's sake let me dive in with a simpler example than they use that shows just how absurd their argument is.

The loyal but dishonest opposition

After watching Tuesday nights State of the Union by President Obama and the opposition response by Mitch Daniels I couldn't help but use Daniels' speech as a basis of my next post (read the response here or watch it here).  Obama as usual gave a speech with solid logical points (though with a good amount of rhetoric).  On the other hand, Daniels gave a speech that obscured the problems and confused the issues.

Although, I find many factual as well as logical issues with Daniels' speech I want to focus on one particularly egregious argument Daniels makes.   Daniels attacks Obama's attempt to protect the people of the United States from predatory financial techniques through his new consumer bureau.  But his attack ignores the reality and uses a sneaky technique to try and gain support for his position against new regulations.

Sometimes its ok to use stereotypes

I read a blogpost today regarding the idea of Schroedinger's Rapist.  This essentially says that a woman approaching a man in an unsafe place can't know if that man is dangerous and thus should treat him as dangerous.  For some reason men seem to think that this is sexist for women to assume that men are dangerous without knowing.  Perhaps this is sexist but regardless I would say its a smart practice and women should do it.

To convince any men who doubt me of this let me use a little reductio ad absurdum.  For those of you who don't know this argument let me explain.  Reductio ad absurdum is simply the process of taking an argument to its extreme sometimes absurd conclusions.  The point is to show that the other person doesn't agree with the extreme application and thus the rule itself must either be false or at least partially incorrect.

So, I want to show that most men would want women to assume men are dangerous whether or not its sexist.  Imagine your closest female relative.  Perhaps your daughter, perhaps your sister, perhaps your cousin, perhaps your mother.  Now imagine she just met a girl who seems nice and was invited back to that girls house.  She calls you and asks if she should go.  I would assume most men would say sure, that doesn't sound too bad.  But imagine that she actually just met a man, talked to him for a few minutes and he invited her back to his house.  Again she calls you.  Do you tell her to go or not go.  I would think any reasonable man would say not to go just to be safe regardless of whether it is sexist.

I think most men don't like the assumption that men are dangerous because they are offended that someone might just presume they are dangerous.  If I know I am a good person but someone just assumes I am dangerous that does seem to be a bit offensive.  Thus, I can understand this sentiment somewhat.  But if you turn the issue around to the much bigger concern of safety then I think most men would agree its a good idea for women to assume an unknown man might be dangerous.

Statistically speaking a woman is much more likely to be attacked by a man than another woman.  Only an idiot doesn't pay attention to statistics when it comes to safety.  If I find out that an airline has a 10% crash rate I won't fly that airline, I'll pick one with a lower crash rate.  Likewise, no woman should have to gamble with her health in order to avoid being sexist.

I don't know perhaps my argument is sexist, but you know what, its also sensible.