Officer Actions Antithetical to the Rule of Law and Social Harmony

East Valley Tribune
Thursday, April 12, 2007

Re: Off-duty cop hits driver, spouts slurs

Recently, Chance Lovell a sworn officer of the Scottsdale police department was charged with one count of misdemeanor assault while criminal investigations are pending over an “apparent drunken [racist] rage Monday, according to a Tempe police report.” This incident is compounded by Chance Lovell’s apparent blatant misuse of authority which involved a discriminatory action toward, and assault of, an innocent citizen, as well as his severely misguided decision to drive while intoxicated. None of these behaviors should be tolerated, especially by any sworn agent of the state.

Chance Lovell’s apparent misuse of his authority involves the reported off-duty use of his badge for no other purpose than as a vulgar display of power, while directing a racial epithet toward an innocent citizen before physically assaulting this person. If found to be true, this action constitutes an official form of discrimination since his badge was displayed prior to the behaviors in question, and if Chance Lovell is not terminated for these actions alone; then we may consider these behaviors (e.g. racism and assault) fully condoned by the Scottsdale Police Department. The accusation that Chance Lovell was intoxicated while driving only further exacerbates the incident. Drinking and driving is one of the more despicable and ironically most preventable crimes plaguing our nation, one that puts everyone at risk; a blatant, and inexcusable violation of the social contract and thus antithetical to the rule of law and social harmony.

Government organizations, like the police, can only be construed as legitimate and valid if they are in fact created and supported by the governed populace. Accordingly, officer actions that seriously violate these principles should warrant termination. As a concerned and taxpaying citizen, I in no way support or condone the toxic and repugnant behavior exhibited by Chance Lovell, and as one that values a just and democratic social order, I call for Chance Lovell’s immediate resignation and encourage other concerned citizens to do the same.

Re: Neo-Atheists by E.J. Dionne (column, April 7, 2007)

E.J. Dionne asserts that those who do not conform to what some consider a set of unfounded and irrational beliefs, and merely point this empirical fact out to the majority of the population, “seem as dogmatic as the dogmatists they condemn.” Where is the dogma here? By definition, a dogma consists of a set of truth claims based from faith (belief with no evidence), thus subsequently creating an erroneous set of beliefs that then inform our social actions. Some of these actions can clearly be attributed to religion, like suicide bombings, and can be catastrophic (see; e.g. Harris 2005).

Freethinkers ( or “neo-atheists” if you must), despite their “minority” status, collectively comprise of every class, race, gender and creed, including but not limited to, women, men, gays, lesbians, transgender folks, African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and every other hue of the racial, sexual, ethnic and class spectrum ad infinitum (can any religion make a similar claim?) usually (the authors you cite certainly do) support all their rational assertions by way of empirical data. Religious dogma does not. This fact is plain and simple and seemingly incontestable. However, the principal difference between freethinkers and religious belief rests with the idea that freethinkers are willing to be convinced otherwise of their position, however there currently exists no empirical data to substantiate let alone even entertain such willingness.

Religious believers are indeed "free" (restricted, as Marx would argue, only by their false consciousness, e.g. "religion is the opium of the people"), to empirically validate any and all these data and are not excluded from this dialogue. Religion and religious dogma however, unlike science, operate entirely on the principals of exclusion and imposed ignorance (see; e.g. Chomsky 1995). The indoctrination of these unfounded and clearly outdated beliefs upon the impressionable minds of our youth unfortunately perpetuates the restriction of any real discussion or dialogue concerning the matter. The irony expressed here is telling of the true essence of “religious faith.”

You note (most incorrectly) that freethinkers “are especially frustrated with religious ‘moderates’ who don’t fit their stereotypes.” The authors of the books you cite (e.g. Dawkins 2006; Harris 2005, 2006) do not speak of such “stereotypes.” Rather, the frustration with religious moderates arises from the assertion that it is religious moderates (under the cloak of “religious tolerance”) who allow religious extremists to continue their murderous campaigns throughout the world, and it is certain that with the available technologies (e.g. nuclear bomb) will eventually lead the to the death and destruction of the entire human race. Imagine, if you will, the New York City skyline. Now imagine a world with no religion. What do you see?

“Imagine there’s no countries, it isn’t hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living in peace. You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.” – John Lennon

Works Cited

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. Class Warfare. Gardners Books.
http://www.chomsky.info/books/warfare02htm

Dawkins, Richard. 2006. The God Delusion. Bantam Press.

Marx, Karl. 1844. Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of
Right. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm

Harris, Sam. 2005. The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason. W.W. Norton.

Harris, Sam. 2006. A Letter to a Christian Nation. Knopf.

Suggested Readings

Dennett, Daniel C. 2006. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. Viking Adult.

Stenger, Victor J. 2007. God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does
Does Not Exist. Prometheus Books.