Politics – Dovestar

November 26, 2022

Yoga versus democracy? What survey data says about spiritual Americans’ political behavior

For some, yoga is a spiritual practice that may substitute for religion. CHANDAN KHANNA/AFP via Getty Images

Evan Stewart, UMass Boston and Jaime Kucinskas, Hamilton College

As the United States gets less religious, is it also getting more selfish?

Historically, religious Americans have been civically engaged. Through churches and other faith-based organizations, congregants volunteer, engage in local and national civic organizations and pursue political goals.

Today – the rise of a politically potent religious right over the past 50 years notwithstanding – fewer Americans identify with formal religions. Gallup found that 47% of Americans reported church membership in 2020, down from 70% in the 1990s; nearly a quarter of Americans have no religious affiliation.

Meanwhile, other kinds of meaningful practice are on the rise, from meditation and yoga to new secular rituals like Sunday assemblies “without God.” Between 2012 and 2017, the percentage of American adults who meditated rose from 4.1% to 14.2%, according to a 2018 CDC report. The number of those who practiced yoga jumped from 9.5% to 14.3%. Not everyone considers these practices “spiritual,” but many do pursue them as an alternative to religious engagement.

Some critics question whether this new focus on mindfulness and self-care is making Americans more self-centered. They suggest religiously disengaged Americans are channeling their energies into themselves and their careers rather than into civic pursuits that may benefit the public.

As sociologists who study religion and public life, we wanted to answer that question. We used survey data to compare how these two groups of spiritual and religious Americans vote, volunteer and otherwise get involved in their communities.

Spiritually selfish or religiously alienated?

Our research began with the assumption that moving from organized religious practices to spiritual practices could have one of two effects on greater American society.

Spiritual practice could lead people to focus on more selfish or self-interested pursuits, such as their own personal development and career progress, to the detriment of U.S. society and democracy.

This is the argument sociologist Carolyn Chen pursues in her new book “Work, Pray, Code,” about how meditators in Silicon Valley are re-imagining Buddhist practices as productivity tools. As one employee described a company mindfulness program, it helped her “self-manage” and “not get triggered.” While these skills made her happier and gave her “the clarity to handle the complex problems of the company,” Chen shows how they also teach employees to put work first, sacrificing other kinds of social connection.

Bringing spiritual practice into the office may give workers deeper purpose and meaning, but Chen says it can have some unintended consequences.

When workplaces fulfill workers’ most personal needs – providing not only meals and laundry but also recreational activities, spiritual coaches and mindfulness sessions – skilled workers end up spending most of their time at work. They invest in their company’s social capital rather than building ties with their neighbors, religious congregations and other civic groups. They are less likely to frequent local businesses.

Chen suggests that this disinvestment in community can ultimately lead to cuts in public services and weaken democracy.

Alternatively, our research posited, spiritual practices may serve as a substitute for religion. This explanation may hold especially true among Americans disaffected by the rightward lurch that now divides many congregations, exacerbating cultural fissures around race, gender and sexual orientation.

“They loved to tell me my sexuality doesn’t define me,” one 25-year-old former evangelical, Christian Ethan Stalker, told the Religion News Service in 2021 in describing his former church. “But they shoved a handful of verses down my throat that completely sexualize me as a gay person and … dismissed who I am as a complex human being. That was a huge problem for me.”

A sign reads 'Catholics vote pro-life', written in red, white and blue. — An anti-abortion message outside St. Anthony Church, in Brooksville, Fla., in 2020. Jeffrey Greenberg/Education Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Engaged on all fronts

To answer our research question about spirituality and civic engagement, we used a new nationally representative survey of Americans studied in 2020.

We examined the political behaviors of people who engaged in activities such as yoga, meditation, making art, walking in nature, praying and attending religious services. The political activities we measured included voting, volunteering, contacting representatives, protesting and donating to political campaigns.

We then compared those behaviors, distinguishing between people who see these activities as spiritual and those who see the same activities as religious.

Our new study, published in the journal American Sociological Review, finds that spiritual practitioners are just as likely to engage in political activities as the religious.

After we controlled for demographic factors such as age, race and gender, frequent spiritual practitioners were about 30% more likely than nonpractitioners to report doing at least one political activity in the past year. Likewise, devoted religious practitioners were also about 30% more likely to report one of these political behaviors than respondents who do not practice religion.

In other words, we found heightened political engagement among both the religious and spiritual, compared with other people.

Our findings bolster similar conclusions made recently by sociologist Brian Steensland and his colleagues in another study on spiritual people and civic involvement.

Uncovering the spiritual as a political force

The spiritual practitioners we identified seemed particularly likely to be disaffected by the rightward turn in some congregations in recent years. On average, Democrats, women and people who identified as lesbian, gay and bisexual reported more frequent spiritual practices.

A woman wearing a headset microphone leads a class of women, all holding their palms in front of their chests. The instructor has her eyes closed. — A mindfulness-focused weekly dance class at a recreation center in Littleton, Colo., in 2017. Seth McConnell/The Denver Post via Getty Images

We suspect these groups are engaging in American politics in innovative ways, such as through online groups and retreats that re-imagine spiritual community and democratic engagement.

Our research recognizes progressive spiritual practitioners as a growing but largely unrecognized, underestimated and misunderstood political force.

In his influential book “Bowling Alone,” Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam suggests American religious disaffiliation is part of a larger trend of overall civic decline. Americans have been disengaging for decades from all kinds of civic groups, from bowling leagues and unions to parent-teacher organizations.

Our study gives good reason to reassess what being an “engaged citizen” means in the 21st century. People may change what they do on a Sunday morning, but checking out of church doesn’t necessarily imply checking out of the political process.

Evan Stewart, Assistant Professor of Sociology, UMass Boston and Jaime Kucinskas, Associate Professor of Sociology, Hamilton College

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

November 7, 2022November 7, 2022

Why there really is no ethical reason not to vote

It a democratic duty … so just do it! Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Scott Davidson, West Virginia University

Midterms elections traditionally see a slump in voter interest compared to years in which the White House is up for grabs.

Yet November 2022 could see more Americans registering their midcycle political preferences than in recent years. Already, some states are reporting record early voting figures.

But even it that is the case, it is likely that a large chunk of eligible voters – perhaps around half – will not bother. Many obstacles prevent citizens from voting, such as uncertainty about how to register or an inability to get to the polls. But there is a subset of nonvoters who make a conscious choice not to vote for ethical reasons.

As a philosopher who teaches courses in ethics and political philosophy, I have investigated the ethics of not voting.

The three most common reasons I hear are: “I don’t have enough information,” “I don’t like any of the candidates,” and “I don’t want to give this election legitimacy.” It is worth examining why, in my view, each argument is flawed, and if, given the unique circumstances of this year’s election, there is at least one ethical reason not to vote.

1. Lack of information

According to a study by the 100 Million Project, nonvoters are twice as likely as active voters to say they do not feel they have enough information about candidates and issues to decide how to vote. This group of nonvoters might believe that it is unethical to vote because they are uninformed. In “The Ethics of Voting,” political philosopher Jason Brennan argues that uninformed citizens have an ethical obligation not to cast votes, because their uninformed votes can produce results that damage our political system.

The honesty of this group of nonvoters is praiseworthy, especially in comparison with overconfident voters who suffer from what psychologists call the “Dunning-Kruger effect” and wrongly believe that they are better informed than they are.

But an uninformed voter can fix that problem and remove the ethical dilemma – and with minimal time and effort. Information about each candidate’s platform is more accessible than ever. It can be found online, in print and through conversation. The problem today is instead how to find reliable, nonpartisan information. One of the clear benefits of mail-in voting is that it gives voters more time to fill out their ballot carefully without feeling rushed. While completing the ballot at home, they can educate themselves about each of the candidates and issues.

2. Dislike of the candidates

Another common reason for not voting is dislike of the candidates. In fact, an Ipsos study found that 20% of nonvoters in the 2020 presidential election did not vote because of a dislike of the candidates. Based on their dislike of both candidates, they found themselves unable to vote for either one in good conscience.

What this leaves open, however, is the question of where this “dislike” comes from. It is quite possibly the product of negative campaigning, which promotes negative attitudes toward the opposing candidate. If you already dislike one party’s candidate, negative ads encourage an equally negative feeling toward the other party’s candidate. This suggests that negative campaign advertising carries out a strategy to depress overall voter turnout by making voters dislike both candidates.

But dislike is not a sufficient reason for abstaining. The mistake here, I believe, is that choices are not always between a positive and negative, a good and a bad. Voters often have to choose between two good or two bad options. It’s also worth noting that, in addition to the top of the ticket, there are often important state and local contests on the ballot. Finding just one candidate or policy proposal that you truly support can make the effort to vote worthwhile. State and local races are sometimes very close, so each vote really can be meaningful.

3. Contributing to a corrupt system

Two common reasons given for not voting are the attitudes that their vote “does not matter” and that “the political system is corrupt,” which together account for about 20% of the nonvoting population, according to the 100 Million Project’s survey of nonvoters. Voter turnout is often interpreted as a sign of public support that establishes political legitimacy. By abstaining, some nonvoters might see themselves as opting out from a corrupt system that produces illegitimate results.

This way of thinking might be justified in an authoritarian regime, for example, which occasionally holds fake elections to demonstrate popular support. In such a society, abstaining from voting might make a legitimate point about the absence of open and fair elections. A 2019 report ranks the U.S. as the 25th-most democratic country, classifying it as a “flawed democracy” but a democracy nonetheless. If democratic elections are legitimate and their results are respected, voter abstention in the U.S. has no practical impact that would distinguish it from voter apathy.

All three of the above arguments fail, in my opinion, because they measure the worth of voting primarily in terms of its results. Voting may or may not yield the outcome individuals want, but without it, there is no democratic society.

4. However …

During the pandemic, there was, in my view, one valid ethical reason for not voting, at least not in person. Election Day in 2020 took place during a spike in COVID-19 cases, and those with symptoms or quarantining were certainly excused, ethically, from not showing up to the polls. The good of their vote was outweighed by the potential harm of exposing other voters to the virus.

People are still coming down with COVID-19, but even in nonpandemic times, would-be voters can be struck down by illness.

Knowing this could happen, voters need to adopt what ethicists call “the precautionary principle.” This principle says people should take steps to avoid or reduce harms to others, such as risking their life or health.

Based on the precautionary principle, an ethicist could argue that individuals ought to request absentee ballots if their state provides this option. Or to ensure that their ability to vote isn’t compromised by later illness, they might want to vote early.

Scott Davidson, Professor of Philosophy, West Virginia University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

October 28, 2022

The White House’s ‘AI Bill of Rights’ outlines five principles to make artificial intelligence safer, more transparent and less discriminatory

Many AI algorithms, like facial recognition software, have been shown to be discriminatory to people of color. Prostock-Studio/iStock via Getty Images

Christopher Dancy, Penn State

Despite the important and ever-increasing role of artificial intelligence in many parts of modern society, there is very little policy or regulation governing the development and use of AI systems in the U.S. Tech companies have largely been left to regulate themselves in this arena, potentially leading to decisions and situations that have garnered criticism.

Google fired an employee who publicly raised concerns over how a certain type of AI can contribute to environmental and social problems. Other AI companies have developed products that are used by organizations like the Los Angeles Police Department where they have been shown to bolster existing racially biased policies.

There are some government recommendations and guidance regarding AI use. But in early October 2022, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy added to federal guidance in a big way by releasing the Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights.

The Office of Science and Technology says that the protections outlined in the document should be applied to all automated systems. The blueprint spells out “five principles that should guide the design, use, and deployment of automated systems to protect the American public in the age of artificial intelligence.” The hope is that this document can act as a guide to help prevent AI systems from limiting the rights of U.S. residents.

As a computer scientist who studies the ways people interact with AI systems – and in particular how anti-Blackness mediates those interactions – I find this guide a step in the right direction, even though it has some holes and is not enforceable.

A group of people sitting in chairs with one person raising their hand. — It is critically important to include feedback from the people who are going to to be most affected by an AI system – especially marginalized communities – during development. FilippoBacci/E+ via Getty Images

Improving systems for all

The first two principles aim to address the safety and effectiveness of AI systems as well as the major risk of AI furthering discrimination.

To improve the safety and effectiveness of AI, the first principle suggests that AI systems should be developed not only by experts, but also with direct input from the people and communities who will use and be affected by the systems. Exploited and marginalized communities are often left to deal with the consequences of AI systems without having much say in their development. Research has shown that direct and genuine community involvement in the development process is important for deploying technologies that have a positive and lasting impact on those communities.

The second principle focuses on the known problem of algorithmic discrimination within AI systems. A well-known example of this problem is how mortgage approval algorithms discriminate against minorities. The document asks for companies to develop AI systems that do not treat people differently based on their race, sex or other protected class status. It suggests companies employ tools such as equity assessments that can help assess how an AI system may impact members of exploited and marginalized communities.

These first two principles address big issues of bias and fairness found in AI development and use.

Privacy, transparency and control

The final three principles outline ways to give people more control when interacting with AI systems.

The third principle is on data privacy. It seeks to ensure that people have more say about how their data is used and are protected from abusive data practices. This section aims to address situations where, for example, companies use deceptive design to manipulate users into giving away their data. The blueprint calls for practices like not taking a person’s data unless they consent to it and asking in a way that is understandable to that person.

A speaker sitting on a table. — Smart speakers have been caught collecting and storing conversations without users’ knowledge. Olemedia/E+ via Getty Images

The next principle focuses on “notice and explanation.” It highlights the importance of transparency – people should know how an AI system is being used as well as the ways in which an AI contributes to outcomes that might affect them. Take, for example the New York City Administration for Child Services. Research has shown that the agency uses outsourced AI systems to predict child maltreatment, systems that most people don’t realize are being used, even when they are being investigated.

The AI Bill of Rights provides a guideline that people in New York in this example who are affected by the AI systems in use should be notified that an AI was involved and have access to an explanation of what the AI did. Research has shown that building transparency into AI systems can reduce the risk of errors or misuse.

The last principle of the AI Bill of Rights outlines a framework for human alternatives, consideration and feedback. The section specifies that people should be able to opt out of the use of AI or other automated systems in favor of a human alternative where reasonable.

As an example of how these last two principles might work together, take the case of someone applying for a mortgage. They would be informed if an AI algorithm was used to consider their application and would have the option of opting out of that AI use in favor of an actual person.

Smart guidelines, no enforceability

The five principles laid out in the AI Bill of Rights address many of the issues scholars have raised over the design and use of AI. Nonetheless, this is a nonbinding document and not currently enforceable.

It may be too much to hope that industry and government agencies will put these ideas to use in the exact ways the White House urges. If the ongoing regulatory battle over data privacy offers any guidance, tech companies will continue to push for self-regulation.

One other issue that I see within the AI Bill of Rights is that it fails to directly call out systems of oppression – like racism or sexism – and how they can influence the use and development of AI. For example, studies have shown that inaccurate assumptions built into AI algorithms used in health care have led to worse care for Black patients. I have argued that anti-Black racism should be directly addressed when developing AI systems. While the AI Bill of Rights addresses ideas of bias and fairness, the lack of focus on systems of oppression is a notable hole and a known issue within AI development.

Despite these shortcomings, this blueprint could be a positive step toward better AI systems, and maybe the first step toward regulation. A document such as this one, even if not policy, can be a powerful reference for people advocating for changes in the way an organization develops and uses AI systems.

Christopher Dancy, Associate Professor of Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering and Computer Science & Engineering, Penn State

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

October 26, 2010

Just Another Political Rant

Power, greed and deception are the rules and conditions of politics. Almost every single politician is concerned with their own wealth and the power that comes with their elected position. Campaign promises created to get votes and bills filled with hidden earmarks and agendas fill the congress. Healthcare is only affordable by the rich and pharmaceutical companies push the medical industry to use pharmaceuticals to manage diseases instead of educating the patients or surgery.

There is far more money in selling overpriced pharmaceuticals to manage a health problem than to come up with an actual cure. This is not to say there isn’t anyone out there looking for cures, just that funding and priority for finding a cure for a disease is lower than the research for drugs that help manage a disease. Though I will give the present administration a thumbs up for the fact they are pushing the idea of better diet and physical fitness as a preventative measure in keeping good health.

It still gets me quite upset that there are some congress officials and hopefuls looking for a way to increase the retirement age and or diminish the social security plan. For one thing even if the average life expectancy is like 80 it does not mean the majority of humans will survive to that age. The percentage that are lucky enough to live to see retirement are usually not as healthy due to having to work so hard and long. With the fact that it takes the lower and below middleclass citizen 2 to 3 jobs to maintain a decent standard of living only puts more strain on the health of those individuals.

For as Medicare/Medicaid and any federal or state funded health care , it should be limited to legal citizens who have and will contribute to the tax systems both at state and federal levels. The only way illegal aliens could be a part of the system is if the government went to a national sales tax to replace the current income tax. This would insure every individual living in the united states would and could contribute their fair share to the government funds. Of course this federal sales tax should not be on food or necessities of life such as utilities only on luxuries.

One thing I have learned is if it makes sense the government will either ignore the idea or take it and load it down with so many earmarks or amendments it becomes a useless idea and bill/law. Once in a while one might actually slip through with little change but that is becoming a very rare occasion in recent years.

Well enough rambling on about politics and such.
Peace to all Raymond Barbier.

Kenneth Thorpe: Hold True to Health Care Reform Commitments to Fight Chronic Disease (huffingtonpost.com)
Conflict of Regulation of Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices (blogs.forbes.com)
Does Obamacare really cut Medicare Benefits to Senior Citizens? (blogs.forbes.com)
All Talk No Answers: Another Reason Man Cannot Rule Himself (socyberty.com)
Opinion: Health Care, It’s Still Neither (lillslist.com)
Fiorina: Health reform must make insurers compete (sfgate.com)

September 27, 2010

Just a rant about congress

I find it quite interesting it is the rich politicians who want to raise the retirement age on social security once again. If they had to rely on the Social security as their primary if not only source of retirement and their salary was the minimum wage if they would still want to raise the retirement age and strike down a national health care system. I wonder if they would see things different and not be so against entitlements if they were not making those 6 digit salaries. I still am a firm believer in the idea of setting term limits on the congressional seats. If the president has a term limit why shouldn’t the congress. The congress is becoming like a stagnant pond, the same senators and house representatives been in there for way too many years. Time for newer , younger and more creative blood in the congress. New ideas and hopefully less party polarization would be the outcome of such new blood.

Well that’s just my 2 cents worth of political thoughts for today.

Peace and Prosperity to you all

R. Barbier

Cutting Benefits Isn’t the Way to Save Social Security (politics.usnews.com)
How Can We Fix the House and Senate? (unbiasedtruth.net)
Another Ill-Informed Front Page Washington Post Editorial on Social Security (seminal.firedoglake.com)
If Tea Party Members would only take five seconds to consider the source of their movement: David Koch, Dick Armey, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck (iflizwerequeen.com)
Fox: 78% favor term limits on congress (minx.cc)
Terry Newell: Throwing the Bums Out Won’t Work (huffingtonpost.com)

July 4, 2010

9/11 Truth Revolution

July 3, 2010July 3, 2010

Democrats and republicans alike are to blame

Why does it seem only the greedy and narrow minded seem to get into positions of power? Even when you have a visionary in office the rest of the government seems to stop any true progress far as the progress towards bettering the world we live in. I hear so much anti Obama rhetoric in the news and via the internet stating how Obama is the cause of all the ills of this world. When in fact the U.S. government does not run as a dictatorship it is a government based on democracy. The Senate and the House of Representatives are the two governing bodies that write the bills and shape most of our policies here in the U.S.. The president may be commander and chief but he must go through congress in order to achieve his or her goals. The president does have veto power but even that can be overridden by congress.

Sure go ahead and blame Obama, But remember to blame the whole of congress both democrats and republicans alike. Though the republicans will claim innocence but they too play there part. Choosing not to act or be a part of the process they too are responsible for the bills passed. If they just could get over the party system long enough they might be able to work together to make a bill or two that is both beneficial and not full of ear marks. Democrats and republicans alike are to blame for the mess our country is in. The republican years in the white house has lead us to our financial state as well as the democrats who didn’t oppose or try and safe guard those bills passed that kept our financial institutions from acting responsibly in the past.

I really love how the republicans state how democrats are putting the nation in debt when many of the bills and legislation the republicans proposed and passed has wasted just as much of the tax payers dollars. I really think there should be term limits on a congressional seat so new blood and ideas can flow into our federal government. When they are in power too long they seem to loose their perspective and forget it is we the people they represent not their personal views or opinions. I am kind of glad to see that this is turning out to be more of a anti incumbent election year than a anti-democrat or anti-republican. We need fresh and new ideas in the congress. To put it in a nutshell not one party or the other is more or less responsible for the state our country is in at the moment. Both parties have participated in the creation of our present state and are equally responsible.

If you want change you have to make it happen. Write your congressman, make petitions, peacefully protest for or against that you believe in. Most importantly become active in your local and federal governments by voting and lobbying for your causes. If we are not active in the politics of our day then we are just as responsible for the outcome. If I am to be responsible for any outcome it will be one of my own choice not that of someone else’s.

Well that’s enough Ranting for now.
Peace

R.Barbier