Big Brother God always watches... and they like it?

The religious mind once again astounds and tickles my cerebral cortex. Most anyone who knows me understands that I hold the belief that people are hypocrites; it’s almost woven into our DNA. Evolution weeds out the bad genes and propagates the good/ beneficial ones which help the next generation survive even better than the previous; with that logic being a hypocrite must be good for the benefit of the gene propagation of your particular genealogy.

An over simplified proof would be the concept of survival of the fittest; the notion explains that those who are stronger (given their environment) will succeed and beat out the weakest however, although we as humans follow this general outline we are also tribal creatures. Those who are strongest cannot possibly survive long without the aid of the weaker elements of the tribe. So while we are both trying to fight for survival by beating out the weaker competition, we are also forced to work with the weaker others and utilize them to propagate our own lineage. Thus we must also help our direct competitors survive if we, as the stronger variance in the tribe, are also going to survive. This is hypocritical of “nature;” humanity is forced to create a balance with those which we are obviously more adept than even though since single celled organism began multiplying “we” would fight to withhold nutrients, hogging resources and hindering the growth around “us.” Being a hypocrite must then be an evolved talent, since obviously we grew to become multi-celled organisms an eventually homo-sapiens based on the need to survive as the fittest but also in a communal nature with weaker elements of the tribe.

The religious, regardless of their dislike/ distrust of the evolutionary process, exhibit this hypocritical biological trait in the most interesting and illustrated way. Although it may seem like a hidden feature of the religious mentality, it’s almost so blatant it’s easy to miss.  

In “1984” George Orwell describe a society where “big-brother” was always watching to make sure you were not breaking rules or causing mischief. This was not only a fantastic dystopian novel; it also seemed a pretty good compass for future technological advances as well as infringements on our liberties. But let’s take the basic element of the story, regardless of the plot line, the idea was fear of always being watched. Staunch religious also tend, more than not, to be Republicans according to a recent gallop poll:

We can all agree, regardless of political affiliation or even religious constitution, that having big brother always watching is not good. This is why Orwell’s novel is such a huge success, it appeals to the fear that we all share. However, the religious are devout to the idea of a supreme big brother, an all seeing all knowing eye in the sky that discerns intimate details about each and every one of us; YHWH should translate directly in “Ultimate Big Brother.”  How religious/ republicans can be so drawn into dogma that they would actually like, and even appreciate or desire the deity’s presence looming over all of us making sure we don’t go all “Sodom and Gomorrah,” is frightening and in stark contrast to the human fear of their always being watched by someone. I will grant them this; it’s their god who is watching and not a government watchdog. However what is the idea of god and religion other than a type of government body with rules, agendas, punishments and taxes (tithes). God is the president, the prime minister, the king and sovereign. He is the judicial system, the legislature and executive system, god is a form of government that the religious mind, hypocritical to humanities fear of big brother, gains pleasure and happiness from knowing it watches their every move.

The religious mind is so memorized by this particular government watch dog; they actually distrust those who do not believe in the deity because they know atheists do not feel as though there is a presence judging their daily righteousness. In a recent study here it was shown that theists tend to distrust atheists because of “the belief that people behave better if they feel that God is watching them.” How come with this belief in the god-vernment watchdog being a good thing, do they also fear the government (that they so whole heartedly defend, pray to god to bless and even hold the delusion is the most respected in the world for its structure and freedoms) watching over them? Why is it that they want the uber-powerful one who punished his followers, at one time, for an unjust offense such as eating shell fish, to watch over them; but the government that they support, help shape and even participate in daily is dangerous if they are capable of watching us with the same omnipresent eye? How come they don’t believe that people will behave better if they all Seeing Eye of Uncle Sam watches the same way that the jealous god they can’t influence does?

I agree with them, government should not be watching our every move on cameras and databases at all times of our lives. However, I would hate it just as much, if not more, if a being that I had no direct contact with and no possible way to influence were to be keeping tabs on whether I choose to eat a crab or not. I am a hypocrite, just like you…but I am at least in sync with logic. I want to help others, but want to also be self-sufficient and never need help, I think family is important even though I do not talk to mine at all…I am a hypocrite, but choosing one watchdog over another and getting happy over it sounds like a mental disability, I hope “nature” gets rid of this variance of my tribe because they confuse the fuck out of me.

Color Blind

I hate the idea of race, the use of race is a separator is an un-evolved rational. It’s an antiquated method of social grouping that was at one time during our evolution was required for our very survival. I can’t stand it, and it makes me very upset. I was us to evolve; I want Color Blindness to become the next social epidemic that plagues the minds humanity that is predisposed racial separation.
In high school I was introduced to implicit test. I recently just re-took the test with a score of “Little to no automatic preference between Black and White people,” this score is by about 17% of the population that took this test. I have scored the same thing throughout the years, except for once if memory serves where I received a “slight preference for Black” assessment. I have taken this test at least 5 times in my life over the years. Here is the link to the test should you want to take it as well. https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/user/featuredtasks/relg2009/fdirect.htm
This test made me think in high school, what exactly did this mean in the real world? I had always knew that I really didn’t care about the color of your skin but how come others did? What made them have an automatic predisposition to one race or another? This test isn’t an answer to any of these; in all honesty I think it’s a test to see how cultural influences impact your response to visual stimuli.
Rather than spend and eternity defining the method for which man evolved a sense of racial prejudice, I will simply state, its woven into our minds. You and I have a genetic predisposition to separate and group with people that are like me. Much like the animals in the pound, who under close observation group with similar animals; we human beings evolved to stick alongside those like us. Like the dogs, it was probably out of concern for one’s own safety and wellbeing, you different than us, and you may be a threat. This is a thread in the fabric of our existence, weaved into the core of the reptilian brain we all possess.
This “animal instinct” or learned behavior stored in the memory of out generations past has tempted our cerebral cortex to continue the tradition and pass along this redundant information to those following us. We have learned to cope with these behaviors such as rape and brutality; we have evolved a social structure that looks upon these savage acts as beyond humanity, even though it is literally at our core. We have grown up, and most of us have moved beyond these primal urges that we continue to see in the wild in less evolved creatures. However, racism is still the one abstract we cannot seem to shake.
Ask a blind man what race he prefers is like asking a deaf man what music he likes, there will be no cohesive answer because (had he not been born with sight/ hearing) he would not know the context of the question. Racism cannot exist in a man that sees no color; this animal inheritance is muted and discarded by the upper levels of the brain. If we were all so lucky to have that autonomous mental faculty turn recessive, racism and separatism would disappear. Being color blind would bring the end racial preference, ignoring the fact that one is black and the other is white is as simple as ignoring the color of another eyes, as that color too is perpetuated by distribution of melanin. Tell me, what is the color of the eyes of the person you see mostly every day at work or school? Few would answer this question correctly even about their loved ones. We are blind to the color of others eyes because we did not evolved looking at the color of the eyes of potential enemies, only the color of their skin was clear enough to see before our ancestors began to run, or fight. Just like our forefathers, if we do not see the color we do not register it as a threat, therefor we have no problem with communal relations with those of different color eyes.
Be color blind, stop noticing the difference and accept we all have melanin, mute the part of your mind that sees melanin of the skin as anything different than the melanin of the eyes.

Read the Bible is not a good answer…

My friends and family have a wide variety of beliefs; I for one have an “interesting” set of beliefs myself. This post is not about my ever changing and growing “spiritual” philosophy or ideas because the moment I post any such thing, the next day I may have learned a new bit of info, or seen a new truth in person that would alter or annihilate the previous days writing. Today, I will write about the answer I get from most Christians “read the bible.” As if they assume, once I tell them I am an agnostic who lives his day to day as if I were an atheist, that I have never read the bible (or any religions text) and that I must be too heretical to heed the word of god.
**Let me clarify something, I am agnostic as that definition is the closest to my beliefs based on my logic, which like any logic of man can and probably is faulted. I am an atheist in my day to day life style as I do not pray, request of even consider god in my life decisions and actions. For all intents and purposes I am atheist, but due to the nature of a higher power being unknowable at this time, I am classified agnostic. That is all you will hear about my philosophy at this moment.**
First I will state a truth; I have read the bible 4 times in my life, granted they were different versions. I first read the King James Bible in middle school, as that was what was given to me at my Lutheran baptism when I was a baby. Next was the English Standard Version in the first year of high school, as that seemed to be more contemporary and easier to read kind of English because let’s face it, KJV is just as bad as Shakespeare at times. Next in 11th and 12th grade was Young's Literal Translation (revised) because I personally don’t speak any ancient language and when I read “literal translation” I figured “hey, this is about as close as I’ll get right!?” And finally about 5 years ago I read through Thomas Jefferson’s bible, I grant you that counting this is a bit of a cheat but I think this gives a very good basis for the philosophy that the New Testament tries to convey, so I do count it among my 4. To be honest, it’s my favorite of all of them!
So, I have read the bible a few times even if you don’t count the Jefferson Bible.
Now, on to my contention: Saying “read the bible it will answer (insert question here), and you will understand” is assuming that first of all I am lazy and do not do my research before asking questions, I take that as an insult. But let’s just say that you don’t mean to insult but are just trying to convey that the answer is in this book, just in case I wasn’t aware, still no; the answers are not all in there because my questions were derived from that very book you are referring me back to. Questions like, if Jesus died for all our sins of the past, present and future (Hebrews 10:12-14) how come original sin is not included in that forgiveness? How come once he died we didn’t get a blank slate and all revert to the way Adam and Eve were without shame, pain and labor of childbirth, seemingly endless life, and without the knowing that came from eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil since that’s what lead eventually the first murder by Canaan? If you can find the answer to that question in the bible, not some parable about how humans need to learn how to come close to god because we have free will and choose faith, but an actual logical answer then I will admit that my studious reading of the bible, and the non-canonical books of the Apocrypha, bore no fruit and I should try again. I’ve waiting for that answer since 8th grade by the way; it was one of my first legitimate questions. I say legitimate because like all young men, I was/ am an idiot and sometimes asked ridiculous questions just to prompt the expression of exasperation that seemed to please my pride as I too suffer from its ill effects. Proverbs 29:23 makes my point here; I wish to retain my honor and thus, my first legitimate question is just that, I have yet to hear an answer beyond “read the bible.”
Next was a question that came to me in a dream once. I was about 16 and I wondered how come there is a bible in the first place? Is it a book of history, parables and educational tales, a book of premonitions or is it the word of god? I asked a Christian friend this question this was her answer to the best of my memory “it’s all of those, it is god’s word that tells the history of man, teaches him how to live a good life and get into heaven and tell the future of humanity so we know the god does have a plan.” The next few days were a blur in school, I only thought of her answer; geometry and English class took a back seat to this mental debacle. I thought about what I had read in the bible, what I had seen in life and noticed a stark contrast in the main point about it being god’s word. Why try to tell the prophets, who wrote god’s word, anything if we as human beings can never understand gods plan? Why give us mere mortals who now know of both good and evil reason a taste of further understanding and yet create us with a lack of ability to comprehend it all? Finally (its sort of a three part question) why create man with the ability to comprehend imperfection if it wasn’t expected of them to stay that way? Again, there pare parables in the bible about man being unequal to angels which may have the potential for understanding, but that’s still leaves me wanting in the sense that why make man, give him a book and never expect him to truly understand until they are in heaven when they no longer needs its lessons since heaven itself is perfection? You may say it’s not for us to know gods reason for this just like it’s not for the lower level employee to question and know what the board of directors and CEO are doing, fair answer sure but how come it’s not for us as mortal humans to know, especially when you give us an “answer” in the bible but are intentionally vague about it? That’s like the CEO giving out books to all the workers knowing that they would never understand it. The bible will not answer this question either, please cite this answer if it does...

I am not an ass

I’m not an ass.

You know, I hate re-registering to vote. Every time I check that “democrat” box next to party affiliation I feel like I am committing a felony, knowingly lying on a federal document. Every year since high school, I have consistently grew father and father apart from both the democrats and republicans. I am an equidistant from every party there, and any party that I ascribed to would be in part a lie.

I am not a democrat, I do not think that welfare should be easy to hold on to and I think it should be contingent on a persons will to better themselves and the life of their families.  I also hate the fact that democrats have no balls to get what they want, they are the party of politically correct, the ones that take offence to everything and offed no one. Get your hands dirty you jack asses.

I am not a republican, I do not think that welfare should be easy to hold on to and I think it should be contingent of a companies will to better the lives to their employees and the employees’ family. I hate the fact that Republicans consistently manipulate the facts to suit their argument, and whether they are “in the end” correct they had to make people believe in it through fallacies and political rallying off mindless troupes. I hate the mix of religious jargon in the majority of their underlying message and neglect to acknowledge that America is a secular nation.

I am not a libertarian, I think there should be some welfare to encourage and help people get back up on their feet to a reasonable point where they can afford to enjoy a vacation once a year and to buy their family and loved ones gifts at the holidays. If the government didn’t help these people, not many would. Celebrities and the wealthy do contribute to good causes, but a good cause isn’t a good solution. A good solution is a good cause and only the government will actually provide it since they are the ones supposed to take no profit and are hired to do what we ask them. I also think that drugs with the ability to instantly kill someone due to accidental overdose should not be unregulated.

I am not an independent; I actually like my right to vote for people in an office before I am left with the lesser of two idiots evils. I am not inclined to give up my voting liberties and electorate impact for the title of being a free thinking person with no allegiance to a philosophy.

I am not an ass; I do not have a trunk, nor does an arrow through and initialized “There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch" inspire many good feelings. I am a party of one, of nothing, of no party separation, no label and no symbol evoking patriotism and illogical attachment to people I’d wish were like-minded but simply play a role to fit their agenda. I am person, not a corporation, not a partisan snob or an all knowing all understanding member of the electorate. I do not want a television 30 second spot, a pamphlet or brochure to be able to summarize my ever evolving educated philosophy. I am member of the humanity party, my philosophy is to help those in need and see that those who can help are not too greedy (because let’s face it, a little greed can be good). I am the lone ranger who lies on a government form every time I change zip codes just so I can keep my rights as a citizen to vote for someone better than the not as bad as the other guy candidate. Call me an ass on paper, I’ll never be an ass.

The fish out of water

Last week was my first week at my new job. It started out as expected, the first day was pretty boring, the second a little less and 3rd….you catch my drift. By the end of the week, I had done a personal favor for one of the employees (hacked into the root account on a Mac) and been invited to lunch (free!!) by one of the sales guys for the radio station. So you would think, hey sounds great right! Not so fast…
I work for Salem Communications, a for-profit Christian/ Conservative communications company specializing in Radio, publishing and spreading the “good word.” I took the job because all I do here is fix computer, domain and network problems…no need for a religious creed to do that right? I mean, I figured that since I am going corporate, I would probably dislike much of what any corporation would be doing so what’s the difference between working for a Christian radio company verses some PR firm Red Bull or Real Estate broker who made millions on the housing bubble. It’s all the same to me in that respect. So I took the job, decent pay, benefits and the people seemed nice enough…no complaints
Then on Friday, the sales man invited me to lunch. I was a bit turned off by his demeanor but figured this is how you get liked at a new job; you go to lunch with the veterans. Like all great sales men, he waited till I had said yes to tell me it’s at a church about 45 minutes away, there will be a speaker (there’s at least 30 more minutes at this thing) and then the 45 minute ride back. The whole thing ate 2.5 hours out of my day, got to love a Christian sales man. The food wasn’t anything to write home about, or even here for that matter. But let’s not dwell on such matters let’s focus our attention on the man who spoke, a man named Edward M. Kobel, President and COO of DeBartolo Development; he likes to be called “Ed” by his flock at Calvary Chapel in St. Pete.
First let me tell you the ride over there was the sales guy talking about how he started in business, how much he made doing that and how much money he has right now. I tell you, this guy liked talking about money. Then we got there, we walked in, and again the idea of money struck me none the less due to the 45 minutes of “this is how I became rich enough to live on a golf course in one of the 3 wealthiest zip codes in central Florida.” It was very nice inside, marble floors, a play area for the kiddies, a resting area with wall jacks for laptops, a nice statue… Then we walked up to the sign-in area, where I got a name tag, was asked for my business card and proceeded to fill out a survey. The survey had three questions; I lied about all of them. We sat, we ate and then Ed took the floor.
Ed seemed like a smart guy, energetic but not overbearing, well-spoken but not scripted clean cut but still realistic looking. He seemed like a genuine guy, who just happened to have a lot of money. Nothing to hate the guy for, so he is successful go him! My issue comes with how he got there, the message he delivered and the portrayal of the Christian he says he is.
Ed is the son of Edward J. DeBartolo, Sr. who was pretty much the guy who invented your local shopping mall. I suppose that is a lot to live up to! But his life was estranged from his father; he grew up with his mother, a life that was not easy from the way he made it sound. In fact, it seemed like he and I had something’s in common about how we grew up. He joined the military, he left the military, started working for his former Colonel…and then he branched out on his own. He got into real estate using his GI money to get an initial investment property which he and his military buddies fixed up cheap and flipped in, in his words, a month later for a large profit…this seemed to be his game and he was a self-admitted shallow and greedy slum lord. He met his wife, and at the behest of buddies in the real estate business, he became a Christian, lost a large sum of money and faced bankruptcy, he struggles through it (an admirable quality) and began to rebuild. He then re-united with his father’s other son, who gave him the keys to DeBartolo Development. And that ladies in gentlemen, is how a millionaire is born.
It may shock you that I take some issue with this situation I was in, and this man that was speaking. But let me illuminate my particular view point. I was in this grandiose church, surrounded by a bunch of networking Christian business men and women listening to a guy who says he’s a Christian, is a millionaire, has a lesbian daughter that he says “turned her back on G-d,” and gives to the Christian based charities.
First of all, have you ever been the only person in a room surrounded by a bunch of people that have the same delusions about mythical supernatural beings? I can now say that I have. I was the only atheist in that room. I was a total fish out of water, which I found ironic. Ed told a joke, about his early days in with the other real estate fellows before he was a Christian. He said he used to come up with excuses why he didn’t want to go to church, and one of the things was that he was “caught up on the whole Darwin thing.” Everyone, I mean every single delusional soul, laughed at that one. For a minute there, I thought that Dave Chappell had shown up based on how loud these people got.  Of course, I didn’t get the joke at all, completely over my head. I felt like I was missing out on something really funny having to do with Darwin, I know the Beagle is a funny word but couldn’t account for the laughter I was surrounded by. So, I sat there dumbstruck…I later came to conclusion, they must think that Darwin is as crazy as I think they are!
He talked a little about being a slumlord, and that’s how he got his foot in the financial world. It was like; everyone around me instantly forgave him for how he must have treated his tenants or what kind of code breaking, cheap repaired P.O.S. he sold to some sucker looking to get ahead himself. They instantly looked past the fact that he was a total sleaze who got ahead doing questionable legal and certainly immoral things.
You know, I am not one to judge, I have done things in my past I am not proud of. I should have been in prison a couple times by my count. However, I do not go around portraying myself as a self-righteous business man whose prayers have been answered by the invisible man sitting on a cloud. I am not the one who is granted passage through the pearly gates of life (of course there are not gates in death) because of hypocritical judges who become rich even though their precious bible rich will not go to heaven. Just sayin’…

Government trends... Fairy tales are not real even on Capitol Hill...

I don't get why there is a debate over the debit ceiling. The U.S. took in less money from the nation’s wealth in 2000 instead of paying off debt with the surplus. Now the nation needs money or it will go broke. If this were me, I would go back to the type of budget I had when I got to the surplus! To make this into an analogy, I had a job that was paying great, told my employer that I would like to take a pay cut, and then wasted all my savings on maintaining my current lifestyle. If it were me, I would get my old pay back either by telling my employer to give me a raise (remove tax cuts), or find a new job. Being this is a country, and we can't exactly just get a new job, the only option is to remove the tax cuts.

Now you can say that when we gave the tax cuts for the wealth and corporations in the early 2000s, it created jobs and you wouldn’t be lying per say. Over the span of 8 years (2000-2008) roughly 3.5 million private jobs and 1.7 million government jobs were created.  So you would think that cutting the taxes for the nation’s wealth increases the amount of money the government can take in since more people are working and wages can go up etc. This would be true if the economy worked as imaginations in Washington thinks it does. Unfortunately this is not Wonderland, Snow White is working in the mines with Dopey and Cinderella is on welfare.

If we limit our scope here to just the figures above it would look like we are doing great. However, during that same span of time, the country lost about 3.2 million jobs in the goods producing, wealth creating jobs but increased in the service providing jobs, which is where those first two numbers came from. What this means is the jobs that earn money and fund the government went down, and the things that sap money and cost the government went up. While at the same time we cut our revenue by creating wealthy tax cuts. To sum this section up, we increase our spending, while lowering or ability to generate income and also giving tax breaks to the most likely people to afford it the sudden paradigm shift.

Let’s look at it from a historical point of view rather than strictly a numbers game, since as we all know number can be manipulated. For this exercise let’s first look at Reagan’s era. In the early 80s, Reagan got elected based off his movie start good looks, charismatic delivery of his script and an astonishing ability to convince people not to look at facts. He rode his way to the white house on a cloud of a make believe budget crisis claiming that debit was out of control. The fact was that the national debt, compared to national income, was the lowest in 50 years. Here is a graph. Clearly, the debt percentage Vs  GDP (basically the measure of our national income) when Reagan got elected was fantastic. The previous administration (Carter) helped nominally in lowering the debt but not enough to say that he was influential in the trend the last 40 years had given him. To be fair, he had taken office during a national energy crisis which he tackled with domestic deregulation, and the tail end of recession unemployment’s trend was getting higher and through all the opposition in congress he arguably did very little either way for the nation.  So we can say without any bias that what happened after Reagan took office were his own administrations doing. Over his 8 year term, he increased the national debt over %20, when it had been its lowest since WW2. His first year policies namely the tax cuts for the wealthy, lead to the worst year in 40+ years, as far as the debt was concerned.  By the time the 1^st Bush took office, debt was in an upswing, and his policies only continue that trend adding over 13% debt during his tenure.

Any trend in life carries momentum, which help propel the trend. At this point Bush contributed to the trend and then left office. Bill Clinton took the reins with over a $3.4 Trillion debt with mounting interest. He not only had to stop the current trend but reverse it. In his first term, he managed to halt the growing debt trend, though interest was still a problem, and even managed to squeak by a small (<1%) decrease in debt. In his second term he managed to create a surplus which and lowering debt by 9%, had this trend continued it could have helped pay off the debts accrued from Reagan and Bush #1.

You see the theories at work in all of this is that, if you lower wealthy taxes, it will give the incentive for the wealthy to work harder themselves to make more money, give pay raises to employees (help the middle class ect.) so they produce more and investing. Thus everyone would be paying more taxes cumulatively, even though the rates are low. For all the years this theory was put into practice, it never worked. As Clinton said in his campaign, “It’s the economy stupid!” Remove the tax cuts enacted by the second Bush, this will increase revenue. Once that is done, balancing the budget will be easier since the income level will be up again and paying bills will be easier. As far as raising the debt ceiling, sure raise it without being able to gain funds to pay for it and allow the country to lose its credit status. Yes that sounds like a plan that will work! Let’s teach our children that the key to having good credit is to not have the money to pay for you ever increasing amount of debt.

Healthcare: the next generation

It is the year 2011. Humanity has come a long way in just the last 2000 years. On this day 2 millennia ago (wow sounds epic when you say it that way huh!) the romans were a dominant force, the west has hanging off the edge of the earth and the moon was always white and not that sometimes ugly brown color we see in the modern era. At that time, the idea of human rights was in its infancy; Aristotle had presented a general idea or civil rights about 350 years before Common Era, but universal human rights were just a speck of thought amongst that revolutionary philosophy. It would be about 1800 years or so before Human rights in the sense we can relate to today would be outlined in the Twelve Articles, in the early 1500s.

At that time, the idea of a doctor was someone who may have put leaches on you to cure an illness. You would hire a man who castrates pigs to perform a caesarean on your wife. Obviously healthcare was not something that was sanitary, proactive or effectively efficient. The way I see it, if you had to go to a doctor in the 1500s, might as well make you next errand a stop at the mortician to provide your measurements.

Naturally anything that happened between 1500s and 70 years ago, with respect to healthcare, was minimal and probably overlooked because a doctor was little more than the man selling snake oil out of a taco bus. Today, that is vastly different, we have over the counter medicines that help prevent symptoms of the flu, relieve head aches and even help prevent unwanted pregnancy…none of this was even imagined less than two hundred years ago. The last 70 years has enriched our knowledge of humanities illnesses and health dilemmas; as the healthcare field becomes more mature, our view at what is a right to humanity should be considered. At the very least the definition of civil rights should be amended to include preventative health care.

The Declaration of Independence, the second section has the phrase common knowledge to everyone but whose meaning is often skewed and turns into a punch line for American politicians:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Had the pen masters and architects of the American way of life foreseen the advancements of medicine, I assure you most certainly that they would have said that explicitly as well. The premise of life is health, in this I mean that life cannot exist with you first being born with some form of health. You do not need to be perfectly healthy (ex. 10 fingers/toes) to be alive, but you do have to be able to pass oxygen to your cells and convert food into useful energy for your body to use to continue to live. Had the procedure and the methods used to ensure basic health been performed in the 1700s It is indisputable that the founder would have included healthcare with life since they do obviously want us to live with liberty and have the ability to pursue happiness, having poor health would make it more difficult, and sometimes impossible to obtain liberty and freely pursue happiness. Of course, making healthcare a right would not alleviate these difficulties for some, but they would make some of those who would otherwise be on an unequal playing field from the start more able to achieve these goals. A simple example would be a child born with a malady that prevents speaking, healthcare being a right would have the malady corrected and able to speak throughout their life rather than being a mute who has ambitions of being a singer but because they only have a right to live and not to healthcare, and thus are not able to pursue their happiness i.e. to sing.

I am basically saying that had they known that we can cure disease with a shot, solve birth defects with a scalpel and give the sick medicines that made them well, the architects would have included it. They not included it because at the time, medicine was leaches, fixing defects was cutting it off which may have led to more problems and probably death, and giving someone medicine was tantamount to getting them drunk enough so they don’t feel the thing that hurts. Would you include in that famous phrase “life, liberty, plenty of leeches, and pursuit of happiness.” Probably not, and that’s why they didn’t!