This is why Westboro Baptist Church is a joke

[kandrathe]

I don't think creationism should be allowed to be taught in schools, does that make me an intolerant atheist? If so, oh well. Keep that shit in the church or at home.

Yes, you are intolerant. Which is why you called it shit. Religions can be taught in philosophy, religious or humanities classes. I have no problem optional classes being taught even in public schools. If you wanted to learn more about Islam, Judaism, Christianity, so be it. But, we should teach science in the science class (Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573), although I feel the science class should be sensitive to how science data and religious beliefs clash.

You can't prevent people from praying in public though, as that is akin to preventing freedom of thought which is not only wrong, but impossible.

It doesn't stop the extremists from trying. Ask a Muslim how easy it is to practice their faith in America. And, for example, "A federal appeals court recently overturned a lower court ruling that had declared the National Day of Prayer to be unconstitutional." The National Day of Prayer is not a mandate.

[Jester]

And, for example, "A federal appeals court recently overturned a lower court ruling that had declared the National Day of Prayer to be unconstitutional." The National Day of Prayer is not a mandate.

The question is not the constitutionality. That should be quite clear - it isn't, and the original ruling said as much. It was overturned on grounds of standing, not interpretation. Apparently having national prayer day foisted on you just isn't damage enough to bring a case, which of course means that it's almost impossible to challenge an obviously unconstitutional act of government. Fun with loopholes!

The separation of church and state has long been more an ideal to aspire to, than anything actually practiced in the United States. The irreligious will continue to have religion foisted upon them by their government for no defensible reason, because religion is treated as definitionally benign and harmless by its defenders, so long as it is "generic" enough to appease the "popular" denominations.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

That's simply not true. While discrimination is alive and well in the South (and not just in the South), both the laws and popular opinion are far more liberal than they were in the 1950s, let alone the 1900s or 1850s. Nobody except fringe lunatics are suggesting returning to an era of slavery, or even segregation.

You can argue that the change did not come from the civil war, although I think that's a difficult case to argue. But you can't argue that the change didn't happen, because it obviously did.

I'm not arguing that the change didn't happen. I'm arguing that the war didn't change much due to imposition of Jim Crow laws. Even with federal court decisions, and the use of federal troops people wouldn't be forced into being nice to their fellow citizens. Only when peoples attitudes changed, did the conditions for blacks improve.

They did try that. Anti-slavery advocates had been at work for well over a century by the 1860s. Compromise rather than confrontation was the order of the day throughout the 1850s. But when it became clear that the South could not abide a union that eroded their traditional norms and institutions, that is to say, slavery, they declared independence.

The tide was changing to abolish slavery, and rapidly. Why couldn't the US have its own William Wilberforce? Had the northern abolitionists and the slave owning south had stronger leadership from Lincoln in providing reason and good will towards each other, and had the north been willing to compensate the slave owners for their loses, then the US could have followed Britain's lead with their own peacefully acquired Emancipation Act.

Nobody has ever seriously challenged the right to public prayer. The objections are about state power, not individual rights: one must not invoke religion when cloaked, however loosely, in the mantle of state authority. By conflating the two, you're generating a strawman of intolerant atheists.

See my response to FIT and the case against the National Day of Prayer...

[Jester]

The tide was changing to abolish slavery, and rapidly. Why couldn't the US have its own William Wilberforce?

That's WHY the South separated. That's the whole point. The US did have its own William Wilberforces. Frederick Douglass ring any bells? Articulate, moral intellectuals made a persuasive case against slavery, and the North, an ascending power who did not benefit much from slaves, believed them. The South, a diminishing power dominated by a wealthy slaveowning class that saw their source of riches and privilege directly endangered, separated from the Union to preserve their substantial, but dwindling, status.

This was practically inevitable. Compromise was tried, and failed. Unless, of course, we live in rosy counterfactual land, like so:

Had the northern abolitionists and the slave owning south had stronger leadership from Lincoln in providing reason and good will towards each other, and had the north been willing to compensate the slave owners for their loses, then the US could have followed Britain's lead with their own peacefully acquired Emancipation Act.

I'm sure everyone would have lived happily ever after.

See my response to FIT and the case against the National Day of Prayer...

You do get the difference between individuals and non-state groups praying, and the *Federal Government* endorsing prayer? Like, maybe, that the Constitution binds one, and not the other? Exactly that same distinction that I told you you're ignoring?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

The separation of church and state has long been more an ideal to aspire to, than anything actually practiced in the United States. The irreligious will continue to have religion foisted upon them by their government for no defensible reason, because religion is treated as definitionally benign and harmless by its defenders, so long as it is "generic" enough to appease the "popular" denominations.

The point of disagreement is whether government employees, and people in positions of authority have the right to express their religiousness. It is a conflict between an alleged infringement of establishment, with every persons (including the President) first amendment rights to have free exercise of religion. I agree though, that the NDP Act establishing a fixed day by Congress is unconstitutional.

If we had an Islamic president who wanted to declare August a voluntary month of fasting. I wouldn't have an issue with it. Would you?

---

This was practically inevitable. Compromise was tried, and failed. Unless, of course, we live in rosy counterfactual land, like so: I'm sure everyone would have lived happily ever after.

Ah, but the British were so much more evolved and didn't have the same pigheadedness as our southern slave owners. Why did it work for Britain in 1933?

You do get the difference between individuals and non-state groups praying, and the *Federal Government* endorsing prayer? Like, maybe, that the Constitution binds one, and not the other? Exactly that same distinction that I told you you're ignoring?

See my response. I do get the difference. I believe all people have the freedom to express their religiousness (and yes, care and guidelines need to be established for public schools). But, Congress shall make no law... That part is the infringement on establishment.

[Jester]

The point of disagreement is whether government employees, and people in positions of authority have the right to express their religiousness. It is a conflict between an alleged infringement of establishment, with every persons (including the President) first amendment rights to have free exercise of religion. I agree though, that the NDP Act establishing a fixed day by Congress is unconstitutional.

Government employees are entirely free to express whatever religious beliefs or perform whatever rituals, when they are *not* acting as agents of the state. When they put on the "government" hat, they are bound by the constitution not to endorse religion.

The president can stand up and say whatever he likes, in his role as a private citizen, or expressing his personal opinions. But as soon as he is wearing the mantle of the presidency, he is acting as the state, and must refrain from religious endorsement.

If we had an Islamic president who wanted to declare August a voluntary month of fasting. I wouldn't have an issue with it. Would you?

Of course I would. That is *endorsement of religion*, which is exactly what government is prohibited from doing, both by constitutional law and by principle. Adding voluntarism into the mix is simply a red herring - "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done." The appearance of endorsement matters.

It fails the Lemon test. It aids religion. It has no secular purpose at all, let alone having a primarily secular purpose.

-Jester

[Jester]

Ah, but the British were so much more evolved and didn't have the same pigheadedness as our southern slave owners. Why did it work for Britain in 1933?

1833. And it worked because the relative influence of slaveowners and the interest of non-slaveowners in slavery was so much smaller. There was no part of Britain that was going to break off and form its own country. Liverpool and Manchester may have had Confederate sympathies, but switching to Egyptian and Indian cotton was easier than going to war against London...

None of this was true for the Southern US, whose economy was overwhelmingly based in slavery, and whose relative prestige and wealth would be greatly harmed by emancipation. There were no easy substitutes. When it became obvious no compromise could be enough, they had to accept or reject the liberty of slaves. They chose rejection and war, the obvious course from their economic and social interests.

But, Congress shall make no law... That part is the infringement on establishment.

Well, first, the executive has quite a lot of power to make what amount to laws, and should be bound by the constitution appropriately - executive power should not be an end run around the constitution, though sadly it often is. Second, when the government creates a "National Day," as you have acknowledged, that is a law, and therefore must be bound. Add those two principles together, and it's unconstitutional no matter which way you slice it.

The framers were quite clear what they meant, in terms of the relationship of church and state. Madison and Jefferson both expressed the belief that there should be a total barrier between religion and government. Insofar as we follow their interpretation, that is how it should be.

Where the line falls in practice is for the courts to decide. It is telling, I think, that the courts have almost universally dodged the question, dismissing whatever they can on standing grounds, rather than ruling on the constitutionality of government trespass into religion. It seems like cowardice to me, but the Supremes have typically been reluctant to make rulings bolder than absolutely necessary. When it does come time to decide, the constitutional question seems obvious. The question of general principle seems equally so, and well accepted in almost all first-world democracies.

-Jester

[DeeBye]

I feel the science class should be sensitive to how science data and religious beliefs clash.

Why? People's religious beliefs don't have a thing to do with science. If science is at odds with the various religious beliefs of groups of people, it's not the fault of science.

I've seen this argument before, and it always strikes me as a way of religious people to get their religious beliefs thrust into the teaching of science through the back door.

[FireIceTalon]

^^Pretty much how I feel, more or less. Religion and science are completely incompatible, period, and it amazes me how those of faith (especially Christian Fundamentalists) can deny scientific evidence. Evidence that has, time and again, destroyed the same repetitive arguments that they try and use to this day. This is why I'm against teaching creationism in schools, because it is essentially saying that it's ok to teach things that have been proven a fallacy in the classroom to young, impressionable minds. If I had kids and I ever found out the school they were attending was teaching creationism, they would be going to be signed up to a new school within the hour (home school if need be, heh). I want my kids to be learning how to think critically by reason and rationality, not in "believing" in some made up sky wizard based on mythology and superstition. If this makes me intolerant, don't know what to tell you, but I strongly believe this should not be taught in public schools. A private or religious school is another thing.

[DeeBye]

This is why I'm against teaching creationism in schools, because it is essentially saying that it's ok to teach things that have been proven a fallacy in the classroom to young, impressionable minds.

I'm not against the idea of religious education in schools, as long as it is taught in a sociological sense. Religion has a huge impact on the way society functions, and it would be foolish to ignore that in schools. Religion and religious beliefs can be taught in a useful way in schools, as long as the focus is on "This is what some people believe, and this is what other people believe" as opposed to "This is what you should believe period end of sentence".

Of course, none of this belongs in a science class.

[kandrathe]

Government employees are entirely free to express whatever religious beliefs or perform whatever rituals, when they are *not* acting as agents of the state. When they put on the "government" hat, they are bound by the constitution not to endorse religion.

I figured this would be a sticky point. I don't agree.

Any perceived trappings of religion could be seen to endorse... "Endorse" could be as simple as the President having a bible on his bookshelf, or happening to say God bless you!" when you sneeze. "Endorse" as used by you in this context is too vague. Public officials are also citizens with the right of free exercise, as long as that free exercise is personal without sanction by the institution. A clever person would just make the declaration for a "Day of Devotion and Service" -- one can be a devoted atheist after all.

It clearly states in the Constitution, "establishment". "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

Having a moment of prayer at a public function is not the establishment of anything, as much as it might annoy those who think it's silly. There should be no preference shown, so these things are generally worded anyway. In some cases, I think the Lemon test's "secular purpose" constraint violates the free exercise clause as it is applied to individuals.

[kandrathe]

I feel the science class should be sensitive to how science data and religious beliefs clash.

Why? People's religious beliefs don't have a thing to do with science.

Sure they do. We all live in the observable, measurable world, the world of science. And, the physical world is also a part of the world of religion. Religion has a great history of scholarship. Archeology is science. Mendel, the father of genetics was an Augustinian friar. Or, more modern ones like, Professor, and Father Stanley Jaki of Seton Hall.

If science is at odds with the various religious beliefs of groups of people, it's not the fault of science.

I'm not saying to back off on the science. I'm saying that we should allow people to make up their own minds, and not castigate people for their beliefs. Even within the religious community, views are widely divergent. As FIT pointed out, on the extreme side fundamentalists calculate the age of the Earth based on counting the generations within the Bible and adhere to a strict view of biblical inerrancy. So, yes, you show them a millions year old fossil and describe carbon dating, or plate tectonics... ... then their heads explode. So, they need to also chill a bit, and decide whether or not to use their "god given brain" to consider the facts presented before them.

I've seen this argument before, and it always strikes me as a way of religious people to get their religious beliefs thrust into the teaching of science through the back door.

It doesn't need to be a war. If you throw the facts out there and let people make up their own minds, then its not threatening. It's not threatening for either side. But, if we continue to widen the divide between them, things only get worse. You end up with Branch Davidians, the Raelian cult, Heaven's Gate, Ted Kazinsky, Neo-Luddism or eventually sectarian led riots and violence. Scientists need to stop being another faction, and patiently consider the unbelievers as prospective allies rather than enemies. I'd rather trust my public school to present the information in a way that doesn't force my child to choose between evangelical fundamentalism, and militant activists for New Atheism. Because if that's how we draw the sides, all of our children will be schooled at home, or in a factional cloister unprepared to deal with the reality of diversity of thought.

Science is clearly about observable phenomena, and religion is clearly about spiritual phenomena. Religions primary function is describe the relationship between man and his Creator. Whereas, sciences primary function is describe the relationship between man and creation (or universe if you like). And, between them, government serves to govern the relationships between each of us. I like Stephen Jay Gould's direction on Non-overlapping magisteria, although in practice they both muddle about the middle a bit. But, it's a forgivable offense.

[DeeBye]

Scientists need to stop being another faction, and patiently consider the unbelievers as prospective allies rather than enemies.

I'm done with this discussion. Good luck.

[Taem]

I've seen this argument before, and it always strikes me as a way of religious people to get their religious beliefs thrust into the teaching of science through the back door.

It doesn't need to be a war. If you throw the facts out there and let people make up their own minds,

Good advise. Pardon my ire, but if any person, any at all of the Judeo-Christian faith actually "read" the bible instead of letting it's verses be indoctrinated into them, maybe they would know "the facts". The contradictions in the creation in Genesis alone could be pointed out by a preschooler. And, no offense to any Christians out there, why anyone would call themselves believers in Christ when the bible itself proves Christ could not be Jews messiah? This is not heresy, but fact - check my document:

See my chapter on Jesus' Ancestry and Jesus Contradictions. (FYI, underlined texts are clickable links to other parts of the doc or to online reference)

Myths and legends are fine to use as teaching tools, but in no way do I want these sexist**, prejudice**, and racist** fantasies projected in the classroom as fact! And to comment on what you said here:

I'd rather trust my public school to present the information in a way that doesn't force my child to choose between evangelical fundamentalism, and militant activists for New Atheism.

It's not about teaching children Atheism, but just teaching them science. It's up to the parents to indoctrinate their children into their own belief structure. Why you even bring up schools teaching kids Atheism is beyond me... trying to make a point Kath? Because it's not about schools teaching "either or", it's about them leaving religion out of schools - a concept seemingly beyond your comprehension so far in this thread.

Science is clearly about observable phenomena, and religion is clearly about spiritual phenomena. Religions primary function is describe the relationship between man and his Creator.

Have fun reading my short document. If that doesn't enlighten you to the problems in the Judeo-Christian "religion", I don't know what will.

** I'd be more than happy to provide tons of links for you proving both old and new testament support for: 1) women subjugating themselves to their husbands and not being allowed to partake in ceremonies which led to their discrimination even in America until only last century, 2) racism, prejudice, and xenophobia towards any non-Abraham lineage resulting in the current state of the middle east, and the hate Muslims feel towards anyone who is not of their race or religion.

[eppie]

My approach is not the civil war. It is to engage people in dialogue, and attempt to change their attitudes (which is where justice and coexistence really need to go in the first place). So I fight to cut government and the reams of unnecessary law, and attempt to get people to be reasonable and coexist peacefully without depending on legalism.

Well both ways, the problem is what the people want will anyway happen.
During most of thefirst 3 quarters of the 20th century, people in the US were allright with the fact that african americans were second class citizens. So they were treated accordingly. So why not enforce the laws (all men are equal) in this case where we can clearly see it was wrong?

Global warming is a whole other thing. People don't have the capabilities to understand what is going on, but you cannot wait untill they all understand to change behaviour (like using less energy).
If you do you get two things; if science is correct and human CO2 emmission cause global warming etc. etc. it will be too late if we let this be lead by people's opinions. And second, again because people are not smart enough to understand these concepts, what you will just get is a kind of presidential election with commercials and infomercials explaining people in a coca-cola way how it works.....from both sides of the story. I am not sure this is your concept of libertarianism.

[eppie]

I'm not against the idea of religious education in schools, as long as it is taught in a sociological sense. Religion has a huge impact on the way society functions, and it would be foolish to ignore that in schools. Religion and religious beliefs can be taught in a useful way in schools, as long as the focus is on "This is what some people believe, and this is what other people believe" as opposed to "This is what you should believe period end of sentence".

Of course, none of this belongs in a science class.

Indeed there are 2 different things here. You can teach children what the opinions of different groups in society are. So some people believe this and some people believe that.
However, you cannot teach children that creationism is a fact, and this happens a lot more than we might think. And not only in the US, but also in countries like Spain, Italy, Poland, the Arabian countries etc.

Science deals with facts, language deals with the exact way of using your language.

Religion is about opinion....they don't call it faith or belief for nothing.

---

It clearly states in the Constitution, "establishment". "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

Having a moment of prayer at a public function is not the establishment of anything, as much as it might annoy those who think it's silly. There should be no preference shown, so these things are generally worded anyway. In some cases, I think the Lemon test's "secular purpose" constraint violates the free exercise clause as it is applied to individuals.

You are wrong. You as a libertarian who is for a smaller government etc. etc., just look at the private sector. If I work for a big consumer goods company....say I am a higher level manager at wallmart. If I am in a public situation (say something with a lot of press present) and I will express myself, just by saying I am an atheist I WILL be fired.
Wall-Mart does not appreciate this and will make sure I will get fired. Probably by law they are not allowed to, but they can probably prove that my comment has been very bad for business.....which is a legitimate cause for firing me.


I personally have absolutely no issues with people saying god bless you when you sneeze, or with people wishing me a happy christmas instead of happy holiday season. We are talking about culture here, not religion. But president or presidential candidates making remarks about america and the will of God (like Romney did recently) should be illegal.
Using (your) religion to gain more votes should have no place in a western democracy.

[eppie]

It doesn't need to be a war. If you throw the facts out there and let people make up their own minds, then its not threatening. It's not threatening for either side. But, if we continue to widen the divide between them, things only get worse. You end up with Branch Davidians, the Raelian cult, Heaven's Gate, Ted Kazinsky, Neo-Luddism or eventually sectarian led riots and violence. Scientists need to stop being another faction, and patiently consider the unbelievers as prospective allies rather than enemies. I'd rather trust my public school to present the information in a way that doesn't force my child to choose between evangelical fundamentalism, and militant activists for New Atheism. Because if that's how we draw the sides, all of our children will be schooled at home, or in a factional cloister unprepared to deal with the reality of diversity of thought.

Scientist are not a faction in this. Scientist do research and deal with facts. Mainly because they think (and they are correct) that science helps us advance our society. They develop new medicine, cleaner cars, solar panels etc. children should learn as early as possible how to think scientifically for it will help them and society in general in increasing our wellbeing.
You can teach evolution because it is a fact not because some people believe in it.

[Jester]

Any perceived trappings of religion could be seen to endorse... "Endorse" could be as simple as the President having a bible on his bookshelf, or happening to say God bless you!" when you sneeze. "Endorse" as used by you in this context is too vague. Public officials are also citizens with the right of free exercise, as long as that free exercise is personal without sanction by the institution. A clever person would just make the declaration for a "Day of Devotion and Service" -- one can be a devoted atheist after all.

Do you not see where that argument shifts abruptly from private to government? What the president reads, or says when someone sneezes, is irrelevant. He is entitled to express himself as he pleases, so long as there is no implication of government sanction. When the president declares a "Day of Something," that's government.

A "Day of Devotion and Service" would just be religion by cowardly prevarication. From Wiktionary:

Devotion:

1) The act or state of devoting or being devoted
2) Feelings of strong or fervent affection; dedication
3) Religious veneration, zeal, or piety
4) (ecclesiastical) A prayer (often found in the plural)

The whole point would be to invoke meanings three and four, while hiding behind one and two. (As if the American president has any reason to ask people to be abstractly devoted to nonspecific things?)

It clearly states in the Constitution, "establishment". "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

Having a moment of prayer at a public function is not the establishment of anything, as much as it might annoy those who think it's silly. There should be no preference shown, so these things are generally worded anyway. In some cases, I think the Lemon test's "secular purpose" constraint violates the free exercise clause as it is applied to individuals.

Prayer endorses religion. Endorsement without secular purpose violates Lemon. The courts have been crystal clear on this one. You want to pray yourself? Go ahead, it's a free country. You want to use your public role to lead people in prayer? Tough luck. Go become a priest if you want to preach.

The whole purpose of the constitution is to bind the actions of people in government. Individual rights do not supersede constitutional limitations! You can't use government to endorse religion (even religion in general) and then claim that's an extension of your private right to free worship, any more than bureaucrats can ignore FOIA requests because they have privacy rights.

-Jester

[Treesh]

You are wrong. You as a libertarian who is for a smaller government etc. etc., just look at the private sector. If I work for a big consumer goods company....say I am a higher level manager at wallmart. If I am in a public situation (say something with a lot of press present) and I will express myself, just by saying I am an atheist I WILL be fired.
Wall-Mart does not appreciate this and will make sure I will get fired. Probably by law they are not allowed to, but they can probably prove that my comment has been very bad for business.....which is a legitimate cause for firing me.

Depending on the state, they don't even need to give a reason. They can fire you at will without cause. I know Missouri is set up that way. You even sign a contract saying that you can quit without having to give notice and they can fire you without having to give a reason. So, yes, they can fire you for saying you're an atheist. I've even had a colleague fired for simply talking to someone trying to get unions into Walmart.

[kandrathe]

Good advise. Pardon my ire, but if any person, any at all of the Judeo-Christian faith actually "read" the bible instead of letting it's verses be indoctrinated into them, maybe they would know "the facts". The contradictions in the creation in Genesis alone could be pointed out by a preschooler. And, no offense to any Christians out there, why anyone would call themselves believers in Christ when the bible itself proves Christ could not be Jews messiah? This is not heresy, but fact - check my document:

You've studied it enough to know that biblical study is not a one dimensional brain wash by theologians. Most Christians approach and address the topic of inconsistency, complementarianism, logical error, and cultural change. King David's invasion campaign conquered and then exterminated his enemies, including every old man, pregnant woman, and infant. Something unthinkable in our day. Only fundamentalists of any faith attempt to reset modern society to ancient norms.

Myths and legends are fine to use as teaching tools, but in no way do I want these sexist**, prejudice**, and racist** fantasies projected in the classroom as fact!

Which is your perception, and your opinion.

It's not about teaching children Atheism, but just teaching them science. It's up to the parents to indoctrinate their children into their own belief structure. Why you even bring up schools teaching kids Atheism is beyond me... trying to make a point Kath? Because it's not about schools teaching "either or", it's about them leaving religion out of schools - a concept seemingly beyond your comprehension so far in this thread.

And... I'm the one who is advocating the less treacherous middle ground. A middle ground where you focus on the science, but be *sensitive* to people's cultural beliefs. School children are also not one dimensional, and need to process what they learn into their understanding of the whole. What is so threatening about finding a middle ground where normal people can coexist in peace?

Have fun reading my short document. If that doesn't enlighten you to the problems in the Judeo-Christian "religion", I don't know what will.

Thanks for the enlightenment. I'm about at Nirvana...

But, seriously, I've studied all this in detail. For many religions, and non-religions... History is rife with people who abuse each other by misusing knowledge, ignoring wisdom, and replaying the same cycles of selfishness, factionalism, and destruction.

Some people want power over other people... they believe they are right and everyone else is wrong, and so they use whatever mechanisms they have, secular or religious, to take control of other peoples lives.

---

You are wrong. You as a libertarian who is for a smaller government etc. etc., just look at the private sector. If I work for a big consumer goods company....say I am a higher level manager at wallmart. If I am in a public situation (say something with a lot of press present) and I will express myself, just by saying I am an atheist I WILL be fired.
Wall-Mart does not appreciate this and will make sure I will get fired. Probably by law they are not allowed to, but they can probably prove that my comment has been very bad for business.....which is a legitimate cause for firing me.

As a libertarian... Any company (everyone) has the right to discriminate, except for those reasons proscribed by law.

Depending on the state, they don't even need to give a reason. They can fire you at will without cause. I know Missouri is set up that way. You even sign a contract saying that you can quit without having to give notice and they can fire you without having to give a reason. So, yes, they can fire you for saying you're an atheist. I've even had a colleague fired for simply talking to someone trying to get unions into Walmart.

"Right to Work" -- more Orwellian double speak. It's actually the right to get fired for any reason whatsoever. But, I really don't have a problem with it so long as people have alternative choices of where to work. It gets troublesome in small towns dominated by one corporation, or in larger contexts by monopolies (or were their collusion between many organizations).