Perkins vs. D'Souza: Morality

In his fourth essay criticizing Dinesh D'Souza, Greg Perkins notes that D'Souza accuses atheists of rebelling against moral rules. After summarizing why that's not the case for atheists who know what they're talking about, Perkins adds:

[T]he religionists are themselves guilty of the sin of moral subjectivism. The essence of subjectivism is acting on whim -- wishing, assuming, feeling, or declaring that facts will align themselves with thoughts and lives. Of course, this gets it exactly backwards: thoughts and lives must align themselves with the facts because facts are absolutes to be discovered, not declared. Merely hoping or asserting something is good doesn't make it so, and it doesn't matter whether we're talking about the whim of a lone subjectivist deciding what is good or bad, the whim of an entire civilization voting on it, or the whim of a "supernatural" mind decreeing it. So the religious who claim to have an absolute morality are really only subjectivists of a supernatural stripe. The trouble for them is that their sort of subjectivism is just as false as any other: God telling Abraham that it is good to slay his innocent son Isaac doesn't make it good. His ordering the enslavement of entire peoples in the Old Testament doesn't make that good.

While Perkins only hints at the full case behind his arguments, he starts down the right track and offers a useful reading list.

There is a point that Perkins doesn't make: D'Souza is psychologizing. He is postulating some psychological rebellion that, in most cases, simply does not exist. (Perkins correctly claims that many atheists resort to the theory of subjectivism, but that's a very different charge.) Thus, D'Souza's argument on this point is not only wrong but ad hominem.

D'Souza on Divine Intervention

Dinesh D'Souza makes two related claims in his latest article. First, even though, as Christopher Hitchens noted, the Judeo-Christian God has been around only for a few thousand years of mankind's existence, this God has been around for 98 percent of the lives of human beings. Second, the fact that people have progressed so much since then only proves that God is real. Here's what D'Souza has to say on this second point:

Suddenly savage man gives way to historical man. Suddenly the naked ape gets his act together. We see civilizations sprouting in Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China, and elsewhere. Suddenly there are wheels and agriculture and art and culture. Soon we have dramatic plays and philosophy and an explosion of inventions and novel forms of government and social organization.

So how did Homo sapiens, heretofore such a slacker, suddenly get so smart? Scholars have made strenuous efforts to account for this but no one has offered a persuasive account. ...

Well, there is one obvious way to account for this historical miracle. It seems as if some transcendent being or force reached down and breathed some kind of a spirit or soul into man, because after accomplishing virtually nothing for 98 percent of our existence, we have in the past 2 percent of human history produced everything from the pyramids to Proust, from Socrates to computer software.

D'Souza's arguments often are hyper-rationalistic, and his latest is no exception. It has no grounding whatsoever in reality, and it ignores obvious conflicting evidence and more plausible explanations.

First, while the Judeo-Christian God is fairly young, that God hardly represented the founding of religion. Instead, primitive superstitions held back mankind for tens of thousands of years. The God of the Jews basically evolved from regional polytheism, then merged with Platonic philosophy to give us Christianity. So far as cultural advances go, D'Souza is crediting the Judeo-Christian God for the hard intellectual work of the Greeks, starting with Thales at about 600 BC.

Second, we do not need any supernatural explanation for the success of mankind. In his book Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond explains that, around 10,000 years ago, people in the Middle East started to domesticate plants and animals in a serious way, which obviously has had a great deal to do with human expansion. As far as the population explosion goes, that didn't happen in a big way until the Industrial Revolution, which was an extension of the Enlightenment, which championed human reason and for the first time since the Christianization of Rome allowed a serious break with religion.

Third, as Greg Perkins explains, even if we didn't know these facts of history, and to the extent that we don't know all of the facts, D'Souza is unjustified in pulling supernaturalism from the hat. Perkins asks, "Since when did not knowing the answer to a puzzle entitle us to go and make one up?"

Fourth, D'Souza misidentifies cause and effect. Is a more sophisticated God the cause of a more sophisticated society, or the consequence of it? Obviously, as people gain the ability to not starve to death, they are able to fund the priestly classes.

What's remarkable to me is how many people seem to find D'Souza's arguments persuasive. The only people such arguments appeal to are detached-from-reality rationalists and those already devoted to their conclusion.

South Dakota Raises Abortion Hurdles

As the Associated Press reports, a South Dakota law may legally be enforced requiring doctors to tell woman that an abortion "will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being." The AP elsewhere notes that the state's attorney general now plans to enforce the law. U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier still must issue a ruling on the law; the debate was whether it could be enforced while under challenge.

What I take to be the relevant statute is reproduced below.

Obviously the law is intended to create onerous restrictions on abortion and come between doctors and their patients. The law micromanages doctors and violates their rights of contract and expression. The law also treats women as mindless dolts who must be parented by the state if they are to make "correct" decisions. Obviously the law is biased toward forcing doctors to provide propaganda against abortion, outside the context of the overall best decision for the woman, that presumably could generate endless litigation against doctors who provide the "wrong" sort of information.

Most importantly, the law deceptively claims that a fetus is "a... living human being" in the sense of being a person. The law thus relies on a gross equivocation between "human" in the sense of containing human DNA, as every cell in our bodies do, and "human" in the sense of being a physically separate and independent human person, which a fetus most certainly is not.

34-23A-10.1. (Delay in implementation or finding of unconstitutionality, see note at end of section) Voluntary and informed consent required--Medical emergency exception--Information provided. No abortion may be performed unless the physician first obtains a voluntary and informed written consent of the pregnant woman upon whom the physician intends to perform the abortion, unless the physician determines that obtaining an informed consent is impossible due to a medical emergency and further determines that delaying in performing the procedure until an informed consent can be obtained from the pregnant woman or her next of kin in accordance with chapter 34- 12C is impossible due to the medical emergency, which determinations shall then be documented in the medical records of the patient. A consent to an abortion is not voluntary and informed, unless, in addition to any other information that must be disclosed under the common law doctrine, the physician provides that pregnant woman with the following information:
(1) A statement in writing providing the following information:
(a) The name of the physician who will perform the abortion;
(b) That the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being;
(c) That the pregnant woman has an existing relationship with that unborn human being and that the relationship enjoys protection under the United States Constitution and under the laws of South Dakota;
(d) That by having an abortion, her existing relationship and her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated;
(e) A description of all known medical risks of the procedure and statistically significant risk factors to which the pregnant woman would be subjected, including:
(i) Depression and related psychological distress;
(ii) Increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide;
(iii) A statement setting forth an accurate rate of deaths due to abortions, including all deaths in which the abortion procedure was a substantial contributing factor;
(iv) All other known medical risks to the physical health of the woman, including the risk of infection, hemorrhage, danger to subsequent pregnancies, and infertility;
(f) The probable gestational age of the unborn child at the time the abortion is to be performed, and a scientifically accurate statement describing the development of the unborn child at that age; and
(g) The statistically significant medical risks associated with carrying her child to term compared to undergoing an induced abortion.
The disclosures set forth above shall be provided to the pregnant woman in writing and in person no later than two hours before the procedure is to be performed. The physician shall ensure that the pregnant woman signs each page of the written disclosure with the certification that she has read and understands all of the disclosures, prior to the patient signing a consent for the procedure. If the pregnant woman asks for a clarification or explanation of any particular disclosure, or asks any other question about a matter of significance to her, the explanation or answer shall be made in writing and be given to the pregnant woman before signing a consent for the procedure and shall be made part of the permanent medical record of the patient;
(2) A statement by telephone or in person, by the physician who is to perform the abortion, or by the referring physician, or by an agent of both, at least twenty-four hours before the abortion, providing the following information:
(a) That medical assistance benefits may be available for prenatal care, childbirth, and
neonatal care;
(b) That the father of the unborn child is legally responsible to provide financial support for her child following birth, and that this legal obligation of the father exists in all instances, even in instances in which the father has offered to pay for the abortion;
(c) The name, address, and telephone number of a pregnancy help center in reasonable proximity of the abortion facility where the abortion will be performed; and
(d) That she has a right to review all of the material and information described in § 34- 23A-1, §§ 34-23A-1.2 to 34-23A-1.7, inclusive, § 34-23A-10.1, and § 34-23A- 10.3, as well as the printed materials described in § 34-23A-10.3, and the website described in § 34-23A-10.4. The physician or the physician's agent shall inform the pregnant woman, orally or in writing, that the materials have been provided by the State of South Dakota at no charge to the pregnant woman. If the pregnant woman indicates, at any time, that she wants to review any of the materials described, such disclosures shall be either given to her at least twenty-four hours before the abortion or mailed to her at least seventy-two hours before the abortion by certified mail, restricted delivery to addressee, which means the postal employee can only deliver the mail to the addressee;
Prior to the pregnant woman signing a consent to the abortion, she shall sign a written statement that indicates that the requirements of this section have been complied with. Prior to the performance of the abortion, the physician who is to perform the abortion shall receive a copy of the written disclosure documents required by this section, and shall certify in writing that all of the information described in those subdivisions has been provided to the pregnant woman, that the physician is, to the best of his or her ability, satisfied that the pregnant woman has read the materials which are required to be disclosed, and that the physician believes she understands the information imparted. (SL 2005, ch 186, §§ 10 and 11 provide: "Section 10. If any court of law enjoins, suspends, or delays the implementation of the provisions of section 7 of this Act, the provisions of § 34-23A-10.1, as of June 30, 2005, are effective during such injunction, suspension, or delayed implementation." "Section 11. If any court of law finds any provisions of section 7 of this Act to be unconstitutional, the other provisions of section 7 are severable. If any court of law finds the provisions of section 7 of this Act to be entirely or substantially unconstitutional, the provisions of § 34-23A-10.1, as of June 30, 2005, are immediately reeffective.")
Source: SL 1980, ch 245, § 1; SL 1993, ch 249, § 4; SL 2003, ch 185, § 2; SL 2005, ch 186, § 7.

The Faith-Based Welfare Debate

The New York Times has reviewed the presidential debate over faith-based welfare (via Politics Without God).

On one side of the debate, Obama fully supports faith-based welfare, but he thinks recipients of the funds should not be able to discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion:

Mr. Obama’s position that religious organizations would not be able to consider religion in their hiring for such programs would constitute a deal-breaker for many evangelicals, said several evangelical leaders, who represent a political constituency Mr. Obama has been trying to court.

"For those of who us who believe in protecting the integrity of our religious institutions, this is a fundamental right," said Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals. "He's rolling back the Bush protections. That's extremely disappointing."

You mean if churches line up for handouts of forcibly transfered wealth, they have to jump through political hoops? Who'd have imagined?

Churches do not have a "fundamental right" to spend tax dollars free of political oversight. However, individuals do have a fundamental right not to finance religious organizations as a matter of freedom of conscience and property rights.

On the other side of the debate, McCain fully supports faith-based welfare, but he thinks recipients of the funds should not be subject to national hiring guidelines: "A McCain campaign spokesman, Brian Rogers, said Mr. McCain 'disagrees with Senator Obama that hiring at faith-based groups should be subject to government oversight.'"

Some readers might have noticed that both sides of the debate are saying very nearly the same thing.

The only person quoted by the article articulating the alternative of liberty is the Reverend Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who told the Times, "It ought to be shut down, not continued."

Amen, brother.

Perkins vs. D'Souza: Gaps

In his third essay criticizing Dinesh D'Souza, Greg Perkins discusses the "God of the gaps."

D'Souza claims that, because science cannot fully explain the history of the universe, the nature of physical laws, and human morality, therefore "the God hypothesis seems unavoidable."

Perkins sensibly replies:

If only his opponents had the philosophical foundation to resist all those temptations for distraction in debate. In response to this sort of thing, they should be asking a simple question to expose a pervasive methodological problem in religious thought: Since when did not knowing the answer to a puzzle entitle us to go and make one up?

In fact, these sorts of arbitrarily asserted "explanations" pulled out of thin air should be simply dismissed out of hand -- a principle long recognized in logic and law. When someone brings a baseless charge before a court, it is to be dismissed as beneath consideration (and could even earn penalties for wasting the court's time). Likewise, when someone brings a baseless idea before a rational mind, it should be simply dismissed as beneath consideration. And D'Souza consistently relies on the logical fallacy of the "argument from ignorance," taking peoples' lack of knowledge around this and that as evidence in support of "the God hypothesis."

Perkins reminds us that various other natural events once were attributed to supernatural forces, including lightning, earthquakes, and disease.

Perkins also notes that D'Souza's appeal to faith rests on the knowledge of science.

After all, you can't wonder about the design of the inner workings of the cell until you find out there are cells and that they contain marvelous machinery, and you can't explore the delicate interplay of cosmological constants until you have discovered those constants in the first place.

Science depends upon our observations of reality governed by natural law. D'Souza pretends that the products of science point to a super-reality governed by God.

Coalition for Secular Government

Diana Hsieh has announced the formation of the Coalition for Secular Government. It links to several interesting documents, hosts a blog, and announces the following mission:

The Coalition for Secular Government advocates government solely based on secular principles of individual rights. The protection of a person's basic rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness -- including freedom of religion and conscience -- requires a strict separation of church and state.

Consequently:

We oppose any laws or policies based on religious scripture or dogma, such as restrictions on abortion and government discrimination against homosexuals.

We oppose any government promotion of religion, such as the teaching of intelligent design in government schools and tax-funded "faith-based initiatives."

We oppose any special exemptions or privileges based on religion by government, such as exemptions for churches from the tax law applicable to other non-profits.

The only proper government is a secular government devoted to the protection of individual rights.

The Coalition for Secular Government seeks to educate the public about the necessary secular foundation of a free society, particularly the principles of individual rights and separation of church and state. ...

I look forward to working with the Coalition against Amendment 48 for the reasons stated by the blog.

Holy Lawsuits and MP3s

The AP has reported that, after a man asked God for "a real experience," he "he fell and hit his head while worshipping." So he's suing the church for $2.5 million. Why isn't he suing the Holy Spirit? You'd think that, after going to all the trouble of filling the guy with the Holy Spirit, God would take the additional step of making sure he didn't bump his head on the way to the floor. Of course, some of us may wonder whether people have the "real experience" that they expect to have, in which case I hardly think the church is liable, either. Of course, churches could, for example, issue bicycle helmets or the like before channeling God's spirit into worshippers. Lest you think that Holy Helmets are ridiculous, consider the next story...

Atheist Nexus points to a Godlike new mp3 player, shaped like a cross. Christian music just isn't the same unless it's blaring through a cross-shaped player. "Show off your faith and listen to MP3 files with this 2 GB USB 'Cross Style' MP3 player," and all for only -- you guessed it -- $19.99. Because we all know that mp3 technology, and the computer revolution generally, came about through prayer and supernatural intervention.

Ba-a-a-a-a

I'm still holding out hope that this is a parody. iLiveValues.com published a blog entry called, "Being an Obedient Follower." The web page claims to be published by ERLC, which links to The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, the vision of which is "An American society that affirms and practices Judeo-Christian values rooted in biblical authority."

The point of the blog entry is to teach readers about sheep. We need to know about sheep because, the blog reminds us, Jesus told Peter to feed his sheep. So the idea is that we are supposed to be Jesus's sheep, and God's hand-picked followers are supposed to "feed" us.

Here are some of the descriptions of sheep offered by the blog: "natural inclination to follow a leader... a strong lead-follow tendency... no such thing as a 'natural born leader' among sheep. The day’s leader among the flock is normally just the first sheep to move... when one sheep attempted to leap over a 15 meter wide ravine and instead fell to its death, nearly fifteen hundred other sheep followed... sheep are not as dumb as we have been told... just below pigs and on par with cattle in IQ... no sense of direction... Lost sheep usually will walk around in endless circles, in a state of confusion, and even panic... Sheep spend most of their lives eating and drinking, but they are not careful about what they eat and drink... Sheep are almost entirely defenseless."

So this is the model for Christian behavior, apparently. How are God's appointed shepherds supposed to treat these sheep?

"A shepherd would sacrifice for his flock. His flock implicitly trusts him. Sheep need a leader, even if they don't know they do."

I imagine that the "sheep" especially need a "leader" if they protest that they don't.

Thankfully, I know many Christians who would just as soon shop for guns or "feed" sheep to their children.

Muslim Creationists

Reuters reports (via Little Green Footballs via Jim M.):

Unknown outside Muslim circles two years ago, Adnan Oktar -- the 52-year-old Turk behind the pseudonym Harun Yahya -- caught the attention of scientists and teachers in Europe and North America by mass-mailing them his 768-page “Atlas of Creation”. His lavishly illustrated book preaches a Muslim version of creationism, the view scientists usually hear from Christian fundamentalists who say God created all life on earth just as it is today and oppose the teaching of Darwin's evolution theory.

Obviously I'm not going to spend the time to acquire this book and evaluate its particular claims. All creationist claims proceed down a similar path. Here I point out merely that creationism depends on supernaturalism.

But this does point out a difficulty with using creationism to promote a particular sect: all religious sects believe in creationism. Creationism invokes some designer, but is this designer a god of the Greeks, other pagans, the Muslims, the Christians, or the deists? As a tool of propaganda, creationism works only with those predisposed to believe the particular faith of the creationist. I somehow doubt that American Christian creationists would appreciate the use of Oktar's book in a class that taught "intelligent design."

Angels on Earth?

Call it the Christian's Enquirer. My wife received in the mail an invitation to subscribe to Angels On Earth magazine. Here's the pitch:

We have reserved in your name a FREE issue of ANGELS ON EARTH, an inspiring magazine about God's messengers and their work in the world. And when you accept it, you also get a FREE GIFT -- the 2009 ANGELS ON EARTH CALENDAR! [OMG!]

There is no risk -- no obligation to subscribe. We simply want you to experience this magazine presenting the stories of angels and the messages they deliver.

Stories of tragedies averted and destinies altered. Stories filled with profound mystery, yet radiating faith-affirming hope!

Angels still visit us today, ministering spirits guard us and guide us and give us reassuring evidence of God's love. You'll find these stories in ANGELS ON EARTH. ...

Wow. There are enough people who believe this nonsense to support a magazine. And I suspect that, relative to the Enquirer, a higher percent of subscribers help choose our political leaders.

I can hardly believe I have to make this point in the modern world, but here it goes. What are all these alleged angels doing when people die in car crashes, die at the hands of criminals, get cancer, or drown? What about "stories of tragedies not averted" and "destinies altered for the worse?" The claim that angels are responsible for all things pleasant in the world is a gross sort of bias that simply ignores cause and effect, luck, and contradictory facts.

Did Resurrection Myth Precede Jesus?

Sheera Frenkel of The Times (of London) reports a debate of a Dead Sea tablet called Gabriel’s Vision of Revelation. She writes:

Israel Knohl, a biblical studies professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, argued yesterday that line 80 of the text revealed Gabriel telling an historic Jewish rebel named Simon, who was killed by the Romans four years before the birth of Christ: "In three days you shall live, I, Gabriel, command you."

Professor Knohl contends that the tablet proves that messianic followers possessed the paradigm of their leader rising from the grave before Jesus was born. ...

Professor Knohl defended his theory at a conference at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem marking 60 years since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. He said that New Testament writers could have adapted a widely held messianic story in Judaism to Jesus and his followers.

Others, of course, dispute this interpretation of a damaged text.

I regard it as an intriguing but unproved theory.

But it won't affect modern Christianity, either way. If it were shown definitively that resurrection stories preceded Jesus, Christians would respond by saying that of course the resurrection was prophesied, and this is not diminished by its application to a false prophet.

It's not as though this is the only myth suspected to precede Christianity; other resurrection myths are known to precede it. For example, Paul Tobin summarizes:

The myth of Adonis was known to the Greeks as early as the fifth century BCE. The Egyptian myth of Osiris dates back to at least 4,000 BCE and was recorded in detail by the Greek biographer Plutarch (c46-120 CE). The Persian Sun-God Mithras was mentioned in the writings of the Greek historian Herodotus (c480-c245 BCE). The cult of Mithraism reached Rome in the first century BCE.

The way the early church fathers defended against the mystery religions showed that they knew these pagan myths antedated the Christian ones. Justin Martyr (c160-165) claimed that the devil plagiarized Christianity by anticipation with the pagan religions in order to lead people from the true faith. He claimed the myth of the virgin birth of Perseus, an ancient Greek legend that preceded Christianity, was pre-copied by the "deceiving serpent" (Dialogue with Trypho: 70). Similarly he asserted that the cultic rites of Mithraism had a diabolical origin (Apology 1:66). Tertulian (c160-c225) made the same claim: that it was the devil that provided this "mimicry" [notes omitted].

If you believe that there is a God who can raise people from the dead, that you will live forever in Heaven, that you talk to God, etc., then you'll hardly be troubled by conflicting resurrection stories. This is, after all, about faith. If we restrict the discussion to proof, then all resurrection stories are easily recognized as myths.

Pew's U.S. Religious Landscape Survey

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life has published extensive results of its U.S. Religious Landscape Survey. I'll review some of the highlights.

Colorado has fewer Evangelical Protestants than the national average, at 23 versus 26 percent. We have fewer Catholics, at 19 versus 24 percent. And we have more unaffiliated people at 25 versus 16 percent. That helps explain the Interior West mindset of wanting to maintain church and state separation. Notably, Affiliations does not list atheist or nonreligious, so presumably the 16 percent Unaffiliated category includes the nonreligious.

While a stunning 33 percent of the nation believes the Bible is literally true and the Word of God, 59 percent of Evangelicals think so. Evangelicals are topped only by Historically Black Churches at 62 percent. Notably, this is higher than the figure for Muslims (for Scripture), at 50 percent.

Meanwhile, 28 percent of the nation think Scripture is "written by men, not the word of God." Seven percent of Evangelicals think so. Bringing up the average include Other Christians at 44 percent, Jews at 53 percent, Buddhists at 67 percent, and the Unaffiliated at 64 percent.

On abortion, a third of Evangelicals think abortion should be legal in all or most cases. The figure is 62 percent for Mainline Churches, 48 percent for Catholics, 75 percent for Other Christians, 84 percent for Jews, 70 percent for the Unaffiliated.

Those who want "Smaller government, fewer [tax-funded] services" break the halfway point for Mainline Churches at 51 percent and Mormons at 56 percent. (I object to the phrasing of the question, because lower taxes mean more free-market services.) Those who want "Bigger government, more [tax-funded] services" include Historically Black Churches at 72 percent, Muslims at 70 percent, Catholics at 51 percent, the Unaffiliated at 48 percent, and Evangelicals at 41 percent.

The national figures for smaller versus bigger government are 43 to 46 percent, figures that should make Obama glow.

Lord Hanuman University

An AP story about a monkey god appointed chairman of an Indian business school raised my eyebrows.

PTI reports, "The Sardar Bhagat Singh College of Technology and Management... has Lord Hanumnan's [sic] idol occupying the place of pride in unfamiliar surroundings of the chairman's office."

Wikipedia has a lengthy entry about the new chair.

Somehow, I have a hard time believing that this is primarily about piety. One obvious result of the appointment is a lot of media attention.

PTI adds, "One of the two vice chairmen, Vivek Kangri said that the 'chairman' has delegated all powers in him and the other vice chairman to act on his behalf." This seems like a pretty good way to diffuse responsibilities -- and criticism.

We Coloradans can't make too much fun of Hanuman's college position. He's a lot less silly than, say, Ward Churchill.

Certain Unalienable Rights

"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."

Various Christians take this line from the Declaration to mean that America was founded on Christianity. But of course Jefferson was a deist, and belief in some sort of creator or unifying force was common even among the Greeks. Even Spinoza could talk of God, basically as a synonym for nature. Life was in fact created, and the creator is natural law, including the process of evolution.

Jefferson before all promoted reason: "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."

He was no great fan of organized religion: "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

And he called for the separation of church and state: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

People have the absolute moral right -- and deserve the fully-protected political right -- to practice whatever religion they want, or no religion, however they choose, provided they don't initiate force against anyone else.

Obama Likes Faith-Based Welfare

Citing the AP, Mark Wolf notes that Obama likes Bush's faith-based welfare so much that he wants to expand it.

Obama (citing Wolf citing Politico) said:

I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea -- so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them -- or against the people you hire -- on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.

It is morally wrong to force people to transfer their resources to religious organizations, regardless of how those groups use the money, whether they "proselytize" with the money (though it's impossible to avoid), and whether their "programs" work (according to some federal bureaucrat).

And it's as disturbing as it is predictable that Bush's religious-right welfare program, designed to pander to that group, has been gleefully picked up by the Democrats. The GOP keeps thinking it can out-welfare the left, but, somehow, it keeps not working out that way.

Decline of the Religious Right?

Mark Barna of Colorado Spring's Gazette believes that the influence of the religious right is in decline.

"The Christian Coalition of America, founded in 1989 to give Christians a stronger voice in government policy, is struggling financially," he writes. Has the funding gone to some similar group, or is funding for Christian-right politics dropping in general?

Barna adds:

Some polls show that young bornagain Christians are more tolerant of gays and lesbians. According to a 2007 Barna study, 28 percent of born-agains, of which evangelicals are a subset, under age 42 think it is morally acceptable to have sex with someone of the same gender, compared with 13 percent of older born-agains.

And nearly 33 percent of young Bible believers support abortion rights, compared with 27 percent of older believers - a surprisingly high percentage for both age groups, [David] Kinnaman [Barna Group president and co-author of "UnChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity"] said.

My guess is that the difference of views regarding homosexuality is more pronounced than what the survey suggests. My guess is that younger Christians, even when they claim to have a moral problem with homosexuality, don't have as great of a problem, don't want laws against homosexuality, and are more open to gay marriage.

Regarding abortion, another poll I recently cited indicates that 60 for "Mainline Protestants" and 51 of Catholics support legal abortion.

The real question, though, is whether religious as such is having a greater or lesser influence on politics. If the religious right is faltering -- and that's a big "if" -- the religious left clearly is on the upswing, led by Barack Obama. Much of this is merely repackaging standard leftist views in Biblical wineskins. Yet clearly there's a market for that.

McCain's Evangelical Problem

Bill Bunkley is concerned that, by failing to rally his religious-right base, McCain risks leaving them at home on election day. Obama, on the other hand, is actively pursuing evangelical voters, Bunkley notes.

But there is a little problem with Bunkley's analysis. Obama is pro-choice, while McCain holds "ending abortion" as his ultimate goal. Thus, while Obama, who has openly endorsed the separation of church and state, can court evangelicals without scaring the hell out of everybody else, McCain cannot.

A recent poll asked people whether they believe "Abortion should be legal and solely up to the woman to decide." The percent in agreement is 35 for evangelicals, 60 for "Mainline Protestants," and 51 for Catholics.

Meanwhile, Bunkley cites a report from Pew indicating, "White evangelical Protestants... [make] up over one-third of those who identify with the GOP and vote for its candidates."

In other words, McCain can pander to the religious-right third of his base and (further) alienate the "libertarian" right and most independents, while Obama can court the Christian vote -- including the third of evangelicals who support legal abortion -- without alienating anybody.

The Republican Party is stuck. It can't win with the religious right, and perhaps it can't win without it (especially with candidates who also trash the First Amendment and call for sacrifice to the collective). As I've suggested, the only way forward I can see is a new coalition of civil libertarians of the classic left and modern right, free marketeers (of the Austrian and Chicago schools), and free traders of the left. Basically, we need a new liberty coalition.

Who You Callin' a Liar?

A Pew poll recently found that most people think that other religious are a good enough ticket to heaven. (This differs from what some in my childhood church taught, that Catholics are going to hell.) In general, that particular poll result is a good thing. While it's unfounded to think that any religion offers eternal life, it's better to think that any "good person" can get into heaven than to think that only members of one particular sect are so destined.

Cal Thomas's response to the poll is so silly it's hard to believe it's not parody:

Do They Think Jesus Was a Liar?

I am shocked and appalled over a newly published survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. It finds most Americans believe there are many ways to salvation besides their own faith. Most disturbing of all is the majority of self-identified evangelical Christians who believe this.

Apparently they must think Jesus was a liar, or mistaken, when he said: “I am the way, the truth and the life; no man comes to the Father but by me.” Look it up. ...

Look it up? You mean, in the standard Christian Bible? Gee, that's helpful. Thomas urges Christian churches to fight heresy -- yes, heresy! -- "in their midst." All we need is another round of heretic purging.

Even if one believes that Jesus is the exclusive path to salvation, it's still possible to believe that Jesus would cut people a break for innocently believing other religious doctrines.

Thomas writes, "If there are many paths to heaven, Jesus suffered and died for nothing." That's not necessarily the case, even from a religious perspective.

Of course, if there are no paths to heaven, then Jesus did suffer and die for nothing.

More Assaults on Free Speech

Does free speech have a future in Europe?

Matt Purple writes:

Ian McEwan, author of widely praised novels Atonement and Enduring Love, condemned Muslim extremists for attempting to establish a tyrannical society intolerant of women and homosexuals. His comments were made in the context of defending his friend and fellow novelist Martin Amis, who had previously been denounced as a racist for other supposedly anti-Islamic remarks.

"Martin is not a racist," McEwan told the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera. "And I myself despise Islamism, because it wants to create a society that I detest, based on religious belief, on a text, on lack of freedom for women, intolerance towards homosexuality and so on –- we know it well." ...

McEwan's comments caused an uproar and were promptly denounced by the Muslim Council of Britain.

And that could be just the beginning. McEwan could also be brought up on hate crime charges, according to The [UK] Independent.

Is it true that Islamism promotes oppression of women and murder of homosexuals? Yes. It is also true that Islamism endorses terrorism and generally opposes civil liberties across the board.

For these reasons, I myself despise Islamism (not to be confused with modernist practitioners of Islam). And if we reach the point where we cannot say that without facing threats of criminal charges, then we'll no longer be living in America.

The Faith-Based Politics of Abortion

A recent spat between Barack Obama and James Dobson offers a good opportunity to further reply to Colorado Right to Life and Bob Kyffin on abortion.

Here's what Barack Obama said on June 28, 2006, in his "Call to Renewal" address:

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

I have expressed the same view on this web page. Note that Obama in fact holds a "pro-choice position."

The problem is that nobody has made an effective, non-religious argument for banning abortion. Instead, Colorado Right to Life (and the Republican candidates who signed its questionnaire) explicitly invoke God's will as the foundation of their position.

Now Dobson of Focus on the Family has attacked Obama's stance, saying, according to the AP, "Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies? What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe."

Notably, Dobson is misrepresenting Obama's position. Obama did not claim that people must conform their views to what "everybody agrees" is correct; instead, he said people should make "universal" arguments "subject to argument, and amenable to reason."

Dobson's dilemma is that no reasonable argument supports the definition of a fertilized egg as a person or the prohibition of abortion. Thus, his only option is to "evoke God's will."

As if to further illustrate the point, Bob Kyffin sent in a reply to my criticism of his statements (stemming from my critique of Colorado Right to Life). Kyffin attempts to make a universal, reasonable argument in favor of banning abortion, but his argument completely fails.

Kyffin argues that an embryo, and even a feritlized egg, is a person because, first, "life begins at conception," and, second, a fertilized egg has "its own DNA" that dictates many of the egg's future traits, if brought to term.

Life not only begins at conception but precedes conception. Both the sperm and egg are living human entities. But not all living human entities are people. As I've mentioned, every cell in our bodies is a living human entity. Every cell is alive, and every cell contains human DNA. Yet Kyffin would hardly argue that we're committing mass murder every time we take a shower and exfoliate thousands of living, human cells.

Obviously, the mere fact that a fertilized egg contains human DNA does not qualify it for personhood for the same basic reason.

The difference that Kyffin seems to be going for, then, is that a fertilized egg, unlike a lone sperm or egg cell or a skin cell, has the capacity, if attached in a specific way to a healthy female uterus, to develop into an embryo, then a fetus, and finally into a born human being (a person). (We'll leave aside the complication that it's now possible to develop a new, independent human being from the DNA of any living human cell.)

But the fact that a fertilized egg has the capacity (in a certain environment) to develop into a person does not imply that the fertilized egg is itself a person. A fertilized egg has none of the relevant features of personhood, other than human DNA. It has no organs, cannot survive independently, etc. It is utter lunacy to call a fertilized egg a person. Kyffin might as well argue that an oak tree is a house, a field of grass a beef steak, or a silk worm a fine suit, because in each case the first thing has the capacity to develop into the second.

A necessary condition for personhood is the ability to survive independently, without any direct nourishment from the body of another. A newborn baby obviously needs a caregiver to provide food, warmth, etc. But a newborn baby is dramatically different than a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus, in that the newborn baby is an independent entity that will continue to live on its own if left by itself. A fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus physically cannot leave the mother without physical removal, and, until lates stages, if left on its own it will quickly die. A fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus is radically dependent on its mother's physical body, whereas a newborn is not.

This radical, physical dependency is a large part of the reason why a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus does not have the rights of personhood. One implication of this is that a pregnant woman has the right to get an abortion. As I've said, a woman who has decided to get an abortion is morally bound to get it in the early term whenever feasible. However, even in very-late term pregnancies, in any conflict between the safety of the mother and the safety of the fetus, the mother has every moral right to protect her own life. (She is also properly free to accept increased risk to herself in order to protect the fetus.)

Those who oppose abortion typically invoke the horrors of gratuitous, late-term abortions in order to advocate the prohibition of abortion even of a fertilized egg. But gratuitous, late-term abortions are practically non-existent. Practically all abortions occur in the early terms.

For what it's worth, here's what Roe v. Wade has to say on the matter: "State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."

Generally, I oppose restrictions even for late-term abortions, because the practical effect would be to intimidate doctors with zealous prosecution, thereby interfering with their considerations of the "life or health of the mother."

The essential debate, though, is over abortion in the early terms. Kyffin and Colorado Right to Life (CRTL) hold that a fertilized egg is a person and therefore should be granted full rights.

As I have argued, one obvious implication of the view that a fertilized egg is a person is that doctors would be legally required (or at least bullied) into sacrificing the lives of some women. CRTL's position is thus morally abhorrent.

At some level, CRTL seems to be aware that its position is horrific, or at least at odds with the common decency of most people. And so CRTL has tried to create an escape clause. As I've explained:

CRTL uses the same sleight of rhetoric. Recall that the position of CRTL is that "It is... wrong... to kill the baby to save the mother." CRTL opposes "the intentional killing of the unborn child, for the life of the mother." CRTL states, "When the mother's life is seriously threatened by a pregnancy, of course it is morally justified to deliver the baby but not if the intention is to kill the baby. ... If the baby dies, it is a tragedy; if the baby is intentionally killed, it is murder."

CRTL's position doesn't hold up for early-term pregnancies. "Delivering" an unformed embryo will kill it. Yet the only way that CRTL can preserve its stance that a fertilized egg is a person and still allow doctors to save the life of the mother is to pretend that "delivery" of an unformed embryo to death is somehow different than intentionally killing it. ...

So long as CRTL clings to the faith-based fantasy that a fertilized egg is a person, the group has only two paths. Either it can openly acknowledge that it would sometimes sacrifice the lives of women, or it can allow women to get abortions whenever they see any risk to their lives. This second path, however, is inconsistent with CRTL's position that "It is... wrong... to kill the baby to save the mother."

CRTL's escape clause doesn't work. If a doctor removes an embryo, the embryo will certainly die. (I'm leaving aside test-tube scenarios.) Any early-term abortion, for whatever reason, is an intentional act that necessarily results in the death of the embryo.

Yet Kyffin tries to exploit the same absurd escape clause:

...CRTL says, "if the baby dies, it is a tragedy; if the baby is intentionally killed, it is murder." The result may be the same. The intent is clearly different. There is a distinct and critical difference between the unfortunate death of a baby whose life could not be saved, in the course of protecting the mother, and the situation where a doctor goes in and intentionally kills the baby when it is not necessary. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, there is a (presumably) 0% chance of the baby surviving, and that is unfortunate. And yet, CRTL would support a surgery to protect the mother, so long as there is no malicious intent in the doctor’s mind to intentionally kill the baby. ... Since the baby needs the mother to survive, then of course CRTL would support taking such actions to preserve her life, even if it may mean the death of the baby...

I note my objection to referring to a fertilized egg or undeveloped embryo as a "baby," as the term wrongly implies personhood. Also, Kyffin is not, so far as I am aware, an authorized spokesperson for CRTL, so I will treat his comments as one possible interpretation of CRTL's stated positions.

Kyffin's intentionality argument is absurd (and could be taken as a reductio ad absurdum of his premise that a fertilized egg is a person). True, intention is an element of a criminal act. For example, one who intentionally fires a bullet into an innocent person is a murderer, while one who thoughtlessly fires a bullet over a crowd and strikes an innocent party has committed manslaughter but not (intentional) murder. But the idea that a doctor might remove a fertilized egg "to protect the mother," without having the intention to kill the fertilized egg, is laughable.

Here's an analogy. Let's say one of the Inquisition's torturers were brought up on charges according to modern law. If the torturer said, "Look, I didn't have the intention of inflicting pain on the victim; I had only the intention of saving the victim's soul, as well as the souls of observers," that obviously wouldn't fly. The pain was an obvious and necessary result of the torture; it was intentional. According to CRTL's premise that a fertilized egg is a person, a doctor who removes a fertilized egg, causing its death but not "intending" its death, should be just as guilty as the torturer. Given that CRTL's premise is ridiculous, the doctor is morally blameless.

I wish to stress that my case for legal abortion does not rest upon the fact that, if a fertilized egg were legally defined as a person and given full legal protection as such, the result would be the deaths of innocent women. It is true that CRTL's policies, if fully enforced, would kill women. However, even if by some stroke of a magic wand this were not the case, abortion should still remain legal, based on a woman's right to control her body. However, the fact that CRTL's policy would kill women, coupled with the fact that CRTL attempts to evade this fact, helps to demonstrate the weakness of CRTL's case.

There is no reason, no argument, no universal moral case that supports the notion that a fertilized egg is a person. The contrary claim can come only from faith, the belief that God said so. Such faith-based legal policies have no place in a free society.

Schizophrenic Republicans

The May 31 resolutions of the Colorado Republican State Convention illustrate the difficulties and tensions of the party.

Included are the pro-liberty:

2. [T]he United States will pay any price, bear any burden... to assure the survival of our republic and freedom.

4. [T]he practice of inserting earmarks into the federal budget [should] be eliminated.

18. ...Colorado Republicans support the 2nd Amendment right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

32. ...Colorado citizens [should] be free to choose their own health care and health insurance and not be required to participate in any particular health care program.

33. ...Colorado Republicans oppose all single-payer health care systems.

35. ...Colorado Republicans oppose governmental taking of private property for the benefit of private individuals, private entitites, or for governmental revenue enhancement.

Unfortunately, Colorado Republicans often are wishy-washy in their support of liberty. For example, while they opposed single-payer medicine, and while I'm pleased with their statement about choice, they hardly articulated the need to defend individual rights and free markets in medicine.

The third point pertains to a "balanced federal budget." That's great, but the central issue is not budgetary balance, but budgetary control. I'd rather see Congress spend half of what it does today and still run a deficit, than spend even more and confiscate the difference.

Points 11-17 denounce illegal immigrants, except fourteen calls for "a well-regulated guest worker program." Absent is any call to restore liberty in immigration.

Points 19, 20, 22, and 23 pertain to church/state issues. (Point 21 is omitted; I wonder what it said?) The big one is that Colorado Republicans believe "that life begins at conception." Of course nobody actually doubts that; conception is the union of two living cells. But this is euphemism for alleging that personhood begins at conception, as Colorado's Amendment 48 asserts.

Colorado Republicans want to overturn Roe v. Wade, eliminate "public funds for destructive embryonic stem-cell research" (calls for an outright ban are noticeably absent), and restrict "marriage" to a man and woman.

These points show that Colorado Republicans are trying to walk the line. They say that "life" begins at conception, but they don't say that they want to prohibit all abortions. They say they don't want tax funding of embryonic stem-cell research, but they're silent on the issue of bans. They want to overturn the federal court rulings on abortion, but they don't say whether they want to leave the issue to states or allow federal prohibitions. They define marriage but don't mention domestic partnerships.

The result is to simultaneously pander to and insult the religious right, while convincing everyone else that Republicans remain the party of the religious right.

Meanwhile, the Democrats endorse the separation of church and state (at least as a rule) as they work to place ever greater portions of the economy under political control.

Wouldn't it be nice if some major force in either of the parties called for liberty across the board?

Peikoff 18

Leonard Peikoff has released his 18th podcast, which deals partly with matters of religion. My summary of the discussion should not be taken as a substitute for the original.

1. Peikoff first answers a question about the military, expressing concern that it will suffer continued problems. He adds that the military is the consequence of cultural shifts, not a main cause of them.

2. What is a hero? What one regards as a hero depends on one's moral code, Peikoff answers, but in general a hero is the "complete embodiment of a certain moral code."

3. Is there any proof for reincarnation? I consider Peikoff's discussion of this point the most interesting segment of the podcast. "What do you call evidence?" Peikoff begins. He points out that evidence is based on observation and must be integrated with the rest of our knowledge. Claims for reincarnation rest upon no means of knowledge other than some sort of mystic insight. Thus, such claims reject reason, the senses, and logic, Peikoff argues. So what's going on with claims of reincarnation? Peikoff offers four possibilities. People making claims about reincarnation might through "sheer chance" work in some factually true detail. People can selectively focus on the more seemingly plausible claims while ignoring all of the obviously ridiculous ones; any psychic can occasionally make some accurate (if vague) prediction, just by chance. Children making claims about reincarnation might be subject to coaching or tricks. Finally, people making claims about reincarnation may simply be lying.

4. Peikoff makes a few notes about thinking conceptually.

5. Did Ayn Rand use or comment on psychotropic drugs? Peikoff replies that she was "completely against them." He distinguished between alcohol, which when used in moderation can facilitate relaxation but "doesn't warp your consciousness," and a drug that "blows up your perceptual faculty" such as LSD. I basically agree with Peikoff here, but I add that some illegal stimulants, when used in moderation, also don't undermine the perceptual faculty and likely have legitimate uses. Likewise, some illegal pain-killers are very useful for certain medical issues. Of course, while Peikoff didn't discuss the issue of prohibition, Rand opposed the prohibition of any drug.

6. Is there a problem with "flooding our country with Mexicans?" Peikoff answers that immigration "should be free," on the grounds that some people in the country shouldn't be able to forcibly restrict the rights of property and contract of others. Regarding the problems of the welfare state, Peikoff notes that the proper solution is to "re-instate capitalism," not restrict immigration. Regarding culture, Peikoff points out that some Mexican immigrants may listen to Spanish music and prefer Tequila, but this hardly subverts American culture. Personally, I regard some of of the Mexican immigrants I know as more American than the xenophobic statists trying to shut down the borders.

Reply to Kyffin on Abortion

Yesterday I strongly criticized Colorado Right to Life (CRTL) for promoting the prohibition of abortion even of fertilized eggs and even in cases of rape and risk to the life of the mother.

Bob Kyffin offered several arguments in reply. However, he did not address the central point: a fertilized egg is not a person, as CRTL claims. Kyffin states:

Is there ever a case where slavery should be allowed? Ever a case when a Jew should be allowed to be killed? Never.

And there should never be a reason to take the life of an innocent human being...

Nobody doubts the evils of slavery or murder. But a fertilized egg is just not a human being (a person). It is alive, and it has human DNA, but so does every cell in our bodies. It is a potential human being, but a potential person is not a person.

The overwhelming majority of abortions occur in early stages of pregnancy, when the embryo is barely developed and still only a potential human person. As a matter of ethics, women who get abortions should do so in the early stages whenever feasible. (As a matter of ethics, people should have sex responsibly and take reasonable steps to avoid unwanted pregnancy.) Individual rights apply only to actual people, individuals who live a "biologically independent existence" (in Diana Hsieh's words.)

As a matter of rights, women have the right to get an abortion for whatever reason they deem fit. This is true even if some women get abortions for bad reasons or come to regret them. Similarly, women have the right to decide their sexual partners, even if some have sex for bad reasons or come to regret it.

A fertilized egg is not a person. An embryo is not a person. Neither Kyffin nor CRTL has offered any reason for thinking otherwise, beyond the pseudo-reason that God allegedly said so.

In his more specific arguments, Kyffin begins by addressing risks to the life of the mother:

They [CRTL] say you don't kill a baby to save the mother because it's a truism. It's never medically necessary to take active measures to kill the baby in order to preserve the mother's life. That's an abortionist's lie, and a popularly believed myth.

A Caesarian section is one of the safest and quickest medical procedures that exists. It takes 5 minutes, and if the baby is capable of living outside the womb, then she will live.

A late-term abortion, on the other hand, takes many hours, at the very least, and often takes days. If a woman's life is in danger, a doctor would be criminally incompetent to take the time to kill the baby before removing her, rather than simply delivering the baby alive.

A doctor should always try to save the life of the baby and the mother -- to do anything else is negligent.

Kyffin claims that in medical emergencies the interests of the mother and fetus usually coincide. This I do not doubt. However, it is not always the case, and unexpected emergencies late in pregnancy are not the only relevant cases. Doctors may know very early in the pregnancy that the mother would risk her life by carrying the embryo to term. Last November, I cited the case of a woman who died following an ectopic pregnancy. A woman might have any number of medical conditions that make pregnancy dangerous.

Kyffin fudges his case when he forbids only "active measures to kill the baby," adding that "if the baby is capable of living outside the womb, then she will live." That's a fairly big "if." Obviously, if a doctor removes an (early-stage) embryo, it's going to die. Kyffin's trick is to define "active measures" so narrowly that some cases of intentionally killing the embryo are discounted.

CRTL uses the same sleight of rhetoric. Recall that the position of CRTL is that "It is... wrong... to kill the baby to save the mother." CRTL opposes "the intentional killing of the unborn child, for the life of the mother." CRTL states, "When the mother's life is seriously threatened by a pregnancy, of course it is morally justified to deliver the baby but not if the intention is to kill the baby. ... If the baby dies, it is a tragedy; if the baby is intentionally killed, it is murder."

CRTL's position doesn't hold up for early-term pregnancies. "Delivering" an unformed embryo will kill it. Yet the only way that CRTL can preserve its stance that a fertilized egg is a person and still allow doctors to save the life of the mother is to pretend that "delivery" of an unformed embryo to death is somehow different than intentionally killing it.

In practice, though, medicine is often an art of managing risks. In many cases, a pregnancy will endanger the life of the mother somewhat. Only a certain fraction of dangerous pregnancies will result in the death of the mother. To flesh out its position, then, CRTL needs to specify when it's acceptable to risk the life of the mother. If the mother has a 40 percent chance of dying and a 60 percent chance of carrying the embryo to term, must the government force the woman and her doctor to continue the pregnancy?

So long as CRTL clings to the faith-based fantasy that a fertilized egg is a person, the group has only two paths. Either it can openly acknowledge that it would sometimes sacrifice the lives of women, or it can allow women to get abortions whenever they see any risk to their lives. This second path, however, is inconsistent with CRTL's position that "It is... wrong... to kill the baby to save the mother." And the first path is horrific.

Next Kyffin addresses the issue of rape:

On the subject of rape babies, surveys show that most victims of rape or incest want to keep their babies. The ones who don't keep their baby often regret it for the rest of their lives. An abortion simply re-victimizes the young girl.

Abortion for rape and incest also hides the crime from authorities (abortionists NEVER report underage pregnancies, even when they suspect rape -- this is WELL documented). The rapist is free to rape the same girl again, and again, without his wife (the girl's mother) or whoever else knowing about it.

The issue of documentation and protection of underage victims is distinct from the issue of abortion (though I doubt Kyffin's claim that abortion clinics "never" report rapes to the police). Obviously the issue is wider than underage pregnancy (though I don't know what percentage of pregnancies caused by rape involve minors).

Regardless of what the surveys say, the matter is not properly up for vote. Even if "most" women want to carry embryos resulting from rape to term, some do not, and they have the right to get an abortion. I do not doubt that many women regret getting an abortion, just as many do not, and many would have regretted not getting an abortion. But that's beside the point. It's the government's job to protect people's rights -- in this case, the rights of women -- not play psychoanalyst and protect people from their own choices as evaluated by the religious right. (The broader point is that the government should fight rape.) Besides, according to CRTL's premises, even if all raped women who became pregnant wanted to get an abortion and none regretted it, CRTL would still wish to prohibit all abortions, so Kyffin's argument seems misplaced.

Nothing Kyffin has written mitigates the fact that CRTL wants to grant a fertilized egg the full legal rights of a person, force women to bring pregnancies to term against their will, prohibit valuable medical research, force women to have the babies of rapists, and sacrifice the lives of some unwilling women in order to save embryos. Those who actually respect life must reject CRTL's faith-based politics.

Colorado Right to Death

The ludicrously named Colorado Right to Life (CRTL) openly admits that its policies would endanger the lives of women. It demands that Republican candidates work to outlaw abortion even in cases of rape. And it declares its commitment to faith-based politics, noting that Amendment 48, the "personhood" initiative that seeks to define a fertilized egg as a person, would allegedly "uphold God's enduring command."

Today I also discussed the politics of the situation; here I address the ideology, as detailed in the "CRTL 2008 Candidate Questionnaire."

Following are several of the group's questions:

Do you advocate that the government uphold the God-given, inalienable Right to Life for the unborn?

Do you agree that abortion is always wrong, even when the baby's father is a criminal (a rapist)? [See life-of-the mother note below.]

Do you support the 2008 Colorado Personhood amendment effort to define "person" to include any human being from the moment of fertilization?

Will you oppose any research or practice that would intentionally destroy the tiniest living humans (embryonic stem cell research)?

The group declares that, in the name of God, it desires to force women to have the babies of rapists, grant equal rights to fertilized eggs, and prohibit potentially life-saving medical research.

What about the mother's life?

When the mother's life is seriously threatened by a pregnancy, of course it is morally justified to deliver the baby but not if the intention is to kill the baby. When the life of the mother is at serious risk by her pregnancy, the goal must be to save the life of the mother and the baby if at all possible. It is just as wrong to kill the mother to save the baby, as it is to kill the baby to save the mother. "Legalizing" abortion, defined as the intentional killing of the unborn child, for the life of the mother leads to repugnant acts like emergency removal of late-term babies from the womb stopping midway in the procedure to kill the baby. If the baby dies, it is a tragedy; if the baby is intentionally killed, it is murder. If necessary to save the mom's life, the unborn baby could be delivered with the determination to care for both, and if possible, to save both the baby and mother!

Obviously, the best scenario is to save the mother and baby. However, when there is a conflict, CRTL is perfectly willing to sacrifice the mother, an actual human being, to an embryo, only a potential. Here is the key line: " It is... wrong... to kill the baby to save the mother."

Colorado Right to Life in fact endorses policies that would kill actual human beings. The group's alleged "right to life" means for some an obligation to die.

The organization makes clear that it does not merely wish to overturn Roe v. Wade and return the decision to the states, as so many Republicans declare:

Antonin Scalia has publicly stated that he would strike down any law that prohibited abortion in all fifty states, and Clarence Thomas has ruled that the public has the right to decide to legalize the killing of unborn children. Sadly, not even one of the seven current U.S. Supreme Court Justices nominated by Republican presidents support the right to life of the unborn.

Further, our pro-life presidents have nominated sixty percent of the U.S. federal judiciary, and yet the judiciary utterly rejects the right to life of the unborn. Also we should remember that the pro-abortion Roe v. Wade decision was written by a Republican Justice and passed by the Republican majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, and abortion was legalized in Colorado by Republican governor John Love in 1967.

Most Americans don't buy into CRTL's absurd, pro-death, faith-based agenda. The problem is that Americans are used to viewing everything through pragmatist eyes, so many can't understand that CRTL means it. They actually want to ban birth control that prevents a fertilized egg from growing. They actually want to force 13-year-old girls to bear the children of rapists. They actually want doctors to let women die if necessary to save the fetus. They are deadly serious. It is time for sensible Coloradans to take them at their word and reject their dogmatic agenda resoundingly.

Censorship of Religious Criticism

Recent cases in France and Canada illustrate the growing movement to censor speech critical of religion. This trend must be fought, or liberty is lost.

The Ayn Rand Institute reviews the French case:

"The conviction of Brigitte Bardot by a French court for 'inciting hatred against Muslims' is a gross violation of her right to free speech and should be denounced by every civilized nation," said Thomas Bowden, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute.

Bardot was fined $23,325 on Tuesday -- barely escaping a jail sentence -- for a statement made in a letter to France's interior minister, protesting Muslims' refusal to stun animals before slaughtering them during religious holidays. The fine was levied for the following statement: "I've had enough of being led by the nose by this whole population which is destroying us, (and) destroying our country by imposing their ways."

"Bardot's statement was an expression of political opinion and obviously did not constitute coercion, or threat of coercion, against anyone," said Bowden. "As such, the French government has no right to fine or penalize her in any way for the exercise of her individual right of free speech.

"Moreover, there is no rational basis for a crime of 'inciting hatred.' Hatred is the emotion one feels in response to evil. Thus, to criminalize the incitement of hatred is to criminalize the expression of moral judgment, inasmuch as any moral denunciation may cause others to hate the alleged evildoer." ...

David Harsanyi of The Denver Post discusses the case in Canada:

Steyn is a U.S.-based journalist, columnist and best-selling author of "America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It," a book that deals with demographics and Muslim influence in the Western world. Not only is Steyn's work widely read, his opinions -- whether you find them agreeable or not -- are also worthy of debate.

Yet when Maclean's, the largest-circulation magazine in Canada, published a Steyn essay based on "America Alone," it sparked a volley of suits and a vile legal ordeal.

First, the Ontario Human Rights Commission held a tribunal and deemed Steyn's essay "Islamophobic." Now, the British Columbia human rights commission in Vancouver has held a week-long trial on the matter. A federal commission is waiting on investigators to decide whether to proceed against Steyn.

Within the context of individual rights, the freedom of speech must be held as absolute. Freedom of speech does not protect violations of rights such as fraud and incitements to violence, but certainly it must protect criticisms of any ideology, including Islam, regardless of what the targets of the criticisms think or do about it. (Any civilized person responds to argument with argument.)

Free speech is a pillar of a free society. Censorship is an early mark of tyranny.

Lott on Abortion

John Lott explains the social impacts of abortion in a recent article for Fox. He argues that liberalized abortion laws resulted in the following:

A sharp increase in pre-marital sex.
A sharp rise in out-of-wedlock births.
A drop in the number of children placed for adoption.
A decline in marriages that