Dishonor Killings

Recently I wrote about an apparent "honor killing" in Texas, in which a Muslim man allegedly murdered his own daughters for dating.

My wife, who continues to read Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Infidel (order from Amazon), read me the following quote today:

When I tried to find out about honor killings... -- how many girls were killed every year in Holland by their fathers and brothers because of their precious family honor -- civil servants at the Ministry of Justice would tell me, "We don't register murders based on that category of motivation. It would stigmatize one group in society." The Dutch government registered the number of drug-related killings and traffic accidents every year, but not the number of honor killings, because no Dutch official wanted to recognize that this kind of murder happened on a regular basis. Even Amnesty International didn't keep statistics on how many women around the word were victims of honor killings. ... (pages 295-96)

Talk about multiculturalism run amuck!

Surely Ali is among the bravest women in the world.

Taxes for God

Today's Denver Post reports:

Religious groups feel bullied by proposal
A lawmaker says she's willing to discuss the bill dealing with employment discrimination.
By Electa Draper
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 01/29/2008 11:28:19 PM MST

State Rep. Alice Madden said a flawed draft of a bill, meant to repair a 2007 statute dealing with employment discrimination, has given her a little taste of hellfire.

The Catholic Archdiocese of Denver and Focus on the Family have attacked Madden's draft, which would prevent faith-based organizations that accept government funds from hiring people of a particular religion to carry out their charitable missions.

Archbishop Charles Chaput said the bill appeared to be an attempt "to bully religious groups out of the public square." ...

"This is not meant to change real-world behavior one iota," Madden said. "We are trying to make it clear that employers generally should not discriminate on the basis of religion. Clearly, there could be exceptions."

It is telling that Chaput regards your money as "the public square."

Chaput easily could resolve the issue by declining to take other people's money by force.

But, clearly, the Christian injunction against theft poses no theological challenge to the forcible redistribution of wealth, as some religious libertarians claim.

Bigotry in the Name of God

Hell does not exist, but the bigoted, despicable thug Fred Phelps, who protests homosexuality at the funerals of American soldiers and blames the nation's problems on homosexuality, would richly deserve a place there.

As Mike S. Adams writes ("Fred Phelps Goes Down Under," January 30, 2008), recently Phelps wrote to the family of Heath Ledger, claiming that Ledger is burning in hell and asking how to disrupt the funeral.

Adams appropriately condemns Phelps. However, he (apparently) jokes that Phelps is also gay and that is why he is so angry; the truth is much uglier. For Adams to mock homosexuals in the same article that he condemns Phelps is tasteless, to put it mildly.

Morris on Obama

Father Jonathan Morris complains that Barack Obama rejects "some of the most basic principles of Christian morality." Morris is most concerned about abortion. Morris writes:

Examine carefully the religious language he employs: "I do think that those who diminish the moral elements of the decision aren't expressing the full reality of it. But what I believe is that women do not make these decisions casually, and that they struggle with it fervently with their pastors, with their spouses, with their doctors."

Is Sen. Obama suggesting that Christians who consider "the moral elements of the decision" and who "struggle with it fervently with their pastors" may be in line with God’s will by deciding that abortion is the right choice? I think he is, or as he would probably say, "the right choice for them."

Sen. Obama goes even further with this creative mix of religious talk and completely subjective morality. He suggests women "pray about" whether to have an abortion -- as if God might whisper his approval. ("Bill Clinton’s Analogy Revisited: Barack Obama vs. Jesse Jackson," January 28, 2008)

Morris's analysis is interesting for several reasons. First, it is obvious that Obama is restrained by his party in pushing his religious agenda, at least in the area of personal choice (as opposed to the economic arena, where leftists seem eager to adopt religious language to support their economic controls).

Second, what most concerns Morris is Obama's support for legal abortions, not Obama's faith-based socialism. In general, the religious right makes little effort to defend economic liberty -- and more often openly assaults it.

Third, Morris is absolutely correct about Obama's double standards. Notice that Obama does not reject the religious doctrine that an embryo has the same rights as a person because God infuses a fertilized egg with a soul. Nor does Obama endorse the absolute moral right of women to control their own bodies and futures by getting an abortion. Instead, Obama tempers religious doctrine with a pragmatic subjectivism, as Morris argues. This demonstrates that, just as the religious right cannot, when pushed, defend economic liberty with any conviction, so the religious left cannot, when pushed, defend liberty in the personal sphere.

In any contest between the religious right and the religious left, both sides will tend to win on their pet issues. The religious right maintains an enduring moral fervor for outlawing (and thus imposing criminal penalties for) abortion, while the religious left maintains an enduring moral fervor for forcibly redistributing wealth and controlling the economy. Both sides will tend to "compromise" by eliminating liberty in both the economic and personal spheres.

The Catholic Vote

Electa Draper, who wrote a story about why Christians should impose more "progressive" taxation, also wrote a story several weeks ago about the Catholic opposition to various civil liberties. The story begins:

Colo. churches fight "evil" in voting booth
By Electa Draper
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 11/05/2007 06:11:08 AM MST

Catholic voters can disagree on issues such as immigration policy and health-care reform, but when it comes to the fundamental right to life, church leaders allow no wiggle room in the voting booth.

All three Colorado dioceses and their lobbying arm, the Colorado Catholic Conference, are spelling out to more than 660,000 Catholics in the state what they believe faithful citizenship looks like.

The first thing to notice is that Draper, a news reporter, refers to "the fundamental right to life," which in this context refers to the alleged rights of a fertilized egg, as though that were just a noncontroversial news fact.

Here's the heart of the piece:

"Some things are intrinsically evil and must be opposed," said Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kan., at the Gospel of Life conference in Denver in October.

These evil acts, in a guide adopted by Colorado and Kansas Catholic bishops, include elective abortion, euthanasia, destruction of embryos in stem-cell research, cloning humans and, though not an equivalent evil, same-sex marriage.

These things are "intrinsically evil" says Christian doctrine. Christian doctrine is wrong.

The view that all "elective abortions" are evil arises from the Christian doctrine that God infuses a fertilized egg with a soul. The Catholic position would outlaw even the "morning after" pill, when the embryo consists of a bunch of undifferentiated cells. (Of course, many Catholics would also try to outlaw contraception, except that such an effort would never fly in a nation in which most Protestants find no problem with birth control.) The Catholic position would outlaw abortions even in cases of rape and incest. And what counts as an "elective abortion" likely would be narrowly restricted, resulting in more deaths of women.

The Catholic view on stem-cell research derives from the view on abortion. The position against euthanasia -- and, indeed, all suicide -- even when somebody is in horrific pain, arises from the Catholic view that God forbids suicide. (This doctrine is helpful in stopping Christians from killing themselves in order to enter into Heavenly bliss.) And of course the Catholic position against gay marriage arises from the Biblical claims that homosexuality is sinful.

In all of these cases, the attempt is to impose Christian theology through the political system. (Of course, various Catholics disagree with various aspects of these Catholic views.) The result would be the profound violation of the actual "fundamental right to life" of women and the ill, as well as the right to contract by homosexuals.

Snowboarding with Jesus

Speaking of The Denver Post's religious news, on January 25 the paper also published, on its front cover, a story about Christian snowboarders. The story, "X Games competitors ride with Jesus," by Jason Blevins, contains the following line: "My best times worshiping the Lord are when I'm snowboarding."

This is not straight news; it is closer to religious preaching. I have to wonder about some of the editorial decisions over at the Post. However, as I've noted, other papers also seem to be increasing their gratuitous mentions of religion. Whether or not this is intentional policy, the trend seems to reflect the general rise of evangelical Christianity in America.

Blevins's story is interesting, though, in how it contrasts Christianity with its alleged opposite. Except for Christians, the article suggests, the "world of extreme sports" is "inherently hedonistic," a "selfish sport" in the words of one snowboarder. Christians, though, "eschew the party scene." Non-Christians, the article quotes other Christian snowboarders, are "empty inside" and "hollow." Moreover, Christian snowboarders "have this added confidence."

In the terms of Leonard Peikoff, then, Christianity, a form of religious "Misintegration" (or system-building based on supernaturalism and detached from the real world) is offered as the only alternative to nihilistic "Disintegration." A non-religious morality of strong, life-supporting values -- the alternative of "Integration" based on the facts of reality -- is not considered.

In an advertisement for his book, Loving Life (which I've reviewed), Craig Biddle offers a succinct summary of this third alternative:

The Atheists' Missing Link: Loving Life by Craig Biddle demonstrates that morality is a matter not of divine relevation or social convention or personal opinion -- but, rather, of the factual requirements of human life and happiness.

Maybe someday the Post will consider such ideas to be worthy of attention.

Jesus, Taxes, and the Media

On January 24, The Denver Post published a story by Electa Draper titled, "Psalm 1040: Prof urges a fairer tax." The teaser line states, "Government, she says, fails to follow the Scriptures' lead in helping the poor and the kids." The story reviews the ideas of "Susan Pace Hamill, a University of Alabama law professor with credentials in taxes and theology." It begins:

How would Jesus tax?

It wouldn't be the way Colorado, the 49 other states and the federal government do it, says Susan Pace Hamill, a University of Alabama law professor with credentials in taxes and theology.

Despite Scripture principles, state and federal tax systems burden the poor and relieve the rich, she says.

Jesus paid taxes, told followers to give the government its due, broke bread with tax collectors and chose one, Matthew, to be an apostle, according to the New Testament.

This story is odd for a couple of reasons.

First, it is an advocacy piece masquerading as a news story. Why isn't this on the editorial pages? Notably, Draper does not interview a single religious critic of Hamill's thesis. (While many religious conservatives would agree to reduce taxes for the poor, they would not agree to raise taxes on others.) Surely there is no shortage of religious conservatives in this state. Nor does Draper interview a non-religious leftist, or a non-religious advocate of low taxes. Does The Denver Post's news side really see its proper role as advocating particular religious doctrines?

Second, the story is old. It contains no news "hook." Moreover, it is derivative. For example, on August 1, 2006, the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal published a similar story by Jeff Hawkes titled, "Who Would Jesus Tax?" Draper's story discusses taxes generally and sites some figures about Colorado, but it is not based on any Colorado-specific event or personality. Why is this news?

Hamill's thesis is essentially egalitarianism draped in religious cloth.

Nevertheless, Hamill does make an interesting point:

Among Colorado's offenses is that the state makes its lowest-earning 20 percent of the population pay 9.9 percent of their income in taxes, while the top 1 percent of wealthy Coloradans pay 6.1 percent of their income.

"The poor and middle class pay almost four times the tax, proportionately, that the rich people pay in Colorado," Hamill said.

Apparently, Hamill's figure of "four times" is based on the fact that the middle class vastly outnumber the rich. I'll accept her figures at face value, unless someone can point to an error in them.

I don't think anybody would argue that the poor should pay a greater percent of their income in taxes than the wealthy pay. For example, in 2004 I wrote:

I have a simple proposal that should gain bi-partisan support... Exempt everyone making less than $20,000 per year from nearly all taxes.

If you make less than $20,000 in a calendar year, after expenses, I propose you don't have to file income taxes at all. The burden of proof then lies with tax collectors to prove you earned more than that. You don't have to pay federal or state income tax. If you're in retail sales, you don't have to collect state or local sales tax. If you own property, you don't have to pay property tax.

You also don't have to pay Social Security tax. Why should a poor working family be forced to pay a retired millionaire to play golf in Hawaii?

However, I did not propose taxing others at a higher rate: "I would favor reducing government spending by the amount lost in tax revenues." Indeed, I would lower taxes on everyone, across the board. But my position does not depend on any religious doctrine: it depends upon a theory of individual rights, rooted in the objective requirements of human life. (For one source of empirical support for the view that economic liberty brings prosperity, see The Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom.)

But which is the more faithful interpretation of Christianity? That of religious conservatives, who at times support free markets and low taxes, or that of religious egalitarians? As Paul Hsieh reviews, the religious right increasingly adopts the welfare agenda of the left. What defines the religious right is not a commitment to free markets -- far from it -- but rather a commitment to more political controls over our personal lives.

Waiting Periods for Abortions?

The Colorado legislature will consider a bill to require waiting periods and ultrasound services before a woman can obtain an abortion:

Lawmaker seeking new requirements for abortions
By Mike Saccone
The Daily Sentinel
Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Women in Colorado seeking to end their pregnancies would have to be offered an ultrasound before they undergo an abortion under legislation proposed by Sen. David Schultheis, R-Colorado Springs. ...

Senate Bill 95, introduced Monday, would require abortion providers to give information about receiving ultrasounds to pregnant women who are considering abortion. The bill would require doctors to administer an ultrasound if the woman requests one. Women who are informed of their ultrasound rights and still choose to have the abortion would be required to wait 24 hours before having the procedure.

This bill would violate the rights of doctors and patients by putting political force between them. Mainly the bill would increase the costs -- of money and time -- of obtaining an abortion. Saccone continues:

Jody Berger, spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, said women often travel long distances to obtain abortions, and making them wait 24 hours to obtain one, after being advised of the availability of ultrasounds, could be a financial burden.

She said it could, for example, force the women to stay overnight at a hotel or make a second long drive to an abortion clinic.

Beyond the extra, needless expense of time and money, the bill treats women as though they were incapable of making their own decisions without the help of politicians. Women are already fully aware of the nature and implications of abortion, and they can already order an ultrasound if they want one. The bill likewise subjects doctors to the whims of political force.

Ironically, Schultheis answered yes to the following question: "Would you oppose legislation mandating a waiting period before the purchase of a firearm?" Apparently, Schultheis believes that women are responsible enough to decide to buy a gun when they want, but not to get an abortion when they want.

Just as the anti-gun lobby attempts to impose additional costs on gun owners in order to discourage gun ownership, so Schultheis wants to impose additional costs on women who want an abortion.

As women have the right to purchase tools of self-defense without political interference, so they have the right to get an abortion without political interference. Of course, Schultheis believes that women have no moral right, and should be striped of their legal right, to get an abortion. He's wrong, but rather than address the issue head-on, he undermines his other views in calling for costly and invasive political restrictions on legally permitted actions.

Hello, Satan?

Here's the story, as reported by the AP:

'Very Religious Community' Gets Rid of 666 Phone Prefix
Friday, December 28, 2007

REEVES, La. — After decades of living with what Mayor Scott Walker calls a stigma, residents of this southwest Louisiana village are getting a new telephone exchange, one without the biblical connotations attached to their current 666. ...

There are three churches in town, two Bible and one Baptist, and fewer than 450 homes, he said. In the Bible, 666 is depicted as the mark of the beast, and those taking the mark would be associating themselves with Satan, he said.

"It's been a 40-year battle" to change the number, he said, counting at least four failed attempts.

This year, after a resident contacted the mayor with questions about the prefix, Walker said he polled residents and found overwhelming support for a change. He worked with the phone company, CenturyTel, and the state Public Service Commission among others to make the change. He said he began publicizing the option Sunday, addressing first the local churches and then reaching out to local media.

"It's been a black eye for our town, a stigma," he said. ... "This is a good town. ... We're good Christian people."

However, this irrational fear of the prefix 666 has nothing to do with Christianity; it is primitive superstition, on par with a fear of the 13th row on airplanes. No self-respecting Christian with a remotely sophisticated view of religion would worry about such trivial matters. From a Christian perspective, I imagine that God would prefer a charitable deed to an effort to change one's phone number. That said, the rise of evangelical Christianity accompanies a certain disdain for the principles of science. The basic rejection of evolutionary biology is barely more sophisticated than numerological superstition. New-age mysticism, environmentalist mysticism, superstitious practices , and anti-scientific evangelical Christianity are symptoms of the same cultural problems.

But it's still a pretty damn funny story. And, speaking of funny, catch Ricky Gervais's reading of Creation.

Peikoff's Seventh Podcast (Redirect)

I briefly discuss Leonard Peikoff's seventh podcast at FreeColorado.com.

I had been mentioning the podcasts here, but, since I've devoted this web page to matters of religion, generally I'll mention Peikoff's new podcasts at the other page.

My Religious Background

"Dan" asked about my January 16 post, "How about a summary of your own religious background and how you came to your current thinking on religion?" Fair enough.

I would (briefly) describe my life in three main stages. Of course, it took me several years to transition from one stage to the next.

1. Deeply religious childhood. I was raised in an independent Christian Church, and I attended Bible studies and camps growing up. In addition to the Bible, I read various, more modern Christian works, including parts of Evidence that Demands a Verdict and a couple of books by C.S. Lewis. I remember distinctly in high school that one of my Christian friends invited me over to another one of his friend's house to talk about religion. The other friend was not religious. We talked for quite a while, and I argued that Christianity is demonstrated by God's works in nature and his impact on human lives.

2. Struggling atheist. I also started to read Ayn Rand in high school, and she posed serious challenges to my religious beliefs. My first lengthy paper, and my best paper of high school, attempted to reconcile the doctrines of Christianity with the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Unfortunately, I did not integrate the moral virtues as described by Rand (most of which are widely regarded as legitimate, though Rand puts her unique spin on them) into my personal behavior very well. (It can be difficult to transition from a morality of "God says so" to one based on the requirements of human life as discovered by reason.) I remained deeply rationalistic in my understanding of philosophy, and I grew deeply pragmatic in my personal life. I did some really stupid things during these years that I really regret.

3. Maturing thinker and actor. Slowly, I have learned a lot more about life, prudence, character, and philosophy. I'm still working to improve myself in various ways, but basically I consider myself to be "on track." I've been part of a stable (and fun and developing) marriage for nearly a decade. I'm older (36 now) and a bit wiser. I'm an atheist but not fundamentally an atheist -- atheism merely rules out certain beliefs; it does not define a positive philosophy. Especially over the last couple of years, I've grown to appreciate the contributions of Leonard Peikoff a lot more. In Peikoff's terms, I went from "Misintegration" to mild "Disintegration" to "Integration," which I continue to work toward.

My interest in religion, then, arises from two main sources. First, it dramatically impacted my youth and thus the rest of my life. Second, obviously religion has an enormous cultural and political influence. I think my comments, then, may be of interest to Christians as they contemplate their own beliefs, to atheists as they figure out a positive alternative to religion, and to those interested in the impact of religion on the world in which we live.

Does Religion Have Adaptive Value?

Yesterday, I discussed some Christians who claim that evolutionary biology (at least in terms of species evolving into new species) is false. Today, I'll briefly review an article by Dinesh D'Souza that attempts to show that evolutionary theory supports religion ("Desecrating Darwin's Cathedral," January 21, 2008).

D'Souza, who is so confident in his intellectual superiority that that he calls his opponents fools (as well as belligerent militants), quotes an article by David Sloan Wilson to criticize Richard Dawkins:

Wilson examines Dawkins' central claim that religion is an obvious "delusion." On the contrary, Wilson writes, religion is in general more adaptive for human communities than atheism. "On average, religious believers are more prosocial than non-believers, feel better about themselves, use their time more constructively, and engage in long-term planning, rather than gratifying their impulsive desires...They report being more happy, active, sociable, involved and excited."

Wilson gives a telling example: The Jains of India seem to have bizarre religious habits. They won't kill any creature, even cockroaches. They sometimes fast virtually unto death. They have been known to refuse contact with non-Jains. The Jains would easily satisfy Dawkins' view of religion as a senseless delusion. And yet Wilson points out that the Jains are basically the Jews of India: they are one of the most successful economic communities in the world. The reason, he suggests, is that religious practices that seem weird and impractical to outsiders actually cultivate deep bonds of trust between Jains. This economic solidarity is crucial for a diaspora trading community that has built economic networks throughout Asia and around the world. What seems like a pointless delusion turns out to be eminently practical. From the evolutionist's perspective--and in terms of the only currency that counts for a biologist--Jain practices have demonstrated "survival value."

Let us first take these claims at face value. D'Souza argues himself into a tight corner. For if religion survives because of its "survival value" for humans, the way that, say, the eyeball survives because of its survival value, then there's no reason to believe that religion is true. The truth of religion is simply beside the point. According to D'Souza's argument, it simply doesn't matter whether God exists, whether Jesus rose from the dead, whether people live beyond the death of the body, etc. Those are not the reasons that cultures actually accept religion, according to this line of thought. Instead, cultures accept religion, regardless of the truth of the claims of religion, because it helps its members to advance their lives and pass on their genes.

But D'Souza argues that, in particular, Christianity is true. I suppose he would counter that all sorts of other reasons (such as the design of the universe) independently prove the truth of religion in general and Christianity in particular. And yet his argument about the evolutionary "survival value" of religion clashes with any such additional claims. As the example of Jainism demonstrates, the alleged "survival value" of religion has nothing to do with the truth of particular claims of any specific religion. Instead, the "survival value" of religion has everything to do with the particular culture in which it arises. D'Souza's argument cannot ultimately endorse Christianity; at most, it can endorse adopting the most successful religion in one's culture. D'Souza's argument is thus essentially one of cultural relativism.

By accepting the claim that beliefs, as well as biological traits, are subject to the evolutionary process, D'Souza cuts religion off from truth in another way. Human volition implies that people can accept ideas, true or false, helpful or harmful, based on whether and how they apply reason to the facts of reality. But the claim that beliefs, including religion beliefs, are merely a product of evolution comparable to the evolution of biological traits, implies that beliefs as such are a matter of convenience, not a matter of truth, and that one has no inherent connection with the other. D'Souza's article thus reveals a deep strain of pragmatism, in which "truth" is not a matter of objective assessment but of workability, again subject to the variances of time and place. While some Christians argue against biological evolution on the grounds that blind chance cannot produce order, D'Souza implies that religious beliefs too are the product of blind chance. The reason that we have an eyeball is that it works. Likewise, the reason that we have religion is that it works, and nothing more needs to be said about it. It arises in an essentially deterministic universe.

D'Souza contradicts himself in another way. He constantly berates and mocks atheists for criticizing Christianity. He says that, if atheists really didn't believe in God, then they wouldn't write books condemning religion, just as we don't write books condemning unicorns. But if D'Souza really believes that religion has "survival value," then why does he write books and articles condemning atheists and proclaiming them fools? Biologists don't condemn maladaptive mutations; they just explain how they work. Why does D'Souza rush to point out the inferiority of atheists, if their beliefs are analogous to a maladaptive mutation? Why does he care about the particular beliefs of any given individual, when evolution will win out? Perhaps the answer is that the One True Religion (i.e., Christianity) is destined to win out, and D'Souza is an instrument in God's evolutionary plan.

However, the entire enterprise of interpreting beliefs from the framework of evolutionary biology is basically on the wrong track. Some of the analogies are interesting, such as the idea of a "meme," if limited in scope. And of course there is an important sense in which ideas "evolve," in that people teach ideas to others, who then often adapt the ideas. So too is there a feedback mechanism: ideas matter, and acting on different ideas will lead to different consequences. Beyond that the analogy breaks down. The point of evolutionary biology is that chance mutations either help or hurt the organism; the process is not guided by any intelligence. But ideas are the product of intelligence.

The practice of starving yourself to death is the product not of an "adaptive" belief but of a stupid one. Moreover, the practice is immoral, and it impedes, rather than advances, the interests of the Jains. If we're going to talk about the Jains, why don't we talk about the caste system in India, or the religious monarchies of ancient Egypt, or the primitive tribal religions, or the Islamic totalitarians? Adaptive, all?

Statistical surveys about the quality of lives of religious believers in the modern West say nothing about the truth or benefits of the religious beliefs (even ignoring possible methodological flaws of such surveys). American Christians are substantially secular, and their traditions generally include the principles of the Declaration of Independence, which glorify life on earth and the pursuit of earthly happiness. Moreover, many self-proclaimed atheists are taken with other false beliefs, such as those by Kant, Marx, Freud, and Derrida -- beliefs that promote subjectivism and ultimately nihilism. I do not doubt that many Christians are happier than many Marxists, Freudians, and moral subjectivists. And that says exactly nothing about whether Christianity is true.

Does Entropy Disprove Evolution?

I can't remember how I ran across the following argument against evolution, but I thought it was darn funny:

One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.

I've heard this "entropy" argument against evolution before, and the quote strikes me as a particularly eloquent refutation of the basic argument (for those, who, apparently unlike the original poster, "certainly know about" just such "a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy.")

I haven't tried to track down the original posting of this comment, so perhaps it was intended as humor. Yet it tracks other statements obviously intended to be taken seriously. For example, Kevin Haag (who found religion more appealing than life as a drug-abusing partier) includes on his "New Testament Christian" web page the document, "Ten Major Flaws of Evolution," by Randy Alcorn ("with additional editing by Jim Darnall"). Alcorn, the author of books such as Heaven, 50 Days of Heaven, and Heaven for Kids, offers a slightly more sophisticated argument against evolution based on entropy:

This law of physics states that all systems, whether open or closed, have a tendency to disorder (or "the least energetic state"). There are some special cases where local order can increase, but this is at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. Raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in living things, or the information required to build them. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Yet, evolution is a building-up process, suggesting that things tend to become more complex and advanced over time. This is directly opposed to the law of entropy.

Alcorn does not overlook the existence of the Sun; he just flatly denies that the Sun or any other energy source (including chemical and geothermal) could have provided any of the energy that contributed to the evolution of life on earth. Good enough for apologetics, I guess.

Of course, Christianity cannot be judged by the sillier comments of some Christians. No movement can be so judged. (And, anyway, plenty of Christians believe that evolution is true.) To take another example, people who claim to see the image of Jesus in some random mark shouldn't be taken as representative. (Thanks to Paul Hsieh for the link.)

That said, some comments are both silly and self-refuting, such as the following:

"We regret to announce that due to unforeseen circumstances beyond our control, the publication of The Astrological Magazine will cease with the December 2007 issue."

Cruise Control

Tom Cruise is an amazing man, according to his own self-evaluation. Roger Friedman has written up an account of the recently released videos in which Cruise attempts to promote Scientology (but just comes off looking weird.) Here's one of Cruise's statements, as recorded at Diana Hsieh's blog: "We are the authorities on getting people off drugs, we are the authorities on the mind, we are the authorities on improving conditions. We can rehabilitate criminals, we can bring peace and unite cultures."

Because who needs drugs when you can have Scientology?

Regarding the other claims, color me a skeptic.

I read somewhere that the church came out with a statement condemning the new "unauthorized biography" of Cruise, calling the book bigoted. However, reasoned criticism is not bigotry. I could not find the statement at Scientology.org. However, I did find the following statement:

Man is an immortal, spiritual being. His experience extends well beyond a single lifetime. His capabilities are unlimited, even if not presently realized — and those capabilities can be realized. He is able to not only solve his own problems, accomplish his goals and gain lasting happiness, but also achieve new, higher states of awareness and ability.

This is basically pop Platonism. In terms of its basic metaphysical views, the doctrines of Scientology are hardly stranger than those of Christianity. Beyond that, Scientology's specific programs, such as "auditing techniques for erasing engrams and creating Clears," constitute silly mumbo-jumbo. If you get taken in by Scientology, you deserve to be.

All that said, I've really enjoyed some of Tom Cruise's movies. Even people with quite peculiar and even horrid ideas can show great talent in certain fields. (To take another example, Bobby Fischer, who recently died, was great at chess but crazy in his evaluations of Jews and the United States. You don't need Scientology to sound like a nut.) I have no intention of reading the "unauthorized biography" of Tom Cruise. He's an actor; that's it. If he's headed for Michael Jackson Land, I could care less. And I think plenty of critiques of Scientology are out there.

Welcome Rocky Mountain News Readers

In case you've found this web page via my Speakout in the Rocky Mountain News, welcome!

On January 16, I decided to dedicate this web page to matters of religion (from a critical perspective). If that's of interest to you, I hope you'll become a regular reader. If not, feel free to browse my entries here prior to that date.

If politics is more your scene, please see my other blog at FreeColorado.com. I only recently converted that page to a blog format; feel free to also browse the archives there.

Film: The Prize Winner of Defiance

I was pleasantly surprised by the movie, The Prize Winner of Defiance, Ohio (reviewed at Rotten Tomatoes), which I'd never heard of till I saw the video on the shelf. Based on a true story, it follows a woman living in the '50s and '60s who keeps her large family ahead of her careless husband by entering -- and winning -- contests that involve writing clever marketing lines. The acting of Julianne Moore as Evelyn Ryan, Woody Harrelson as the husband, and Ellary Porterfield as one of the daughters is absolutely top-notch.

The reason that I'm reviewing the film at this web page (which is after all dedicated to matters of religion) is that that religious themes run through the story. Ryan and her husband are Catholic. The husband has some major problems; in particular, he spends a large chunk of his weekly paycheck on booze, and he is prone to rage when he drinks. For example, at one point he beats on a just-won freezer with a frying pan; later, he throws food from the freezer out into the yard. Early in the movie, Ryan talks with a priest, who advises her to try harder to create a good home for her husband. Ryan doesn't seem happy with this advice, but she follows it, even though her husband deserves nothing but divorce papers.

Moreover, the film encourages viewers to pity and forgive the husband based on three facts. First, he lost the quality of his voice and thus his singing career in a car crash. Second, he feels bad that he's not the sole bread-winner of the household. Third, in his old age he takes real steps to make up for his earlier behavior. The husband is not irredeemably evil; he is merely a lout. And divorce is not easy for a woman with ten children to care for. Nevertheless, Ryan seems to stick with her husband because of Christian charity, not because he deserves the marriage.

Ryan (along with the film) confuses the issue of forgiveness (which properly must be earned) with the issue of holding true to one's values and not falling into bitterness (which may or may not involve forgiveness). Also, Ryan enjoys more good luck (in winning various prizes) than most women in her position would find (even though Ryan's success is based also on her skill with words).

The reason that I basically enjoyed the movie is that Ryan shows a powerful and positive spirit. Despite her setbacks and her husband's behavior, she consistently seeks the joy of life. She maintains a strong, loving, and supportive relationship with her children, which comes out especially in the scenes with her daughter "Tuffy," who later wrote the book on which the film is based.

Church Killer Writes to God

In December, my dad and I wrote about the murders at New Life Church:

On December 9, it was two Christians who fought for life. While attending church, Larry Bourbonnais yelled at a killer to distract him. Later he said, "After Columbine, I promised my daughters that if I'm ever in that kind of situation, that I would do something." Jeanne Assam likewise rose to the challenge and stopped the killer. Tragically, the killer had already struck. And so New Life Church will also mourn the deaths of loved ones over Christmas.

The murderer targeted Christians; he wrote that some Christians "are to blame for most of the problems in the world." This prompted one Christian to reply that "the living God and his followers offend the world, the flesh, and the devil merely by reflecting light in the darkness."

But whatever the problems of Christianity (real or imagined), whatever offense others may find in it, such things are irrelevant to the heinous crime. In a civilized world, people work out their disagreements through rational debate in the public square. ...

It does seem that the killer may have had some legitimate complaints (but who doesn't). According to The Denver Post, his "home-school curriculum... forbids dating, rock music and 'wrong clothes.' It advises young men and women to live at home until their parents release them and counsels parents to choose marriage partners for their offspring."

Even assuming that the guy grew up oppressed, any real man would simply have left home and started a life of his own.

The article from the Post that described the murderer's "ultra-religious home-school curriculum" was written by Nancy Lofholm ("Shooter's lessons strict, rule-driven," 12/12/2007).

Today The Denver Post revealed a new detail of the story:

A killer who gunned down four people last month at a church in Colorado Springs and a youth mission in Arvada wrote a letter addressed "To God" that was recovered along with other items from his car.

The letter was listed in an evidence and property invoice of items that Colorado Springs police recovered from a 1992 Toyota Camry belonging to Matthew Murray. The documents were obtained by Newsradio 850 KOA. ...

[The killer's] car was found and seized by investigators in the New Life parking lot.

The note to God was found in the rear passenger seat, along with two books: "I Had to Say Something" by Mike Jones and "Serial Murderers and Their Victims" by Eric W. Hickey, according to the invoice.

The Jones book is an expose about his experience as a male prostitute and his sexual encounters with former New Life pastor Ted Haggard. Jones' revelations led to Haggard leaving the church. ("Church shooter left letter 'To God' in car," Kieran Nicholson, 1/17/2008)

I called 850 KOA, and a representative of the station said that, while the station has obtained an inventory list, it has not obtained the letter itself. I assume that the contents of the letter will be released at some point.

The fact that the murderer wrote a letter "To God" indicates that the murderer believed in God. Even if the murderer rejected the legitimate authority of God, the murderer seems to have been acting from a theistic premise, the presumption that God exists. (Whatever the letter may say about the existence of God, which we won't know until the letter's release, the fact remains that it is addressed to God.) Likewise, the Christian critic who suggested that the murders were the work of "the devil" (the line comes from a December 14 e-mail by John Andrews) assumes a theistic perspective.

There is obviously a huge difference between rebelling against God and concluding that God does not exist.

It is also obvious that the murders had little to do with theism. Plenty of disgruntled Christians never resort to violence. On the other hand, many Christians, as well as many atheists, have committed heinous crimes. In the modern world, Christians, theists angry with God, and atheists can, whatever their differences, join together in condemning such acts of violence.

Major Changes to AriArmstrong.com and FreeColorado.com

Henceforth, my blog at AriArmstrong.com will be dedicated to issues of religion and culture. Every topic and post will have some significant connection to religion (with the possible occasional exception of announcements regarding the blog) . As my readers know, my perspective is essentially critical of religion per se (though of course I recognize valuable contributions from various religious people).

At the same time, I am converting FreeColorado.com to a blog. All of the content created prior to the blog will remain intact. Every post that I write about politics and cultural issues not directly connected to religion will appear there. The old RSS feed for FreeColorado.com will be discontinued, so readers may switch to the RSS feed connected to the new blog.

Why the changes? I've found that my blogging lacks focus. At AriArmstrong.com, I've been writing about religion, national politics, local politics, films, and so on. While some readers appreciate the range of commentary, others probably favor a narrower range. Now readers who care only about religion and its impact on culture can stick with AriArmstrong.com. Readers interested only in my political commentary can turn to FreeColorado.com. (Hopefully some readers will frequent both blogs. I hope that the the hassle of reading two blogs is minimal, whereas the benefits of separating the content are substantial.) Even though religion is itself an extremely broad topic, my comments at FreeColorado.com will tend to cover an even broader range of issues. For that reason, I've decided to put any (infrequent) personal note there.

Since I started the blog at AriArmstrong.com, I haven't known quite what to do with FreeColorado.com. But it's a great domain name with nearly a decade of history behind it. However, the process of manually updating files has grown wearisome, especially when blogging is so much faster. Now FreeColorado.com will return to its original purpose: hosting commentary mostly about politics, with an emphasis on Colorado. Now, though, I'm more likely to post shorter comments along with more substantive articles, given that posting to a blog is so fast. The amount of commentary appearing at FreeColorado.com should increase substantially over recent weeks.

I plan to substantially change the look of FreeColorado.com over the coming weeks, and I may also make some updates to the design of AriArmstrong.com. Regardless of the look, I hope that readers find the content of both blogs to be interesting and considered (if often controversial).

"Amend the Constitution so it's in God's Standards"

Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said the following on Monday:

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.

The commentary with the accompanying video suggests that Huckabee was talking about abortion (as in, banning it) and marriage (as in, banning gay marriage).

There was no confusion before -- Huckabee is serious about imposing his religious views through force of politics. This latest comment only emphasizes the point. And, as Paul Hsieh recently pointed out (quoting The New York Times,) Huckabee's religious views conflict with the ideals of economic liberty. All around, he's a horrible candidate, judged by the standard of liberty.

Letter to Google

I've been fairly happy with Google's Blogger service. However, I just discovered on oddity with Google's "AdSense" program. I sent a letter to Google complaining about the problem. And, I thought, what's more appropriately ironic than using Google's Blogger service to complain about Google? Here's the letter:

Dear Google,

I was looking into using AdSense on my web pages, but I found the following policy:

"Sites displaying Google ads may not include... advocacy against any individual, group, or organization."

According to this policy, if I wish to use AdSense, I cannot "advocate against" the KKK, a dangerous cult, or a political movement that I regard as harmful.

Most of your other restrictions make sense, but this one does not. Moreover, I suspect that the large majority of your AdSense users flagrantly violate the policy on a daily basis. However, I will not sign up for AdSense knowing that I fully intend to violate the policy as stated. If you wish to rephrase your policy so that it does not explicitly prohibit normal and responsible blogging, then I will again consider the program.

Thank you for your consideration,
Ari Armstrong

Forced Medicine and Parental Rights

Various agents of the government confront the problem of defining the line between parental rights and the protection of children from physical abuse. Agents in such cases might respond in one of four ways:

1. Not intervene when parents are within their rights.
2. Intervene to save a child from serious physical abuse and/or death.
3. Not intervene when the child suffers from serious physical abuse (that possibly results in death).
4. Intervene when parents are within their rights.

Even though the first two types are (I can only imagine) much more common, the second two types are the ones that end up in the newspapers, and that is worth bearing in mind. Nevertheless, such abuses result in serious violations of people's rights, so they rightly draw the extra attention.

On January 9, the Rocky Mountain News ran an article that describes a case that seems likely to fall within the fourth type of case. The author of the aricle, John Ensslin, begins:

A Garfield County man [Tom Shiflett] contends sheriff's deputies barged into his home and forcibly took his 11-year-old boy to a hospital after he refused to allow paramedics to examine a bump on the boy's head.

Garfield County Sheriff Lou Vallario, however, said the deputies were acting on a warrant obtained out of concern about the boy's injuries, which he said also included an ankle injury, a contusion and swelling over his eye. ...

The incident started Thursday at the Apple Tree Mobile Home Park south of New Castle when the son, Jon Shiflett, hit his head "real hard" on the pavement after he grabbed the door handle of a moving car driven by his sister, the father said.

Someone called for an ambulance, but before paramedics arrived, Tom Shiflett said he picked his son up, brought him inside, put him on a couch and applied an ice pack to his head.

When paramedics arrived at the home, Shiflett said he let them look at his son, but refused to let them treat the youngster.

It is likely that, had a wealthy parent in a posh neighborhood, rather than somebody living a a trailer, told the paramedics to take a hike, they would have taken a hike, and the story would have ended there. But our story continues:

That led to a visit on Friday morning from two social workers. Shiflett said when he rebuffed them, they vowed to come back with a court order.

Deputies returned to serve the order later that evening. Shiflett contends he would have let them in if they said they had a warrant.

He claims they gave no such notice and barged in with a battering ram.

Shiflett said deputies temporarily handcuffed him and his wife and their oldest daughter and left with the boy.

Did this violent assault result in better care for the boy? No, it did not:

They returned the boy around 2:30 a.m. Saturday along with a doctor's note advising them to make sure the youngster drank plenty of water, that he take some ibuprofen, that an antibiotic ointment be applied as needed and that a cold compress be put on his bruises.

"This is exactly what I was doing," Shiflett said. He accused deputies of overreacting.

Did the sheriff, Lou Vallario, respond appropriately? The article reports: "Vallario also said two deputies gave the father, Tom Shiflett, 62, ample opportunity to resolve the situation peacefully before a team of officers used force to enter the home."

The sheriff had a "court order," but did he have a responsibility to force the child into treatment? A warrant grants permission to an officer; it does not compel an officer to act. The sheriff had no way of knowing the severity of the injuries. Then again, neither did he have any reason to doubt the claims of the father. Were the paramedics consulted regarding the court order? At least they saw the boy. Was the judge too hasty in issuing the order?

The article continues:

Vallario said his office has had previous confrontations with Shiflett.

In 2005, he said deputies arrested Shiflett on a charge of felony menacing after he allegedly threatened someone with an ax.

That charge was dismissed, the sheriff said, but the case was a factor in the deputies' response. Shiflett said the charge was dropped because he was acting against a man who had threatened his family at his home.

If the charges were dismissed, then the case must be assumed to be lawful self-defense. Aren't people who live in trailers also innocent until proven guilty?

Vallario also questioned why the father would not let paramedics examine the child’s injuries, especially after human-services officials assured the father he would not incur any medical bills.

“Why is this guy being so uncooperative?” Vallario asked. “Where's the harm?”

However, parents -- even those who live in trailers -- have the right not be "cooperative" with paramedics regarding their children's health care, so long as the parents do not place their children in real physical danger. Shiflett sensibly responded: "What’s the harm of letting a parent care for his own child?”

The claim that Shiflett should have released his son to "human-service officials" because Shiflett "would not incur any medical bills" is quite astounding. According to this reasoning, any time that the government creates an entitlement, that implies that government agents can force people to subject themselves to the related services. That road ends in a frightening place.

Ah, but Shiflett is an odd duck, and everybody knows that odd ducks don't have the same rights as everybody else: "Shiflett has 10 children, ranging in age from 8 to 29 years old. All but one were born at home, he said. A remodeler, Shiflett said he has had trouble finding work since he rescinded his Social Security number."

I am suggesting that the courts and the sheriff's office forcibly intervened even though Shiflett was within his rights. However, consider a hypothetical case that begins the same way: a young boy falls, somebody calls an ambulance, the father lets the paramedics look at the boy but not treat him, and social services shows up. But then the judge tells social services to mind their own business, so the sheriff never breaks into the house. How would we evaluate the case if the boy died? Then the situation would seem to fall under type three as described above.

In this case, though, the father did seem to know that the boy's injuries weren't very serious, and he provided appropriate medical treatment. The sheriff's deputies violently assaulted the family members, subjecting them to serious emotional trauma. Here in America, one's home is one's castle, and the legal authorities ought not force their way into somebody's home without a very good reason supported by tangible evidence. In this case, it seems that the social workers, the judge, and the sheriff's office got carried away without sufficient reason to act. But who cares, because Shiflett's just some oddball living in a trailer, right?

Tax Cutting for God

Perhaps I was being too optimistic. Earlier today I said that, if he had his act together, Douglas "Bruce could be a strong voice for economic liberty in the state legislature..." But then I remembered this line from The Denver Post:

The bottom line to explain Bruce's success [with the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights] is that he would not be deterred.

He refused to give up, and he continues to fight because he believes the tax-and-spend-limit cause has an even higher calling than letting taxpayers keep their money.

"Why did I persist after two losses?" Bruce wrote in an e-mail after being interviewed for this story. "(Why do I now persist after 13 years of retribution, jailing, court intimidation, scores of bogus property citations, seizure of real property and vehicle, public attack and scorn, phony fines, etc. etc.?)

"Because I believe God wants us to be free."

That's it? That's his answer? As many evangelicals are discovering, apparently God wants higher taxes. I don't think Bruce's claim appeals to many Christians, and it certainly does not appeal to those looking for real-world answers to political questions.

Representative Douglas Bruce

I was not bothered by Douglas Bruce's delay in assuming his office; with the delay, Bruce is eligible for another term. Though some Democrats whined that he was "gaming the system," the Democrats are the ones who fought for the existing rules. But I figured that Bruce would count his blessings and save his vitriol for the issues that matter.

Unfortunately, Bruce got into a spat with House Speaker Andrew Romanoff over the timing of Bruce's swearing-in. Of all the conceivable issues for Bruce to contest, surely this was among the least important. As the Rocky Mountain News reported earlier today, even the Republicans tired of Bruce's tactics: Bruce "faced a 22-1 vote by the Republican Caucus to push for replacement of the appointed representative if he didn't take the oath by day's end." Bruce gave in.

Yet, before he took his oath, Bruce inexplicably grew angry with a photographer for -- get this -- taking photographs, and Bruce kicked the poor guy. A video recording of the kick is presented here. Bruce has a reputation as a jerk; everybody knows that. But didn't he realize that kicking a photographer is out of bounds? Here's the excuse (as reported by the Rocky):

Asked by reporters in his office about the incident, Bruce said his kick was warranted and that he had warned the photographers not to take his picture during the prayer and Pledge of Allegiance.

"In 21 years, I don't think there has ever been an instance where I had to do something to stop somebody from behaving in such a coarse and disgusting way," Bruce said.

Arguably, such a kick could be construed as criminal assault, though obviously I think that would be taking matters way too far. But doesn't the First Amendment apply in Colorado's Capitol? The idea that there's something wrong with taking photographs during a prayer at a political event is just silly. Yet regardless of whether such photographs are appropriate, doesn't the journalist have the right to make that call?

Bruce could be a strong voice for economic liberty in the state legislature, but he seems intent on squandering his political capital on foolishness.

Schwartz on Health Mandates

Brian Schwartz wrote an article titled, "The Collective Punishment Model," for today's TCS Daily:

Politicians peddle compulsory insurance under the guise of "personal responsibility." The story is that the uninsured receive medical care without paying for it. Their freeloading passes costs onto the insured, which increases premium costs. Compulsory insurance, say its supporters, can remedy this problem by forcing both the insured and uninsured to purchase medical insurance - as defined by politicians.

Schwartz offers three basic replies to this rationale for mandated insurance. "First, freeloading from the uninsured does not significantly increase insurance premiums." However, the various proposals to impose more political controls on medicine would cost far more.

Second, holding people responsible would mean punishing freeloaders themselves and allowing providers to prevent customers from skipping out on the bill. This is the exact opposite of compulsory insurance, which forces the innocent to purchase insurance policies determined by political interests, rather than their own needs.

I would point out here that, in a voluntary system, such "freeloaders" often would receive charity, either from health-care providers or from independent donors.

"Third, government controls already punish the innocent - insured and uninsured alike - by making medical care and insurance prohibitively expensive."

The biggest reason that some people lack health insurance is that political controls have dramatically increased the costs of health insurance. Now, because of the harm caused by those political controls, some "reformers" wish to impose still more political controls.

"Cost Shifting" in Medicine

Why do we supposedly need to socialize medicine? Here's the answer, according to one Colorado "reformer:"

Health care reform could span years
Lawmakers will begin to lay out a plan based on five proposals from a state panel, but a major package is unlikely this year.
By Jennifer Brown
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 01/08/2008 12:38:14 AM MST

...Convincing voters to foot the bill for massive health care reform is a huge challenge.

For starters, 92 percent of voters are insured, said Rep. Anne McGihon, a Denver Democrat who chairs the House health committee.

Why would they support a tax increase to give poorer Coloradans health coverage? Lawmakers point to this statistic: Coloradans who have insurance spend an extra $950 each year to cover the costs of those who show up at the hospital without insurance. ...

The first reply to the reporter's claim is that her figures seem to be way off. As Brian Schwartz comments beneath the article:

TAX US $400 TO SAVE $100?

...This figure [of $950] conflicts with the "Baseline Coverage and Spending" report* at the 208 Commission's website, which shows this cost to be less than $100.

The Commission's proposed $1.1 billion annual tax increase would force everyone to buy politically-defined insurance. Since 2.8 million Coloradans have private insurance, the tax would cost each privately-insured Coloradan about $400 -- to save $100?

Out of the $1.4 billion annual medical spending for the uninsured, the uninsured themselves pay 45% out-of-pocket. Private philanthropy, workers compensation, and veterans benefits account for another 23%. Public programs, which taxpayers already are forced to fund, account for 15% of medical costs for the uninsured. Only the remaining 17% ($239 million) -- categorized as "free from provider" -- can directly contribute to higher premiums. That's less than $100 per insured Coloradan. ...

208 Commission report at: www.tinyurl.com/yuqkk8

Brian Schwartz, www.wakalix.com

Posted by Brian Schwartz (aka wakalix)
at 10:14 PM on Tuesday Jan 8

In other words, the socializers' "solution" to "cost shifting" is to massively expand cost shifting.

But the fundamental question is, why are hospitals forced to give people "free" care? After all, people who need food or clothes can't show up at the grocery store or the mall and demand free stuff. Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh, MD, explain the history in their article, "Moral Health Care vs. 'Universal Health Care':"

One reason for the overcrowding and overuse of ERs is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1985 (EMTALA). This law requires that hospitals that accept Medicare patients diagnose and treat anyone who comes within two hundred feet of an emergency room, regardless of whether the person can pay for the treatment. The effect of this law is that anyone can walk into an emergency room at any time and receive treatment -- without concern for payment.

That law should be repealed. Those who need medical care and cannot afford it should rely on payment plans or voluntary charity, whether provided by treatment centers or individual donors.

However, the "cost shifting" resulting from forced care is only a minor part of the problem; socializers use it as a pretext to deflect the debate away from the broader issues. A larger problem is the "cost shifting" that results from underpayments by Medicare and Medicaid. But the biggest problem is not "cost shifting" at all -- it is the transformation of insurance to pre-paid, tax-favored medical care, which results in more use without regard for cost and thus ever-higher costs. And that is precisely the problem that any of the schemes to expand political power over medicine would exacerbate -- to then be "solved" through political price-fixing and rationing.

Hillman Praises Groff

This week, Peter Groff became the first black president of Colorado's Senate. I don't know him personally (though I've met him), yet everything I know about him suggests that he's a first-rate gentleman. Mark Hillman, who worked with Groff, speaks highly of him. Even though Hillman lost his last political race, he has kept up his political involvement through regular commentary. Hillman has this to say about Groff:

For three years, Groff and I served together in the Colorado Senate. We stand on opposite sides of the political spectrum, but his integrity, his well-considered principles and his unapologetic advocacy of those principles set him apart from even many of the most respected legislators.

Hillman recalls some of Groff's words:

"We’ve created cultures that run counter to the legacy of Dr. [Martin Luther] King," he said. "Cultures of death, disrespect, division and materialism; cultures resulting in a self-imposed genocide, where we are killing each other at an alarming rate, where you receive street credit for being shot and no credit for graduating from the finest universities in this country; a culture that embraces and glorifies mediocrity and anti-intellectualism."

Instead, he champions "a culture of hope and hard work" and "a culture of excellence," knowing that without these so many of his constituents will be enslaved in cycles of poverty, crime and dependency.

A culture of hope, hard work, and excellence. For all of us. Amen. I would add that, to maintain those values, we need also a culture of liberty, in which the rights of every individual are consistently protected.

New year's Resolutions for the Legislature

From the Colorado Freedom Report:

New year's resolutions for the Legislature

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

The following article was originally published by Grand Junction Free Press on January 7, 2008.

Unfortunately, if legislators articulated their New Year's resolutions, some of them would go like this: "Pander to special-interest groups," "Tax the disorganized masses in order to reward the politically powerful," "Talk about freedom while increasing state power," and "Figure out how to spin my opponent's record so that I can win votes without having to debate the real issues."

If most legislators were not allergic to principles of liberty, we would suggest resolutions such as the following: dramatically reduce the level of state spending so that individuals can decide how to spend the money they earn, repeal the property-rights violation known as the smoking ban, and eliminate corporate welfare.

But we know that such "radical," "extreme" positions would never gain a hearing in the modern Capitol, where the only "principle" is that no principles are allowed. Therefore, we will offer a set of milder resolutions that even this year's legislature might consider.

1. Help restore freedom in medicine. Even though decades of political controls have wreaked havoc with health care in America, many of today's "reformers" call for even more political controls. Legislators should resist such demands. To address the problems in health care, legislators should not raise taxes, impose more controls on doctors or insurance companies, or force people to buy politically-approved insurance. Such measures will only make matters worse.

Instead, the legislature should do what it can to restore liberty in medicine, so that doctors, insurance companies, and patients can interact voluntarily to find solutions that work. The state imposes a variety of mandates that force up insurance costs; the legislature should repeal those. However, many of the most important reforms, such as fixing the tax distortions that drive up costs, must be made at the federal level. While the Colorado legislature cannot fix federal problems, at least it can resist "reforms" that would make those problems worse. It could also pass a resolution calling for the repeal of national controls.

To learn more about the causes of modern problems in health care, and how those problems can be solved, read "Moral Health Care vs. 'Universal Health Care'," by Coloradans Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh, MD, available at TheObjectiveStandard.com.

2. Fight the expansion of the Nanny State. For now, we seem to be stuck with the rights-violating smoking ban. But at least the Democrats have mostly shied away from trying to push more controls on peaceable, law-abiding gun owners. We know that some Democrats sincerely want to put the screws to honest gun owners, but they are holding back for political reasons. Whatever their reasons, we hope that the Democratic leadership continues to resist the siren song of the victim-disarmament lobby.

It looks like some Democrats might actually try to roll back the Nanny State where alcohol laws are concerned. In Colorado, we still can't legally purchase alcoholic beverages at liquor stores on Sundays, which is ridiculous. Nor can grocery stores sell anything other than 3.2 beer. We call on the legislature to repeal those restrictions. Consumers and sellers have a right to conduct business on terms to which they agree, rather than terms forced on them by politicians.

3. Keep tax spending under control. The left is great at talking "on message," and already we are hearing calls to "fix" the state's Constitution. State Senator Bernie Buescher has joined this crowd, according to The Denver Post. Yet, as Douglas Bruce told the Post, "This is all a big smoke screen to go after the [Taxpayer's Bill of Rights] amendment... The way they want to fix the TABOR amendment is the way a veterinarian would fix your pet. They want to neuter it." This despite the fact that we're still paying for the multi-billion dollar net tax increase of Referendum C.

The problem, says the Post, is a set of "provisions limiting taxes and mandating spending." We're all for repealing provisions that mandate spending, such as Amendment 23, which automatically increases the flow of tax dollars to government-run schools. The only reason that the spending limits are a problem is that politicians can't get enough of other people's money. The lesson that politicians constantly forget is that people are able to spend their own money wisely, thank you very much. At least for most of the state's budget, political spending forcibly takes money from some people in order to give the money to others.

We also suggest a broader resolution: protect individual rights. We have the right to control our own bodies and property, so long as we don't interfere with the equal rights of others. We have the right to spend our income as we see fit. The sole legitimate purpose of government is to protect individual rights. With every vote, legislators should think about whether they are about to violate or protect individual rights.

Even legislators have been known to do the right thing.

Drug-War Insanity

Speaking of insanity, here's the latest news about the drug war from an e-mail from DRCNet:

One would think after Atlanta police killed 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston, that they would get the idea, but they haven't, and the carnage continues. Last Friday, 1/4/08, a SWAT team, serving an ordinary drug search warrant, invaded the Ohio home of Tarika Wilson -- an innocent woman -- shot and killed her, and shot her one-year-old son. "They went in that home shooting," her mother said at a vigil that night. The boy lost at least one of his fingers. Two dogs were shot too.

Radley Balko, who tracks such abuses, has more about the raid in a first, second, and third post. Here's a quote from Balko's third post:

Lima police and city officials are bunkering down, as almost always happens in these cases. We do now know that Tarika Wilson and her son were shot on the second floor, after police had taken her boyfriend Anthony Terry–the man they were after–into custody. Police still haven’t said what quantity of drugs they found, nor have they mentioned whether Wilson or Terry fired a weapon.

Even assuming the worst about the victims, the police in this case were totally out of control. Why do we continue to let this happen, here, in America?

Ron Paul for President, RIP

I was looking up Radley Balko's comments on a drug-war raid, when I came across this post about Ron Paul, which links to this article from The New Republic. I do not doubt that Paul deeply regrets the comments in his old newsletters condemning Martin Luther King, Jr., and tolerating David Duke, whether Paul himself wrote those words or not, but, regardless of Paul's sincerity of repentance, his campaign for president is dead (even though few people ever seriously expected him to win). The great tragedy is that Paul is very often right about issues involving economics and civil liberties, and unfortunately the revelations will undermine his efforts to promote those ideas.

Religious Insanity

Many religious people are quite rational, and they interpret their religious beliefs through the lens of worldly common sense. However, sometimes religion becomes crazy. I mean, brutally torturing people to death over slight doctrinal differences? Hanging "witches" because of absurd accusations and inconsequential physical marks? Fathers murdering their own daughters because they are dating, and grandmothers holding down their granddaughters so that butchers can tear the clitorises out of the little girls? Religion certainly has its dark faces.

Yesterday I came across two examples of religion gone mad. At least they do not involve the sort of violence against others mentioned above. But they do indicate that religious beliefs can turn crazy.

The first example involves a man who is probably clinically insane, so perhaps religious beliefs were not the main problem here; perhaps otherwise his insanity would have manifest itself differently. Here's the story:

Idaho man sees 'mark of the beast,' cuts off and microwaves hand

Associated Press

Updated 02:18 p.m., January 9, 2008

HAYDEN, Idaho -- A man who believed he bore the "mark of the beast" used a circular saw to cut off one hand, then he cooked it in the microwave and called 911, authorities said.

The man, in his mid-20s, was calm when Kootenai County sheriff's deputies arrived Saturday in this northern Idaho town. He was in protective custody in the mental health unit of Kootenai Medical Center. ...

The article speculates that the man may have been inspired by the New Testament books of Revelation or Matthew. I don't want to make too much of this example, because, again, the guy is probably quite insane for reasons that have nothing to do with religion. However, I would point out that plenty of other people have done quite crazy things (such as kill themselves) based on religious beliefs involving the Apocalypse. At a certain point, it becomes difficult to distinguish between clinical insanity and self-induced religious insanity.

At any rate, the second example definitely involves only religious beliefs, not any sort of physiologically induced break with reality. World Net Daily has published an article that advertises "WND's elite monthly Whistleblower magazine."

Whistleblower's lead article, we are told, is "Witchcraft in America:"

What is witchcraft? Is it the same as Wicca? Is it a form of Satan worship, as critics allege? Or can witches be good? Can they really cast spells that somehow call forth the spirits beyond the world of nature to help them accomplish their will – whether good or evil? Is magic real? Why do witches often perform their ceremonies naked? And most of all, why do so many people today aspire to be witches?

Okay -- does anyone in modern America, in which we are learning about the article via an expansive network of computers and power generation, actually need to read an article to learn whether witches "somehow call forth the spirits beyond the world of nature?" I mean, is this now somehow open to debate? (I keep thinking that the whole thing must be a practical joke, and I'd be relieved to discover that it is, but unfortunately it seems to be sincere.)

Oh boy:

"Witchcraft, sorcery, magic and idol worship have been around since the earliest days of man," said WND Editor Joseph Farah. "They do, indeed, pre-date Christianity as we know it today – just as their practitioners like to point out with pride. But they do not pre-date the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – the one who created the universe. They are, in fact, part of a rebellion against Him and His laws."

It's difficult to pick the most ridiculous line from the article, but here's my selection:

"Top exorcist condemns 'Harry Potter'" – on the Vatican's top experts who says there's "no doubt the signature of the Prince of Darkness is in these books"

This is where I'd again usually be thinking, "Joke, right?" I mean, somebody's trying to screw with me, surely. And yet I recorded the following line from the documentary Jesus Camp, quoting a woman "teaching" young children:

"And while I'm on the subject, let me say something about Harry Potter. [Dramatic pause...] Warlocks are enemies of God. And I don't care what kind of hero the are, they're an enemy of God. And had it been in the Old Testament, Harry Potter would have been put to death." [In the background, somebody says, "Amen," as the audience bursts into applause.] "You don't make heroes out of warlocks."

So apparently, real people, people who have grown up in America, the most technologically advanced nation in world history, actually believe that J.K. Rowling, a writer of children's stories, is in league with a supernatural force of evil. That is insane.

Ref. C Costs Keep Rising

Referendum C is the net tax hike passed in Colorado in 2005. For background, see my "Referendum C Central."

In Colorado, tax dollars collected in excess of what may be legally spent must be returned to the taxpayers, under the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights. But Referendum C allowed the state government to keep all of the excess dollars for several years, regardless of the amount. (That is why I call it a net tax hike.) The amount has risen dramatically, as The Pueblo Chieftain recently pointed out:

When it was pitched to voters, supporters of the measure initially said it would raise an additional $3 billion over five years - then the figure quickly was raised to $3.75 billion.

We believed the figure would be closer to $7 billion, based on the additional bounty the federal Treasury was bringing in as a result of the economic boost from the Bush tax rate cuts. But we were being too conservative.

Last week the office of Gov. Bill Ritter released its quarterly economic and revenue forecast. That document admitted that our prediction was closer to the truth.

So now we will go boldly where no one has gone before and predict that Ref C will result in an increase in state revenues of $10 billion over the five-year period.

The exact figure will not be known till after the fact, but obviously it will be billions of dollars more than Referendum C's supporters originally predicted.

Dave Kopel writes about this for the recently created Colorado Union of Taxpayers Weblog. Kopel argues:

Although the ref C advocates dishonestly described ref C as as “temporary” “five-year” “time-out” from the Taxpayers Bill of Rights, the effect of ref C will be a permanent increase in state government taxing and spending levels allowed under the state Constitution. And yet, $10 billion extra dollars, over five years, plus billions and billions more in perpetuity, is not enough for the tax consumer lobby, which is gearing up to push another tax increase on the 2008 ballot.

It's not clear exactly when or how the tax-hikers will make their move, but they obviously want to figure out a way to take even more of other people's money by force. Apparently, to them the refrain, "just a few billion more," never gets old.

Yaron Brook on Health Policy

Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute wrote an outstanding article for yesterday's Forbes.com on health policy. One of the points he makes is that Republicans too have promoted political control of medicine:

...Republicans have been responsible for major expansions of government health care programs: As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney oversaw the enactment of the nation's first "universal coverage" plan, initially estimated at $1.5 billion per year but already overrunning cost projections. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who pledged not to raise any new taxes, has just pushed through his own "universal coverage" measure, projected to cost Californians more than $14 billion. And President Bush's colossal prescription drug entitlement--expected to cost taxpayers more than $1.2 trillion over the next decade--was the largest expansion of government control over health care in 40 years.

Brook briefly reviews the rise of political controls of medicine that have created today's problems, then he outlines the proper approach rooted in individual rights.

Green Death

We are again reminded that one person's reductio ad absurdum is another's logical conclusion:

updated 10:49 a.m. EST, Thu December 27, 2007

'Green funerals' feature biodegradable coffins

PORTLAND, Oregon (AP) -- Cynthia Beal wants to be an Oregon cherry tree after she dies. She has everything to make it happen -- a body, a burial site and a biodegradable coffin.

"It is composting at its best," said Beal, owner of The Natural Burial Company, which will sell a variety of eco-friendly burial products when it opens in January, including the Ecopod, a kayak-shaped coffin made out of recycled newspapers.

Biodegradable coffins are part of a larger trend toward "natural" burials, which require no formaldehyde embalming, cement vaults, chemical lawn treatments or laminated caskets. Advocates say such burials are less damaging to the environment.

Cremation was long considered more environmentally friendly than burials in graveyards, but its use of fossil fuels has raised concerns. ...

Biodegradable containers cost from around $100 for a basic cardboard box up to more than $3,000 for a handcrafted, hand-painted model.

As Monica Hughes pointed out in an e-mail, why "waste" resources by using any sort of container? Wouldn't it be better to repeal the laws requiring them? I mean, $100 worth of cardboard -- do we really want to meet our deaths bearing that kind of guilt? Instead of recycling newspaper -- a process that requires (gasp!) energy -- shouldn't we demand that the newspaper not be produced in the first place?

But, assuming that we must be buried in a box, here's a thought: why doesn't the national government force car makers to sell the green coffins along with the new fuel-economy death cars?

Peikoff's Sixth Podcast

Yesterday Leonard Peikoff released his sixth podcast, in which he answers questions about Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. This time, he took on four main questions. (Again, my summaries are no substitute for the content of Peikoff's comments.)

1. Should one hesitate to become a writer of fiction, if one believes that one could never match the quality of Rand's novels? Peikoff answers that relying on such a "comparative standard" is a "complete error." Instead, if you love the work of some particular field, and if you can produce work of value in that field, you should go for it.

2. Would an isolationist foreign policy with respect to the Middle East make us safer? Peikoff notes that political isolation can work only between regions that are both non-aggressive. Once one side initiates aggression, isolationism is unworkable. Peikoff adds that, in the case of Islamic terrorists, the notion that a United States military presence in the Middle East somehow provoked the attacks is a only a rationalization; the real motive of Islamic terrorists is "hatred of the West."

3. Can one act without an emotional impetus? Peikoff believes not. Every act must be motivated by some "value commitment."

4. Are internet discussions about Objectivism fruitful? Peikoff answers that, while they can be, often they lack philosophical context and rigor. Speaking from my own experience, I look back with embarrassment on much that I wrote "about" Objectivism years ago when I knew very little about it; much of what I wrote was complete nonsense. Readers unfamiliar with Objectivism, then, should bear in mind that many internet forums may radically misrepresent Ayn Rand's ideas, and this can be true of comments coming from detractors as well as (nominal) supporters of those ideas.

I'm really enjoying these podcasts, and I hope that my brief summaries help to point others to them.

Drugs, Health, and Rights

From The Colorado Freedom Report:

Drugs, Health, and Rights: An Exchange

The following exchange consists of e-mails sent yesterday by "Rafaela" of Brazil and me regarding drug prohibition, individual rights, and health policy. --Ari Armstrong, January 7, 2008

Hi Mr Armstrong,

I've recently read an old article of yours, about Dr. Jeffrey Schaler's book "Addiction is a Choice," ...and found many interesting points of view regarding drug use and the prohibition of it, but on a few portions of the article raised some doubts for me.

From what I understood, ultimately you are against drug prohibition, as it is an individual choice from the individual that does not affect others, and even compare today's drug war to an Inquisition of sorts, where people who defend prohibition are mostly driven by a misguided sense of morality.

Now, I don't really have a completely formed opinion on whether drugs should be legalized or not (which is one of the reasons why I enjoyed the opinions in your article). I'm a doctor from Brazil, and the main problem i had with this line of thought is that in my opinion, this is a choice that does affect others. I don't know much about the US medical system, but in Brazil, we have two types of systems: Health Plans (which work exactly like in your country, i'm sure), and the Unified Health System, financiated by the federal and local governments, which provides assistance to the less privileged in all complexities, to simple consults to complex surgeries. Now, wouldn't the increase of substance use bring on a variety of health problems (such as an increase in the incidence of Hep C, HIV and other illnessess not directly related to the use of IV drugs) on these individuals that would ultimately affect the collective health system? I strongly believe in the individual choice, but sometimes the State does interfere in matters of public health in ways that i don't find completely wrong (for example, there's a tropical disease transmitted trough mosquito bites, those were attracted to still waters, there was a strong State campain against reservatoires of stillwater in individuals homes).

Forgive me if I haven't made a lot of sense while writing this, or misunderstood your point, but English isn't my first language, and such mistakes often happen. And I'm also sorry for the length of this.

Thank you very much for your attention,
Rafaela

Ari Armstrong Replies

I'll start with the easiest, most empirical matter first. Would the re-legalization of drugs increase the use of infected needles, and thus increase the number of illnesses? My answer is no: the re-legalization of drugs (and clean needles) would reduce the use of infected needles in favor of clean needles. But there is a broader point: the prohibition of drugs has led to the use of more concentrated drugs, which are often smoked or injected. I believe that, with an end of prohibition, people who use drugs would tend to use them orally more often, which would reduce the number of needles used.

Now for the deeper political issues. It is NOT my view that drugs should be re-legalized because drug use "does not affect others." That is not the correct political standard. Plenty of things that impact others should be outlawed, such as assault, rape, and homicide. Then again, plenty of things that impact others should not be outlawed. For example, if a father eats a poor diet and refuses to exercise, that will impact his children, but diet and exercise should not be matters of law.

The proper political standard is individual rights. We have the right to control our own bodies and resources, provided that we respect the equal rights of others. Quite simply, there is nothing about drug use per se that violates rights. Now, some people who use drugs (including the legal drug alcohol) also commit criminal acts, but they should be punished for those criminal acts, not for the drug use. Obviously, drugs, just like many other objects, can be used responsibly or irresponsibly. The use of marijuana or opiates to ease physical pain can be quite morally proper. Any drug addiction, just like any sort of psychological addiction, is harmful. The proper purpose of government is to protect individual rights, not force people to otherwise behave as they should.

But don't irresponsible behaviors, such as drug abuse, cause more health problems? No doubt. But that is a political problem only under socialized medicine. If socialized medicine justifies drug prohibition (which, by the way, does not eliminate but increases related health problems), then it also justifies diet control, mandatory exercise, the violation of property rights (such as a ban on unhealthy restaurants), censorship, and compelled health education.

As Lin Zinser and Pual Hsieh, MD, write: "A final (and often unacknowledged) consequence of government interference in medicine is that it leads to violations of individual rights in other areas of life, such as violations of the right to free speech and mandates regarding what people may and may not eat. When the government pays our health care bills, in order to save money, it inevitably demands greater control in how we lead our daily lives."

The answer to the problems generated by socialized medicine is not to impose political controls on other parts of our lives, but rather to establish liberty in medicine (as Zinser and Hsieh eloquently argue).

Finally, I would like to address another example you offer in your e-mail. What about people who allow mosquito infestations on their property? As an aside, I am curious: I have often heard the claim that DDT bans have greatly exacerbated the problems of mosquito-born illnesses; do you know if this is the case in Brazil? But on to the example as it stands. A good argument could be made that allowing a mosquito infestation violates the rights of others by subjecting them to dangerous diseases, and thus government intervention of some sort is justified. But I fear that the problem requires the expertise of somebody who knows more about legal theory. Regardless of the legal issues, certainly a voluntary effort to eradicate mosquito infestations and educate people of their dangers would be appropriate. More broadly, what Brazil needs is economic freedom and secure property rights, so that its people can generate the wealth required to solve this and other life-threatening problems.

I hope that my response has been of some interest to you.

Regards,

Ari Armstrong

Murder for Allah?

My wife has been reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Infidel for some weeks; she says she can take the book only in small doses because it describes such horrible circumstances, at least in its first sections. That women suffer terrible abuses throughout much of the Muslim world is no secret. Now it seems likely that such abuse has arisen in Texas. Here's the story from Fox News:

Slain Teen Girls' Brother Begs for Suspect Father to Turn Himself In
Saturday, January 05, 2008

As the family of two teenage Texas girls allegedly shot by their father and left to die in his taxi prepared to bury them, their brother issued a plea to his father.

"I just hope he turns himself in because, you know, he messed up the whole family," Islam Said, 19, told MyFOXDFW.com after his sisters were found dead Tuesday night.

Said said his father, Yaser Abdel Said, 50, of Lewisville, Texas, was having a very hard time when his daughters, Sarah Yaser Said, 17, and Amina Yaser Said, 18, started dating.

Connie Moggio, the girls' aunt, said there had been turbulence in the Said household for a while.

She said her sister married Yaser Abdel Said at the age of 15 and was pregnant shortly after, adding she had tried to leave her husband many times over the years, most recently, on Christmas Eve.

"A few days before she called me at my job and told me she was leaving because he had threatened the girls because they were dating," Moggio told MyFOXDFW.com. ...

A local Austin imam condemned the murders on [an internet] tribute page...

The victims' brother made a statement at the vigil that the deaths have nothing to do with religion. ...

Brigitte Gabriel, author of "Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America," said the shootings point to an "honor killing."

"This crime has honor killing written all over it," Gabriel said. "The father was insulted and ashamed of how his daughters were behaving."

The daughters were bringing shame to Islam and the father took it upon himself to respond, Gabriel said.

"The father probably was seeing that this is going to bring shame on the family and he needed to eliminate that shame," Gabriel said.

The report is preliminary in nature. However, accounts abound about so-called "honor killings," genital mutilation, physical disfigurement, legal barbarism, and overwhelming oppression of women throughout the Muslim world. Every civilized person must condemn such horrors and demand that they be stopped. In a rational world, dating, having consensual sex prior to marriage, driving, traveling alone, and dressing in Western attire are not criminal offenses, much less offenses punished by physical damage or death.

Here is one of the many horrors to which Ali was subjected:

[Grandma] caught hold of me and gripped my upper body... Two other women held my legs apart. The man... picked up a pair of scissors. With the other hand, he caught hold of the place between my legs and started tweaking it... Then the scissors went down between my legs and the man cut off my inner labia and clitoris. I heard it, like a butcher snipping the fat off a piece of meat. A piercing pain shot up between my legs, indescribable, and I howled. Then came the sewing: the long, blunt needle clumsily pushed into my bleeding outer labia, my loud and anguished protests, Grandma's words of comfort and encouragement. ... I must have fallen asleep, for it wasn't until much later that day that I realized that my legs had been tied together, to prevent me from moving to facilitate the formation of a scar. It was dark and my bladder was bursting, but it hurt too much to pee. The sharp pain was still there, and my legs were covered in blood. I was sweating and shivering. It wasn't until the next day that my Grandma could persuade me to pee even a little. By then everything hurt. When I just lay still the pain throbbed miserably, but when I urinated the flash of pain was as sharp as when I had been cut. (pages 32-33)

If atrocities against women "have nothing to do with religion," then why does much of the Muslim world continue to allow them?

Voices for Liberty in Medicine

Wayne Laugesen, long a columnist for Boulder Weekly, now works for Colorado Springs's Gazette as "Editorial page editor." Congratulations, Wayne! Though Wayne comes at some issues (such as abortion) from a religious perspective, usually he's a dedicated "classical liberal" who cares first about individual rights. I'll be interested to track his work at The Gazette.

Not coincidentally, yesterday The Gazette ran a substantive editorial endorsing liberty in medicine:

...The Blue-Ribbon Commission on Health Care Reform, appointed by legislative leaders and the governor, will present its recommendations to the Legislature on Jan. 31. ...

“The majority of the commission favors a government-heavy proposal,” says Dr. Paul Hsieh, a Denver physician who has studied the new Massachusetts system. “They’re crafting it similar to the Massachusetts model.”

A year old, the Massachusetts system is resulting in rationing and shortages of care, and higher costs to taxpayers than originally expected. ...

Government intervention, in fact, explains the failures of our current system. The IRS code drives most Americans to buy health insurance through employers. That means insurers don’t have to compete for consumers, because for most Americans, shopping around for a better deal involves a career change. And because health insurance has been packaged as a “free” benefit from employers, patients have spent the past half-century consuming health care without challenging the price. ...

State legislators can’t change the morass of federal regulation that has led to a health care system unrestrained by the conventional market forces that control other services and goods. But legislators can improve access to health care by eliminating most of the state controls that prohibit affordable coverage. ...

Brian Schwartz... proposed to the Blue Ribbon Commission a market-based health care reform package that mostly involved deregulation. ...

Hsieh and Schwartz have become leaders in Colorado for liberty in medicine. Hsieh wrote an article with Lin Zinser, "Moral Health Care vs. 'Universal Health Care'," that explains the problems with health policy and how to fix them.

And yesterday Schwartz also had a letter published in Boulder's Daily Camera:

...[W]e don't have a free market in medical care or insurance. ...Tax-exempt employer-provided insurance coddles insurers by tying us to our employer's plans. Insurers are committed to satisfying customers, which are employers, not you. Hence, they can afford to be stingy and deceptive: they know that losing your premium dollars requires that you change jobs.

What "powerful and wealthy forces" oppose changing this? Labor unions. ...[T]he AFL-CIO supports "single payer health care": politically controlled medicine with government as a monopolistic insurer. This is even worse than buying it through your employer. If you don't like what the government "health barons" offer, it's not enough to change jobs, you must move out of state to change providers.

If you like "single payer," don't worry that the 208 Commission on Healthcare Reform has not recommended it. They recommend an "individual mandate," which makes it a crime not to purchase politician-approved "insurance." Such compulsory insurance is essentially single-payer in disguise. Strict regulations on legal insurance plans severely limit competition, so insurance companies are effectively government contractors for politically-defined insurance.

Colorado was supposed to be one of the national testing grounds for socialized medicine. Now, thanks to the work of people like Laugesen, Hsieh, Zinser, and Schwartz, the idea that we need more liberty in medicine, rather than more political controls, has become part of the public debate. While we still face a real and serious threat of more political interference in medicine, at least now liberty has a fighting chance.

God Wins in Iowa

From The Colorado Freedom Report:

The big winner in the Iowan caucuses is Jesus Christ. Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama are the two most religious -- politically religious -- candidates of their parties. I'm surprised that those candidates came in first. However, I don't believe that they'll win the nominations (though I think it likely that Obama joins somebody else's ticket). Indeed, I would be stunned if either candidate made it to the general election. If both make it, that will demonstrate that this country is in worse shape than I thought, and that we are likely headed toward more expansive religious-based politics.

Here's why I don't think Huckabee or Obama will last. In late 2006, Time published a map titled, "Denomination Nation." If you select for "Mainline Protestants," you will find that Iowa is among the states most heavily populated by such Christians. West of Nebraska, the numbers drop off dramatically.

Huckabee's motto is "Faith. Family. Freedom." -- in that order. Huckabee leaves no doubt that he will interpret "freedom" through the lens of faith, which means that he will sacrifice genuine freedom to faith.

Under his "Issues" page "Faith and Politics," Huckabee writes, "My faith is my life -- it defines me. My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them. For example, when it comes to the environment, I believe in being a good steward of the earth."

On the issue of abortion, Huckabee writes,

I support and have always supported passage of a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life. ... I have no desire to throw women in jail, I just want us to stop throwing babies in the garbage. ... With respect to stem cells, I am opposed to research on embryonic stem cells.

However, if Huckabee passes an amendment outlawing abortion, this will necessarily impose criminal penalties on women and/or their doctors. (I do not imagine that the amendment will read, "Pretty please don't have abortions; Congress shall pass no law enforcing this amendment.") Then real police with real guns will arrest real people and throw them into real jails, Huckabee's disingenuous "desires" notwithstanding.

It is unclear to me what exceptions Huckabee might allow. Would he outlaw all abortions from the moment the sperm enters the egg? What about cases of rape, incest, or dangers to the life of the mother? And who gets to make such calls? How many doctors will be called before the Inquisition to prove that an abortion was necessary to protect the woman's life? And how many women will be called to prove that their miscarriages were accidental?

However, even an abortion ban with numerous exceptions and light enforcement would severely violate the rights of pregnant women who do not wish to have a child. (The fact that many abortions result from irresponsible sex does not change this fact.) The sort of abortion ban that many Christians favor would outlaw abortions of fertilized eggs. Thus, the "morning after" pill would be outlawed, and, presumably, manufacture, distribution, possession, and use of such a pill would bring criminal penalties. Yet the position that a fertilized egg or a cluster of cells should be granted the same rights that you have is grounded on the Christian dogma that God infuses a fertilized egg with a soul. Such a policy imposes religion by political force.

Huckabee also wishes to outlaw certain types of medical research based on his religious beliefs. I don't know where Huckabee stands on issues of censorship and "faith-based" tax subsidies. (For further discussion on religion in politics, see my blog post on Fred Thompson and then link back from there.)

Aside from his rejection of the separation of church and state, Huckabee is a typical "moderate" left-wing statist. He endorses environmentalism through political force and better health through federal controls, as examples. Mark Joseph's December 31 column about Huckabee is telling:

The stunning and rapid ascendence of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has shocked prominent old-guard Washington Republicans and conservatives, leaving them shaking their heads, wondering how a social conservative with a fairly liberal record on issues like immigration, education, taxes and spending can possibly be commanding the allegiance of so many Christian conservative voters. ...

For Huckabee is an unreconstructed and unapologetic pre-1980 Republican who has more in common with William Jennings Bryan than Ronald Reagan and whose views expose the deep rift that has always existed between social and economic conservatives. ...

[T]he emergence of Huckabee and his hybrid conservative/liberal style may finally produce the much ballyhooed conservative crackup that so many commentators have been predicting.

Obama would expand national controls over virtually every aspect of our lives. Yet at least he talks about the separation of church and state. Yet he clearly believes that God has called him to use the power of the national government to carry out religious goals. The document, "Barack Obama on Faith," states that "God is constantly present in our lives..." And Obama wants to make sure of it. "Faith is a source of action for justice." In this context, "justice" is a euphemism for political controls to force people to obey Obama's version of Christian "charity." For some examples, see Obama's proposals on poverty. He wants to expand "career" subsidies, "create a green jobs corps," expand subsidies for "urban planning initiatives," increase the forced wage rate, etc. Obama also wants to impose "a new national health plan."

Obama is thus in tune with the socialist tradition. The difference is that he justifies his socialism by faith.

The election of Mike Huckabee or Barack Obama as President of the United States would constitute a national disaster. Fortunately, that's not likely to happen.

Health-Care "Reform"

Yesterday John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, sent out an email pointing out some of the absurdities coming out of today's health-care "reform" movement:

Exhibit A: Critics who complain that the US health care system outspends every other country and gets nothing in return and then advocate...(can it be?)...more spending! For Sen. Obama, it's $60 billion more every year. For Sens. Clinton and Edwards, it's $120 billion - more than $1,000 per year for every household in America.

Exhibit B: Critics who complain that the error rate in US hospitals is way above anything that is tolerable in any other industry and then advocate more rules and regulations that would...(surprise!)...make it more difficult for hospitals to operate like other businesses.

Exhibit C: Critics who complain that poor people have inadequate access to health care and then advocate enrolling them in health plans where...(you guessed it)...they will have even less access than they have today.

Under ordinary circumstances this would all be laughable, but in health care - hey, they might get away with it.

Goodman points to his article, "Applying the 'Do No Harm' Principle to Health Policy," as well as to a health plan from his organization. However, for a clear account of the problems with American health care and a principled solution rooted in liberty, I suggest the article by Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh, MD, "Moral Health Care vs. 'Universal Health Care'."

Peikoff's Fifth Podcast

Leonard Peikoff's podcasts are interesting enough that I want to alert my readers to new installments. Peikoff published his fifth podcast on December 23. Most of his comments relate to politics.

The first question may seem obscure to people unfamiliar with debates within Objectivism (the philosophy of Ayn Rand). Peikoff is working on a new book about "DIM," or Disintegration, Integration, and Misintegration. Peikoff argues that Objectivism promotes the proper integration of the facts of reality. An example of disintegration is skepticism; the most common form of "misintegration" -- or system building apart from reality -- is religion. As an application of his work, Peikoff has argued that, today, religion is the larger threat. The question asks whether one must accept Peikoff's theory of DIM in order to be an Objectivist; Peikoff answers no.

The second question concerns the significance of political parties. Peikoff argues that, in today's mixed economy in which parties are affiliated with pressure groups, parties are "very influential." The problem that Peikoff finds with today's Republican party is that it has been promoting "medieval Christian fundamentalism." Peikoff further argues that, today, the main conflict is not the individual versus the collective, but rather reason versus religion.

For the third question, regarding Ron Paul (a Republican presidential candidate), Peikoff asked Yaron Brook for his view. Brook replied that Paul's foreign policy is essentially libertarian in that it blames America for Islamic attacks. Paul also wants to return abortion to the states rather than ensure its legality. For these reasons, Paul strikes out with Peikoff. (I agree with the analysis of Brook and Peikoff.)

Should the United States government rescue slaves who aren't American citizens? Peikoff replies that, while the U.S. government must rescue its citizens from slavery, it shouldn't try to save non-citizens. After all, the government is funded by its citizens in order to protect the rights of its citizens. However, a voluntary charity to help other slaves is fine. Peikoff argues that the best way for the U.S. government to help spread freedom around the world is to establish genuine freedom here at home.

Finally, Peikoff discusses the moral status of accepting the unearned.

My review should be considered a summary only; my purpose is merely to alert readers to some of the issues covered by Peikoff in his podcasts (which are not searchable). Please don't take my word for it -- listen to Peikoff's podcast yourself.

Christianity Versus Liberty

Many Christians proclaim that their religion is responsible for the rise of liberty in the West. They make this claim despite the fact that Christians ruled over centuries of stifling (and sometimes murderous) oppression, despite the fact that liberty did not gain traction until the Enlightenment, an era that seriously challenged religious dogma. Today, some Christians fight to control the economy, while others fight to control our personal lives. Increasingly, these two camps are finding common cause.

In a December 30 column for the conservative Townhall.com, Ken Connor, "a nationally recognized trial lawyer who represented Governor Jeb Bush in the Terri Schiavo case," argues that the Christian right and the Christian left should come together. He argues that the Christian right should be more sensitive to the egalitarian left's plans to forcibly transfer wealth:

Perhaps liberal evangelicals will help remind the body of Christ that our greatest obligation is not to be financially successful or politically triumphant, but to love our Lord and our neighbor, even in public life. Perhaps they will also encourage us to develop new political solutions to the timeless problem of material poverty. As conservatives, our policy proposals probably won't include lots of major Federal programs because our experience shows that solutions rooted in the expansion of governmental bureaucracy often do more harm than good. However, we must not fall prey to the rhetoric of secular conservatives who put worldly financial concerns above all else. As Christians, we have a duty to address the needs of the poor, and it would be wrong for us to fall prey to a radically individualistic mentality. "Dog eat dog" is not a biblical phrase and "the survival of the fittest" is not a Christian concept. Our priority is the common good, with a special concern for those who have the least.

Note here that Connor finds no principled reason for the national government to refrain from forcibly transferring wealth; he thinks the activity is just fine, so long as it can be shown to do more good than harm (by what standard he does not mention). Apparently, Conner has even fewer reservations about using state and local force to transfer wealth.

Connor explicitly denounces individualism in favor of "the common good," and he associates a system of liberty, in which people interact voluntarily rather than by force and in which the rights of each individual are consistently protected, with a "dog eat dog... survival of the fittest." In other words, in his political goals and his evaluation of liberty, Connor's views are indistinguishable from those of socialists.

Connor also hopes to bring the Christian left on board with the Christian right's social agenda:

At the same time, perhaps there are ways in which we can help progressives look at things differently. ... Al Sharpton... criticized the black church for being too worried about what he called "bedroom issues": marriage and abortion. He thinks they should mobilize on social justice issues rather than be distracted by abortion. On something like this, we have an obligation to vigorously defend the unborn. Perhaps we can help progressive Christians like Al Sharpton understand that abortion is the greatest social justice issue of our time.

In other words, Connor wants to convince the left that it's a great idea to subject women and/or the doctors who serve them to criminal penalties for aborting a fertilized egg, based on the Christian doctrine that God infuses a fertilized egg with a soul. And this is just one example for Connor; no doubt he could think of many additional reasons to send out men with guns to arrest and imprison people.

I do not expect a quick convergence of Christian left and right. Instead, what is likely to happen is that the Christian right will become less and less interested in defending any vestige of economic liberty, while the Christian left will show less resistance to social controls. Both sides will "compromise" by allowing the other side its favored controls.