Saudi Insanity

A story reproduced by Fox -- originally from The Times of February 26 -- reports:

A university professor allegedly caught in a Saudi-style honey trap has been sentenced to 180 lashes and eight months in jail -- for having coffee with a girl. ...

[O]ne senior Saudi journalist told The Times he was Dr. Abu Ruzaiz, a married man in his late 50s with children.

"He is highly respected and above-board. Nobody believes the religious police's version of what happened. The whole of Jeddah (the main city near Mecca) is in uproar about this. Everyone believes he is innocent and was set up," the journalist said.

Contact between unrelated men and women is strictly prohibited in the desert kingdom where religious police, commonly known as mutaween, patrol public places in teams to enforce their brand of ultra-conservative Islam. ... They are under the command of the Saudi Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice. ...

Ruzaiz is said to have received a call from a girl purporting to be one of his students who asked to meet to discuss a problem that she did not want to talk about over the phone. The professor agreed to meet at a family cafe, provided she brought her brother along as a chaperone.

When he arrived, he was surprised to find the girl alone, and was promptly surrounded by religious policemen who handcuffed him and hauled him into custody. He was accused of being in a state of khulwa -- seclusion -- with an unrelated woman. ...

In another high-profile case, an illiterate Saudi woman is hoping that King Abdullah will spare her life after she was condemned to death for "witchcraft." Her accusers included a man who claimed that the woman, Fawzi Falih, had made him impotent with her sorcery.

An international human rights group said Falih -- who faces being publicly beheaded -- was allegedly beaten by religious police and forced into fingerprinting a false confession.

Prosecutors are currently investigating 57 young men arrested last week for flirting with girls at shopping centres in Mecca. They were accused of wearing indecent clothes, playing loud music and dancing in order to catch the attention of girls.

The Times published an earlier account of the "witch."

Here is yet another story:

A 37-year-old American businesswoman and married mother of three is seeking justice after she was thrown in jail by Saudi Arabia's religious police for sitting with a male colleague at a Starbucks coffee shop in Riyadh.

Yara, who does not want her last name published for fear of retribution, was bruised and crying when she was freed from a day in prison after she was strip-searched, threatened and forced to sign false confessions by the Kingdom's "Mutaween" police.

And here is a follow-up:

A US businesswoman living in Saudi Arabia fears for her life after the religious police issued a rare statement defending her arrest this month for having coffee with a male colleague at a Starbucks coffee shop in Riyadh.

According to that Times story, the absurdly named Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice made the following statement:

It's not allowed for any woman to travel alone and sit with a strange man and talk and laugh and drink coffee together like they are married.

All of these are against the law and it's clear it's against the law. First, for a woman to work with men is against the law and against religion. Second, the family sections at coffee shops and restaurants are meant for families and close relatives.

Yes, some people in Saudi Arabia are upset about these sorts of abuses. But the mere fact that this sort of religious-based fascism exists indicates widespread cultural insanity in that country.

Americans who want "faith-based" politics should look seriously at what that actually means when seriously enforced. No, no American (that I've heard) has complained when a man and woman "laugh and drink coffee together." No, various American Christians merely advocate the complete ban of all abortions from the moment of fertilization, say that "in the Old Testament, Harry Potter would have been put to death," and call for "the death penalty for homosexuals" and for "Biblical theocratic republics." But at least in America the religious crazies don't get to go around brutalizing people with state sanction and resources.

No Yoga for Christians?

I just completed a month's membership at a local yoga studio, and I was trying to find some information on the growth of yoga (as well as massage) over the last few decades. I didn't find the figures I was looking for (so if anybody has a good source, please let me know), but I did find the following peculiar commentary on the "eChristian" blog: "Can a Pagan Practice be 'Christianized?' -- Yoga."

First a word about my own limited experience with yoga. There was a class about "chakras" that I simply refused to attend. And I've had enough "hare krishna" chanting to last a lifetime. (Thankfully, I think that CD got scratched. I promise I had nothing to do with that.) But, in general, yoga is just a form of exercise that emphasizes stretching. As my neck and shoulders often get tense as I type, for me that works great. I just ignore the occasional mumbo-jumbo. When my wife and I do yoga alone at home, we stick to the moves that work for us and don't worry about our fifth chakras. As with martial arts, yoga comes from a specific region and contains some superfluous elements that can be safely ignored.

But yoga is a no-no for Christians, at least according to Marsha West, who originally wrote the piece on January 25, 2008, for NewsWithViews.com. At the top of that page, we discover that West is "Battling The Culture of Destruction." The upshot is that "Christians should avoid yoga and seek other alternatives." Following are her essential points:

...The Bible says, "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds but rather expose them." Exposing evil keeps Christians from being "polluted by the world." And yes, yoga is evil. ...

Now here's the main reason Christians should avoid yoga. Christian apologists John Ankerberg and John Weldon maintain that, "The basic premise of yoga theory is the fundamental unity of all existence: God, man, and all of creation are ultimately one divine reality." ...

Pope Benedict XVI is not at all happy about the large number of Christians practicing yoga. Recently he gave this warning: "Yoga can degenerate into the cult of the body."

S. Michael Houdmann thinks yoga is blatantly anti-Christian philosophy. "It teaches one to focus on oneself instead of on the one true God. It encourages its participants to seek the answers to life's difficult questions within their own conscience instead of in the Word of God. It also leaves one open to deception from God's enemy, who searches for victims that he can turn away from God (1 Peter 5:8)."

West goes on to criticize "CY," or Christian Yoga:

[O]ccult and cult expert, Caryl Matrisciana... warns that yoga postures, "are designed to form one's body into the likeness of man, animals, birds, insects, snakes, fish, and many more--all of which are revered as gods in Hinduism."

West seems to have forgotten all about the fact that the "Christian" holidays of Christmas and Easter are based on older pagan customs. So, even from the Christian perspective, West's comments are pretty crazy. Then again, the Christians did go through a period of destroying Roman pagan art, as some Protestants later destroyed Catholic art. So West's type of insanity is not entirely new to Christianity. Moreover, at least historically many Christians were quite serious about denying the flesh and such, and it's true that yoga promotes physical health. For some Christians, the "cult of the body" refers to anything whatsoever that feels remotely good or that emphasizes sensory perception.

Of course, I want to make a somewhat broader criticism: West is telling people to reject one sort of mythology as "evil" -- and to accept as literal truth another sort of mythology.

Most mythologies, including Christianity, have at least something positive to offer to rational people. If the Hindus gave us yoga, great -- that doesn't mean I have to accept the mystical baggage, any more than I have to accept the mystical baggage of Christmas to enjoy that holiday.

A Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person

Recently I discussed Mike Huckabee's opposition to abortion. He really means it. A February 26 article from the Rocky Mountain News states:

A proposed ballot measure that would define personhood as a fertilized egg picked up the endorsement of Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister.

In a statement Monday, Huckabee said the amendment proposed by 20-year-old Kristi Burton and her group, Colorado for Equal Rights, would send a clear message that every human life has value.

Here is the text of the proposal:

Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:

SECTION 1. Article II of the constitution of the state of Colorado is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read:

Section 31. Person defined. As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the terms "person" or "persons" shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization.

And here is what those three sections state:

Section 3. Inalienable rights.

All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Section 6. Equality of justice.

Courts of justice shall be open to every person, and a speedy remedy afforded for every injury to person, property or character; and right and justice should be administered without sale, denial or delay.

Section 25. Due process of law.

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.

Here I will briefly recapitulate the case against the proposal.

A fertilized egg is not a person. It is (in the right circumstances) a potential person, but a potential is not an actual person. A fertilized egg is human in the sense that it contains human DNA, but that is the case with every cell in our bodies. The distinction between a potential and actual person applies throughout gestation, but it is particularly obvious in the case of a fertilized egg. A fertilized egg soon becomes a clump of undifferentiated cells; certainly it cannot function or live independently.

A fertilized egg is not a person and therefore does not have rights. A woman has an absolute right to abort a fertilized egg and older embryo. (This is true even if the pregnancy resulted from irresponsible behavior.)

What would be some of the implications of treating a fertilized egg as a person?

The measure, if enforced (which is another matter), would outlaw all abortions, even in the case of rape, incest, severe damage to the embryo, and danger to the woman's life. The measure would probably outlaw the use of all "morning after" medications. That means that women, and/or their doctors, and/or the producers and suppliers of items used for abortion, would be subject to criminal prosecution and punishment.

It so happens that a large percentage of pregnancies are naturally terminated by women's bodies. It is also the case that sometimes a fertilized egg begins to grow outside of the uterus; this is called an ectopic pregnancy.

Treating a fertilized egg as a person, then, would require a criminal investigation into any terminated pregnancy in which the women was suspected of inducing her body's rejection of the egg, embryo, or fetus. Serious enforcement of the measure would require the machinations of a police state. Treating a fertilized egg as a person would also require the woman to risk and often surrender her life in the case of dangerous pregnancies, including ectopic ones.

The measure is hideously immoral and ghastly in its implications.

Peikoff's Ninth Podcast

Leonard Peikoff has released his ninth podcast. I've been going back and forth about where to blog about these podcasts; this time I'll put my notes on AriArmstrong.com rather than FreeColorado.com because one question involves religion. The notes that follow are my own summaries that should not be taken as a substitute for Peikoff's comments. In this podcast, Peikoff addresses four questions.

1. A 17-year-old atheist asks about how to relate to his religious parents. Should he pretend to pray and worship at church? Would discussing the matter with his parents somehow diminish the value of the teenager's views? Peikoff describes a very sensible course: "be pleasant, do not be argumentative, but don't lie." He points out that it's generally not possible for a child -- even an older one -- to convince parents about things of this sort, so it might be necessary for a teenager living at home to "follow what [parents] require, but within limits." Peikoff also explains why expressing one's views does not somehow taint them but rather gives them the force of an "objective presence."

While I agree with Peikoff's advice for normal situations, I would add that, in the case of particularly irrational parents who might subject their "disloyal" children to spankings, indoctrination camps, or the like, teenagers should keep their views quiet until they get out of the house. But such situations are abnormal and rare (in the West).

2. How does Peikoff stay youthful? Peikoff says the key is "ambition, passion for work," but that exercise, diet, and genetics also play a role.

3. Do (older) teenagers (and presumably those a bit older) have to have sex in order to discover their romantic values? Peikoff replies that, while one should select romantic partners who are virtuous, one cannot deduce before hand what one will find romantically attractive. But this does not imply that casual sex is the way to go.

4. What is the relationship between integrating new knowledge and disintegrating wrong ideas? Peikoff answers that the two steps generally go hand in hand; if one holds incorrect views, then one must break up the incorrect views as one discovers and integrates correct ones.

Huckabee Compares Abortion to Slavery

Mike Huckabee recently visited Colorado to meet James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Huckabee also spoke at an event hosted by the Leadership Program of the Rockies. The Denver Post reported the news and reviewed some of Huckabee's comments:

Huckabee, a former Baptist minister, said liberty requires "moral clarity" and that equality demands a human-life amendment to the Constitution. He said that even if the Supreme Court overturned the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in 1973, it wouldn't go far enough.

"What that means is that every one of the 50 states can come up with its own definition of life," said Huckabee, equating abortion with slavery. "That's the logic of the Civil War. That's the idea that morality is geographical. It's the notion that something can be right in one state and wrong in another. Well, when it came to slavery, we finally got it right that you can't own another human being."

So Huckabee was serious when he said he wants to "amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards."

I do agree with Huckabee about the illegitimacy of moral relativism. Yet Huckabee seeks to replace moral relativism with universally enforced religious dogma, which is even worse. There is simply no basis in reality for equating a fertilized egg with a person, as Huckabee is trying to do. Therefore, Huckabee's suggestion that abortion is morally equal to slavery is absurd. Outlawing abortion in any state would be morally wrong.

Christian Kitsch

Thanks to Heavenly Images, you can send in a photo of your deceased loved one and it will come back showing your loved one with Jesus. You can also do this for photos of the living. (Paul Hsieh alerted me to the link.)

Don't miss the testimonials, including the following:

[Grandma] was so withdrawn, but since receiving her photo of my dad & Jesus she has come out of the house twice... I give all praises to God." ...

I want to thank you so much for doing this. I lost my mother 7 months ago. This picture makes me feel more at ease.

Of course, rather than spend a minimum of $30 for this service (and that's for a pet; it's unclear to me why humans cost more), you could find a friend with some simple design software to do it for free. But, hey, it's only $3 extra to include a poem or verse.

The main Heavenly Images page also explains why you should believe in Jesus and heaven. The upshot is that the New Testament is proven to be fact by eye witnesses, and if you don't believe in Jesus you won't go to Heaven (and, presumably, will instead go to Hell).

While you're at it, don't miss the advertised links: you can get Bible Verses Ringtones, Faith Clip Art, and even a hot Christian date.

It's all enough to make Jesus himself swear ("me, mom, an mom's husband!")

Milloy on Mercury and Evolution

There is all the difference in the world between reasonable skepticism regarding some particular religious or scientific claim and universal skepticism that brings all knowledge into doubt. Steven Milloy seems to have stumbled across that line.

I was impressed with Milloy's recent article about the environmentalist flip-flop on mercury. While environmentalists have typically screamed bloody murder about any trace amount of mercury anywhere, when it came to laws mandating the use of light bulbs that happen to contain mercury, environmentalists were strangely mute. Milloy concludes, "First mercury was dangerous. Then, temporarily, it became no big deal. Now that the Greens have caught us in the CFL [compact fluorescent lightbulb] trap, they’re reverting to form on mercury -- all to cause the sort of chaos resulting in increased government control of our lives."

However, after I promoted this article via e-mail, Doug Peltz pointed me to a Cato interview in which Milloy expresses doubts about biological evolution as applied to humans. While Cato's web page no longer seems to host the interview, it is available through Archive.org:

[Question:] What's the real deal on evolution? Twenty years ago on "Cosmos," Carl Sagan said it wasn't a "theory" but a "law." My Christian friends tell me it's a theory shot full of errors. And my scientist friends tell me it's provable in the everyday world.

[Reply:] Explanations of human evolution are not likely to move beyond the stage of hypothesis or conjecture. There is no scientific way - i.e., no experiment or other means of reliable study - for explaining how humans developed. Without a valid scientific method for proving a hypothesis, no indisputable explanation can exist.

The process of evolution can be scientifically demonstrated in some lower life forms, but this is a far cry from explaining how humans developed.

That said, some sort of evolutionary process seems most likely in my opinion. But there will probably always be enough uncertainty in any explanation of human evolution to give critics plenty of room for doubt.

Here Milloy implicitly casts doubt on inductive knowledge as such.

Obviously billions of years of biological evolution cannot be reproduced in a laboratory environment. However, extensive research into fossil records and genetics proves conclusively that all life on earth arose from evolutionary processes.

Moreover, the only alternative to evolution (broadly meaning the development of life through natural processes not guided by some higher intelligence) is some variant of creationism, either natural or supernatural. Natural creationism would involve something like the the process found in 2001: A Space Odyssey. There is no evidence for such creation, making any claim about it completely arbitrary. But those of a religious bent would dismiss natural creationism as quickly as they dismiss evolution, for their entire motive is to create room for supernatural creationism. So, in effect, Milloy sacrifices the very possibility of objective knowledge to religion.

'We Made Bold Moves'

On Wednesday night, my wife and I watched In the Shadow of the Moon, a documentary about the Apollo missions. The film consists mostly of interviews taken recently with several of the astronauts and video and photos that the astronauts shot on their voyages. I spent the film alternately gasping, cheering, chuckling, and blinking back tears. (Make sure to watch the extra interviews, too.)

Paraphrasing, one of the astronauts says, "It was a time when we made bold moves."

Watching the videos while listening to the men explain what was going on is riveting: I got some sense of how exciting, how fantastic, and how scary these trips were. These men were basically strapping themselves to a missile inside a glorified tin can.

We enjoyed many of the comments by the astronauts, but our favorite interviews were those of Alan Bean. To take just one humorous example, he says something like, "Some of the tabloids claimed that we staged the whole thing in a hanger in Arizona. Maybe that would have been a good idea." His joyful spirit is fun to watch. Bean has devoted his later years to painting moonscapes. I rather like many of these paintings; "Hello Universe" says it all. Viewers can flip through all of the paintings.

Elsewhere I might discuss the politics of space travel, but for this blog I'll look for the religious themes. In my view, the only error of the documentarians was to include near the end gratuitous material about religion and environmentalism. That one of the men found Jesus after his Apollo mission hardly seemed relevant. Yet, obviously these trips were profoundly moving for the astronauts, and I got the sense that they sometimes had a hard time expressing the spiritual dimensions of traveling beyond the earth.

One of the astronauts talked about how, prior to the moon landing, those orbiting the moon on Christmas Eve read passages from Genesis for transmission to earth. One woman sued them for it, which struck me as taking things a bit far.

By coincidence, on Thursday I was reading Joseph Campbell's Though Art That. He had the following to say about the reading (page 4):

The incongruity was that they were several thousand miles beyond the highest heaven conceived of at the time when the Book of Genesis was written, when such science as there was held the concept of a flat earth. There they were, in one moment remarking on how dry the moon was, and in the next, reading of how the waters above and the waters beneath had been walled off.

One of the most marvelous moments of that contemporary experience was described in stately imagery that just did not fit. The moment deserved a more appropriate religious text.

Though Ayn Rand would have had little patience with Campbell's Kantian presumptions regarding "the ineffable nature of the divine" (page 17), Rand did write an essay about Apollo 11 that appropriately celebrates the achievement:

The meaning of the sight lay in the fact that when those dark red wings of fire flared open, one knew that one was not looking at a normal occurrence, but at a cataclysm which, if unleashed by nature, would have wiped man out of existence -- and one knew also that this cataclysm was planned, unleashed, and controlled by man, that this unimaginable power was ruled by his power and, obediently serving his purpose, was making way for a slender, rising craft. One knew that this spectacle was not the product of inanimate nature, like some aurora borealis, or of chance, or of luck, that it was unmistakably human -- with "human," for once, meaning grandeur -- that a purpose and a long, sustained, disciplined effort had gone to achieve this series of moments, and that man was succeeding, succeeding, succeeding! For once, if only for seven minutes, the worst among those who saw it had to feel -- not "How small is man by the side of the Grand Canyon!" -- but "How great is man and how safe is nature when he conquers it!"

That we had seen a demonstration of man at his best, no one could doubt -- this was the cause of the event's attraction and of the stunned numbed state in which it left us. And no one could doubt that we had seen an achievement of man in his capacity as a rational being -- an achievement of reason, of logic, of mathematics, of total dedication to the absolutism of reality.

Amen.

Further Discussion of Gay Marriage

Here Ryan Puzycki and I continue our previous discussion regarding gay marriage and Colorado's Amendment 43, which defines "marriage" as between a man and woman. To review briefly, we both agree that gay couples should have the ability to contract as heterosexual couples do in romantic unions. However, while Puzycki believes that Amendment 43 should be overturned by the courts, I'm not so sure.

Following is Puzycki's reply of February 19:

Thanks for your response post.

In asserting that Amendment 43 should be overturned "[b]ased on the religious motivations," I was reiterating my own interpretation of the Amendment. As I understand it, it does not seem to have any secular foundation and seems to rise only from religious beliefs, but the language of the Amendment itself is not religious in nature. So, I agree that this would be difficult to overturn on the establishment clause. But, if the Amendment is interpreted to allow only for "marriages" with no provision for "domestic partnerships," then a very strong argument would still have to be invented to defend a possible secular foundation for why homosexual couples should not be afforded any partnership rights.

However, even if we consider the possible allowance for domestic partnerships, then we would have to explain the need to create "domestic partnerships" apart from "marriage." You have suggested as a "plausible argument" the potentiality of heterosexual marriages to result in children. Notwithstanding the facts you mentioned that homosexual couples can adopt and use artificial insemination, Diana Hsieh already made the valid point that procreation is not an acceptable basis for marriage. As for the historical nominalist argument, that is easily dismissed, as well. I have still heard no secular arguments that stand on their feet.

So, what justification does the government have for establishing a "marriage" for heterosexual couples and a "domestic partnership" for homosexual couples? Even if marriages and domestic partnerships afforded the same rights to couples of either sexual orientation, one must ask why it is necessary for the government to make a legal distinction between straights and gays. As I wrote in my earlier email, "separate" implies inequality--or why else make the distinction? The establishment of "domestic partnerships" would denigrate gays to a second-class status before the law, at least as far as marriage contracts are concerned. The concept of blind justice is meant to suggest that laws should be objective, but if the law instead sees a distinction between heterosexuals and homosexuals, it is not.

Before the law, all individuals must be afforded equal protection of their rights as stipulated in the 14th Amendment. It would therefore be unconstitutional to make any law that establishes separate legal status to individuals based on their sexual orientation. Before the law, sexual orientation is irrelevant. A murderer's sexual orientation is no more relevant to the crime committed than is a homebuyer's sexual orientation to a loan. The only questions the law can legitimately ask in regard to marriage are: are these two individuals of age and did they both consent?

While it seems obvious that Amendment 43 was motivated by religion, the Amendment itself makes no mention of God, so demonstrating the Amendment's intent would be better left to a sophisticated lawyer who could make a clear case based on the establishment clause. However, the Amendment is, clearly, a violation of the equal protection clause because it does not explicitly protect the rights of gays to contract in any form of "marriage" and, secondly, because the potential allowance it implies is inherently unequal and legally baseless.

On that basis, then, Colorado's courts should overturn the Amendment.

Our disagreement is not about Amendment 43 -- we both disapprove of it -- but whether it should be overturned by the courts based on the establishment and/or equal-protection clause. I think we also agree that the amendment more plausibly violates the equal-protection clause. However, I'm still going to argue that it should not be overturned even for that reason, though my argument is tentative.

In Colorado, by law the state government distributes a document commonly called the "blue book" that contains the language of ballot measures as well as summaries of arguments from proponents and opponents. The 2006 blue-book information about Amendment 43 pertains to this discussion:

Summary and Analysis

Definitions of marriage affecting Coloradans. Federal statutes define marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws relating to marital status. Colorado statutes define marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of the state's laws relating to marital status.

For a marriage to be valid under Colorado statutes, it must be: (1) between a man and a woman; and (2) licensed, solemnized, and registered according to established procedures. In addition, Colorado recognizes common law marriage between a man and a woman who live together and hold themselves out publicly as husband and wife. Common law marriages are treated exactly the same as licensed marriages.

Legal effects of marriage in Colorado. The marriage relationship in Colorado provides spouses with a number of legal rights, responsibilities, and benefits, including:

* collecting benefits such as pensions, life insurance, and workers' compensation without being
designated as a beneficiary;
* jointly incurring and being held liable for debts;
* making medical treatment decisions for each other;
* protection from discrimination based on marital status in areas such as employment and housing;
* filing income taxes jointly; and
* ending a marriage and distributing property through a legal process.

Arguments For

1) The public has an interest in preserving the commonly accepted definition of marriage. Marriage as an institution has historically consisted of one man and one woman and, as such, provides the optimal environment for creating, nurturing, and protecting children and preserving families.

2) A constitutional amendment is necessary to avoid court rulings that expand marriage beyond one man and one woman in Colorado. In Massachusetts, a statutory definition was not sufficient to prevent a court from requiring the state to recognize same-sex marriages. Any change to the definition of marriage should be determined by the voters, not judges.

Arguments Against

1) Language that limits marriage to opposite-sex couples does not belong in Colorado's Bill of Rights, which generally guarantees individual rights. Amendment 43 may be unconstitutional because it denies same-sex couples and their children the legal benefits and protections that are available to married couples and their children.

2) Adding the proposed language to the constitution is unnecessary because there is already a statutory ban in Colorado on any marriage that does not consist of one man and one woman. Additionally, federal statutes define marriage as between one man and one woman for purposes of federal laws.

I'm not finding much here relevant to the establishment clause. While I think the "arguments for" are faulty, I also think that they are separable from religion.

So what about the equal-protection clause? The second "argument for" claims that the goal is to prevent the courts from overturning state law. And, as an addition to the state's Constitution, Amendment 43 would restrict the action of state-level courts. But it would not stop federal courts from tossing it out on equal-protection grounds.

The first "argument against" expressly raises the matter of equal protection, claiming that Amendment 43 "denies same-sex couples and their children the legal benefits and protections that are available to married couples and their children." However, the second argument points out that "there is already a statutory ban in Colorado on any marriage that does not consist of one man and one woman."

As discussed previously, Amendment 43 does not seem to restrict "domestic partnerships" for gay couples. Thus, if a court were to intervene on equal-protection grounds, I think the more likely route would be for the court to require the state to allow for "domestic partnerships" in statute.

I have suggested that, regardless of the position of the courts, the legislature should provide for "domestic partnerships" through statute.

Would this, as Puzycki argues, still violate the equal-protection clause? I remain unconvinced.

Puzycki claims that offering "marriage" contracts for heterosexual couples but "domestic partnership" contracts for homosexual couples would create separate status for the two, and "'separate' implies inequality." However, unlike segregated schools, having two titles for contracts of romantic unions would not physically separate heterosexuals from homosexuals. The only difference that I can see is that the contract would have a different title on top, which doesn't strike me as much of an imposition.

I don't want to fall into the trap of failing to take the principled stand on this one. But I just don't see any significant difference between "marriages" and "domestic partnerships" for gay couples. Why fight for eliminating a distinction that doesn't matter? Adding "domestic partnerships" via statute would be a lot easier than removing Amendment 43 and instituting "marriage" for gay couples. As far as I can tell, we're not even talking about a "whole loaf" versus "half of a loaf" here; we're talking about the same loaf in a differently-labeled wrapper.

Norris: Christian Ranger

Ordinarily, I don't care what actors think about politics. But I do care about actors who espouse popular conservative views on popular conservative forums. Especially when those actors endorse relatively successful politicians who promise us faith-based politics.

Townhall.com has published at least a couple of Chuck Norris's articles praising Mike Huckabee. Here is one segment from Norris's recent piece about murder in our society:

We teach our children they are nothing more than glorified apes, yet we don't expect them to act like monkeys. We place our value in things, yet expect our children to value people. We disrespect one another, but expect our children to respect others. We terminate children in the womb, but are surprised when children outside the womb terminate other children. We push God to the side, but expect our children to be godly. We've abandoned moral absolutes, yet expect our children to obey the universal commandment: "Thou shall not murder."

Once we weed out the platitudes, we are left with the following substantive claims: the teaching of evolution as science, abortion, irreligion, and moral non-absolutism are responsible for murder.

In other words, Norris believes that those who reject mythological explanations of the creation of the world and of life, those who find a distinction between a fertilized egg and a person, and those who decline to subordinate their lives to an invented supernatural being, all promote murder. And let's not look at the history of what those who believe the opposite tend to do.

Norris also wishes us to believe that the foundation of moral absolutism is mythology and supernaturalism. Perhaps it requires the sensibilities of one trained in the art of make-believe to see beyond the distinction between rigorously imposed religious rules and objective moral absolutes.

But Norris delivers the knock-out blow in his closing paragraph: "If Psalm 33:12 says, 'Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord,' then what will be the state of blessedness for the nation that abandons God and his moral code of conduct?" Who can argue with logic like that?

Rose on the Danish Cartoons

I have been posting about the desire and alleged attempt of various Muslims to murder a cartoonist for depicting Mohammad. On February 15, Flemming Rose came out with an excellent article on the matter for the Wall Street Journal. Rose is the the culture editor of Jyllands-Posten, the newspaper that first published the cartoon.

Rose reviews the basic facts about the cartoonist:

For the past three months [Kurt] Westergaard and his wife have been on the run. Mr. Westergaard did the most famous of the 12 Muhammad cartoons published in Jyllands-Posten in September 2005 -- the one depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban. The cartoon was a satirical comment on the fact that some Muslims are committing terrorist acts in the name of Islam and the prophet. Tragically, Mr. Westergaard's fate has proven the point of his cartoon: In the early hours of Tuesday morning Danish police arrested three men who allegedly had been plotting to kill him.

Thankfully, Rose points out, "17 Danish newspapers have published Mr. Westergaard's cartoon" in defense of free speech. Rose adds, "As George Orwell put it in the suppressed preface to 'Animal Farm': 'If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear'."

Unfortunately, the threats against the cartoonist are just the tip of the iceberg. Rose continues:

In Oslo a gallery has censored three small watercolor paintings, showing the head of the prophet Muhammad on a dog's body, by the Swedish artist Lars Vilks, who has been under police protection since the fall of 2007. In Holland the municipal museum in The Hague recently refused to show photos by the Iranian-born artist Sooreh Hera of gay men wearing the masks of the prophet Muhammad and his son Ali; Ms. Hera has received several death threats and is in hiding. In Belarus an editor has been sentenced to three years in a forced labor camp after republishing some of Jyllands-Posten's Muhammad cartoons. In Egypt bloggers are in jail after having "insulted Islam." In Afghanistan the 23-year-old Sayed Perwiz Kambakhsh has been sentenced to death because he distributed "blasphemous" material about the mistreatment of women in Islam. And in India the Bengal writer Taslima Nasreen is in a safe house after having been threatened by people who don't like her books.

Quite obviously, liberty, including freedom of speech and freedom of religion, is incompatible with Islam as practiced in these cases. Sadly, Muslim voices defending freedom of speech are too few and too quiet.

Rose goes on to argue in the article that the West must not bend to these threats against freedom of speech, but must instead recommit itself to its defense. Those who value their liberty owe Rose a debt of gratitude for his courageous and tireless defense of freedom. And now Westergaard too has become a hero of liberty.

AFP reports that Westergaard "said he considered himself an atheist, adding: 'I feel that I am fighting a righteous fight to defend freedom of expression, which is under threat'."

(Thanks to Lin Zinser of FIRM for links to both articles.)

Americans worthy of the title will join Westergaard's righteous fight.

Marriage, Homosexuality, and Amendment 43

What is the government's legitimate role in marriage? What distinctions may the government properly draw between unions of heterosexual and homosexual couples, if any?

Ryan Puzycki sent in the following comment on February 13 regarding my previous post:

I enjoyed your post on "A 'Religious Foundation' for Law," but was intrigued by your conclusion that you're "not convinced that Amendment 43 violates the establishment clause, as there may be some plausible nonreligious arguments in favor of it." I have attempted, since becoming seriously interested in the issue of gay marriage, to find a secular reason against it. While other Objectivists have raised the possibility that there might be valid arguments against it, none have indicated what those arguments may be. To date, I still have not heard a valid secular argument. From this viewpoint, I do not think there is any way to reconcile Amendment 43.

If marriage is only a religious institution, then the state should have no business involving itself in any aspect of it whatsoever. Those who are married should practice it as a sacred rite, such as the Eucharist or holy orders, outside the authority of the state in the privacy of their homes and churches. The establishment clause would prohibit state interference in the matter, and it would be left to the churches, rightly, to decide whom they are willing to marry. The secular state would still have an obligation to protect those who are unwilling or too young from marriage and to protect the right of the consenting and legally-aged to practice the rite, but otherwise it should confer no special rights, privileges, or benefits.

In upholding the wall of separation, the State would Catholics to marry only one man to one woman, Unitarians to marry gays, and even Mormons to marry one man to several women -- and it would prevent Muslims from marrying a man to a child. The state would have no business sanctioning marriage, as a religious institution, nor offering a secular, civil equivalent. Indeed, there could be no to secular equivalent to a holy union made inviolate by God. In the eyes of the secular state, marriage would be nothing more than a religious observance -- but it would still have the obligation to protect those who wish to practice it. Of course, conversely, religions would have no right nor incentive to ask the state to interfere in religious affairs.

However, marriage is not only a religious institution. Indeed, in the secular realm, marriage is a contract between consenting adults. The marriage contract has a secular, legal, and necessary basis for the protection of, for instance, the transfer of property between spouses upon death and also the legal adoption of a spouse's children. This is not an exhaustive list, but a full list would, of course, exclude tax incentives and other state conferred "benefits." The state's role is merely to enforce that the contract is between consenting adults by protecting the rights of either party if the terms of the contract are breached. And, as with other contracts, the state has no business delimiting the gender of the parties involved (or, even, how many parties are involved). Amendment 43, therefore, nullifies equal protection before the law (14th Amendment) by delimiting who is allowed to contract and who is not.

I think the unconstitutionality of this is made more clear by considering what Amendment 43 would mean if it were translated to other contracts. The state rightly does not dictate the gender or sexual orientation of parties contracting for mortgages, car sales, employment, or transfers of property. In that vein, Amendment 43's potential allowance for "domestic partnerships" is entirely irrelevant. In the same way that the state cannot provide "separate but equal" services for blacks and whites, it is equally unconstitutional to mandate heterosexual loans, homosexual mortgages, and certainly separate classifications for marriages. On the wedding train, what is the constitutional basis for reserving a "civil union" car for Plessy and a "marriage" car for Ferguson? The concepts of "domestic partnership" and "civil union" denote a second-class status to gay marriages. "Separate" is inherently unequal.

Based on the religious motivations that spurred Amendment 43 alone, it should be overturned as unconstitutional. But, even if the Amendment were not religiously inspired, there would be no constitutional or secular basis for a state mandate that discriminates based on sexual orientation. The 14th Amendment is a reminder that the government's primary function is to protect rights equally for all individuals -- not to confer to or deny them any. Insofar as the government has an obligation to enforce contracts, it cannot do so if it legally prohibits individuals from contracting. The state has a duty to recognize and protect the right of any and all adults to consent to a legal union. Therefore, if the state is to refer to such a union as a "marriage," it should recognize only one marriage contract for all consenting adults.

I'd be interested to know your thoughts in response to this, and in light of your post.

Best regards,

Ryan Puzycki

I appreciate the subtle points that Puzycki brings up. I largely agree with Puzycki -- except that I'm still not convinced that Amendment 43 should be overturned by the courts.

I emphatically add that I did not support Amendment 43. I voted against it. It was not one of my major issues of the year, though, for I was busy opposing increased wage controls (which passed) and supporting the partial re-legalization marijuana (which failed). I did write the following about an alternative measure (which also failed): "Referendum I would create domestic partnerships. It makes sense to assure legal standing for gay couples."

I agreed with Diana Hsieh's take on the two measures:

Amendment 43 - Marriage... My vote: No! This amendment is the darling of the Religious Right. ... It must be defeated.

Referendum I - Domestic Partnerships ... My vote: Yes. Voting "yes" on this referendum is perhaps the most clear way of rejecting Christian government in Colorado this election. I do worry that permitting gay marriage will usher in major subjectivism in marriage law, e.g. marry whomever you please, including two women, three men, and a goat. However, that's not a problem with gay marriage (or domestic partnerships) per se, but rather with people's failure to understand the proper grounds of marriage. Moreover, I regard that subjectivism as far less evil -- and far less likely -- than a return to a seriously religious conception of marriage. On that view, Paul and I aren't really married since we're not producing more children for God and community. For an example of that view, see this OpinionJournal op-ed by a Methodist Pastor. Oh, and don't miss Augustine's fantastically revolting views on marriage. Moreover, consider the main argument in our Colorado "Blue Book" against the referendum:

Domestic partnerships diminish the significance of marriage for society by reducing marriage to a list of benefits and responsibilities. The benefits given to married couples are intended to support child rearing by one man and one woman. The state has an interest in restricting recognition and legal protection to these married couples to provide stability for the individuals, their families, and the broader community.

In other words, marriage is a mysterious gift from God, not to be understood in words by man. Also, the sole justification for marriage is the demands of raising proper children in a stable family and community. People who choose not to procreate have no claim to the goods of marriage. In general, marriage is not two people committing to integrating their lives according to their own values. That's obviously too selfish and too individualistic.

Unfortunately, this "domestic partnership" measure will impose more government-mandated entitlements (e.g. health care and worker's compensation) upon businesses, but that's a problem with the government-mandated entitlements, not domestic partnership per se.

So I'd strongly recommend voting in favor of this measure.

Last year, I also wrote an article titled, "A Defense of Marriage for Couples." There is a "contractual basis of marriage," I argued, and it is among the government's legitimate functions to facilitate and uphold contracts. However, I saw no important difference between "gay marriage" and "domestic partnership;" I wrote that "gay marriage (or 'domestic partnership') rightly puts homosexual couples on equal footing with heterosexual couples..."

Puzycki writes, "Based on the religious motivations that spurred Amendment 43 alone, it should be overturned as unconstitutional." I disagree with this argument.

Take, for example, the abolition of slavery. Obviously that was religiously motivated. There may have been some abolitionists who were not Christians and who did not offer Christian reasons for abolishing slavery, but I am not able to name any. Obviously, we do not wish to re-institute slavery because its abolition was religiously motivated.

The important point, as I argued in my recent post, is whether the reasons for a law are separable from religion: "[S]ome laws have a solid secular moral foundation (regardless of whether they also match some religious code), while other laws have a strictly religious foundation. Laws that arise solely from religious beliefs should be repealed or overturned for precisely that reason."

The protection of individual rights, regardless of race, does not fundamentally depend upon any religious doctrine. It is entirely separable from religion. For example, Ayn Rand eloquently argued against racism on purely secular grounds, and she argued that rights arise from man's nature as a reasoning being, which has nothing to do with race.

The spending of tax dollars to teach creationism is an example of a policy that is not separable from religion. Creationism promotes a distinctly religious view that a supernatural being or force created the world and life.

I'm still not convinced that Amendment 43, whatever its faults and problems, violates the establishment clause or the equal-protection clause. I wrote:

[T]here may be some plausible non-religious arguments in favor of it. If it's true that Amendment 43 allows for "domestic partnerships" -- an equivalent of the marriage contract for gay couples -- then that strikes me as a reasonable alternative that should be pursued through the legislature. The courts are not always the answer to religiously-motivated bigotry against homosexuals.

Note that I did not claim that the non-religious arguments must be valid. I claimed merely that they must be "plausible." (By the way, I know of no Objectivist who has claimed to make a valid argument against gay marriage, but I'd be interested in learning about such claims if they exist.)

I think that I can offer at least one such plausible argument: "The difference between heterosexual marriage and homosexual domestic partnership is that only heterosexual marriage can result in one partner impregnating another. Obviously female domestic partners can become pregnant, but the sperm necessarily comes from a party external to the partnership. Male partners can adopt children but not give birth themselves. Thus, while the domestic partnership contract is substantially similar to the marriage contract, it must accommodate the real, biologically-based differences between heterosexual and homosexual couples."

I don't think that argument ultimately holds up, because heterosexual, married couples can also adopt children and use artificial insemination, and the marriage contract seems to accommodate such situations.

Here is another argument that is less plausible (because based on philosophical nominalism) but still not religious: "By common understanding, practically everyone sees 'marriage' as the union of a man and a woman. Thus, we need some other name to describe unions of homosexual couples."

I'm convinced that Amendment 43 was unnecessary, that it doesn't belong in the state's Constitution, and that it was largely motivated by bigotry rooted in religious dogma. Yet I am still not persuaded that Amendment 43 should be overturned by the courts based on the establishment or equal-protection clause. (I remain open to debate on this matter, and the argument about equal protection strikes me as more forceful.)

However, Puzycki's main point seems to be that homosexual couples deserve comparable protection of contract law, and on this point I quite agree.

February 21 Update: Readers are welcome to read the further discussion on this topic.

Muslims for Murder

Recently the authorities broke up an alleged plot to murder a Danish cartoonist for depicting Mohammed. In response, various newspapers republished the cartoon in defense of free speech.

In response, more Muslims called for the murder of the cartoonist.

The AP reports (via Fox News):

Muslims March Against Reprinting of Danish Newspaper Cartoons Depicting Muhammad
Friday, February 15, 2008

Muslims protested Friday in the Gaza Strip, Pakistan and Denmark against the reprinting of a Danish newspaper cartoon depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

Thousands of residents in the conservative Gaza Strip ruled by the militant Islamic Hamas movement marched in the Jebaliya refugee camp chanting: "What Denmark said is heresy." ...

And in Denmark, a prominent Danish imam urged rioting youth to stop setting fires and hurling rocks at police.

At the International Islamic University in Islamabad, Mahmood Sadiqui said, "We are even ready to sacrifice our life for our beloved Prophet." The AP continues:

About 200 people held a similar rally in Multan, a main city in the eastern Punjab province, burning Danish flags and chanting "Death to the Cartoonist!" ...

Mohammad Imran, a student leader from Islami Jamiat Talba, a student organization linked with Pakistan's largest Islamic political group, Jamaat-e-Islami, called the cartoon "blasphemous."

"We demand the rulers to sever diplomatic ties" with Denmark and Sweden for publishing the cartoons. "The cartoonist and publisher must be hanged."

The call to murder people for drawing pictures is religion-induced insanity. Muslims who support such measures -- or even who fail to publicly condemn them -- are barbarians at war with civilization.

And Westerners who continue to think that such murderous fanatics can be appeased with cash payments or political concessions are delusional.

Hsieh on Abortion

On February 11, a committee of Colorado's legislature killed Bill 95, which would have imposed a 24-hour waiting period for abortions following mandated information about ultrasounds. Diana Hsieh sent the following letter to legislators (and gave me permission to reproduce it):

It is my understanding that SB 95 will be heard in the Senate State, Veterans, & Military Affairs Committee on Monday. The bill would require "a physician to provide information regarding an ultrasound to a woman prior to the woman's decision whether to have an abortion."

I urge you to oppose this bill. Colorado ought not impose any such restrictions on abortion.

The purpose of the bill is not to require genuine informed consent. Every woman who chooses to have an abortion knows that she is destroying a potential (but not actual) human being -- not a shoe, plant, or a hippo. She violates no rights in doing so. She ought not be forced to look at pictures.

So the sole purpose of the bill is be to make abortion more costly. It is part of an attempt by foes of abortion to regulate it out of existence, since they cannot ban it out right. All such attempts morally wrong. They ought to be opposed.

A Second Look at First Freedom

On February 11, I discussed ten questions promoted by FirstFreedomFirst.org. "Donna" (whose identity I do not know) left the following comment:

Ari: I think that you have misunderstood a number of the issues. For example, we do not think that it's fine for government to forcibly transfer wealth to religious groups. Many of the questions are designed to make you think about the issue and pose provocative questions. Please go to www.firstfreedomfirst and take a look at each of the 'issues' -- just click on the issue button. The explanations are clear. You may or may not agree with them but please, try to understand what we are saying. The questions to candidates are, again, designed to provoke dialogue. Clearly, you need to ask those questions in a manner that is most comfortable to you. Donna

Unfortunately, First Freedom's "explanations" do not support Donna's claims.

Donna criticizes me particularly for my evaluation of First Freedom's question about faith-based welfare. But my criticism of that question applies equally to the more-detailed write-up under "Talking About the Issues." Here's what First Freedom has to say on the matter:

No Religious Discrimination:

The First Amendment requires government to remain neutral on matters of religion. But the so-called “faith-based initiative” violates that constitutional requirement and anti-discrimination laws. Created without congressional approval, the program allots billions of taxpayer dollars to social services run by favored religious organizations, allowing them to exercise religious discrimination in hiring and to proselytize people in need.

Americans should never be discriminated against on the basis of our religious beliefs. Government-funded jobs must be open to all qualified applicants regardless of their opinions about religion. Publicly supported programs should never require anyone to take part in religion. Non-discrimination is the American way.

If religious organizations use government funds to provide social services, they must not discriminate in hiring on religious grounds or deny services to people based on beliefs about faith. For people to be denied participation in a publicly funded program because of their beliefs about religion is simply un-American.

Religious organizations may define the content of their community services and hire only those who share their faith tradition in privately funded programs if they wish. But when using our tax dollars, it is not right for faith groups to discriminate in employment or in the provision of services.

The problem is framed as one of "discrimination." First Freedom does not criticize religious groups for taking tax dollars (or politicians for handing them out); First Freedom says only that "when using our tax dollars, it is not right for faith groups to discriminate in employment or in the provision of services."

But my whole point is that politicians have no right to forcibly transfer wealth to religious organizations, period. Such forcible transfer of wealth is morally wrong in all circumstances, without exception, whether or not discrimination is involved.

As I wrote previously, I am pleased, with reservations, "to see First Freedom taking up the fight for the separation of church and state." However, the organization is clearly leftist in its orientation. Not only does First Freedom at least tolerate (non-discriminatory) faith-based welfare, the organization also implies support for corporate taxation, tax-funded schools, and tax-funded research. I, on the other hand, advocate economic liberty along with religious liberty. Furthermore, I argue that, ultimately, the latter depends upon the former. By granting the legitimacy of expansive government control over our economic lives, First Freedom ultimately, implicitly and indirectly, undermines its own case for religious liberty.

Moreover, First Freedom explicitly endorses moral subjectivism as the alternative to faith-based politics. Consider the organization's passage about abortion:

Reproductive Health:

All Americans must be free to make choices concerning their own health in keeping with their personal beliefs.

Opponents of reproductive freedom often seek legislation based on their own religious doctrines. Creating laws that are grounded in religious belief, however, conflicts with the separation of church and state and compromises our religious liberty. We must be allowed to live our lives according to our own beliefs.

At the center of the reproductive health debate are important questions about individual conscience. Decisions about family planning and emergency contraceptives should be resolved privately, based on our personal beliefs. Individuals may look to their own faith or other ethical considerations as they make these choices, but the government must never mandate that all Americans must follow the tenets of one religious viewpoint. ...

"Personal beliefs... our own beliefs... personal beliefs..." Moral subjectivism is offered as the only alternative to "laws... grounded in religious belief." First Freedom is doomed to failure because of this. In any cultural contest between religious moral absolutism and moral subjectivism, ultimately the former will tend to win out. What is needed instead is an objective and secular morality that demonstrates the legitimacy of laws grounded in individual rights.

It is simply not the case that "We must be allowed to live our lives according to our own beliefs," regardless of the actions taken on the basis of those beliefs. The entire legitimate purpose of law is to forcibly prevent people from acting on beliefs in a way that violates the rights of others. Abortion bans are morally wrong precisely because they violate people's rights. Any position instead based merely on subjective "personal beliefs" is destined to lose.

European Papers Stand Up for Free Speech

When somebody started selling "Looking Good for Jesus" makeup kits in Singapore, Christians complained, as is their political right.

When a Danish cartoonist depicted Mohammed in order to make a serious sociopolitical point, some Muslims allegedly tried to kill him.

Thankfully, not only did police disrupt the attempted murder, but various European newspapers republished the cartoon to protest the attempted murder and to stand for free speech. CNN reports:

Newspapers reprint Prophet Mohammed cartoon

Newspapers across Europe Wednesday reprinted the controversial cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed that sparked worldwide protests two years ago.

The move came one day after Danish authorities arrested three people allegedly plotting a "terror-related assassination" of Kurt Westergaard, the cartoonist behind the drawing.

Berlingske Tidende, was one of the newspapers involved in the republication by newspapers in Denmark. It said: "We are doing this to document what is at stake in this case, and to unambiguously back and support the freedom of speech that we as a newspaper always will defend," in comments reported by The Associated Press.

Newspapers in Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands also republished the drawing Wednesday as part of their coverage of Tuesday's arrests.

The cartoon was originally published by the Jullands-Posten (also spelled "Jyllands") in 2005. In 2006, I republished all of the cartoons at FreeColorado.com, and I also wrote and cowrote articles defending Flemming Rose, who edited the paper at the time of the publications of the cartoons.

CNN quotes Westergaard's comments to the paper's web page: "Of course I fear for my life after the Danish Security and Intelligence Service informed me of the concrete plans of certain people to kill me. However, I have turned fear into anger and indignation. It has made me angry that a perfectly normal everyday activity which I used to do by the thousand was abused to set off such madness."

Thankfully, some people are starting to stand up to that madness.

Looking Good for Jesus

The AP reports:

SINGAPORE -- A cosmetics line that extolled the virtues of "Looking Good for Jesus" has been pulled from stores in Singapore after a number of complaints from shoppers, according to media reports Tuesday.

You can also view photos of the products. (The zippered change purse is perhaps the most outrageous; it says, "Be Not Worthy; Be Noticed; Show Him the Money.")

The AP reports that The Straits Times quoted several critics. Nick Chui said, "These products trivialize Jesus Christ and Christianity. There are also sexual innuendoes in the messages and the way Jesus is portrayed in these products." Grace Ong said, "Why would anyone use religious figures to promote vanity products? It's very disrespectful and distasteful."

However, I doubt that anyone would have grown too excited over Zeus's Zit Zap or Isis Eye Cream.

I wondered whether some American entrepreneur has made the products available. Sure enough. And here and here. And in the UK.

Of course, the churches that I've seen don't exactly discourage the use of makeup and other self-enhancement products, particularly at singles' groups. (Tammy Faye comes to mind.)

At least the Christians don't make death threats and go on destructive rampages when their prophet takes a little ribbing or serious criticism, the way that many followers of another popular religion do. Or would anyone dare to sell "Looking Good for Mohammed" on the streets of the Middle East or even in Paris, London, or Copenhagen?

A 'Religious Foundation' for Law

Lynn Bartels wrote an interesting article for today's Rocky Mountain News that begins, "A lesbian couple wants to overturn a voter-approved ballot measure that defines marriage in Colorado as the union of one man and one woman."

Here, I am not so much interested in whether the measure should be overturned by the courts, but rather in what sort of arguments people are making on both sides. Here is the basic debate, as summarized by Bartels:

The lawsuit claims Amendment 43, which 56 percent of voters approved in 2006, is unconstitutional on several grounds, including it was "religiously motivated" and has the effect "of establishing religion."

Rep. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, who helped put the amendment on the ballot, laughed at that argument.

"If that's the case," he said, "we can throw out most of our laws because most are based on some moral perspective, and you could argue that is a religious foundation."

"We could even throw in the Declaration of Independence on those grounds: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights... Creator."

I have heard Lundberg's basic argument many times before. The argument is that all laws have a moral foundation, and all moral truths have a divine origin, thus all laws have a religious base, and no law may be rejected merely because it has a religious base. Lundberg's argument is complete nonsense.

It is true that all just laws have a moral foundation. However, it is not true that moral truths depend upon a god. Our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness does not depend upon the existence of a supernatural "Creator." To take another example, murder laws are based on the immorality of unjustified killing; there are perfectly secular, non-religious, earth-bound reasons not to kill others (excepting cases of self-defense).

Various religions, on the other hand, offer a variety of "reasons" for killing others, along the lines that God said so. For example, Leviticus 20:13 advocates the murder of homosexuals: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them" (the Oxford Revised Standard).

The distinction that Lundberg fails to make is that some laws have a solid secular moral foundation (regardless of whether they also match some religious code), while other laws have a strictly religious foundation. Laws that arise solely from religious beliefs should be repealed or overturned for precisely that reason.

The question, then, is whether Amendment 43 is basically grounded in religion, or whether it also has a serious secular foundation. That is, is the issue fundamentally separable from religion? If it is, then it should not be overturned based on the establishment clause.

This is not always an easy thing to figure out. For example, clearly the Blue Laws -- prohibitions on select economic activity on Sundays -- have a religious background historically. However, today nobody seriously supports those laws on religious grounds. Instead, arguments in favor of such laws are essentially protectionist in nature. Thus, while the Blue Laws should be repealed because they violate rights of contract and property, it's not obvious that they should be overturned based on the establishment clause.

Clearly, Lundberg himself is strongly motivated by religion. For example, he endorses Mike Huckabee for president because Huckabee's "faith and principles guide his every step." Given that Lundberg endorses the idea of religious faith guiding a politician's every step, mightn't we conclude that Lundberg's opposition to gay marriage (or partnership) is religiously motivated?

I looked up an old article about Amendment 43, and it too suggests a strong religious motivation for the measure:

Push to nix gay nuptials begins
But groups not all on same page -- Focus on the Family and others disagree on whether a state amendment should ban civil unions too.
The Denver Post, December 9, 2005
Eric Gorski

What was envisioned as a broad coalition coming together to put a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage on the Colorado ballot next fall is divided over what exactly the measure should say.

According to sources involved in the discussions, the influential Colorado Springs evangelical Christian group Focus on the Family is pressing for a measure that would ban not only gay marriage but also same-sex civil unions or domestic partnerships.

But other potential backers of an amendment -- including the state's three Roman Catholic bishops -- prefer a narrower, potentially less divisive ballot measure that would simply define marriage as between one man and one woman, sources said.

Another key player, the Rev. Ted Haggard of Colorado Springs, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, said Thursday that he stands with the Catholic position.

He said the institution of marriage deserves constitutional protection and that civil unions are a matter for the state legislature.

The fact that Haggard was later discovered to have purchased illegal drugs and various services from a male prostitute does not change the fact that that Amendment 43 was religiously motivated.

However, I'm not convinced that Amendment 43 violates the establishment clause, as there may be some plausible non-religious arguments in favor of it. If it's true that Amendment 43 allows for "domestic partnerships" -- an equivalent of the marriage contract for gay couples -- then that strikes me as a reasonable alternative that should be pursued through the legislature. The courts are not always the answer to religiously-motivated bigotry against homosexuals.

'First Freedom First'

A reader pointed me to FirstFreedomFirst.org, a project of The Interfaith Alliance Foundation and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The site encourages people to ask candidates ten questions.

First Freedom asks whether candidates believe that "America is a 'Christian Nation'," or, alternately, that "everyone’s religious freedom needs to be protected by what Thomas Jefferson called 'a wall of separation' between church and state." First Freedom also asks candidates whether they believe that "one's right to disbelieve in God is protected" by law. Those questions are fine.

Unfortunately, other questions are ambiguous or otherwise problematic. Moreover, they are not nearly as useful as the five questions that I have proposed.

First Freedom does not ask any question specifically about abortion. Its final question asks, "What should guide our policies on public health and medical research: science or religion?" But various Christians can and do rationalize bans on abortion and stem-cell research on the (alleged) basis of "science," so the question accomplishes little.

I, on the other hand, ask candidates to declare whether they "Oppose efforts to restrict the legal right of adult women to obtain an abortion" and "Oppose bans on embryonic stem-cell research."

Even worse, First Freedom implies that it's fine for government to forcibly transfer wealth to religious groups. The site asks, "Should 'faith-based' charities that receive public funds be allowed to discriminate against employees or applicants based on religious beliefs?" But forcing people to fund "'faith-based' charities" violates the rights of those who do not wish to fund such organizations. That is why I ask whether candidates "Oppose the spending of tax dollars on programs with religious affiliations, such as 'faith-based' welfare." Freedom of religion entails the right not to fund religious groups.

First Freedom asks, "Do you think my pharmacist should be allowed to deny me doctor-prescribed medications based on his or her religious beliefs?" "Allowed," by whom? The question implies that pharmacists must be subjected to federal controls. My view is that pharmacists have the right to conduct business however they see fit (so long as they do not damage their clients through fraud, negligence, or other abuses); what medicines a pharmacist sells should be strictly up to that pharmacist. If you don't like the policies of a particular pharmacist, you are free do to business with another pharmacist and to publicly criticize the one you don't like. The separation of church and state implies that the state cannot force business owners to act against their religious beliefs.

First Freedom asks, "Do you think Houses of Worship should be allowed to endorse political candidates and retain their tax exempt status?" The thrust of the question is fine, given modern laws, yet my deeper problem is with the tax laws. I don't think any advocacy group should be subjected to taxation or federal rules. But, then again, I do not think that any business or group should be subject to taxation; every group should be "tax exempt" and free from federal rules. (I'm not a a fan of taxation in general, but I think taxing individuals only would be a vast improvement over taxing individuals as well as groups.)

First Freedom asks two questions about "public" schools: "Do you think public schools should sponsor school prayer or, as a parent, should this choice be left to me? Would you support a law that mandates teaching creationism in my child’s public school science classes?" These questions are pretty good, but the problem lies with the definition of a "public" school. While my questions don't include a specific reference to school prayer, my question about creationism is more precise: I ask whether candidates "Oppose the spending of tax dollars to teach creationism and/or intelligent design as science."

First Freedom asks, "Will you respect the rights of those in our diverse communities of faith who deem same-gender marriage to be consistent with their religious creed?" This is a poor question because it focuses on rights of conscience rather than rights of contract. What about people who are not part of "diverse communities of faith?" The point is that contract law -- of which marriage law is a type -- ought not be driven by religious dogma. I favor "domestic partnerships" for gay couples because they have the right to enter contractual relationships just as heterosexual couples do.

However pleased I am to see First Freedom taking up the fight for the separation of church and state, the organization cannot be very effective until it develops a consistent set of principles.

McCain, Romney, and the Politics of Satan

Recently I wrote that "Romney's religious background did hurt him, not only among some urbanites, but among some evangelical Christians." How much did Romney's Mormonism hurt him among Catholics and Protestants? And just how different is Mormonism from those other Christian strains?

James Dobson of Focus on the Family recently endorsed Mike Huckabee. (In response to concerns that he is so far behind the delegate count, Huckabee responded, "Well, I didn’t major in math. I majored in miracles. And I still believe in those, too.")

Notably, Dobson endorsed Huckabee only after Romney left the race; Romney's Mormonism was not a deal-breaker for Dobson in terms of presidential politics:

I am endorsing Gov. Mike Huckabee for President of the United States today. My decision comes in the wake of my statement on Super Tuesday that I could not vote for Sen. John McCain, even if he goes on to win the Republican nomination. His record on the institution of the family and other conservative issues makes his candidacy a matter of conscience and concern for me.

That left two pro-family candidates whom I could support, but I was reluctant to choose between them. However, the decision by Gov. Mitt Romney to put his campaign "on hold" changes the political landscape. The remaining candidate for whom I could vote is Gov. Huckabee. His unwavering positions on the social issues, notably the institution of marriage, the importance of faith and the sanctity of human life, resonate deeply with me and with many others.

Notice that Dobson's sole criteria here are issues particular to Christian dogma. Christians believe that homosexuality is wrong, and Dobson supported the Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. McCain did not support that amendment, even though he has come out strongly in favor of the view that "the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman." But on this point Dobson insists on agreement with means as well as ends; he does not see as adequate prohibiting gay marriage (or "domestic partnerships") by means other than a Constitutional ban.

In opposing the Constitutional measure, McCain cited federalism:

"The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans," McCain said. "It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them."

Dobson also puts McCain outside of the anti-abortion camp, even though McCain has stated that his ultimate aim is "ending abortion."

So, even though McCain has essentially adopted Dobson's religious-right platform, the very reason that I will vote for McCain's opponent, McCain's positions on these issues are not strong enough for Dobson.

As a side note, at least Ann Coulter gave reasons for opposing McCain other than those grounded in Christian faith:

He promoted amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants. He abridged citizens' free speech (in favor of the media) with McCain-Feingold. He hysterically opposes waterboarding terrorists and wants to shut down Guantanamo. He denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. He opposes ANWR and supports the global warming cult, even posturing with fellow mountebank Arnold Schwarzenegger in front of solar panels.

I have no basic problem with McCain's view on amnesty, but I agree with Coulter that McCain's censorship law is terrible. In my view, that single position should disqualify McCain from any elected office.

Of course, Coulter also finds fault with McCain's partial support for stem-cell research and his marginally "soft" position on abortion. This tells us something about the religious right. It is not enough for the religious right merely for a candidate to advocate "ending abortion;" the candidate must stop at nothing to achieve that aim. Yet the view that a fertilized egg is the equivalent of a human person is based on nothing but religious dogma, and a ban on abortion would sacrifice the real rights of people to the make-believe rights of embryos.

But on to Romney's Mormonism. David Harsanyi wrote a humorous yet poignant column about the issue:

...Mitt Romney's exit from the presidential race was inevitable the moment evangelical voters heard he was a Mormon.

Evangelicals have shown us they now have a stranglehold on the Republican Party. ...

In 2006, Dr. James Dobson -- whose wife excluded Mormons from participation in the National Day of Prayer that she chaired in 2004 -- explained, "I don't believe that conservative Christians in large numbers will vote for a Mormon...."

... When asked if he considered Mormonism a cult or a religion, Huckabee answered, "I think it's a religion. I really don't know much about it ... . Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"

Golly, gee, ya think? (All this time I thought the Dark Lord Xenu was Satan's brother.)

It seems perfectly reasonable to vote against a candidate based on faith, if the candidate's beliefs conflict and/or pose a theocratic threat to the Constitution.

An example of this latent danger might be seen in an aspiring presidential candidate declaring his supporters to be members of "God's Army" or "soldiers for Christ." A candidate like Huckabee.

The alleged belief that "Jesus and the devil are brothers" is hardly stranger than any belief of Catholic or Protestant Christianity. Indeed, the idea that gods have offspring arose long before Christianity. But is Huckabee's claim true? Certainly many other Christians think so. For example, GodVoter.org (!) -- "Honoring God In Election 2008" (!!) -- claims:

"What evidence do you have that Mormonism teaches Jesus is Satan's brother?"

Quoted below are the founder, presidents, leaders and writings of Mormonism on your question, the teaching that God began as man, and the Mormon heresy of man becoming God someday:

"Jesus is the literal spirit-brother of Lucifer, a creation." (Gospel Through the Ages, p. 15)

"Long before you were born a program was developed by your creators... The principal personalities in this great drama were a Father Elohim, perfect in wisdom, judgment, and person, and two sons, Lucifer and Jehovah." (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, pp. 32-33)

"The appointment of Jesus to be the Savior of the world was contested by one of the other sons of God. He was called Lucifer, son of the morning. Haughty, ambitious, and covetous of power and glory, this sprit-filled brother of Jesus desperately tried to become the Savior of mankind." (Milton R. Hunter, Gospel Through the Ages, page 15)

I have not checked the citations in question, so I have no idea whether GodVoter.org gets this right. (I welcome the comments of any reader, Mormon or otherwise, who can offer a good evaluation of this.) But the Catholics, too, claim that the Mormons adopt the "doctrine of Jesus Christ being the 'spirit brother' of Lucifer." (Of course, as Elaine Pagels writes in The Origin of Satan, "As he first appears in the Hebrew Bible, Satan is not necessarily evil, much less opposed to God. On the contrary, he appears in the book of Numbers and in Job as one of God's obedient servants --a messenger, or angel... In Hebrew, the angels were often called 'sons of God'..." -- page 39).

If you've not had your fill of crazy for the day, perhaps World Net Daily will satisfy:

'Vote for Romney is vote for Satan'
Christian leader follows up Sharpton attack on Mormons
Posted: May 10, 2007
9:15 pm Eastern

While some evangelical Christians are defending the presidential candidacy of Mormon Mitt Romney from an attack by Al Sharpton, another prominent pastor is going further in his condemnation -- saying a vote for the former Massachusetts governor is a vote for Satan.

That's the word from Bill Keller, host of the Florida-based Live Prayer TV program as well as LivePrayer.com.

"If you vote for Mitt Romney, you are voting for Satan!" he writes in his daily devotional to be sent out to 2.4 million e-mail subscribers tomorrow.

Sharpton, the Democratic Party activist and former presidential candidate, has been widely condemned for singling out Romney's faith as an issue in the campaign.

"As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation," he said.

Keller also comes out swinging against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as a cult.

"This message today is not about Mitt Romney," he writes. "Romney is an unashamed and proud member of the Mormon cult founded by a murdering polygamist pedophile named Joseph Smith nearly 200 years ago. The teachings of the Mormon cult are doctrinally and theologically in complete opposition to the Absolute Truth of God's Word. There is no common ground. If Mormonism is true, then the Christian faith is a complete lie. There has never been any question from the moment Smith's cult began that it was a work of Satan and those who follow their false teachings will die and spend eternity in hell."

See? Dobson is restrained by comparison.

And so it is that an American election for president, the most powerful political office in the world, will be determined, in part, by what members of some religious sects think about the position of another religious sect on the relationship of Jesus and Satan. Or, "My god is better than your god." Because, you know, the (alleged) idea that Jesus and Satan are "spirit brothers" is so much more bizarre than the idea that God impregnated a mortal virgin with Jesus and created Satan as an angel.

Absolute insanity.

The Forty Day Abortion Protest

The Gazette of Colorado Springs published an interesting article on February 7 about an ongoing protest of an office of Planned Parenthood:

40-day, round-the-clock vigil will protest abortion

By Mark Barna
February 7, 2008 - 12:49AM

For the next 39 days, a group of Catholics and Protestants will gather around the clock on a sidewalk outside a Planned Parenthood office to protest abortion.

The vigil began at 12:01 a.m. on Ash Wednesday, when the Rev. Bill Carmody [Respect Life director for the Catholic Diocese of Colorado Springs] prayed outside Planned Parenthood at 1330 W. Colorado Ave. Two or more protesters plan to be there on a rotating schedule to pray, read biblical verses and talk to women arriving for appointments. ...

Jody Berger, communications director of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, said... previous protests have been peaceful, and the participants stayed off Planned Parenthood’s property in accordance with a state “bubble law.” The law prohibits protesters from coming within 100 feet of the entrance of medical facilities and within 8 feet of their clients.

Of course, I fully support the right to protest, on public property, so long as the protest does not impede lawful activity. But I do wonder what sort of "talking to" the clients of Planned Parenthood will receive.

The article points out that, while the protest revolves around Catholic observances, "Protestant protesters say it transcends denominational differences." While it truly is refreshing that Catholics and Protestants have settled down to work with each other, their bloody decades of mutual slaughter safely behind us, unfortunately these churches join not only to peaceably protest but to enforce their religious doctrines by force of law. I wonder if a single one of the protesters would hesitate to outlaw all or nearly all abortions, given the chance.

The article continues with this insightful exchange:

Berger would like to see all church leaders join with Planned Parenthood to promote sex education and the use of contraception as a way to reduce abortions.

Carmody scoffed at the idea.

“Of course they want to promote contraception,” he said. “It’s good for their business. I promote chastity.”

Ah, yes, chastity. That's the solution. No sex. I presume that Carmody means to exclude married couples, so long as they too refrain from using contraception, as birth control violates Catholic doctrine.

Of course, I've been married for nearly a decade now, and contraception has worked perfectly well over that entire period. I wonder what percent of all pregnancies that end in abortion result from properly used contraception that failed. My guess is that in the large majority of cases, no contraception was used, and in the overwhelming majority of the exceptions, it was used improperly. If everyone who had sex used contraception properly, then, the number of unplanned pregnancies would plummet. But that not an acceptable goal for Carmody.

Perhaps Berger now realizes that the ultimate goal of these Christians is not merely to "educate" women about the alleged evils of abortion, it is to outlaw abortion, based on Christian doctrine, and to eliminate all sex outside of marriage.

Scientology Deserves Free Speech

As I have made clear, I believe that Scientology is a cult that deserves nothing but censure and ridicule. That is, Scientology deserves nothing else except to enjoy the basic rights due to every group and individual. Free speech means nothing unless we defend the right to speak by groups we detest.

I was therefore disturbed to read the following story in The Sydney Morning Herald:

Hackers declare Scientology D-day
Leo Shanahan
February 7, 2008 - 11:27AM

Anonymous internet users who have previously crashed Church of Scientology websites have named February 10 as a worldwide day of protest in a bid to "destroy" the controversial religion.

The group - called Anonymous - which includes skilled computer hackers, has posted a message on YouTube declaring war on Scientology, accusing it of trying to censor the internet and conducting "campaigns of misinformation".

The apparent catalyst for the attack was YouTube's decision to remove a video of Hollywood star Tom Cruise - one of Scientology's most high-profile recruits - espousing the religion's virtues after the church asked that it be pulled.

"Anonymous has therefore decided that your organisation should be destroyed, for the good of your followers, for the good of mankind, and for our own enjoyment," the statement says. ...

Last week several major Scientology websites crashed in the United States and Britain. The FBI was asked to investigate after envelopes of white powder were sent to 19 Scientology churches in the Los Angeles area. ...

I do not know the full details of the Cruise video. However, one page that continues to host the video speculates:

Yesterday, for a few hours, the clip of Tom Cruise discussing his beliefs as a Scientologist appeared on Youtube, and was republished by Radar and Defamer. That video is no longer available, most likely after the Church of Scientology sent in a copyright infringement notice.

I do not know if the Church of Scientology in fact holds the copyright to the video. Assuming that it does, for the sake of argument, censorship does not mean enforcing copyright. However, obviously Scientology cares nothing about the profitability of the video; the church is rightly worried that the video makes the church look ridiculous. As the cited poster of the video adds, "Gawker is now hosting a copy of the video; it's newsworthy; and we will not be removing it." This is a complicated matter of copyright law, then, but, offhand (and I may change my opinion about this) I'd say that Scientology is within its rights to ask that the video be removed and Gawker is within its rights to host the video anyway. Hosting the Cruise video is not comparable to (for example) hosting a film that is elsewhere for sale.

Scientology can more plausibly be accused of censorship in its use of vindictive litigation to silence critics. Scientology seems little interested in respecting the rights of free speech of others. However, the solution to this problem is to reform the litigation process to curb abuses. Two wrongs do not make a right, and silencing Scientology is not the appropriate remedy for Scientology's abuse of its critics. Scientology should be required to respect the rights of others, but beyond that the only legitimate way to counteract the organization is to criticize it in open debate.

People have the right to be Scientologists and to promote the ideology of the religion. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion demand that Scientologists be protected from those who would attempt to silence the religion. "First they came for the Scientologists..."

Thoughts on Super Tuesday

What are the religious implications of Super Tuesday? Obviously, many of my thoughts are speculative. But this is my best shot at explaining part of what's going on.

As I write, The Denver Post reports that John McCain leads the Republican race with 525 delegates, more than twice as many as Mitt Romney's 223 delegates, and more than the delegates of Romney and Mike Huckabee combined. Romney might still come back, but at this point it seems that McCain has the momentum. Why is that? I suspect that a large part of the reason is that many Republicans are shying away from the strong religious overtones of Romney and Huckabee. And that is a very good sign. Generally I don't care what religion a president professes, but I do care when candidates for president promise to impose religious doctrine by force of law.

Yet, as I've pointed out, McCain has also cozied up to the religious right. Republicans, though, know that McCain is not as dedicated to faith-based politics as are his main competitors. From my perspective, though, McCain's turn remains deeply troubling. McCain knows that he cannot win without the evangelical wing of his party. And, once in office, McCain will face constant pressure to deliver the goods to this wing.

Even though Barack Obama seems much more interested in faith-based politics than does McCain, Obama also faces obvious restraints by his party. For example, while Obama rushed to give an interview to Christianity Today, he also made it clear that he wants to keep abortion legal.

Therefore, the way I see it, even though Obama seems to be more seriously religious, McCain is a much more dangerous threat to the separation of church and state. That is why I will vote for either of the two Democrats over any of the Republicans.

That said, as much as I personally dislike Hillary Clinton and strongly disapprove of most of her policies, I believe that she is the best candidate for preserving the separation of church and state.

The Republicans have made their bed, and I for one refuse to sleep in it. Clinton is about as strange a bedfellow as I can tolerate.

But how do I explain the results in Colorado? As I have argued at length, the Interior West tends to be more secular in orientation. Why, then, did Colorado go for Obama and Romney, two of the more religious candidates, with such high numbers? The Post reports early figures of 67 percent for Obama and 59 percent for Romney.

I'll take the Democrats first. David Montero argues for the Rocky Mountain News that Obama's message resonated with voters skeptical or tired of the war in Iraq. Montero adds, "It was also a conscious strategy by the Obama campaign to zero in on caucus states such as Colorado to pick up delegates and keep the overall race tight between himself and Clinton." Beyond that, I think there's something about Clinton's condescending, smarty-pants manner that rubs Westerners the wrong way.

What about Romney? For starters, the Post endorsed Romney, and the Post's libertarian-conservative David Harsanyi pounded McCain. As Lynn Bartels of the Rocky points out, Romney "had a campaign presence in Colorado for months." I personally detest McCain, as I consider him an enemy of the Bill of Rights. The fact that McCain is from Arizona only rankles me all the more; he gives the Interior West a bad name. So it's not much of a surprise to me that Republicans in my state rejected him.

Obviously Romney stomped McCain in Utah, but even in Arizona early returns show McCain unable to win even half the votes. And Montana also went for Romney.

In Colorado, Romney's Mormonism isn't a big deal. Here, Mormons are more than guys in white shirts and ties pedaling bicycles; they are our friends and neighbors. In addition, because Coloradans are on the whole somewhat more secular, voters here don't get quite as excited by doctrinal differences. Even though nobody likes to discuss it, Romney's religious background did hurt him, not only among some urbanites, but among some evangelical Christians.

One more thing hurt McCain in Colorado: James Dobson of Focus on the Family came out swinging against McCain. Christa Marshall writes:

"Should John McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime. I certainly can't vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama based on their virulently anti-family policy positions. If these are the nominees in November, I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life," Dobson said through a prepared statement read on "The Laura Ingraham Show."

Dobson singled out McCain's support for embryonic stem-cell research and opposition to a "constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage." He also chastised the GOP presidential candidate for saying once that Hillary Clinton would make a good president and being a potential 2004 running mate for Sen. John Kerry.

Dobson seems to dislike McCain even more than I do, though for completely different reasons. Dobson attacked McCain even though McCain tried to appeal to evangelicals on the issues mentioned:

The family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society and John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It is only this definition that sufficiently recognizes the vital and unique role played by mothers and fathers in the raising of children, and the role of the family in shaping, stabilizing, and strengthening communities and our nation. ...

John McCain opposes the intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes. To that end, Senator McCain voted to ban the practice of "fetal farming," making it a federal crime for researchers to use cells or fetal tissue from an embryo created for research purposes.

What this dispute indicates to me is that Republican candidates must seek to appease the religious right, but politicians who stop short of completely adopting the religious right's political agenda will always struggle with that group. While the Democratic Party is, most deeply, the party of pragmatic, watered-down socialism, the Republican Party is, most deeply, the party of faith-based politics.

In other words, Clinton is the rock to McCain's hard place.

Is there any way to dodge these charging horns? The only way out that I see is for the secular, free-market Republicans to abandon the religious right and find new friends among the free-trade and "blue dog" Democrats. The religious right already seems to be merging with the religious left. I'm not bothered by the prospect of the (non-Christian) socialist wing of the Democratic party finding itself without a coalition.

It would be nice if, in some future election, I actually had a reason to vote for a candidate.

Aristotle on Intellectual Ambitiousness

Recently I acquired the two-volume Complete Works of Aristotle (order from Amazon), which promises many hours of illuminating reading. The first book I started to look through is Metaphysics, in which Aristotle argues that no knowledge is properly beyond man. He writes of the subject at hand (Book I (A) 2, or page 1555):

Hence the possession of it might be justly regarded as beyond human power; for in many ways human nature is in bondage, so that according to Simonides 'God alone can have this privilege', and it is unfitting that man should not be content to seek the knowledge that is suited to him. If, then, there is something in what the poets say, and jealousy is natural to the divine power, it would probably occur in this case above all, and all who excelled in this knowledge would be unfortunate. But the divine power cannot be jealous (indeed, according to the proverb, 'bards tell many a lie'), nor should any science be thought more honourable than one of this sort.

So, while Aristotle comfortably refers to God, Aristotle is careful not to place any knowledge beyond the reach of man. This approach is the exact opposite of that of, say, Saint Augustine (and of many modern evangelicals).

Aristotle adds that metaphysics "would be most meet for God to have... for God is thought to be among the causes of all things and to be a first principle..." What Aristotle means by this "first principle," and why he finds it necessary, is one of the main points that I hope to learn from the volumes.

John McCain on Religion

Now that it seems more likely that John McCain will become the Republican nominee, I thought it was a good time to see where McCain stands on religion in politics. The short answer is that he's all for it.

The official John McCain web page contains the document, "Human Dignity & the Sanctity of Life."

McCain said, "To sacrifice for a cause greater than yourself, and to sacrifice your life to the eminence of that cause, is the noblest activity of all." He really means it. For example, he wishes to force women to sacrifice their lives to the Christian dogma against abortion. Here's what McCain's web page says on the issue:

John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench. Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.

However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion. ...

McCain's ultimate goal, then, is "ending abortion." The web page lists no exceptions; I don't know whether McCain has mentioned possible exceptions elsewhere. However, it seems that his official web page should be taken at face value as the statement of his positions. If we take the goal of "ending abortion" seriously, that means a complete ban on the "morning after" pill. It means criminal penalties for women and/or doctors involved with abortion. It means that women who are raped will be forced to carry the child to term. It means that women whose lives are in danger will be forced to face death rather than get an abortion. It means that, from the moment the sperm enters the egg, that embryo is fully protected by law, regardless of the the health of the embryo, the cause of the embryo, or the health, choices, and welfare of the woman carrying the embryo. Even if McCain hastens to carve out exceptions, his policy would still subvert the health and autonomy of the woman to an embryo. McCain calls for sacrifice, and he means it. He literally means that women must sacrifice their lives to the "eminence" of the Christian doctrine that equates a fertilized egg with a human being. (Notably, the text about abortion appears on the web page right next to a video titled, "Faith.") That is what John McCain means by the term "human dignity."

Not surprisingly, then, McCain also wishes to potentially sacrifice the lives of sick people to embryos; he opposes stem-cell research. [February 6 update: McCain opposes some forms of stem-cell research but also believes, "Stem cell research offers tremendous hope for those suffering from a variety of deadly diseases..."]

Back in October, I pledged to "vote against any candidate who does not explicitly and unambiguously endorse the separation of church and state." Obviously McCain wishes to impose religious doctrine by force of law. Thus, I will not vote for John McCain for any political office, under any circumstances.

Rand on God

Ayn Rand has many things to say about religion. However, I found one of her comments in a place I didn't expect: the lengthy appendix to Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (order from Amazon.) Somebody asks her about the conceptual status of "God." She replies:

["God"] is not a concept. At best, one could say it is a concept in the sense in which a dramatist uses concepts to create a character. It is an isolation of actual characteristics of man combined with projection of impossible, irrational characteristics which do not arise from reality -- such as omnipotence and omniscience.

Besides, God isn't even supposed to be a concept: he is sui generis, so that nothing relevant to man or the rest of nature is supposed, by the proponents of that viewpoint, to apply to God. A concept has to involve two or more similar concretes, and there is nothing like God. He is supposed to be unique. Therefore, by their own terms of setting up the problem, they have taken God out of the conceptual realm. And quite properly, because he is out of reality. (page 148)

Incidentally, I also found the material between pages 150 and 157 to contain a number of interesting comments about volition and the distinction between mind and matter.

Obama on Faith-Based Welfare

Recently I discussed Barack Obama's comments about abortion in Christianity Today. Now I want to turn to Obama's comments about faith in general and about the tax funding of religious groups. The article is from Christianity Today, and the interview, "Q&A: Barack Obama," conducted by Sarah Pulliam and Ted Olsen, was published on January 23.

Obama makes clear that he is deeply religious:

I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. ... Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals.

Subscription to the Christian faith is common among U.S. presidents. The problem arises when a Christian politician attempts to impose Christian theology by force of law. Clearly, Obama is restrained by his own party and political beliefs from traveling too far down the path toward faith-based politics. However, he also clearly tries to support the standard Democratic agenda with Christian beliefs.

In the following comment, Obama does not make clear whether he wants to use tax dollars for the programs in question:

I think it is important for us to encourage churches and congregations all across the country to involve themselves in rebuilding communities. One of the things I have consistently argued is that we can structure faith-based programs that prove to be successful -- like substance abuse or prison ministries -- without violating church and state. We should make sure they are rebuilding the lives of people even if they're not members of a particular congregation. That's the kind of involvement that I think many churches are pursuing, including my own.

However, Obama does say that he sees no inherent problem with spending tax dollars on religious groups. Christianity Today asked, "So would you keep the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives open or restructure it?" Obama answers:

You know, what I'd like to do is I'd like to see how it's been operating. One of the things that I think churches have to be mindful of is that if the federal government starts paying the piper, then they get to call the tune. It can, over the long term, be an encroachment on religious freedom. So, I want to see how moneys have been allocated through that office before I make a firm commitment in terms of sustaining practices that may not have worked as well as they should have.

Obama is rightly concerned about political interference in religion, but he does not believe that spending tax dollars on religious groups will necessarily create that problem.

However, Obama completely ignores the other side of the problem: what about the rights of people who do not wish to fund religious organizations? Religious freedom entails the right not to support religious groups against one's choice.

The example of prison ministry has broader implications. I have no problem with Christian ministry in prisons -- so long as it is voluntary for prisoners, prisoners have equal access to secular alternatives, and no tax dollars are involved. Obama talks about Christians "rebuilding the lives of people even if they're not members of a particular congregation." Is this Obama's attitude also with faith-based welfare? But what about people who are not members of any religious congregation? An explicitly religious group that spends tax dollars necessarily promotes a religious message, however subtly. And the religious group itself benefits from the tax dollars. Again, people have the right not to support such things.