Perkins vs. D'Souza: Alleged Harms of Atheism

Greg Perkins is writing a series of essays for NoodleFood criticizing Dinesh D'Souza's Christian apologetics. In his first essay, Perkins refutes D'Souza's claim that atheism is responsible for the horrors of socialism.

Perkins argues:

[A]theism is not itself an ideology; there is no such thing as an "atheist mindset" or an "atheist movement." Atheism per se hasn't inspired and doesn't lead to anything in particular because it is an effect -- not a cause -- and there are countless reasons for a person to not believe in God, ranging from vicious to innocent to noble. ... [W]hat would a committed Communist and an Objectivist have in common -- regarding what they do believe, why they believe it, how that leads them to live personally, the sort of social system they would strive for in government? Nothing. They are polar opposites in principle and practice, across the philosophical board. ...

The important contrast is not atheism vs. religion, but rather rationality vs. irrationality.

Perkins goes on to argue that totalitarian regimes fundamentally reject and drive out rationality.

Perkins relies on the same distinction to undercut D'Souza's claims about the benefits of Christianity:

Besides trying to tar his opponents with the worst atrocities in history, D'Souza regularly tries to give Christianity credit for mankind's positive strides. For instance, he argues in an op-ed that "Christianity has illuminated the greatest achievements of the culture" such as the rise of science, human rights, equality for women and minorities, ending slavery, and so forth. That "when you examine history you find that all of these values came into the world because of Christianity." He contrasts Christianity and atheism, saying that these advances arrived in Christendom and by the hands of Christians -- not atheists. And he uses this to score extra points in debate by asking his opponents what atheism has to offer humanity, other than the chance to undermine all that progress.

Once again, such a comparison is fundamentally confused. Recall that atheism is not itself an ideology and therefore doesn't lead people to do anything in particular -- good or bad. So again we need to approach the issue in terms that will actually shed some light. The illuminating question to consider is: What does reason offer humanity over faith?

Obviously Perkins's essay is not the final word on the matter, but it is an excellent short essay on the subject that merits broad readership. D'Souza has been an effective debater against the "New Atheists," but his positions are fundamentally flawed, and Perkins is going far in pointing this out.

'Personhood' Amendment Makes Ballot

Following is a media release from a group opposing the 'personhood' amendment, now known as Amendment 48. I've criticized the measure and discussed the politics surrounding it. Unfortunately, by claiming people must "agree to disagree" and that the measure is "not simple" but "extreme," the release fails to make the essential arguments: a fertilized egg is not, in fact, a person, and banning abortions would violate the rights and threaten the lives of actual people. Nevertheless, I'm glad that Coloradans are organizing to defeat the ghastly measure.

MEDIA RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- May 29, 2008
CONTACT -- Crystal Clinkenbeard

DENVER, CO -- May 29, 2008 - Today the Colorado Secretary of State ruled that backers of the "Definition of Person" amendment submitted enough valid signatures to qualify for the November ballot. Opposition group Protect Families Protect Choices (PFPC) issued the following statement in response:

"Vote No on Amendment 48, the so-called 'Definition of Person.' Accessible health care is tough enough for many people and their families," said Crystal Clinkenbeard, a spokesperson for opposition group PFPC. "This ballot measure threatens access to health care, birth control, infertility treatments, and medical research -- just to name a few."

"Amending the Colorado constitution is always serious business. Responsible government, allows us to appreciate and respect individual opinions. Sometimes people have to agree to disagree. Defining a fertilized egg as a 'person' in our Constitution and statutes is not scientifically based and simply makes bad public policy."

"The No on Amendment 48 Campaign wants voters to know this dangerous amendment is not simple: it is extreme. It threatens women's health care. It threatens lifesaving medical research. It threatens state laws and policies that refer to 'person' or 'people' -- the consequences of this constitutional change are unknown and dangerous and will affect hundreds if not thousands of laws within our state statues."

###
Contact Crystal Clinkenbeard, Protect Families Protect Choices Press Secretary... for more information or to schedule an interview.

Protect Families Protect Choices is a broad-based, bi-partisan coalition committed to defeating Amendment 48, the so-called "Definition of Person." It includes nurses, doctors, religious leaders, and health advocacy organizations. Learn more about Protect Families Protect Choices at www.protectfamiliesprotectchoice.org.

Update on Peikoff's Podcasts

Leonard Peikoff continues to release interesting podcasts applying Objectivist philosophy to various issues and problems. Here I review some of the highlights of his podcasts numbers 12-15 (even though only some of the issues he addresses pertain to religion).

Podcast 12

Peikoff first addresses the question of whether it's appropriate to take a "slightly less fulfilling" career in order to make more money. Peikoff answers that each person must decide what it is they want to do as a career and establish a hierarchy of values. Assuming that one's career is possible and that one can survive by pursuing it, "then money is irrelevant." (That should surprise those who deal only with caricatures of Ayn Rand.) Likewise, one should not avoid one's chosen career merely to avoid extra years of education.

I find Peikoff's answer persuasive, yet I continue to think that there are many legitimate trade-offs within a career. He gives the example of medicine versus law. However, within medicine and law, there are a great many specialties that impact salary, schedule, place of residence, and so on. Most fields are sufficiently broad that one can enter it at a wide range of salary and education. To take another example, while teaching philosophy at a college requires a Ph.D., it is possible to work on applied philosophy by writing columns and books.

In the podcast, Peikoff also reviews some interesting points about induction and liberty in medicine.

Podcast 13

To what extent must every person understand philosophy? Peikoff answers that, while a formal study of philosophy is not necessary to live a good life, one must grasp the essentials: this world exists, we gain knowledge by observing facts and thinking about them, and we should seek happiness through reason. Peikoff also discusses the importance of applying philosophy in one's own life (as opposed to adopting ideas rationalistically) and the proper relationship between children and parents.

Podcast 14

Is it proper for a soldier to have short-term sexual relationships? Yes, in the situation where a long-term relationship is impossible and death is a possibility of the job. However, one should still find value in sexual partners, avoid self-deception, and practice sex responsibly.

Can homosexuals be Objectivists? Peikoff emphatically answers yes. He points out that philosophy can address certain broad questions regarding sex -- for instance, philosophy shows that force, sadism, and promiscuity are wrong -- but homosexuality is a psychological matter. Peikoff argues that sexual orientation generally evolves early in life and doesn't "involve choice." Peikoff tires of the question, noting that he personally knows good, hard-working, romantically committed homosexuals.

In this podcast, Peikoff also discusses the "human desire for transcendence," children's rights, and science-fiction.

Podcast 15

Peikoff first answers a question about alleged falling standards in the software industry. He doesn't really answer the question; instead, he discusses all of the things he'd have to know to answer it, which to me is the more interesting exercise. Peikoff points out that there is a proper place in the market for lower-quality goods at lower prices.

Is a romantic relationship between an Objectivist and a Christian possible? Peikoff argues that the answer depends on the circumstances, such as how the Christian interprets the religion. One who believes that Christianity offers an alternative to nihilism is different than someone who believes that faith should obliterate reason. However, Peikoff concludes, such a relationship is likely to fall into a number of problems.

After discussing parental rights, Peikoff turns to the question of whether one can surrender certain rights. For example, can one agree to enter slavery or be severely beaten? Peikoff argues that such things may be properly prohibited. He suggests that government should not protect such agreements and should arrest those doing the enslaving and beating. While this thorny issue deserves more attention, Peikoff offers some interesting starting points.

Finally, how does "self-ownership" fit with individual rights? Peikoff argues that ownership properly applies to external objects, and that ownership of one's self doesn't make sense. Peikoff traces the problem to a conservative effort to reduce the politics to property rights, which, Peikoff argues, are derivative (of ethics and the right to life), not fundamental.

As always, my brief summaries should not be taken as a substitute for Peikoff's complete comments.

D'Souza on Gay Marriage

Dinesh D'Souza writes the following scary lines in the context of the California gay-marriage decision: "It is the essence of democracy that people should be able to decide the moral rules that govern the nature of a community. If people don't have that power, then they are living under an autocracy."

Taken alone, D'Souza's statement is an endorsement of mob rule. I was therefore relieved, initially, to read his qualifications. "[M]ajority rule... is limited by what the government has the power to do" and "is also circumscribed by individual rights." So far, that's what I believe as well. Where we part ways is in our understanding of individual rights.

While Christians typically argue that our rights come from God, D'Souza here implies that they come from the state. D'Souza refers to "rights clearly specified in the Constitution." He adds, "The state is constitutionally prohibited from undermining these enumerated rights."

This presents a difficulty, because our "enumerated rights" explicitly refer to our non-enumerated ones.

If our only rights are those spelled out in government documents, then our rights are culturally relative. I hold that our rights come not from political caprice or mob rule or God, but from our nature as humans. As Ayn Rand stated it eloquently through John Galt, "The source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A -- and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work."

D'Souza presents the following argument against gay marriage:

[J]ust like everyone else, gays do have the right to marry. They have the right to marry adult members of the opposite sex! ...

[S]tates have a legitimate right to define marriage. State legislatures, drawing on tradition and appealing to the values of their constituents, have defined marriage in a very particular way. Marriage requires a) two people who are b) of legal age and c) not closely related to each other who are d) one male and one female. ...

[I]f it's discriminatory to gays to require that marriage be between a man and a woman, why isn't it discriminatory to Mormons and Muslims to require that it remain between two people? Isn't incestuous marriage also between "consenting adults" who have a right to equal protection of the laws? And why doesn't the Fourteenth Amendment protect the fellow who wants to walk down the aisle with his poodle...?

The point is not that gay marriage is indistinguishable from child marriage or polygamy. The point is that any definition, and marriage is no exception, includes some people and excludes others. Consequently it's unreasonable to say that gays have a constitutional right to over-ride the definition but other groups do not.

D'Souza essentially places the "definitions" of our individual rights in the hands of the mob. His argument, for example, also would have supported restrictions on interracial marriage. "Just like everyone else, blacks to have the right to marry. They have the right to marry adult members of the same race!" Society need merely tweak the "definition" of marriage to include "e) of the same race." For "if it's discriminatory to blacks to require that marriage be between people of the same race, why isn't it discriminatory to Mormons..." and so on.

D'Souza's view of socially defined rights meshes with his view of strictly enumerated rights. His argument is that our rights come from the state.

Yet, as Diana Hsieh and I have argued, gay marriage (between two consenting adults) is substantially similar to heterosexual marriage. Hsieh trounces D'Souza's bogus comparisons:

1. Marriage to beasts is impossible, as the marriage relationship requires the capacity for rationality, not to mention a basic equality in rights. ...

2. Marriage to children is excluded for the same basic reason: children are not yet able to fully exercise even the basic rationality required to live independently. That capacity for independence is required for the integration of lives involved in marriage. ...

3. Polygamous marriage is excluded because whatever relationships would result from multiple unions would be fundamentally different than that of a two-person marriage. ...

Our rights do not come from arbitrary (or traditional) social "definitions." Our rights have an objective basis. And it is telling that Christians, who so often claim that our rights come from God, so often fall back on cultural relativism.

D'Souza makes very clear his attitude toward "enumerated rights:" they are subject to social interpretation. He writes, "In the past Democrats have always appreciated courts doing their dirty work when it comes to issues like abortion, pornography, prostitution and gay rights."

To stick with the issue of pornography, what happened to the enumerated right of free speech? This right, according to D'Souza, depends upon social "definitions" of what constitutes pornography, definitions that are culturally relative and that derive from mob rule or arbitrary judicial opinion. (Significantly, in this case the courts have carved out exceptions to free speech.)

If the enumerated right of free speech is subject to social "definitions," then John McCain's campaign censorship law passes muster, because it wound through the Congress, earned the President's signature, and passed through the Supreme Court.

If free speech may be arbitrarily "defined" to exclude pornography, using D'Souza's reasoning, then why can't freedom of religion be "defined" to exclude "dangerous" or even heretical religions?

D'Souza's position collapses to mob rule, the view that "people should be able to decide the moral rules that govern the nature of a community." While limited powers and enumerated rights may check particular reforms, ultimately those powers and rights depend on popular opinion. While generally people do ultimately create the governments under which they live, my point is that individual rights have an objective basis independent of arbitrary social "definitions."

Oddly, D'Souza's logic suggests that, if the majority chose to change the definition of marriage to include gay marriage, he would accept the new rules. Somehow, I doubt other Christians would be happy with that outcome.

Is 'Earl' Scientologist?

Not long after I recommended My Name is Earl, the NBC sitcom starring Jason Lee, I learned that the show has some Scientologist connections. Last year James Donaghy reported for the Guardian:

The Scientology-Earl connection begins with Earl himself - actor Jason Lee is a Scientologist, as is show creator Greg Garcia and Ethan Suplee who plays Earl's slow-reader brother Randy. ...[T]here has also been a guest appearance from Juliette Lewis, Suplee's sister-in-law and a practising Scientologist. Also down with the Church is Giovanni Ribisi, who plays recurring character Ralph Mariano. ...

Then there's the concept of the "overt-motivator sequence". Crudely, this is what happens when a person does something bad then subconsciously causes something bad to happen to themself. It all sounds eerily like "Do bad things and it will come back to haunt you", Earl's karmic mantra.

Does this bug me? Well, a lot of good art is produced by people with some kooky beliefs. I enjoyed Tom Cruise in Jerry Maguire, and I like John Travolta generally. Travolta starred in Phenomenon, which I enjoyed despite its Scientologist overtones. Scientology does have some vicious streaks relative to other mainsteam U.S. religions (such as its sue-happy lawyers), yet other religions offer similarly silly teachings. I've enjoyed the work of Mormons, Protestants, Catholics, and others.

Besides, the idea of self-sabotage is hardly unique to Scientology. No religion is complete nonsense, or nobody would believe it. (Maybe I overestimate some people.) Dostoevsky wrote of self-sabotage, for instance. I don't think any psychologist would deny it. But Earl is about a lot more than self-sabotage; it is partly about the simple fact that if you treat people like crap, they're likely to treat you like crap right back. If you commit crimes, you're likely headed for jail. If you build a good reputation, good people will respect you. These are good moral themes that transcend religion.

Aside from all that, a major television show is the result of a large group of writers and producers. I suppose that only a few of the participants are Scientologists.

In a special feature, the creator explains his inspiration: his own father decided to get his life together. That's a good story, even if told through the lens of a Scientologist.

Gay Marriage in California

I didn't realize this was even on the agenda, but it's fairly big news:

Divided California Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage
By Howard Mintz and Denis Theriault
Mercury News
Article Last Updated: 05/15/2008 09:31:19 PM MDT

...In a ruling that is certain to inflame the social, political and moral debate over gay marriage, a divided state Supreme Court dominated by Republican appointees on Thursday struck down California laws that restrict marriage to heterosexual couples. The 4-3 ruling, written by Chief Justice Ronald George, found that it is unconstitutional to deprive gays and lesbians of the equal right to walk down the aisle with a government-issued marriage license in hand.

So far, God has not racked the state with earthquakes or struck down homosexuals with lightening. Neither have heterosexuals swarmed the divorce courts or abandoned their children. The American family survives.

I do wonder, though, whether it's necessary to move beyond "domestic partnership" to "marriage." The article notes, "State lawyers have argued that California's strong domestic-partnership laws essentially already provide equal benefits to same-sex couples." It's done now, though; I'll be interested to see if the ruling lasts.

I'll also be interested to see how the Republicans respond to this. They can energize their evangelical base, but at the cost of younger independents. I don't think it'll make any difference in the race for the White House -- the Democrats seem hell-bent on running losers -- but at the broader level and in the longer term, the Dems seem ready to continue to take advantage of GOP infighting between the evangelicals and everyone else.

Diana Hsieh has a nice explanation of why marriage should be extended to homosexual couples but not beyond that. Last year I wrote a lengthier article covering similar points.

Evangelical Priorities

Frank Pastore criticizes something called the "Evangelical Manifesto" (which I have not yet read), offering his own idea of evangelical priorities.

Pastore notes that "hunger, poverty, disease and the environment" are important -- how they should relate to politics he does not specify -- but adds, "As evangelicals, what could possibly trump the right to life and the preservation of marriage and the family?" In other words, Pastore's top two concerns are outlawing at least most abortions and interfering in contract law for homosexuals.

Pastore does call for "free markets," without specifying what that means. He points to today's mixed economy.

He makes clear that evangelicals should work to conform governmental policy to the will of God: "Politics is theology applied. One of the ways we collectively 'love our neighbor as our self' is through public policy."

When it comes to the use of political force, Pastore should keep his "love" to himself.

Islam Bans Health Insurance?

Where it prevails, Islamic law invades every aspect of life. Now, one Islamic group has declared health insurance forbidden. The Economic Times reports (via WeStandFirm):

Comparing the benefits of health insurance policy to gambling, key Islamic organisations have termed the policies as "illegal" and directed Muslims to keep away from them.

At a seminar to deliberate whether insuring health was permissible under Islamic law Shariat, the Islamic Fiqh Academy (India) decided that availing such policies was illegal. ...

Health insurance schemes have turned a noble service in to a business activity, hence under Islam it is not permitted, they said. ...

The Ulema suggested that the community could itself organise services to help in the treatment of poor.

There is one exception: if insurance is forced through "legal constraints" (like what?), then a person might be able to get away with having insurance, so long as one spends "the left-over amount... on some form of service to Allah." (Why would there be a "left-over amount?" Isn't health insurance supposed to cover health costs?)

This is the sort of thing that happens when religious dogmatists run things. Nevermind that their views are absurd. Insurance is not remotely like gambling; the point of it is to pool resources to cover the expenses of those who happen to suffer high-cost health problems. If that's gambling, then life is a gamble (but don't tell these Islamists!). Note the socialist presumptions of the Islamists, who define business activities as ignoble. The line about helping the poor is off point; health insurance enables the middle class to avoid poverty. But poverty must be a central concern of such Islamists, as they perpetuate it through their anti-reason, anti-liberty controls.

Pope: No Birth Control, Artificial Procreation

I wonder what fraction of Catholics routinely violate official doctrine that prohibits the use of birth control, then feel guilty about it. The Associated Press reports (via Fox):

...[Pope] Benedict [XVI] reiterated the Church's ban against artificial birth control as well as more recent teaching against using artificial procreation methods.

Pope Paul VI's 1968 "Humanae vitae" ("On Human Life") encyclical prohibits Catholics from using artificial birth control. ...

"What was true yesterday remains true even today. 'The truth expressed in 'Humane vitae' doesn't change; on the contrary, in the light of new scientific discoveries it is ever more up to date," the pope added.

Shortly after the encyclical came out, Ayn Rand criticized it at Ford Hall Forum, on December 8, 1968. Her speech is reproduced in The Voice of Reason.

Rand argues that the church's antipathy toward sex is rooted in the "doctrine that man's sexual capacity belongs to a lower or animal part of his nature," a doctrine that Rand utterly rejects. Rand then points out the great harm that comes from a prohibition of birth control: romantic couples who do not want to have children -- and in many times and places cannot afford to feed them -- face a "silent terror hanging... over every moment of love."

The encyclical claims that birth control violates the will of God; Rand explains at length what this doctrine entails and why it is harmful to human life and happiness. The 18-page essay is well worth reviewing in light of the new Pope's comments. Selections of Rand's talk are provided by the Ayn Rand Lexicon under the topics of love, sex, and birth control.

Romney Returns to Religion

After reviewing Mitt Romney's speech on faith and related comments, I concluded that "Romney has demonstrated that he wishes to sacrifice freedom to religion." Now Romney, who may still play some role in November's election, has returned to the topic.

Romney sensibly asserts that religious "non-believers have just as great a stake as believers in defending religious liberty. If a society takes it upon itself to prescribe and proscribe certain streams of belief -- to prohibit certain less-favored strains of conscience -- it may be the non-believer who is among the first to be condemned. A coercive monopoly of belief threatens everyone, whether we are talking about those who search the philosophies of men or follow the words of God."

However, Romney's characterization of atheists as "non-believers" rubs me the wrong way. I'm not fundamentally a "non-believer;" I'm a believer in human reason and objective morality based on human life, liberty, and happiness. Moreover, Romney's reference to a "coerciver monopoly" refers both to socialistic regimes and to theocratic ones. This undermines his subsequent statement that "freedom requires religion." Obviously, religion often has been hostile to freedom.

Romney quotes Jefferson regarding liberty as a "gift of God." But the key distinction is that liberty arises from our human nature, not from the arbitrary whim of some king or ruler. The "Creator" of the Bill of Rights need not be God (and for Jefferson it was not the Christian God). And Romney quotes John Adams to the effect that self-governance requires "morality and religion." Again, plenty of people with religion have not advocated self-governance; quite the opposite. An objective morality must be separated from religion, else it and freedom become arbitrary whims of some religious decree, rather than of some king. The United States arose not in the era of religion but in the era of the Enlightenment, when religion gave way to reason.

All of Romney's talk of "freedom" cannot erase the fact that he wants to reduce freedom by imposing faith-based political controls. Freedom of religion is essential, but it is meaningless without freedom of action within the context of individual rights.

And when Romney starts talking about "the holy sacrifice of young lives," he strays from the American ideal of self-defense, in which young lives are preserved to the greatest extent possible within the context of national security, and moves toward holy war, in which human life is sacrificed to religious causes.

Campaign Against 'Personhood' Amendment

I pass along the following media release as an item of interest.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Campaign to Defeat So-Called "Personhood" Amendment Launched

DENVER (May 6) -- On Tuesday, May 6, a broad-based coalition of nurses, doctors, religious leaders, community groups and health care advocacy organizations launched the campaign to defeat the proposed so-called "Human Life Amendment."

"If passed, this amendment would permanently alter Colorado’s constitution and allow government intrusion into Coloradans' personal, private medical decisions," said Toni Panetta, spokesperson for Protect Families Protect Choices. "This dangerous and deceptive measure would lay the legal foundation to deny Coloradans the health care they need."

"As a physician, this proposed constitutional amendment really scares me," said Dr. Mary Fairbanks, a family physician who has practiced for more than 20 years. "'The moment of fertilization' is not a medical definition, and so defining a person in that way interferes with the practice of medicine. This proposed amendment jeopardizes women’s health and will interfere with my ability to treat my patients."

The change to Colorado's constitution as it relates to inalienable rights, due process and equality of justice could provide the legal foundation for the government to investigate women or their doctors in the event of a miscarriage. The supporter of a similar measure in Montana has said this type of amendment could be used to investigate women to see what they may have done to cause a miscarriage.

"There's no denying that this amendment would open the door to government control over some of the most personal choices facing Coloradans today," said Gayle Berry, former state representative of House District 55 in Grand Junction. "This is not a partisan issue. Both sides of the aisle can agree that if this amendment passes, Coloradans will lose the right to make decisions about their own families."

Proponents of the initiative have until May 13 to submit at least 76,000 valid signatures to the Colorado Secretary of State's office to qualify the amendment for the November 2008 ballot.

Protect Families, Protect Choices is a broad-based coalition of nurses, doctors, religious leaders, community groups and pro-choice advocacy organizations including the League of Women Voters, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, and many others.
###

Speaker Biographies, Current Coalition Members, and Campaign Overview Follow

Speaker Biographies

Jacinta "Jacy" Montoya is executive director of Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights (COLOR). Montoya was born and raised in the Denver area to a Chicano father and a mother of Irish-German descent, whose families have lived in Colorado for more than 7 generations. She received a Bachelor of Arts degree in the growth & structure of cities program at Bryn Mawr College in Pennsylvania. Upon graduation, Montoya returned to Denver to work in the community in which she was raised. Her goal is to contribute to healthy communities, healthy Latinas, and healthy families by working to turn policy into action.

Dr. Mary Fairbanks is a family physician who has practiced in Colorado since 1990 After receiving her undergraduate degree from Dartmouth College, she completed medical school and her residency at Columbia University. Dr. Fairbanks is currently a faculty member at St. Anthony's Family Medicine Residency where she instructs future family practice physicians.

Senator Betty Boyd (D, Lakewood, SD 21) understands that the majority of Coloradans trust women to make their own personal health-care decisions, in consultation with their doctors, their families, and their conscience. On issues related to reproductive health, Boyd has sponsored legislation signed into law that ensures sexual assault survivors receive information about emergency contraception in the emergency room and that will allow more low-income Coloradans to receive family planning services through Medicaid to prevent unintended pregnancy. Prior to serving as state senator, she served as state representative to Colorado House District 26. Before seeking legislative office, Boyd worked for eight years as a legislative advocate for social justice.

Gayle Berry is the former state representative to Colorado House District 55 in Grand Junction. During her eight year tenure in the legislature (1996-2004), Berry was a member of the powerful Joint Budget Committee, the House Appropriations Committee, and was chair of the House Transportation Committee. Known among her colleagues as a member who could build coalitions on both sides of the aisle, Berry sponsored legislation as diverse as revising the Colorado Consumer Code, to protecting abandoned babies. She also received over 30 awards for legislative excellence during her tenure from business, economic, and human services groups. Nationally, she served on a number of legislative committees concerned with tax & fiscal policy, transportation, and women’s issues. A graduate of Fruita Monument High School and Mesa State College, Berry is a life-long resident of the western slope, and has been active in a wide range of community affairs including business, education, and family welfare.

Dr. Andrew Ross is a native of New York City and a graduate of University of Michigan with a degree in Biological Anthropology, and of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. He did his residency training in Obstetrics and Gynecology at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia. Dr. Ross moved to Denver a little over 5 years ago. He is an OB/GYN in private practice in the south metro area. He serves on the executive and legislative committees of the Colorado Gynecological and Obstetric Society and is the director of Continuing Medical Education for the OB/GYN Department at Swedish Hospital. Dr. Ross also serves as Board Chair to the Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountain Action Fund.


Member Organizations & Endorsements

Organizations

ACLU Colorado
American Association of University Women of Colorado
Americans for Cures
Boulder Valley Women’s Health Center
Center for Reproductive Rights
Colorado Gynecological-Obstetrical Society
Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights
Colorado Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
Colorado Women's Agenda
Colorado Women’s Bar Association
Denver Women's Commission
Freedom Fund
Indigenous Youth Sovereignty Project
Interfaith Alliance of Colorado
League of Women Voters
LUZ Reproductive Justice Think Thank
NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado
National Abortion Federation
National Council of Jewish Women – Colorado Section
National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health
Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains
ProgressNow
Republican Majority for Choice
White House Project
Women's Lobby of Colorado


State Legislators

Sen. Betty Boyd
Sen. Dan Gibbs
Sen. Bob Hagedorn
Sen. John Morse
Sen. Chris Romer
Sen. Nancy Spence
Sen. Sue Windels
Rep. Alice Borodkin
Rep. Terrance Carroll
Rep. Randy Fischer
Rep. Sara Gagliardi
Rep. Gwyn Green
Rep. Cheri Jahn
Rep. Joel Judd
Rep. John Kefalas
Rep. Andy Kerr
Rep. Claire Levy
Rep. Alice Madden
Rep. Anne McGihon
Rep. Joe Rice

###

2008 Protect Families Protect Choices Campaign Overview
Defeating the so-called "Human Life Amendment"

This fall, Colorado voters may be asked to amend our constitution to redefine "person" and to grant constitutional rights from the moment of conception. The proposed amendment is vague, dangerous and simply goes too far. It seeks to restrict women's access to health care, it invites government intrusion into our personal lives, and, if it passes, it's permanent.

The Protect Families Protect Choices Coalition is leading the campaign to defeat this dangerous measure.

What's at stake:
Access to affordable health care is tough enough for many families in Colorado and this deceptively written ballot measure would make matters worse by putting women’s lives at risk and further restricting access to health care.

It is so vaguely worded that its true impact is impossible to predict but what we do know is bad enough.

This amendment would ban all abortion, including in cases of rape, incest or when the woman's life is at risk.
If a pregnant woman were diagnosed with cancer, she may be denied access to life-saving medical treatment because it would endanger the fetus.
This amendment is so extreme it could ban the most popular forms of birth control.
This amendment attempts to place politicians and lawyers in the middle of our most personal, private medical decisions.
The wording is so unclear it could open the door to government interference in decisions about birth control, infertility treatments and stem cell research.

The Colorado Constitution was created to protect us. Amending it should not be taken lightly and it should not be done at all for this deceptively written measure. If this proposed amendment were to pass, it would permanently change our constitution to restrict access to health care.

Our opponents:
Like the initiative they are promoting, the group promoting this measure is deceptively named. The so-called "Colorado for Equal Rights" organization is made up of extreme anti-choice groups from beyond our state borders. Although the leader of the organization, Kristi Burton, is a Colorado native, the group's funding comes from outside groups including the Thomas More Law Center in Michigan, Bound4Life in Washington, DC, and the Alliance Defense Fund in Arizona.


The challenges:
In this presidential election year, Coloradans will also decide one of the most competitive senate races in the country, several strongly contested congressional races and as a many as a dozen statewide ballot initiatives. Reaching Colorado voters through all the political advertising will be more difficult than usual.

Our opponents are hoping their deceptively written initiative, with its short and simple-sounding language, will sneak through the clutter. They are counting on people not understanding the full ramifications of the proposed amendment.

Our challenge is to get beyond the clutter, be heard over the noise and let voters know that the so-called Human Life Amendment restricts access to health care and invites government intrusion in our private medical decisions.

We need to reach out to voters with a strong grassroots effort as well as earned and paid media campaigns.

Schaffer on Abortion

Bob Schaffer, formerly of the U.S. Congress, currently is running for Senate against Mark Udall. As I've reviewed, Udall has clearly and unambiguously endorsed the separation of church and state. What about Schaffer? While he has not replied to my inquiry, and while I don't know his views on a variety of issues, he has made very clear his views on abortion.

Recently the Rocky Mountain News published a speech that Schaffer delivered in 2000 in northeastern Colorado, when Schaffer was a member of Congress. Following are some of the most important quotes:

[A]bortion as a a constitutional right... was first fabricated... in 1973... when our government stripped from the unborn child the fundamental Right to Life. ...

Tonight I want to congratulate this Pro-Life Alliance assembled here, because you have not abandoned that opening precept of our American Declaration. Nor have you abandoned the self-evident Truth that, regardless of the opinions of Washington, D.C.'s elite, the natural, God-given Rights of the unborn are still very much in force.

Your very presence here tonight reinforces it. Your money, your time, and most of all, your prayers are all testimony to the unifying force of the Creator and the true benevolence of Divine Providence. Indeed, it was 2000 years ago that He revealed to the world the way of victory over death, through a Child.

And it is because of the promise of the Christ Child that we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that God hears our prayers for all souls. He hears our prayers that His mercy be generously dispensed upon the souls of the unborn, the souls of their mothers, their fathers, and even their executioners and all those who, through their own weakness, have become the counselors of darkness.

Our prayer and our mission here tonight is for life. Friends, the simple fact is, at abortion mills across the country, there is simply too much death, and too much violence. It is wrong, and it must stop. Whether perpetrated against the unborn, or any other human being, violence and premature death is always wrong. ...

See to it that this Republic for which we stand is truly one nation under God, and that we do extend the full benefits of Liberty and Justice to all living human beings, born and unborn.

At least Schaffer's statements are unambiguous. He believes that God prohibits abortion in all cases, that a fertilized egg has a God-given soul, and that the government should obey God's will. A search of the speech for "rape," "incest," and "life of the the mother" pulls up only "not found." Abortion "is always wrong," according to Schaffer (though I don't know whether he has since made any concessions).

It would be nice if my choice in the race weren't between a socialist and a theocrat. But I absolutely cannot vote for the theocrat.

Knight: Is Homosexuality Genetic?

Recently I discussed Matt Barber's bigotry toward homosexuals, based on two of Barber's articles published by Townhall.com. Today I turn my attention to a more thoughtful article by Robert Knight, again from Townhall.com.

Knight never explicitly states his opinion on homosexuality, though in his article he defends "people who believe homosexuality is wrong." Knight "is director of the Culture & Media Institute," an overtly religious group, which, in its "Best of the Web" section, includes a link to the article, "Eminent Psychiatrist Says Homosexuality a Curable Disorder." So we have a pretty good indication of where Knight is coming from. Yet we must evaluate Knight's claims by their own merits.

In his article, Knight reviews a Good Morning America segment that promotes the idea that homosexuality is a genetic trait. Knight claims that establishing such a claim "is a central strategy of homosexual activists... If sexual behavior is hard-wired like race, then moral considerations can be swept aside, homosexuality declared a 'civil right' and governments can move against people who believe homosexuality is wrong."

Knight's comment contains two errors. First, even if homosexuality were established as a genetic trait, that in no way would justify governments using force "against people who believe homosexuality is wrong." People have a right to be wrong, and they have a right to free speech.

Second, even if homosexuality were established as a genetic trait, that would not prove definitively that it is either morally right or wrong. It would still be possible to argue that a genetic predisposition should not be acted upon. The comparison to race fails, because people cannot choose to change the color of their skin, but they can choose whether and with whom to have sex. To take a different example, some people argue that people are genetically hard-wired to accept religious beliefs. I don't think that's true, but, if it were, I would still argue that we should use our reason to overcome such predispositions. In another example, according to a review of Matt Ridley's The Red Qeen, Riddley "argues that men are polygamous" by genetic predisposition. Even if that were the case, I would not waver in my support of monogamy.

I suspect that homosexuality usually results from a confluence of genetics, environmental factors, and conscious choice. Yet, regardless of which of these three factors is most at play in any given case, I hold that homosexuality can be a healthy, moral path that leads to quality romance. Can homosexual relationships be unhealthy? Yes -- just as heterosexual ones can.

Knight suggests that genetics does not explain homosexuality. He seems open, though, to a genetic predisposition acting in concert with environmental factors:

Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, a psychiatrist with degrees from MIT, the University of Texas and Harvard, has written extensively about problems with genetic research on homosexuality, and also about professional organizations' refusal to consider opposing evidence. In his book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Satinover says genetic factors might contribute "not to homosexuality per se, but rather to some other trait that makes the homosexual 'option' more readily available than to those who lack this genetic trait."

He notes that most basketball players tend to be tall, but that this does not mean that they have a "basketball gene." It only means that they might gravitate toward that sport because of their height. Similarly, a young boy might be more sensitive than other boys, be less athletic, be rejected by his father and peers, and hence be starved for male approval. An early sexual experience could then take him down a path he might not necessarily have taken.

Satinover notes that cultures worldwide historically have varied greatly in terms of homosexual practice and that this indicates that "environmental" factors are at work.

Given that such cultures have existed where the incidence of homosexuality is far greater than at present, the incidence of homosexuality is clearly influenced by mores.

Of course, the incidence of admitted homosexuality -- and of underground homosexual activity -- is also influenced by mores as well as by laws. For example, in Iran, where the government kills homosexuals, people are unlikely to advertise the practice.

Whether homosexuality is caused by genes, environment, choice, or a combination of the three, homosexuals deserve legal protection of their rights and safety. On the cultural level, homosexuals also deserve not to be condemned merely because of their sexual orientation.

Dutch Museums Pulls Muhammad Photos

I don't enjoy Sooreh Hera's photographs. I don't consider them to be art or even very artistic. But the photographer, originally from Iran, has an absolute moral right to take such photos and display them in consenting establishments -- and her right should be protected by law.

Unfortunately, because Islamists have threatened violence, a Dutch museums have pulled Hera's photographs. Fox reports:

The most controversial images feature gay men posed in various stages of undress. In one, a man wears leather chaps with his buttocks exposed, wearing a mask of Ali, the son-in law of the prophet Muhammad. In other photo two men are shirtless wearing masks of both Ali (on the left) and Muhammad (on the right). ...

Museum directors initially planned to display the work of the 35-year-old artist. But now, citing fear of reprisals and political pressure, they've changed their mind, much to her dismay.

A museum does have the right to choose which works to display. If a museum had decided not to display Hera's photographs beccause they aren't very good, that would have been no violation of Hera's rights. (One museum did reject the photos on the basis of quality.) But, by threatening violence, Islamists have violated the rights both of the museums and of Hera.

Fox continues:

...John Voll, associate director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, said Hera's works cross the line and are offensive.

He said freedom of speech does not mean that one has the freedom to be as insulting as possible.

"It isn't as if we have absolute freedom in the United States to be offensive and insulting just to be different," Voll said in an interview.

"Can you imagine what would happen if John McCain used the n-word about Obama while campaigning? There are consequences. Free speech is not absolute," he said.

Freedom of speech does indeed mean that we have the "freedom to be as insulting as possible," within the context of rights, meaning that libel, slander, and incitements to violence are excluded. (Inciting someone to violence does not mean insulting them such that they become violent, as Islamists would have us believe; it means actively exhorting others to commit acts of violence, as Islamists do.)

Voll confuses freedom of speech -- one's legal right to say and publish whatever one wants with one's own resources -- with the social consequences of speech. McCain has the right to call Obama the n-word. And the rest of us would have the right to vote against him for doing so.

Fox reports:

"The Netherlands is very much a flashpoint right now. It looks as if there is going to have to be some hard choices made about whether we"re going to defend our civilization or not," Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch told FOXNews.com.

Spencer says this sort of pressure by Muslim groups "who don't hesitate to traffic in violent intimidation" will continue to undercut freedom of speech until it no longer exists.

"The ultimate goal of people making threats is to make it illegal or too dangerous or both for anybody to say anything considered to be insulting to Muhammad or Allah, to impose the Islamic code, which is the goal of Usama bin Laden, upon the West," he said.

"It's time to take a stand and say we believe in freedom of speech and that means some people will be offended."

Whether you praise or condemn Hera's photographs, defenders of liberty must defend her right to create and display such work, free from violence and threats thereof. Free speech protects offensive speech or it protects nothing at all.

Kopel Overreaches with Bigotry Claim

Recently Dave Kopel, my long-time friend and associate, reviewed Edwin Rockefeller's The Antitrust Religion. I haven't read the book, and antitrust per se lies outside the scope of this blog. Yet in his review Kopel makes an interesting claim about religion:

The weakest part of the book is Rockefeller's insistence that antitrust is like a religion because (he claims) people believe in it based on blind faith instead of factual inquiry and because (he says) antitrust and religion both impose vague, shifting mandates.

That is a bigoted and ignorant claim. Orthodox Judaism, to name one of many possible examples, imposes many rules that rarely change and are extremely easy to understand (and obey, if one chooses).

Likewise, the world of religious thought is replete with great minds, such as Thomas Aquinas and John Locke, whose analysis is based on reason instead of blind faith.

I agree that it doesn't do much good to oppose antitrust on the grounds that it's similar to religion. The real reason to oppose it is that it's horribly unjust and demonstrably destructive of economic liberty and wealth. (See The Abolition of Antitrust and The Cause and Consequences of Antitrust.) However, Kopel goes a bit far in saying that Rockefeller's claim is bigoted.

In general, religion does "impose vague, shifting mandates." While Orthodox Judaism imposes clear, fixed rules, Judaism as a whole has changed dramatically through the centuries. So, while Rockefeller's comparison seems pointless, it is not bigoted.

Moreover, the fact that Aquinas and Locke employed reason does not contradict the fact that they also employed faith. Nobody with religious faith can consistently reject reason without quickly dying. Similarly, antitrust law is based on an economic theory, but the problem is that the theory does not justify antitrust policy. So the comparison of antitrust to religious faith is not out of bounds.

Even one who adopts religious faith presumably would not want to apply faith to a secular matter such as antitrust (at least I don't recall anything from any scripture pertaining to antitrust), so again I think Kopel goes a bit far with his criticism.

Bigotry means unreasonable fear, hatred, or intolerance of something. For example, a few days ago I called Matt Barber a bigot for his views on homosexuality, which I showed to be unreasonable. Reasoned criticism of religion is not bigotry, any more than reasoned criticism of atheism is.

Prophetic 'News'

Since when does evangelical preaching constitute news? Since The Denver Post decided to pander to the evangelical movement, I suppose:

New Life Church embraces prophecy
Church legions learn "seeing" is believing
By Electa Draper
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 04/30/2008 06:08:17 AM MDT

COLORADO SPRINGS -- The pastor of New Life Church -- Colorado's highest-profile megachurch -- is teaching its 10,000-member congregation how to become modern prophets in their own lives.

"I want all of us here tonight to hear God's voice," Pastor Brady Boyd told the several hundred gathered Monday night. "You've all been uniquely hard-wired to hear the voice of God." ...

The Holy Spirit can give people direct guidance from God on everything from their marriages to their jobs if they learn how to hear it, Boyd said.

The article goes on like this for 591 words. The article presupposes the existence of God and allows for not a single word of criticism or skepticism.

Draper does include one interesting line: "New Life Pastor Jeff Drott... said that God rarely speaks to people in an audible voice, often sending a thought, vision, dream, image or scriptural insight."

Isn't it conceivable that these "thoughts" and "insights" are coming from some source other than God? For instance, if you have a problem and start "thinking" about it or reading the Bible (or any other book offering moral guidance), mightn't you come up with something useful? Do such thoughts and insights really require a belief in God? Or is it possible that non-religious people also get thoughts and insights (and maybe even dreams, images, and the like) when they're contemplating a problem?

And isn't it possible that Electa Draper might, you know, interview somebody for her "news" stories who offers a perspective other than the one that we've been "hard-wired to hear the voice of God?" Alternatively, she could simply cover real news.