Cupp On Religion in Politics

S. E. Cupp worries that "the media" blasted the likes of Sarah Palin, Michael Steele, and George W. Bush over their religious beliefs while giving Democrats a pass.

For example, Bill Clinton wrote that children "can express their beliefs in homework, through artwork, and during class presentations, as long as it's relevant to the assignment. They can form religious clubs in high school." Joe Lieberman invoked Abraham in a speech about Israel.

But Cupp is making a "moral equivalency" argument like those over which the right likes to beat up the left. Mentioning Abraham in a speech or grading a paper with a religious theme is hardly the same thing as what the likes of Bush and Palin have in mind.

Recall that Bush launched a war partly and explicitly based on his religious faith. Recall that Bush gave us robust faith-based welfare (which Obama has been happy to expand). Recall that Palin wants to completely ban abortion, from the moment of conception, perhaps with some exceptions for the life of the mother.

The religious right is not about speeches and homework. The religious right is about bans on abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, and in some cases even popular forms of birth control. The religious right is about building a welfare state based on religious dogma and religious institutions. The religious right often endorses censorship and legal discrimination against homosexuals.

Cupp does have a point in that the left increasingly plays the "me too" party on matters of imposing religious faith by force of law. But that hardly justifies the politics of the religious right.

Green On Condoms and AIDS

Recently I discussed the hoopla over the Pope's comments on condoms and AIDS. He said condom distribution does not reduce AIDS in Africa and may increase it. I said it's a mistake to think that condom distribution is a key issue, but that the Pope's general view on condom use is nevertheless wrong.

Frank Pastore has written a column in which he quotes a National Review Online interview with Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies. Here's what Green had to say:

We have found no consistent associations between condom use and lower HIV-infection rates, which, 25 years into the pandemic, we should be seeing if this intervention was working.

The pope is correct, or put it a better way, the best evidence we have supports the pope’s comments. He stresses that condoms have been proven to not be effective at the level of population. There is a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the US-funded Demographic Health Surveys, between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates. This may be due in part to a phenomenon known as risk compensation, meaning that when one uses a risk-reduction technology such as condoms, one often loses the benefit (reduction in risk) by compensating or taking greater chances than one would take without the risk-reduction technology.

I also noticed that the pope said monogamy was the best single answer to African AIDS, rather than abstinence. The best and latest empirical evidence indeed shows that reduction in multiple and concurrent sexual partners is the most important single behavior change associated with reduction in HIV-infection rates (the other major factor is male circumcision).

But Patore is not quite revealing the full picture. Just yesterday, the Washington Post published an article by Green in which he adds:

In a 2008 article in Science called "Reassessing HIV Prevention" 10 AIDS experts concluded that "consistent condom use has not reached a sufficiently high level, even after many years of widespread and often aggressive promotion, to produce a measurable slowing of new infections in the generalized epidemics of Sub-Saharan Africa."

Let me quickly add that condom promotion has worked in countries such as Thailand and Cambodia, where most HIV is transmitted through commercial sex...

The problem, then, is not the distribution of condoms, but the failure to use them. The overwhelming problem, though, writes, Green, is that "in significant proportions of African populations, people have two or more regular sex partners who overlap in time."

But of course the Pope's position is not merely that condom distribution in Africa doesn't work: his position is that condom use is inherently immoral. But Christians who cite Green for some religious purpose are going to have difficulty with Green's general views: "'Closed' or faithful polygamy can work as well. ... All people should have full access to condoms, and condoms should always be a backup strategy for those who will not or cannot remain in a mutually faithful relationship."

By coincidence, I agree with the Christians that "faithful polygamy," while it might reduce the spread of AIDS, is nevertheless inappropriate. I say "by coincidence" because, while Christians offer religious reasons against polygamy (though some argue the Bible endorses it), my case against polygamy rests on the inherent difficulties of maintaining a true romantic relationship with more than one other person at a time.

Green has even more to say in a BBC interview (as with the earlier link via Wikipedia).

Pastore is right that throwing condoms at the AIDS problem is not likely to solve it. But throwing religious dogma at the problem will produce no better results.

Obama at Notre Dame

I despise Barack Obama for a lot of reasons, but his support for the right to get an abortion is not among them (though I don't think tax dollars should go to fund abortion or any other medical procedure).

The Town Hall columnist Laura Hollis is upset that Obama will speak at Notre Dame's graduation ceremony in May. So is Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput.

But, while such critics scream and moan, the one thing they do not do is demonstrate that a fertilized egg (through the fetal stage) is a person. The argument against abortion boils down to the claim that God allegedly declares it a sin.

So I again point to the paper written by Diana Hsieh and me demonstrating that a fertilized egg is not a person, and that personhood begins at birth. (I will not post any comments here that do not seriously grapple with the arguments in that paper.)

Chaput forthrightly declares abortion to be a matter of religious faith. But he does offer a bit of good news, reports the Colorado Independent:

Some Catholics in both political parties are deeply troubled by these issues [ e.g., abortion and stem-cell research]. But too many Catholics just don't really care. That's the truth of it. If they cared, our political environment would be different. If 65 million Catholics... really understood their faith, we wouldn't need to waste each other's time arguing about whether the legalized killing of an unborn child is somehow "balanced out" or excused by other good social policies.

Surveys back up Chaput's claim that many Catholics "just don't really care" about banning abortion on grounds of religious faith. And thank God for that.

I wonder, though, what other "good social policies" Chaput has in mind.

Endowed By Their Creator

Terence Jeffrey briefly reviews Mark Levin's new book, Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto.

Jeffrey writes:

Fundamentally, Levin explains, conservatives recognize that there is an immutable natural law ordained by God that all men and nations must obey. He also makes clear that while human beings have a God-given right to individual liberty, they are also imperfect by nature and, thus, if given too much power, are likely to abuse the God-given rights of others.

But that's not quite the whole story. In history and by doctrine, Christianity must limit not only individual power but individual liberty. Human nature is fallen and corrupt, according to Christian dogma, and thus must be controlled. That is why most conservative Christians endorse the drug war, immigration controls, legal discrimination (if not outright persecution) of homosexuals, censorship, abortion bans, and even a welfare state. Christianity reigned in the West from the 300s, when Rome forcibly banned other religions, for centuries. The United States arose not when Christianity dominated, but in the wake of the Enlightenment, with its emphasis on human reason and earthly success.

Jeffrey quotes Levin:

Some resist the idea of a Natural Law's relationship to Divine Providence, for fear it leads to intolerance or even theocracy. They have it backwards. If man is "endowed by (the) Creator with certain inalienable rights," he is endowed with these rights no matter his religion or whether he has allegiance to any religion. It is Natural Law, divined by God and discoverable by reason, that prescribes the inalienability of the most fundamental and eternal human rights -- rights that are not conferred on man by man. It is the Divine nature of Natural Law that makes permanent man's right to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

But it is Levin who has things backwards. I quite concur that we are endowed by our Creator with with certain inalienable rights -- and our creator is simply the natural forces that produced humanity. We have rights, and we deserve liberty, even though God does not exist. Natural Law is just that -- the laws of nature -- and it neither has nor needs a "Divine nature."

Will Texas Endorse Creationism?

Fox reports:

A Texas legislator is waging a war of biblical proportions against the science and education communities in the Lone Star State as he fights for a bill that would allow a private school that teaches creationism to grant a Master of Science degree in the subject.

State Rep. Leo Berman (R-Tyler) proposed House Bill 2800 when he learned that The Institute for Creation Research (ICR), a private institution that specializes in the education and research of biblical creationism, was not able to receive a certificate of authority from Texas' Higher Education Coordinating Board to grant Master of Science degrees.

Berman's bill would allow private, non-profit educational institutions to be exempt from the board's authority.

The bill presents a dilemma. The Texas board has a responsibility to ensure the legitimacy of degrees. Yet the government plays no proper role in either encouraging or discouraging religion or any religious doctrine.

The problem here is that the state legislature has absolutely no businesses endorsing, sanctioning, or funding any educational program. What the legislature funds, it necessarily monitors and directs. By getting involved in education, the government has automatically set itself up us an arbiter of intellectual disputes, including religious ones.

It is wrong for the Texas legislature to endorse the pseudo-science of Creationism. But it is also wrong for the Texas legislature to inhibit it. The only real solution is for government to stay out of education altogether. Until then, such conflicts will inevitably and routinely arise.

Let schools certify their degrees by whatever (nonfraudulent) means they wish -- and let their students pay the price if they offer ridiculous degrees and fail to earn reputable certification.

The Religious Fight Death

Here's a paradox: the "deeply religious" tend to fight death harder and "get aggressive treatment in their final days."

But don't the deeply religious believe that a magnificent paradise awaits them after death, an existence far happier and better than this life on earth? Sure, religions typically forbid suicide, but they don't require aggressive, expensive, and low-success medical treatment, either. So why aren't the deeply religious more ready, rather than less ready, to meet their deaths?

I think the answer is that some people become deeply religious because of their inordinate fear of death and inability to deal with it. That is, some people seek both religion and aggressive medical treatment for the same basic reason: they are deeply frightened of death.

Here's what one religious leader said:

The Rev. Percy McCray, director of pastoral care and social services for the Cancer Treatment Centers of America, said people of faith and their families "tend to want to extend their treatment and care as long as possible because often they are attempting to give God opportunity to perform a miracle."

"I have personally seen patients who were given bleak and grim prognoses surpass and survive such outlooks to live many months and years," he told Reuters in an e-mail.

"The down side can be the mental, emotional, and possible financial drain and anxiety that can build in a prolonged hospital stay," he said.

Obviously a positive mental attitude can contribute to physical health; this is not primarily a religious phenomenon. Ultimately, though, everybody dies, and the best mental attitude in the world cannot always prolong life.

But what about this point about miracles? Why would the deeply religious depend on aggressive medical treatments in order to "give God an opportunity to perform a miracle?" Wouldn't the deeply religious be more likely to expect a miracle sans the medicine? If God were truly keen on intervening miraculously, surely he would not need to rely on the latest and greatest medical gadgetry. Again this points to the conclusion that such people are driven to religion for the same reason they are driven to aggressive medicine: a fear of death.

Gay Old Party

This is fabulous: Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry -- a name frequently tossed around for the governor's race -- will speak to a Republican group at a gay bar in Denver next week. He told the Denver Post, "I don't care... I'm happy to speak to the (Denver Metro) Young Republicans at the venue they chose."

What's great about this is that the YRs chose the location not to make any sort of political statement, but simply for reasons of capitalism.

Thomas James, president of the Young Republicans, said the group chose Hamburger Mary's in Denver because "they have a suitable layout for a speaker-type event, and they have good food, a good location relative to downtown, and free parking nearby."

If the GOP can get friendly with homosexuals, and homosexuals can get friendly with capitalists, that will be a very good thing. It would at least be a huge improvement over Senator Scott Renfroe's bigoted remarks on the Senate floor.

In other Colorado news, Ted Haggard, the former mega-church preacher who has admitted to buying illegal drugs from a male prostitute, will appear on "Divorce Court" today with his wife. I thought for a second he might actually be getting a divorce, which would serve him right. Instead, his wife said, "This is part of Ted's journey. It's made him a better man. I see what has happened as a divine rescue."

Now I have the perfect line for the next time I irritate my wife. "But, hun, it's just part of my journey!"

Also, I saw Milk a few days ago, the film about the San Francisco gay activist and politician. I disagree with Milk on most political issues, except for his big ones: homosexuals should have the same rights as everybody else, including the right not to be harassed by the police. I find his story inspiring simply because of his dedication in the face of threats, slanders, and long odds.

Condoms Increase AIDS?

Not only do condoms not limit the spread of AIDS in Africa, the Pope claims, but condom distribution "increases the problem."

Huh.

Apparently the reason for this is that condom distribution encourages sex, and some of those encouraged to have sex will either not use a condom or contract AIDS despite condom use.

Of course, that doesn't explain the rise of AIDS prior to condom distribution. Obviously condom distribution was a response to the problem, not the cause of the problem.

I don't know much about the spread of AIDS in Africa, but I get the idea that it largely has to do with sexual irresponsibility, rooted in mystical beliefs and primitive machismo. Time writes of a "wife... branded a whore when she asked her husband to use a condom, beaten silly and thrown into the streets."

So let us grant that condoms are not anything like a comprehensive solution to the problem. Does the Pope seriously believe that Catholic abstinence will fare better?

What is needed is not cultural relativism that dares not criticize African cultural forces that contribute to AIDS (and many other ills), nor faith-based calls to forsake sex. Instead what is needed is a cultural movement that emphasizes reason and ethical views consonant with life on earth, including healthy sex.

40 Lashes for 75 Year Old for Meeting Men

Diana Hsieh pointed to this absolutely repulsive news story: "A Saudi Arabian court has sentenced a 75-year-old Syrian woman to 40 lashes, four months imprisonment and deportation from the kingdom for having two unrelated men in her house, according to local media reports."

Part of the obscenity of this case is that such vicious rules are enforced by the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, the sole purpose of which is to punish virtue and promote vice and injustice.

The court also sentenced the two men to severe punishment, though apparently an appeal is possible on the grounds that one of the men was "her son through breastfeeding." (The mere fact that such a legal pretext is necessary only illustrates the inhumanity of the rules.)

The "religion of peace" strikes yet again.

Not only the Saudi government, but every Muslim who does not publicly and loudly declare the moral obscenity of this court decision deserves moral condemnation.

The Limits of Darwin

Father Jonathan Morris argues quite correctly that evolutionary theory does not, by itself, prove or disprove the existence of God. Likewise, the natural sciences of electricity (which provided a naturalistic explanation of lightning) and geology (which provided a naturalistic explanation of large-scale formations) do not, by themselves, prove or disprove the existence of God.

The matter of theology rests on philosophy, not on any natural science, though of course the findings of natural science can buttress the case. (Even or especially theologians grant that evolution makes it easier to believe that natural forces, rather than divine intervention, created life.)

Unfortunately, Morris also errs in outlining the implications of Darwin when he writes that "scientists of evolutionary theory must avoid Darwin's pitfall of making definitive philosophical or theological statements about the absolute randomness of the natural world."

Evolution does not imply metaphysical randomness; it instead properly rests on a basis of natural law, meaning that things act according to their natures.

Morris is here sneaking in a metaphysical dualism -- stuff versus order -- that presumes supernaturalism and "intelligent design." He is thus just as guilty of making up implications of evolutionary theory as are those he criticizes.

GOP Gives Ground on Abortion

Marilyn Musgrave, who lost her last congressional election largely because of angst over her faith-based politics, has a new job, the Denver Post reports.

She will lead a "Susan B. Anthony List" project to try to defeat pro-choice candidates: "We're going into districts where individuals are vulnerable... We're going to use every possible means to make sure that people know the voting records of these individuals."

I think this a great idea, as it continues to demonstrate the priorities of the religious right, which have nothing to do with preserving liberty and everything to do with destroying it.

Meanwhile, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has come out as a weak-kneed pro-choicer. Following is part of the transcript between Steele and GQ magazine:

The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.

Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?

Yeah. I mean, again, I think that's an individual choice.

You do?

Yeah. Absolutely.

Are you saying you don't want to overturn Roe v. Wade?

I think Roe v. Wade -- as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter.

Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?

The states should make that choice. That's what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.

Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?

Absolutely!

So Steele is trying to please both sides by throwing the matter to the states. But the reason that abortion is properly "an individual choice" is that women have the right to get an abortion, because they have the right to control their own bodies. Thus, citizens of a state do not have the right, and should not have the "individual choice," to vote away the right to get an abortion.

The entire point of American government is to protect individual rights from the tyranny of the majority.

Still, Steele's comments indicate at least that some Republican leaders are prepared to slowly back away from the faith-based politics of the religious right.

Bishops Bag Technology for Lent

"Roman Catholic bishops in Italy are urging the faithful to go on a high-tech fast for Lent, switching off modern appliances from cars to iPods and abstaining from surfing the Web or text messaging until Easter."

Traditionally Lent is about self-sacrifice -- giving up the things we enjoy -- in order to commiserate with Jesus, who spent 40 days fasting. These new trends in Lent also have a more overtly political message.

For example, the Modena diocese "seeks to draw attention to years of conflict in Congo fueled in part by the struggle for control of coltan mines. The mineral is an essential material in cell phones," the AP reports. I'm not familiar with that conflict, but clearly turning off one's cell phone won't make any difference. What is needed is a defense of property rights and the rule of just law, not some anti-technology stunt.

Other aspects of the new Lent have a distinctly environmentalist twist, such as taking mass transit or recycling. So now Christians are supposed to sacrifice, not only for God, but for the environmentalist agenda. This is another indicator of the convergence of religion and environmentalism. Self-sacrifice is a key element of both movements, so theirs is a natural alliance.

The only thing I'm giving up for Lent is self-sacrifice.

Contraception 'Medically Acceptable'

It is unbelievable that we're even having this discussion:

[Colorado] Sen. Betty Boyd, D-Lakewood, introduced the measure [Senate Bill 225] to protect birth control from being banned by amendments to the constitution. Of most recent concern was a ballot initiative last year that would have defined a fertilized egg as a person in the state constitution. Coloradans overwhelmingly rejected the initiative.

Critics had pointed out that there could have been unintended consequences to the measure, such as banning birth control.
The theory was that because birth control alters the lining of the uterus where a fertilized egg would be implanted, routine birth control could have been made illegal.

Boyd's measure would prevent birth control from being banned by amendments by defining contraceptive or contraception as a "medically acceptable drug, device, or procedure used to prevent pregnancy."

Two Republicans wanted to change the word "pregnancy" to "contraception," which would open the door to bans on all forms of birth control, such as the pill, which may act to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus (as discussed).

Why are we even debating whether contraception is "medically acceptable?" It obviously is. Do we really need the state's constitution to state as much? Should the constitution also point out that aspirin and eye glasses are "medically acceptable?" More to the point, would Boyd approve of an abortion ban that nevertheless allowed people to use birth control?

Boyd's exercise is pointless. If the faith-based anti-abortion crowd wants to ban birth control that may prevent implantation, it will simply propose to change Boyd's language. Boyd should focus her energies on defending the right to get an abortion, not playing semantic games around the margins.

Personhood: Subjectivism Versus Faith

Electa Draper's article on in vitro fertilization illustrates perfectly the problem with the traditional debate, not only over personhood, but over ethics more broadly.

Draper notes that Kathleen McCann Gregor changed her mind after undergoing in vitro fertilization: she now considers the "tiny embryos produced outside her body and grown in a petri dish" to be people. She said, "They are our babies."

What is the argument for the claim that a tiny clump of undifferentiated cells the the equivalent of a born baby? No argument is offered; Gregor feels it, and that is enough. This is a straightforward subjectivist view.

Next Draper presents the skeptical view. Deb Bennett-Woods, "director of the Center for Ethics and Leadership in the Health Professions at Regis University," told Draper, "We haven't yet answered the question of the moral status of the embryo. Is it a collection of living cells with human DNA or is it a person?"

The Christians will be more than happy to answer for such skeptics:

"We must recognize that it is God's business as to precisely when He ensouls embryos," writes Catholic neuroscientist and priest Tadeusz Pacholczyk of the National Catholic Bioethics Center. "The fundamental truth (is) that human embryos are inviolable and deserving of unconditional respect at every stage of their existence."

People need not decide for themselves the status of a fertilized egg: this is God's business, and God, through his chosen representatives, has told us that a fertilized egg is a person. QED.

Now we learn more about Gregor. She is Catholic, yet she rejects the Church's view on in vitro fertilization even as she accepts the Church's view of personhood: "I knew in my own conscience it was right. Having gone through the process, there is no way I could think of an embryo as anything but my baby."

This illustrates the link between subjectivism and religious faith. Her "conscience" -- her feelings -- told her to accept Church dogma on some matters but not others. Treating the matter as "God's business" ultimately reduces to subjectivism, because ultimately all we have are people Making Stuff Up about God's alleged commands.

Finally we get another subjectivist view from Dr. William D. Schlaff, "head of advanced reproductive medicine at the University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine," who said, "We live in a pluralistic society. We have to respect the autonomy of each American to make this decision for themselves."

But that argument gets us nowhere. Do "we have to respect the autonomy of each American" to kill their children or abuse them? Obviously such a notion is horrific. If a fertilized egg is a person, then it must not be destroyed.

Draper presents four basic views: the subjective belief that a fertilized egg is a person, the subjective belief that it isn't, the skeptical belief that no answer is possible, and the religious belief that God says a fertilized egg is a person.

Hmm... What's missing here? What Draper steadfastly refuses to report is the view that the matter is to be decided by the evidence, by reference to the facts of reality. Diana Hsieh and I address the matter of in vitro fertilization in our paper on personhood. In that paper we demonstrate, through argument and evidence (as opposed to feelings or faith) that a fertilized egg is not a person. To date, nobody has seriously attempted to refute our case. But then, refutations are rather beside the point for those who rest their views on faith or emotions.

Religious Affiliation Dropping

The big religious news of the day comes from the American Religious Identification Survey 2008 from a group out of Trinity College. The AP put out a story on the results, as did USA Today and other publications.


From the highlights of the survey:

86% of American adults identified as Christians in 1990 and 76% in 2008.

The historic Mainline churches and denominations have experienced the steepest declines while the non-denominational Christian identity has been trending upward particularly since 2001. ...

34% of American adults considered themselves "Born Again or Evangelical Christians" in 2008. ...

Based on their stated beliefs rather than their religious identification in 2008, 70% of Americans believe in a personal God, roughly 12% of Americans are atheist (no God) or agnostic (unknowable or unsure), and another 12% are deistic (a higher power but no personal God).

The fact that 70 percent of people "believe in a personal God" while 34 percent call themselves evangelical means that the United States continues to be an overwhelmingly Christian nation. If we combine atheists, agnostics, and deists, that totals only 24 percent of the population -- a large figure, but one still surpassed by evangelicals.

In Colorado, the only big shift has been for "Nones" (no religion), which has grown from 13 percent to 21 percent from 1990 to 2008. Of course, for those of us interested in politics, the survey results don't reveal much of the interesting information. Some Christians endorse the separation of church and state; some are more open to political economic and social controls (and those two groups partly overlap).

And the decline of religion does not indicate what is on the rise. What do people believe instead of religion? Some secular philosophies are at least as bad as any popular religion. What is most important is what people believe, not what they don't believe.

Church Demeans Raped Girl

"RIO DE JANEIRO -- A 9-year-old girl who was carrying twins, allegedly after being raped by her stepfather, underwent an abortion Wednesday despite complaints from Brazil's Roman Catholic church."

What could possibly be the reason for the Church's insane, inhuman position? A lawyer for the church said, "It's the law of God: Do not kill. We consider this murder."

But apparently it's perfectly okay by God to put the life of a young girl at risk for a pregnancy with practically no chance of ending in successful birth.

Leaving aside the fact that the Christian Bible is at best ambiguous on the matter of abortion, this is an obvious case of a perfectly moral, justified, appropriate abortion. And yet the church is trying to lay a lifetime of guilt on the young girl following her brutal victimization.

Yet contemporary Christian dogma leads logically, inexorably, to the conclusion that the lives of actual human beings must be sacrificed to the lives of fertilized eggs. The fantasy that a fertilized egg is the moral equivalent of a born infant is, as I've indicated, in fact the anti-life position.

Jail for Translators

Tom Bowden points to a disturbing article by BBC News:

An Afghanistan appeal court has upheld 20-year jail terms for two men who published a translation of the Koran.

The prosecution said the translation contained mistakes and called for the defendants to be executed.

The men were convicted of modifying the Muslim holy book into Persian while not including the original Arabic text. ... The men plan to appeal to the country's highest court. ...

Meanwhile, the appeal court reduced the sentence of the owner of the print shop which published the book from five years to 15 months, time which he has already served.

Three other men, charged with trying to help Zalmai flee the country, were sentenced to just over seven months, also time already served, according to the AP news agency.

Notice that the "criminals" are Muslims who were attempting to promote Islam.

Jail for translation "mistakes?" The threat of death? In an alleged court of law? It's hard even to know what to say about this, except that the participants in this grotesque mockery of justice are barbarians suffering from self-induced lunacy.

Bowden points out that the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, not to establish a government based on individual rights, but to protect the ability of the locals to brutalize one another under religious "law."

Faith-Based Initiatives Promote Religion

Tax funded "faith-based initiatives," popularized by George W. Bush and expanded by Barack Obama, promote religion. If this point is not sufficiently obvious, a letter in today's Denver Post brags about that fact:

As the Salvation Army understands, Jesus Christ really does free people from the shackles of addiction. Christ-centered, prayer-based addiction treatment is overwhelmingly more successful than any other addiction treatment program. And the same goes for reducing rates of prison recidivism.

I suspect President Barack Obama understands this, due to his willingness to continue federally funded, faith-based initiatives. And former President George W. Bush certainly understands this fact. Christ-centered, faith-based initiatives were found to be very successful in reducing recidivism in the Texas prison system during Mr. Bush’s tenure there as governor.

I don't wish to address the specific claims of effectiveness, other than to mention that I don't take them at face value. The key point is that Americans who aren't Christians -- or who are Christians but who oppose such tax spending -- are forced to pay for "prayer-based," "Christ-centered," "faith-based" programs, in violation of their rights of property and conscience. The "faith-based initiatives" are grotesquely immoral. And they violate the First Amendment.

Controlling Women for 'Unborn Children'

For the sake of "unborn children," a proposed statute in Tennessee would force many pregnant women to undergo drug and alcohol testing. MamaPundit summarizes, "So if this law is enacted, it means that any woman who suffers a miscarriage, stillbirth, or other serious pregnancy complications, or who gives birth to a disabled child, will face state-mandated drug testing."

Particularly given the fact that most fertilized eggs naturally abort, this opens the door wide for the government to control women's bodies.

This is hardly the first such Nanny State proposal. Here in Colorado, Democrats are trying to politically encourage HIV testing for pregnant women, despite the fact that women and their doctors already know the risk factors and are free to test.

Republicans have also tried to force women to get ultrasound information and delay getting an abortion.

From the Democratic side, this is just about Nanny Statism -- forcing women to do what politicians think is good for them. For many Republicans, politically controlling pregnancy is a wedge to eventually treat the fetus, all the way back to a fertilized egg, as a person under the law, with equal legal protections as born infants. (Democrats would do well to consider what will happen under their Nanny State provisions in the hands of the religious right.)

A born infant is a person with rights that must be protected by government. Until then, the government must respect the rights of the woman to control her own body.