Musgrave's Anti-Abortion Hit Squad

Despite the fact that, at least in the Interior West, the Republican crusade against abortion has cost the party its political dominance, some Republicans are hell-bent on continuing that push.

As "Bob's Blog" from the Coloradoan points out:

[Former Congress Member] Musgrave was defeated soundly in 2008 by Democrat Betsy Markey. She was hired earlier this year by the Susan B. Anthony List, which focuses on supporting anti-abortion women running for office, to head a new project called "Votes Have Consequences." The new program plans to target a small number of incumbent House members in 2010 who are believed to be "out of step" with their districts on issues important to the pro-life movement.

In other words, the goal of the group is to oust social moderates in favor of hard religious-right candidates, who can then presumably follow in Musgrave's footsteps and lose in the general.

Musgrave recently wrote an article for the Weekly Standard with Marjorie Dannenfelser. Notably, while the two continue to call their position "pro-life," at no point do they confront the arguments that their anti-abortion position is in fact anti-life. Nor do they make any effort to defend the view that a fertilized egg is a person with the full rights of a newborn.

I will not rebut every claim made in the article, but I will address two points.

Musgrave and Dannenfelser write:

When it came to choosing the head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, an obscure but important officer in charge of defining each administration's official stance with regard to the Constitution and federal law, the president nominated not simply a supporter of Roe but former NARAL counsel Dawn Johnsen. She believes that pregnancy is the moral equivalent of slavery, and that therefore the anti-slavery 13th Amendment to the Constitution protects abortion on demand. Johnsen made this argument in her best-known legal brief, to the Supreme Court in Webster v. Reproductive Services.

This claim by Musgrave and Dannenfelser is simply false. Johnsen did not equate pregnancy with slavery.

Fox offers the relevant context:

In a brief filed when she was a lawyer with the National Abortion Rights Action League, Johnsen cited a footnote that said forcing women to bear children was "disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude, prohibited by the 13th Amendment, in that forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state's asserted interest."

And Johnsen is correct. Forcing a woman -- and the key term here is "forcing" -- to bring a fertilized egg to term is "disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude."

It is unfortunate that Musgrave and Dannenfelser choose to distort Johnsen's views rather than present some sort of argument against them.

Musgrave and Dannenfelser are very concerned with allowing medical personnel to choose whether to perform or recommend abortions. (The writers are "pro-choice" when it suits them.) They think "pro-life leaders in Congress" should make sure that any political takeover of medicine ensures this medical right to choose.

But what should trump here is property rights and the right of contract. Hospitals and other medical facilities have the right to set their own terms, and doctors who work their can choose to uphold those terms or find employment elsewhere. A private Catholic hospital has every right to post on its front door: "We do not recommend or perform abortions." Then potential customers know the hospital's policies and can choose their health care accordingly.

Notice that what Musgrave and Dannenfelser do NOT endorse is liberty in medicine. The problem is that, to the degree politicians take over health care, politicians set the terms of health care. That is one of the reasons why politicians should not take over health care.

But the religious right does not truly care about establishing free markets (though a few religious conservatives endorse free markets or at least pay them lip service). This is not a surprise, because the entire purpose of the religious right is to use the force of politics to advance their faith-based agenda.

Automated Prayer

I'm not sure whether this is supposed to be a joke (via For Truth).

The idea is that, for only $3.95 per month, you can set up a "subscription service utilizing a computer with text-to-speech capability to incant your prayers each day. It gives you the satisfaction of knowing that your prayers will always be said even if you wake up late, or forget."

You can choose Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, or generic prayers.

Some people have an astounding propensity for strangeness.

Faith-Based Education

As the Denver Post reported earlier in the month, Peter Groff has moved from Colorado's State Senate to the Department of Education's "Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Center."

Wait a minute -- we have not only faith-based welfare but faith-based education? Pray tell, what use does the Department of Education have for a faith-based program? The Post quotes a media release about how Groff will "help empower faith-based and community groups, enlisting them in support of the department's mission to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence for all Americans."

And why do we need federal tax dollars to "empower" the educational efforts of religious groups? And where is the Democratic skepticism of mixing church and state?

In a second article, the Post is more specific as to what Groff's department does: "Under the Bush administration, the U.S. Department of Education's Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives doled out grants to churches and other faith programs for after-school activities, weekend computer labs and family literacy programs."

It is immoral, a violation of individual rights and of church-state separation, to force people to finance "churches and other faith programs" against their judgment. It was immoral when Bush did it, and remains immoral as Obama follows in Bush's footsteps.

The Meaning of Secularism

Secularism, like atheism, is not a positive set of ideas. The most straightforward definition of "secular" from Dictionary.com is "not pertaining to or connected with religion." The term describes only one thing something is not -- religious -- not what it is.

Secularlism is not a philosophy. The mere fact that a person is (or claims to be, or is claimed to be) secular tells us nothing about what it is the person does believe.

Yet the Christian right has a vested interested in tarring secularists as nihilists. It is easy to see the motive behind the strategy: if the only alternative to Christianity is nihilism, Christianity wins by default.

After running through polling data on out-of-wedlock births, abortion, and homosexuality, Star Parker writes:

The public schools that are educating the majority of America's children have been increasingly secularized and politicized. The work place has been purged of biblical ethics. All public space is darkened by lawless and vulgar lasciviousness and becoming increasingly intolerant of practicing Christians.

The result is that secular Americans have had a disproportionate impact on our country over recent years and biblical Americans are now fighting back with their voting rights.

Nice trick: secularists are equated with "lawless and vulgar lasciviousness."

The Christians, on the other hand, are committed to America's "founding principles of traditional values and limited government."

Anyone who believes those are actually the choices must go with Christianity.

Those are not the choices.

The third way is a philosophy that happens to be secular (not religious) and that recognizes that our nature as rational, autonomous beings gives rise to our inalienable rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. A philosophy that seeks positive values rooted in the requirements of human life.

Meanwhile, are the Christians truly committed to a government limited to individual rights? No.

On the economic front, many Christians advocate a massive welfare state on the grounds that we are our brother's keeper. Christians increasingly promote the environmentalist agenda on the grounds that God commanded us to care for the earth, even at the expense of human well-being and liberty.

On the social front, many Christians want to ban all or nearly all abortion from the moment of conception, on the grounds that God infused a fertilized egg with a soul, which would endanger the lives of some women and threaten a police state.

Many Christians call for censorship of unsavory materials, more political controls on drugs and personal behavior, and legal discrimination against homosexuals.

At best, the Christian right is a fickle friend of liberty.

Thankfully, there is an alternative to secular nihilism and Christian mysticism.

True Tolerance, Or Else

Via 5280 magazine I found the Focus on the Family "true tolerance" web page, the point of which is to promote tolerance of anti-homosexual views. In other words, we are to tolerate intolerance.

And I quite agree that we do need to tolerate intolerance, even as we speak out against nasty sorts of intolerance. That is, the view that homosexuality is somehow inherently sinful is wrong. However, people properly have the right to express (with their own resources) whatever viewpoint they wish.

The matter is complicated by the tax funding of schools. Taking people's money by force to finance either a pro-homosexual or anti-homosexual agenda is wrong and a violation of free speech. Tax funded institutions invite governmental oversight, including protections of speech.

While tax-funded schools cannot properly promote religious views, neither can they properly suppress such views by students in the appropriate context.

And Focus on the Family wants to make darn sure that schools recognize that. The document "What School Officials Should Know About Addressing Homosexuality in Public Schools" helpfully warns schools about adopting policies that "could very easily result in litigation."

Of course, some traditionalists might argue that the proper purpose of school is to teach students about the world and skills for dealing with it, rather than to push for or against some cultural or political agenda.

Emotionalist Worship

Thanks to Flibbert, I ran across two bizarrely interesting videos of religious worship.

"

In the first, a toddler walks around the stage spouting impassioned nonsense in the style of an old-time country sermon.



In the second, Marjoe Gortner continues to pretend to be a faith healer for a time even after he has become convinced that it's all nonsense.

One message to take from this is that some people are just goofy. They do things that make no sense. This is true whether they package their nonsense in religion or something else.

However, there is an especial tendency with religion, grounded as it is in faith, to promote emotionalist, cathartic practices quite separated from any understanding of reality. While religion at its best is quite sophisticated and intellectual, religion's popular manifestations seem to lean toward the other variety.

Dr. Laura: Gay Partnership 'A Beautiful Thing'

I don't recall who pointed out this interesting blog post, but the linked segment from Larry King offers a nice, if somewhat surprising, quote from Dr. Laura Schlessinger:

I am very big on human beings finding love, attachment, and commitment, and being faithful to it, because there's more to benefit when there's real true commitment and faithfulness to it.

I still believe as every president has, and all the people who ran for office, that marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman, and so not calling it [a same-sex relationship] marriage works for me. But that two people would have that sort of commitment to me is very healthy, and a very positive thing in their lives and society as a whole. ... That's a beautiful thing, and a healthy thing.

That's a nice gesture.

Playboy's Prayer

As a interesting follow-up to Easter, Fox hosts a story about a former Playboy Bunny:

Kendra Wilkinson is known across the world as being Hugh Hefner’s wonderfully wild former flame, but since moving out of the Playboy mansion and getting engaged to Philadelphia Eagle Hank Baskett, it seems Wilkinson is choosing prayers over posing.

"Hank makes her pray before meals now. His family is so religious and he really calmed her down a lot, he's good for her," Kendra's bridesmaid and playmate Brittany Ginger told Tarts, with Kendra adding that praying is a new experience that has helped her change "for the better."

But we may wonder how truly converted Wilkinson is. She said, "...Hef opened up doors for me... It was my job to make the right decisions and go about my life from there... He was a father figure for me; he gave me wings and appreciated me for me. You can see the blonde/big boobs thing but he actually appreciated me for me, I always knew that about him. He gave me such happiness, having his eyes on me gave me confidence just to be me and find Hank."

Oh, and, by the way, the wedding will take place at the Playboy Mansion. How absolutely bizarre.

The point here is that, while a lot of people claim to believe in God, some of those people don't really take religion all that seriously. Unfortunately, many of the same people don't seem to take much of anything seriously. There can be worse fates than religion.

Faith-Based Politics Versus Faith In Politics

Last Friday and yesterday I've pointed out that "conservative" writers for Town Hall have claimed -- without offering any evidence -- that American law is somehow founded on scripture. Today Terry Paulson joins the club. Yet there's a bit more to like in Paulson's article than in the other two.

Paulson quotes Newsweek: "A third of Americans say they are born again; this figure, along with the decline of politically moderate-to liberal mainline Protestants... suggests a movement towards more conservative beliefs and particularly to a more 'evangelical' outlook among Christians." Paulson sees that trend as positive; I see it as troublesome. There are fewer Christians per capita, but there are still a lot, and they are more hard-core in their beliefs.

Paulson claims, "Contrary to what most secular Americans fear, most Christians want nothing to do with a government-endorsed religion." If we're talking about the government endorsing one sect to the exclusion of others, Paulson's claim is true. But many Christians want to impose their religious dogma by legal force by banning abortion, forcibly transferring funds to religious organizations, legally discriminating against homosexuals, censoring unsavory expression, beefing up the drug war, restricting birth control, and banning all sorts of "vices" among consenting adults.

Thus, Paulson's concerns about "attempts to banish God from the public square" ring a little hollow. I don't care if some politicians prays to God in public or invokes some Biblical passage in a speech. I do care if a politician wants to impose Christian dogma by force of law. Paulson, and many other Christians I have read, conflate these two issues.

Paulson does admit -- nay, brag -- that Christianity advocates an altruistic foreign policy. He writes:

For our rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness come not from Presidents or legislators, but from God. It's our Christian values that have driven us to extend those freedoms to others, even if it means sending our young men and women to defend Muslim citizens in Bosnia and to free Muslims from tyranny in Iraq.

Well, the Declaration says "Creator," not "God," but at any rate our rights are separable from the question of how we came about. But Paulson's comments illustrates that Christian "liberty" is not at all the same thing as the government protecting the individual rights of its citizens. For Paulson, Christianity demands that the government forcibly redistribute wealth from its citizens and put soldiers in harm's way to intervene in foreign conflicts absent any clear gain to American security.

Then there is the obvious fact that, historically, Christianity tended to promote oppression, censorship, inquisitions, and conquest over liberty. America's Founders may have been mostly Christian, but what made their revolution in government possible was not the influence of religion, but the influence of the Enlightenment.

Giles's Guile

Doug Giles's latest article arguing that America is a Christian nation consists mostly of cribbing quotes from an overtly biased organization that wishes to impose Christian dogma by force of law in such areas as "marriage, abortion, education, public morality, gambling, [and] parental rights."

The rest of his article consists of snarky, juvenile commentary. I wonder only why Town Hall, a "conservative" outfit, sees fit to publish such claptrap.

Giles establishes that many of America's founders were Christian and promoted religion. But nobody doubts that fact. Nor does it make America a "Christian nation" in any non-trivial sense of the term. Like fellow columnist David Limbaugh, Giles makes no effort to show how the Bible supposedly laid the groundwork for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution -- because the Bible does no such thing.

Giles conveniently omits the fact that John Adams's signature appears beneath the claim, "The Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Giles skips the fact that both Jefferson and Madison took pains to separate church and state, that Jefferson advocated a "wall of separation between church and state," and that Jefferson wrote his own Bible that omitted the miraculous birth and resurrection of Jesus.

There is no Easter, by Jefferson's account. Instead, his Gospel ends, "There laid they Jesus, And rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed."

Bill of Rights Versus Ten Commandments

David Limbaugh argues that America is indeed a Christian nation. He quotes John Eidsmoe, "If by the term Christian nation one means a nation that was founded on biblical values that were brought to the nation by mostly professing Christians, then in that sense the United States may truly be called a Christian nation."

Limbaugh also quotes Gary Amos to the effect that the Christian Creator is what endowed us with inalienable rights, whereas the Greeks "believed that rights were a product of society and state."

Finally, Limbaugh states, "Much of our Bill of Rights is biblically based, as well, and the Ten Commandments and further laws set out in the book of Exodus form the basis of our Western law."

As for the first argument, the easy claim is that the Founding generation mostly was Christian. The difficulty is establishing that the nation, after centuries of religious oppression and war in Europe, arose from Christian principles, or from fundamentally different principles that happened to be adopted by Christians. The template neither for the Declaration of Independence nor for the Constitution is found within the Bible.

As for the claim about the Greeks, Limbaugh grossly simplifies the matter, as illustrated by my review of John Lewis's Solon the Thinker.

What is essential about rights is that they arise by our nature as human beings, not how we were created. Those who argue we were "endowed" with rights by God rarely pretend that God surrounded us with some sort of magical "rights" force field. Instead, they argue that, by our nature, we have rights. But then our nature is separable from religious myth.

Here I want to focus on Limbaugh's last claim, that American law is based on Biblical law. Notably, he quotes not a single Biblical passage that supposedly laid the groundwork for American liberty. As he mentions the Ten Commandments as well as the Bill of Rights, it is only fair to compare those texts, to see just how well they line up. (I'll use the usual division of the Exodus Chapter 20 version of the Ten Commandments.)

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

First Commandment: Do not have any other gods before me.

Second Commandment: You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Third Commandment: You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

Fourth Commandment: Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work -- you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.

The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The first four Commandments are all about establishing religion and curtailing speech.

Second Amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Relevant Commandment: None.

Third Amendment: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Relevant Commandment: The Ten Commandments do not bear directly on the matter, though the Tenth Commandment states, "You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour."

Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Relevant Commandment: None.

Fifth Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Second Commandment: "I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me..."

Obviously, the Old Testament doctrine of "punishing children for the iniquity of parents" is contrary to the Bill of Rights and American justice. Also, while God was at it, you'd think he would have said something against slavery, rather than sanctioning it within the Ten Commandments.

It's arguable that the bit about covetousness applies to just compensation.

Sixth Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Relevant Commandment: None.

Seventh Amendment: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Relevant Commandment: None.

Eighth Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Relevant Commandment: None.

Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Relevant Commandment: None.

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Relevant Commandment: None.

In summary, not only do the Ten Commandments fail to support most of the Bill of Rights, the Ten Commandments partly contradict the Amendments.

Some may counter that I'm playing games by comparing two texts that obviously weren't meant to be compared. But that's the entire point. The Bible has nothing to do with the American legal system. For every Biblical passage you can stretch to fit American law, I can find several passages that obviously contradict the basic principles of American law.

The rest of the Ten Commandments offer pretty good moral advice.

Fifth Commandment: Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

It's a good idea to honor one's parents -- provided they are honorable. I know of parents to horribly abused their children; they deserve prison, not honor. So the Biblical advice is good in a particular context.

Sixth Commandment: You shall not kill.

This is generally good advice, but it neglects justifiable homicide. The problem is that Christians interpret this passage differently, some assuming it allows room for lethal self-defense, other taking it in a more pacifist direction.

Seventh Commandment: You shall not commit adultery.

Eighth Commandment: You shall not steal.

This is good advice, but, contrary to the assertions of various Christians, it does not translate directly into governmental policy. Is a 70 percent tax rate "stealing," or is it good government? The Old Testament has little bearing on such disputes.

Ninth Commandment: You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.

Tenth Commandment: You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.

Again good advice, with the exception that you should not covet slaves but call the police to arrest your slave-holding neighbor.

But what is notable about these final Commandments is that, to the extent that they offer good advice, that advice is separable from religious mythology. Such advice long predated the advent of the Bible and arose independently in many other cultures.

The upshot is that Limbaugh hardly makes his case.

Polis Defends Gay Rights In Iraq

Wow. Jared Polis just might become a statesman, after all. Today, I'm actually proud to call him my Congressman. This story from the Denver Post is remarkable:

As Rep. Jared Polis toured Iraq this week, he had something more than security conditions or troop withdrawals on his mind: the case of a man allegedly sentenced to death in a criminal court for membership in a gay-rights group.

An openly gay member of Congress, Polis has been investigating the treatment of gays in Iraq for several months, and last week he spoke through a translator by phone to a transgender Iraqi man who said he had been arrested, beaten and raped by Ministry of Interior security forces.

Human-rights groups tracking the issue also passed Polis a letter, allegedly written from jail by a man who said he was beaten into confessing he was a member of the gay-rights group Iraqi-LGBT. The group said the man had been sentenced to death in a court in Karkh and finally executed.

What? You mean we shouldn't just condone Iraq's "democratic" persecution of homosexuals? We should stand up and say individual rights matter? How very un-moral-relativist of you, Congressman.

Yes, we continue to debate gay marriage and domestic partnership here in America. Yet it is (nearly) universally accepted that consenting adults have the right to make their own personal decisions regarding sex, that lawmakers are wrong to discriminate against homosexuals (again with partnership remaining the important exception), and that the police have no business persecuting them.

In the Muslim world, theocratic persecution of homosexuals remains the norm. And too many American leaders turn a blind eye.

Now if Polis could just work on expanding the individual rights that he chooses to defend...

Focus On Your Family

"[Juan Alberto Ovalle] who narrates Christian CDs has been arrested on suspicion of using the Internet to arrange sex with a teenage girl. ... Ovalle works for a Spanish-speaking arm of the Colorado Springs Christian group Focus on the Family and narrates Biblical text for CDs, according to Internet websites that sell the products."

What does this mean? Not much. Any group can unintentionally hire somebody who turns out to commit an alleged crime.

The case does point out, however, that it's foolish to trust somebody just because he's a self-proclaimed Christian. Yet, for example, many businesses incorporate the Jesus fish in their graphics, because, you know, Jesus was all about exploiting religion to turn a profit.

Christianity does sometimes promote unfounded trust based on religious conversion, authentic or not. There are two problems with this. First, some people exploit religious commitments for illegitimate personal gains. Second, even people who really believe they are turning their lives over to Jesus often are not committing themselves to the difficult work of moral reform. When you're relying on spiritual possession to change your life, rather than sound moral principles and practices, the failure rate can be fairly high.

So, while there are many wonderful Christians in the world, don't assume that every Christian has your best interests at heart.

God Is Back

John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge discuss their new book, God Is Back: How the Global Revival of Faith Is Changing the World, over at Fox. They write:

By the 1960s it looked as if the prophets of secularization were being proved right. Christianity was withering in the former heartland of Christendom -- Europe. Developing countries from India to Iran were in the hands of avowedly secular governments. And two of the world's biggest countries -- Russia and China -- were run by Communist Parties that were dedicated to proving that Marx was right. ...

Today it is secularization theory that is dead rather than religion. Religion continues to flourish in the United States.

These bare facts help establish why religion has not gone away, despite its inherent irrationality. Between Jesus and Marx, Jesus doesn't look like such a bad option.

But surely few wish to proclaim Iran as an example of religious success.

The authors write, "Man is a theotropic beast -- some men always crave the consolations of religion. Religion answers questions that have always troubled people -- why am I here and what is the purpose of life?" But this confuses philosophy with religion: we can answer such questions without reference to a mythical being.

These authors, at least, praise the separation of church and state. While I believe that ultimately a free society depends on a rational, secular defense, I am more than happy to tolerate the religious views of those who endorse the separation of church and state. I point out, though, that such a position depends on political commitments that go beyond strictly religious convictions.

Taliban Flogs Girl for Refusing Marriage to Taliban Leader

Thanks to Dave Williams for pointing out this story:

Face down before a crowd, the teenage girl shrieks and writhes, begging for mercy. But the three masked men holding her down merely tighten their grip while a fourth man whips her again and again. ...

[Human rights activist Asma] Jahangir said the girl was believed to have been punished after refusing to marry a Taliban commander in the Swat Valley [in Pakistan].

I am getting really tired of reading about these Islamist assaults on women and little girls.

Here's the only good news: "President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yusaf Raza Gillani condemned the flogging and pledged an investigation."

If you can stomach watching these barbarians from the "religion of peace" torturing a young girl for the "crime" of wishing not to marry a barbarian, you can check out the YouTube video.

'Abortifacant' Birth Control

In our paper on Colorado's "personhood" initiative, Diana Hsieh and I pointed out that many common forms of birth control, including the pill and IUD, may act to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. The implication is that, if a fertilized egg were defined as a "person," with all the legal rights of a newborn, such birth control logically would have to be banned.

Now the Colorado Catholic Conference illustrates that our concerns were warranted. In a March 31 e-mail, the group warns:

Senate Bill 225 the Birth Control Protection Act concerning the definition of contraception. Senate Bill 225 defines contraceptive or contraception as a medically acceptable drug, device, or procedure used to prevent pregnancy.

This bill is dangerously broad and sweeping with the generic definition it provides for the terms “contraceptive” or “contraception.” This definition could have the effect of making a “drug, device or procedure” that is actually an abortificant a contraceptive or contraception in Colorado.

I criticized the bill on other grounds. But at least debate over the bill has clarified this important issue, as well as the Catholic opposition to birth control that may prevent implantation. Few Catholics seem interested in banning birth control across the board, though the Church opposes it in all cases.

Harsanyi Endorses Tax-Funded Creationism

I was surprised to read that David Harsanyi, the (usually) free market writer for the Denver Post, endorsed the teaching of creationism in tax-funded schools. He writes:

Why are so many allegedly tolerant and science-loving Americans aghast at the notion that their beliefs will be scrutinized in schools? ...

The most sensible solution, of course, would be to permit parents a choice so that they can send their kids to a school that caters to any brand of nonsense they desire -- outside of three core subjects.

The left will never allow any genuine choice in our school systems. So it seems highly disagreeable and political to trap kids in public schools and, at the same time, decide where schools fall on controversial issues.

Hold on there a minute, partner. Parents are already "permitted" to send their children to private schools, including ones that teach creationism. The problem is that parents who send their children to private schools are also forced to continue to subsidize tax-funded schools that they don't use. But notice that Harsanyi does not condemn the forcible collection of wealth to fund political schools. Instead, he longs for "genuine choice in our school systems" -- by which I take it that he means "genuine choice" funded by forcible wealth transfers. If we want genuine choice, then people must be permitted to decide which schools -- if any -- they wish to fund.

Obviously on a free market politicians would properly have nothing to say about what schools teach. But tax-funded schools, as part of the government, must preserve the separation of church and state. Parents who send their children to tax-funded schools are welcome to teach their children creationism at home and at church. But don't use my tax dollars to fund religious nonsense.