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 Schaaffer, 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.

Iran Threatened by Harry Potter

I don't think Barbie poses much of a threat to Iran's theocratic, oppressive government. But Harry Potter may be another story. The stories' anti-totalitarianism and strong themes of intellectual independence rightly make Iranian officials nervous.

The New York Times reports (via Titanic Deck Chairs):

Iran's prosecutor general railed on Sunday against the invasion of Barbie, Batman, Spider-Man and Harry Potter and demanded that the country's young be protected against them, Agence France-Presse reported. Urging measures to safeguard "Islamic culture and revolutionary values," the prosecutor, Ghorban-Ali Dorri Najafabadi [criticized the figures]... In July 2007 "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" went on sale in Tehran. Two years ago the police raided toy shops and put black stickers on the packaging of Barbie dolls to hide their bodies.

Iran had better go ahead and ban Deathly Hallows, before it's too late!

Back to Barber

A few days ago, I discussed Matt Barber's bigotry toward homosexuals. Today I want to reply to another article by Barber, "'Gay' Sex Kills." He writes:

Can you imagine officials at a middle school, junior high or high school setting aside a day to promote "tolerance" for heavy smoking and drinking among children? How about a day where teachers encourage kids to "embrace who they are," pick up that crack pipe and give it a stiff toke? ...

That's exactly what the homosexual activist "Day of Silence" is all about -- advancing, through clever, feel-good propaganda, full acceptance among children of the homosexual lifestyle.

Barber's comparison of homosexuality to smoking and drinking is ridiculous. People can choose whether to smoke or drink; those things are not inherent in one's character. Homosexuality, by contrast, is a deeply ingrained characteristic. I don't know whether homosexuality has a genetic component, but whether or not it does, it is deeply embedded in personality. (That said, I favor market education in which, I suspect, most schools would eschew political activism in favor of learning.)

One can form a psychological addiction to smoking or drinking, but such addictions can be formed and broken. Homosexuality is entirely dissimilar. Sexual orientation precedes puberty; it is latent from a very young age. Of course, a homosexual can choose not to practice homosexuality, just as a heterosexual can choose to practice gay sex or to become celibate. (At some point we might distinguish between a homosexual orientation and homosexual practice; for example, prison rape hardly indicates an orientation.) While it is obviously possible to choose to have sex with people of different genders, homosexuality as an orientation seems to be unalterable or very close to it.

Moreover, there's nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality. Insofar as homosexuality can lead to loving relationships and healthy sex, it can be a good thing, just as heterosexuality can be a good thing.

Barber notes that male homosexuality is associated with AIDS:

By recently admitting that "HIV is a gay disease," Matt Foreman, outgoing Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, acknowledged what the medical community has known for decades: the homosexual lifestyle is extremely high-risk and often leads to disease and even death.

In fact, multiple studies have established that homosexual conduct, especially among males, is considerably more hazardous to one's health than a lifetime of chain smoking.

To the consternation of "gay" activist flat-earthers and homosexual AIDS holocaust deniers everywhere, one such study -- conducted by pro-"gay" researchers in Canada -- was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology (IJE) in 1997.

While the medical consensus is that smoking knocks from two to 10 years off an individual’s life expectancy, the IJE study found that homosexual conduct shortens the lifespan of "gays" by an astounding "8 to 20 years" -- more than twice that of smoking.

"[U]nder even the most liberal assumptions," concluded the study, "gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871. ... [L]ife expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men."

This morose reality makes a strong case for a fitting redefinition of so-called "homophobia," that being "Homophobia: The rational fear that 'gay sex' will kill you!"

No one doubts that male gay sex is associated with a higher incidence of AIDS. But this does not establish Barber's point. Female gay sex is not so associated; does Barber therefore approve of female but not male homosexuality? Furthermore, unsafe heterosexual relations with multiple partners is also associated with a higher incidence of various diseases, while monogamous homosexual relations are not.

Barber's comparison of homosexuality to chain smoking fails. Chain smoking harms the health of anyone who tries it, though the magnitude of the harm depends a great deal upon genetics and luck. Male homosexuality, on the other hand, is risky only with partners who might have AIDS. Two healthy men who enter a monogamous relationship have no more chance of getting AIDS than Barber does.

D'Souza Versus Rights

Dinesh D'Souza is a cheerleader for religion, and most any religion will do. His favored religion is Christianity, but short of that, he prefers a religious orientation to a secular one. In a recent article, he continues to find common cause with the Blame America First crowd of the radical left, discussing Islamist terrorism not in the context of problems within modern Islam that cause such terrorism, but in the context of alleged American failures.

D'Souza claims that Americans who advocate "the right to blaspheme, the complete exclusion of religious symbols from the public square, the right of teenage boys and girls to receive sex education and contraceptives, the right to abortion, prostitution as a worker's right, pornography as a protected form of expression, gay rights and gay marriage, and so on... are producing a powerful 'blowback' from the House of Islam."

The first thing to notice is that American domestic politics are hardly the legitimate concern of non-American Muslims. I agree with D'Souza that Islamists hate America for its freedoms, but D'Souza is wrong to suggest that any part of the fault lies with America. Certainly we should not alter our domestic policies in a shortsighted attempt to prevent "blowback" from Islamist terrorists.

D'Souza, in criticizing leftists, also packages items that do not fit together logically. I think that people have the right to blaspheme. Women have the right to get an abortion. Consenting adults have the right to trade sex for money (as I've argued,) produce and view pornography, engage in homosexuality, and partner romantically with whom they choose. I do not advocate "the complete exclusion of religious symbols from the public square," but neither do I think that Christian symbols should dominate that square. I think that non-abusive parents have the right to raise their children and to set policies concerning sex education and contraceptives.

What is the alternative to the liberties that I endorse? To blaspheme means "to speak impiously or irreverently of (God or sacred things)." For example, the phrases "God damn it" and "God does not exist" are blasphemous. The alternative to the right to blaspheme is the imposition of legal penalties for blasphemy; for example, some Americans call for the death penalty for blasphemers. The alternative to the right to abortion is the imposition of legal penalties on doctors and women involved with abortion. The alternative to legal prostitution is today's hypocritical prohibition that fosters violence and disease. (However, most American "liberals" do not favor legal prostitution, as D'Souza suggests.) The alternative to legal pornography is censorship. While calls for censorship are in vogue among both the left and the right, they are incompatible with freedom of speech. The alternatives to gay rights and gay unions are legal penalties for homosexuality (in the "House of Islam" homosexuals often are killed) and discriminatory contract law.

In a future article, perhaps D'Souza can explain precisely what legal penalties he believes Americans should adopt against blasphemy, abortion, pornography, and homosexuality. Otherwise, perhaps he can explain why he thinks some such liberties deserve legal protections while others don't.

Lake of Fire

Lake of Fire is a documentary that explores the issue of abortion in America. It gives plenty of time to both sides, but it also allows religious extremists in the debate to indict themselves. The documentary is worth viewing not only for those interested in the issue on both sides, but for those interested in the nasty turns that religion can take. Various Christians shown throughout the movie literally advocate and/or commit murder and terrorism in the name of God.

The main problem with the documentary is its editing. It is severely disjointed; it keeps jumping back and forth between issues, speakers, and stories for no apparent reason. I lost track of the number of superfluous songs included in it. (If I wanted to watch music videos, I'd get MTV.) A number of the clips, such as from Pat Buchanan and Alan Keyes, are completely pointless (and the bit from Keyes is also taken out of context). At 152 minutes, the film is painfully long; I yearned for it to end. Cut of its fluff, it easily could have fit within an hour and forty-five minutes.

The documentary contains three main parts (mashed together). It explores the views of opponents of abortion, tracks a thoughtful but incomplete debate among left-leaning intellectuals, and shows abortion procedures.

The views of opponents of abortion fall into two main categories: abortion should be outlawed, and abortion should be violently protested as well as outlawed. Most prominent of the legislation-only camp is Norma McCorvey, otherwise known as Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade fame. McCorvey describes how, following her episodes of self-mutilation and involvement with new-age mysticism, she found Jesus and changed her mind on abortion. "I'm a servant of Christ now," she says at an event.

The general theme among the religious opponents of abortion is that "life" begins at conception and that God prohibits abortion.

What the documentary does not do is explore nuances of opinion. Many people only want some restrictions on late-term abortions, yet nobody from that camp was interviewed for the film.

The film is downright frightening when it shows interviews and talks by those who favor violence. Following are several of the scary quotes:

"We will not back down on upholding the law of God. If this nation, if Bill Clinton, is going to reject the law of God, then this nation is going to die [i.e., self-destruct]."

"I think they should execute blasphemers [including those who say "god damn it"]... because that's what the Bible teaches."

"Abortionists should be executed."

"They've been seduced by Satan... We're coming right into the middle of Satan's territory up here in Colorado..."

One fellow (who also offered the quote directly above) argues that advocates of legal abortion consist of three types of people: satan worshippers, homosexuals, and "the pro-death." But this guy clearly is delusional; he also claims that he's seen employees of abortion clinics barbecue the aborted fetuses. I don't think interviewing insane people contributes much to the discussion.

Much of the documentary reviews the various murders committed by Christian opponents of abortion. When one of the murderers is sentenced to execution, several people supported the murderer. The film interviews one woman who was a victim of a bombing of an abortion clinic.

One person discusses Christian Reconstructionism, the movement of Rushdoony. The goal of the movement, according to the documentary, is to establish religious law; implement the death penalty for abortion, homosexuality, blasphemy, adultery, heresy, apostasy, and witchcraft (among other things); and generally to establish a Christian theocracy.

Much of the film is dated and seems so; at this point the religious right has fairly effectively dampened calls for violence against the "abortion industry."

The left-leaning intellectuals include Nat Hentoff -- who, notably, opposes abortion on secular grounds -- Alan Dershowitz, Noam Chomsky, and Peter Singer. Not surprisingly, the overriding theme of these people is moral ambiguity and subjectivism. Dershowitz argues, "Everybody is right;" it's "very, very difficult" to draw "black and white lines." Chomsky says, "The values we hold are not absolute."

Of course there is a gray boundary here; even Ayn Rand, who adamantly favored legal abortion, drew a distinction between embryos and fetuses just before birth (see Ayn Rand Answers, page 17). But, for Rand, the emphasis was on the morally clear regions -- particularly the early stages versus an independent child at birth. (See her additional comments.) Those interviewed for the film emphasize the moral grayness at the expense of the morally certain.

However, the documentary is obviously editing content to make a point. One woman claims that we should move away from the language of rights, which implies right and wrong. The film pits the view of moral relativism and subjectivism against Christian absolutist dogma. The film ignores -- or includes only incidentally -- the possibility that moral clarity may be reached outside of the context of religious dogma.

The film conflates general moral ambiguity with the fact that women should choose whether to get an abortion based on their personal conditions. But those are two separate issues. The claim that women have an absolute moral right to get an abortion has nothing to do with whether a particular woman should choose to get an abortion. Similarly, freedom of speech says nothing about whether an individual should go into journalism.

The film's greatest failing is to never bring to the forefront the distinction between a potential and an actual person. Hentoff, the outlier, argues that an embryo is "a developing human being," and no one debates this. But the relevant distinction is that an embryo is a potential person, whereas a born child is an actual, independent person. The documentary should have included interviews with people who argue this position.

All of the film's favored intellectuals, of course, endorse welfare statism, regardless of their stance on abortion. Chomsky, for instance, derides the U.S. for not giving more in foreign aid.

The film contrasts the secular left-wingers with the Bible-thumping anti-government types. One fellow argues that we should establish laws "as outlined by God," which, for him, entails the right to keep and bear arms, the abolition of the IRS, and "constitutional government" (whatever that means for him). Never have I been so struck by the danger of affiliating with kooks who hold superficially similar political positions. As a secularist, I support both legal abortion and economic liberty. I have practically nothing in common with Chomsky, but I have even less in common with those who think that welfare should be abolished because it violates God's will for our allegedly "Christian Nation." Of course, my perspective is not one that the documentary chooses to explore, for it has its own agenda.

The film also shows two women getting abortions. One woman gets hers relatively late, at five months, while another gets hers early. One problem with the film is that it does not discuss how many abortions occur within the first trimester, why some abortions are performed later, or what Roe v. Wade has to say about late-term abortions. The unfortunate impression left by the film, then, is that abortions typically or often involve fully-developed fetuses, which is simply not the case.

Still, the documentary is worth viewing despite its many faults and shortcomings, so long as viewers are aware of those issues.

Barber the Bigot

Matt Barber is the policy director for cultural issues with Concerned Women for America, a group "helping our members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy." Barber thinks that gay people deserve the "due penalty for their perversion," including death.

Writing for the conservative Townhall, Barber writes:

[T]here are those who... with haughty hearts and sardonic “pride,” willfully choose sin over Christ; death over life.

It's a self-evident reality which is bolstered by medical science, but Scripture additionally reminds us in both the Old and New Testaments that those who choose to engage in homosexual conduct do so at their own peril.

Consider Romans 1:26-27...

It's sad when people yield to disordered sexual temptations that can literally kill them spiritually, emotionally and physically. Nobody with any compassion enjoys watching others "[receive] in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." But a corollary to free will is living (or dying) with the choices we've made.

Barber here makes three basic errors. First, he thinks that we should guide our lives according to bigoted comments in an ancient book of mythology. Second, he assumes that homosexuality is sinful temptation, rather than a fundamental orientation of a person developed at least from childhood. Third, he conflates risky sexual activity with homosexuality.

I accept at face value Barber's claims that male homosexuals (he conveniently forgets about female homosexuals for this point) have higher incidences of various diseases. But the problem is risky sexual behavior with multiple partners (coupled with the greater chance of sharing blood via anal sex), not homosexuality per se.

Heterosexuals who engage in risky sex with multiple partners have a higher incidence of various diseases than do monogamous homosexuals.

Barber moves to a discussion of blood donations. He rightly criticizes "militant homosexual activists" in South Africa who "have been 'protesting' by deliberately and surreptitiously violating that nation's blood ban" of male homosexual donations (again taking his claim at face value).

However, Barber is wrong to paint all homosexuals with the same brush. The fact that a Christian has murdered a practitioner of abortion does not make all Christians murderers.

I'm all for protecting the blood supply; I certainly don't want to get HIV should I need a transfusion. But a ban on male homosexual donations does not get to the root of the problem, for it prohibits some low-risk people from donating blood, and it allows some high-risk people to donate (though I assume that high-risk heterosexuals are also screened out). The more effective screening question would be: "Have you had anal sex with more than one partner within the last X years?" (A follow-up question could ask about the partner.)

But such a question, though objectively more relevant, doesn't mention homosexuality, and so it does not fit Barber's bigoted agenda.

Barber continues:

...Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern has been viciously attacked and ruthlessly maligned, even receiving death threats, for saying publicly that "the homosexual agenda is destroying the nation." She even went so far as to say that, in her estimation, homosexual behaviors and "gay" activism pose a greater threat than terrorism.

Reasonable people can debate that opinion...

Reasonable people can endorse only one side of that opinion. Anyone who thinks that homosexuals pose a greater threat than Islamic terrorists is suffering from self-induced insanity.

But I do have a couple of questions for Barber, given his faith-based approach to homosexuality. Do you believe that any literature or speech pertaining to homosexuality (including, but not limited to, pornography) should be censored? Do you believe that consenting adults should be subjected to any criminal penalties for practicing homosexuality?

In fact, those would be good questions to ask anyone who claims that homosexuality is prohibited by the Bible.

More Problems with Expelled

Scientific American reveals more problems with the Creationist documentary Expelled, which I've criticized previously. I'll review only one of the six main points from the article.

The article points out that Expelled offers a rather selective review of the case of Richard Sternberg. "According to the film, after Sternberg approved the publication of a pro-ID paper by Stephen C. Meyer of the Discovery Institute, he lost his editorship, was demoted at the Smithsonian, was moved to a more remote office, and suffered other professional setbacks."

However:

Sternberg was never an employee of the Smithsonian: his term as a research associate always had a limited duration, and when it ended he was offered a new position as a research collaborator. As editor, Sternberg's decision to "peer-review" and approve Meyer's paper by himself was highly questionable on several grounds, which was why the scientific society that published the journal later repudiated it.

The further implication is that Sternberg abused his editorial position to advance his pseudo-scientific ideological position, which implies that his treatment was altogether too forgiving.

Speculations about Jesus' Birth

How did Mary get pregnant? Fox reports new speculation:

In his upcoming biography of Jesus, "Basic Instinct" director Paul Verhoeven will make the shocking claim that Christ probably was the son of Mary and a Roman soldier who raped her during the Jewish uprising in Galilee, according to the Hollywood Reporter.

Catholic League President Bill Donohue called Verhoeven's claim "laughable."

"Here we go again with idle speculation grounded in absolutely nothing," Donohue told FOXNews.com. "He has no empirical evidence to support his claim, which is why they say 'may have.'"

I basically agree with Donohue's criticism.

But what is Donohue's alternative account? The Gospel of Luke claims (1:35): "And the angel said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God."

Because the claim that Mary was impregnated by a supernatural being is supported by so much more empirical evidence than the claim that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier.

Americans Wary of Atheists

The good news for atheists is that they're more popular than Scientologists (a fact for which they can thank God for Tom Cruise). A new Gallup poll (via Paul Hsieh) reveals U.S. attitudes toward "religious and spiritual groups." While 52 percent of the population views Scientology negatively, a mere 45 percent so view atheism.

I guess the good news is that 54 percent of the population has a positive (13 percent) or neutral (41 percent) view of atheists. I can live with neutral, because, as I've pointed out previously, atheism is not a positive philosophy; it does not indicate what a person does believe. Thus, without knowing the particular views of an atheist, it is impossible to form a positive or negative evaluation of that atheist. (The rest of the categories indicate a philosophical orientation, except the one for "Jews," which can indicate both a religion and an ethnicity.)

For the same reason, the high negative rating is troublesome, as it indicates a prejudice. Just as most Christians in the U.S. are basically good people, so are most atheists. Indeed, some of the finest people I've ever met are atheists. Yet many people view atheists negatively because they are taught by various Christian leaders that atheism is synonymous with socialism, subjectivism, Peter Singer, etc., which is simply not the case. All of the atheists that I personally know support capitalism, individual rights, and objective morality.

Fourth Awakening Getting Sleepy?

In a recent article for Reason, Ronald Bailey asks, "Is the Fourth Great Awakening finally coming to a close?" He writes:

Perhaps the best evidence that the evangelical phase of the Fourth Great Awakening is winding down is that large numbers of young Americans are falling away from organized religion, just as the country did in the period between the first two awakenings. In the 1970s, the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago found that between 5 percent and 7 percent of the public declared they were not religiously affiliated. By 2006 that figure had risen to 17 percent. The trend is especially apparent among younger Americans: In 2006 nearly a quarter (23 percent) of Americans in their 20s and almost as many (19 percent) of those in their 30s said they were nonaffiliated.

The Barna Group finds that only 60 percent of 16-to-29-year-olds identify themselves as Christians. By contrast, 77 percent of Americans over age 60 call themselves Christian. That is “a momentous shift,” the firm’s president told the Ventura County Star. "Each generation is becoming increasingly secular."

I disagree with various aspects of Bailey's analysis. For instance, by pitting religious "moralism" against "tolerance," Bailey falls into the common stereotype of secularists as relativists and subjectivists.

While the information Bailey reviews in the quoted material is very interesting, various Objectivists rightly point out that the real battle is not between secularism and religion; it is between reason and unreason. If the younger generations are turning away from organized Christianity in favor of new-age mysticism and environmentalism that attributes to untouched nature intrinsic moral value, that's hardly an improvement. Indeed, Bailey recognizes that "the Fourth Great Awakening might simply be taking a left turn." If, as a society, we swap Christian fervor for crackpot mysticism and socialism, we are merely setting ourselves up for social decay and eventual dictatorship.

Nevertheless, there are some signs of renewed interest in a pro-human, pro-reason philosophy; to take but one example, sales of Ayn Rand's books "recently reached the mark of 25 million copies."

By the way, Bailey (whom I recently criticized on my other blog) also criticizes the pro-creationist film Expelled.

Shermer, Lockitch Flunk 'Expelled'

Recently I made a few comments about the pro-creationist film Expelled, based on the preview. But I didn't realize that the film is horrid, rather than merely stupid.

Gus Van Horn points to an article by Michael Shermer, who begins:

n 1974 I matriculated at Pepperdine University... It was with some irony for me, then, that I saw Ben Stein’s anti-evolution documentary film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, opens with [Stein] addressing a packed audience of adoring students at Pepperdine University, apparently falling for the same trap I did.

Actually they didn’t. The biology professors at Pepperdine assure me that their mostly Christian students fully accept the theory of evolution. So who were these people embracing Stein’s screed against science? Extras. According to Lee Kats, Associate Provost for Research and Chair of Natural Science at Pepperdine, “the production company paid for the use of the facility just as all other companies do that film on our campus” but that “the company was nervous that they would not have enough people in the audience so they brought in extras. Members of the audience had to sign in and the staff member reports that no more than two to three Pepperdine students were in attendance. Mr. Stein’s lecture on that topic was not an event sponsored by the university.” And this is one of the least dishonest parts of the film.

This is of particular interest to me, because I went to Pepperdine, too.

Shermer also points out the propagandistic nature of the film:

Even more disturbing than these distortions is the film’s other thesis that Darwinism inexorably leads to atheism, Communism, Fascism and the Holocaust. Despite the fact that hundreds of millions of religious believers fully accept the theory of evolution, Stein claims that we are in an ideological war between a scientific natural worldview that leads to the gulag archipelago and Nazi gas chambers, and a religious supernatural worldview that leads to freedom, justice and the American way. The film’s visual motifs leave no doubt in the viewer’s emotional brain that Darwinism is leading America into an immoral quagmire. ... Cleverly edited interview excerpts from scientists are interspersed with various black-and-white clips for guilt by association with: bullies beating up on a 98-pound weakling... East Germans captured trying to scale the Berlin Wall, and Nazi crematoria remains and Holocaust victims being bulldozed into mass graves.

The film, then, is intellectually dishonest, because there is no logical connection between the biological theory of evolution and the various forms of socialism. There is, however, a logical link between religion and and the Inquisition, the Taliban, the Dark Ages, etc.

In addition, today's most enthusiastic champions of economic liberty and individual rights are those inspired by the philosophy of Ayn Rand, which also shows that legitimate moral absolutes can only be established through reason, not religious faith. (Shermer has slammed Rand, but his prejudice against her seems to flow from the Brandens' lies about Rand -- reviewed in James Valiant's Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics -- and a basic misunderstanding of the content of Rand's philosophy.)

Speaking of Rand, Keith Lockitch of the Ayn Rand Institute makes some additional comments about the film:

"The premise of Expelled is that proponents of 'intelligent design' have been shunned, denied tenure, and even fired because of a conspiracy to quash the scientific evidence supporting their theory," said Dr. Keith Lockitch, resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. "But the truth is: there is no evidence supporting their theory. Intelligent design is completely devoid of any positive scientific content, and consists of nothing more than a religiously motivated attack on evolution. To the extent intelligent design advocates are facing obstacles in academia it is because they are not doing real science: they haven't been 'expelled' they have flunked out of the scientific community, just as a faith healer would flunk out of medical school.

"Observe that intelligent design advocates have pumped millions into publicity-seeking, rather than appealing to scientists with facts and logical arguments. They have spent more time at Christian 'apologetics seminars' than scientific conferences, and have attempted to use the courts to force schools to teach their ideas. Now they are hoping to dupe the movie-going public with a film that misrepresents Darwin's theory and the array of facts that support it -- just as the makers of Expelled misrepresented the nature of the film in order to bamboozle respected evolutionary scientists into participating in it."

I had been thinking of seeing Expelled for the same reason that I saw two of Michael Moore's films. But I've decided to avoid Expelled for the same reason that I refused to watch Moore's latest: at a certain point, unless a complete viewing is required for a review, I don't want to spend my resources to support intellectual dishonesty.

Darwin Online

Paul Hsieh has pointed me to an outstanding resource: "The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online."

Wow. It's just stunning that such a rich collection of material is available to the public, at no charge. And to think that, when I was a child, the internet did not even exist.

This seems like a good time point out that, on its registered users' page, the Ayn Rand Institute hosts Keith Lockitch's lecture, "Darwin and the Discovery of Evolution;" see the Complete Video Collection.

Though Darwin is subject to increasingly shrill attacks from the evangelical movement, the rest of us owe him a debt of gratitude for ushering in the modern science of biology.

Ben Stein's Expelled

I sort of like actor Ben Stein, but I think he's taken on more than he can handle with a new documentary that he co-wrote called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Judging from the preview available at the film's web page, the documentary is a rather silly defense of "intelligent design," the fancy name for dressed-up creationism.

In a "gotcha" moment, Stein gets "new atheist" Richard Dawkins to admit that he doesn't know how life began. Well, so what? "I don't know how life began, therefore, God, QED." Scientists have been able to determine much of the evolutionary course of life on earth from the fossil record and other evidence. But there is simply no such evidence remaining of the first forms of life, so far as anyone knows. Even if scientists someday manage to create conditions in which life emerges from non-life, that won't prove conclusively that life on earth actually began in just that way. Besides, Christians would merely push God into the new gap: "But who set in motion those original conditions?"

A lack of knowledge does not justify an arbitrary assertion. At one point, people didn't know what caused lightening. "I don't know what causes lightening, therefore, God, QED." (Greg Perkins also uses the lightening example.) Before genetic science, people didn't know the mechanism by which evolution worked. At the dawn of humanity, people knew practically nothing. But the fact that knowledge is necessarily limited does not mean that knowledge is flawed or useless, nor does it justify arbitrary leaps beyond knowledge. And arbitrary claims about God also happen to involve logical absurdities and metaphysical impossibilities.

If Matt Barber's rah-rah review is correct, Dawkins himself entertains the arbitrary:

In one segment, he sits down with Stein for a heart-to-heart. After dancing around several pointed questions about how life began, Dawkins finds himself at a logical impasse with no surplus of sci-fi rhetoric. He's finally forced to concede that, indeed, an intelligent being may have created life on earth. However, that being could not have been “God,” but rather, it must have been some organic, alien life form. Of course, that alien life form has to have been a product of “Darwinian evolution.”

I have not yet heard the discussion in context. However, Dawkins seems to allow for arbitrary claims. That said, there is an appropriate use of the "alien" example, which is to point out that the advocates of "intelligent design" have a particularly supernatural designer in mind.

Barber also repeats the by-now standard ad hominem attack against atheists:

They don't want to upset the morally relative applecart, which is loosely held together by the notion that we're all just a bunch of monkeys with an instinctive, biological excuse for all our behavioral choices. To them, life's a whole lot easier under the theory of evolution. Without a sovereign Creator to answer to, we get to scoot along and party hearty, free from accountability.

The irony is that Barber's intellectually-dishonest attack occurs in his essay claiming that Christians are persecuted. Barber is simply fibbing when he claims that all atheists are relativists and/or determinists who, in effect, reject God because they want to party.

I call on responsible Christians to discourage the sort of bigoted nonsense that Barber displays here.

Various criticisms of Expelled have sprung up. One web page is devoted to criticizing the film; it also contains a list of publications about it. Colorado Confidential hosts a number of articles about the film. Chris Heard points out that various Christians accept evolution as fact. Ad Hoc blogs about the film.

The upshot is that Christians devoted to creationism will view the film with a sense of validation. The rest of us will soon forget about it.

Michael Medved's Anti-Atheist Bias

If somebody claimed that a Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Mormon, or member of any other mainstream religion, was not qualified to hold political office merely by virtue of that religious affiliation, regardless of the broader moral and political beliefs and statements of the candidate, the critic's claims would be laughed off as silly prejudice. While it's true that Mitt Romney's Mormon religion hurt his candidacy, it's also true that Mike Huckabee's slights against Mormonism hurt Huckabee's candidacy.

But, in the world of Christian political apologetics, Michael Medved can grotesquely misrepresent the nature of atheism and claim with a straight face that no atheist should be elected president. Medved writes:

Actually, there's little chance that atheists will succeed in placing one of their own in the White House at any time in the foreseeable future, and it continues to make powerful sense for voters to shun potential presidents who deny the existence of God. An atheist may be a good person, a good politician, a good family man (or woman), and even a good patriot, but a publicly proclaimed non-believer as president would, for three reasons, be bad for the country.

I agree that there's little chance of an atheist being elected as president any time in the near future. But Medved's reasons for why that's a good thing are absurd.

Medved's first error, contained in the quoted paragraph above, is to presume that atheism is a unifying doctrine; atheists, by his lights, recognize and support "their own." But atheism is not an ideology. It does not indicate what a person believes. It indicates only one thing that a person does not believe. I have more in common with many Christians than I do with some atheists. I could develop a long list of Christians that I would support politically over a list of particular atheists.

So what are Medved's three reasons?

First, he claims that an atheist president would suffer "hollowness and hypocrisy at state occassions." "For instance, try to imagine an atheist president issuing the annual Thanksgiving proclamation. To whom would he extend thanks in the name of his grateful nation –-the Indians in Massachusetts?" Yet I've heard atheists give very powerful, highly moving talks. On the topic of Thanksgiving, Craig Biddle writes, "Rational, productive people -- whether philosophers, scientists, inventors, artists, businessmen, military strategists, friends, family, or yourself -- are who deserve to be thanked for the goods on which your life, liberty, and happiness depend." While Biddle's strong criticisms of religion would not be appropriate for a president's speech, his answer regarding whom should be thanked could be appropriately adapted to a presidential address. To take another example, Alex Epstein has written a moving tribute to America's veterans.

Second, Medved claims, an atheist could not connect with the people. Medved writes:

[E]mbrace of Jewish or Mormon practices doesn't show contempt for the Protestant or Catholic faith of the majority, but affirmation of atheism does. ... A chief executive who publicly discards the core belief in God that drives the life and work of most of his countrymen can never achieve that sort of connection. A president with a mandate doesn't have to be a regular church-goer, or even a convinced believer; but he can't openly reject the religious sensibility of nearly all his predecessors and nearly all his fellow citizens. A leader who touts his non-belief will, even with the best of intentions, give the impression that he looks down on the people who elected him.

But holding that a person's belief in God is unwarranted is not the same thing as "looking down" on the person. For example, Ayn Rand was an atheist, and yet she held and expressed enormous respect for the American "sense of life" and for the common sense often displayed by the American public. Indeed, often Rand was most critical of the atheistic (and socialistic) elite.

The difference between atheists and religionists is, in this context, hardly more significant than the difference among peoples of different religions or different political ideologies. For example, as an atheist, I think that Catholics are wrong to believe in God. But when I was a Protestant, I was taught as a child that Catholics will burn for all eternity in Hell. (Only some people in my church held that view.) Obviously, the tensions between people of different religions can be much more severe than the tensions between atheists and religionists. To take another example, the differences between Barack Obama and conservative Christians are enormous.

Finally, Medved argues, atheists cannot win the war against Islamist terrorism. "[T]he ongoing war on terror represents a furious battle of ideas and we face devastating handicaps if we attempt to beat something with nothing." Here Medved makes two errors. First, he assumes that atheists believe in nothing, which is ridiculous. Again, atheism does not define one's positive beliefs. Second, Medved supposes that religionists are better-equipped to take on the terrorists. But Bush has failed to stop terrorist advances precisely because of his faith-based war, which places altruistic nation-building ahead of American defense. Numerous publications by the Ayn Rand Institute point to the problems with Bush's approach and the path to a rational alternative.

Americans should not elect an atheist because he or she is an atheist, any more than Americans should elect a Christian because he or she is a Christian. Instead, Americans should elect somebody who understands the nature of individual rights and is prepared to defend the rights of every American, regardless of religious belief.

Anti-Abortion Group Sues Google

As I've pointed out, Google's ad policies are completely arbitrary and in fact violated by Google itself. I wrote,

If Google flagrantly violates its own stated policy for ads, then clearly that particular policy is meaningless. However, if, as one of the comments on an earlier post alleges, Google has pulled its ads from another web page because of that page's arguments, is Google opening itself up to potential legal action?

However, I'm not sure that a recent law suit has much merit. Fox reports:

A Christian group in Britain is suing Google over the search engine's alleged refusal to place an ad related to abortion.

According to the Christian Institute, the text ad would have popped up on the right side of a user's screen whenever the word "abortion" was searched for or prominently appeared.

It would have read: "UK abortion law: Key views and news on abortion law from The Christian Institute. www.christian.org.uk". ...

Google rejected the ad with the statement, "Google policy does not permit the advertisement of websites that contain 'abortion and religion-related content,'" according to the Christian Institute's press release.

The Christian Institute counters that "Google is happy to allow adverts for non-religious sites with views on abortion," and is taking the Internet giant to court on grounds of religious discrimination. ...

Searches for "abortion" on both the American and British Google Web sites bring up ads for abortion providers, but none to political, advocacy or religious groups on either side of the issue.

Both Google sites, however, include an ad for StandUpGirl.com, a Web site aimed at talking teenage girls out of having abortions.

I'll try to briefly untangle the issue. A suit based on "religious discrimination" is illegitimate. Google has property rights, and thus it has the right to set whatever ad policies it deems fit. To take a local example, some Colorado publications refuse to run ads for firearms.

The potential problem involves contract. Is Google effectively making a contradictory offer to would-be ad purchasers? If Google is simultaneously saying, through its actions, that ads about abortion are fine, but then indicating that certain ads about abortion are forbidden, that could be a problem. Then the issue would be that people spend their resources to set up ads with Google that Google may then arbitrarily deny. Unfortunately, I was not able to locate Google's policies regarding ads pertaining to abortion.

What this is not is a free-speech issue. If Google refuses to do business with certain advertisers, Google is not thereby violating free speech. Freedom of speech protects people from government censorship; it does not impose a duty on some to publicize the speech of others. Indeed, forcing one party to promote the views of others violates that party's freedom of speech.

However, it might be a fairness issue. Google ought not arbitrarily deny some ads but not others or impose contradictory standards.

Moreover, it seems to me that in the rough-and-tumble world of the internet, it's a bit silly for a large company to refuse to do business with Christians with an anti-abortion agenda. I go back to the Ann Coulter test: if Google will let Coulter display Google ads, can Google reasonably exclude others with less contentious views?

'Only' 90 Million Islamic Supporters of 9/11?

We can now rest peacefully, knowing that only around 90 million Islamists "identified with the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington D.C." See? No problem. The "Religion of Peace" has everything under control.

The figure comes from Jerd Smith's Rocky Mountain News write-up of the 60th Annual Conference on World Affairs in Boulder:

Now head of the non-partisan Middle East Institute, [Wendy] Chamberlin [former U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan] was the first female U.S. ambassador appointed to a post in a Muslim country and she was in Pakistan on Sept. 11.

Chamberlin's mission Monday is to give World Affairs conference-goers a bit of a primer on Muslims. ...

"It is absolutely necessary that we try to reshape our relations with the Middle East and the larger Muslim world," she says. "We need to acknowledge the Muslim world is a very diverse community. There are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. Arab's are only a small minority. The most populous Muslim country isn't even in the Middle East. It's Indonesia."

"Too often our politicians focus on one extremely small fraction of the Muslim community, the militant jihadists. We don't talk enough about the mainstream Muslims who are most decidedly not violent, not radical and not extremists."

Key facts: International polls conducted worldwide indicate that 93 percent of Muslims abhorred what happened on 9/11, while only a small minority, 7 percent, identified with the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington D.C.

"What are Muslims like?" Chamberlin asked. "They're like most Americans. They're family people. They practice their faith. Most are young (under 30). They want better education. They want jobs. The polls show the majority want to improve law and order and they want to promote democratic ideals in their own political systems," she said.

"The clear majority also want legal rights for women. For millions of Muslims their religion is a religion of peace and they're outraged at the notion that their mosques are used for violence."

Ah, how comforting that a mere 7 percent of all Muslims approve of the slaughter of Americans.

Vincent Carroll replied:

[I]f someone told you that a suicide bomber just blew himself up along with 30 customers in a London bank lobby, it would be reasonable for you to strongly suspect that the terrorist was Muslim.

It would be reasonable, moreover, even if you readily agreed, as I do, that most Muslims are like most people everywhere and want nothing more than lives of peace.

Unfortunately, the figures are not as rosy as Chamberlin would have us believe.

In his book The End of Faith, Sam Harris reviews statistics collected by the Pew Research Center in 2002 (see pages 124-26). Here was the question:

Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies.... Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?

Responses for "often" or "sometimes" justified ranged from 73 percent in Lebanon to 13 percent in Turkey. However, as Harris points out, if the responses for "rarely justified" are added to the mix, the figures for those who believe that "suicide bombing in defense of Islam" is "ever justifiable" rises to 82 percent in Lebanon and 20 percent in Turkey. The next-highest response rate is Pakistan with 38 percent.

The figures for Indonesia, which Chamberlin specifically mentions, are 27 percent ("often" or "sometimes") and 43 percent ("often," "sometimes," or "rarely.")

No matter how one slices the figures, a huge minority of Muslims worldwide -- at least scores of millions of people -- think it's a good idea to slaughter innocents in the name of their religion.

Birth Tragedy Seen as Divine

In the industrial world, we know that birth defects are caused by some combination of genetic and environmental factors. The Associated Press