'First Freedom First'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Amend the Constitution so it's in God's Standards"

Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said the following on Monday:

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.

The commentary with the accompanying video suggests that Huckabee was talking about abortion (as in, banning it) and marriage (as in, banning gay marriage).

There was no confusion before -- Huckabee is serious about imposing his religious views through force of politics. This latest comment only emphasizes the point. And, as Paul Hsieh recently pointed out (quoting The New York Times,) Huckabee's religious views conflict with the ideals of economic liberty. All around, he's a horrible candidate, judged by the standard of liberty.

Tax Cutting for God

Perhaps I was being too optimistic. Earlier today I said that, if he had his act together, Douglas "Bruce could be a strong voice for economic liberty in the state legislature..." But then I remembered this line from The Denver Post:

The bottom line to explain Bruce's success [with the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights] is that he would not be deterred.

He refused to give up, and he continues to fight because he believes the tax-and-spend-limit cause has an even higher calling than letting taxpayers keep their money.

"Why did I persist after two losses?" Bruce wrote in an e-mail after being interviewed for this story. "(Why do I now persist after 13 years of retribution, jailing, court intimidation, scores of bogus property citations, seizure of real property and vehicle, public attack and scorn, phony fines, etc. etc.?)

"Because I believe God wants us to be free."

That's it? That's his answer? As many evangelicals are discovering, apparently God wants higher taxes. I don't think Bruce's claim appeals to many Christians, and it certainly does not appeal to those looking for real-world answers to political questions.

Murder for Allah?

My wife has been reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Infidel for some weeks; she says she can take the book only in small doses because it describes such horrible circumstances, at least in its first sections. That women suffer terrible abuses throughout much of the Muslim world is no secret. Now it seems likely that such abuse has arisen in Texas. Here's the story from Fox News:

Slain Teen Girls' Brother Begs for Suspect Father to Turn Himself In
Saturday, January 05, 2008

As the family of two teenage Texas girls allegedly shot by their father and left to die in his taxi prepared to bury them, their brother issued a plea to his father.

"I just hope he turns himself in because, you know, he messed up the whole family," Islam Said, 19, told MyFOXDFW.com after his sisters were found dead Tuesday night.

Said said his father, Yaser Abdel Said, 50, of Lewisville, Texas, was having a very hard time when his daughters, Sarah Yaser Said, 17, and Amina Yaser Said, 18, started dating.

Connie Moggio, the girls' aunt, said there had been turbulence in the Said household for a while.

She said her sister married Yaser Abdel Said at the age of 15 and was pregnant shortly after, adding she had tried to leave her husband many times over the years, most recently, on Christmas Eve.

"A few days before she called me at my job and told me she was leaving because he had threatened the girls because they were dating," Moggio told MyFOXDFW.com. ...

A local Austin imam condemned the murders on [an internet] tribute page...

The victims' brother made a statement at the vigil that the deaths have nothing to do with religion. ...

Brigitte Gabriel, author of "Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America," said the shootings point to an "honor killing."

"This crime has honor killing written all over it," Gabriel said. "The father was insulted and ashamed of how his daughters were behaving."

The daughters were bringing shame to Islam and the father took it upon himself to respond, Gabriel said.

"The father probably was seeing that this is going to bring shame on the family and he needed to eliminate that shame," Gabriel said.

The report is preliminary in nature. However, accounts abound about so-called "honor killings," genital mutilation, physical disfigurement, legal barbarism, and overwhelming oppression of women throughout the Muslim world. Every civilized person must condemn such horrors and demand that they be stopped. In a rational world, dating, having consensual sex prior to marriage, driving, traveling alone, and dressing in Western attire are not criminal offenses, much less offenses punished by physical damage or death.

Here is one of the many horrors to which Ali was subjected:

[Grandma] caught hold of me and gripped my upper body... Two other women held my legs apart. The man... picked up a pair of scissors. With the other hand, he caught hold of the place between my legs and started tweaking it... Then the scissors went down between my legs and the man cut off my inner labia and clitoris. I heard it, like a butcher snipping the fat off a piece of meat. A piercing pain shot up between my legs, indescribable, and I howled. Then came the sewing: the long, blunt needle clumsily pushed into my bleeding outer labia, my loud and anguished protests, Grandma's words of comfort and encouragement. ... I must have fallen asleep, for it wasn't until much later that day that I realized that my legs had been tied together, to prevent me from moving to facilitate the formation of a scar. It was dark and my bladder was bursting, but it hurt too much to pee. The sharp pain was still there, and my legs were covered in blood. I was sweating and shivering. It wasn't until the next day that my Grandma could persuade me to pee even a little. By then everything hurt. When I just lay still the pain throbbed miserably, but when I urinated the flash of pain was as sharp as when I had been cut. (pages 32-33)

If atrocities against women "have nothing to do with religion," then why does much of the Muslim world continue to allow them?

God Wins in Iowa

From The Colorado Freedom Report:

The big winner in the Iowan caucuses is Jesus Christ. Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama are the two most religious -- politically religious -- candidates of their parties. I'm surprised that those candidates came in first. However, I don't believe that they'll win the nominations (though I think it likely that Obama joins somebody else's ticket). Indeed, I would be stunned if either candidate made it to the general election. If both make it, that will demonstrate that this country is in worse shape than I thought, and that we are likely headed toward more expansive religious-based politics.

Here's why I don't think Huckabee or Obama will last. In late 2006, Time published a map titled, "Denomination Nation." If you select for "Mainline Protestants," you will find that Iowa is among the states most heavily populated by such Christians. West of Nebraska, the numbers drop off dramatically.

Huckabee's motto is "Faith. Family. Freedom." -- in that order. Huckabee leaves no doubt that he will interpret "freedom" through the lens of faith, which means that he will sacrifice genuine freedom to faith.

Under his "Issues" page "Faith and Politics," Huckabee writes, "My faith is my life -- it defines me. My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them. For example, when it comes to the environment, I believe in being a good steward of the earth."

On the issue of abortion, Huckabee writes,

I support and have always supported passage of a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life. ... I have no desire to throw women in jail, I just want us to stop throwing babies in the garbage. ... With respect to stem cells, I am opposed to research on embryonic stem cells.

However, if Huckabee passes an amendment outlawing abortion, this will necessarily impose criminal penalties on women and/or their doctors. (I do not imagine that the amendment will read, "Pretty please don't have abortions; Congress shall pass no law enforcing this amendment.") Then real police with real guns will arrest real people and throw them into real jails, Huckabee's disingenuous "desires" notwithstanding.

It is unclear to me what exceptions Huckabee might allow. Would he outlaw all abortions from the moment the sperm enters the egg? What about cases of rape, incest, or dangers to the life of the mother? And who gets to make such calls? How many doctors will be called before the Inquisition to prove that an abortion was necessary to protect the woman's life? And how many women will be called to prove that their miscarriages were accidental?

However, even an abortion ban with numerous exceptions and light enforcement would severely violate the rights of pregnant women who do not wish to have a child. (The fact that many abortions result from irresponsible sex does not change this fact.) The sort of abortion ban that many Christians favor would outlaw abortions of fertilized eggs. Thus, the "morning after" pill would be outlawed, and, presumably, manufacture, distribution, possession, and use of such a pill would bring criminal penalties. Yet the position that a fertilized egg or a cluster of cells should be granted the same rights that you have is grounded on the Christian dogma that God infuses a fertilized egg with a soul. Such a policy imposes religion by political force.

Huckabee also wishes to outlaw certain types of medical research based on his religious beliefs. I don't know where Huckabee stands on issues of censorship and "faith-based" tax subsidies. (For further discussion on religion in politics, see my blog post on Fred Thompson and then link back from there.)

Aside from his rejection of the separation of church and state, Huckabee is a typical "moderate" left-wing statist. He endorses environmentalism through political force and better health through federal controls, as examples. Mark Joseph's December 31 column about Huckabee is telling:

The stunning and rapid ascendence of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has shocked prominent old-guard Washington Republicans and conservatives, leaving them shaking their heads, wondering how a social conservative with a fairly liberal record on issues like immigration, education, taxes and spending can possibly be commanding the allegiance of so many Christian conservative voters. ...

For Huckabee is an unreconstructed and unapologetic pre-1980 Republican who has more in common with William Jennings Bryan than Ronald Reagan and whose views expose the deep rift that has always existed between social and economic conservatives. ...

[T]he emergence of Huckabee and his hybrid conservative/liberal style may finally produce the much ballyhooed conservative crackup that so many commentators have been predicting.

Obama would expand national controls over virtually every aspect of our lives. Yet at least he talks about the separation of church and state. Yet he clearly believes that God has called him to use the power of the national government to carry out religious goals. The document, "Barack Obama on Faith," states that "God is constantly present in our lives..." And Obama wants to make sure of it. "Faith is a source of action for justice." In this context, "justice" is a euphemism for political controls to force people to obey Obama's version of Christian "charity." For some examples, see Obama's proposals on poverty. He wants to expand "career" subsidies, "create a green jobs corps," expand subsidies for "urban planning initiatives," increase the forced wage rate, etc. Obama also wants to impose "a new national health plan."

Obama is thus in tune with the socialist tradition. The difference is that he justifies his socialism by faith.

The election of Mike Huckabee or Barack Obama as President of the United States would constitute a national disaster. Fortunately, that's not likely to happen.

Christianity Versus Liberty

Many Christians proclaim that their religion is responsible for the rise of liberty in the West. They make this claim despite the fact that Christians ruled over centuries of stifling (and sometimes murderous) oppression, despite the fact that liberty did not gain traction until the Enlightenment, an era that seriously challenged religious dogma. Today, some Christians fight to control the economy, while others fight to control our personal lives. Increasingly, these two camps are finding common cause.

In a December 30 column for the conservative Townhall.com, Ken Connor, "a nationally recognized trial lawyer who represented Governor Jeb Bush in the Terri Schiavo case," argues that the Christian right and the Christian left should come together. He argues that the Christian right should be more sensitive to the egalitarian left's plans to forcibly transfer wealth:

Perhaps liberal evangelicals will help remind the body of Christ that our greatest obligation is not to be financially successful or politically triumphant, but to love our Lord and our neighbor, even in public life. Perhaps they will also encourage us to develop new political solutions to the timeless problem of material poverty. As conservatives, our policy proposals probably won't include lots of major Federal programs because our experience shows that solutions rooted in the expansion of governmental bureaucracy often do more harm than good. However, we must not fall prey to the rhetoric of secular conservatives who put worldly financial concerns above all else. As Christians, we have a duty to address the needs of the poor, and it would be wrong for us to fall prey to a radically individualistic mentality. "Dog eat dog" is not a biblical phrase and "the survival of the fittest" is not a Christian concept. Our priority is the common good, with a special concern for those who have the least.

Note here that Connor finds no principled reason for the national government to refrain from forcibly transferring wealth; he thinks the activity is just fine, so long as it can be shown to do more good than harm (by what standard he does not mention). Apparently, Conner has even fewer reservations about using state and local force to transfer wealth.

Connor explicitly denounces individualism in favor of "the common good," and he associates a system of liberty, in which people interact voluntarily rather than by force and in which the rights of each individual are consistently protected, with a "dog eat dog... survival of the fittest." In other words, in his political goals and his evaluation of liberty, Connor's views are indistinguishable from those of socialists.

Connor also hopes to bring the Christian left on board with the Christian right's social agenda:

At the same time, perhaps there are ways in which we can help progressives look at things differently. ... Al Sharpton... criticized the black church for being too worried about what he called "bedroom issues": marriage and abortion. He thinks they should mobilize on social justice issues rather than be distracted by abortion. On something like this, we have an obligation to vigorously defend the unborn. Perhaps we can help progressive Christians like Al Sharpton understand that abortion is the greatest social justice issue of our time.

In other words, Connor wants to convince the left that it's a great idea to subject women and/or the doctors who serve them to criminal penalties for aborting a fertilized egg, based on the Christian doctrine that God infuses a fertilized egg with a soul. And this is just one example for Connor; no doubt he could think of many additional reasons to send out men with guns to arrest and imprison people.

I do not expect a quick convergence of Christian left and right. Instead, what is likely to happen is that the Christian right will become less and less interested in defending any vestige of economic liberty, while the Christian left will show less resistance to social controls. Both sides will "compromise" by allowing the other side its favored controls.

Islamist Violence Against Women

The UK's Independent published the following report:

'Westernised' women being killed in Basra
By Sinan Salaheddin in Baghdad
Published: 11 December 2007

Religious extremists have killed at least 40 women this year in Basra because of their "un-Islamic" dress, according to Iraqi police.

The police said women were being apprehended by men patrolling on motorbikes or in cars with tinted windows before being murdered and dumped in piles of rubbish with notes saying they were killed for "un-Islamic behaviour". He said men had been victims of similar attacks.

Since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the rise of Iraq's Shia-dominated government, armed men have forced women to cover their heads or face punishment. In parts of the predominantly Shia south, even Christian women have been forced to wear headscarves. In some areas of Basra, graffiti warns women that forgoing the headscarf and wearing make-up "will bring you death".

Where to begin? Such religiously motivated behavior is disgusting, reprehensible, horrible. And the story serves as a reminder that Bush's "forward strategy for freedom" hasn't worked out so well.

Yesterday's Hero

One difference between the recent shooting at the mall in Omaha and the religious facilities in Colorado is that, in Omaha, the murderer stopped himself (before the police could reach him). As Laura Bauer reports for the December 8 Kansas City Star, the murderer "opened fire at the mall, killing eight before taking his own life."

Yesterday's murderous rampage ended differently. Kieran Nicholson reports for today's Denver Post:

The two killed at [New Life Church] are sisters Stephanie Works, 18, and Rachael Works, 16, police said. ... Also shot at the church Sunday were David Works, 51, Judy Purcell, 40, and Larry Bourbannais, 59, police said. ...

The shooter was shot and killed by a volunteer security guard at the church, said [Pastor Brady] Boyd.

Boyd said the security guard, a woman with a law enforcement background, and his personal bodyguard, encountered the gunman in a hallway at the church and fired on him, saving many lives.

"He had enough ammunition on him to cause a lot of damage," Boyd said.

The security guard's name has not yet been released.

Whatever else can and will be said about the murders, that woman, the volunteer security guard, is a true, courageous hero who deserves our thanks and praise.

I'm also impressed that Nicholson and the Post fairly reported the facts. However, it is odd that Nicholson refers to the murderer as "gunman," but she does not refer to the security guard as a "gunwoman." (Indeed, while the media are filled with references to "gunmen," I do not remember every reading the term, "gunwoman.") Bauer also refers to "a gunman." But the relevant fact is not that the man carried a gun, but that he used it to murder people. Thus, he is properly called a killer or a murderer. The bare fact that a man carries a gun -- is a "gunman" -- is legally and morally neutral. Police officers, security guards, and numerous civilians, both male and female, carry guns legally and responsibly.

But of course the means of murder is the minor issue. The big question is this: why are moral monsters running around murdering innocent people they don't even know? Any murder is a heinous crime, the ultimate evil. But a murder of strangers adds an additional level of senselessness. Some will find symbolism in the fact that the murderer attacked a church; they will see the murders as a symptom of our (allegedly) Godless culture (though religion is on the rise). The religionists are correct that the murders are a symptom of cultural nihilism, the destruction of human reason, values, and morality. But the antidote to nihilism is not religion, which sacrifices human reason to faith and human values to the whims of a mythological being. A culture of human reason, values, and morality rejects both nihilism and religion.

Religious Mountain News

Diana Hsieh writes that "tithing [as] a subject of public discussion in a well-respected national newspaper still floors me." Yet at least a letter to the editor is in the editorial section. The Rocky Mountain News, whether by design or by accident, seems to be pandering to religious readers more often in news articles.

For example, I recently quoted a News article that begins, "Kristi Burton was just 13 when she asked God for guidance and got it." Whether or not the author of the article actually believes that Burton received guidance from God, the line taken at face value presumes that she did.

Here's another example:

Lotto win forestalls foreclosure
The Gazette
Originally published 12:30 a.m., November 27, 2007
Updated 11:50 a.m., November 27, 2007

As the Bible says: "Whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive."

Gloria Aguda, of Fountain, said she prayed to God for help, facing foreclosure and mounting bills. She won the jackpot in the Nov. 21 Lotto drawing, worth approximately $9 million.

The article, credited to the Gazette, appeared on the Rocky's web page (though I'm not sure whether it also appeared in print). Again, taken at face value, the opening suggests that God played some role in the jackpot (which is ridiculous even from a religious perspective).

The Rocky has also reported on various occasions that victims of various accidents and tragedies thanked God for a relatively good outcome. However, the Rocky has not once mentioned why God allowed the tragedies in the first place, nor why others who pray to God nevertheless suffer worse outcomes.

I for one read the news to learn about the news -- not to read gratuitous and frankly silly references to God.

Abortion Left and Right

Thanks to a tip from Fox News, I found an article in the UK's Daily Mail titled, "Meet the women who won't have babies -- because they're not eco friendly," written by Natasha Courtenay-Smith and Morag Turner. The article reports:

[W]hen Toni [Vernelli] terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet. ...

At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to "protect the planet".

Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card. ...

"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35.

"Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population." ...

When Sarah Irving, 31, was a teenager she... she came to the extraordinary decision never to have a child.

"I realised then that a baby would pollute the planet -- and that never having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do."

The Daily Mail article was published on November 21. Three days later, the Rocky Mountain News published Lisa Ryckman's article, "Prayer as teen led to campaign for unborn." Ryckman reports:

Kristi Burton was just 13 when she asked God for guidance and got it.

"I was praying, what could I do to help people?" Burton said, thinking back on that December day, sick in bed and looking through library books about community service.

"And I really think God brought that to my mind and said, 'Save these people.' "

Unborn people, she means.

Seven years later, that's what Burton hopes to do, by amending the Colorado Constitution to define a fertilized egg as a person entitled to legal protection -- a concept that has the potential to outlaw abortion.

(See also Ryckman's article about the debate over the proposal and about voter demographics.)

At first glance, the positions of Vernelli and Burton seem to be diametrically opposed.

But the similarities of the women's positions are more revealing. Neither activist holds that a woman should choose to have a baby based on what the woman deems best for her own life. Both activists believe that the choice over having a baby should be made self-sacrificially, with the sacrifice directed either to the planet or to God.

The environmentalist case against having babies rests on a view of man as a blight on the planet. The fewer the people, the better, according to this view. The religious case against having abortions rests on the belief that God infuses a fertilized egg with a soul. (Of course, many Christians also believe that the use of birth control is wrong, because it thwarts God's control over the fertilization of eggs.) Neither view holds as significant the values, choices, and interests of the potential parents.

The religious and environmental movements seem to be converging, as Diana Hsieh reviews, though of course the basic motivations differ. However, while the Daily Mail finds "nothing in Toni's safe, middle-class upbringing" to offer "any clues as to the views which would shape her adult life," the article points out that Vernelli "excelled at her Roman Catholic school." The transition is unsurprising, because environmentalism is a form of secularized religion. Nor is Baptist Pastor Mike Huckabee's environmentalism surprising, given that the self-sacrifice demanded by environmentalism is so easily sublimated to the purported will of God.

False Definition of 'Personhood'

Electa Draper writes for The Denver Post today:

The Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday gave the go-ahead to proponents of a ballot initiative seeking to amend the state constitution in 2008 to define personhood as a fertilized egg. ...

The amendment, if approved by voters, would extend constitutional protections from the moment of conception, guaranteeing every fertilized egg the right to life, liberty, equality of justice and due process of law.

Kathryn Wittenben, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, argued that the measure is misleading, reports Draper: "Proponents of this initiative have publicly stated that the goal is to make all abortion illegal, but nothing in the language of the initiative or its title even mentions abortion."

But the "initiative's 20-year-old proponent, Kristi Burton, founder of Colorado for Equal Rights," was undeterred: "This is a very simple petition. That's all we need... The people of Colorado will support protecting human life at every stage. More than that, we have God. And he is enough."

And Dinesh D'Souza wonders why atheists bother to criticize Christianity and its politics?

Diana Hsieh points out the inevitable consequences, should the measure pass (which is highly unlikely). Hsieh mentions a "horrifying story of a woman allowed to die of a totally non-viable ectopic pregnancy due to Nigaragua's strict anti-abortion law."

Here is a summary from the original article:

Two weeks after Olga Reyes danced at her wedding, her bloated and disfigured body was laid to rest in an open coffin -- the victim, her husband and some experts say, of Nicaragua's new no-exceptions ban on abortion.

Reyes, a 22-year-old law student, suffered an ectopic pregnancy. The fetus develops outside the uterus, cannot survive and causes bleeding that endangers the mother. But doctors seemed afraid to treat her because of the anti-abortion law, said husband Agustin Perez. By the time they took action, it was too late.

And this is what is called the "culture of life."

The Conversion of Antony Flew

Recently I picked up the new book, There Is A God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, by Antony Flew, "with Roy Abraham Varghese" (though I haven't had a chance to read it yet). But you don't need to buy the book to get the gist of its claims. The New York Times Magazine has published an article about Flew and his book.

Mark Oppenheimer writes:

[Flew's] greatest contribution remains his first, a short paper from 1950 called "Theology and Falsification." ... In a masterfully terse thousand words, Flew argues that "God" is too vague a concept to be meaningful. For if God's greatness entails being invisible, intangible and inscrutable, then he can’t be disproved -- but nor can he be proved.

The book offers elegant, user-friendly descriptions of the arguments that persuaded Flew, arguments familiar to anyone who has heard evangelical Christians' "scientific proof" of God. From the "fine tuning" argument that the laws of nature are too perfect to have been accidents to the "intelligent design" argument that human biology cannot be explained by evolution to various computations meant to show that probability favors a divine creator, "There Is a God" is perhaps the handiest primer ever written on the science (many would say pseudoscience) of religious belief.

In other words, Flew converted from a silly form of atheism to a silly form of religion. I mean, anyone who buys the analysist/positivist argument against God deserves to believe the argument from design. By the way, Flew's early essay is also available. (I guess I'm just not sophisticated enough to write a line like the following: "For if the utterance is indeed an assertion, it will necessarily be equivalent to a denial of the negation of the assertion.")

The Godfearers

I had not realized that, by the time of Paul, Judaism had attracted a large Gentile following. Garry Wills writes in What Paul Meant that Paul probably had much success preaching to these "Godfearers."

[They] were inquiring and sympathetic non-Jews welcomed in synagogues... The Romans of the first century were out on quest for spiritual knowledge... [A]mong the exotic beliefs being entertained, the Jews had, for some, a special appeal, based on their monotheism (in a polytheistic world), their purity of life, and their ancient learning. (page 64-5)

Wills cites historian Robert Tannenbaum, who points out that Judaism was "therefore a more powerful rival to Christianity in the race for the Roman world" than used to be assumed. (page 66)

And Gerd Theissen argues (notes Wills):

Christianity... offered them the possibility of acknowledging monotheism and high moral principles and at the same time attaining full religious equality without circumcision, without ritual demands, [etc.]... [T]he Christian mission was luring away the very Gentiles who were Judaism's patrons... (page 67).

This is interesting for two reasons. First, it indicates that Christianity benefitted from the prior appeal of Judaism to a segment of Romans. Second, it reveals additional causes of tension between Jews and Christians.

D'Souza's Unicorn Analogy

Recently I watched part of a recorded debate between Dinesh D'Souza, author of What' So Great About Christianity, and Christopher Hitchens, author of God is Not Great. (I couldn't get the entire debate to download, for some reason.) Obviously, in this post I do not wish to address all or even most of the points raised in the discussion. I wish to address only the following statement by D'Souza:

We're living in a very unusual time in which atheism has emerged as a kind of militant phenomenon. On the face of that, that's a little bit odd. Because if you are an unbeliever, why be militant? I don't believe in unicorns, but I haven't written any books on the subject. I don't spend a lot of time denouncing unicorns; I live my life as if unicorns did not exist. But what we have from the atheist side is a belligerent attack on theism, and specifically on Christianity.

D'Souza should not refer to spirited argument as "militant" or "belligerent." Both of those terms derive from military usage, and both suggest a violent demeanor. Yes, both terms do have secondary meanings that suggest any sort of aggressiveness, and argument can be aggressive. But there is a very big difference between a so-called "militant" atheist who writes a book and a militant atheist who vandalizes a church. Similarly, there is a huge difference between a Christian who argues against abortion and one who murders doctors who perform abortions. I am bothered by the rhetorical blurring of these lines. I suggest that all parties use terms like "militant" and "belligerent" according to their primary usage, and use better-fitted terms to describe speech. For example, a "militant environmentalist" is one who torches buildings or spikes trees, not one who merely writes pamphlets.

But the more important point is D'Souza's use of the unicorn analogy, which is just silly. Of course nobody spends time writing against unicorns, because nobody seriously believes that unicorns exist. On the other hand, most Americans believe that Christianity is true, and that belief profoundly impacts their lives. Moreover, many Christians wish to impose their beliefs on non-Christians. For instance, many Christians want to outlaw all abortions, impose censorship, ban certain types of medical research, spend tax dollars to promote theology, direct U.S. foreign policy according to theological beliefs, and so on. I guarantee that if a unicorn cult advocated similar policies, critics would soon emerge to oppose unicornists, too. Then unicornists would denounce as militant and belligerent the a-unicornists.

Of course, Christians have never shied away from criticizing beliefs that they think are false. Sometimes, Christians have grown militant and belligerent in the literal sense of threatening, harming, torturing, or murdering those with contrary beliefs.

What I like about D'Souza's approach is that he explicitly bases his case for Christianity on reason and evidence. I hope he successfully persuades other Christians to sincerely do likewise.

(Note: after writing the text above, I Googled "D'Souza+unicorns" and discovered that other commentators have made criticisms similar to mine.)

Garry Wills on Paul

I picked up Garry Wills's What Paul Meant at Costco while I was waiting for my glasses to be repaired, and I soon returned to buy the book.

Wills reminds us that Thomas Jefferson regarded Paul as the "first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus" (page 1). But Jefferson was wrong. Wills writes,

But scholarly enquiry has destroyed the idea that the Gospels have a simple biographical basis. They are sophisticated theological constructs, none written by their putative authors, all drawing on second- or third- or fourth-hand accounts -- and all written from a quarter of a century to half a century after Paul's letters. If we want to see what the original Jesus communities looked like, the first and best witness to this is Paul... (pages 9-10)

Wills also calls into question the account of Paul offered in Acts. That book claims that Paul participated in the murder of one Christian, threatened others, and dragged believers "back in chains to Jerusalem." That is highly unlikely, writes Wills (pages 34-5). Paul could not have had the authority to do such things, Wills writes, nor would the local authorities have let him get away with it.

Wills account makes for interesting history. But there is something odd going on here. Wills writes sincerely of Paul's encounter with the risen Jesus; clearly Wills's intent is to show how Christianity properly rests on Pauline doctrine. Yet at the same time, to defend Paul, Wills refutes the historical accuracy of other sections of the Bible. So the riddle is how the Bible is for Christians both inspired by God and filled with human errors and misunderstandings. But that is a riddle that will take me some time to fully answer (from a critical perspective). In the meantime, I may quote a few more interesting passages from Wills's book as I finish reading it.