Defending Abortion Rights: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on defending abortion rights. The question was:

How can abortion rights be more effectively defended? Although the biblical case against abortion is weak, the religious right has gained much traction against abortion rights in the last decade or two. The "personhood" movement is growing every year, and incremental restrictions on abortion have mushroomed. Even more alarming, the demographics seem to be against abortion rights: young people are increasingly opposed to abortion. What can be done to more effectively defend abortion rights? Can any lessons be drawn from the success of the campaign for gay marriage?

My Answer, In Brief: The advocates of abortion bans are largely motivated by the divine command, "Thou Shalt Not Kill," which is then often cast in the language of the "right to life." To combat that, those people need to be confronted with the reality of what abortion bans mean to women and couples.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 29:00
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Abortion, Communication, Conservatism, Ethics, Politics, Pregnancy, Rights

Links:

• The "Personhood" Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh
• The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, being virtuous but not happy, defending abortion rights, and more – is available here: Episode of 20 April 2014.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Concern for the Rights of Rights-Violators: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on concern for the rights of rights-violators. The question was:

Is it wrong to be indifferent to the rights-violations of people who advocate rights-violations? Some celebrities actively promote the violation of rights by lending their support to political groups. For example, former American Idol contestant Krista Branch has actively campaigned against gay marriage on behalf of Focus on the Family. However, in a recent interview, Branch complained that people were pirating her songs. I know that Branch's intellectual property rights should be respected, and I would never pirate her music. Yet I can't feel any sympathy for her, given that she advocates violating other people's rights. I'm of the opinion that people who advocate for the use of force against others should not be spared from the consequences of the kind of culture that creates. Is that wrong? Am I being malevolent? Should I defend her rights, even though she advocates violating my rights?

My Answer, In Brief: Even the rights of people who advocate rights-violations should be respected, but rational people should crusade for the principle and innocent people being harmed by rights-violations, not for those mixed cases.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 11:37
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Activism, Celebrities, Judgment, Justice, Moral Wrongs, Politics, Rights
To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on personality and sense of life, helping a self-destructive friend, concern for the rights of rights-violators, and more – is available here: Episode of 5 May 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

God, Tips, and Privacy

Back in January, the internet was agog over the report that a pastor objected to the 18% gratuity added to her bill for being part of a large party by writing on the receipt, "I give God 10% why do you get 18?"



The proper answer, of course, is provided by Grumpy Cat:



Your waitress offers you a genuine service, in exchange for your tip... God, not so much.

However, what I find particularly interesting about the story from an ethical perspective lie in the details of what happened at the restaurant and afterwards.

[Chelsea Welch's co-worker [at an Applebee's in the St. Louis area] had waited on a large party hosted by Pastor Alois Bell of the World Deliverance Ministries Church in Granite City, Ill. As is common at many restaurants, an 18 percent tip was automatically added to the bill.

Pastor Bell crossed out the automatic tip and wrote "0" on the receipt, along with this message: "I give God 10% why do you get 18?"

Welch, who did not wait on Pastor Bell's table took a photo of the bill and uploaded it to Reddit where it soon went viral. "I thought the note was insulting, but it was also comical," Welch told TheConsumerist. "I posted it to Reddit because I thought other users would find it entertaining."

Bell, who did not see the humor in this, complained to the restaurant's manager. Bell told The Smoking Gun she did not expect her signature to be all over the Internet.

Applebee's confirms that Welch was fired. In a statement, the company says:

"Our Guests' personal information - including their meal check - is private, and neither Applebee's nor its franchisees have a right to share this information publicly. We value our Guests' trust above all else. Our franchisee has apologized to the Guest and has taken disciplinary action with the Team Member for violating their Guest's right to privacy. This individual is no longer employed by the franchisee."

Pastor Bell told The Smoking Gun she is sorry for what happened and points out that she left a $6.29 cash tip on the table.

"My heart is really broken," she told them. "I've brought embarrassment to my church and my ministry."

As this story makes clear, the waitress didn't intend for anyone to be able to identify the pastor in question, and she took measures to prevent that identification. Alas, the power of the internet was too great. Also, the waitress reports that the pastor "contacted her Applebee's location, demanding that everyone be fired, from the servers involved to the managers." (That's a quote from the article, not from the waitress.)

On the one hand, I understand why Applebee's fired the server who posted the receipt. The restaurant wants its customers to feel secure in their privacy while on premises, particularly in their dealings with their employees, particularly in their financial transactions.

Nonetheless, in this age of social media, people's expectations of privacy must change... or they will get burned. If you're in public, your antics might be broadcast far and wide across the internet for other people's amusement. Then, if you act petulant and bossy about that, as this pastor seemed to do, you'll be lambasted even more.

Ultimately, a person needs to be responsible for his own privacy. That requires thinking in advance about what he wishes to keep private or not. That requires attention to what he says and does in view or earshot of other people. That requires being selective about what emails or posts online. That requires providing appropriate context for public actions if he wants to avoid being misjudged.

A rational person does not broadcast his private activities to the world, then blame others for taking notice.

Read more...

Bart Ehrman in Colorado Springs on Thursday

Bart Ehrman, the fabulous scholar of early Christian history, will be speaking in Colorado Springs on Thursday. I'll be there!

• Who: Bart D. Ehrman
• What: Lecture on "Misquoting Jesus"
• When: Thursday, April 11, 2013, 7:00 PM
• Where: Armstrong Theater, Colorado College

The address is 14 E Cache la Poudre St, Colorado Springs, Colorado. It's free and open to the public.

Dr. Ehrman is the author of a slew of books, as well as some of the finest courses available from The Teaching Company. The lecture looks like it will be based on his book by the same title, Misquoting Jesus.

Read more...

Being an Atheist in a Religious School: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on being an atheist in a religious school. The question was:

How can an atheist teenager maintain his integrity in a religious school? A few years ago, I read Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged" for the first time. After a year of struggling between faith and reason, I chose reason. Unfortunately, I am a teenager, and I am forced to attend church and a religious school. For a time, I was fine coexisting with religious people. However, in the next academic year, I will have to take a class entitled "Christian Apologetics" in which I will have to pretend to be a Christian theologian. Now my integrity is at stake. How should I confront my religious family about my atheism? How can I persuade them to enroll me a different school?

My Answer, In Brief: The student should talk to his parents, and then to his teacher, about what's required in the class and whether he can write papers that reflect his actual beliefs.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 15:14
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Academics, Atheism, Children, Communication, Education, Ethics, Integrity, Parenting, Religion
To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on the value of happiness, being an atheist in a religious school, privacy from government intrusion, the wrong of incest between consenting adults, and more – is available here: Episode of 3 March 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Being an Atheist in a Religious School: Sunday on Philosophy in Action Radio

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on the value of happiness, being an atheist in a religious school, the value of privacy, incest between adults, and more.

I thought that the question on being an atheist in a religious school might be of particular interest That question is:

How can an atheist teenager maintain his integrity in a religious school? A few years ago, I read Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged" for the first time. After a year of struggling between faith and reason, I chose reason. Unfortunately, I am a teenager, and I am forced to attend church and a religious school. For a time, I was fine coexisting with religious people. However, in the next academic year, I will have to take a class entitled "Christian Apologetics" in which I will have to pretend to be a Christian theologian. Now my integrity is at stake. How should I confront my religious family about my atheism? How can I persuade them to enroll me a different school?

This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 3 March 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later.

To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat.

If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Q&A: The Value of Happiness, Atheist Student, Privacy and More. It will be posted on Monday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

I hope you join us on Sunday morning!

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

The Christian Conservative Echo Chamber

In his recent article, Why I'm Canceling my SI Subscription, Andrew Klavan is up in arms about the supposedly hostile leftism of culture -- Sports Illustrated in particular. It begins:

I am going to let my subscription to Sports Illustrated lapse when it runs out this year. I hope lots of other people will do the same. Like too many other publications, the magazine has become dishonest, dishonorable and even occasionally despicable in its conformist, lockstep left-wing bias. Republican politicians and conservative positions are routinely insulted in articles having nothing to do with either. Yawn-inducing left wing predictability is brought to the discussion of every issue. No SI writer is allowed to disagree with leftism ever. Despite its great photographs and occasionally good athlete profiles, the magazine has remade itself into crap in the name of political conformity.

For me, the Super Bowl issue with its smarmy and poorly reported article on religion in football was the last straw. The article was not an offense to God, it was an offense to journalism. Mark Oppenheimer, a left wing anti-religion writer for the left wing New York Times, among other left wing venues, does the left wing hit job on football players of faith. ...

Despite all that overblown rhetoric, he cites just one one example from the article. Here is the offending quote:

It's clear that for a substantial number of athletes and coaches, there is no tension between being a Christian and being an aggressive athlete. On the contrary, many of them argue that football builds character and thereby makes a man more of a Christian -- a commingling of faith and football now accepted by fans.

But is that a mistake? Just 50 years ago such coziness between public Christianity and football would have seemed absurd. Athletes were nobody's idea of good ambassadors for religion; they were more likely to be seen as dissolute drinkers and womanizers -- more the roguish Joe Namath than the devout Roger Staubach.The aggressive, violent play preached by coaches of an earlier generation was accepted as natural precisely because sport was pagan, not Christian. Christianity was peaceful, charitable and pious. Sport was bloody, ruthless, impious.

In the 1950s and 60s that antagonism began to soften..."

That's it. Not only does that example not support Klavan's hyperventiliating about left-wing bias, but it also equates public expressions of Christianity by private individuals with conservativism, such that any skepticism about that is nothing but left-wing bias. In fact, (1) most political leftists are Christians, and (2) many devout Christians are uncomfortable with the loud expressions of faith often heard from football players.

Are conservative Christians unaware of just how silly this makes them look to anyone outside their echo chamber?

Alas, I think not. Lord have mercy on us!

Read more...

Lies Straight from the Pit of Hell

Wow: U.S. House science committee member calls evolution, Big Bang theory 'lies straight from the pit of hell':

Georgia Rep. Paul Broun said in videotaped remarks that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell" meant to convince people that they do not need a savior.

The Republican lawmaker made those comments during a speech Sept. 27 at a sportsman's banquet at Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell.

Broun, a medical doctor, is running for re-election in November unopposed by Democrats. He sits on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

"God's word is true," Broun said, according to a video posted on the church's website. "I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior."

Broun also said that he believes the Earth is about 9,000 years old and that it was made in six days. Those beliefs are held by fundamentalist Christians who believe the creation accounts in the Bible to be literally true.

It's not surprising that this [unprintable term] is a politician, but it's scary that he's a doctor.

Read more...

Mississippi's Legislator Calls for Death for Gays

Andy Gipson, Mississippi Lawmaker, Won't Apologize For Citing Bible Passage Calling For Gays' Death:

The Mississippi state lawmaker who cited a Bible passage on Facebook calling for gay men to be "put to death" has taken to the social networking site again to refuse to apologize for the remark.

Rep. Andy Gipson (R-Braxton) went on Facebook Friday to say that although he has been receiving emails and calls from around the country about his citation of Leviticus 20:13, as well as Romans 1:26-28, in a May 10 Facebook post on President Barack Obama's endorsement of gay marriage, he will not say he's sorry. The emails have come in response to a petition calling on the lawmaker to issue an apology and to meet with LGBT groups in Mississippi.

"To be clear, I want the world to know that I do not, cannot, and will not apologize for the inspired truth of God's Word. It is one thing that will never 'change,'" Gipson wrote. "Anyone who knows me knows I also believe that all people are created in God's image, and that all people are loved by God, so much so that He gave us the truth of His Word which convicts us of the reality and guilt of our sin, and He gave us His Son Jesus who paid the full penalty for all our sins, by His grace through our faith in Him as we repent of our sin. John 3:16. It is this message that I preach every Sunday. I sincerely pray God will reach someone through this message."

What passage from the Bible did he cite?

The passage from Leviticus that Gipson first cited reads: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Most Christians draw selectively from their "Old Testament," either ignoring or embracing its barbaric condemnations of homosexuality as they please. Of course, they have a right to believe whatever wacky claims they please, however immoral and indefensible. What's not right -- and not acceptable in a free society -- is attempting to give those religious commands force of law.

Read more...

Ten Commandments, in Law

Christians often claim that the Ten Commandments are the basis of our legal system -- as if without the Hebrew Bible, no one ever would have known that murder, theft, and perjury were wrong. Oh, and let's just forget the commandments that Christians ignore, such as keeping the sabbath and the prohibition on graven images.

Hence, I loved this humorous take on a legal system truly based on the Ten Commandments:



(Alas, I don't know the cartoonist. I searched, but I couldn't find the original.)

Update: Thanks to Robert, the author is Dana Claire Simpson of InkAndWhiteSpace.com.

Read more...

Morality without God: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Wednesday, 13 June 2012, I broadcast a new episode of Philosophy in Action Radio on "Morality without God" with live callers.

If you missed the live broadcast, you can listen to the audio podcast. You'll find that posted below, as well as on this episode's archive page: Advice Radio: 13 June 2012.

Philosophy in Action Radio: Episode: 13 June 2012

Listen or Download:

• Duration: 32:32


• Download: Standard MP3 File (7.5 MB)

To automatically download every new episode, just subscribe to the Philosophy in Action Podcast RSS Feed in your music player:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader
  
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader

Follow Philosophy in Action

        

Read more...

Jesus, Prankster

These pranks by Jesus are downright hilarious:



I'm so glad to live in a culture in which people don't believe that the prankster is actually Jesus or some other miracle-worker! (Well... some poor souls do seem to experience a few moments of awe.)

Read more...

John Hagee: Atheists Should Leave the US

Pastor John Hagee is no friend of the separation of church and state:



As it happens, I discussed whether the United States is a Christian nation in a recent Philosophy in Action Radio Show. It's Question 4 of the 3 June 2012 Q&A. The question was:

Is the United States a Christian nation? People often claim that the United States is "a Christian nation." What do people mean by that? Why does it matter? Is it true or not?

Listen Now

You can also download the MP3 Segment. It's just over 14 minutes long.

Read more...

So Much Wrong in So Few Words

This World Net Daily article -- Evolution to Fall in 2012? -- is so much wrong in so few words that my head nearly exploded on reading it. For instance, the article...

• Confuses American public opinion with science.
  
• Cites a Gallup poll on evolution versus creationism that assumes God's existence.
  
• Uses Google search trends as evidence of popular opinion, even though they can't be validly used that way.
  
• Laudes the increase in young-earth creationists, while criticizing evolutionary theory for its lack of scientific basis.
  
• Flatly lies about the scientific evidence that proves evolutionary theory.
  
• Confuses evolutionary theory with mere randomness.

It's a creationist train wreck, from beginning to end... and a good reminder of the scientific disaster that is the religious right.

Read more...

Fight Church

I must admit, I'm a bit alarmed by any pairing of Christianity and violence. However, this Fight Church Trailer is so strange as to be funny:



Yes, it's real, not satire. See the Kickstarter project and this USA Today article.

Read more...

The Disciple

Lately, I've been re-reading the Greek Bible (a.k.a. "The New Testament") while listening to Prof. Luke Timothy Johnson's lecture course, Jesus and the Gospels. Johnson is a believer, unlike Bart Ehrman. But he's a scholarly, thinking Roman Catholic -- not a knee-jerk Biblical literalist. So I'm enjoying the course far more than expected.

When William Stoddard recommended the poem "The Disciple" by Rudyard Kipling on another comment thread, I was intrigued! Better yet, I was not disappointed on reading the poem.

The Disciple
Rudyard Kipling

He that hath a Gospel
To loose upon Mankind,
Though he serve it utterly--
Body, soul and mind--
Though he go to Calvary
Daily for its gain--
It is His Disciple
Shall make his labour vain.

He that hath a Gospel
For all earth to own--
Though he etch it on the steel,
Or carve it on the stone--
Not to be misdoubted
Through the after-days--
It is His Disciple
Shall read it many ways.

It is His Disciple
(Ere Those Bones are dust )
Who shall change the Charter,
Who shall split the Trust--
Amplify distinctions,
Rationalize the Claim;
Preaching that the Master
Would have done the same.

It is His Disciple
Who shall tell us how
Much the Master would have scrapped
Had he lived till now--
What he would have modified
Of what he said before.
It is His Disciple
Shall do this and more....

He that hath a Gospel
Whereby Heaven is won
( Carpenter, or cameleer,
Or Maya's dreaming son ),
Many swords shell pierce Him,
Mingling blood with gall;
But His Own Disciple
Shall wound Him worst of all!

In the years that I've been studying the history and texts of early Christianity, I've grown to love and appreciate the Gospels as literature. They're rich, complex, and philosophical. I've also developed some sympathy for Jesus -- as much as I disagree with every bit of his preaching -- because his message was so quickly and wildly distorted by his followers. To use Bart Ehrman's language, there's a gap between the religion proclaimed by Jesus and the religion about Jesus. And it's huge.

Read more...

Video: Judging Religions as Better and Worse

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast, I discussed judging religions as better and worse. The question was:

Are some religions better than others? Do certain religions encourage rationality more than others? Do some promote better moral systems than others? I am curious both about different forms of Christianity (Catholic, Protestant, Unitarian, Mormon, etc.), as well as other religions (Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Baha'i, etc.). Should rational atheists respect followers of certain religions more than others?

My answer, in brief:

Religions are better or worse in their core doctrines and in their effects on a culture. However, due to the complexity of religions – not merely as ideologies but also as a cultural movements – they can't be easily judged as better or worse. Also, just because a person claims to be an adherent of a given religion doesn't tell much about what he believes or practices, nor whether they are honest.

Here's the video of my full answer:

If you enjoy the video, please "like" it on YouTube and share it with friends via social media, forums, and e-mail! You can also throw a bit of extra love in our tip jar.

Join the next Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live.

In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode, and our my YouTube channel. And go to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes.

Read more...

Is Criticism of Islam Racist? Are Most Muslims Peaceful?

In the Facebook Group for Front Range Objectivism, a reasonable person posted the following remarks:

Fabulous discussion last night [at an event where some Front Range Objectivists spoke]. However, I was truly disturbed to meet some among us, who are influential in the Objectivist community, who express prejudice against Muslims in general. I was hoping this kind of racism was going away, but it appears to be alive and well. We alienate reasonable people who might otherwise ally themselves with us when we make statements about all Muslims being terrorists. Yes, there are Muslims who are subversive terrorists. Unfortunately we have one in the White House right now. But we don't do ourselves any favors by stating that the Koran itself promotes terrorism, and that anyone who is a Muslim wants the world to be run by Sharia law. If you look carefully at the Bible, there are lots of dated and outrageous statements which no good Christian would incorporate into their lives today.

I have been fortunate to have many Pakistani Muslim friends, who are American citizens, who are patriots. Most if them are conservatives, too, and quite closely aligned with the Objectivist philosophy. They are disturbed and alienated by the kind of prejudice I heard last night. And they are voting with their votes and their substantial campaign donations. So am I.

Those themes are common, and I wanted to lay out my own view. So here's my reply, slightly edited. I could have done better, rhetorically speaking. Still, I think that I articulated my own position reasonably well.

Islam is a chosen religion, not a race. So it's not "racism" to criticize Islam or Muslims, any more than it's racism to criticize Christianity or to regard theocratic Christians as a major threat to liberty in the America. It's not proper to discriminate based on race, because race is unchosen, and has nothing to do with moral character. Religion is chosen, and has a huge impact on a person's character, values, and actions. A person should be judged for his chosen religion, not given a free pass.

As for how many Muslims are jihadists -- or support that -- that's another question. Given that Muslim violence against "the infidel" and others is not strongly and loudly condemned by Muslims in the US (and elsewhere), but instead often excused, condoned, and urged on, I can only regard most Muslims as either active or passive supporters of violent jihad. In contrast, that's not true of Christians in America. While the political views of most Americans are influenced (for the worse) by Christianity, most American Christians oppose attempts to impose sectarian dogmas by law, and they deplore violence. That's because Christianity, unlike Islam, has been tempered by the Enlightenment. (Alas, that's disappearing slowly...)

Muslims opposed to violent jihad are disobeying the explicit commands of their religion. If that's their true view, however, then they ought to stand up and say that, particularly given the barbaric acts of their fellow adherents. But they're almost entirely silent. Hence, the rest of us are entitled to assume that they really don't have a huge problem with fellow Muslims blowing up Jewish children, murdering daughters for being too western, executing gays, stoning rape victims, killing apostates, and so on.

Of course, if you know particular Muslims who support American values... that's AWESOME. However, just as with Christians, those Muslims ought to abandon their religious beliefs, because they're wholly incompatible with any concern or respect for individual rights.

Read more...

The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties

Last week, Ari Armstrong's and my new paper on abortion rights -- The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties -- was published in the The Objective Standard. Happily, our article is available for free to everyone.

Here's the opening paragraph:

In recent years, antiabortion activists have stepped up their attacks on a woman's right to abortion and have achieved a series of victories in their efforts to outlaw the procedure. This increasing assault poses a major threat not only to women's right to abortion, but, more broadly, to individual rights as such. Rights form a logical unity, and to the extent that any are threatened, all are threatened. The antiabortionists' war on a woman's right to her body is ultimately a war on all our rights, including our rights to property, free trade, and freedom of speech. To demonstrate this, we will briefly survey the goals, methods, successes, and rationale of today's antiabortion movement; we will then turn to the reasons women seek abortions, to the nature of rights and the positive case for a woman's right to abortion, and finally to the reasons why any restriction on abortion rights necessarily clears the way for violations of other rights.

If you like the article, please share it with friends and fellow activists. Given that conservatives tend to be hostile to abortion rights -- or at least squishy about them -- we think that our article is one that desperately needs to be circulated in free-market and tea-party circles.

Again, you can read the whole article here: The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties.

Read more...

Christmas Holiday Snark

A bit of snark posted to CSG's Facebook Page:

Undoubtedly, Christmas is a religious holiday. The Bible says that Jesus was born on December 25th, and that we should celebrate his birth by decorating a fir tree and telling stories of a jolly fat man in a red suit who gives toys to all the good girls and boys. Go see for yourself! It's in Santa 5:14.

Go here for a bit of Christmas history.

Read more...