Ayn Rand As Atheist: Skepticamp Talk

I delivered a twenty-minute talk August 27 at Skepticamp in Colorado Springs titled, "Ayn Rand As Atheist." I open with the American Values Network attack on Ayn Rand for her atheism, then I describe what her atheism actually entails.



Somebody pointed out that I may not set up an early quote about duty well enough; it comes from Rand's Red Pawn (in Early Ayn Rand) and it comes from a character whose views Rand criticizes as typically Communist.

This post originally was published at Ari Armstrong's web page.

Read more...

GOP Gay Disparagement, Like Alcoholism, a Choice

I have already (tentatively) predicted that Obama will win reelection next year, and nothing coming out of the Republican Party causes me to doubt this. (Of course, it is still early, and the economy as well as the Middle East are especially volatile right now.)

Rick Perry, who I figured would rise to front-runner status, has managed to turn the religious right's social agenda into his campaign. Consider this headline from yesterday's Los Angeles Times: "Rick Perry signs anti-abortion pledge." This is the same issue, more than any other, that cost Ken Buck his senate seat last year.

Now a page of Perry's 2008 book causes Perry to follow Buck down another dead-end path: toward comparing homosexuality to alcoholism. Lynn Bartels has the details over at the Denver Post.

There is a difference between the comments of Perry and Buck, though.

In order to establish the full context, I'll quote from Perry's book On My Honor (page 70) more extensively than Bartels does:

Though I am no expert on the "nature versus nurture" debate, I can sympathize with those who believe sexual preference is genetic. It may be so, but it remains unproved. Even if it were, this does not mean we are ultimately not responsible for the active choices we make. Even if an alcoholic is powerless over alcohol once it enters his body, he still makes a choice to drink. And, even if someone is attracted to a person of the same sex, he or she still makes a choice to engage in sexual activity with someone of the same gender.

A loving, tolerant view toward those who have a different sexual preference is the ideal position -- for both the heterosexual and the homosexual. I do not believe in condemning homosexuals that I know personally. I believe in valuing their lives like any others, as our God in heaven does. Tolerance, however, should not only be asked of the proponents of traditional values. The radical homosexual movement seeks societal normalization of their sexual activity. I respect their right to engage in individual behavior of their choosing, but they must respect the right of millions in society to refuse to normalize their behavior.

The key point here that Bartels ignores is that Perry recognizes the political right of consenting adults to engage in homosexual sex. That's centrally important. Secondarily, Perry calls for "valuing" rather than "condemning" homosexuals. That's a good start.

Unfortunately, Perry's position is essentially "love the sinner, hate the sin." In comparing homosexuality to alcoholism and saying it deserves only "toleration" (as opposed to open acceptance), Perry is basically saying there's something wrong with homosexuality. And that position is wrong.

Given that Bartels (and others) have compared Perry's remarks to those of Ken Buck, it is worth returning to Buck's statements on the matter.

Here's what Buck said, extemporaneously, on Meet the Press: "I think that birth has an influence over it [homosexuality], like alcoholism and some other things, but I think that basically, you have a choice." As I have pointed out, Buck's remark is technically correct. It is indisputably true that "birth has an influence" over sexual orientation, but that "you have a choice" about your sexual partners. For example, some heterosexuals have gay sex or remain celibate, and some homosexuals have straight sex.

Buck's problem was two-fold. First, his comparison of homosexuality, something inherently fine, to alcoholism, something inherently bad and destructive, was a bad one. However, again his remark is technically true; there does seem to be an inborn component to alcoholism. Perry's remark is worse because it was written (as opposed to extemporaneous) and because Perry draws a tighter connection (versus Buck's remark about "some other things").

Second, Buck was an idiot for not leading with the story about how, as a prosecutor, he pursued hate-crime charges in a transgender-related crime. So here we had a prosecutor whose record was strongly pro-gay rights, being smeared by his critics and the media as some sort of knuckle-dragging troglotyte. That was very unfair toward Buck, though he's the one who set the tone of the discussion. (Note: I actually disapprove of "hate crime" legislation, because I think all crimes are hate crimes and that harming a heterosexual person is just as bad as harming a homosexual one. Plus I worry about starting down the road to thought crimes. But my motivation is much different from that of the religious right.)

Significantly, Buck quickly clarified: "I wasn't talking about being gay as a disease. I don't think that at all.

We'll see if Perry backtracks along similar lines. But, as a candidate, if you're spending your time backtracking, you're not moving forward.

This article originally was published on Ari Armstrong's blog.

Read more...

Upcoming Webcast Discussion of Circumcision and Religious Freedom

In my next live Rationally Selfish Webcast, I'll be answering a question on whether circumcision violates the rights of the child -- or whether a ban violates the religious freedom of the parents.

The webcast is on Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. You can watch the webcast and join in the text chat via www.RationallySelfish.com. Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers will be my audio co-host, as usual.

Here's the full text of the four questions that I'll answer this week:

• Question 1: The Validity of Introversion and Extroversion: Are "introversion" and "extroversion" valid as psychological types? Sometimes people classify themselves and others as "introverts" and "extroverts." What does that mean? Is the distinction valid and useful? Why or why not?
  
• Question 2: Circumcision and Religious Freedom: Should circumcision be banned? Residents of San Francisco were supposed to vote on a ballot measure that would have banned circumcision, except in cases of medical necessity. (It was stuck from the ballot by a judge due to conflicts with state law.) Since circumcision is an millennia-old religious rite for Jews and regarded as essential to their covenant with God, would a ban on circumcision violate the principle of freedom of religion?
  
• Question 3: Lobbying as a Career: Can lobbying be a proper career choice? Lobbying involves asking for various kind of favors from the government. Is that a profession that someone who values free markets should avoid like the plague?
  
• Question 4: Working for a Statist Company: Is it immoral to work for a company that uses government to eliminate or hamper the competition? For example, if a company has brought antitrust lawsuits against its competitors, should you refuse to work for them?

After that, we'll do a round of totally impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions."

If you can't attend the live webcast, you can listen to these webcasts later as audio-only podcasts by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS feed:

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

However, I hope that you'll join the live webcast, because that's more exciting and lively than the podcast.

You can also review and vote on the the ongoing queue of questions for upcoming shows. Please submit your questions too!

Finally, you can support the Rationally Selfish Webcast (and Podcast) contributing to our tip jar. We suggest $5 per episode or $20 per month, but any amount is appreciated. If you would prefer to send a check, please send it to "Diana Hsieh; P.O. Box 851; Sedalia, CO 80135." Please write "RS Webcast" in the memo field.

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

Read more...

Islam Endorses Sexual Slavery for Girls

New Saudi Fatwa Defends Pedophilia as 'Marriage':

Muslim "child-marriage"--euphemism for pedophilia--is making headlines again, at least in Arabic media: Dr. Salih bin Fawzan, a prominent cleric and member of Saudi Arabia's highest religious council, just issued a fatwa asserting that there is no minimum age for marriage, and that girls can be married "even if they are in the cradle."

Appearing in Saudi papers on July 13, the fatwa complains that "Uninformed interference with Sharia rulings by the press and journalists is on the increase, posing dire consequences to society, including their interference with the question of marriage to small girls who have not reached maturity, and their demand that a minimum age be set for girls to marry."

Fawzan insists that nowhere does Sharia set an age limit for marrying girls: like countless Muslim scholars before him, he relies on Koran 65:4, which discusses marriage to females who have not yet begun menstruating (i.e., are prepubescent) and the fact that Muhammad, Islam's role model, married Aisha when she was 6-years-old, "consummating" the marriage--or, in modern parlance, raping her--when she was 9.

Notably, Fawzan is not saying that sex with a girl is permissible when she reaches sexual maturity. Rather, as he says:

The ulema [Islam's interpreters] have agreed that it is permissible for fathers to marry off their small daughters, even if they are in the cradle. But it is not permissible for their husbands to have sex with them unless they are capable of being placed beneath and bearing the weight of the men. And their capability in this regard varies based on their nature and capacity. Aisha was 6 when she married the prophet, but he had sex with her when she was 9 [i.e., when she was deemed capable].

Basically, a girl just need to be large enough to be under a man without being crushed, and then her husband, a.k.a. the man to whom she was sold into sexual slavery by her father, is entitled to do whatever he pleases with her.

If you can stomach to read about the real-life consequences of these policies for Saudi girls, go read the whole article.

Read more...

Those Tricky Gays

Just check out this dastardly "gay agenda"!

Read more...

Best.Comment.Ever

I've been blogging on NoodleFood and elsewhere for nearly ten years now. In all that time, I've never gotten as wildly inane a comment as this one on my CSG post on the efforts to impose anti-abortion "personhood" laws on Mississippi. The comment is from "Carol Arens532." Brace yourself:

Think about it before abortion was made legal, the abortionist had to worry about maternal deaths from abortion, simply because these could very easily lead to an investigation by the FBI, after all if you are going to break the law the last thing that you would want to do is leave behind evidence of your illegal activity so that there can be an investigation. Thus before Roe vs Wade should a pregnant woman be seriously injured from an illegal abortion, she would be brought to a hospital and should she die there, there would be an oddtopisy done to determine the cause of death, the medical personal of the hospital would then be required to report this to the police clearly letting them know that someone is breaking the law, and initiate an investigation. Now however that abortion is legal the abortion can botch as many abortion as he wants without having to worry about there being an investigation, infact he can have a number of women die from abortion at his facility and never have to worry about the police or the FBI investigating his activity. It sure is good to think that the state of Mississippi thinks that it's women and children are worth protecting from this. Sincerely Carol

When I posted it to Facebook and Twitter, many people noted that they hoped that they'd never have to have an "oddtopisy." But my favorite comment was posted by Roberto Sarrionandia to Facebook.

This is hilarious. Presumably the same thing is true for all surgery. Paul can get away with strangling his patients, because radiography is legal and thus the authorities aren't concerned with investigating it.

Similarly, when people are stabbed, nobody bothers investigating because knives are legal.

Exactly!

Read more...

Criminalizing Miscarriage

Outcry in America as pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges:

Rennie Gibbs is accused of murder, but the crime she is alleged to have committed does not sound like an ordinary killing. Yet she faces life in prison in Mississippi over the death of her unborn child.

Gibbs became pregnant aged 15, but lost the baby in December 2006 in a stillbirth when she was 36 weeks into the pregnancy. When prosecutors discovered that she had a cocaine habit – though there is no evidence that drug abuse had anything to do with the baby's death – they charged her with the "depraved-heart murder" of her child, which carries a mandatory life sentence.

Gibbs is the first woman in Mississippi to be charged with murder relating to the loss of her unborn baby. But her case is by no means isolated. Across the US more and more prosecutions are being brought that seek to turn pregnant women into criminals.

The article reports on some other cases -- including a woman being prosecuted for killing her fetus when she attempted to commit suicide -- and then reports:

Women's rights campaigners see the creeping criminalisation of pregnant women as a new front in the culture wars over abortion, in which conservative prosecutors are chipping away at hard-won freedoms by stretching protection laws to include foetuses, in some cases from the day of conception.

Exactly.

Read more...

Evolutionary Theory: Fact Versus Faith

Should evolution be taught in schools? I can't help but laugh as these Miss USA contestants answer that question... but then I want to cry.



Evolutionary theory is the integrating theory of biology. As such, it should be a major part of middle and high school biology. Alas, it's not, and the result is the widespread acceptance of blatantly faith-based views like those expressed in this video.

When I taught introductory philosophy at the University of Colorado at Boulder, I'd spend a day discussing evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory explains the supposedly mysterious order and complexity of living beings cited by Paley's analogical argument for God's existence via purely natural law. Hence, the existence of a divine designer cannot be inferred from the complexity and order of life.

Before starting that class, I'd ask my students whether they'd studied evolutionary theory before. Only about two-thirds of them had done so. That was bad enough, but even worse, most of those students were utterly confused about evolutionary theory, usually thinking it to be nothing more than sheer random variation.

When young people aren't taught the basic facts of biology, is it any wonder that they default to religious superstition and myth?

Read more...

Regulating Abortion Providers to Death

The New York Times reports on new Kansas laws that will regulate abortion clinics to death:

OVERLAND PARK, Kan. -- One in a series of abortion limits approved in Kansas since Republicans took full control of the state government this year -- a new license law -- is raising uncertainty about the future of all abortion providers in the state.

Opponents of abortion say that the licenses -- which newly dictate requirements for the size of rooms at abortion clinics, the stocking of emergency equipment, medications and blood supplies, and ties to nearby hospitals -- will ensure at least a modicum of safety standards in a state that Troy Newman, the leader of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, said "had been the Wild West for abortionists for as long as anyone can remember."

But abortion rights supporters, here and nationally, say the rules, which take effect next week, are onerous, have been rushed into place too rapidly and are actually aimed at ending abortion services at the only three places in the state now providing them, perhaps as early as Friday.

"These requirements range from the impossible to the absurd," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights. "They're not designed to protect patient safety; they're designed to shut down abortion providers."

Unfortunately, supporters of abortion rights are learning just how dangerous the regulatory state is to individual rights.

Read more...

Religion in Harry Potter

Ari Armstrong recently published Religion in Harry Potter: Do J. K. Rowling's novels promote religion or undermine it? in ESkeptic. The article begins...

Given the runaway popularity of J. K. Rowling's novels and the related films, readers of the works, parents of readers, and those interested in cultural trends may wonder about the religious themes of the stories. Do the novels promote sorcery, as some conservative Christians allege? Do they instead endorse Christian notions of immortality, recapitulate the story of Christ's sacrificial love, and promote religious faith? Or is it a mistake to read any religious theme into these fantasy stories?

... and Ari does a great job of answering those questions. Go check it out!

Read more...

The Pope and Harry Potter

Did Joseph Ratzinger condemn the Harry Potter novels before he became Pope?

In my book Values of Harry Potter, I write on page 10: "Before he became Pope, Joseph Ratzinger warned Catholics to beware the books' 'subtle seductions,' according to Catholic News Service." My source is a January 15, 2008, story by Cindy Wooden titled, "Writers in Vatican newspaper debate lessons of Harry Potter novels."

In my article published just yesterday by eSkeptic, "Religion in Harry Potter," I use a different source to make the same point. I write, "Before he became Pope, Joseph Ratzinger said the books threaten to 'corrupt the Christian faith'..." For this I use a January 16, 2008, article by Katherine Phan of Christianity Today, "Vatican slams Harry Potter as 'wrong kind of hero.'"

However, in his 2008 book How Harry Cast His Spell -- which I also cite in my eSkeptic piece -- John Granger claims the story about Ratzinger is false (see pages 266-67). Is it true that "Pope Benedict XVI has condemned Harry Potter," Granger asks? He writes that LifeSiteNews "started this absurd Skeeter effect that won't go away." (Rita Skeeter is the corrupt and deeply dishonest journalist in the Potter series.) To Granger, claims that Ratzinger "commented on [the Potter novels] critically" is "laughable."

Granger writes, "[A]n article in the Catholic News Service the week the LifeSiteNews post was made... denied the Pope had taken a position on the matter." Granger continues, "The Harry Potter books... have not been opposed, condemned, or criticized by any agency or person of authority in the Vatican... The Pope certainly hasn't spoken on the subject. ... The Pope doesn't oppose Harry Potter."

However, while Granger accuses LifeSiteNews of bogus Rita Skeeter-like journalism, in fact it is Granger who is distorting the record.

The LifeSiteNews article of July 13, 2005, "Pope Opposes Harry Potter Novels" (which was apparently updated at some point) includes a translated transcript of Ratzinger's letter. (Granger suggests the letter may have been written by "a page in [Ratzinger's] office," but regardless the note carries Ratzinger's name.)

The web page makes available a scanned copy of the letter. It is written on the letterhead of "Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger" and dated March 7, 2003. While English translations may vary, the letter clearly talks about the possible "subtle seduction" ("subtile Verführengen") of the novels. The letter also talks about corrupting the soul ("das Christentum in der Seele zersetzen").

Is Granger correct that another article "denied the Pope had taken a position on the matter?" No.

It turns out that Cindy Wooden also wrote the July 14, 2005, article for Catholic News Service, "New attention given to 2003 Cardinal Ratzinger letter on Harry Potter." Here is what Wooden writes:

In the cardinal's letter, excerpted on [recipient Gabriele] Kuby's Web site and published widely since late June, he praised the author's attempt to 'enlighten people about Harry Potter' and the possible 'subtle seductions' that can distort children's thinking before they mature in the Christian faith.

Contrary to Granger's suggestion, the article does not deny that Ratzinger took a position on the Potter novels. Instead, Wooden writes:

Although the Vatican press office July 14 said it would have no comment on the letter since Pope Benedict XVI and his secretary were on vacation in the northern Italian Alps, a former Vatican official said Harry Potter books must be read as children's literature, not theology.

Granger seems to be playing something of a game here. He says "the Pope" has not taken a position on the Potter novels, but that doesn't change the fact that Ratzinger in fact took a critical position, before he became Pope. And that remains the interesting point.

(This article originally was published on Ari Armstrong's blog.)

Read more...

Doonesbury on Creationism

I'm not a Doonesbury reader, but the July 10th strip on teaching creationism was just too perfect to ignore.

Also, be sure to check out this classic strip from 2005 on the real-life implications of creationism.

Read more...

Michelle Bachmann, Theocrat

I refuse to vote for politicians whose votes are determined by prayer. I'm looking at you, Michelle Bachmann!

She's speaking about the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that denying marriage rights to same-sex couples violated the state constitution. Here's the transcript:

When that happened, I heard the news on my local Christian radio station in Minneapolis, St. Paul and I was devastated. And I took a walk and I just went to prayer and I said Lord, what would you have me do in the Minnesota state senate? And just through prayer I knew that I was to introduce the marriage amendment in Minnesota.

While we're here, don't forget about the varieties of marriage that God sanctions in His Holy Scriptures. (Click to read the fabulous details!)



Maybe, Michelle, if you pray real hard, God will make you some powerful man's concubine! Alas, that's one of the better alternatives.

Read more...

Judge Orders God To Break Up Into Smaller Deities

Finally, an antitrust action that I can support! Judge Orders God To Break Up Into Smaller Deities:

Calling the theological giant's stranglehold on the religion industry "blatantly anti-competitive," a U.S. district judge ruled Monday that God is in violation of anti-monopoly laws and ordered Him to be broken up into several less powerful deities.

"The evidence introduced in this trial has convinced me that the deity known as God has willfully and actively thwarted competition from other deities and demigods, promoting His worship with such unfair scare tactics as threatening non-believers with eternal damnation," wrote District Judge Charles Elliot Schofield in his decision. "In the process, He has carved out for Himself an illegal monotheopoly."

The suit, brought against God by the Justice Department on behalf of a coalition of "lesser deities" and polytheistic mortals, alleged that He violated antitrust laws by claiming in the Holy Bible that He was the sole creator of the universe, and by strictly prohibiting the worship of what He termed "false idols."

"God clearly commands that there shall be no other gods before Him, and He frequently employs the phrase 'I AM the Lord' to intimidate potential deserters," prosecuting attorney Geoffrey Albert said. "God uses other questionable strongarm tactics to secure and maintain humanity's devotion, demanding, among other things, that people sanctify their firstborn to Him and obtain circumcisions as a show of faith. There have also been documented examples of Him smiting those caught worshipping graven images."

Attorneys for God did not deny such charges. They did, however, note that God offers followers "unbeatable incentives" in return for their loyalty, including eternal salvation, protection from harm, and "fruitfulness."

Go read the whole thing... from The Onion, of course.

Apparently, order was issued back in 2002, and obviously, God hasn't complied with it yet. Maybe he's in appeals court?

Read more...

Video: Hooray for Gay Sex and Gay Marriage

In Sunday's Rationally Selfish Webcast, I discussed the morality of homosexuality and gay sex in my experimental "rapid fire questions" segment. (That segment was fun!) Here's the short video, now posted to YouTube:

Read more...