Politics without God

Crossing Your Fingers with Abstinence-Only Sex Education

2012-05-16T10:00:00.001-06:00

40 Percent of Young Adults Think Birth Control 'Doesn't Matter':

In abstinence-only sex education classes across the country, kids are taught that condoms have a 30 percent failure rate, that the pill causes cancer, and that pregnancy can result from touching another person's genitals -- if the curriculum mentions contraception at all. It's no wonder that many young adults don't understand how birth control works. A new Guttmacher study quizzed 1,241 sexually active young adults between 18 and 29 about contraception, asking them to choose "true" or "false" for basic statements like "all IUDs are banned from use in the United States" or "condoms have an expiration date." More than half of young men and a quarter of young women received a D or F on the quiz. Six in 10 underestimated the effectiveness of oral contraceptives.

Unsurprisingly, the more young people knew about birth control, the less likely they were to have unprotected sex. For each correct response a woman scored on the quiz, her odds of expecting unprotected sex in the next three months decreased by 9 percent. Meanwhile, her chances of using a hormonal or long-acting reversible method of birth control increased by 17 percent.

And it's not as if the ones forgoing contraception are ready to become parents: 69 percent of the women and almost half of the men claimed to be "committed to avoiding pregnancy." A full 40 percent of them agreed that birth control really doesn't matter -- "when it is your time to get pregnant," they agreed, "it will happen." In other words, a significant number of young people's "commitment" to remaining childless involves crossing their fingers, not wearing condoms or swallowing pills.

As discussed in this Salon article -- Why Obama's in bed with abstinence-only education -- the Obama Administration funds ridiculously ill-informed abstinence-only sex education, including the Heritage Keepers Abstinence Education.

The government shouldn't be involved in sex education -- or education -- at all... but given that it does so already, it ought not fund dangerous religious dogma.

North Carolina's Despicable Amendment

2012-05-08T06:00:00.001-06:00

David Deerson writes an excellent blog post on North Carolina's Despicable Amendment -- a.k.a. Amendment 1. The amendment -- up for a vote today (May 8th) -- would declare that “marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.”

David writes:

The amendment isn’t only a strike against gay marriage but also civil unions, regardless of the gender composition of the partners. Depending on the courts interpretation of the language of the amendment, it could:

invalidate domestic violence protections for all unmarried partners;

undercut existing child custody and visitation rights that are designed to protect the best interests of children;

prevent the state from giving committed couples rights to allow them to order their relationships, including threatening their

ability to determine the disposition of their deceased partner’s remains;

make medical decisions if their partner is incapacitated

allow second-parent adoptions in order to ensure that both partners have a legal tie to, and financial responsibilities for, the

children they are raising.

invalidate trusts, wills, and end-of-life directives by one partner in favor of the other.

Apparently, the people who will be voting for this amendment don't even understand its legal implications. But based on recent polling numbers, it seems likely to pass by a wide margin. I'm hoping for an unexpected but stunning defeat.

Dan Savage on the Bible

2012-05-04T10:00:00.000-06:00

Dan Savage has taken a lot of heat for these critical comments on the Bible, but I think he's right. Just as modern Christians ignore the Bible's teachings on shellfish, masturbation, and slavery, they should ignore the Bible's teachings on homosexuality.

Another Cost of Anti-Abortion Laws

2012-05-02T10:00:00.000-06:00

Nebraska Couple Watches Their Baby Die Because of New Law:

Nebraska mother Danielle Deaver, held her brand new, premature baby daughter last December. She watched her struggle to breathe for 15 short minutes, and then die in her arms.

Deaver's water broke late in November, just past 20 weeks' gestation. When she went to the hospital, doctors told her that it was unlikely that her baby would survive, no matter what they did. There was no therapy that would help a baby that young. The doctors explained that the lack of fluid would cause muscle tissues to shorten, affecting the baby's developing lungs. They would likely never develop beyond the 22-week point, and the baby would not be able to breathe.

After a long talk, the Deavers decided that they would like to terminate the pregnancy, rather than waiting for their daughter to be born naturally and suffer. However, in October, Nebraska recently enacted a new, stricter law that prevents abortions after the 20th week of gestation except in very specific situations where the mother's life is immediately in danger. Deaver's situation was outside the law, and there was nothing doctors could do to help her.

Read the rest of the story. Anti-abortion laws always -- always -- inflict unnecessary tragedies on people who desperately want children.

The Daily Show on Personhood

2012-04-30T10:00:00.001-06:00

The Daily Show mocks the "personhood" movement:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Bro-Choice

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

"Can I be tried for past crimes? Because, I have to tell you, I'm like Sperm Hitler."

Man Rapes New Bride with Chloroform

2012-04-27T10:20:00.001-06:00

Man jailed for using chloroform to rape his new bride:

A husband who raped his new wife after knocking her out with chloroform when she refused him sex has been jailed for eight years.

The man, 35, tied her to a bed with a scarf and used the anaesthetic twice during their six-week marriage. His wife, a Bangladeshi immigrant, 23, first turned him down on their wedding night because she was too nervous.

The husband had denied the two rapes in Poplar, East London.

At the Old Bailey, prosecutor Richard Hearnden said: “She says she was forced to marry him. “The period of time between the defendant first meeting her and the marriage ceremony was extremely short.”

Just eight years?!?

The Magic of Personhood

2012-04-25T10:00:00.000-06:00

I got a laugh out of this image demonstrating the creation of a person:

(Via Rational Hub.)

Afgan Schoolgirls Poisoned

2012-04-24T10:00:00.001-06:00

There's a very real war against girls and women going on in Afghanistan:

At least 140 Afghan schoolgirls and female teachers were admitted to a local hospital Tuesday after drinking poisoned water, said local health officials, who blamed the act on extremists opposed to women's education.

The victims range in age from 14 to 30 and were taken to a hospital in Afghanistan's northeastern Takhar province after their school's water tank was contaminated, according to provincial health department director Dr. Hafizullah Safi.

No deaths were reported, but more than half the victims partially lost consciousness, while others suffered dizziness and vomiting

It's not the first time: "In 2010, more than 100 schoolgirls and teachers were sickened in a series of similar poisonings."

How Not To Argue Against Environmentalists

2012-04-18T10:00:00.000-06:00

Pro-tip: Don't attempt to dismiss concerns of environmentalists by claiming that the earth has been around for 6000 years, and that's a long time, so surely this mine won't cause any problems. I kid you not.

The Price of a Secular Society

2012-04-17T10:00:00.000-06:00

I love this quote by John Lewis, from his 2006 post Theocracy and Precedent:

But while explicit calls for socialism remain among only a small group of leftists, our country has nevertheless adopted socialist policies impossible three generations ago. The encroachment of religiously-based laws can accomplish a similar theocratic result in less time, if not opposed in a principled way. Fines against the media for 'indecency,' and 'faith-based' initiatives, are cases in point; all such censorship and religious socialism set precedents for even greater attacks on our freedom in the future. The price of a secular society is eternal vigilance against such laws, and intransigent opposition to the ideas and people that make them possible.

Check out the blog of The Objective Standard here.

Video: Is Public Breastfeeding Indecent?

2012-04-12T12:00:00.000-06:00

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast, I discussed public breastfeeding. The question was:

Is breastfeeding children in public wrong? My wife and I want to have kids, and one question we have concerns public breastfeeding. Is it immodest or improper to breastfeed in public? Should stores permit or forbid it on their premises? Should public breastfeeding be restricted or banned by law as indecent?

My answer, in brief:

People ought to support public breastfeeding, even if they prefer not to look at it. It's not a sexual act, and mothers should be able to feed their babies when they're out and about.

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.

The Disciple

2012-04-10T10:00:00.000-06:00

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.

Video: Outing Anti-Gay Politicians as Gay

2012-04-04T10:00:00.000-06:00

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast, I discussed outing anti-gay politicians as gay. The question was:

Is it wrong to "out" a hypocritical anti-gay public figure who is secretly gay? Some conservative politicians have taken strongly anti-gay positions, but are secretly gay themselves. If one learns of this, is it wrong for gay activists to publicly "out" them? What if they don't engage in public hypocrisy, but are just quietly "in the closet"? Should activists respect their privacy in that case?

My answer, in brief:

People who publicly advocate meddling in other people's private choices should not expect others to respect their private hypocrisy. They should be exposed, as a matter of justice.

Here's the video of my full answer:

Letter and Reply on Abortion Rights

2012-03-23T10:00:00.000-06:00

The latest issue of The Objective Standard was recently posted online. In it, Ari Armstrong and I replied to a letter from Walter Hudson on our essay in defense of abortion rights. Hudson is a writer for PJ Media and the chair of Minnesota's North Star Tea Party Patriots.

For the full story, first read Ari's and my essay: The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties. Then read Hudson's letter and our reply: An Objective Case Against Abortion?

Hudson's letter begins:

The thing I most admire about Objectivism is its uncompromising affirmation of life. No other philosophy I have encountered consistently holds thriving human existence as its chief value. I was therefore disappointed to read Diana Hsieh and Ari Armstrong's argument for an alleged right to terminate the life of the unborn ("The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties," TOS, Winter 2011-2012).

In the interest of full disclosure, I confess that I am a Christian, and thus not an Objectivist. I nonetheless consider myself an advocate of Objectivism's prescriptions for civil society, and I am cognizant of the necessity for objective rational argument in the craft of public policy.

Our reply begins:

Walter Hudson's letter regarding our article neglects our central argument and relies on a faulty theory of rights.

Hudson rightly recognizes that the philosophy we subscribe to, Objectivism, entails an "uncompromising affirmation of life"; however, this must be understood in its proper context. Each individual properly acts to sustain and advance his own life, neither sacrificing himself to others nor others to himself. As concerns pregnancy, the key question is whether an embryo or fetus is a person with the same moral and legal rights as a born infant (in which case abortion is murder) or not (in which case abortion is a woman's right).

Now... go read the whole exchange: An Objective Case Against Abortion?

Islam Makes Women Invisible

2012-03-21T11:15:00.001-06:00

Video: How an Atheist Should Respond to Offers of Prayers

2012-03-15T10:00:00.000-06:00

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast, I discussed offers of prayers for atheists. The question was:

What should I do when other people offer to pray for me? Sometimes my friends and family members offer to pray for me – whether because I've got some problem in my life or because they know that I'm an atheist. How should I respond?

My answer, in brief:

You should tailor your response to the context, but in most cases, you should be clear, firm, and kind in refusing the prayers of others.

Here's the video of my full answer:

Video: Responding to Requests for Prayers

2012-03-05T10:00:00.001-07:00

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast, I discussed requests for prayers. The question was:

What is the proper response of an atheist to requests for prayers? A relative of mine recently had surgery to have his appendix removed. I was asked by another relative to pray for the first relative, even though everyone in my family knows that I don't believe in God or the power of prayer. I tried to let it slide during the conversation, but she was insistent. How should I respond to such requests for prayers, particularly when I don't want to offend anyone or seem unconcerned?

My answer, in brief:

You should tailer your response to the context, but in most cases, you should be clear, firm, and kind in saying that you do not pray.

Here's the video of my full answer:

Sunday Webcast: Requests for Prayers

2012-03-02T13:00:00.000-07:00

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll be answering a question on requests for prayers that might be of interest. The question is:

What is the proper response to requests for prayers? A relative of mine recently had surgery to have his appendix removed. I was asked by another relative to pray for the first relative, even though everyone in my family knows that I don't believe in God or the power of prayer. I tried to let it slide during the conversation, but she was insistent. How should I respond to such requests for prayers, particularly when I don't want to offend anyone or seem unconcerned?

Go to www.PhilosophyInAction.com on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET to watch me answer this question live and join in the text chat. If you're not able to join the live webcast, an audio recording of my answer will be posted in the webcast archives on Sunday afternoon or Monday morning. Be sure to check out the other questions on tap for this week's webcast too.

I'd love to hear your own answer to this question! Please feel free to post it in the comments.

Webcast Video: Consent in Sex

2012-03-02T10:00:00.000-07:00

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast, I discussed consent in sex. The question was:

What constitutes consent in sex? Can a person give tacit consent by his or her actions? Is explicit consent required for some sex acts? Once consent has been given, when and how can a person withdraw that consent? Does the legal perspective on these questions differ from the moral perspective?

My answer, in brief:

To consent to sex requires communicating a willingness engaging in the act, whether by word or deed. Consent can be withdrawn at any point, and for the other person to ignore that constitutes sexual assault.

Here's the video of my full answer:

Warning: This video is loooong at 42 minutes. (It's a new record for me!)

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.

Video: The Meaning of Faith

2012-02-29T10:00:00.000-07:00

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast, I discussed the meaning of faith. The question was:

Is it wrong to use "faith" to mean "trust and confidence in a person"? Some people talk about having "faith" in their friends or in themselves – and by that, they mean that they trust and have confidence in those people. Is it wrong to use "faith" in that way? In other words, blind faith is wrong, but is all faith blind faith?

My answer, in brief:

The term “faith,” when used to refer to trust or confidence in a person, suggests that such is not justified or warranted based on facts. That’s why I avoid the term, and I suggest that others do the same. However, a person is not corrupt for using it.

Here's the video of my full answer:

Sunday Webcast: The Meaning of Faith

2012-02-24T10:00:00.000-07:00

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll be answering a question on the meaning of faith that might be of interest. The question is:

Is it wrong to use "faith" to mean "trust and confidence in a person"? Some people talk about having "faith" in their friends or in themselves – and by that, they mean that they trust and have confidence in those people. Is it wrong to use "faith" in that way? In other words, blind faith is wrong, but is all faith blind faith?

Video: Judging Religions as Better and Worse

2012-02-23T13:00:00.000-07:00

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:

My Body, My Choice

2012-02-08T12:00:00.001-07:00

This is why I take abortion rights so seriously and so personally. If a politician can't understand and respect my right to control my own body, then I can't trust him to respect any of my rights.

For further details, see Ari Armstrong's and my recently-published essay, "The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties.

Rights Are Inalienable But Forfeitable

2012-02-06T10:00:00.000-07:00

In my recent Philosophy in Action Webcast discussion of the death penalty, I mentioned Craig Biddle's discussion of the fact that rights are inalienable but forfeitable. As promised, here's footnote 46 of his excellent essay, Ayn Rand's Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society

... If rights were somehow inherent in man by virtue of his being man, then we could never punish people who violate rights--because using retaliatory force against them would violate the "rights" that they "inherently" have and that they thus always retain by virtue of being human. Because Rand's theory is based on and derived from the observable requirements of man's life, it is not afflicted with contradictions regarding those requirements. On Rand's theory, rights are inalienable, in that others cannot take away or nullify one's rights; but they are also forfeitable, in that one can relinquish one's own rights by violating the rights of others. If and to the extent that a person violates the rights of others, he relinquishes his own rights and may be punished accordingly. His choice to violate rights places him outside the purpose of the principle and thus the scope of its protection. Again, one cannot claim the protection of a principle that one repudiates in action.

If rights were inherent in human nature, based purely on DNA or species-membership, then the advocates of "personhood for zygotes" would be right: the fertilized egg would have a right to life. However, on an objective theory of rights, rights cannot apply until the fetus is biologically separated from the woman. Only then does the fetus -- then a baby -- enter the social context necessary for rights. For further details, see Ari Armstrong's and my recently-published essay, "The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties.

The Gay Lifestyle

2012-02-02T10:00:00.000-07:00

This satire on the "gay lifestyle" is too damn funny. Here's a taste:

I live the gay lifestyle, the gay lifestyle that is often mentioned by some Republican candidates for president. For those who are unfamiliar with the lifestyle, this is a typical day:

7:00 a.m. I wake up, and just as I have done every morning since puberty, I choose to be gay today. This will come as a great relief to my gay, homosexual, male lover who lies beside me. Because being gay is a choice, our relationship is a gamble day to day. Even though we have both chosen to remain gay and to be together every day for the past 16 years, we never take anything for granted. One of us just might throw in the towel one day and give up the lifestyle.

7:30 a.m. I take a gay shower and let the gay water rinse off my gay body.

8:00 a.m. I have a gay breakfast of cereal with milk, and a good, strong, gay cup of coffee. I am fortified for another day of ruining the fabric of American society.

Go read the whole thing!