Morality, Religion & Philosophy: November 2003 Archives

I've seen the question tossed around before, and James Taranto says the following, in the context of quoting President Bush:

Last week in Britain, a reporter asked President Bush if "Muslims worship the same Almighty" that he does. Bush replied: "I do say that freedom is the Almighty's gift to every person. I also condition it by saying freedom is not America's gift to the world. It's much greater than that, of course. And I believe we worship the same god." The Washington Post reports that the president's ecumenism prompted a kerfuffle among evangelical Christians. ...

Bush is right. Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all monotheistic religions, united in the belief in a single God. (Muslims often call God by the Arab name Allah, but then so do Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews.) The three religions conceive of God differently, and Muslims and Jews do not share the Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ. A Christian may well believe that Islam's conception of God is wrong, but if you believe in only one God, it makes no logical sense to describe a fellow monotheist as worshipping a "different" God.

To an unbeliever, that may be a perfectly satisfactory answer -- since he wouldn't believe in any God, the details are inconsequential. It's true that as a monotheist I believe there is only one God, but it doesn't follow that anyone else who is also a monotheist worships the same God I do; the alternative is that they don't worship God at all, but rather a construct of their own imagination. For example, someone who woships a rock or a tree and claims it is the one and only "god" may also be a monotheist, but the characteristics of their "god" are entirely different from the characteristics of mine; we may both be monotheists, but at least one of us is wrong in believing that our god is the one and only.

Similarly with Muslims and Christians. Both are monotheists, but the two concepts of "god" are so completely divergent that they cannot both be true, and both "gods" cannot exist as conceived. At least one of the religions is wrong (and both think it's the other guys', whereas unbelievers think it's both).

Typically, only unbelievers (and functional unbelievers) are willing to make the claim that Jehovah and Allah are "the same". Why? Because they don't believe in either, and it's convenient and "enlightened" to lump everyone together. Why quibble about differences between two imaginary beings?

More:
In the next day's Best of the Web, Mr. Taranto continues:

A Bush supporter's conception of Bush's "constitutional makeup" is utterly at odds with that of a Bush hater. Not all conceptions about Bush are equally true; Paul Krugman, for example, is totally wrongheaded, while this column generally is the model of verity. But whether Krugman is writing about him or we are, George W. Bush is the same man.

By the same token, to say that all monotheistic religions worship the same God is not to say that they are all equally valid. Indeed, since Christianity and Islam make competing claims about the nature of God, it would be logically incoherent to argue that both are true. Yet to say that they worship the same God does not contradict either religion's claim to be the one true faith. As to which religion is true, that is beyond the scope of this column.

Mr. Taranto is still not seeing the big picture, because he isn't recognizing what Christians and Muslims see to be fundamental attributes of their gods.

To carry my rock-god and tree-god example further, if I believe that some specific rock is the only god, and you believe some specific tree is the only god, it's meaningless to say that we both believe in the same "god" just becuase we both believe there's only one. If you're right, then the rock I believe is god is really just a rock and my god doesn't exist; I'm so fundamentally wrong about tree-god's nature that I'm worshipping something entirely different, something that isn't real.

The belief that there is only one god is one fundamental characteristic of that god, but not the only fundamental characteristic.

Update:
The Muslim claim that they worship the "God of Abraham" is fallacious; the origin of the Muslim religion can be seen in its modern symbolism: Allah was originally the fertility-/moon-god of Muhammad's tribe, and Islam carries the crescent moon symbol even still. In my (limited) experience, most Muslims are not aware of this aspect of their history, but it is pretty well supported by official Islamic historical records.

Update 2:
Donald Sensing gives more details, with all of which I concur. ["with all of which I concur"? ick -- Ed.]

Here's a topic I don't know much about, but that was brought to mind by General Wesley Clark's recent recent comments about President Bush's history with alcoholism.

"I'm not running to bash George Bush. A lot of Americans really love him," said Clark.

"They love what he represents, a man who's overcome adversity in his life from alcoholism and pulled his marriage back together and moved forward," added Clark.

I think that's true, and the statement reminded me of a problem I read about a while ago: alcohol abuse in the military. As a general, Mr. Clark may have seen first-hand the effects that alcohol abuse can have.

Twenty-one percent of service members admit to drinking heavily -- a statistic the military hasn’t managed to lower in 20 years -- but service officials are determined to change that.

“If you look at heavy use of alcohol, drinking a lot in a short span of time, we tend to have a higher prevalence than the civilian community,” said Lt. Col. Wayne Talcott, an Air Force psychologist. Young military people between 18 and 25 also tend to do more heavy drinking than their civilian peers, he noted.

Speaking only in terms of medical care and lost time at work, alcohol abuse costs DoD more than $600 million each year, said Navy Capt. Robert Murphy, a medical corps officer. DoD spends another $132 million a year to care for babies with fetal alcohol syndrome -- sometimes-serious health problems related to their mothers’ heavy drinking. ...

Recent civilian studies have turned up some frightening statistics, Murphy said. Thirty-one percent of all occupational injuries are alcohol-related, as are 23 percent of suicides and 32 percent of homicides.

I hope the abuse-prevention programs the article mentions have some positive effect.

Bill Hobbs emailed me a link to another article (in addiction to the one in my previous post)on the the religiosity of America (is that a real word?) based on a study by the University of Michigan. The researchers have some data, and they attempt to explain what they see as some of the underlying causes.

About 46 percent of American adults attend church at least once a week, not counting weddings, funerals and christenings, compared with 14 percent of adults in Great Britain, 8 percent in France, 7 percent in Sweden and 4 percent in Japan.

Moreover, 58 percent of Americans say that they often think about the meaning and purpose of life, compared with 25 percent of the British, 26 percent of the Japanese, and 31 percent of West Germans, the study says.

Fair enough. Why?

Some possible reasons cited for the results: (1) Religious refugees set the tone long ago in America; (2) religious people tend to have more children than non-religious groups; and (3) the U.S. has a less comprehensive social welfare system, prompting people to look to religion for help.

(Numbers mine.) The first 2 seem like valid possibilities to me, and (2) and (3) are particularly interesting.

“Secularization has a powerful negative impact on human fertility rates, so the least religious countries have fertility rates far below the replacement level, while societies with traditional religious views have fertility rates two or three times the replacement level.” As a result, those with traditional religious views now constitute a growing proportion of the world’s population.

This is well known, and many people have written that religion is an advantageous trait in social evolution for this reason, among others (such as promoting group loyalty and cooperation). As I've written before, free-riding problems tear apart all known social contract scenarios, and perhaps religion is advantageous because it warps the cost/benefit analysis of believers.

As for (3):

Another possibility for the high degree of religiosity in the U.S. is that the nation has a less comprehensive social welfare safety net than most other economically developed countries, leading many Americans to experience the kind of existential insecurity and economic uncertainty characteristic of highly religious populations.

Ha, right. America is the richest nation in the world; we export charitable giving all over the planet, and just because we don't have a "comprehensive social welfare safety net" (read: socialism) doesn't mean that anyone's going hungry. You can eat in America for less than $1 per day.

What's interesting is that the article doesn't address any of the costs of religion, which may not be strongly felt in America but which can be powerful disincentives in other parts of the world. For example, hundreds of thousands of Christians are killed around the world every year because of their faith. (Ok, I'll try to find a source to support that, later.) Perhaps America is more religious because we have more religious freedom and tolerance than other industrial nations?

Jacob Levy asks an interesting question which I'd like to involve myself in only tangentially.

Suppose that a state legislature forbade recognition of, or even (on the model of the polygamy statutes) criminalized, marriages between persons at least one of whom was known to be infertile. Suppose that it did so for the stated purpose of affirming the societal commitment to marriage's cerntral function as the primary site of childrearing.

Would such a statute be constitutional (under the federal or most state constitutions), according to the jurisprudential theories of those most strongly opposed to the Massachusetts case?

(All spelling/grammar mistakes are his.)

Rather than address the legal issue (or the gay-marriage issue), I'd like to disagree with anyone who believes that the primary purpose of marriage is to have children. That's a commonly-held conservative/Christian position (apparently), but I think it's absurd. For one thing, the first mention of marriage in the Bible says nothing about children whatsoever.

Genesis 2:18-25

18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said,

"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman,'
for she was taken out of man."

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

I find it difficult for any Christian to argue that marriage is all about having kids.

What's a family? A family is a husband and wife. You don't need children to be a "family" -- a husband and wife are a family all on their own. Children are great, and get added into the family later, but the primary and most important familial relationship is that between the husband and wife. In all cases their first loyalty should be to each other, not to their parents, not to their children, not to their siblings.

Husbands and wives should always be in public agreement on every issue, all the time. That doesn't mean that there won't ever be internal disagreement and discussion, but a unified public front should always be presented to all outsiders, with no exceptions. "Outsiders" include children and other family members, as well as friends, and everyone else. Each partner should subordinate all their other earthly relationships to their marriage.

If the purpose of marriage isn't children, what is it? Well, the passage above makes it pretty clear: the purpose of marriage is provide helpers to assist each other in serving God.

As I've written about many times before, love is more than an emotion, and marriage is more than just living together. Marriage is a business and economic arrangement, as well as a spiritual arrangement. In it's Godly form, marriage may be absolutely perfect and without any need for external strengthening, but since we're all sinful people and we live in a sinful world it shouldn't be a surprise that the institution of marriage has been adversely affected to such a point where it makes sense to me for Christians to enter "prenuptual contracts" -- despite their supposed intention of never ever divorcing under any circumstance.

That's the attitude I intend to bring to my marriage as well, and yet statistcs show that Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians. It seems foolish to be unprepared for such an eventuality, no matter how remote you may judge it to be. Even aside from any monetary matters, what about the children? If, for example, my (hypothetical) wife were to cheat on me and run off to Bermuda, I wouldn't want her to come back and use the court system to then steal my kids away to raise them in a hedonistic lifestyle.

The argument that "planning for failure makes it more likely to occur" may be of some influence, but divorce is already so prevalent that it seems like a moot point.

So then, what kinds of provisions make sense for a Christian prenupt? My main concern would be that in the event of a divorce, Christian principles should govern the proceedings rather than the civil court system. To that end, the major stipulation I would advance would be that both people agree that any and all disputes are to be resolved by some third-party Christian leader (such as their pastor) or group of leaders, and that both resolve to be bound by such arbitration. The trick is in finding someone you both trust, of course, but that shouldn't be too difficult for a couple planning on getting married.

With this one simple protection, the vast majority of my anxiety would be relieved, and it's hard to contemplate anyone seriously objecting to such an agreement (since it seems to fall in line with the principles Jesus laid out for conflict resolution).

I'd really like to know what Donald Sensing thinks on the matter.

Donald Sensing has a typically excellent essay on Justice and Compassion that I suggest you don't miss.

Many leftists think that the right is hard-hearted and cruel towards the poor (and maybe some on the right are), but that's largely because the left thinks the government should be used to force everyone to be compassionate. Rev. Sensing explains why this doesn't work, and is, in fact, tyrannical.

Compassion makes a very poor guide for justice. Compassion can exist only when there is no right to receive it. A judge, for example, cannot be justly compassionate. For a judge to show compassion for one party to a case is to treat another party unjustly. Showing compassion to a burglar by an unwarranted light sentence is to rob the victim’s family of their rightful claim that the burglar will be fairly penalized. And it puts at risk larger society, which has the right to expect that burglars will not soon be turned loose to rob again.

Similarly, compassion for the victim’s family that leads to an overly harsh sentence - life in prison, for example, for a first offense when no one is injured - sets aside the rightful claim of the convict that his punishment will be consonant with the crime. Likewise, society has a rightful claim not to bear the burden of supporting him for a lifetime for commission of one, non-violent offense.

The fact that different groups have different interests that must be sometimes balanced and sometimes found to be right or wrong is what seems to escape many churches’ proclamations about public policy. The pronouncements tend to be personal compassion writ large, into state policy, then to be coercively enforced.

Correspondant S3 points out an NRO article by John Derbyshire that claims America is the last Christian nation -- a claim made largely to contrast America with increasingly irreligious Britain. For myself, I don't think America is particularly Christian in practice, even if many consider it to be so in theory. Still, I suppose the argument could be made that it's the "most" Christian nation on earth at the moment.

Frankly, however, I don't know enough about world politics to be that certain. My understanding is that there are some fervently Christian third-world countries, such as Nigeria (?) -- although that may be more in theory than in practice as well. I've heard that South Korea has a lot of Christians, and sends out a lot of missionaries, but I don't know what effect those Christians have on their country. I simply don't know enough about foreign politics to say whether or not Christians have more influence in America than they do anywhere else.

I'm very curious to see whether or not Christianity takes hold in Iraq, now that the people's freedom of religion is finally recognized.

The Bible talks a lot about faith, and hundreds of books have been written on the subject. The results of this survey might prompt someone to ask: how can I be sure that my faith is genuine? That's a good question, and God gives us a good answer.

Faith is more than mere knowledge, and more than plain belief. For example, I may know that a chair is going to hold me up were I to sit in it, and I may say I believe that it will -- but if refuse to sit down I don't have faith. Faith is putting our belief and knowledge into action.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Faith is not built entirely on logic, reason, and facts. You can't prove it; on the contrary, once something is proven there's no need for faith. Logic, reason, and facts can be important for confirming our faith, and reinforcing what we believe, but in the end they alone will be insufficient if we want to know God. Our limited, human minds are incapable of comprehending God in his full glory, and to bridge the gap between partial knowledge and full certainty requires faith.

How do we know, then, if we've got genuine faith?

I John 5:1-5 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.

This is love for God: to obey his commands. Obedience is hard, because in our sinful state we often don't agree with what God wants us to do. We may not understand the purposes behind his commands or what he's trying to accomplish in our lives and the lives of people around us.

When I think of faith, I always remember an incident with one of my little brothers. He was 4 years old at the time, and wanted to play with a set of shears I was using to cut cardboard. They were sharp and spring-loaded, and far too dangerous for a child to play with, so I told him no. He cried like you wouldn't believe, because he really wanted to play with those shears. I knew it wasn't a good idea, but he simply couldn't understand it. The analogy is obvious: we're the little children, and sometimes God's plan for us is quite different than our own. Do we throw a fit, like spiritual infants, or do we obey what God our father has commanded us?

It's easy to obey when someone tells us to do something we want to do; the real test of love is obeying God when he tells us to do something we don't want to do. Do we have faith that God's way is better than ours? Do we trust him to lead us in the right path? Or do we rebel and do our own thing? God gave us that option when he gave us free will, but when we disobey God we're basically saying that we know better than he does what's good for our lives, and we tell him to get lost.

James 2:14-18 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

Such faith isn't faith at all -- it's just words. Real faith is an action (just like real love, incidentally). Faith isn't something you feel, faith is something you do.

A startling number of "born-again Christians" apparently hold heretical beliefs.

All told, 81% of Americans firmly believe in some type of life after death, with 9% considering it a possibility and only 10% believing that death brings utter finality, the survey found. And while 43% of respondents said that Christianity is their passport to glory, 15% say that they will get to heaven because they "have tried to obey the 10 Commandments." Another 15% expect to gain admittance because "they are basically a good person." Among the others, 6% believe that God is letting everyone in, no matter what.

Verily, this optimistic and expansive spirit is prevalent among born-again Christians. Earlier Barna surveys found that 26% of born-agains believe it doesn't matter what faith a person has because religions teach pretty much the same thing. Its recent survey found that 50% believe a life of "good works" will get you through the Pearly Gates. "Many committed born-again Christians believe that people have multiple options for gaining entry to Heaven," explains firm president George Barna. "They are saying, in essence, 'Personally, I am trusting Jesus Christ as my means of gaining God's permanent favor and a place in heaven--but someone else could get to heaven based upon living an exemplary life.'"

Besides rejecting the notion that Christianity is the only way to heaven, a large portion of born-agains (35%) do not believe that Jesus experienced a physical resurrection, according to Barna surveys. A majority (52%) reject the existence of the Holy Spirit as a living entity, and 45% deny Satan's existence. In the meantime, 33% accept the concept of same-sex unions, 10% believe in reincarnation and 29% think it's possible to communicate with the dead, a belief shared by a third of the population, which is very good news for the séance industry, if not for the keepers of the orthodox flame.

What does Jesus say on the matter?

John 14:6
  Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Luke 13:22-30
  Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. Someone asked him, "Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?"
  He said to them, "Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, 'Sir, open the door for us.'
  "But he will answer, 'I don't know you or where you come from.'
  "Then you will say, 'We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.'
  "But he will reply, 'I don't know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!'
  "There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last."

Update:
Dean Esmay says this is why he renounced Christianity, and I respond here.

Candace at 5 Corners writes about speaking up and defending one's views in public settings, and she points to a great oral report delivered in a college graduate class by Kashei of Spot On. Both writers are women, and I have a question: do women find it harder in general to speak up in public settings and to disagree than men do? Is it totally gender-neutral, or are there social forces at play that make women more reticent?

As for myself, I have no problem being disagreeable -- some would say I revel in it. I like to play devil's advocate and will often argue for positions I think are wrong or absurd, just for the rhetorical joy of defending the indefensible. I like using dirty tricks, and I enjoy debating face-to-face even more than through writing. Nothing gives me more ignoble pleasure than defending something ludicrous and then telling my opponent that I really agree with them, and that they could have won by arguing XYZ.

Anyway, I've heard that girls and women are raised to be more pleasant and agreeable than men, and to avoid open confrontation and conflict. Do you women think that's true? Does that affect your participation in public debates when disagreement is expected and respected? Does it affect your reaction to private discussions, disagreements, and debates?

I love good conversation, and I particularly enjoy women who are willing to argue with me (without getting emotionally invested in the argument). For me, debate is a game, and I generally don't care if I win or lose -- but that's not how most women seem to see it. Women often seem adverse to friendly (even heated) debate, and only want to argue when there's a real object of contention -- which they've already made up their mind about.

Anyway, I'm sure you see where I'm going with all this. I want to get a better understanding of how women view debate, public/private discourse, disagreement, and argumentation.

If anyone is interested in information about various state concealed weapon laws, you need to check out Packing.org. They've got detailed information for every state.

If you want some California-specific info, check out Jim March's new blog, Capitol Truth; Mr. March is a long-time California activist who has been working hard to get us shall-issue laws that would require local law enforcement officers to issue CCW permits to all qualified applicants, rather than just to celebrities and their families and cronies.

In response to my post about my lack of nude Jessica Lynch pictures, Juliette writes:

I do agree that young people should take a lesson from what is happening to Ms. Lynch. And yes, a woman suffers in greater measure than a man for her past when the spotlight is shined on her.

This is the way it is, but that the way it should be? Of course not. And I say that, in the case of Ms. Lynch, we should start here and now in our own little corner by not casting any more stones at her than we did at Arnold Schwarzenegger. To paraphrase our Governor-Elect, Ms. Lynch hasn’t lived her life to become the subject of a media frenzy, nor should she have.

I wonder about that. If I have sons and daughters, I fully expect that I'll hold them to different standards (not higher or lower, precisely) because of their genders. As it relates to the example of Ms. Lynch, I would strongly disapprove of my daughter posing for nude pictures, but I would be mostly indifferent to similar behavior by my son. Why? My reactions would be based on how their actions would be perceived by the rest of the world, and it's clear that a man posing nude elicits mostly "eh, who cares", while a woman posing nude becomes a dehumanized object of lust.

Because of these differing reactions from society, it's only logical and reasonable for parents to expect different things from their children, based on gender. The issue of posing nude is only one aspect of this difference, and there are many more, some of which are biologically-based and likely impossible to change in society as a whole. Men will always lust over pictures of nude women more than women will lust over pictures of nude men. You may argue that it's not fair, but it's a fact of life.

The issue of gender roles has been beaten to death many, many times, but I thought I'd throw this out there.

Next time you're attacked by a bear (video), just remember the words of Stephanie Boyles:

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - Let other Girl Scouts make bird feeders out of Clorox bottles and glue together little birch-bark canoes - Troop 34 in Alaska is learning to trap and skin beavers. In a practice that has angered animal rights activists, the girls are killing the beavers as part of a state flood-management program.

"We think it sends a very, very bad message that when animals cause a problem you kill them," said Stephanie Boyles of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Beavers build dams, dams cause floods. What would PETA like the poor girls to do? Host a sensitivity seminar for the beavers to teach them that building dams threatens humans' natural habitat?

Out of good taste, I'm going to refrain from making any of the obvious jokes about Girl Scouts, beavers, dams, &c.

Tyler Cowen constantly brings up interesting topics, and today he gives us a preview of a paper he's writing about the difficulty of predicting the distant future.

Lately I've been working on a piece on the so-called "epistemic problem" in philosophy. Many critics argue that the long-run difficulty of predicting the future means that we should not be "consequentialists," namely concerned with the good (or bad) consequences of our actions. Utilitarianism, of course, is one form of consequentialism. Here is an explanatory paragraph from my current draft:

"To view the point in its most extreme form, what if John bends down to pick up a banana peel? If nothing else, this action will likely affect the identities of all his future children, if only by changing the timing of future sex acts by a slight amount (Parfit 1987), or by reconfiguring the position of John’s sperm within his testicles. And a different set of people will, in many cases, cause the world to take a very different path. We need only postulate that some individuals, or some leaders, play a significant role in shaping what happens. We can multiply this kind of conundrum in numerous directions. If Hitler's grandmother had bent down to pick one more daisy, European history would have taken a very different (and hard to predict) path. One extra sneeze from one caveman, millennia ago, probably would suffice to change the entire course of world history. Given the workings of genetics, and the importance of individual identities, virtually all small changes in initial conditions will have very large effects in the long run. Furthermore we do not have a very good idea of how those effects will play out."

It's interesting to think about, but I have a hunch that the question itself isn't of much consequence. Mathematically, chaotic effects average themselves out over time and form strange attractors. For instance, the details of history might have been different without Hitler, but the big picture could still be similar to what we've ended up with. Certainly, the universe is a chaotic place with plenty of "good luck" and "bad luck" to go around ("luck" being a term for unpredicted consequences), but it's still rational to play the odds.

From a philisophical standpoint, our social and psychological systems wouldn't be built around consequentialism if it didn't work in the short-term (across the span of a human life, say). Our actions get reinforced by their consequences (whether we attribute credit/blame correctly, or not), and we adjust -- and it appears to work. The question then is, do our actions actually change the probability distribution of the various possible outcomes? Statistics suggest that they do, e.g., college graduates earn more money than high school drop-outs.

If one wishes to consider the more distant future -- beyond the span of one's own life -- then there is definitely a lot more chaos to take into account. But humans know this intuitively, and very few people make decisions based on how they want to shape the distant future. Some people pay lip-service to caring about future generations, but such claims are generally distractions that conceal more immediate concerns.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court says that gay sex isn't adultery.

The court was asked to review a divorce case in which a husband accused his wife of adultery after she had a sexual relationship with another woman. Any finding that one spouse is at fault in the break-up of a marriage can change how the court divides the couple's property.

Robin Mayer, of Brownsville, Vt., was named in the divorce proceedings of a Hanover couple. She appealed the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that gay sex doesn't qualify as adultery under the state's divorce law.

In a 3-2 ruling Friday, the court agreed.

The majority determined that the definition of adultery requires sexual intercourse. The judges who disagreed said adultery should be defined more broadly to include other extramarital sexual activity.

So, what's your take on the matter, from a legal and moral standpoint? Does this affect the line that's drawn for male-female sexual activities and adultery?

My initial take on it is that female-female sex is different from male-male sex, am I wrong? Sure, you may think that all combinations are equally unfaithful emotionally, but are they all adultery?

Update:
Eugene Volokh says that the ruling applies to all nongenital sex and not just oral sex, for what it's worth. I think the moral aspect of the question is more interesting than the legal, however.

Ever hear the term "abortion industry"? Maybe not, but almost $500 million is spent on abortions each year. Some abortion proponents are probably involved because of their true beliefs on the matter, but a great many are lured in because of the vast sums of money that can be made off the grief of panicked women.

Carol Everett was involved in the abortion industry in the Dallas/Ft.Worth, Texas, area from 1977 untill 1983. As director of four clinics, owner of two, Ms. Everett was responsible for the clinics' daily operation. ...

Q. What is the governing force behind the abortion industry?
A. Money. It is a very lucrative business. It is the largest unregulated industry in our nation. Most of the clinics are run in chains because it is so profitable.

Q. How much money were you making in the abortion industry before you quit?
A. I was getting a commission of $25.00 on every abortion I "sold". In 1983, the year I got out, I would have pocketed approximately $250.000. But, in 1984 we expected to be operating five clinics, terminating about 40,000 pregnancies, and with that projection I planned to net $1 million. Money, Money, Money - that's where my heart was.

Q. Why do you refer to "selling" abortions?
A. The product, abortion, is skillfully marketed and sold to the woman at the crisis time in her life. She buys the product, finds it defective and wants to return it for a refund. But, it's too late. Her baby is dead.

Q. In what way is the woman deceived?
A. In two ways - the clinic personnel and the marketers must deny the personhood of the child and the pain caused by the procedure. Every woman has two questions, "Is it a baby?" and "Does it hurt?" The abortionist must answer "NO". He/she must lie to secure the consent of the woman and the collection of the clinic's fee. The women were told that we were dealing with a "product of conception" or a "glob of tissue". They were told that there would be only slight cramping, whereas, in reality, an abortion is excruciatingly painful.

Read the rest of Carol Everett's Q&A if you've got the stomach for it. I'd recommend not, unless you want to learn how babies were "re-constructed outside the uterus to be certain all the parts have been removed" and how the parts were then "disposed" of.

One of the hidden secrets of the abortion industry is that 33% of its victims are black, even though blacks make up only 12% of the general population. BlackGenocide.org has more details, and BlacksForLife.org has some history of the "Negro Project" initiated by Planned Parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger.

Planned Parenthood’s founder and matriarch, Margaret Sanger in the 1930s ingeniously promoted her ideology that the "unfit" should be prevented from reproducing, "by force if necessary." Since the economic plight of many Blacks placed them and their families in the position of living in an environment that Sanger believed breed "unfit" individuals, her organization zeroed in on the "Negro" population. Establishing the "Negro Project," Sanger and her cohorts set out to push their birth control agenda which as she writes "is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives" (The Pivot of Civilization written by M. Sanger)

In November 1939 a "Negro Project" leader feared that the project would be in "a great danger" of failing because "the Negroes think it a plan for extermination." Therefore, "let’s appear to let the colored run it ...." (Gamble memo "Suggestions for Negro Project" excerpted from pamphlet issued by the African American Committee, A.L.L.) Sanger later wrote him back saying, "We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population ..." She goes on saying that use of the Negro minister would effectively "straighten ... any rebellious members." (Letter from Sanger to Gamble, excerpted from pamphlet issued by the African American Committee, A.L.L.) "With social service backgrounds, and engaging personalities" the "hired ... Colored Ministers" would "propagandized for birth control ... "through a religious appeal." To help maintain control, the colored ministerial staff would be carefully controlled. "A project director lamented ‘I wonder if Southern Darkies can ever be entrusted with ... a clinic. Our experience causes us to doubt their ability to work except under White supervision’." Through her Negro Advisory Council, Sanger’s dream of discouraging "the defective and diseased elements of humanity" from their "reckless and irresponsible swarming and spawning" has been successful. (Excerpts from Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood)

Apparently, Sanger's project is working quite well. It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots from Margaret Sanger, to the "Negro Project", to the modern Planned Parenthood Federation of America. (Here is Planned Parenthood's fact sheet on their founder, which addresses some of these issues, and puts some quotes in a different context.) Although some may claim that American blacks have more abortions than American whites because they tend to be poorer, I'm not sure that's the case. For instance, abortion rates are similar in rich and poor countries -- that may not translate well into America, but it could be indicative. If anyone has a breakdown of abortion rates by socio-economic class, I'd love to see it (I can't find one).

So where does all this money go? Surprisingly, only a few million dollars are given directly to political candidates each year (the vast majority to Democrats), but much more is spent on issue ads promoting "the freedom of choice". I particularly like a quote from an ad mentioned here.

A fifth television ad asked "what will we tell children? . . . That we had the right to choose, but that right is lost? Will we tell them we had control of our bodies, our lives? They never will."

And the new tagline: Abortion, it's for the children!

Lileks has a lengthy Matrix 3 review up (in which he blasts Harry Knowles, of AICN fame), and he describes something many people noted about the series: it tries very hard to build a secular spirituality, but falls amazingly flat without any concept of God.

I took away something else from the Matrix trilogy: it is a product of deeply confused people. They want it all. They want individualism and community; they want secularism and transcendence; they want the purity of committed love and the licentious fun of an S&M club; they want peace and the thrill of violence; they want God, but they want to design him on their own screens with their own programs by their own terms for their own needs, and having defined the divine on their own terms, they bristle when anyone suggests they have simply built a room with a mirror and flattering lighting. All three Matrix movies, seen in total, ache for a God. But they can’t quite go all the way. They’re like three movies about circular flat meat patties that can never quite bring themselves to say the word “hamburger.”

One of the best ways to view the Matrix trilogy is to deconstruct it (argh) and examine what it really says about our culture. As Lileks describes, every note it strikes is philisophically discordant, and every morale pontification is conflicted and contradictory.

I haven't seen number 3, but the orgy scene in number 2 stands out particularly. Zion is the philisophical culmination of secular culture, with free, crazy sex, but Neo and Trinity don't partake -- instead they go off on their own and ick up the screen for 5 minutes. It's as if the writers really wanted an orgy, but then decided that a bilateral love scene would be more fulfilling... for some reason. Why?

As Lileks asks, why did the humans bother fighting the robots, rather than submit to the Matrix? What could they hope to accomplish, other than to eventually, after hundreds of years, raise their civilization back up to the level they could instantly experience in the machines' simulated world? There's an innate understanding that humans shouldn't be the slaves of robots, but within the mythos of the movie, why not? If there's some fundamental human dignity at stake, what's the source? Why struggle, fight, and die, just so your kids can be more miserable? What's wrong with living in a pleasant illusion?

The movies don't answer that question other than with some hand-waving, because they simply can't -- and modern secularism don't have an answer either. Survival of the fittest and evolution are praised academically, but no one wants to carry them to their logical extremes. Why bother helping the Iraqis, rather than just nuking them and taking their oil? They're obviously less fit than we are, and eliminating them would be good for the species. Doubly true for Afghanistan, since they don't even have oil. Nukes are cleap, compared to soldiers.

Why worry about healthcare for the poor? If they can't compete, let 'em die. Instead of an expensive medical system, we could form a Corpse Patrol to keep the dead bodies off the street. Abortion? Who cares! If a fetus can't fend for itself, too bad. Same for the handicapped, the insane, and so forth. Why try rehabilitating criminals? Just shoot them. Sure, some might be innocent, but on average we'll improve the population by weeding out as many deviants as possible.

All of these ideas are ludicrous, of course, but try to explain why from a secular standpoint. Social contract? Do you think society would fall apart if we let all the poor die? Nonsense, that was the policy of civilization for thousands of years. Besides, as long as it would be economically valuable to have a supply of poor people, capitalism would work to preserve them without the need for government intervention. (If you comment, please make sure your secular argument isn't simply a variation on the "social contract" idea.)

The point is that without God -- without some supernatural imposition of value from the outside -- a human is instrinsically worth nothing beyond his usefulness. And useless humans are therefore worth nothing. Most people (except extreme environmentalists) reject these conclusions, but with little rational basis. As Lileks said, we want the benefits of God, but we want to create him ourselves, to suit our purposes. We want to "discover" what "'God' means to me" and such. But a human-created God cannot reciprocally give value to his creator, and any philosophy built on such a construct will ring entirely hollow.

Donald Sensing writes about "The Metrosexual Jesus" and the feminization of lots of things (in reference to Kim du Toit's recent piece on the same topic). Read the whole thing, but the part that's particularly on-point to me is Donald's criticism of the modern church.

As children in Sunday School we see our first pictures of Jesus as the good shepherd (see above, for example). They are wildly inaccurate. They show a Zest-fully clean Jesus with his Breck-shampooed, blow-dried hair, in a spotless, Bill Blass robe, carrying a little lamb on his shoulders. This is an inoffensive, domesticated Jesus, a tamed Jesus who looks good. This Jesus is a poster boy for people who think that Christian faith is supposed to make them popular. But if this wimpy, smarmy, gender-confused, television-evangelist-looking Jesus ever told you, “I lay down my life for the sheep” (cf: John 10:11), you’d laugh out loud in derision. And if it ever occurred to you that your life was literally in his hands, you’d cry in despair.

A good shepherd Jesus would have grubby clothes that were torn and tattered, perhaps bloodstained. He would clip his hair short because it would be constantly dirty. Soot and sweat would be streaked across his face. His hands would be grimy. His aroma would prove he is unacquainted with Ban Roll-on. The type of fellow who can do the work that shepherding requires is not the kind of fellow any of us would invite home to meet mother. Good shepherds don’t appeal to persons of refined sensibility. ...

When King David was just a lad, he volunteered for single combat with Goliath. David was a shepherd, a tough guy, alert to dangers. He stood before King Saul. Saul denied David the right to confront Goliath in single combat because David was so young.

But David said to Saul, "I have been keeping my father's sheep. When a lion or a bear came and carried off a sheep from the flock, I went after it, struck it and rescued the sheep from its mouth. When it turned on me, I seized it by its hair, struck it and killed it. I have killed both the lion and the bear; this uncircumcised Philistine will be like one of them. . . .

That’s what good shepherds do.

There's lots more, and it's good stuff.

Bill Hobbs emails me a link to an interesting report released yesterday by The Pew Research Center titled "The 2004 Political Landscape: Evenly Divided and Increasingly Polarized". There are 9 major parts to the report, and I haven't had time to read the whole thing yet, but "Part 8: Religion in American Life" alone provides some interesting tidbits.

America remains an intensely religious nation and, if anything, the trend since the late 1980s has been toward stronger religious belief. Eight-in-ten Americans (81%) say that prayer is an important part of their daily lives, and just as many believe there will be a Judgment Day when people will be called before God to answer for their sins. Even more people (87%) agree with the statement "I never doubt the existence of God."

Clearly, views on these three statements are highly related, and when these three questions are combined into a single indicator of religious intensity, fully 71% agree with all three statements, while just 7% disagree with all three. Both of these figures are slightly higher than was the case 16 years ago, when 68% agreed with all three statements, and 5% disagreed with them all. With more people at each end of the spectrum, somewhat fewer Americans express mixed views about their religious beliefs today (22%) than was the case in the late 1980s (27%).

These trends probably reflect the ascension of the Millennial generation, which tends to be much more conservative than its Boomer parents.

Growing religious intensity also is seen in how Americans, especially self-described Protestants, characterize their religious faith. In the late 1980s, 41% of Protestants and 24% of the population overall identified themselves as "born- again or evangelical" Christians. Today, 54% of Protestants describe themselves this way, and evangelical Protestants make up the largest single religious category (30% of the population).

Although, apparently under-30s are identifying themselves as "Protestants" less than they did 15 years ago, with a drop of 52% to 45%. However, as the study goes on to note, this may just be a shift away from denominational identification, and not a shift towards secularism.

Moreover, younger generations are becoming much more religious as they age. Fifteen years ago, 61% of people in their late teens and twenties agreed with all three religious statements. Today, 71% of people in these generations ­ now in their thirties and forties ­ express this level of strong religious faith. Over the same period, the percentage of Protestants in this age group identifying themselves as born again or evangelical has risen from 41% in the late 1980s to 55% now. As a result of these gains, people in their 30s and 40s today are considerably more religious than their 30-to-49-year-old counterparts were in the late 1980s.

The study goes on to describe some striking differences between the religious beliefs of Democrats and Republicans that weren't present in the late 80s.

Over the past 15 years, religion and religious faith also have become more strongly aligned with partisan and ideological identification. Republicans and Democrats were equally likely to express strong personal religious attitudes in 1987 and 1988; the same percentage in both parties affirmed the importance of prayer, belief in Judgment Day and strong belief in God (71% in each). But over the past 15 years, Republicans have become increasingly united in these beliefs, opening up a seven-point gap between the parties (78% vs. 71% of Democrats).

Finally, the report contradicts an earlier poll showing that abortion is losing acceptance among women. That poll found that a majority of 51% of women believe that abortion should be prohibited or limited to extreme cases, such as rape, incest, or life-threatening complications. The Pew study says that:

Most Americans (57%) say they oppose changing the laws to make it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion, while 36% are in favor, and there have been only slight changes in public opinion on this question over the past sixteen years. While abortion is a significantly more divisive issue today than was the case in 1987, most of the partisan and religious divisions were firmly in place a decade ago, and have changed little since. ...

A small gender gap over the abortion issue in 1987 has gradually disappeared, as support for stricter abortion laws among women has fallen by eight points (women used to be somewhat more conservative than men on this issue.) The change among women has occurred primarily among older groups. Sixteen years ago fully half of women age 50 and older favored stricter limits on abortion, today just 35% in this age group say the same.

Perhaps the difference is in the phrasing of the questions, because otherwise I can't explain it. The Pew results themselves go on to contradict these findings.

Liberal Democrats are the only major demographic or political group where a majority does not agree with protecting the rights of the unborn in almost all cases (only 44%). Among religious groups, nine-in-ten white evangelical Protestants (91%), 61% of non-evangelicals, and 74% of white Catholics hold this opinion, compared with 53% of seculars.

So, which is it? Those numbers seem to indicate that there's a strong majority in favor of protecting the rights of the unborn, but the results of the earlier question say that there isn't a majority in favor of making abortions more difficult to obtain. It's hard for me to imagine confusion over such an issue, but what other explanation is there?

I'll take a read through the other 8 sections when I have time. It looks like there's a goldmine statistical information in there (which I love), and it'll probably be fodder for later posts. If any of you write about any of the other sections, let me know and I'll link to it.

A Colorado judge has ordered a mother not to expose her daughter to "teaching... that can be considered homophobic."

Cheryl Clark, who left a lesbian relationship in 2000 after converting to Christianity, was ordered by Denver County Circuit Judge John Coughlin to "make sure that there is nothing in the religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered homophobic."

Dr. Clark filed her appeal with the Colorado Court of Appeals last week.

Her former lover, Elsey McLeod, was awarded joint custody of the child, an 8-year-old girl who is Dr. Clark's daughter by adoption. ...

"Elsey never adopted this child. It's an egregious situation because the court is giving custody to someone who is not related to the child and has not adopted the child," Mr. Staver [a lawyer with Liberty Counsel] said.

The judge awarded joint custody, despite the fact that the former lover did not officially adopt the child.

Mathew Staver, a lawyer speaking for Dr. Clark, goes on:

"The mother is a Christian, and that's a major part of her lifestyle," he said. "She would be prohibited from reading her daughter Romans 1 or anything in the Bible on sexual fidelity in marriage, going to Bible study, or listening to a sermon on marriage or fidelity."

The judge's order seems to be atrocious, absurd, and in clear violation of the 1st Amendment as well as common parenting rights.

Update:
Eugene Volokh comments and notes the "best interests of the child" standard that courts use in custody decisions. Under general circumstances, it's for the parents to decide what is in the child's best interests, but when parental custody itself is involved, it gets much more complicated. What about when the child's "best interests" conflict with the parent's Constitutional rights? Among many other things, Eugene says, "But what this means, I think, is that sometimes the parents' constitutional rights should prevent a judge from rendering a decision that he thinks is in the child's best interests."

While we're on the topic of required reading (and while I'm getting cheap and easy posts off the brilliance of others), allow me to point you to the complete text of Patrick Henry's famous 1775 speech, "Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death". While you're at it, read some background on the speech and why it was given, and see some pictures of what the gathering may have looked like.

Since I greatly fear than many of you will not go read the entire speech, allow me to quote the final paragraph.

It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Many in his audience were loath to take up arms and fight, but after his challenge what man could remain impassive and unmoved?

If you've got the time and energy, I highly recommend reading through Brian C. Anderson's article titled "We’re Not Losing the Culture Wars Anymore". It presents a fascinating and (honestly) awesome account of the ascension of conservative views in the media, largely due to the increased ease-of-access brought about by the internet, and good old capitialism. I'll quote a few paragraphs to whet your appetite, but really, do yourself a favor and go read the whole thing.

Adds Bernadette Malone, a former Regnery editor heading up Penguin’s new conservative imprint: “The success of Regnery’s books woke up the industry: ‘Hello? There’s 50 percent of the population that we’re underserving, even ignoring. We have an opportunity to talk to these people, figure out what interests them, and put out professional-quality books on topics that haven’t been sufficiently explored.’ ” Bellow puts it more bluntly: “Business rationality has trumped ideological aversion. And that’s capitalism.” ...

All these remarkable, brand-new transformations have sent the Left reeling. Fox News especially is driving liberals wild. Former vice president Al Gore likens Fox to an evil right-wing “fifth column,” and he yearns to set up a left-wing competitor, as if a left-wing media didn’t already exist. Comedian and activist Al Franken’s new book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them is one long jeremiad against Fox. Washington Post media critic Tom Shales calls Fox a “propaganda mill.” The Columbia Journalism School’s Todd Gitlin worries that Fox “emboldens the right wing to feel justified and confident they can promote their policies.” “There’s room for conservative talk radio on television,” allows CNN anchor Aaron Brown, the very embodiment of the elite journalist with, in Roger Ailes’s salty phrase, “a pick up their ass.” “But I don’t think anyone ought to pretend it’s the New York Times or CNN,” Brown sniffs.

But it’s not just Fox: liberals have been pooh-poohing all of these developments. Dennis Miller used to be the hippest joker around. Now, complains a critic in the liberal webzine Salon, he’s “uncomfortably juvenile,” exhibiting “the sort of simplistic, reactionary American stance that gives us a bad reputation around the world.” The Boston Globe’s Alex Beam dismisses the blogosphere with typical liberal hauteur: “Welcome to Blogistan, the Internet-based journalistic medium where no thought goes unpublished, no long-out-of-print book goes unhawked, and no fellow ‘blogger,’ no matter how outré, goes unpraised.” And those right-wing books are a danger to society, grouse liberals: their “bile-spewing” authors “have limited background expertise and a great flair for adding fuel to hot issues,” claims Norman Provizer, a Rocky Mountain News columnist. “The harm is if people start thinking these lightweights are providing heavyweight answers.”

Well. The fair and balanced observer will hear in such hysterical complaint and angry foot stamping baffled frustration over the loss of a liberal monoculture, which has long protected the Left from debate—and from the realization that its unexamined ideas are sadly threadbare. “The Left has never before had its point of view challenged and its arguments made fun of and shot full of holes on the public stage,” concludes social thinker Michael Novak, who has been around long enough to recognize how dramatically things are changing. Hoover Institute fellow Tod Lindberg agrees: “Liberals aren’t prepared for real argument,” he says. “Elite opinion is no longer univocal. It engages in real argument in real time.” New York Times columnist David Brooks even sees the Left falling into despair over the new conservative media that have “cohered to form a dazzlingly efficient delivery system that swamps liberal efforts to get their ideas out.”

Mr. Anderson also mentions an earlier topic of mine, America's youth are becoming more conservative than their parents. (Thanks for the pointer, Mr. Hobbs.)