Minor Thoughts from me to you

Over at Winds of Change, the Armed Liberal posts some reflections on patriotism. What does it mean in a post-modern world? Is it worthwhile? Is it distinguishable from mere nationalism? What does American patriotism mean, in a nation that has been formed from one ethnicity after another (and continues to be reformed and remodeled each year)?

Now I've argued on and on that we need an anticosmopolitan liberalism, one rooted firmly in the American Founding if liberalism is going to get any traction here in US politics. I've slagged and been slagged by the usual cast of Netroots characters over this issue, and I'll point out that the Netroots liberalism for all the sound and fury hasn't signified much in the political scene except to - almost certainly - hand the nomination to the least liberal candidate running, Hillary Clinton.

The basis for much of my argument has been the work of John Schaar, a little-known political theorist who happened to be one of my professors. Who I admit I should have paid more attention to back then.

The work I keep pointing to is his work, 'The Case for Patriotism' (excerpted here).

Abraham Lincoln, the supreme authority on this subject, thought there was a patriotism unique to America. Americans, a motley gathering of various races and cultures, were bonded together not by blood or religion, not by tradition or territory, not by the calls and traditions of a city, but by a political idea. We are a nation formed by a covenant, by dedication to a set of principles, and by an exchange of promises to uphold and advance certain commitments among ourselves and throughout the world. Those principles and commitments are the core of American identity, the soul of the body politic. They make the American nation unique, and uniquely valuable among and to the other nations. But the other side of this conception contains a warning very like the warnings spoken by the prophets to Israel: if we fail in our promises to each other, and lose the principles of the covenant, then we lose everything, for they are we." [emphasis added]

This sounds right to me. It's the idea I struggled to articulate last summer, in my posts about immigration.

This, then, is the challenge for America. How do we change -- culturally, demographically, and ethnically -- while still retaining that political idea, that commitment to a set of principles that make America, America?

Furthermore, what, exactly, are those principles? What is that idea? What set of principles are we committed to? For that, I think we need to go back to principles set out in the Declaration of Independence and the framework established in the Constitution of the United States.

More on that, in the future.

An Iowa judge recently ruled that Iowa's ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional. That makes an older article by Francis Beckwith relevant once again.

I believe, however, that given present circumstances that the best strategy is to take the mayor at his word and employ "street theatre" in a provocative way in order to force the other side to defend their marital nihilism in all its glory. Here's the plan: Have about 50 folks go to San Francisco city hall and request marriage licenses, but not for gay marriages, rather, for other sorts of "unions" that are also forbidden by the state: three bisexuals from two genders, one person who wants to marry himself (and have him accuse the mayor of "numberism," the prejudice that marriage must include more than one person), two married couples who want a temporary "wife-swap lease," a couple consisting of two brothers, two sisters, or a brother and a sister, an adult mother and son, and a man who wants to add a second wife and a first husband in order to have a "marital ensemble," etc., etc. Let's see if the mayor will give these people "marriage" licenses. If not, why not? If not, then the jig is up and the mayor actually has to explain the grounds on which he will not give licenses to these folks. But what could those grounds be? That it would break the law? That marriage has a nature, a purpose, that is not the result of social construction or state fiat? If so, then what is it and why?

This is the sort of public philosophical interrogation that has to occur if the social conservatives really want to win. All their legal and social-science posturing -- i. e., their appeal to what the majority of citizens want, etc. -- will be for naught unless they can press the other side to account for their point of view. For this is not a dispute about "policy." It is a battle over the nature of who and what we are and whether we can know it. It is philosophical combat over metaphysical turf with no Switzerland to which one can flee for asylum.

Tim Challies is a Canadian blogger. Therefore, he's uniquely qualified to discuss the positives and negatives of the Canadian healthcare system. He doesn't much like the utopian image painted by Michael Moore.

Now that Sicko, Michael Moore's latest film has been released, Americans are bound to hear a lot about the wonders of the Canadian health care system. As I understand it, Moore's ultimate proposed solution to the American health care conundrum is to adopt a socialized system similar to what we enjoy in Canada. The truth is, though, that the Canadian system simply isn't all that and a bag of chips. The system works, but it comes with a cost that most Americans would be unwilling to pay: a heavy tax burden.

... Our health care system is good, but it has some serious problems. It is certainly not the ultimate solution, and especially so if you dislike 45% tax brackets.

One of his commenters complained about his characterization of the Canadian healthcare system and included this:

I'm an immigrant to Canada. I've travelled extensively and have family all over the world. I'm convinced that God, in His providence, brought me to live in one of the best countries in the world. As Seniors on government pensions, we have more disposable income than we ever had on a Pastor's salary and no worries about paying for medications and health-care as we age.

...I thank the Lord that I live in Canada.

Ms. Compton: you and your husband are living the high-life on Tim Challie's salary. The Canadian government takes nearly half of his income to fund your healthcare and your pension. This isn't a voluntary contribution made out of the goodness of his heart. If he ever failed to send in his taxes, the government would put him in prison. Millions of other Canadians face the same "choice".

I'm sure you do thank God that you live in Canada. It's quite a good deal for you. How do you walk down the street each day, knowing that most of the people you pass are paying half of their income to support you? More than that, those people are not voluntarily supporting you. And you know it. If it ever came to a vote, you would vote to force those people to keep supporting you. From where I sit, that looks like legalized robbery -- not loving charity.

I thank God that I don't live in Canada. I'd rather keep that extra 25% of my salary (my taxes are roughly 20%) and spend it on my family or donate it to the charities of my choice.

My wife and I take great pleasure in sending nearly 14% of our gross income to others. We enjoy sitting down each money and selecting various charities to give to. We increase our giving whenever our income increases. If we increased our taxes whenever our income increased, we'd lose out on that pleasure. We'd lose out on the joy of voluntary giving if we lived with greater taxation.

Here's what Jesus said about giving.

Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

I'm thankful that I have money to give away. It's fun. Every month we end up wishing we had even more to give away. That's why I'm thankful that I live in a country that allows me to keep more of my money.

If you'd as recently as yesterday pitched me a story told through diary entries about love between two citizens of a collectivist government set in the distant future - a future in which the very word "I" is no longer remembered - I would have naturally assumed you were talking about Ayn Rand's Anthem, a novella she published in 1938.

As it turns out, the premise and general thrust of the book was undoubtedly pulled from another novel, written and published in Soviet Russia fully six years before Ayn Rand herself would immigrate from the USSR to America: We, by Yevgeny Zamyatin.

I discovered this by accident; I was flipping through my mother's copy of a book entitled 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die, skimming the chronologically-listed entries, when I stumbled upon We's description:

"We is a prototypical dystopian novel... The novel consists of a series of diary entries by D-503, a mathematician and a thoroughly orthodox citizen of the authoritarian, futuristic state to which he belongs. The diary sets out as a celebration of state doctrine, which dictates that happiness, order, and beauty can be found only in unfreedom, in the cast-iron tenets of mathematical logic and of absolute power. As the diary and novel continue, D-503 comes under the subversive influence of a beautiful dissident... He finds himself drawn towards... the anarchism of a private love. He no longer identifies with 'we'..."

The writer of the entry declares it "not a straightforward denunciation of communism, but a moving, blackly comic examination of the contradictions between freedom and happiness that state socialism produces."

The parallels to Anthem are obvious and too close to be coincidence, especially considering the two respective authors hail from the same country. And I'm not, as it turns out, the only one who's noticed; [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthem_(novella) lists the similarities and differences between the two.

The question is of course begged, then, as to whether those similarities listed constitute a case of plagiarism. Ms. Rand being my favorite modern author for the last decade, I'm certainly biased, but my general understanding of creativity leads me to answer in the negative. Beginning from the same premise as an already-published work, even knowingly, is not plagiarism if a story proceeds to explore different possibilities allowed for by that base. This, even Wikipedia agrees Rand does.

Really, Rand couldn't help but do so; We _is a story about Collectivism gone as far as it can possibly go, but its conclusions as to where "as far as it can possibly go" is don't mesh with Rand's own beliefs. _We involves a society's evolution to the point of colonizing new planets; Rand cannot imagine that a collectivist state would ultimately result in anything but a new age of barbarism, so the collectivists of her Anthem are, many centuries after their ancestors built skyscrapers, technologically capable of manufacturing only candles. We is a comedy; Anthem is clearly frustrated, even enraged. We declares communism to be reasonable but ultimately monstrous; Anthem objects that there is anything reasonable in communism. Finally, We results in the protagonist's "reeducation", which is to say his demise; Anthem results in his triumph.

This last detail should not be overlooked as simply an arbitrary difference in plot. Involving any other two writers, it very well could be taken as such, but an important principle of Rand's Objectivist philosophy is the impotency of evil. The triumph of the hero in her books is a statement regarding the nature of the universe, which she believed "benevolent" (the only exclusion being her character Kira in We The Living, who's controversial death still makes Rand's followers uncomfortable).

Both books are anti-collectivist and involve several sci-fi propositions, but each proclaims a very different worldview - justification a-plenty for two separate stories.

Or even more, maybe, because I learned one more surprising fact from Wikipedia today when I looked up the book; _Anthem _entered the public domain in 1966, after Ms. Rand failed to renew its copyright.

Anybody have a good idea for an Anthem-based story?

Today's Capital Times had a heartwarming little article about homeless activists and their endless crusade to wring money out of everyone else.

Members of the Tenant Advocacy Group, or TAG, already know about homelessness. Each was once homeless, or narrowly escaped being out on the street. "We learned these things from the inside out," said Cynthia Travis, coordinator for the group.

That's good. These people are uniquely situated to help the poor and the homeless. Their goals are absolutely praiseworthy. Unfortunately, their methods are not.

The group entered the fray of state legislative politics this year by sending a letter to Secretary of Commerce Mary Burke requesting a $1 million-a-year increase in state funding for homeless shelter and transitional housing services grants. The Commerce department administers the grant program, funding for which has been $1.5 million a year for some 15 years.

They even saw some initial success as Governor Doyle put an additional $1 million into his budget, for their cause. Then action stalled in the Joint Finance Committee:

As Joint Finance Committee actions on other issues proceeded, it unfolded that any additional funds for homelessness services would need to be funded through an increase in the real estate transfer tax. That didn't fly.

They decided to use an appeal to pity as leverage for their demands:

"I slept in a Ford station wagon for six months," Morris King recalled. The way to help unsympathetic legislators get their priorities in order, he said, is to ask them: "Do you want potholes? Or do you want people sleeping on the street?"

Here's the thing. The legislature doesn't hand out free money. Every penny that the legislature hands out has to come from somewhere and someone else. Increasing the real estate transfer tax would make it more expensive for Wisconsin residents to buy a home. Increasing the gas tax would make it more expensive for Wisconsin residents to drive. Increasing the sales tax would make it more expensive for Wisconsin residents to purchase everything. Increasing the ... well, you get the idea.

Every time the government increases taxes, it becomes more expensive for poorer people to survive on their own. For those living the closest to the financial edge, a tax increase may be the difference between survival and failure. Ultimately, these crusades are counter-productive.

It will ultimately prove fruitless to use the government to confiscate the resources of others and redistribute them to your group. You will merely drive up the cost of living in the State leading to an endless cycle of increases in government aid and increases in the cost of living. Focus on creating wealth that you can use to help others, rather than confiscating wealth.

Women in Muslim countries are routinely beaten, raped, stoned, and murdered by the men around them. As such, the Muslim world is the main front in the battle for sexual equality. Of course, you wouldn't know it by the way that American feminists act or speak.

Eve Ensler takes this line of reasoning to equally ludicrous lengths. In 2003 she gave a lecture at the Radcliffe Institute at Harvard University in which, like Pollitt, she claimed that women everywhere are oppressed and subordinate:

I think that the oppression of women is universal. I think we are bonded in every single place of the world. I think the conditions are exactly the same [her emphasis]. I think the nature of the oppression--whether it's acid burning in one country, or female genital mutilation in another, or gang rapes in the parking lots in high schools of the suburbs--it's the same idea. . . . The systematic global oppression of women is completely across the globe.

That's from Christina Hoff Sommers' article in this week's edition of the Weekly Standard.

Feminists are also completely unable to tell the difference between American Christians and Afghan Taliban:

Katha Pollitt, a columnist at the Nation, talks of "the common thread of misogyny" connecting Christian Evangelicals to the Taliban:

It is important to remember just how barbarous and cruel the Taliban were. Yet it is also important not to use their example to obscure or deny the common thread of misogyny that connects them with Focus on the Family and the Christian Coalition. . . .

Soon after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Katha Pollitt wrote the introduction to a book called Nothing Sacred: Women Respond to Religious Fundamentalism and Terror. It aimed to show that reactionary religious movements everywhere are targeting women. Says Pollitt:

In Bangladesh, Muslim fanatics throw acid in the faces of unveiled women; in Nigeria, newly established shariah courts condemn women to death by stoning for having sex outside of wedlock. . . . In the United States, Protestant evangelicals and fundamentalists have forged a powerful right-wing political movement focused on banning abortion, stigmatizing homosexuality and limiting young people's access to accurate information about sex.

Ah, yes. Limiting young people's access to accurate information about sex is exactly the same as having acid thrown in your face. Christina explains, in her article, that none of America's feminists are willing to help out Muslim women:

One reason is that many feminists are tied up in knots by multiculturalism and find it very hard to pass judgment on non-Western cultures. They are far more comfortable finding fault with American society for minor inequities (the exclusion of women from the Augusta National Golf Club, the "underrepresentation" of women on faculties of engineering) than criticizing heinous practices beyond our shores. The occasional feminist scholar who takes the women's movement to task for neglecting the plight of foreigners is ignored or ruled out of order.

As a result, she has some fairly harsh words for American feminists:

Muslim women could use moral, intellectual, and material support from the West to improve their situation. But only a rational, reality-based women's movement would be capable of actually helping. Women who think that looking like a pear is an essential human right are not valuable allies.

Extremely true. Is it any wonder that many people would like to marginalize American feminists and do everything possible to keep them away from the reigns of power?

It's unfortunate that American feminists are unwilling to join the battle in any meaningful way. Sexual equality in Muslim nations could go a long way towards ending the cycle of terrorism that infects those nations:

Women's equality is as incompatible with radical Islam's plan for domination and submission as it is with polygamy. Women freely moving about, expressing their opinions, and negotiating their relationships with men from a position of equal dignity rather than servitude are a moderating, civilizing force in any society. Female scholars voicing their opinions without inhibition would certainly puncture some cherished jihadist fantasies.

Read the entire article in this week's edition of the Weekly Standard. It's well worth your time. You'll discover the America is just as harsh towards women as Uganda and Pakistan. You'll also discover organizations like the Women's Islamic Initiative in Spirituality and Equity (WISE) which work to help Muslim women in oppressive societies. Consider donating to the cause. Unlike America's feminists, I think these women are worth supporting.

Earlier this week, Reason Magazine columnist Cathy Young asked why is it still illegal to pay for sex?

Yet prostitution is perhaps the ultimate victimless crime: a consensual transaction in which both parties are supposedly committing a crime, and the person most likely to be charged"”the one selling sex"”is also the one most likely to be viewed as the victim. (A bizarre inversion of this situation occurs in Sweden, where, as a result of feminist pressure to treat prostitutes as victims, it is now a crime to pay for sex but not to offer it for sale.) It is sometimes claimed that the true victims of prostitution are the johns' wives. But surely women whose husbands are involved in noncommercial"”and sometimes quite expensive"”extramarital affairs are no less victimized.

Another common claim is that prostitution causes direct harm by contributing to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS. However, that may be the reddest herring of them all. In Australia, where sex for money is legal, the rate of HIV infection among female prostitutes is so low that prostitution has been removed from the list of known risk factors in HIV surveillance. In the U.S., reliable data are more difficult to come by, but a 1987 Centers for Disease Control study likewise found very low infection rates among prostitutes.

Why is prostitution illegal? From a Biblical perspective, I have a very hard time distinguishing between prostitution and plain old adultery. In one case, one person directly pays another for sex. In the other case, one person indirectly pays another for sex through dinners, compliments, movies, and other outings. Why should it be illegal to pay a someone for a sex, but not illegal to take a co-worker out for dinner and drinks before going back to their apartment for sex?

I think the common answer is that sex should only be enjoyed within the context of a loving relationship -- that it shouldn't be commoditized and sold like any other service. I would agree that sex shouldn't be routinely bought and sold. I'm not at all certain that all prostitution occurs outside of a loving relationship. After all, some women would certainly leave a man if he didn't provide enough expensive gifts. Why should we classify cash payments any differently? I am certain that not all adultery occurs in the context of a loving relationship. Many men and women will commit adultery purely out spite and not because they love the person they are committing adultery with.

Simply put, I think there can be a lot of overlap between prostitution and adultery -- and adultery are equally morally objectionable. I don't see the distinction that makes one worthy of criminalization and the other "merely" worthy of scorn.

I'll talk later about whether I think adultery should be criminalized.

I've been listening to Ravi Zacharias's radio show, Just Thinking, for many months now. Several months ago, while discussing Ethics in the Workplace (part of his "Faith Under Fire" series), he laid out three rules for distinguishing legitimate from illegitimate pleasures. I found them so thought-provoking and succinct that I wanted to share them:

1. Anything that refreshes you without diminishing you, destroying you, or distracting you from your final goal is a legitimate pleasure.
2. Any pleasure that jeopardizes the sacred right of another is an illegitimate pleasure.
3. Any pleasure, no matter how good, if not kept in balance can distort reality or destroy appetite.

Before I can apply these rules, I have to ask myself a deceptively simple question: what is my final goal? After identifying my final goals, perhaps I should define several sub-goals that will help me meet my final goal. (For example: what can I do in 2006 / 2007 to help me move towards meeting my final goal?) Only after I've done that can I really identify whether a pleasure is legitimate or not.

What a schmuck:

At that time Marduk-Baladan son of Baladan king of Babylon sent Hezekiah letters and a gift, because he had heard of his illness and recovery. Hezekiah received the envoys gladly and showed them what was in his storehouses"”the silver, the gold, the spices, the fine olive oil"”his entire armory and everything found among his treasures. There was nothing in his palace or in all his kingdom that Hezekiah did not show them.

Then Isaiah the prophet went to King Hezekiah and asked, "What did those men say, and where did they come from?" "From a distant land," Hezekiah replied. "They came to me from Babylon." The prophet asked, "What did they see in your palace?" "They saw everything in my palace," Hezekiah said. "There is nothing among my treasures that I did not show them."

Then Isaiah said to Hezekiah, "Hear the word of the LORD Almighty: The time will surely come when everything in your palace, and all that your predecessors have stored up until this day, will be carried off to Babylon. Nothing will be left, says the LORD. And some of your descendants, your own flesh and blood who will be born to you, will be taken away, and they will become eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon."

"The word of the LORD you have spoken is good," Hezekiah replied. For he thought, "There will be peace and security in my lifetime."

Today's New International Version International Bible Society (C) Copyright 2001, 2005

If that last statement doesn't qualify him as one of the world's all-time schmucks, I don't know what would.

Compare this:

Now Korah the son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram the sons of Eliab, and On the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men. And they rose up before Moses, with a number of the people of Israel, 250 chiefs of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men. They assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron and said to them, "You have gone too far! For all in the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?" When Moses heard it, he fell on his face,

with this:

You arrogant jerks! How dare you go around accusing everyone of being sinners? Don't you know that most people are basically good and we're all God's children, every one us? Why do you try to make yourself better than everyone else?

That second one isn't (quite) a direct quote, but it is something that I heard a lot while in college. I'm not saying that this is likely to happen on a college campus anytime soon, but I did find the similarities in rhetoric to be interesting.

Joe, you've declared your intention to make your dissatisfaction with your native Republican Party known by aiding the Democrats' election this year.

But why should dissatisfaction with a party result in your abetting another just as bad, or worse? Why help either of them? Isn't the practical result of such action ultimately destined to be the same as that of those we so often hear say "I don't like what my party is doing, but the other people are worse"?

(And just because the thought hits me: If the Libertarian Party were to somehow come to power in America, would it evolve (or devolve)-as Republican and Democrat parties have-over time into the same sort of animal? Is a march toward centralized statism inexorable, as has been suggested by many? Hard to say, since many capitalist cultures have been nipped in the bud. What might have occurred in Hong Kong had not the British government tossed their great city to Red China?)

(And just because another thought hits me: Is it a dilution of the title of the Christ, which we hold, to associate with political parties? Which makes a greater statement: "I am fighting the Republicans and the Democrats because I am a Christian", or "I am fighting the Republicans and the Democrats because I am a classic liberal"? We seem to refer to our supposed chief alignment far more rarely than our secondary alignments.)

Let me try to see if I can make any sense of what I'm thinking here, point-by-point. And for the record, these are beliefs in an embryonic stage, at best; these are not fully-formed convictions or anything. So:

(1) Much of the Torah is given over to the LORD separating His people from other peoples as holy. The political parties of America are unholy, man-made creations; they are not the practical expression of the Christ of God on this planet Earth, as is The Church. Does aligning with them not dilute God's very own "brand name", then-first in name-recognition ("What is Adam?" "Adam's a Republican", instead of "What is Adam?" "Adam is committed entirely to his God and the Church") then later in beliefs, as cohabitation of the Promised Land with the Caananites led to dilution of Jewish beliefs (as Republican-Christian syncretism is an easily-observed phenomenon)? To summarize: By working actively in political parties, are we less obviously Christian to the maximum number of people? And don't we risk infecting ourselves with these parties' unclean worldviews?

(2) As Christians, our primary purpose is to serve others and show them the LORD's love, regardless of whether they become Christian themselves. Do we not immediately make ourselves the enemies of half the nation by registering as Republicans and Democrats, by campaigning for them? Being a Republican makes it much more difficult to witness to a Democrat, doesn't it?

(3) Despite being super-capitalists, we seem to give in to the same "zero-sum" mentality of statists. We believe that we must protect God's real work-the service of others spiritually and materially-by defending it within the political system. That is, we wish to feed the Five Thousand, so we try to keep the government from stealing our five thousand loaves of bread. But if we are, as the Christ has promised us, possessed of the ability to accomplish even greater works than He performed in His time, then what matter if the government taxes our bread and leaves us with five hundred loaves, or fifty? If we devote our full attention, our full energies, to putting out those loaves, we have God's promise that He will see to the rest.

We as human beings do have a finite amount of strength within us, but to what is that strength better put: putting out fliers for Senator Whoever, or volunteering at a soup kitchen? Walking door-to-door to speak with people about their politics, or speaking privately with people one-on-one about their problems (as one of the few people truly qualified to give the antidote to those problems: not a psychiatrist, but a Christian)?

This I know: the world is designed by the Enemy to keep us from the Master's work. Political parties are institutions of this world (they're kingdoms, which rise and fall, trying to systemitize a solution the Poor, who we shall always have with us). I see dots and I think they may connect.

Did the poor of Jerusalem put their sick under Peter's shadow (Acts) in hopes that he would tell them how to vote?

Am I now the John Galt to your Henry Rearden, Joe?

Hey, Folks: There's a great article by Marvin Olasky just published online at Townhall, listing resources for learning about the Islamic religion. If like me you're pretty ignorant on this major world religion's specifics, you might want to note a few of his recommendations.

A little black comedy from the Associated Press to start your day off right, Lords and Ladies:

CHICAGO "” Nation of Islam officials on Tuesday said Jewish leaders who resigned from a state hate crimes commission rather than serve with one of their members should rejoin the panel or quit criticizing it.

Two former commission members said they had no intention of returning to the Governor's Commission on Discrimination and Hate Crimes because Sister Claudette Marie Muhammad refused to repudiate the religious movement's leader, Minister Louis Farrakhan.

In her first comments since four commissioners resigned last week, Muhammad said it was ridiculous that she has been condemned for Farrakhan's remarks.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich's appointment of Muhammad to the commission in August drew no public attention until she invited commissioners to attend a speech given by Farrakhan, who is known for his disparaging remarks about Jews, whites and gays.

Some commissioners began criticizing her presence on the panel after Farrakhan's speech Feb. 26 in Chicago that included references to "Hollywood Jews" promoting homosexuality and "other filth."

On Tuesday, Farrakhan's chief of staff, Brother Leonard Muhammad, said the Nation of Islam forgave the former commissioners because they "left out of confusion."

"You misunderstand what the commission is all about," Leonard Muhammad said on WVON-AM. "Come back to the commission and debate your point."

He later issued a stronger challenge for them to return.

"They need to come back or shut up," Leonard Muhammad said.

Claudette Muhammad urged her critics to leave her alone.

"For those who try to condemn me because of the honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan's remarks," she said, "it's ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous."

Claudette Muhammad said she and her family have been victims of hate crimes and discrimination, and that she has Jewish family members, has traveled to Israel and has worshipped in synagogues.

"Please know I am not the victimizer here, OK, but instead I am the victim," she said. She refused to repudiate Farrakhan and recommended that people who disagree with him, speak with him.

"I have no intention of returning to the commission until it is cleansed of the stain and stench of bigotry caused by Sister Claudette's continued presence," said Hirschhaut, executive director of the Illinois Holocaust Museum and Education Center.

As a cherry on this little sunday, the governor has stated that he didn't actually have any idea that he hired a Nation of Islam follower for his commission, apparently thinking that this would make everyone feel better.

When Does a Fetus Resemble a Baby?:

We left off last night asking: when does a fetus begin to command moral respect, such that we should view it as something other than a mere clump of cells appended to a woman's body?

I have repeatedly noted AMac's comment:

Sometime in the 2 to 4 month time frame, an embryo becomes recognizable as a pre-human, sharing many of the features that a human exhibits as a born baby.

I have argued why many Americans may reasonably decide that the moment of conception is too early to treat an embryo as a full human, and why the moment of viability is too late to treat a fetus as a mere clump of cells. I think most people can understand these arguments.

Patterico then goes on to discuss how most people, viewing pictures of fetuses, can generally determine a specific point at which a fetus begins to resemble a baby. I'd advise you to click through and read the whole entry. He then concludes with:

So let's do it. Let's look at actual pictures of babies in different phases of fetal development. They are in the extended entry. Then answer these questions:

1. When do you think a fetus begins to resemble a baby?
2. Do you think the answer to Question #1 is morally important?

Here are my answers. I looked at the pictures Patterico provided. I think a fetus resembles a baby at the 6-week mark. However, I don't think that answer is morally important. A fetus is a baby, no matter what it resembles. At the time my little sister was born, she looked quite different from my grandmother. Both, however, were human females. Appearance is not important in determining identity. A 1-week fetus contains the same DNA as a 10-year old child or 100-year old adult.

From a moral point of view, it is not permissible to abort a fetus simply because it does not look like a baby. Frankly, that argument is one of the more morally reprehensible I have ever heard. Genetically, a fetus is a baby. The fetus requires only the passage of time to look like a baby. Killing the fetus before it can begin to look like a baby is a cheap way of assuaging one's conscience.

Patterico has posted part three of his continuing series. Again, I follow suit with my answers.

Position #1 "” Life begins at conception: Yesterday I asked these people questions designed to see how firm their stance is, such whether they would oppose abortion even for rape, and whether they support birth control. As to rape, Dana responded:

Abortion after rape is no different from abortion following consensual intercourse: a human life is destroyed. Yes, rape is a terrible thing, but it is less than murder; we ought not to murder a living human being because someone else is suffering.

As to contraception, Dana responded:

Oral contraceptives normally prevent the ovaries from releasing an unfertilized egg, which is unobjectionable. But oral contraceptives also prevent implantation of a human zygote if an egg was released and fertilized; that I do find objectionable. Thus, were I emperor, they would be outlawed.

Do other "life begins at conception" people agree with these statements? And if you do, do you recognize that most Americans don't? Would you be in a favor of a compromise that recognized most Americans' belief that women should not be forced to have a baby if raped? Can you live with the fact that most Americans believe women should have access to the morning after pill?

I agree with the statement about abortion after rape. As I mentioned yesterday, 75-85% of women who are raped opt not to have an abortion. Now, the national rape rate is not that high: an average of .56 rapes per 100,000 people over the past five years (from the DOJ). Out of that group of people, only 32,000 women per year actually end up pregnant (from the CDC). If we assume that the study holds true, there is possibly only 8,000 rape related abortions per year.

Given the low number of rape related abortions, I would be willing to compromise and leave abortion legal for victims of rape and incest. However, my previous opinion from yesterday stands as well. I would want to see rape victims get counseling that counsels against an immediate abortion. I would want rape victims to hear and understand that having an abortion may make them feel worse not better. It is my opinion that giving such counseling would reduce rape-related abortions even further.

Now, on to the subject of contraceptives. Here I am definitely willing to compromise. If leaving oral contraceptives legal is the price of restricting the availability of abortions, I am willing to do so. I am not entirely convinced that oral contraceptives are true abortifacients. Until, and unless, I am convinced of that, I would not support banning them.

Patterico has posted A Discussion of Abortion "” Part Two: Follow-Up Questions. I'll follow suit by posting more answers. While the question was asked as one paragraph, I think it makes sense to break it down into three questions:

1. How do you define "conception"? As the union of sperm and egg? As implantation of the zygote in the uterine wall? I define conception as the union of the sperm and the egg. Here is my reasoning. The instant that sperm meets egg, the egg undergoes a biochemical change so that no other sperm can penetrate it. The chromosomes of the sperm and egg combine to form completely unique DNA for that new organism. The cells immediately begin to grow and divide. This "collection of cells" is a new organism that reacts to outside stimuli. While the new cells need to attach to the uterine wall in order to finish their development, this is a matter of nutrition not of fundamental nature.
2. Do you oppose the birth control pill? Which one? Plan B causes the uterine wall to be shed, thus depriving the new cells of nutrition. I would consider this to be equivalent to an abortion, albeit one at a very early stage of pregnancy. Oral contraceptives, on the other hand, prevent the hormonal spikes that lead to eggs being released in the first place. Because egg and sperm never meet, no new life is created and no abortion takes place. (It is possible that an egg could be released while using oral contraceptives. These contraceptives also serve to thin the lining of the uterus. Thus, it is possible that an egg could be fertilized and subsequently fail to implant itself in the uterus. On the other hand, this can also occur naturally, without the involvement of oral contraceptives. Thus, I wouldn't consider it to be a true abortifacient.)
3. How do you feel about abortion after a rape? I don't like it. I think it's a deceptively easy choice. Victims of major trauma are often not in the best position to make important decisions. I think there is a great danger that the mother will, in the end, feel great guilt over ending a life -- especially one conceived in violence. Indeed, according to an older study, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75-85% of rape victims chose not to have an abortion. For this reason, I think it would be wise to counsel against abortions in these situations, especially if the decision comes quickly on the heels of the rape itself. While I do not have citations close at hand, I have also heard many stories indicating that the children conceived in rape later became a great comfort and source of healing to the women involved.

Patterico published A Discussion of Abortion "” Part One: Setting the Stage yesterday evening. He invited his readers to answer two questions, as part of a multiple day discussion of abortion. I chose to answer his questions here rather than just answering in a comment on his blog. Here goes.

1. For you, is abortion in any sense a moral question, or is it purely a question of individual rights? I believe abortion is a moral question. The decision to abort leads directly to the loss of a human life. In that context, property rights (over a woman's own body) must take a back seat to life itself.
2. What, for you, defines when a fetus is entitled to moral respect? A fetus is entitled to moral respect at the moment that the sperm unites with the egg. I have heard the argument that all living cells (regardless of type or function) should be treated with respect because cloning will one day allow us to create life from any cells. I don't think that argument is germane here, however. Even at the earliest moments, a fetus is a collection of cells that is on a direct collision course to becoming a recognizable homo sapien. That is the natural result of the development of those cells, unless the process is interfered with in some way. I don't think it's possible to look at the development of those cells and mark one specific point when it ceases to be a collection of cells and begins to be a human being. In my opinion those cells are always a human being -- just one at various stages of development.

Kudos to Ken Pierce for posting this essay on Morally Outraged Atheists:

Now, I tell that story (which, I should say, I made up) because it goes to the heart of one of atheism's major problems. An atheist is eager to tell you that there ain't no transcendent moral laws -- and then he'll just as eagerly jump all over your butt when you do something he thinks is "wrong." But if atheism is true, then an atheist telling you that, say, people ought not to be "racist" (by whatever definition he's attached to that extremely fluid loaded word) is like Sherriff L. C. sayin' he don't like red cars. If the atheist can hurt you (because, e. g., he's running the government) then maybe you say to yourself, "That's total b.s.," but you still lower your head and play along so you won't get hurt. Otherwise, when the atheist tells you that he finds your "racism" outrageous and it honks him off, you just cheerfully and rationally respond, "Well, homie, I guess it sucks to be you, huh?"

If you're wondering what's up with Sherriff L.C. not liking red cars, well, go read the full essay.